Your Concerns are Trivial!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

No matter what, your concerns are trivial... or so I have read.

No matter what happens in the world, if you complain about it you are a whiner, a little girl, living in your parents basement, a hand-wringer.

DADT? Get over it, cry baby.
Joke stimulus? You are naive. (AND a cry baby.)
Ongoing capitulation? You know nothing of the real world.
Don't like Afghanistan? Man pants needed.

Whatever happens it is NO BIG DEAL and if you complain about it then you are a trivial person.

Lose 60+ seats in the house after we were lectured for two years by our betters that every candy-ass move was big-boy chess that was politically brilliant?

Get over it!

Every single thing "we" (assholes, deadbeats, lay-abouts, whiners, fantasists, closet pugs, children) complained about was explained, haughtily, as brilliant politics and anyone who didn't get that is naive.

If it was all so freaking politically brilliant how did we lose 60+ seats? How many would we have lost without all the chess? 300? 2675?

We are all wrong about things. That is humanity.

But when proven spectacularly, utterly and catastrophically wrong about a matter that has been the basis for extended hostility and insult directed on a daily basis for years at people who were right it may be that one might take a fricking week off from the contemptuous superiority trip.

It's like the Iraq War. The people who said there were no WMD were obviously not "serious" people. When they were proved right did they then take over the airwaves as experts on the topic? No.... because it had already been established that they were not "serious" people.

Out of curiosity, when exactly will it be right to complain? Earth splitting in half? Sun going nova?

[HopeHoops]

1. When Elvis dies.

D'OH!

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. RLOL

That is a DUZZY

[HopeHoops]

9. Wait, never mind. I just saw him at the 7-11 - afternoon hanging out with Jesus & Michael Jackson.

My bad.

I bought a gallon of milk and he said, "thank ya, thank ya verah much."

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Did you remember to thank Jesus?

[HopeHoops]

14. Nah, he was too busy handing out carnations and asking, "have you tried Hari Krishna?"

[Egnever]

33. I see him every day

He lives here in Vegas

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vincardog]

3. The true believers believe that our concerns can be aired after the ruling rich extract 100% of the

available wealth and can tax us on the air we breath. Then our concerns can be noted.

[Donnachaidh]

28. yup -- makes one wonder where THEIR allegiances really sit, doesn't it?

This board is getting worked heavily today to shut down dissent.

[TornadoTN]

4. +1000000 This is a magnum opus

Perfect explanation. Can't wait to see the response from the people who refuse to accept reality.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. They won't

they still at it...

In fact, they are part of the aggregate voter... and will continue to be in denial... like a few folks who still claim, I shit you not, that the WMDs have been found.

[emulatorloo]

5. 3/4 of what gets posting on DU is complaining. I have not noticed any Complaint Surpression by

Skinner et al.

Complain away it is what we all do here.

If somebody is being an asshole, alert on them. Usually they get called on the carpet by other DU'ers so you don't have to.

[readmoreoften]

15. Well, you haven't noticed it because you're too busy defending Obama's abysmal record.

We get called to the carpet by a vocal minority of people who treat Obama as a quasi-religious figure, who have no discernible political ideas or intentions, who think this is some kind of football game. These people are as big a problem as Republicans since their "bipartisanship" often makes them indistinguishable from them.

[emulatorloo]

23. I rec'd the thread. Get a grip.

Stop demonizing me. You know nothing about me.

[pipi_k]

46. Actually, what the person you replied to said was

that he hadn't noticed any attempt by "Skinner et. al." to suppress the complaints.

And that is true. None of the Admins/mods is going around suppressing discussion.

What I have noticed, however, is that a few members are saying something like "It's not the end of the world". And that, IMO, is true.

It's not the end of the world. Yeah, it sucks, but a whole lot worse could have happened.

Oh, and I keep my opinions about Obama largely to myself. That way nobody can accuse me of not paying attention because I'm "too busy defending" him or "too busy slamming" him to notice whatever there is to notice.

[tomp]

50. the end of the world happened a while back.

you missed it.

there is ZERO possibility of progressive movement from the democratic party. bones and crumbs, that's it.

when more people get that, progress will be possible.

