Anti-immigration conservatives have been using the Goomergate insult "cuck" to refer to people who subserviently allow society at large to get trampled over for the sake of "multiculturalism" or "diversity" or other liberal ideas. I've started calling it the Cuckolding Conspiracy.
Nah, you've got the origins backwards. It started with the alt-right types, and spread to gamergate thanks to the enormous overlap between those two groups. It happened fast enough that it was practically simultaneous, though.
The etymology of these things is always fascinating. Should write a book.
Bernie's potential delegates in Nevada forgot they had to be members of the Democratic Party to be credentialed, so over 50 were denied delegate positions at the national convention. r/sandersforpresident has imploded over this.
Between feeling ill and cruddy weather, I spent way too much time on social media Sunday. For whatever reason, I ended up debating with with multiple Bernie-or-Busters. I went into it hoping to learn, exchange ideas, and maybe come away with some insight into why the thought of Hillary Clinton as president is so onorous to so many. It was fun until it became deeply disturbing.
My primary point of view was and remains: Even if someone considers Former Secretary Clinton as the lesser of two evils, can't they concede that she is still vastly superior to Trump? I can respect supporting Senators Sanders, but I cannot understand the passionate hatred for Former Secretary Clinton. Did the republican smear campaign that began in the 90's really sway so many into believing that she is some great Satan? Are there legitimate reasons to disagree with some aspects of her long political career? Sure, but no more or less than most career politicians so far as I can tell. So, why abstain from voting for her in order to quash a Trump presidency?
I received very similar responses from all three people. These three are by no means a true sample set, so I am trying not to project their points of views upon others. I paraphrase their points here:
1) Former Secretary Clinton "seems shady" and untrustworthy but when I pointed out the similarities between her political career and most career politicians including Senator Sanders, somehow she was worse but no one could tell me specifically why. It was just a "feeling."
2) After some debate, all agreed that Senator Sanders's presidency would likely not improve key issues any more than Clinton's would (given the limited powers of the president and an potentially obstructive House and Senate), but that he could inspire the masses to engage in an ambiguous political revolution. (I heard the same thing regarding President Obama, Howard Dean, etc. I will believe it when I see it and, given that Senator Sanders lacks the charisma of many other so-called revolutionary progressives, I am even more skeptical.)
3) That a Trump presidency would inspire a revolution, when asked to clarify what such a revolution would entail, all stated that they would anticipate amd even welcome a violent uprising. One even likened Trump to Hitler (her words not mine), but she seemed to welcome the idea of doing actual battle against "evil."
Specific policies of any candidate were never incorporated or invoked by these people beyond vague references to Sanders supporting the working class and Clinton having "bad policies that have hurt the poor at home and overseas." When asked for specifics, my requests were ignored.
I am almost as disturbed by these people's reactions as I am by avid Trump supporters. The "my way or burn it to the ground" attitude could undo the progress we've made in repairing the nation post-President Bush. It is also the same mentality of the obstructionist stance adopted by the Republican party. It is reckless, shortsighted, immature, and hypocritical.
3 Supreme Court Justices, contol of the military, and my lack of funds to facilitate a move out of the country. That's all the reason I need to vote for whoever becomes the democratic nominee (it's going to be Clinton).
I've been trying a more roundabout discussion with my Bernie or Bust people. Trying to convince them that they should vote strategically depending on the state they are in. It's actually working on some except for the ones that are hopeless lost in the USUNCUT and posting republican propaganda videos even though they themselves are Greens.
The good part, is in talking to a lot of my Bernie or Bust friends they generally were not Democratic voters anyhow, and tended to vote third party or something else before (and maybe came over for Obama) I suspect that % is pretty actually low and a great deal of them when exposed to the campaign that is coming will come around. No point in pushing hard right now there is 5 months of this.
I don't like to get into lengthy debates with those sorts of people. I try to cut to the heart of the issue, and this is just about the best way I've been able to on this issue.
"According to an Atlanta Police Department report obtained by The Daily Beast, both parties “began a conversation about politics which got Mr. Pierce upset.” (Pierce, a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter, was allegedly infuriated when he learned he was talking to a Bernie Sanders fan.) The fight did not begin at a bar, as previously reported, but on the 23rd floor of the hotel. The woman told police that “she and her two friends were sitting in the hallway on the 23rd floor when Mr. Pierce and his girlfriend exited the elevator. Both groups of parties began a conversation about politics which got Mr. Pierce upset.”"
