The Left: Robespierre did nothing wrong

Discussion in 'The Mainboard' started by bricktop, Jan 17, 2017.

  1. Prospector

    Prospector I am not a new member
    Arkansas Razorbacks

    The Empire Strikes Back: incumbent Democrats float ideas to hobble grassroots power of new members.

    [​IMG]

    Confused and threatened by AOC’s particular brand of grass-roots politics, a rapidly dwindling contingent of establishment Democrats are sending not-so-subtle signals that they would rather go back to the cozy insider politics they’ve been accustomed to for decades.

    AOC won her seat by running a hard fought primary against Rep. Joe Crowley, who was 4th in the House leadership. That’s about as clear a signal as one could send to incumbents and they’re responding to it.

    Now some of those lawmakers are turning the tables on her and are discussing recruiting a primary challenger to run against the social media sensation.

    At least one House Democrat has been privately urging members of the New York delegation to recruit a local politician from the Bronx or Queens to challenge Ocasio-Cortez.

    “What I have recommended to the New York delegation is that you find her a primary opponent and make her a one-term congressperson,” the Democratic lawmaker, who requested anonymity, told The Hill. “You’ve got numerous council people and state legislators who’ve been waiting 20 years for that seat. I’m sure they can find numerous people who want that seat in that district.”thehill.com/...

    That last line is worth unpacking. New York, particularly downstate, is deep-blue. Democratic primaries, in most cases, determine the election, especially for low-profile races for judges and local elections. This means politicians spend a lot of energy on maneuvers to maintain a stranglehold oo the party apparatus. Many are not above deploying dirty tricks to maintain organizational control at the lowest levels. A particularly contentious example from earlier this cycle:

    Members of the Brooklyn Democratic County Committee received phone calls, door-knocks and mailings this week urging them to turn over their votes to party boss Frank Seddio — including letters bearing the names of elected officials and district leaders who say they didn’t sign them.www.nydailynews.com/...

    Seddio eventually managed to maintain control of the county committee via these tainted proxies.

    The twice-yearly Kings County Democratic County Committee meeting on Sept. 27 descended into chaos amid boos and shouts of “Shame!” when its chairman again pulled out handfuls of proxies from his back pocket to overrule the hundreds of rank-and-file members who packed the room — a tactic used all too often by the party machine to prevent much-needed reforms, especially during a time when democracy is being challenged across the country, according to one county committee member. — www.brooklynpaper.com/...

    For decades, control of the state party committees has protected incumbents who play the internal party patronage game. This stranglehold is reinforced by a system that suppresses turnout by scheduling multiple primary and general elections each year. Yes, though NY is a deep blue state, it employs many of the voter suppression tactics that deep-red states do as well.

    Corrupt maneuvers like this is why so much of the change in left-leaning politics has been driven from the outside. Activists frustrated by the insularity and self-dealing within the Democratic party has founded vibrant groups like Justice Democrats, Indivisible, Move On, Run for Something and others.

    Of course, politicians more focused on internal party politics eventually lose touch with the electorate, which is why Joe Crowley was vulnerable to a challenge from a 29 year old willing to put in the enormous grassroots effort required to unseat him.


    Incumbents who feel threatened are trying to figure out how to handle the threat of additional primary challenges. Matt Stoller, writing in the Washington Post does a great job of explaining how the culture of money and lobbying on Capitol Hill grounds down even well-intentioned new members.

    Another subtle put-down — nicely encapsulating what voters hate about Washington — came from Nydia M. Velázquez (D-N.Y.): “Washington is a political animal where a lot of the work that you want to accomplish depends on relationships within the Democratic Caucus.” [...]

    For six years, I worked on Capitol Hill as a staffer, and I saw how this deferential culture pushed the party out of touch with ordinary people and paved the way for Trump. I got an early lesson on my first week on the job, in early 2009, when I staffed a member on the Financial Services Committee during fights over the bailouts. A senior committee staffer offered me a guided tour of the committee operations, with a description of what I was supposed to do — and he explained whom the various trade associations represented. “Make sure you get the business card of every lobbyist,” he told me. “So you can give it to your fundraiser.” — www.washingtonpost.com/...

    The new progressive voices have a delicate task ahead of them. To be successful, they will have to deliver meaningful results for their districts and begin reforming the culture of the party from the inside and help unseat incumbents who are too deeply entrenched to change.

    Though many obstacles remain, our cohort has many advantages.

    • The Democratic caucus is more progressive than ever.
    • Pramila Jayapal and Mark Pocan are extremely effective CPC chairs, effectively translating our grassroots support into positions of power on the hill.
    • Policies like Medicare For All, a more progressive tax rate, racial justice, a better social safety net, a return to free public college enjoy enormous support among Democrats.
    The actual constituency for regressive, Republican-lite policies is small and dwindling within the Democratic party. We are driving out big donor influence and rebuilding the party with grassroots support. And it’s worth remembering that several veteran politicians are cheering on their new colleagues because they see in them powerful allies for policies they’ve championed for years. Glad to say my congressman is among that group.

    “I love Alexandria Ocasio. I saw her in her ‘60 Minutes’ interview. I thought she was great,” said Representative Adriano Espaillat, a 64-year-old Democrat from a neighboring district that includes part of the Bronx. “She is like one of our daughters. You know, she could be my daughter, one of anybody’s children. She’s an adult, obviously. But you know I love her. She’s sharp, has a great smile, intelligent, is liberal, progressive. I think she has great ideas, bold ideas.” — www.nytimes.com/...

    In the end, the young people will win.

    Springing the GOP Trap


    [​IMG]
    Springing the GOP Trap
    These days every morning brings a new shock to the republic, as Mr. Trump and the GOP drive Americans into bigger and bigger traps. Trump’s most outrageous caper yet, the federal shutdown over his ignorant and ineffective steel wall, is just another case in point. But even if Trump is ultimately impeached or decides to resign, retiring to rest on his laurels as the biggest conman of all time, we are still in trouble today, tomorrow and in 2020. What kind of trouble? Besides still having a GOP senate and VP? I mean message framing trouble.

