When progressives lost their way

2,688 Views | 59 Replies | Last: 5 days ago by bear2034
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In an act of sheer folly I engaged with one of our Maga posters but it did encourage me to go back and reread what I think it one of the most important speeches of our century So true. And I think that progressives (and conservatives) missed a lot of the important framing in this. The next time you are ready to criticize DEI or bash the trump coalition worth rereading.

Pretty sucky in respect to a hard nosed tactical politician but gosh he understood the american story (and no....I am not going to tell you who it is. ;-)



That -- That anger is not always productive. Indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems. It keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity within the African-American community in our own condition. It prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful, and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.


In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they've been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience. As far as they're concerned, no one handed them anything; they built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pensions dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and they feel their dreams slipping away. And in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town, when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed, when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudice, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism. And just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze: a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns, this, too, widens the racial divide and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now.

It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. And contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naive as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle or with a single candidate, particularly -- particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own. But I have asserted a firm conviction, a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people, that, working together, we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds and that, in fact, we have no choice -- we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.


The great failure of the "woke" was not really thinking about this framing. It is also why the Trump coalition pisses many of us off to the point of seeing red.
Take care of your Chicken
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Progressives for what issues exactly?
"Capitalism cannot reform itself; it is doomed to self-destruction"
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Second paragraph. Rereading that reminded me as to why a book like "white fragility" landed flat outside of the far left. Why support of the 1619 project was problematic. Why it probably would have been useful to say that critical rqce theory have a really poor framing of American history amd society.

That is not to say those ideas are 100% wrong. They offer insights. But i thibk the italicized second paragraph is _more_ insightful and helps explain a lot about why the democratic party (of which I am a proud member) is in the electoral wilderness.
Take care of your Chicken
Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That is not to say those ideas are 100% wrong.

No, they are actually 100% wrong. Worse than wrong. Perhaps you are able to sift through the feces to find nuggets of gold, but for many these ideas are accepted with credulity. Have you considered the negative consequences of this for POC and for race relations?
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaltownie said:

In an act of sheer folly I engaged with one of our Maga posters but it did encourage me to go back and reread what I think it one of the most important speeches of our century So true. And I think that progressives (and conservatives) missed a lot of the important framing in this. The next time you are ready to criticize DEI or bash the trump coalition worth rereading.
.......

The great failure of the "woke" was not really thinking about this framing. It is also why the Trump coalition pisses many of us off to the point of seeing red.

Are there any particular policy issues or executive orders that upset you? What is it specifically that pisses you off?
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There is so much truth in that speech. The 2nd paragraph is brilliant.

And where did the parties go from there? D's went DEI/CRT/LBGQT, AOC. R's went economic populist Trump.

The old paradigm of R's allegedly being Reagan small government types is dead. The old paradigm of Ds fundamentally being the opposite of that - government has a critical role to play in solving societies problems - has been enveloped by a gratuitous move left on social issues + a strange corporatist move right, away from their prior working class roots.

Weird times...
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp said:

The old paradigm of R's allegedly being Reagan small government types is dead. T

The size of the government is currently being reduced at an unprecedented pace and scale.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp said:

There is so much truth in that speech. The 2nd paragraph is brilliant.

And where did the parties go from there? D's went DEI/CRT/LBGQT, AOC. R's went economic populist Trump.

The old paradigm of R's allegedly being Reagan small government types is dead. The old paradigm of Ds fundamentally being the opposite of that - government has a critical role to play in solving societies problems - has been enveloped by a gratuitous move left on social issues + a strange corporatist move right, away from their prior working class roots.

Weird times...
The irony is that Obama gave that speech and then Obama/Biden/progressives proceeded to govern and speak in a racially divisive manner that only exacerbated existing anger on both sides.

And for the record, I think this is as much (if not more) about class than race (though there is a correlation between the two). The former middle class has seen their prospects and well being diminish through no fault of their own. They resent the corrupt ruling class - the class with the most privilege.

Trump campaigned as a populist (despite not really having a clear political ideology) and has seen increased support among minorities for this very reason.
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:


Trump campaigned as a populist (despite not really having a clear political ideology) and has seen increased support among minorities for this very reason.

