General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThing that makes me go "Mmmm?"
We keep hearing folks - so-called progressives, no less - say we have no room for error and now's not the time to go all diversified and take risks so we'd better go with a white guy as our nominee and keep minorities and women in the background, telling them to wait a few more years before they emerge into the center ring.
But ...
When it comes to the Speakership, we need to push aside the strongest and surest person for the job so we can disrupt and go all new blood, fresh face, because the future or something.
Mmmmm ... This seems inconsistent, but on closer examination, I see it's actually VERY consistent, after all.
MaryMagdaline
(6,854 posts)mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)How about we wait a LITTLE bit ... before we divide ourselves over 'How Progressive We Really All Are, Based on How Much we Agree With Effie'?
Any chance of that? A little temporary hiatus?
I mean, wasn't this same subject kinda hashed out at length in a pretty big thread, REALLY recently?
We really need to ... start up another?
I'm not even arguing against your points but ... these aren't hugely urgent matters, we can hash 'em out ... in the coming weeks and months ... and there's some WAY SERIOUS shit going down at this moment. We all need to stick together at this time ... this Whitaker thing is a REAL crisis situation.
Just MHO
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Especially when those issues ALWAYS seem to get placed on hold so that something else that other people think are more important get addressed.
Thanks anyway for the suggestion, but I'll pass.
Since when has the Speaker of the House issue been known to be always put on hold?
Gun control, climate, pollution, human rights, health care, Flint MI, Puerto Rico, and commercials with whistling all seem to be more frequently contentious but swept under the rug to be dealt with later.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)leftstreet
(36,108 posts)Someone younger than Trump, good-looking, smart, etc
The true 'anti-Trump'
... at least that's as I understand it
Awsi Dooger
(14,565 posts)Not sure how that's complicated.
We keep pretending anyone can defeat Trump, just like we keep pretending his approval rating can't continue to rise, and we spent a long time pretending he was soon to either resign or be booted out of office.
I prefer big picture overview: We own virtually no margin for error against an incumbent, so it needs to be our best swing given 2020 national realities and biases, and that's a male instead of female, and young instead of old, and charismatic instead of dullard.
I'm not in the Pelosi argument but if I could push a button and replace her with a similarly younger and charismatic white male I would do it. The House is going to be difficult to maintain since we don't figure to have anything close to this type of generic House edge in 2020. Independents have long tendency to buck an incumbent in that first midterm and then return two years later as he seeks re-election.
It takes two to be embarrassed and I'm never one of them, in terms of these big picture political assessments. My stuff tends to hold up well.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Wow.
Just wow.
Because we have "no margin for error" and only a white man can save the day for us in 2020.
Wow.
It's SO comforting to see so-called progressives do the racists' and misogynists' job for them - while insisting "*I* don't have a problem with minorities and women, but THEY do, so we'd better emulate them in order to beat them - and then we can worry about all of that equality and diversity stuff later. Women and black and brown folk - just move back to the kitchen so they can't see you and let the white men handle this. We'll tell you when you can come back out."
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)Welcome to the thread
I hope it gets 500 posts ... that'd be great ...