    Of course, Democratic and progressive slogans must convey our commitment to the best American values. But there are all kinds of ways to do that and also to make a mess of doing that. So I’m going to suggest a special verbal strategy to apply and some slogan-forming pitfalls to avoid, starting right now. (Basic tools and resources for implementing these suggestions can be found at Metaphorproject.org).
    Because the Right has long been smarter and quicker about following the most effective framing rules, it often falls to the Left to try to try to counter frame what they’ve already launched. What is counter-framing? It’s the technique of countering a Right wing sound bite with a more effective “truth bite” of our own. There are three main methods for doing this. (In what follows I’ve supplied examples of successful versions from the past, and a suggestion or two we might use or tweak now.)

    Some Counter-framing Rules of Thumb

    If a GOP sound bite or phrase evokes a familiar American story, one that implies a commonly accepted set of moral or social values (among some quarters anyway), you can do one of three things:

    1. Come up with your own phrase or metaphor to evoke a different, but equally familiar American story, one that implies your set of moral values.
    2. You can tweak their phrase in a meaningful way, by changing it just enough to evoke a different but equally familiar American story. It should be one that implies a set of moral values that will carry your message. This technique is a bit riskier, because the tweak must create a genuinely different feel than the GOP sound bite. Too close to the original and you are just helping the Right
      by reminding everyone of what they already said, not what you want to convey.
    3. The third method involves creating a brand new combination of frames. This method is often used for calling attention to issues still outside much public awareness.
    Some Counter-framing Rules of Thumb

    1. Come up with your own phrase or metaphor to evoke a different, but equally familiar American story, one that implies your set of moral values.

    My first example comes from January 2010. Just as the fight over financial reform was getting started, I could see the Right’s “regulations destroy business/jobs etc.” frame coming. I feared that Democrats would also start talking about “regulation,” in which case the fight would be lost before it started. So I suggested a different, but equally familiar counter frame: “rules.” I said “Say ‘rules,’ not regulation.” Although some people might have already been saying “rules” before this suggestion got out there, the use of “rules” instead of “regulation” went viral on our side after that. The story “rules” tells, of course, is about everybody “playing by the same rules,” or “playing by the rule of law.” It may start as a sports metaphor, but it’s one
    the Left can love, because of the moral values it implies. This frame is still very powerful in 2019, especially since the GOP, Trump, and his swamp crawlers in the cabinet are working overtime to destroy all the rules that protect our health and safety. For example, you can say now: “Restore the rules that keep our #water(air, soil, etc.) sources clean! Stop #Trump’s EPA giveaway to #CorporatePolluters!” Americans are especially strong on things being clean.

    2. You can tweak their phrases in a meaningful way, by changing them just enough to evoke a different but equally familiar American story.

    A dramatic example of counter-framing a Right wing slogan by tweaking it comes from the summer of 2006. At the time the Right’s Iraq War mantra, “stay the course,” seemed stuck in everyone’s brains. We couldn’t seem to find our way out of it, so to speak. One or two attempts by Democrats to launch a tweak of it about six months earlier had failed. But in July of 2006 we got lucky. For a large coalition of peace
    organizations that was getting ready to launch a fall campaign, I suggested using the phrase “change course.” I also invited people to come up with their own versions of it. Many did, when that frame started to go viral. It suddenly spread like wildfire through the punditry, the press, and the politicians. In the end, it gave
    General Petraeus cover to change his strategy in Iraq, from shooting Iraqi chieftains to paying them to help us, a better idea, anyway, in the middle of a really bad war. This example also illustrates another principle of counter-framing: getting lucky with the moment you launch your tweaked phrase. A lot of factors combined to make the first week in July, 2006 the right moment.

    Right now this frame, change course, might work for what Trump and the GOP need to do: change course! It’s an example of a metaphor that provides a name for a way out of the Trump trap we’re all in right now, including the President. To win, Trump needs to change course! How about we make it easy for him to be smart, change course and save face? Of course, saying no to mafia style hostage-taking shutdowns is essential. And proposing 21st century alternatives to a steel wall is good. But Trump doesn’t pay attention to policy details. So how about we give him a kind of “wall “that could look like an out to him: Say: “Mr. President: Change course and win! Choose a HIGH TECH #SmartWALL” to spot ALL illegal entries: by land,
    air, or sea!”


    3. The third method involves creating a new sound bite of your own, by combining two familiar terms not usually seen together. This is especially useful for framing issues unfamiliar to some parts of the American public.

    To use this method, combine two words or phrases that are already part of the American values lexicon, in a completely new way. Some notable recent examples include the phrases “marriage equality” and “gun safety.” Marriage is still highly regarded in the U.S., and of course, equality is a fundamental American
    value, even if we don’t make it happen very much in reality. The success of the “gun safety” example comes from applying the phrase to broad issues of gun legislation, far, far beyond its original use in classes on handling gun operation safely. However, Americans prize safety about as much as cleanliness. And the phrase framed gun reform legislation in a much more effective way than by calling it “gun control.”
    (Americans don’t like ‘control’!.) The real beauty of it was that all responsible gun owners understand the safety idea and could accept it because it was already part of their world.

    So what type of new phrasing could we create to help us out right now? Here’s one that applies: “Mr.President, stop #TrainWreckShutdowns! Keep America on track!” Recently many people have used the “train wreck” image about our recent shutdown in long sentences. But phrasing it as a single, succinct phrase combined with the familiar “on track” political metaphor makes the “train wreck”
    a lot more literal. The combination raises the energy of both images. We could also say: “Congress, stop #TrainWreckShutdowns! Keep America on track!” as Mitch McConnell and other legislators are reported to be considering bipartisan legislation to keep the government funded, no matter what.Encouraging them all to make it happen seems like a really good idea.

    What can you invent? Put it out there on social media to see if it flies! But do pay attention to the following tips!

    Some Warnings about typical Left Framing Traps

    There are three big slogan framing traps the Left falls into on a regular basis.

