HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » stevenleser » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 91 Next »


Profile Information

Name: RuggedRealist
Gender: Male
Hometown: New York, NY
Home country: USA
Current location: NYC
Member since: Tue Jan 4, 2005, 04:36 PM
Number of posts: 32,886

Journal Archives

I don't know why we couldn't wait until the ethics investigation played out with Franken

That's my main issue. I don't understand what the rush was to force him out. I had trouble believing his first accuser and still do. When more accusations came out I felt that the accusations needed to be taken seriously but I didn't think he should be resigning, at least not right away.

Isn't that what an investigation is for and didn't we have one on the immediate horizon for these accusations?

I understand why folks are upset. However, with regard to that, why is Gillibrand the only one who deserves to be the recipient of all of that fury. This article contains the full list of 32 Democratic Senators and those who caucus with Democrats who, in my opinion and I think the opinion of a lot of folks, jumped the gun here: http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/06/politics/al-franken-democratic-senators-resign/index.html

If Gillibrand deserves our scorn, they all do. That includes people like Sanders, Feinstein, Wyden and Warren.

Gillibrand made this statement according to that article:

"While Senator Franken is entitled to have the Ethics Committee conclude its review, I believe it would be better for our country if he sent a clear message that any kind of mistreatment of women in our society isn't acceptable by stepping aside to let someone else serve."

Why did she and these other folks think a rush to judgement was better here? I don't understand. There is no compelling reason I can think of to have done this.

Tweets that describe the DNC debate and vote RE: Caucuses vs Primaries in States that have both


Sorry am on a phone so I can’t copy all the text of the original tweet or the rest in the series.

Trump, his staff, Republican Leaders and Media personalities know that Russia threw the election to



Joe Biden and Michele Obama are the most popular politicians in America (KOS diary with links)


In any event, Tom P. cited a recent Harvard-Harris poll, which showed Sen. Sanders leading the other named Democratic politicians in favorable/unfavorable ratings. As pointed out by several other commenters, the poll neglected to include Vice-President Joe Biden, which is a fairly glaring oversight, since he appears to be strongly considering a presidential run in 2020.

With that in mind, we might compare the Harvard-Harris poll to other polls over the past year (including one Pennsylvania poll from this month):

PPP (Dec. 2016)


We took an early look ahead to 2020 and how Trump would match up right now against some hypothetical Democratic opponents for reelection. He trails Joe Biden 54/40, Bernie Sanders 52/41, Elizabeth Warren 48/43, Al Franken 46/41, and Cory Booker 45/42 in head to head match ups. Biden (56/33 favorability) and Sanders (53/36) are among the most popular political figures in the country. Voters are more divided on Warren (42/39) and Franken (34/34). Booker is not as well known nationally as the rest of this group yet, coming in at 27/24.

PPP/PA (August 2017)

The new PPP poll that was released today contained, among other things, new information on the favorability ratings of several people and institutions in the news today. Leading the way were First Lady Michelle Obama and Vice President Joe Biden with 54% and 52% favorability ratings respectively.

In any event, declaring Sen. Sanders to be ‘the most popular politician in America’ seems, at the very least, not a well-supported contention.
More polls cited in the diary. None of the polls that have both Biden and Sanders have Sanders ahead of Biden

Time Magazine Person of the Year is most influential person for "Better or Worse"

Several horrible people have been given that award for influencing global events for the worse, as wikipedia notes:

However, Time magazine points out that controversial figures such as Adolf Hitler (1938), Joseph Stalin (1939 and 1942), Nikita Khrushchev (1957), and Ayatollah Khomeini (1979) have also been granted the title for their impacts.


Based on that, I can see an argument for Trump. He has paralyzed the federal government of the US, ruined the western coalition of nations or at least temporarily has thrown it into disarray, has made unprecedented attacks on the US media, attacked net neutrality, attacked efforts to combat global climate change.

Trump's effects on the globe over the last year have been catastrophic.

Has anyone affected the globe for the better or worse more than that?

Real or Parody?


So my fun for tonight was replying to a Twitter account parodying Steve Bannon (thinking it was the real thing) and having a bunch of GOP’ers find that funny. And I was thinking to myself, we have a Republican US President who sides with the Russian President’s side of events on Russian meddling in our election over our intelligence agencies findings and a Republican party running a child molester for US Senate. The line between real and fake/parody has been pretty well blurred GOP trolls, and not by me and Democrats.

If Roem can win her district, Buttigieg can win the Presidency

Just sayin’

JPR Losers revert to form using a gender biased term complaining about Sanders loss of speaking spot


"IMO – now that Hillary and her harpies have successfully removed..."

"18. If this is what feminism is about, please call me a male chauvinist pig:

I’d rather be called their enemy."

Well, they called it themselves

Here is an example of a guy who should be invited to speak at a women's conference

Fredrick Douglass


Frederick Douglass was one of the few men present at the pioneer woman’s rights convention held at Seneca Falls, New York, in July 1848.

"When the true history of the antislavery cause shall be written, women will occupy a large space in its pages, for the cause of the slave has been peculiarly woman's cause." [Life and Times of Frederick Douglass,1881]

"Observing woman's agency, devotion and efficiency in pleading the cause of the slave, gratitude for this high service early moved me to give favorable attention to the subject of what is called "woman's rights" and caused me to be denominated a woman's rights man. I am glad to say I have never been ashamed to be thus designated." [Life and Times of Frederick Douglass,1881]

"[A] woman should have every honorable motive to exertion which is enjoyed by man, to the full extent of her capacities and endowments.

The case is too plain for argument. Nature has given woman the same powers, and subjected her to the same earth, breathes the same air, subsists on the same food, physical, moral, mental and spiritual. She has, therefore, an equal right with man, in all efforts to obtain and maintain a perfect existence."

Douglass' last speech was to the National Council of Women in 1895; he died of a heart attack suffered the evening of the speech.

In 1848, Douglass was the only African American to attend the Seneca Falls Convention, the first women's rights convention, in upstate New York. Elizabeth Cady Stanton asked the assembly to pass a resolution asking for women's suffrage. Many of those present opposed the idea, including influential Quakers James and Lucretia Mott. Douglass stood and spoke eloquently in favor; he said that he could not accept the right to vote as a black man if women could not also claim that right. He suggested that the world would be a better place if women were involved in the political sphere.

In this denial of the right to participate in government, not merely the degradation of woman and the perpetuation of a great injustice happens, but the maiming and repudiation of one-half of the moral and intellectual power of the government of the world.


All of the quotes I pasted above seem normal and average now. They were earthshatteringly shocking at the time.

Bernie speaking on 1st day at Women's conference is a horrible idea & it's easy to show why...

- A non hearing impaired person who hasn't been a particular advocate for the hearing impaired signed to speak on the first day of a conference for the deaf when it is the first conference for the deaf have had in 40 years.

- A non Latino/Hispanic person who hasn't been a particular advocate for the Latino/Hispanic community signed to speak on the first day of a conference for Latinos/Hispanic people when it is the first conference for Latinos in 40 years.

- A white man who hasn't done much for African American rights signed to speak on the the first day of a conference for African Americans when it is the first conference for African Americans in 40 years.

We can keep going. All of the above would be shockingly bad choices. It's all pretty obvious. Women's rights has not been one of Bernie's signature issues. He's probably on the right side of those rights, but that's not his bailiwick.

The decision to have Bernie speak was not about women. That's the problem. This conference is about women.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 91 Next »