Thread:
15 Likes
With a side of flaming misogyny.
Yes, we all know Marianne Williamson is a punchline invited to the DNC debates so the media can make money off the sound-clips of her ridiculous bullshit. But the DNC really should be called out for giving a platform to someone whose book blames women for sexual abuse, among other offenses.
13 Likes
10 Likes
I found it interesting that Russia was using bots to throw the apple of discord again, and then amplifying it with a state organ. I not sure that where they throw it means anything.
what the actual fucking fuck???
14 Likes
Just straight up misogyny. Whores get abuse and cause abuse. Be a good woman or you deserve it (lowkey: if you’re a victim it’s cause you’re a bad woman and need to reclaim your body by doing what we tell you to with it). Surprises me that people are incapable of recognizing the same kind values from dogmatic strains of christianity some of them are trying to escape when it’s dressed up in crystals and feathers… wait… no, it doesn’t surprise me. It just makes me sad a little bit. But not too sad because I know for a fact there is a way out of those kinds of toxic environments even if they were sold to you with “all natural” stamped on the front of them.
9 Likes
DNC criteria for first 2 rounds of debates:
1 percent in three polls recognized by the national party committee or receiving contributions from a minimum 65,000 unique donors as well as 200 unique donors in at least 20 states.
DNC criteria for next rounds:
2% in four polls and contributions from a minimum 130,000 unique donors, 400 unique donors in at least 20 states.
Williamson met the criteria for the first debates fairly easily. (Even Kirsten Gillibrand only just squeaked it, with help from Booker.) I don’t think the DNC can be blamed for that. The media? Maybe. They like to anoint “frontrunners”.
The use of objective criteria (not invitations) was an explicit and welcome correction to the process from the 2016.
I suspect I’ll have to post this again when the next set of debaters is announced and rabid supporters of dropped candidates get angry. (Assuming Bollocks and Delaney have rabid supporters.)
ETA: Just to be clear, I’m not accusing you of being rabid, and I agree with you that Williamson’s presence on the stage does not improve the process.
4 Likes
Once more, before she sinks back whence she came. Not sure how she thought this stuff would not come up!
8 Likes
They established the criteria, right?
That’s a fair point. Maybe the “objective” criteria could use revising. But let’s assume for a moment that she really has the backing of a large enough demographic to meet the criteria. Given the size of the circus on stage at the last two debates, why not tighten up the criteria for subsequent debates? All that said, your reply gets at one solid point which is that the people supporting her, or even frankly making any apologies for her, need to take a good long hard look at themselves.
I mean, you strike me as fairly center-left in a lot of discussions here and I don’t have a problem with that; I just often disagree. Heck, I might be off base in my assessment of you (though I doubt it). But whatever our nontrivial differences of opinion and perspective, I’d be genuinely surprised if you did support Williamson. If I’ve read you at all accurately, the daylight between shines on our opinions of the DNC and mainstream Democratic establishment, not Williamson. You seem like a pretty ordinary establishment Democrat voter. Which doesn’t particularly bother me, but the candidates we do support are likely to be quite different. That said, what matters most is that we both cast for the Democratic nom in the general.
3 Likes
Yes, and the criteria aren’t unreasonable as ‘objective’ criteria go. The DNC can’t help it if someone like WIlliamson met them.
Some “legitimate” candidates were upset that the criteria were too restrictive.
Maybe the “objective” criteria could use revising…Given the size of the circus on stage at the last two debates, why not tighten up the criteria for subsequent debates?
They have been revised/tightened for the next round, in the sense of the cutoffs being raised and the “or” turned into an “and” (as I said above). That should cut down the number on the stage.
The situation should not have been completely unexpected, since there were hints of Oprah being drafted. WIlliamson is essentially a cut-rate Oprah. The DNC leadership is savvy enough that they must have discussed what to do if someone like this, with a built-in base of supporters, showed up. The problem is, what else could they have done? Anything I can think of would send them down the same kind of road that Wasserman-Schultz went down last time.
I mean, you strike me as fairly center-left in a lot of discussions here and I don’t have a problem with that; I just often disagree.
I am a long-time Democrat, and at various points in my life have been active-to-very-active in local politics, so for sure I am a defender of the Party. OTOH, I have almost always supported candidates at the edge of the pack. I was a member of the SDS-WSA when young, and my political leanings haven’t changed much from then. Many many years ago I accepted the fact that the party average was and probably always be to my right. However, I believe both that there is more value in pushing these views within the party than lobbing stones at it from outside, and that not everyone who disagrees with me on some fraction of my beliefs is a running-dog lackey of our imperialist oppressors.
I also think that many of the attacks on the DNC from the left are driven by frustration that I completely understand, having been there myself in my youth, but that as a result they occasionally veer into narratives that don’t stand up to scrutiny.
4 Likes
Happy Barack Obama Day.
6 Likes
Mary Robinette sums up the entire reason we flag bullshit speculation about people being mentally ill around here. There is no denial that mental health care needs improvement, but tying that into discussions around domestic terrorism does not help with any of that.
If you want to know why some people don’t fully trust Bernie Sanders, this kind of shit is why.
10 Likes
Honestly, the only politician I do or ever have trusted even provisionally fully is AOC.
3 Likes
Beto O’Rourke on his way to his car was asked if there’s anything Trump can do now to make this better.
“What do you think? You know the shit he’s been saying. He’s been calling Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals. I don’t know, like, members of the press, what the fuck?” pic.twitter.com/zjLYf4mzBr
— Eric Bradner (@ericbradner) August 5, 2019
12 Likes
This hit home for him. I wonder, based on his response, if he wasn’t thinking “my wife and kids go to that mall / Wal-Mart all the time. That could be them.” I pray to God that it does not take attacks in everyone’s hometown before other people wake up to the threat these terrorists represent to our country.
13 Likes
Exactly. Grow a fucking spine, you “journalists.”
12 Likes
“Panelist ‘A’ supports Beto’s statement. Panelist ‘B’ says Beto’s gone too far. You decide! But first, here’s a clip of a dog blowing bubbles.”
5 Likes
Panelist A is a well respected professor of journalism ethics at a top university. Panelist B is from the ten person Beto Haters Club, which has a website.
7 Likes
Why did this remind me of when I played the Pokemon card game in the late 90’s of how I used to win a couple of matches by making my opponent run out of playable cards instead of collecting all of the prize cards to win normally?
5 Likes
I’m glad the party is reducing the influence of those establishment hacks and insiders. I just hope it isn’t too little too late.
4 Likes