    1. Using the “x is not y” formula. Examples of this formula are “Corporations are not people,” and “Money is not speech.” First of all, modern cognitive science has shown that people seldom hear or take in the “not.” So what you are doing is actually reminding them that “corporations are people,” and “money is speech.” This is exactly what Professor Lakoff meant when he wrote
      Don’t Think of an Elephant. Moreover, the “x is not y” formula is a dangerous void for two more reasons: a) it is negative and doesn’t suggest another idea or what to do instead, and b) it uses the verbs “is/are,” which are just equals signs—no action, no life, no color, no effectiveness and no leadership either.
    2. Measly tweaks that just remind hearers of the original phrase. For a long time I’ve watched in horror as the Left repeated “Obamacare” over and over, perhaps rebelliously oblivious to the fact that the word actually calls up strong resistance in many Americans. Then some people on the Left started saying “Obama cares” instead. But just try saying that out loud at normal conversational speed. Can you tell the difference? No, you can’t. This is a measly tweak that does more harm than good. Much better was a different phrase that came next: “I love Obamacare.” (It’s stronger than “I like Obamacare.”) That format makes a clear change in the meaning. But best of all: just say the Affordable Care Act!
    3. Turning a tin ear to the public sense of a word or phrase, and talking only to ourselves, in “Leftspeak.” My best example of this is “single payer.” When people ask me about this phrase, my answer has always been, “You mean ‘unmarried’ payer?” They get it when I say that. Medicare for All is vastly better. Everyone knows what Medicare is. (Of course, right now, there are too many different Medicare for All proposals afloat among Democratic 2020 hopefuls. More clarification about which one you support will also be necessary!

    Whatever you decide to do about framing your messages, best of luck! Our country desperately needs better progressive messaging right now and in the crucial years to come!
    -----------------------------
    Susan C. Strong, Ph.D., is the Founder and Executive Director of The Metaphor Project, http://www.metaphorproject.org, and author of our book, Move Our Message: How to Get America’s Ear. The Metaphor Project has been helping
    progressives mainstream their messages since 1997. Follow Susan on
    Twitter @SusanCStrong, check out her TEDx talk, and like, follow & review The Metaphor Project on Facebook.
    [/spoiler]
     
    BellottiBold likes this.
  2. Schadenfred

    Schadenfred Well-Known Member

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Prospector

    Prospector I am not a new member
    Arkansas Razorbacks

    Opinion
    The False Promise of the Moderate Democrat
    Struggle against the powerful, not accommodation of their interests, is how America produced the conditions for its greatest social reforms.

    By Jamelle Bouie

    There’s something odd about the self-described moderates and centrists considering a run for president. If “moderation” or “centrism” means holding broadly popular positions otherwise marginalized by extremists in either party, then these prospective candidates don’t quite fit the bill...
    Senator Elizabeth Warren’s proposed wealth tax on the nation’s largest fortunes is very popular, according to recent polling by Morning Consult, with huge support from Democrats and considerable backing from Republicans. But Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York who has flirted with running for president as a moderate Democrat, rejects the plan as an extreme policy that would put the United States on the path to economic ruin. “If you want to look at a system that’s noncapitalistic, just take a look at what was once, perhaps, the wealthiest country in the world, and today people are starving to death. It’s called Venezuela,” he said during a January trip to New Hampshire. He is similarly dismissive of the idea of “Medicare for all,” warning that it would “bankrupt us for a very long time.”

    Likewise, Terry McAuliffe, the former governor of Virginia, has staked out ground as a moderate politician, even as he opposes similarly popular ideas. A substantial majority of the public favors proposals to greatly expand college access or make it free outright. In a January op-ed for The Washington Post, McAuliffe dismissed “universal free college” as a misuse of tax dollars. “Spending limited taxpayer money on a free college education for the children of rich parents badly misses the mark for most families.”

    And let’s not forget Howard Schultz, the former Starbucks chief executive who might run for president as an independent, who characterizes himself as a “centrist” despite holding positions that have little traction among the public as a whole. “We have to go after entitlements,” he has said, referring to the unpopular idea of cutting Social Security and Medicare to shrink the federal deficit.

    In each case, these moderate politicians have positioned themselves against broad public preference. What then makes a moderate, if not policies that appeal to the middle?

    You’ll find the answer in two comments from Joe Biden, who served two terms as vice president under President Barack Obama and is mulling a third run for the Democratic nomination. The first is from a speech in 2018, the second from more recent remarks to the United States Conference of Mayors. Speaking last May at the Brookings Institution, Biden rejected the confrontational language of some other Democrats. “I love Bernie, but I’m not Bernie Sanders,” he said. “I don’t think 500 billionaires are the reason we’re in trouble. I get into a lot of trouble with my party when I say that wealthy Americans are just as patriotic as poor folks.”
    Speaking a month ago, Biden defended his praise for Fred Upton, the electorally embattled Republican congressman from Ohio whom he commended in a paid speech last year. Republicans used these comments to bolster Upton in campaign advertising, helping him win a narrow victory over his Democratic challenger. Biden’s response to critics was defiant. “I read in The New York Times today that I — that one of my problems is if I ever run for president, I like Republicans,” he said. “O.K., well, bless me, father, for I have sinned.”

    Biden hasn’t endorsed a “Medicare for all” plan, but if he runs, he won’t be running on deficit reduction or modest tweaks to existing programs. He supports free college and a $15-per-hour minimum wage. He wants to triple the earned-income tax credit, give workers more leverage and raise taxes on the rich. This is a liberal agenda. And yet Biden is understood as a “moderate” like Bloomberg, McAuliffe and Schultz.

    What connects them (and similar politicians) is a belief that meaningful progress is possible without a fundamental challenge to those who hold most of the wealth and power in our society. For Biden, you don’t need to demonize the richest Americans or their Republican supporters to reduce income inequality; you can find a mutually beneficial solution. Bloomberg, a billionaire, may have a personal reason for rejecting wealth taxes, but he may also see them as unnecessary and antagonistic if the goal is winning powerful interests over to your side. McAuliffe governed Virginia with an eye toward the business community. Sweeping social programs might be popular, but they might alienate that powerful constituency. And Schultz wants a Democratic Party less hostile to those he calls “people of means,” who otherwise back goals like gun control.

