Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 21:22:25 GMT -5
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. Pfft. You hate everybody. Which means...wait, what does it mean? Anyway. IMO, she DOES gain -- much the same way and for the same reasons Booker gained for his speech a month or so ago. Sure, the left already loved her, but she and this incident are now symbols for the Trump resistant movement. It's spawned a thousand memes. I'd say this sets her up for 2020, if she's interested. People a little less to the left, like me, who like her fine, but sometimes find her irksome, are rallying to her support. IMO (and in a lot of people's opinions), McConnell and the Republicans look like asses for censuring her for this (especially since this rule is so rarely invoked, wasn't invoked when Cruz called McConnell a liar on the senate floor, and since the two male senators were permitted to read portions of the letter). From Warren's point of view, McConnell et al. looking like asses is a win. |
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 8, 2017 21:27:23 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"? 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* Careful, they could get stuck that way.  I think she did a good thing. I think she shouldn't have been banned from speaking (apparently we agree there). I also think that she did it on principle, not for some future election or to make a show. The people who elected her, elected her because of her principles. She is not wrong in being highly concerned about Sessions as AG and trying to prevent it. What did she do wrong by reading the letter? She is fighting. |
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 8, 2017 21:57:39 GMT -5
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. Pfft. You hate everybody. Which means...wait, what does it mean? Anyway. IMO, she DOES gain -- much the same way and for the same reasons Booker gained for his speech a month or so ago. Sure, the left already loved her, but she and this incident are now symbols for the Trump resistant movement. It's spawned a thousand memes. I'd say this sets her up for 2020, if she's interested. People a little less to the left, like me, who like her fine, but sometimes find her irksome, are rallying to her support. IMO (and in a lot of people's opinions), McConnell and the Republicans look like asses for censuring her for this (especially since this rule is so rarely invoked, wasn't invoked when Cruz called McConnell a liar on the senate floor, and since the two male senators were permitted to read portions of the letter). From Warren's point of view, McConnell et al. looking like asses is a win. First, I think the Cruz/McConnell thing is being way overplayed. Any Senator can invoke Rule 19. And as is usually the case, actions Senators take are politically motivated. Plus, there's no getting around party lines. We'll be here for a century or more if we list all the times Senators have treated the opposition party differently than their own. Regardless, I don't know that everyone drills down into these things. Sure, the people heavily interested do, but they've already chosen sides. I don't see any evidence of people rallying to support her who a) weren't already there or b) weren't firmly in the "any angle to attack Trump" camp. Hey, maybe I'm wrong. But again, the NEWS piece at CNN took as a given what are at best possible consequences, right? Me, I'd lay even money that Warren thinks this helps her with 2020 (just as Booker did). I'd also lay even money that this is no longer on anyone's radar by the time primary season rolls around. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 22:02:22 GMT -5
You're just saying that because you hate me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Feb 8, 2017 22:12:29 GMT -5
I hate you.
