In other words, once again, we should sit down and shut up?
And in fact, that’s not the case anyhow… first and foremost, many of us would like a candidate who is going to uphold key issues that impact half the population, such as the right to make medical decisions ourselves. Anyone who does not support that goes right the fuck out the window, because my legal rights actually DO matter. I’d suspect that many of the men running would happily throw those legal rights under the bus if it won them the nomination, because it’s not going to impact their daily lives if my right to make medical decisions for myself were taken away. It’s not their ACTUAL BODIES on the line, as with all of the women running, it is.
Are you saying that people who aren’t sexist or anti-intellectual aren’t real Americans?
If you want to ride your high horse to getting Donald Trump elected, go right ahead but, I’m going to back candidates that actually have a chance of being the nominee, nonetheless supporting progressive issues and having definitive policy not just being I’m the first whatever, vote for me, Woo!.
No I’m saying America has a history of being rascist and/or sexist and it’s part of our national identity. Women originally didn’t have the right to vote. Male property owners originally had the right to vote exclusively. The Chinese Exclusion act was put in place after the trans-national railroad, after Chinese immigrants helped us build a trans-continental railroad our country shapegoated them, booted them out, and banned immigrants for a number of years.
It’s not about a high horse, it’s about my basic rights as a human being. Would say that segregation is okay because (if you’re white) it has no impact on you, so it’s worth ignoring as an issue? Of course not! How are my rights some how different? Why is this not a red line? Is it really okay for women to become second class citizens?
Plus, you do know that people say the exact same thing about sanders, right? That’s he’s unelectable, because he’s Jewish and a democratic socialist?
How about standing firm and saying that we can’t go back to all those things that you listed? Because something is or was doesn’t make it moral or justifiable in the least. How about we stand for a set of values in our society, give something positive to contrast with the GOPs agenda of death, war, and segregation?
Obviously those people haven’t payed attention to Sanders appearing on Fox News and Fox News viewers from some redneck town cheering him on, many voters that voted for Trump, voted for Sanders in the primary because they didn’t support Clinton.
Too late for that dude, our country was practically founded on that shit.
Women didn’t get the right to vote until after the womens right’s movement.
Male property owners originally were the only ones who were able to vote.
The chinese exclusion act and the trail of tears, and lots of other horrible aberations were part of our history, woven into our national identity.
MLK and his followers have said as much if you listen to them talking about American history and why it took so long to get the right to vote for African Americans, nonetheless women.
I’m aware of it, since I teach it… What does that have to do with finding second class citizenship for women acceptable TODAY. What it should tell you is that it’s NOT acceptable and that thousands of people put themselves in harms way in order toe change that. Second class citizenship is not okay for anyone in American society and NO ONE has the right to deny people that.
Stacy Abrams said it best in the response to the SOTU, “This is nothing new, shapegoating people and blaming them for other peoples problem’s is part of our national identity. While we look to move past these current issues, we have no choice but, to look to the past in explaining our current predicaments”. (Paraphrased, Et al, 2019).
To the best of my knowledge, Elizabeth Warren is the only candidate to set forth clear statements of policy, with goals and metrics and a plan of how to pay for it all. That is why she’s my current favorite. To reduce her platform to “I’m the first whatever, vote for me, Woo!” is (IMHO) not only insulting to the candidate, who you supposedly admire, but insulting to those of us who are actually paying attention to the issues and striving for something better.
Maybe those voters would garner more respect from me if they didn’t just resort to I’m the first </insert something here/> candidate. We should have people who have definitive policy not just being the first at something. Being a college student, I’m not just afraid of tuition increasing but, possibly being killed by some nutjob with a gun who was empowered by Trump and the crazies on the right. While some on the left say instead of policy that helps others, we should be the first at something, rather than electing not only someone who’s electable but, has definitive policy.
I suspect that Abrams is unhappy about the abortion ban that our state just passed and will fight against it. I suspect that, since she spent the election traveling all over our state, offering an alternative and a reason for people who had not been voting to vote by giving them a clear set of goals she hoped to accomplish as governor, and did not just shrug her shoulders and say “well, I’m not the OTHER guy, at least, VOTE FOR ME!” She would not agree with your view that issues and policies don’t matter. I suspect that Bernie would also disagree with you, that issues and policies don’t matter. They both are well aware that they do very much matter and more of the same isn’t going to cut it. Over and above the misogyny lobbed at Hillary Clinton, what really sunk her was her milquetoast, muddled, middle of the road, neo-liberal agenda that has not done anyone any good. Even on abortion, she was tepid and warmed over, bending over backwards to appeal to some mythical center right voter who would never have voted for her, not only because she was a woman, but because she had nothing productive to offer our very real problems that people can see in front of their faces. Obama was able to win over many of those apathetic voters precisely because he offered some real policies sprinkled into his hope and change rhetoric.
So, if she had waited for a few more months, and then offered some policies, you’d be okay with that? Because she had ideas right out of the gate, that’s bad?