    But this is a faulty view of how progress happens. Struggle against the powerful, not accommodation of their interests, is how Americans produced the conditions for its greatest social accomplishments like the creation of the welfare state and the toppling of Jim Crow. Without radical labor activism that identifies capitalism — and the bosses — as the vector for oppression and disadvantage, there is no New Deal. Without a confrontational (and at times militant) black freedom movement, there is no Civil Rights Act. If one of the central problems of the present is an elite economic class that hoards resources and opportunity at the expense of the public as a whole, then it’s naïve and ahistoric to believe the beneficiaries of that arrangement will willingly relinquish their power and privilege.

    If there’s a major division within Democratic politics, it’s between those who confront and those who seek to accommodate. Because we lack a varied vocabulary in mainstream political discourse, we call the latter “moderates” or “centrists,” which doesn’t capture the dynamic at work.

    Anna Julia Cooper was an author, activist and public intellectual, a prominent voice in the struggle for black liberation. In her 1892 book, “A Voice From the South,” she ruminates on what’s necessary for “proper equilibrium” in society:

    Progressive peace in a nation is the result of conflict; and conflict, such as is healthy, stimulating, and progressive, is produced through the coexistence of radically opposing or racially different elements.

    Antagonism, indignation, anger — these qualities don’t diminish democracy or impede progress. Each is an inescapable part of political life in a diverse, pluralistic society. And each is necessary for challenging our profound inequalities of power, wealth and opportunity.

    “The child can never gain strength save by resistance,” Cooper wrote, a little later in that volume, “and there can be no resistance if all movement is in one direction and all opposition made forever an impossibility.”

    The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here's our email: [email protected].

    Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

    Jamelle Bouie became a New York Times Opinion columnist in 2019. Before that he was the chief political correspondent for Slate magazine. He is based in Charlottesville, Va., and Washington. @jbouie
     
  4. Can I Spliff it

    Can I Spliff it Is Butterbean okay?
    Donor



    V good video, also about bernie bros
     
    AlternativeFactsRule likes this.
  5. Name P. Redacted

    Name P. Redacted I have no money and I'm also gay
    Donor
    Kansas State WildcatsDuke Blue DevilsIllinois Fighting IlliniKansas City Royals

    If it says anything other than Bernie Bros is a term cooked up to discredit his supporters then it’s dookie.
     
  6. Bishop

    Bishop Future Member
    Donor
    Auburn TigersAtlanta FalconsAtlanta United

    :blowup:
     
    Hail Southern likes this.
  7. the one and only GUBBERJK

    the one and only GUBBERJK I am boomfer and luke stampini hey JW SAID SO
    Donor
    UCF Knights

    do u live at home ?
    with your mommy ?
    are you a woman or a man ?
    your priorities are messed up .
     
    R2-D2Big likes this.
  8. AlternativeFactsRule

    AlternativeFactsRule Mmm ... Coconuts
    Donor TMB OG
    Michigan WolverinesSwansea

    I liked that Jordan Peterson’s complete suckiness was what woke her up to the shittiness of everyone else.
     
  9. theriner69er

    theriner69er Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Florida State SeminolesDetroit TigersCleveland BrownsDetroit Red Wings

    *far-right wing professor and avowed transphobe Jordan Peterson
     
  10. the one and only GUBBERJK

    the one and only GUBBERJK I am boomfer and luke stampini hey JW SAID SO
    Donor
    UCF Knights

    dude your so lame shut the fuck up .
    the next president will hopefully be a dem .
    what have you done but make shit worse for the next president ?
    keep talking dumb fuck .
    as much shit as you and the rest have put out for the last 3 years THE AMERICAN DREAM OF BEING PRESIDENT ONE DAY IS GONE .
    NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD EVER EXPECT GOOD THINGS IN THE NEXT PRESIDENTS TERM .
    I HOPE YOU GET A CHICK THAT CRYS WTF ?
     
  11. the one and only GUBBERJK

    the one and only GUBBERJK I am boomfer and luke stampini hey JW SAID SO
    Donor
    UCF Knights

    AFTER LISTENING TO YOU FUCKS .
    NOBODY WOULD EVER WANT TO BE PRESIDENT.
    AND THE OTHER MILLIONS THAT THINK THEY RUN AMERICA .
     
  12. the one and only GUBBERJK

    the one and only GUBBERJK I am boomfer and luke stampini hey JW SAID SO
    Donor
    UCF Knights

    KEEP TALKING LIKE YOU ARE
    GO AHEAD INSITE OTHERS GO AHEAD AND YA KNOW WHAT ?
    THE NEXT PRESIDENT CAN THANK YOU AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU FOR THE RECEPTION HE OR SHE GETS , YOU STUPID IDIOT .
     
  13. the one and only GUBBERJK

    the one and only GUBBERJK I am boomfer and luke stampini hey JW SAID SO
    Donor
    UCF Knights

    WANNA KNOW SOMETHING SMARTMAN ?
    NANCY PELOSI IS GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME EXPLAINING TO HER HELPERS IN THE GOVERMENT WHY SHE IS SUCH A ASSHOLE AS SHE GETS PAID AND THEY DONT .
    ITS NOT JUST REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRATE ITS ALL OF US DUMB FUCK AND YOU HARDLY SPEAK FOR ,ME
    SO SHUT THE FUCK UP .
     
  14. the one and only GUBBERJK

    the one and only GUBBERJK I am boomfer and luke stampini hey JW SAID SO
    Donor
    UCF Knights

    HEY SMARTASS REMEMBER WHAT YOU FELT LIKE WHEN YOU LOST THE ELECTION ?
    YOU AND THE REST ARE GOING TO FEEL TWICE AS BAD AFTER 4YEARS OF THE SHIT THE NEXT PRESIDENT IS GONNA GET .
    THINK I AM WRONG ?
    KEEP TALKING .
    SEE THOSE WOMEN PROSPECTOR POSTED YOU MIGHT AS WELL BE CAUSE UNGODLY TROUBLE FOR THEM .
    YOU REALLY THINK ANY OF THE
    M INCLUDING JOE BIDEN OR MICHELL OBAMA THEY ARE NOW FUCK DUE TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU .
     