The people who voted for Trump see him as an economic, nationalist populist. Those on the far left and in legacy media view and portray Trump as a far right idealogue with a clear political ideology.

That's why the far left can't comprehend how Trump received increased support from minorities.
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Inbear2034 said:

tequila4kapp said:

The old paradigm of R's allegedly being Reagan small government types is dead. T

The size of the government is currently being reduced at an unprecedented pace and scale.
I am absolutely not convinced that this will ultimately end up in a smaller government. I think it is absolutely possible, maybe even probable, that Trump seeks to redirect those so-called savings to other spending initiatives. See border wall, infrastructure spending, etc..
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Obama wasn't progressive; he was far more interested in being the first African American in the Martha's Vineyard country club than being transformative. His election was based on great hope and promise in the darkest of times but did precious little for either African American or white working classes, which makes his flowery speech just more empty liberal prattle
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zippergate said:

That is not to say those ideas are 100% wrong.

No, they are actually 100% wrong. Worse than wrong. Perhaps you are able to sift through the feces to find nuggets of gold, but for many these ideas are accepted with credulity. Have you considered the negative consequences of this for POC and for race relations?
LOL. How did you get through Cal????

Project 1619 -

Howard Zinn and marxist histography pretty much has spent 60 years showing how economic interests and politics intersect. How is it at all surprising that at a time when Colonies were involved in exporting cash crops to the metropole that their laws and founding documents did not protect the economic interests of those involved in that economic activity? Given the importance of tobacco and cotton to the early American economy it would be ridiculous to think otherwise.

What project 1619 failed to understand (or at least is the way I would frame it) is that at the very same time you had the Enlightenment thinking and the liberal tradition (in large part responding to the English Civil wars) that were anthetical to chattel slavery. BOTH matter. This ying and yang is critical to the American experience and the failure to think about BOTH sides is where BOTH camps go wrong.


Critical Race Theory -

"At the Core of CRT is that "race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.". I mean of course that is true (almost to the idea of being facile. How is that 100% "wrong"? I would be happy to spend HOURS showing you just how much race is actually something that doesn't objectively exist but is very much a social constructe which, in turn, is enshrined in law. If you don't like thinking about African American experience I would suggest you study Irish American history and the way in which they went from being considered NOT white to being WHITE.


White Fragility -

I have a harder time defending this but I would say The nugget there is that many (all?) whites lack self awareness and have an immediate defensive reaction that shuts down rather than advances conversation. I find your statement ironic when I open my facebook feed to see so many of my middle class white friends stating "Most boring halftime show ever" and know that the immediate moment to criticize them would get "Well I have black friends so it can't be that they are 'not like us'"

Take care of your Chicken
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

Obama wasn't progressive; he was far more interested in being the first African American in the Martha's Vineyard country club than being transformative. His election was based on great hope and promise in the darkest of times but did precious little for either African American or white working classes, which makes his flowery speech just more empty liberal prattle
Going from about 60% ensured to about 95% having some sort of health insurance would like a word.
Take care of your Chicken
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

Obama wasn't progressive; he was far more interested in being the first African American in the Martha's Vineyard country club than being transformative. His election was based on great hope and promise in the darkest of times but did precious little for either African American or white working classes, which makes his flowery speech just more empty liberal prattle

I feel like both Obama and Clinton stayed towards the center because they thought that, if they were too progressive, they would be defeated by Republican opposition, which was non-stop from the moment they first took office. Better to get reelected and accomplish what you can. Lacking in political courage? Maybe.

(The Martha's Vineyard country club thing may have figured in, too, I don't know. Those type of places never even let me get close to the front gate.)
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp said:

There is so much truth in that speech. The 2nd paragraph is brilliant.

And where did the parties go from there? D's went DEI/CRT/LBGQT, AOC. R's went economic populist Trump.

The old paradigm of R's allegedly being Reagan small government types is dead. The old paradigm of Ds fundamentally being the opposite of that - government has a critical role to play in solving societies problems - has been enveloped by a gratuitous move left on social issues + a strange corporatist move right, away from their prior working class roots.

