HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Fumesucker » Journal


Profile Information

Member since: Sat Mar 29, 2008, 09:11 PM
Number of posts: 45,851

Journal Archives

Remember when all us Berniebros were Obama haters before we were Hillary haters?

I went digging around in the DU archives from 2012 and found my own words about the first Obama v Romney debate, the one Obama supposedly "lost" to Rmoney if you listened to the pundits and most of DU at the time.


Obama is a long game player and DU is relentlessly about the short game for the most part.

Obama stood aside and let Romney be Romney and now everybody's talking about the bird.

I think it was Napoleon who said not to interrupt when your enemy is destroying himself.



It wouldn't surprise me if Obama is setting up a kind of political "bank shot"

Makes it look like he clean missed in the first debate but I suspect he's setting Romney up to clean his clock in the second debate.

Of course I don't pay any attention to the media at all so my attitude in this matter is not informed by their horse race coverage.

One big reason for the divisiveness IMO: If you aren't divisive you are talking to yourself

Let's face it, divisive OPs get replies, often lots and lots of replies, those who post divisive OPs get attention, those who don't remain wallflowers.

You can tell the non-divisive but good OPs, they have more recs than replies, sometimes a lot more.


Just like out in real life, the glib talker gets the attention while the person who might actually have something to say that's worth listening to sits in the corner ignored.


How to write an OP in GD that sinks like a stone

1) Avoid snarky and divisive titles

2) Don't broad brush groups

3) Be serious and at least try to see more than one perspective

4) Avoid personal attacks on other DUers

5) Post about something other than the current GD obsession du jour

That's my top five, what are your hints and tips for writing OPs that are guaranteed to drop into total obscurity?

Another site I've been reading since 2002-3 or so is in the can now for Hillary

They haven't had a front page post on the Democratic primary since the debate, it's all about the Republicans or random bullshit.

I stopped bothering to read the threads any more and the place used to be really interesting with all political views from far right to extreme left, now it's establishment Democrats only. All real politics is taking place within the Democratic party these days and they don't want to talk about it.

It made me a bit sad, like losing a long time acquaintance.

The goal of the media until the election is first to milk the candidates for money

Which basically means that some candidates must be kept within remotely plausible striking range of the front runner or else there is no reason for any of them to spend money on ads.

The second goal of the media of course is to make sure that the established system is maintained as nearly as possible to the status quo, that is where their wealth and power flowered and from whence it flows now, radical change is bad because it will upset the power and wealth structure.

Note here that I'm not necessarily talking about some grand conspiracy but rather a lot of different self interests coinciding in similar behavior.

The media has no interest in letting any candidate get too far ahead, no big ad buys in that scenario, no they want a horse race but they want the politician most committed to the status quo to be the eventual winner of that horse race.

The media lost the debate, the American people won it

I think the Patton Oswalt tweet I posted a little while ago sums up the job the media did...

"A Vanderbilt heir is grilling the candidates on socialism."

On the other hand the candidates comported themselves far better than the media did and I think the American people will respond well to hearing some sanity for a change.

Patton Oswalt tweet: A Vanderbilt heir is grilling the candidates on socialism.

I rarely use this smiley but...

Bernie Sanders’ progressive blind spot: The Middle Eastern tragedy he refuses to address


One of the most appealing qualities of Bernie Sanders’ campaign for the presidency is how consistent he is. While Hillary Clinton continually faces questions about her changing positions, Sanders is seen as the good kind of broken record; someone who says what progressives want to hear over and over again, for decades.

But there is one issue about which Sanders used to be much more outspoken, and has in recent years become very quiet: Palestine. Considering the elevated role of the Israel-Palestine issue in progressive circles, and Sanders’ continued success leading up to the primaries, it’s worth revisiting Sanders’ history on the topic and his early approach to foreign policy.

(. . .)

Sander’s basic thinking on Israel-Palestine was on display at a recent event in Chicago; a young Muslim student told him that “progressives have great ideas when it comes to race, class and many other issues, but often not as progressive of ideas when it comes to the Israel-Palestine question. Very simply, could you state your position on Israel-Palestine?”