  15. jhooked

    jhooked It's the way you go na, na, na
    Donor TMB OG
    Texas LonghornsHouston AstrosHouston RocketsHouston TexansUnited States Men's National Soccer Team

  16. the one and only GUBBERJK

    the one and only GUBBERJK I am boomfer and luke stampini hey JW SAID SO
    Donor
    UCF Knights

    YOU ALL CANT STOP FOR ONE DAY .
    EVEN IF IT MEANT HAPPY HAPPY FOR YOU .
    YOU REALLY THINK ABOUT WHAT EACH OF YOU HAS SAID AND MARK MY WORDS THE NEXT PRESIDENT IS FUCKED .

    P.S. YOU SHOULD HAVE LET TRUMP HANG HIMSELF
    YOUR A WASTE .
     
  17. BellottiBold

    Donor
    Oregon Ducks

    Fuck the UAE and fuck everyone contributing to their economy.

     
  18. the one and only GUBBERJK

    the one and only GUBBERJK I am boomfer and luke stampini hey JW SAID SO
    Donor
    UCF Knights

    NO FUCK YOU BIG MOUTH .
     
  19. Prospector

    Prospector I am not a new member
    Arkansas Razorbacks

    from DK
    What's actually in the Green New Deal?

    Any serious approach to climate change is an energy plan. Any serious approach to climate change is an infrastructure plan. Any serious approach to climate change is a labor plan. Any serious approach to climate change is an economic plan. And any plan that is not all those things is not a serious approach to climate change.

    On Feb. 7, Sen. Ed Markey and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez submitted non-binding resolutions in both the Senate and the House calling for a “Green New Deal.” They’re not the first to use such a term: It’s a label that’s been applied by various politicians and organizations going back decades. In fact, a quick Google search is likely to land on the Green Party’s website, which uses the name of the plan but presents it in a way that’s nearly unrecognizable. Adding to the confusion, Republicans, climate-change deniers, and just plain critics almost immediately began issuing statements about what was in the Green New Deal. Many of those statements are simply wrong. Or, even more simply, lies.

    To address some of the confusion, here’s a short-form review of the Green New Deal, explaining what it contains, how it should work, and pointing out a few things that it very much does not contain.
    House Resolution 11
    The actual resolution is not that long—just 14 pages. But because it has to be written to the guidelines for submitting a congressional resolution, it’s formatted in a way that’s not all that convenient to read. Plus, it includes a good deal of the “whereas” and “resolved” language that too often clutters measures before Congress, making it not all that thrilling to read, despite its brevity.

    1) Climate change is happening, and it’s the government’s responsibility to address it.

    The resolution opens by pointing out all the effects of climate change that the United States is already experiencing and, most importantly, by recognizing that it the responsibility of the federal government to address what is a genuine existential crisis. The text refers to another document, the “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C” released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That report shows that human activity is the primary factor behind climate change, and that climate change is driving a growing list of disasters, including severe storms, wildfires, and rising sea levels.

    Because all these things represent a threat to both the lives and the health of American citizens, as well as to infrastructure and other resources, it is absolutely in the government’s scope to take action. The resolution then goes into some of these threats in more detail, noting items such as the sharply rising costs of addressing disasters and the increasing risks to coastal communities. It also discusses the direct health effects, along with the threat climate change poses to nature and public infrastructure. And the resolution recognizes that, for more than a century, the United States has played an out-sized role in bringing on this global crisis. So we must step up to fight, if there’s to be any hope.

    The resolution then looks at what it calls “related crises,” those issues that are intricately bound-up with the system that has created climate change. Those thinking that this is “just an environmental thing” are likely to get confused here, because the resolution touches on everything from national security to transportation infrastructure to crippling inequality. The list of issues is lengthy, but it’s not a grab bag of random items from a progressive agenda. These are all things related to climate change, including indigenous communities threatened by pollution and abuse, and rural communities failing as industry and jobs move away.

    But don’t mistake the things in this section for the goals of the Green New Deal. They’re not.

    2) So what should the government do about it?

    The actual list of prescriptions provided by the resolution isn’t that long—though again, it can seem daunting. On the fifth page of the bill is a fairly simply set of broad goals for addressing the climate crisis.

    • Achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in a way that’s fair to all communities and workers.
    • Create good jobs that spread prosperity and provide economic security.
    • Invest in infrastructure and industry within the United States to address these issues.
    Those are definitely big-ticket items, but they’re not free ponies and government-granted unicorns. They’re just a recognition that a program that addresses climate change while ignoring the effects the program itself has on workers and communities is a bad program.

    By specifying these goals—a fair program that creates good jobs and invests in the nation—the resolution hopes to also “Secure for all people of the United States ... clean air and water, climate and community resiliency, healthy food, access to nature, and a sustainable environment.” That’s a pretty good list. Because this is a systemic problem, addressing it brings systemic benefits.

    But the benefits here are just that: benefits that come from addressing the climate crisis. The intention of the Green New Deal isn’t to spawn a thousand committees and hash out ten thousand bills on every subject. It’s to recognize that addressing the climate crisis fairly has a big upside. In other words, the Green New Deal isn’t replacing the ADA, setting new standards for organic food, or expanding OSHA. It’s just recognizing that dealing with these issues will have a strong, positive impact on many communities—including those who currently disproportionately face the effects of pollution.

    3) The “Green New Deals”: the heart of the plan.

    On page 6 of the resolution begins the section that lays out the goals of the Green New Deal. And despite all the spin from all directions, those goals are pretty clear.

    All of them fall within a “a 10-year national mobilization,” and they look like this:

    • Build resiliency against climate change-related weather, and work with the communities most effected.
    • Repair and upgrade the infrastructure to reduce greenhouse gases, ensure access to clean water, and reduce the risks of flooding.
    • Move the United States to 100 percent “clean and renewable” power by deploying new capacity and upgrading power distribution.
    • Upgrade buildings to be more energy-, water-, and materials-efficient.
    • Promote clean manufacturing.
    • Work with farmers and ranchers to improve sustainability.
    • Overhaul transportation with clean vehicles, public transportation and high speed rail.
    • Address health effects of climate change and related pollution.
    • Reduce greenhouse gases by restoring natural ecosystems.
    • Restore and protect biodiversity to support climate resiliency.
    • Clean up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites.
    • Identify pollution sources and create solutions to eliminate them.
    • Make the United States the international leader on climate action.
    That’s it. Does it say “Get rid of cows”? It does not. Does it say “Free money for everyone, even if they just want to lounge around”? No. It is not promising to cure cancer or anything else that people seem to be finding in the Green New Deal. It’s all about climate change, and what it takes to fix climate change.