Weird times...
This is worthy of a MUCH longer response (and I have been musing about starting a substack) but to me it comes down to being the party of the working class is actually pretty darn hard in a post-industrial economy. Even more so with the way in which our elections are financed. Lets actually see how much of Trump's populist tax cuts (no taxes on tips, no taxes on SS, extension/expansion of Child Tax Credit) get through the reconciliation process.

I want to be wrong (and I think there are LOTS of devils in those details) but i am not holding my breath at all if it has to be paid for by ending carry forward or step up provisions given the import of that to those paying the campaign bills for BOTH political parties.
Take care of your Chicken
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

Anarchistbear said:

Obama wasn't progressive; he was far more interested in being the first African American in the Martha's Vineyard country club than being transformative. His election was based on great hope and promise in the darkest of times but did precious little for either African American or white working classes, which makes his flowery speech just more empty liberal prattle

I feel like both Obama and Clinton stayed towards the center because they thought that, if they were too progressive, they would be defeated by Republican opposition, which was non-stop from the moment they first took office. Better to get reelected and accomplish what you can. Lacking in political courage? Maybe.

(The Martha's Vineyard country club thing may have figured in, too, I don't know. Those type of places never even let me get close to the front gate.)
I lets not rewrite history. Obama attempted (and successfully) enacted the greatest overhaul of American healthcare that has proved popular (I mean we forget but the whole preexisitng condition issues made switching jobs fraught with danger if you had a chronic disease and insurance was exceedingly unaffordable to offer for small employers prior to the exchanges).

But even though obamacare is strongly popular the 2010 election saw the GOP pick up _63_ house seats (that is remarkable) and flipped the house. For the next 6 years Obama would have to navigate a house controlled by the GOP.

He also was unable to bring unemployment down below 9% as the housing collapse/crisis worked its way to resolution. The boom would be the next 6 years.
Take care of your Chicken
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaltownie said:

Big C said:

Anarchistbear said:

Obama wasn't progressive; he was far more interested in being the first African American in the Martha's Vineyard country club than being transformative. His election was based on great hope and promise in the darkest of times but did precious little for either African American or white working classes, which makes his flowery speech just more empty liberal prattle

I feel like both Obama and Clinton stayed towards the center because they thought that, if they were too progressive, they would be defeated by Republican opposition, which was non-stop from the moment they first took office. Better to get reelected and accomplish what you can. Lacking in political courage? Maybe.

(The Martha's Vineyard country club thing may have figured in, too, I don't know. Those type of places never even let me get close to the front gate.)
I mean lets not rewrite history. Obama attempted (and successfully) enacted the greatest overhaul of American healthcare that has proved popular (I mean we forget but the whole preexisitng condition issues made switching jobs fraught with danger if you had a chronic disease and insurance was exceedingly unaffordable to offer for small employers prior to the exchanges).

But even though obamacare is strongly popular the 2010 election saw the GOP pick up _63_ house seats (that is remarkable) and flipped the house. For the next 6 years Obama would have to navigate a house controlled by the GOP.

If you were replying to my post, yeah, you're helping me make my point. Obamacare was a fairly moderate plan. Imagine the opposition he would have faced if he had gone full single-payer.
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

socaltownie said:

Big C said:

Anarchistbear said:

Obama wasn't progressive; he was far more interested in being the first African American in the Martha's Vineyard country club than being transformative. His election was based on great hope and promise in the darkest of times but did precious little for either African American or white working classes, which makes his flowery speech just more empty liberal prattle

I feel like both Obama and Clinton stayed towards the center because they thought that, if they were too progressive, they would be defeated by Republican opposition, which was non-stop from the moment they first took office. Better to get reelected and accomplish what you can. Lacking in political courage? Maybe.

(The Martha's Vineyard country club thing may have figured in, too, I don't know. Those type of places never even let me get close to the front gate.)
I mean lets not rewrite history. Obama attempted (and successfully) enacted the greatest overhaul of American healthcare that has proved popular (I mean we forget but the whole preexisitng condition issues made switching jobs fraught with danger if you had a chronic disease and insurance was exceedingly unaffordable to offer for small employers prior to the exchanges).

But even though obamacare is strongly popular the 2010 election saw the GOP pick up _63_ house seats (that is remarkable) and flipped the house. For the next 6 years Obama would have to navigate a house controlled by the GOP.

