|
Post by robeiae on Feb 8, 2017 16:53:18 GMT -5
Well, it is probably good politics. The Democrats are better at that. But what my point was in terms of adding something was that if I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong because maybe I am, one of the charges against the GOP was that 2 men were allowed to read the letter into the record.
So if someone already read it into the record, what purpose does it serve to have Warren read it into the record again?
The two men were permitted to read it AFTER Warren was shut down. ETA: IMO, seriously bad optics for McConnell and Senate Republicans. They didn't enforce Rule 19 when, e.g., Cruz called McConnell a liar on the Senate floor. But they enforce it when Warren reads a letter by the widow of MLK? A letter that had a role in Sessions's rejection for a place on the federal bench? And then they let two male colleagues in the Senate read that same letter. They've given that letter and Warren far more power than either would have had otherwise. The "Republicans are anti-woman" thing? This picks up where the women's march left off. I think a big mistake was made here, but I don't think it was Warren's. I don't know. I think the contents of the letter were already well known. Warren wasn't breaking any new ground. She wasn't offering something that just had to be said. Allowing that silencing her with Rule 19 was a mistake, I don't think Warren is getting more "power" out of this at all, which was really the main point I was making. The CNN article makes the assumption that somehow it does give Warren more power, you're now saying it, but more power where? Based on what? The people having fits on twitter about men silencing women were already entrenched where they are now. I don't see where this power is supposed to be coming from. The media? Shoot, they were--by and large--already treating Warren like the end-all-be-all. The imaginary undecideds or moderates? There's no election coming up, there's nothing to be won. Within the Senate, itself? Please. And I don't know what the piece on the history of this rule said because it's WaPo and I can't read it. Here's one at Atlantic: www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/a-brief-history-of-the-senate-rule-that-silenced-elizabeth-warren/516042/Here's a piece at NPR that finishes with a great little story about Hatch, Kennedy, and the right way to debate/criticize on the floor of the Senate: www.npr.org/2017/02/08/514086829/a-senate-rule-silenced-elizabeth-warren-is-that-rule-so-badBeyond that, I know the story of Sumner is mentioned in the Atlantic piece; I assume it's in the WaPo piece, as well. And in that regard, let me say this: Sumner behaved like a complete douchebag on the floor of the Senate (and elsewhere), that's why Preston Brooks caned him. Not that it was right or just to cane him, but the impetus for the caning was not simple disagreement. Sumner was no hero. Of course, that incident reflected a general mood in a very polarized nation, so maybe for that reason alone it's an apropos bit of history.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 8, 2017 17:54:33 GMT -5
I don't know. I think the contents of the letter were already well known. Warren wasn't breaking any new ground. She wasn't offering something that just had to be said. Allowing that silencing her with Rule 19 was a mistake, I don't think Warren is getting more "power" out of this at all, which was really the main point I was making. The CNN article makes the assumption that somehow it does give Warren more power, you're now saying it, but more power where? Based on what? The people having fits on twitter about men silencing women were already entrenched where they are now. I don't see where this power is supposed to be coming from. The media? Shoot, they were--by and large--already treating Warren like the end-all-be-all. The imaginary undecideds or moderates? There's no election coming up, there's nothing to be won. Within the Senate, itself? Please. I think you underestimate the power of political stunts that get you played by SNL actors.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 8, 2017 19:31:06 GMT -5
Here's a piece on Elizabeth Warren's recent escapades, titled Silencing Elizabeth Warren backfires on Senate GOP. From it: It's supposed to be a news piece, as far as I can tell, not an op-ed. Here's another one, covering the same incident, titled [a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/07/warren-barred-from-speaking-on-senate-floor-for-rest-sessions-debate.htmlDisclaimer:I don't think much of Elizabeth Warren. At all. And I'm not a fan of Sessions, either. Nor of McConnell. That said... Senator Warren too to the floor of the Senate to shit on Sessions. We've got another thread on here that covers Cory Booker playing this same basic card, using Coretta Scott King's (who, by the way, is NOT actually Martin Luther King, Jr.) 30-year-old letter to paint Sessions as a an active racist. The reasons for Rule XIX--which covers a number of things--are the same reasons we have rules about personal attacks and the like: such things get in the way of effective/ meaningful debate. Note one of the other rules in XIX: It's common sense stuff. Warren went where she shouldn't have gone--which she knew she was doing--and got called on it. Now she's playing the martyr. The bolded make it apparent that you "don't think much of Warren. At all." You didn't even need the disclaimer. She was warned. She was given an explanation. She persisted.* That's what you do when you believe in something or are fighting against something you vehemently oppose. You don't get scared off by authoritarian warnings; you don't accept bullshit explanations. She's officially my fucking hero. *And I'm getting the t-shirt as soon as it's available.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 19:43:49 GMT -5
She has certainly solidified her position as a hero for the left. I submit she has a number of people in the middle looking at the news coverage and at least saying "WTF happened there, anyway?"