    This isn’t the sum total of the Green New Deal. But this section—a baker’s dozen of “green new deals”—is the heart of the proposal and of the document. It’s important enough that I’m including it again, in full, at the end of the article so you can read the actual text of the resolution and see what’s really being proposed. These goals are genuinely brief enough that you could carry them in your pocket for reference.

    One thing that becomes obvious when reading the text of this section is that goals are frequently described as “reduce or eliminate,” and the phrase “as much as technically possible” is freely applied. This is an important document that sets high goals, but it is also a document that deliberately works within the realm of the possible.

    4) Things to consider while saving the world.

    Once the list of the Green New Deals (and that is what the resolution calls them) is spelled out, the text continues along the lines of the things that need to be addressed while meeting the targets proposed. To describe them as “play nice” is too trite and too trivial, but it gives a sense of what this section is about. The intention of this section is just to hammer home again that meeting the goals of the Green New Deal should be done in a way that’s transparent, inclusive, and collaborative. It needs to include communities at risk, labor unions, other organizations, scientists, and business in its planning.

    The resolution also insists that the public should have “an appropriate ownership stake” in both the achievement of the goals and the benefits. In other words, the results of a national mobilization to save the whole of civilization, apple pie, and apples should not end up just another way for some mega corporation to make trillions. What comes out of this will belong to the nation. The results of the Green New Deal would not be just a nicely scrubbed atmosphere and a lot of shiny new infrastructure, but also a boost in education and a new generation of jobs, especially in those communities most impacted by climate change. That includes, but isn’t limited to, indigenous communities, communities of color, and depopulated rural communities.

    Does this section also include things like “good health care for every American”? It does. But that’s not one of the Green New Deals. It’s just a very good idea. That’s how the document closes out: with a list of standards that should be met by projects involved in the Green New Deal—good safe jobs, support for labor unions and other worker organizations, and protection against business monopolies and unfair practices. And this is where you finally get that unicorn.

    Sorry, no unicorn. Just checking to see if you were still with me.

    5) It’s a plan to address climate change.

    That’s what it is. Look again at the goals that the resolution spells out. Which of them could be easily removed while still pretending to make an adequate response to the climate crisis?

    The Green New Deal isn’t all things to all people. It’s not a healthcare plan, or guaranteed minimum income, no matter how good both those things would be. It’s also not a detailed proposal on exactly how to build power plants, or just where to run train lines, or how farmers should do their jobs. It’s not meant to be.

    It’s a recognition that climate change is an energy issue. Climate change is an infrastructure issue. Climate change is an economic issue. Climate change is a labor issue. And addressing it means considering those things as we consider greenhouses gases.

    After-school reading: the actual text
    Here’s the part where you stop getting my spin on the resolution and just get the resolution. This is the same list as back in section 3, but unfiltered by my interpretation and compression of what the text actually says. This time around, I’ve changed nothing but the formatting, because the wording is something that keeps getting twisted.

    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that— it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal—

    The goals described … should be accomplished through a 10-year national mobilization that will require the following goals and projects:

    • Building resiliency against climate change-related weather, including by leveraging funding and providing investments for community-defined projects and strategies;
    • Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including
      • by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as techno

        logically feasible;

      • by guaranteeing universal access to clean water

      • by reducing the risks posed by flooding and other climate impacts

      • by ensuring that any infrastructure bill considered by Congress addresses climate change
    • Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including
      • by deploying new capacity
      • building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘‘smart’’ power grids and working to ensure affordable access to electricity
    • Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification;
    • Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible, including by expanding renewable energy manufacturing and investing in existing manufacturing and industry
    • Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible, including—
      • by supporting family farming
      • by investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health
      • by building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food
    • Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—
      • zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing
      • clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation
      • high-speed rail
    • Mitigating and managing the long-term adverse health, economic, and other effects of pollution and climate change, including by providing funding for community-defined projects and strategies
    • Removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and reducing pollution, including by restoring natural ecosystems through proven low-tech solutions that increase soil carbon storage, such as preservation and afforestation
    • Restoring and protecting threatened, endangered, and fragile ecosystems through locally appropriate and science-based projects that enhance biodiversity and support climate resiliency.
    • Cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites to promote economic development and sustainability.
    • Identifying other emission and pollution sources and creating solutions to eliminate them
    • Promoting the international exchange of technology, expertise, products, funding, and services, with the aim of making the United States the international leader on climate action, and to help other countries achieve a Green New Deal
     
  20. Eamudo229

    Eamudo229 Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Florida GatorsJacksonville Jaguars

    That was my favorite part I knew she had to get to him but when that was the heel turn I was happy with my choice of watching this video.
     
    AlternativeFactsRule likes this.
  21. Name P. Redacted

    Name P. Redacted I have no money and I'm also gay
    Donor
    Kansas State WildcatsDuke Blue DevilsIllinois Fighting IlliniKansas City Royals

    Rep Omar questioning Elliot Abrams today was good stuff.
     
  22. Prospector

    Prospector I am not a new member
    Arkansas Razorbacks

    "My KKK Friends Will Burn Your Family": A Florida Woman Went On A Racist Rant Against A Black Officer
    The woman was recorded telling the black deputy that the KKK would burn crosses in his yard and that "n*****s should've never been let out of slavery."

    A Florida woman was recorded going on a racist and violent rant against a black officer after he arrested her for drunk driving.
    Julie Edwards, 53, told Volusia County Sheriff's Office deputy Brandon King that her "KKK friends would burn his family" and that "niggers should've never been let out of slavery," according to a police report provided to BuzzFeed News.