[pipi_k]

52. Maybe I was busy that day....

when exactly did that happen?

The end of the world, I mean...

[tomp]

54. oh, about a hundred years ago...

...when the democratic party signed on to corporatist/imperialist policies, and started pretending to be pro-people in order to work hand in hand with republicans to that end.

you should have been aware of this from your ration every decade or so of bones and crumbs.

[Naturyl]

40. I agree

As tempting as it is to believe that DU is trying to shut down this kind of discussion, I haven't seen it.

And believe me, if I'd seen it, I'd be raising hell about it.

[NJmaverick]

6. I am sure the Republicans will take care of your concerns

:eyes:

[readmoreoften]

16. Probably about as well as the Democrats have.

No more no less.

[Fire1]

49. Even better, I'm sure. Wait for it............... n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Nah sun going nova? Too early

the grand unraveling... of the universe... that is when even particles go kaput. That is about 20 billion years from now, last time I checked on the theory.

[Tansy_Gold]

13. But that's only a THEORY!!!

It's not PROVEN!

Oh, hell, I'm losing it. Even my sick sense of humor is failing me today. . . .

:hi:



TG

[laughingliberal]

12. Yes, I'm mostly focused on my pet issue.

Right now it's wishing we were still able to eat every day.

Good post. K&R

[bobbolink]

17. and the biggest one.. IGNORED... because you are poor.

Just like you did with YOUR list.

thank you for forgetting us, once again.

[Naturyl]

41. Well, to be fair, not everyone can be expected to mention us every time.

I know what you mean, though. I really do.

Needling the OP about it isn't the way to go, though. We can't raise consciousness by laying continual guilt trips on people. It's not that such guilt trips wouldn't be appropriate, because in general, they really would. Everybody, especially on the left, should be be keeping the poor in mind. But guilt trips aren't the way to do it. It just alienates people further, right or wrong. That's human nature.

[bobbolink]

42. EVery time???

OK, I get it.

I will shut up and sit down.

Carry on.

You win.

[Naturyl]

45. Not at all what I was getting at.

Sorry you feel that way. I've noticed you seem to see everyone who offers any constructive criticism as the enemy, although I honestly thought I'd be immune to being seen that way after all I've said and done on this issue.

Sit down and shut up was definitely NOT my point. Sorry. I know things are tough and the world is hostile. I know there are issues associated with that. I'm not immune to it myself, so no lecture here. Please carry on, and thanks again for your ongoing activism.

[Lorien]

56. Stimulus= less poverty

enough with the thread hijacking already. Most of us who are poor realize that that won't change until we hold those in office accountable for prioritizing the desires of Wall Street and Corporate America over those of Main Street. You won't have more money for food banks or homeless shelters until you raise taxes on the rich, get out of the wars of choice and slash Pentagon spending. Try looking at the big picture.

[bobbolink]

59. Once again, you don't understand the issue, so you vilify me.

1. The "stimulus" wasn't for poor folk. We got one measly "benefit" ONCE, while the rest of you got much more. Our COLA is on hold for a minimum of two years, while prices rise, and the rest of you are the beneficiaries of the "stimulus".

2. To balance that "stimulus", food stamps were cut, and disabled people are losing their benefits. Again, your sole concern is the middle class, so be honest about that. Many other benefits for poor people were cut, so stop claiming that the "stimulus" held back poverty. In fact, if you were paying attention, you may have seen the headlines.... POVERTY IS UP.

3. The true figures on poverty are hidden... much like the true numbers of unemployement. The way of figuring poverty has little to do with actual reality. The difference is that many, if not most, people understand the REAL unemployement is much higher. Not many know, and fewer are interested, that the poverty level is skewed, and the number is much higher.

4. If you paid attention to what is actually said about homelessness, you would understand that I and many others are NOT advocating more shelters and more food banks. As I have said many times, charity is what the RW advocates, so DUers following the RW in claiming that the charity of shelters and food banks is the answer is just that... RW talking points. People here still value the posts of Sapphire Blue, but don't want to take her words to heart.... "Housing for ALL, not shelters!"