If you were replying to my post, yeah, you're helping me make my point. Obamacare was a fairly moderate plan. Imagine the opposition he would have faced if he had gone full single-payer.
It never would have been adopted by Congress. He got what he could get. Even so the tea party picked up 60+ seats (just an amazing number) by running against it as sociallized medicine. It is only moderate in retrospect (and as the courts through out things like the mandate.
Take care of your Chicken
Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LOL. That's easy. I graduated before all of this came on the scene. When I was there, the hot button issue was affirmative action and faculty diversity. You still haven't answered my question. What about the negative consequences of telling POC half-truths and outright lies? POC, If you don't have what you want, it's because of the uniquely racist and all-powerful white man. Meanwhile back in reality, unless you are wealthy with connections, the path for women and non-Asian POC in terms of college admissions, scholarships, internships, hiring and advancement is much easier that it is for white males. I recently heard a crazy statistic. Over the last few years, I forget the time frame, only 4% of the hires for Fortune 500 companies were white. And yet all we have heard for years is how racist the whole system and every white person is. When it comes to crime, achievement, etc the Left always manage to reach the desired conclusion that all races are the same, but when it comes to racism, somehow that logic gets turned on its head and only one group matters. It's absurd.
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

Obama wasn't progressive; he was far more interested in being the first African American in the Martha's Vineyard country club than being transformative. His election was based on great hope and promise in the darkest of times but did precious little for either African American or white working classes, which makes his flowery speech just more empty liberal prattle


And he isn't even African American lol go figure … he was suspect from the jump
"Capitalism cannot reform itself; it is doomed to self-destruction"
cbbass1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaltownie said:

In an act of sheer folly I engaged with one of our Maga posters but it did encourage me to go back and reread what I think it one of the most important speeches of our century So true. And I think that progressives (and conservatives) missed a lot of the important framing in this. The next time you are ready to criticize DEI or bash the trump coalition worth rereading.

Pretty sucky in respect to a hard nosed tactical politician but gosh he understood the american story (and no....I am not going to tell you who it is. ;-)



That -- That anger is not always productive. Indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems. It keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity within the African-American community in our own condition. It prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful, and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.


In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they've been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience. As far as they're concerned, no one handed them anything; they built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pensions dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and they feel their dreams slipping away. And in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town, when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed, when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudice, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism. And just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze: a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns, this, too, widens the racial divide and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now.

It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. And contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naive as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle or with a single candidate, particularly -- particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own. But I have asserted a firm conviction, a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people, that, working together, we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds and that, in fact, we have no choice -- we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.


The great failure of the "woke" was not really thinking about this framing. It is also why the Trump coalition pisses many of us off to the point of seeing red.

I agree with all of the above.

However, this failure isn't on Progressives. It's on the "Democratic" Party leadership.

Bernie Sanders and Progressives aren't the ones who started "wokeism" & DEI. They've been all about getting $$ out of politics & reducing corruption, especially the influence of corporate donors.

DEI, & the beginnings of it, were actually the Hillary campaign's response to Bernie's campaign to unify American Workers & voters in 2016.

In a pivotal campaign speech, Hillary asserted that Bernie & his Progressive policies would not end racism, and would not help minorities & immigrants overcome the barriers that they faced. DEI was essentially pandering to minority groups in exchange for their political loyalty to the "Democratic" Party.

Bernie & Progressives focused on corruption and the overwhelming influence that corporations had on politics and policy. Fighting that influence would help unite Workers, encourage union membership, and improve the lives of ALL Workers & individuals.

This is why so many Bernie voters voted for Trump. And why Trump believed that Bernie was the only Democratic candidate that he needed to fear.
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cbbass1 said:

socaltownie said:

In an act of sheer folly I engaged with one of our Maga posters but it did encourage me to go back and reread what I think it one of the most important speeches of our century So true. And I think that progressives (and conservatives) missed a lot of the important framing in this. The next time you are ready to criticize DEI or bash the trump coalition worth rereading.