    She is facing charges of making threats against a law enforcement officer, resisting an officer without violence, driving under the influence, and prior refusal to submit to testing.

    Responding to a report of a disturbance at a house in DeLand, Florida, King arrived to find Edwards trying to leave the property in her black Lexus, the report said.

    He immediately smelled alcohol on Edwards' breath and noticed that she was slurring. She was walking away from him unsteadily, the report said.

    Edwards allegedly refused to take a breathalyzer test or perform field sobriety exercises. She walked away from King after being handcuffed and resisted his attempts to get her in the police cruiser.

    Once she was inside the cruiser, Edwards began her racist tirade against King while he was completing the paperwork for her arrest.

    The Volusia County Sheriff's Office released edited footage from King's camera on Tuesday, saying, "Before you go on a racist rant, just remember we have body cameras."



    In the video, Edwards can be heard telling King that "my KKK people will [find you]."

    "They know people like you," she tells the deputy. "Hey, ain't a damn thing wrong with burning a cross in your yard, is there?"

    She adds, "You fucked with the wrong white people."

    Edwards is also heard telling King that his "eyes will be poked out" and that the "KKK got your ass, boy."

    At one point, she says, "niggers should've never been let out of slavery."

    "My KKK friends will burn your family," Edwards tells King. "You should never be here in the first place. You ever been whipped on a whipping post?"

    King took Edwards' racist and violent threats to be serious as he did not know her capabilities, according to the police report.

    "Deputy King is of African-American descent and knows the history behind the KKK and the pain and torture they have caused and still cause to African-Americans today," the report said.

    Volusia County Sheriff Mike Chitwood praised King's "calm response to all the racist garbage this KKK enthusiast could throw at him."

    Edwards was not in custody after she bonded out of the Volusia County jail, according to online inmate records.

    She was previously arrested twice in 2011 on multiple charges, including a DUI, resisting arrest with violence, battery on a law enforcement officer, aggravated battery (with a deadly weapon), and domestic battery, according to jail records
     
  23. Prospector

    Prospector I am not a new member
    Arkansas Razorbacks

    “Agitate, Agitate, Agitate!”: Great-Great-Great-Grandson Echoes Frederick Douglass on 201st Birthday
    StoryFebruary 15, 2019[​IMG]Watch Full Show
    Listen
    Media Options
    171
    Shares
    This is viewer supported news. Please do your part today.
    Donate
    Topics
    Guests
    • Kenneth Morris Jr.
      great-great-great-grandson of Frederick Douglass and president of the Frederick Douglass Family Initiatives. He is also the great-great-grandson of Booker T. Washington.
    Links
    This month marks the 201st birthday of the renowned abolitionist Frederick Douglass. Frederick Douglass was born into slavery around 1818. He died a free man in 1895. Thursday night, leaders from around the country gathered at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., to honor the life and legacy of Frederick Douglass as part of a ceremony culminating a year of events marking the bicentennial of the birth of the celebrated abolitionist, politician, writer, feminist, educator, entrepreneur and diplomat. We are joined by Kenneth Morris Jr., Frederick Douglass’s great-great-great-grandson, president of the Frederick Douglass Family Initiatives, and also the great-great-grandson of Booker T. Washington. He says the lesson he hopes young activists will take from his great-great-great-grandfather Frederick Douglass is: “Agitate. Agitate. Agitate. … It’s really important that activists and young people understand that they can lift their voices and agitate.”

    Transcript
    This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
    AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman. We’re broadcasting from the nation’s capital, from Washington, D.C.

    Well, this Black History Month marks the 201st birthday of the renowned abolitionist Frederick Douglass. Douglass was born into slavery in 1818, it is believed. He died a free man in 1895—that’s known. On July 5th, 1852, in Rochester, New York, Douglass gave one of his most famous speeches, “The Meaning of the Fourth of July to the American Negro.” He was addressing the Rochester Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Society. This is an excerpt of James Earl Jones reading the historic address during a performance of Howard Zinn’s Voices of a People’s History of the United States.

    FREDERICK DOUGLASS: [read by James Earl Jones] It is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and the crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced.

    AMY GOODMAN: James Earl Jones reading the speech of Frederick Douglass.

    Well, last night, leaders from around the country gathered at the Library of Congress here in Washington, D.C., to honor the life and legacy of Frederick Douglass. The ceremony was the culmination of a year of events marking the bicentennial of the birth of the celebrated abolitionist, politician, writer, feminist, educator, entrepreneur and diplomat.

    We’re joined now by Kenneth Morris Jr., Frederick Douglass’s great-great-great-grandson. He’s here in Washington, D.C., to celebrate his ancestor’s remarkable legacy. Kenneth Morris Jr. is the co-founder and president of the Frederick Douglass Family Initiatives, also the great-great-grandson of Booker T. Washington.

    Welcome to Democracy Now!

    KENNETH MORRIS JR.: Thank you, Amy.

    AMY GOODMAN: What a legacy! What a legacy!

    KENNETH MORRIS JR.: Wow!

    AMY GOODMAN: So, especially for young people, tell us about Frederick Douglass. Tell us about his life history and what he would have felt about what’s happening today.

    KENNETH MORRIS JR.: Well, he was born into slavery, as you said, sometime in 1818. He was born to an enslaved woman and to a white man, and it was presumed that his master was his father. And he had an opportunity in his life where he was taken from the Eastern Shore of Maryland to Baltimore to be the house servant for his master’s brother.

    And the reason I say it was an opportunity was because when he got there, his slave mistress had never had a slave before and didn’t know that it was illegal to teach him. She begins to teach him his ABCs. His master finds out, gets angry, forbade the lessons. But that was all that Frederick Douglass needed, was that little spark of knowledge into his mental darkness.

    He would teach himself to read and write, over the objections of his overseers; escapes slavery at the age of 20 in 1838. He would go on to become an adviser to President Lincoln. He was an ambassador and consul general to Haiti, first African-American U.S. marshal—and the list goes on and on—and would pass away in 1895 in his home in Washington, D.C.