And I'd also submit that the comedy sketches -- the good ones -- are quite effective as a weapon against Trump. And he knows it, which is why he hates them so much. Great satire has a way of showing just what is wrong and ridiculous about a situation. In my opinion, it can be far more effective than preaching and screeching.
I don't care much for Melissa McCarthy as a rule, but I laughed a lot at her take on Spicer...
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 8, 2017 19:52:21 GMT -5
She's been the hero of "the left" for a very long time. I consider myself middle and never until now felt so warmly toward her. The GOP majority silencing the lone hysterical, unreasonable woman who wouldn't listen helped quite a bit.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 8, 2017 20:00:37 GMT -5
The bolded make it apparent that you "don't think much of Warren. At all." You didn't even need the disclaimer. *shrug*Sometimes people I think highly of do things I think are foolish. Sometimes people I think little of do things I think are very wise. I guess my ability to make such distinctions makes me weird...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 20:07:16 GMT -5
Well, there's no denying you're weird, robo.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 8, 2017 20:14:38 GMT -5
Oh please. Read the parts I bolded again. Would you use that phraseology for someone you thought highly of who had done something foolish? Your opinion of Warren in general has informed your take on this, imo.
Again, I have not been a Warren fan. To be completely honest, her emotionalism at times has made me cringe. But stopping her from speaking was all kinds of fucked up wrong.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 8, 2017 20:37:38 GMT -5
Oh please. Read the parts I bolded again. Would you use that phraseology for someone you thought highly of who had done something foolish? Your opinion of Warren in general has informed your take on this, imo. My "take" on this is mostly concerned with the way the incident was presented in the media, with the automatic assumption of consequences--sans evidence--by the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 20:40:23 GMT -5
OK. One thing I'm getting really, seriously tired of around here?
The endless "You're only saying that because you think X!" "That's not what I think!" "Oh, yeah? It IS SO what you think." "Is not!" "Is too!" "Yeah, YOU!" "Yeah, YOUR MAMA!"
WE CAN ALL READ THE THREAD AND COME TO OUR OWN CONCLUSIONS ON THESE THINGS.
It is often worthwhile to point out when a member has contradicted himself. It is always worthwhile to point out when a member has misstated a fact, taken it out of context, has failed to consider a fact, or to ask the basis of a member's opinion. But I submit is pretty much NEVER worthwhile to insist that a member's opinion is coming from some particular nefarious motivation.
Who cares if someone likes or doesn't like a politician? IT'S NOT RELEVANT. Is what the member saying accurate? Why or why not? If it is purely a matter of opinion, why do you hold a different opinion? That makes an interesting and productive argument.
The "YOU DON'T LIKE HER AND THAT'S THE ONLY REASON YOU THINK THAT SO NEENER NEENER NEENER" stuff? It's BORING. It's ANNOYING. Especially when it goes on and on for pages in a thread and drowns anything like an actual discussion. Who CARES what someone's motivation is for saying something? There's been WAY too much of that lately, and IMO it is ruining discussions.
I hate that crap as a member. And as a mod... well, when I start feeling like it's killing the discussion, I'm going to start putting a stop to it unless and until Rob yanks me offstage with a hook.