Pretty sucky in respect to a hard nosed tactical politician but gosh he understood the american story (and no....I am not going to tell you who it is. ;-)



That -- That anger is not always productive. Indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems. It keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity within the African-American community in our own condition. It prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful, and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.


In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they've been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience. As far as they're concerned, no one handed them anything; they built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pensions dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and they feel their dreams slipping away. And in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town, when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed, when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudice, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism. And just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze: a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns, this, too, widens the racial divide and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now.

It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. And contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naive as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle or with a single candidate, particularly -- particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own. But I have asserted a firm conviction, a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people, that, working together, we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds and that, in fact, we have no choice -- we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.


The great failure of the "woke" was not really thinking about this framing. It is also why the Trump coalition pisses many of us off to the point of seeing red.

I agree with all of the above.

However, this failure isn't on Progressives. It's on the "Democratic" Party leadership.

Bernie Sanders and Progressives aren't the ones who started "wokeism" & DEI. They've been all about getting $$ out of politics & reducing corruption, especially the influence of corporate donors.

DEI, & the beginnings of it, were actually the Hillary campaign's response to Bernie's campaign to unify American Workers & voters in 2016.

In a pivotal campaign speech, Hillary asserted that Bernie & his Progressive policies would not end racism, and would not help minorities & immigrants overcome the barriers that they faced. DEI was essentially pandering to minority groups in exchange for their political loyalty to the "Democratic" Party.

Bernie & Progressives focused on corruption and the overwhelming influence that corporations had on politics and policy. Fighting that influence would help unite Workers, encourage union membership, and improve the lives of ALL Workers & individuals.

This is why so many Bernie voters voted for Trump. And why Trump believed that Bernie was the only Democratic candidate that he needed to fear.

"It's on the "Democratic" Party leadership."

I might rephrase that to say team Clinton and I think a very good point. I had forgotten how much that campaign pivoted in that way.

But I also believe that this is bigger than one "actor" and group. T. Coates plays a role. The protests over George Floyd. The way in which ideas (and protests) in our country go viral so fast in the digital age.

Where I WILl assign fault is that some people who should have known better should have figured out a way to push back. But I also get that is scary - if you saw the protests last Spring around Gaza you didn't see people interested in dialogue. What is true is that the Bernie wing probably does need to get right with the idea that a successful nominee is likely going to be more conservative than they like on some issues.
Take care of your Chicken
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaltownie said:

cbbass1 said:

socaltownie said:

In an act of sheer folly I engaged with one of our Maga posters but it did encourage me to go back and reread what I think it one of the most important speeches of our century So true. And I think that progressives (and conservatives) missed a lot of the important framing in this. The next time you are ready to criticize DEI or bash the trump coalition worth rereading.

Pretty sucky in respect to a hard nosed tactical politician but gosh he understood the american story (and no....I am not going to tell you who it is. ;-)



That -- That anger is not always productive. Indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems. It keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity within the African-American community in our own condition. It prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful, and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.


In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they've been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience. As far as they're concerned, no one handed them anything; they built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pensions dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and they feel their dreams slipping away. And in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town, when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed, when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudice, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism. And just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze: a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns, this, too, widens the racial divide and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now.

It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. And contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naive as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle or with a single candidate, particularly -- particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own. But I have asserted a firm conviction, a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people, that, working together, we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds and that, in fact, we have no choice -- we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.


The great failure of the "woke" was not really thinking about this framing. It is also why the Trump coalition pisses many of us off to the point of seeing red.

I agree with all of the above.

However, this failure isn't on Progressives. It's on the "Democratic" Party leadership.

Bernie Sanders and Progressives aren't the ones who started "wokeism" & DEI. They've been all about getting $$ out of politics & reducing corruption, especially the influence of corporate donors.

DEI, & the beginnings of it, were actually the Hillary campaign's response to Bernie's campaign to unify American Workers & voters in 2016.

In a pivotal campaign speech, Hillary asserted that Bernie & his Progressive policies would not end racism, and would not help minorities & immigrants overcome the barriers that they faced. DEI was essentially pandering to minority groups in exchange for their political loyalty to the "Democratic" Party.