5. What you want to label as "threadjacking" is an attempt at awareness for those who turn their heads and refuse to see reality. There is one simple remedy.. Avail yourself of REAL understanding, and grow some compassion and begin to post more on the subject yourself and work for the remedy to poverty. Then *I* won't have to be doing it, OK? As I said, Quite Simple.

6. Following me around from thread to thread with nothing but personal attacks is against the DU rules... it is considered stalking. Word to the wise.... I hope you are in that category.

[BootinUp]

18. Complain if you want but I don't know what makes anyone think

that a different administration given the same congress and circumstances could have avoided a bad mid-term. All I see around here is a narrative that addresses getting tougher with the opposition, which clearly would not have resulted in better policy it just would have resulted in more filibuster in the Senate. The people would have still been pissed off, turn out still would have sucked, and we still would have gotten slammed. At least we did get some good things done. Talk to me in 10 or 20 years and lets see what you think looking back.

Arguably by appearing more presidential Obama retains additional support from the middle. Thats just politics. From exit polls it appears Obama split the damage down the middle from those who liked (are not in favor of reversing) and those who hated (want to reverse) his big accomplishments. What more do you want? Clearly the most damage was done in the more conservative parts of the country, and you wanted Obama to go more to the left? The only thing I have a question about is why he didn't start campaigning harder a month or two earlier, but the answer is probably that he was still trying to get congress to pass important stuff.

[EFerrari]

20. What is your evidence that Obama retains additional support from the middle?

The election seems to contradict that.

/oops

[BootinUp]

21. A president always appeals to the middle and throws out

whatever he can to the base but it is never much, and always clouded in rhetoric designed not to alienate support in the middle. That is just how it works, period. The onus would be on those who disagree to demonstrate it.

[EFerrari]

24. That's not really evidence, is it?

[BootinUp]

27. Sure it is. its clearly demonstrated by history. nt

[EFerrari]

29. Invoking an abstract noun like "history" doesn't support your point.

You may well be right. I'm not seeing it.

[BootinUp]

32. How abstract can it be?

it refers to all the lessons learned from politics in modern times, a politician always hunts for the middle when an election approaches.

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. K&R. n/t

[jgraz]

22. K&R. Well said.

:applause:

[treestar]

25. All of our concerns are trivial individually

It does not help for each group to try to put themselves at the top and then fight the others under the big tent.

We can't vote like its currency. It's a bad analogy. We can't vote as if it is payment for specific things. If we don't vote, we don't get to keep that vote and have two next election.

for politics to work you have to join with other people, some of whom are not in 100% lockstep agreement on each of many issues or ranking their importance identically.

[Egnever]

34. Geez sanity!

How dare you!

[tomp]

53. that might actually make sense if the left ever got anything out of it.

and you're also missing the main point of the op. the "complainers" were right. all the arguments against the "complainers" proved false. obama was, and the democratic party has been, ineffective in advancing a truly progressive movement.

unfortunately, i want specific things--peace, justice, opposition to fascism, for example.

[gratuitous]

26. Oh boy, did you fuck up

Not one mention of ponies? Tsk, I say. Tsk!

[Jester Messiah]

30. More of this?

The other thousand threads weren't enough?

[whatchamacallit]

31. I tried to post something like this

not as good though, so like all my posts it sank like a rock :P The continual refocusing of the lens to keep Obama framed prettily is getting old.

[FiveGoodMen]

60. "The continual refocusing of the lens to keep Obama framed prettily"

That's a spectacular encapsulation of the problem.

I'm going to have to remember that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. The voters rejected the "3rd Way", "New Democcrats", Tuesday.

Now, the plan is to offer them more politics-as-usual, 3rd Way, New Democrats, centrism and "compromise".

More brilliant thinking from the "pragmatic", "realistic", DLC "if you can't beat them, join them" wing of the Democratic Party.

[Lorien]

57. +1. nt

[FiveGoodMen]

61. DLC "if you can't beat them, join them" wing of the Democratic Party

OR: The "if you can't crush them, infiltrate and undermine them" agents of the republican party.