Sanders responded: “In terms of Israel and Palestine you are looking at one of the more depressing tragedies that has gone on in the world for the last 60 years. And I would not be telling you the truth if I said I have a magical solution. But this is what I do believe. I believe in two simple principles. Number one, Israel has a right to exist in peace and security. The Palestinians are entitled to a state of their own with full political and economic power. That’s the broad view that I hold and I will do everything that I can to make that happen.”

“It was as if you were telling them that Kerry was promising to extend summer into December.”

Interesting article on what the pollsters may be missing, because they don't even know to look for it..

It's a longish read by internet standards and is a cut above the usual Salon fare, IMO.


In 2005, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes published some remarkable journalism on his experience canvassing for John Kerry in Wisconsin, where voters didn’t seem to have any idea that their economic distress was something for which voting could make a difference.

“When I would tell them that Kerry had a plan to lower health-care premiums, they would respond in disbelief—not in disbelief that he had a plan, but that the cost of health care was a political issue,” Hayes reported. “It was as if you were telling them that Kerry was promising to extend summer into December.”

(. . .)

Data-driven analysis is only as good as the categories by which you sift the information. If you’ve already decided that “liberals” are the people who prefer locally sourced arugula to eating at McDonald’s, or are the people who don’t watch Fox News, it is a reasonable conclusion that there aren’t enough “liberals” out there to elect Bernie Sanders. Yet political categories shift. One of the things the best politicians do is work to shift them.

Sanders has been extraordinarily clear about the kind of shift he’d like to effect: Republicans “divide people on gay marriage. They divide people on abortion. They divide people on immigration. And what my job is, and it’s not just in blue states. . . [is] to bring working people together around an economic agenda that works. People are sick and tired of establishment politics; they are sick and tired of a politics in which candidates continue to represent the rich and the powerful.”

OpEd: Which group experiences the worst discrimination in the US? Non Custodial Parents

Posted without comment.


Non custodial parents are the approved 21st century whipping boys (and girls). Non Custodial Parents are the only group where there is next to zero support from those not in our situation. There are plenty of men who fight for women’s rights, plenty of non-blacks and straights who fight for African American and Gay rights. Who stands with Non Custodial Parents?

Our children are torn from us, and more often than not the custodial parent seeks to emotionally isolate and alienate the non custodial parent from the child/children. Two of the three branches of state and federal governments, who should be fighting to protect the rights of all of their citizens, are positioned against us, the legislature and the judiciary. Instead of support or empathy, the only time one of our group is noticed is if they are late in paying or haven’t paid child support, or if they lose it and say or do something they shouldn’t. For the record, I do not know anyone who is in the process of becoming or who is a non custodial parent who hasn’t lost it at some point and I don’t want to meet anyone who hasn’t. If you love and care about your children, I don’t see how you could stay completely sane during this systematic bullying by the system. I don’t see David Hasselhoff and Alec Baldwin the same as the rest of the country and world see them. I’ve been there. My daughter and I were exceptionally close until my ex wife decided to punish me for divorcing her by taking custody away from me. I lost it completely and became incredibly depressed for nearly two years. If you love your child and someone takes them away from you, I guarantee you that at least part of your sanity will not be far behind.

Child Support and every other weekend visits (or less) make the Iraq war look like brilliant policy. There is a simple alternative that is psychologically and emotionally much better for the children, is more fair, and doesn’t encourage one of the parents to use the children as a weapon against the other parent. Its called “Fully Equal and Shared Custody”. One parent has the children for X amount of time, the other has the children next for the same amount of time. They have the children equal amounts of time, thus they each pay for the children’s expenses when the child lives with them, making the arbitrary and capricious amounts set for Child Support unnecessary, inappropriate and irrelevant. The question is, does anyone care?

Karl Rove pioneered the political tactic of attacking the strengths of an opponent

It's both enlightening and entertaining watching a poster who unfavorably compared Hillary Clinton to Karl Rove apply the Rovian attack-the-strength tactic right here in GD-P.

Swiftboating, it's not just for Republicans any more.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next »