Bernie & Progressives focused on corruption and the overwhelming influence that corporations had on politics and policy. Fighting that influence would help unite Workers, encourage union membership, and improve the lives of ALL Workers & individuals.

This is why so many Bernie voters voted for Trump. And why Trump believed that Bernie was the only Democratic candidate that he needed to fear.

Where I WILl assign fault is that some people who should have known better should have figured out a way to push back. But I also get that is scary - if you saw the protests last Spring around Gaza you didn't see people interested in dialogue. What is true is that the Bernie wing probably does need to get right with the idea that a successful nominee is likely going to be more conservative than they like on some issues.
Bingo. The adults in the D room need to tell the Socialist Wing the way things are going to be. They are WAY more liberal than the country and have no where to go politically, other than the D party. D's should not kowtow to them any longer. See R's with whatever the Tea Party types are called these days.
Haloski
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zippergate said:

I recently heard a crazy statistic. Over the last few years, I forget the time frame, only 4% of the hires for Fortune 500 companies were white.


Wanna know why that statistic you "heard" sounded like a "crazy" statistic????

IT'S NOT TRUE.

For the love of all that is holy, start asking questions and performing searches.

For a person that graduated from Cal (whenever that was), you consistently show a lack of ability (in this forum) to question information that you encounter on the algorithm driven echo chamber that exists (for all of us) on the internet.

You really need to internet better.
Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
you consistently show a lack of ability (in this forum) to question information that you encounter on the algorithm driven echo chamber that exists (for all of us) on the internet.

Perhaps, but you do and your peeps? Did you get this one right? (The "moderator" for a presidential debate, and this was right before an election LOL)

Haloski
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zippergate said:

you consistently show a lack of ability (in this forum) to question information that you encounter on the algorithm driven echo chamber that exists (for all of us) on the internet.

Perhaps, but you do and your peeps? Did you get this one right? (The "moderator" for a presidential debate, and this was right before an election LOL)




That's a terrible response. I'm talking to you about you and you're asking me to defend somebody else. Don't try to "you guys" me because you suck at verifying next to anything you post on here. If I post something, I'll at least look into it. Your response is disingenuous bullcrap. Be smarter.
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zippergate said:

you consistently show a lack of ability (in this forum) to question information that you encounter on the algorithm driven echo chamber that exists (for all of us) on the internet.

Perhaps, but you do and your peeps? Did you get this one right? (The "moderator" for a presidential debate, and this was right before an election LOL)


As I understand this issue...it sounds bad for FEMA but FEMA is administering expenses as directed by Congress. Congress allocated X amount of money for disaster relief. Congress separately allocated X amount of money to pay for illegal immigrants to have paid housing in NYC. Our anger should be directed at Congress.
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Haloski said:

Zippergate said:

you consistently show a lack of ability (in this forum) to question information that you encounter on the algorithm driven echo chamber that exists (for all of us) on the internet.

Perhaps, but you do and your peeps? Did you get this one right? (The "moderator" for a presidential debate, and this was right before an election LOL)




That's a terrible response. I'm talking to you about you and you're asking me to defend somebody else. Don't try to "you guys" me because you suck at verifying next to anything you post on here. If I post something, I'll at least look into it. Your response is disingenuous bullcrap. Be smarter.
Even worse. They STILL are not providing context.

First, it was NOT 59M. It was 19M and was cost recovery. I believe for 2 years but I can't find the document on the website. The rest of the 40 million went for other services.

FEMA administered that money (cause they are the agency that is best set up with expertise to get people "housed" quickly - HUD just doesn't work that way (and isn't set up to do it). But the MONEY didn't come from the appropriation that goes to disaster recovery and relief. Entirely separate appropriation.

That is actually what pisses me off the most about the current era. It is DELIBERATELY misleading and requires people to want to bizzarely spend their days being policy wonks. Trust me. That way leads to darkness and your kids rolling their eyes at you.

Thus the role of journalists (and government spokesholes) who need to show SOME restraint and wisdom and allegiance to the "truth". I don't actually blame citizens for being outraged. I DO blame them for not taking a step back and understanding that they are being manipulated and taking a pulse check before typing away.
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp said:

Zippergate said:

you consistently show a lack of ability (in this forum) to question information that you encounter on the algorithm driven echo chamber that exists (for all of us) on the internet.