    AMY GOODMAN: And talk about the mark he made, the fight against slavery, the fight—really, a leading advocate of women’s rights and women’s suffrage.

    KENNETH MORRIS JR.: When he first published his autobiography, the Narrative, in 1845, it became a best-seller. And the notoriety from the book threatened his freedom, because he was still a fugitive at the time, at the age of 27. And he had to flee to Europe for a couple of years as a cooling-off period. And when he was in Europe, he spent some time in Ireland and came into contact with the great Irish liberator Daniel O’Connell. And Daniel O’Connell really helped Frederick Douglass to understand that—about human rights and the fight for human rights for everyone.

    When he would return back to the United States after his abolitionist friends paid for his freedom from his master, he came back with a different mindset, an internationalist mindset of fighting for human rights for everybody. And this is why you see him become one of the first statesmen of any race to fight for women’s rights and women’s suffrage and to speak out for the rights of immigrants and many other disenfranchised groups.

    AMY GOODMAN: Well, in 2017, Donald Trump seemed to suggest he thought Frederick Douglass was still alive. This is Trump speaking at a Black History Month event two years ago.

    PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I am very proud now that we have a museum on the National Mall where people can learn about Reverend King, so many other things. Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice.

    AMY GOODMAN: He notices. That was President Trump. It might have been encouraging for you to know, Kenneth, that your great-great-great-grandfather was still alive.

    KENNETH MORRIS JR.: Well, it would have been nice, because I’ve always looked forward to meeting him. And so, had he still been alive, that would have been a great thing. But the last time that the two of us were together, we talked about that, two years ago. And that really has been the gift that keeps on giving.

    AMY GOODMAN: You’re talking about me and you, not you and President Trump.

    KENNETH MORRIS JR.: Yes, that’s correct, yeah. The gift that keeps on giving, because it really put his name out there into the public consciousness. And many people know the name Frederick Douglass, but they don’t necessarily know what he did or what his contributions were to the country. So, there was good and bad that came from that. But as far as our work, the name recognition has really helped us to advance the work in the bicentennial year.

    AMY GOODMAN: You’re moving your institute to Rochester, New York. Why?

    KENNETH MORRIS JR.: Frederick Douglass spent 25 years of his life there. He published The North Star newspaper there, which was the leading abolitionist voice. It’s where he chose to be buried, in Mount Hope Cemetery. And it is really time for the Frederick Douglass Family Initiatives and the family of Frederick Douglass to return back to the city that he loved so much. We’ve been able to develop some great relationships in the community. During the bicentennial year, we worked on a project where we erected 13 statues of Frederick Douglass all around the city at sites that were significant in his life.

    AMY GOODMAN: Was one of the statues of Frederick Douglass recently vandalized?

    KENNETH MORRIS JR.: It was vandalized. And it’s interesting that the site where that statue was vandalized, by two students at St. John Fisher College, was the site where a school stood where Frederick and Anna’s oldest daughter was enrolled, but she was forced to be segregated from the rest of her classmates. Then, eventually, Frederick would take her out of the school. So, it was interesting that this racist act of tearing down this statue was at the site where Rosetta had suffered racism and segregation.

    AMY GOODMAN: What do you want to leave people with, as we come out of the—well, February 14th is now being—is the day you’ve chosen to celebrate your great-great-great-grandfather’s birthday—but especially young people today?

    KENNETH MORRIS JR.: Yeah, well, it’s—that’s the date that he chose for his birthday. He only saw his mother four times his whole life, and she used to call him her little Valentine. So, when he was looking for a day to celebrate his birthday, he chose February 14th.

    But what we would hope young people would take away, I think, is a great story. When Frederick Douglass was near the end of his life, at his home here in the Anacostia neighborhood of Washington, D.C., he loved to walk around the street and interact with the kids. And there was a young man that walked up to him and said, “What advice would you give to a person that’s looking to fight for justice and fight for equality?” And without hesitation, Frederick said, “Agitate, agitate, agitate.” And he was always agitating. And, of course, in the political climate that we’re in right now, with the divisiveness and the rhetoric, it’s really important that activists and young people understand that they can lift their voices and agitate.

    AMY GOODMAN: And talk about the significance of him being one of the most photographed people—back then.

    KENNETH MORRIS JR.: I find it amazing. He was 22 years old, only two years removed from slavery, never having spent one day of his life in a classroom. He understood that this new technology, photography, could help him make his arguments for liberation and equality. And he understood that he could present himself in the public as a man worthy of freedom, worthy of citizenship.

    And if we think about the visuals of Frederick Douglass and his intense steely glare in those photographs, especially the young years, he did that intentionally, because, he said, “I never want to look like a happy, amiable fugitive slave.” He’s trying to shatter the notion in the public consciousness that these were people of African descent that were not worthy of freedom or citizenship and perhaps they were better off in slavery, make them an “other” to justify brutalizing them, exploiting them and dehumanizing them.
    AMY GOODMAN: Well, Kenneth Morris, I want to thank you so much for being with us. Kenneth Morris Jr. is the co-founder and president of the Frederick Douglass Family Initiatives, the great-great-great-grandson of Frederick Douglass. We’ll have you back to talk about your other ancestor. You are also the great-great-grandson of Booker T. Washington.

    <iframe width="640" height="360" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true"></iframe>
     
  24. timo

    timo you'll be fine at the end of the line
    Donor
    Penn State Nittany LionsPittsburgh PiratesPittsburgh SteelersPittsburgh PenguinsTottenham

    great, another way in which american schoolchildren are falling behind their counterparts in other parts of the world; kicking off the revolution. smdh.
     
  25. Fran Tarkenton

    Fran Tarkenton Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Wake Forest Demon Deacons

  26. Can I Spliff it

    Can I Spliff it Is Butterbean okay?
    Donor

  27. JGator1

    JGator1 I'm the Michael Jordan of the industry
    TMB OG
    Florida GatorsTampa Bay RaysTampa Bay BuccaneersTampa Bay LightningChelsea

    If Biden gets the nomination that'll be two straight candidates who voted for the Iraq War. Truly amazing that people who voted for that shitshow have been able to maintain prominent positions of power in the Democratic party.