[JoePhilly]

36. Oh the drama!!!!

And the whining about chess!!!

Your assessment suffers from a few simple problems. Your four items at the top are lame.

1) No one said "get over it" on DADT. That is what YOU hear, but not what has been said. We are actually closer to getting that ended then at any time since it became the law. Much closer than when Bush was President. The House passed a bill, Obama said he'd sign it, and the Senate, blocked by the GOP, is now stuck. The study is about over and the military already knows its basically over. All of that in less than 24 months. You were not asked to get over it, but to be just a little "patient". The GOP has been "patient" on Roe V Wade for over 30 years ... they don't quit. And they don't abandon the party that actually wants to "do it".

2) If the stimulus was a JOKE, then I'm sure you can name a LARGER stimulus passed as quick, during a similar recession. The fact is YOU CAN'T. While I agree the stimulus would have been more effective if larger, it did stop the collapse. If I am WRONG ... simply name the prior stimulus that you compare it to.

3) Capitulation. First, this one is so ambiguous as to be meaningless. But it still fails because, like it or not, parts of this country are RED ... very RED ... and while we have some "democrats" elected in some of those, they are conservatives, basically Republicans. Try this ... go back and look at legislation that passed under Bush, the GOP needed the Blue Dogs, and the Blue Dogs delivered. Those exact same folks vote GOP on the BIG things, including during the last 2 years. What that means is that, to get 5 things we want, we had to give up 2 or 3 things. Or ... do nothing. Which is what the GOP wanted in the first place.

4) Afghanistan. If you voted for Obama, then you knew he was going to add troops there ... he SAID THAT as a candidate. You can bitch all you want about wanting something else ... but on Iraq, and Afganistan, Obama has done EXACTLY what he said he'd do as a candidate. So if you VOTED FOR HIM ... you knew this going in ... and you can not now claim that he did something DIFFERENT when in office.

Last ... as for when you can complain ... as far as I can tell, you have no problem doing that now. And yet your examples of when it might be ok, again, reflect more drama than anything else.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

37. Thanks. I had forgotten to add "drama" to the list

[JoePhilly]

38. I'm not sure how you missed drama ... your OP drps with it ...

But I am completely sure why you did not respond to my point by point response past that.

Those who complained were not attacked endlessly. That claim is total BS.

What happened it this ... people trying to make progress had to stop, on a regular basis, to explain why they had yet to make ENOUGH progress.

It has not mattered which issue the Obama administration worked on ... our side attacked them on some other issue. When they switched focus, they were attacked again for down playing the other issue.

The current Democratic party, we on the left, have the attention span of a fruit fly.

The Bush administration left numerous issues to be addressed, and we on the left expect Obama to fix them all completely, and simultaneously, regardless of Blue Dog or GOP support.

Its not that we are setting HIGH expectations, its that we are setting IMPOSSIBLE expectations.

[Naturyl]

39. Oh, I was already well aware my concerns were trivial.

That's one advantage of being part of the non-working poor. There's nobody more trivial than us, although sadly a lot of other groups are joining us down here lately.

My condolences to those just now getting on the clue train. Not mattering is even less fun than you'd think.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tomp]

51. i don't know what you mean.

obama listens to complaints from the repubs and changes policies accordingly? funny, he doesn't listen to the left wing of his own base and change policies accordingly.

maybe we should all become republicans. that might be the way to get obama's ear.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[txaslftist]

47. The majority party in the presidential election almost always loses seats.

It's statistically very normal.

We need to get over it.

[Man_with_a_plan]

48. Truths

There are truths to these statements. Just as the world keeps spinning, people will complain, Humans will fuck things up, and the politians will lie about it or do what they can to cover it up.

Choose what you believe.

[Lorien]

55. Spot on! The DLC "pragmatists" theories have been completely disproven

it's time for them to get on board in DEMANDING that Democrats start acting like Democrats and work for the people instead of the powerful for a Change.

[leeroysphitz]

58. It's time for the Compromiser In Cheif to eat a little crow and start acting

like he remembers who voted for him. It wasn't the republicans.