Perhaps, but you do and your peeps? Did you get this one right? (The "moderator" for a presidential debate, and this was right before an election LOL)


As I understand this issue...it sounds bad for FEMA but FEMA is administering expenses as directed by Congress. Congress allocated X amount of money for disaster relief. Congress separately allocated X amount of money to pay for illegal immigrants to have paid housing in NYC. Our anger should be directed at Congress.
Bingo!! And the alternative was that they were overwhelming shelters that were not set up to house families and women and children.

Their wasn't an easy answer - would MAGA have been happier if immigrant kids got hurt by homeless men in a shelter?

(PS. This isn't to defend the broken asylum system. It is to say that it is a lot more complicated than the MAGA folks want to imply).
Haloski
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I guess it's really this simple:

Stop being a disingenuous a**&ole, Zippergate. It's how you are all the damn time and it's not helpful. It makes you look like a tool and it calls everything you post into question.

Nothing you post can be trusted.
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There was an easy answer: control the freaking border.

Connect the DOTs...open the border...spend money on NGOs to enable illegal immigration...terminate the policies that Trump used for 4 years to control immigration...spend millions upon millions of dollars to support those illegal immigrants with housing and food.

The overwhelming majority of MAGA types (not all) are not racist. They see the above and are simply saying *** is our government doing? Take care of American citizens first.
smh
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

> Nothing you post can be trusted.
fwiw bearinsider's Block feature is there for a reason. signed, massive blockhead.
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp said:

There was an easy answer: control the freaking border.

Connect the DOTs...open the border...spend money on NGOs to enable illegal immigration...terminate the policies that Trump used for 4 years to control immigration...spend millions upon millions of dollars to support those illegal immigrants with housing and food.

The overwhelming majority of MAGA types (not all) are not racist. They see the above and are simply saying *** is our government doing? Take care of American citizens first.
Love you but this is actually evidence for how MAGA has lead you astray.

The immigration crisis of the 1990s was all about "controlling the border". We had young men, most commonly of Mexican origins, coming across a largely unsecured border and then fading into the interior. I DIRECTLY know that having worked in San Diego local politics which was ground zero for that problem and why we have the "double fence" in our sector of the border.

But the crisis of the 2020s is different. It is migrants who WANT to contact with CBP. Indeed, one of the funny stories in San Diego was that there was this dirt lot in East County where migrants were setting up camp for 2-3-4 days while they waited for CBP to show up. ONce there, these migrants would claim "Asylum". That triggered, due to several court cases the process for adjudicating their claims. Most of these would ultimately be denied but law (and the courts) precluded sending them immediately back to their country of origin. Efforts to stop that (remain in mexico, asymlum through consulate offices) resulted in migrants showing up at POE and essentially stopping legitimate crossings by overwhelming CBP. This was directly reported at both the San Ysidro and Otay Mesa Border crossing. Remain in Mexico was a problem because it required the active support of Mexico...and you actually had locals in Baja DRIVING immigrants to border crossings in Tecate because TJ shelters were overwhelmed.

This is why the "fence" is one migrant crisis too late. Aruably what they are TRYING to do (and you can make an argument for this) is make things so awful for migrants waiting for adjudication so that they don't want to come here. But with the conditions as they are in some of the sending countries it is going to have to get MORE awful before that.

BTW - this isnt' to argue that there are not places on the Arizona and Texas border where we could not use more infrastructure. But in some instances that isn't about fencing as much as it is infrastructure for CBP to operate in very remote area. Another BTW - it is hysterical to see MAGA get led by the nose by the CBP unions because deployment in places like Big Bend would result in extra pay for hardships - something that they want for their members.

Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Who cares what the freaking number is. Do you deny that countless billions have been spent to house, feed, clothe, etc people who have no right to be here? Way to totally get lost in the trees.

Here's the article. It was 6%, not 4%. If you want claim "gotcha" be my guest.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-black-lives-matter-equal-opportunity-corporate-diversity/
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What a wacky coincidence that migrants from far away lands throughout the Americas somehow know that all they have to do is say the word "asylum" and they get to enter the country. Hmmm. Wonder how that happens?
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.