I have nothing to add to this thread; I just wanted to go on record. Again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 22:17:58 GMT -5
People are going to remember that in 2020, Angie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Feb 8, 2017 22:19:00 GMT -5
It's going to be my entire campaign platform. I'll win in a landslide thanks to my "straight talk." It's gonna be yuuuuuuge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 9, 2017 5:02:56 GMT -5
Me, I'd lay even money that Warren thinks this helps her with 2020 (just as Booker did). I'd also lay even money that this is no longer on anyone's radar by the time primary season rolls around. I'd give odds that this particular event will, as you posit, no longer be on anyone's radar by the time primary season rolls around. Not one in 1000 will be able to give you details, facts and figures about this event. I'd also give odds that even with no specific memory of this particular incident, it will, as Christine and @cassandraw suggest, help Warren with her 2020 candidacy. The two positions are not exclusionary. Sessions is going to go down in history as a huge step backward for individual rights and, I'm betting, a goose-stepping fascist by the time he's done. He'll undoubtedly ramp up the War on Drugs, support asset forfeiture and over-militarization of the police, and sentencing reform is quite likely history. I'm also betting his "dormant" blatant racism and misogyny are going to surface repeatedly. These are all concerns not just of the left, but of real people who ignore politics to the best of their ability while going about with their otherwise-productive lives. He's going to force a whole lot of otherwise-peaceful people to start hating the intrusive overreach of the government again, just when they were starting to believe some of those areas were ripe for improvement. This will become part of the narrative that Warren "stood up against the vile Trump Administration's AG from the very first." Whether the broader statement is true or not, this incident will become part of that larger marrative that will be trotted out in 2020. So yeah, getting censured for calling out what will prove to be one of the worst AGs of all time? That's worth big brownie points in the long run. It's an auspicious beginning for the legend that will be Elizabeth Warren, Presidential Candidate in 2020. It's not politics, it's political theatre. There's a difference. Personally, I can't stand the woman. I see her as far more dangerous, even, than Clinton. But she's scored points with this opposition to a regressive, oppressive AG. And it won't surprise me one bit that some of those Trump voters who are shocked by Session's actions over the long run end up in the Warren Camp. Prediction Number Two: Rand Paul's vote for Sessions did him some serious damage. Much of his base IS politically-engaged, and they won't forget the specifics. |
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 9, 2017 12:45:50 GMT -5
She gains. It raises her profile. It makes her a part of the culture that retweets and shares news stories.
I still don't think it was any great contribution. If the GOP had allowed her to read it into the record, nobody would be talking about it, and nobody would care. It's only because of what happened that it's such a big deal. The GOP done F'ed up.
I think a lot of the people hashtagging this thing to death couldn't give you much beyond the headlines, and may not remember it specifically years from now, but the fact is there'll still associate her with a moment of standing against the mean, old GOP. They fell right into her trap.
So it's a win for her. How much of a win, I don't know. Only time will tell.
Cue dramatic and mystic music.
|
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 9, 2017 13:16:10 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* I submit when someone has expressed a like or dislike for a politician, celebrity, athlete or Joe Sixpack, Ordinary Average Guy, they have taken a position and once that position has been stated, it is relevant. It couldn't BE any more relevant. My distaste and dislike of Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Betty DeVos, and Jeff Sessions is as natural to me as breathing. I don't like them and don't want to either Therefore, it is safe to assume you are not going to see too many kind words from me directed toward them. That's relevant because everyone knows from the jump I have a strong and adverse opinion toward these particular politicians. I'm not unbiased and I'm not impartial. Neither is robeiae about Elizabeth Warren. Perhaps he regards her as a grandstanding show-off. If so, that's cool. He's well within his rights to be as disdainful of Warren as I am of Cruz and possibly for the same reasons. The expression of an opinion, pro, con or otherwise make it subject to debate and debates can get heated and often do. This has been recognized on the board. Referencing a post from CG Admin thecollinegate.boards.net/post/5144 : If this is so, then I submit Christine is well within the board's rules in challenging robeiae's motivations. He's well within the board rules to refute the challenge. Or ignore it. His prerogative. ( The CG Admin may want to embellish or other further clarification if he deems so and please correct me if I have interpreted you incorrectly). Whether or not the point of view "is coming from some particular nefarious motivation" or not is in the eye of the beholder. A Member may see it one way with the Moderator seeing it another, but the Member is not wrong by default and the Moderator is not right by default either. There's two tracks in this thread. One is CNN's advocacy "journalism" which cheered Warren's reading of Mrs. King's letter versus the Fox News report which was much more straightforward in providing the basic facts without editorializing. Fox isn't "fair and balanced" but despite their conservative bias, every now and then they do serious journalism minus the overt spin CNN put in their story. The other track is McConnell and the GOP majority shutting down and essentially telling Warren to shut up about a letter from the wife of a civil rights icon and the deliberate attempts by the Republicans to suppress it for three decades. This is a study in forgone conclusions. Sessions has been confirmed. Warren knew the letter wasn't going to move a single Republican senator to vote against their colleague, but there was a larger point to be made and now it is finally on the record what Coretta Scott King was warning Americans about Jeff Sessions. Sessions lacked the temperament to be a federal judge then and he's no better now despite being the Attorney General of the United States now. King warned us and we're going to find out she wasn't blowing smoke now. The GOP used their superior majority might to muzzle, choke off and silence dissent by the Democrats. That was a polarizing mistake which hopefully will not be repeated on a fledgling political debate board. My two cents.  |
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 9, 2017 13:40:26 GMT -5
I think Cass misread me. I explicitly stated that I don't like Warren and I have no problem with the suggestion that my dislike in this regard might impact my opinion of some specific action/decision on her part. Doesn't mean it's true, but I have no problem with the suggestion.