*straps on jackboots*
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 8, 2017 20:48:44 GMT -5
Oh please. Read the parts I bolded again. Would you use that phraseology for someone you thought highly of who had done something foolish? Your opinion of Warren in general has informed your take on this, imo. My "take" on this is mostly concerned with the way the incident was presented in the media, with the automatic assumption of consequences--sans evidence--by the same. Then why the "recent escapades" quip and the "playing the martyr" bit on Warren? Why the claim that she shouldn't have gone there, that reading the letter from C. King was interfering with "meaningful debate"? Is there NO concern regarding Session's historical record of racism? Should his past be relegated to irrelevancy? Because... people change? Hey, if I read a straight-up post claiming the media is biased, you most likely wouldn't see me arguing. It was the rest of your post I had a problem with. @cassandraw Despise me if you must, and do with your jackboots what you will.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 20:58:43 GMT -5
My "take" on this is mostly concerned with the way the incident was presented in the media, with the automatic assumption of consequences--sans evidence--by the same. Then why the "recent escapades" quip and the "playing the martyr" bit on Warren? Why the claim that she shouldn't have gone there, that reading the letter from C. King was interfering with "meaningful debate"? Is there NO concern regarding Session's historical record of racism? Should his past be relegated to irrelevancy? Because... people change? Hey, if I read a straight-up post claiming the media is biased, you most likely wouldn't see me arguing. It was the rest of your post had a problem with. @cassandraw Despise me if you must, and do with your jackboots what you will. Before I use my jackboots, I'll ask you this. (1) What difference does it make if Rob likes or hates Warren? Assuming he hates her, he can still say something about her that is accurate or worth hearing. Ditto if he loves her. (2) What do you expect to gain or prove, and to whom, by asserting Rob dislikes Warren? He denies it. You reassert it. He denies it again. You re-reassert it. But up until we get Spock here with his Vulcan mind meld, you can't prove anything regarding Rob's state of mind. Even if you could, see number (1) above. Can you explain why this line of discussion is actually productive or interesting? (Also, before you assert that I'm biased, please note that I'm actually on your side of this issue -- I like Warren to about the degree that you do, am on her side with regard to reading the letter, and think McConnell made an ass of himself.) I submit it isn't either.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 8, 2017 20:59:49 GMT -5
Then why the "recent escapades" quip and the "playing the martyr" bit on Warren? Why the claim that she shouldn't have gone there, that reading the letter from C. King was interfering with "meaningful debate"? Well, that's just my opinion on her actions. And I'm not denying I don't think much of her. Point made, I guess. You want to talk about Sessions and his past? Knock yourself out. No one is stopping you. Start a thread on it, why don't you. You can do that. Okay. *rollseyes*
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 8, 2017 21:07:23 GMT -5
Then why the "recent escapades" quip and the "playing the martyr" bit on Warren? Why the claim that she shouldn't have gone there, that reading the letter from C. King was interfering with "meaningful debate"? Is there NO concern regarding Session's historical record of racism? Should his past be relegated to irrelevancy? Because... people change? Hey, if I read a straight-up post claiming the media is biased, you most likely wouldn't see me arguing. It was the rest of your post had a problem with. @cassandraw Despise me if you must, and do with your jackboots what you will. Before I use my jackboots, I'll ask you this. (1) What difference does it make if Rob likes or hates Warren? Assuming he hates her, he can still say something about her that is accurate or worth hearing. Ditto if he loves her. (2) What do you expect to gain or prove, and to whom, by asserting Rob dislikes Warren? He denies it. You reassert it. He denies it again. You re-reassert it. But up until we get Spock here with his Vulcan mind meld, you can't prove anything regarding Rob's state of mind. Even if you could, see number (1) above. Can you explain why this line of discussion is actually productive or interesting? (Also, before you assert that I'm biased, please note that I'm actually on your side of this issue -- I like Warren to about the degree that you do, am on her side with regard to reading the letter, and think McConnell made an ass of himself.) I submit it isn't either. Wait. Let's be clear here: I DO dislike Warren. I also dislike Sessions. And McConnell. And I don't think shutting her down was neccesary (nor do I think her reading King's letter was either impresive or necessary, much less effective). But again, there's an assumption--clearly expressed by the CNN writer in a NEWS piece--that this all benefits Warren in some way. How? Where's the evidence? Sessions is confirmed. I guess Warren may raise some more bucks for her reelection, but let's get real, she was in no danger there.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 8, 2017 21:13:13 GMT -5
Then why the "recent escapades" quip and the "playing the martyr" bit on Warren? Why the claim that she shouldn't have gone there, that reading the letter from C. King was interfering with "meaningful debate"? Is there NO concern regarding Session's historical record of racism? Should his past be relegated to irrelevancy? Because... people change? Hey, if I read a straight-up post claiming the media is biased, you most likely wouldn't see me arguing. It was the rest of your post had a problem with. @cassandraw Despise me if you must, and do with your jackboots what you will. Before I use my jackboots, I'll ask you this. (1) What difference does it make if Rob likes or hates Warren? Assuming he hates her, he can still say something about her that is accurate or worth hearing. Ditto if he loves her. The difference is in that it is virtually impossible to be "objective" about the action of a person whom you hate. So rob gives the "disclaimer," so that he feels he's covering that base, and then proceeds to be completely unobjective about Warren's actions. IMO. ETA: question (2) no longer relevant. This line of debate was interesting to me. I'm not posting to be interesting to you. There are lots of threads I find uninteresting. When that happens, I read other threads. As far as productive... I have no idea how anything anyone posts on an internet forum could be considered productive.
|
|