Beyond that, no lines are being crossed here, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe some are being approached, but that's pretty much always the case and I wouldn't have it any other way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 9, 2017 14:11:57 GMT -5
I think that when a person dislikes someone, it's natural to see things they do in a bad light, be quick to think the worst of them and not give that person the benefit of the doubt. That's normal.
Pointing out that Person A feels a certain way is fine and dandy, but that in and of itself doesn't make his or her opinion of the specific case we're talking about invalid and/or irrelevant.
In fact, our feelings of dislike may be because of behavior of which came before, but foretold the current event.
We formed those negative or positive opinions for a reason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2017 14:19:16 GMT -5
I'm good with people calling each other out. If it actually illuminates something, or if it doesn't go on to tedious length, it's fine.
But if the "calling each other out" goes on tediously for pages, and becomes about nothing except two members playing the dozens and parsing each others words for post after post (after post), making the same point again and again (and again and again) with no foreseeable end, it gets fucking tiresome. Occasionally, they get to the point where I want to throw my computer out the goddamn window, which is where my "lock thread" finger gets itchy.
Note that I did not lock this one.
ETA:
By the way, on the "disliking Warren makes Rob's points about her inherently suspect" issue -- many of us loathe and despise Trump, and for that matter, Sessions. Does that demonstrate that our points about either man are inherently less viable and less worthy of consideration?
Discuss.
(My own take: we all have our biases, every one of us, and of course it shapes our opinions. But the fact that we have those biases does not, in itself, invalidate our opinion. Bad reasoning and faulty facts do that. I despise Trump. But when I criticize him, I submit that what is relevant is not my dislike of him but rather my grounds for criticizing him and how well I support them.)
ETA:
And yes, I did misunderstand that Rob in fact does dislike Warren. But I still submit that his disliking her is exactly as relevant as the fact that many of us dislike Trump.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 9, 2017 15:19:37 GMT -5
FWIW, I hate it when threads are locked. Unless there is egregious misbehavior going on, a mod locking a thread because s/he finds it unproductive or annoying and thus doesn't want the thread to continue.... really, really irks me. Y'all are entitled to do that, but I am less likely to participate on a board where I might be in the middle of a conversation (or heated argument - whatever) and suddenly a mod decides they're done with it and the thread gets locked.
ETA: As for "You dislike Trump/Warren/Hitler, therefore -" I don't think it's much of an argument, but saying "Hey, you're biased about so-and-so" is just an observation. If you're trying to make an argument that an opinion is invalid or ill-informed because of said bias, go ahead and make the connection.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2017 15:35:24 GMT -5
I think sometimes a point comes where the irksomeness of a thread to readers outweighs the desire of a couple participants to engage in a circle jerk.
That said, my usual impulse is to grab popcorn and watch, or wade right into the fray. Things have to go in circles for literally pages (and days) before I start to feel otherwise. Thus far, I have felt that way once.
Rob is less irritable than I am, fortunately for all of you, and he's the boss. Though I cannot speak for him, of course, I suspect he too has his limits, but probably further out than mine. He'll keep my jackbootery in check.
|
|