"“The people will have a chance to vote. If Donald Trump is elected president there will be a great opportunity to sit down and have a conversation about what that agenda looks like,” explained Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), who has long backed Hillary Clinton. “If he’s president, we’re going to have disagreement. But we’d better all figure out how to come up with an agenda for the American people.”"
Well with a foreign name like Markos Moulitsas, I can understand why you dislike it so, but I assure you, he's 100% American, born and raised in Chicago. Also, when your very next post is to link to a video game and humor site as a summary of what happened, you don't get to throw stones.
Is there a good TL;DR of what actually happened in Nevada?
Not really TL:DRs, if that one is too long. But here's the short version - Bernie Sanders had 2,124 slots at the State Convention and Clinton got 1,722, based on prior results. At the actual state convention, once all the alternates were in and seated, and the whole thing had shaken out, Clinton had 1,695 slots filled and Bernie had 1,662, meaning that Clinton had 27 empty slots, Bernie had 426 vacant, giving Clinton the victory by 33 delegates.
There were 64 potential delegates for sanders, six were seated after investigation found them eligible, and the other 58 were ineligible for various reasons, for example, failure to register as democrats by May 1st(Including one, hilariously, who did switch his registration - AWAY from the Democrats, to the Greens), their information(name, date of birth, etc) could not be found or identified, and they didn't respond to repeated requests from both the convention and the Sanders Campaign. Of that sixty-four, only eight even bothered to register for the state convention, six of those eight being seated, two being turned away for the above two reasons. Of the ineligible 58, only eight even bothered to show up, with the remaining 50 being completely MIA.
The eight who did show up, but were turned away due to being ineligible, would not have changed the result if the campaign and supporters got their wish and allowed them to be seated, it would have simply narrowed clinton's margin of victory to 25 delegates.
Eight potential hillary delegates were also turned away for failure to register for the party, or missing information.
So much for the claims of Voter Suppression by our xenophobic friend up there. Turns out, if you don't show up, and you don't follow the rules, you don't get a vote.
Well with a foreign name like Markos Moulitsas, I can understand why you dislike it so, but I assure you, he's 100% American, born and raised in Chicago. Also, when your very next post is to link to a video game and humor site as a summary of what happened, you don't get to throw stones.
Is there a good TL;DR of what actually happened in Nevada?
Not really TL:DRs, if that one is too long. But here's the short version - Bernie Sanders had 2,124 slots at the State Convention and Clinton got 1,722, based on prior results. At the actual state convention, once all the alternates were in and seated, and the whole thing had shaken out, Clinton had 1,695 slots filled and Bernie had 1,662, meaning that Clinton had 27 empty slots, Bernie had 426 vacant, giving Clinton the victory by 33 delegates.
There were 64 potential delegates for sanders, six were seated after investigation found them eligible, and the other 58 were ineligible for various reasons, for example, failure to register as democrats by May 1st(Including one, hilariously, who did switch his registration - AWAY from the Democrats, to the Greens), their information(name, date of birth, etc) could not be found or identified, and they didn't respond to repeated requests from both the convention and the Sanders Campaign. Of that sixty-four, only eight even bothered to register for the state convention, six of those eight being seated, two being turned away for the above two reasons. Of the ineligible 58, only eight even bothered to show up, with the remaining 50 being completely MIA.
The eight who did show up, but were turned away due to being ineligible, would not have changed the result if the campaign and supporters got their wish and allowed them to be seated, it would have simply narrowed clinton's margin of victory to 25 delegates.
Eight potential hillary delegates were also turned away for failure to register for the party, or missing information.
So much for the claims of Voter Suppression by our xenophobic friend up there. Turns out, if you don't show up, and you don't follow the rules, you don't get a vote.
You can continue your racist projecting all you like. I find the notion that someone who is white is playing the victim of prejudice rather old hat but still a little funny and pitiful. Can't say I'm not used to it. After this I'm not responding to you anymore. Conversation is fine and everything so thanks but no thanks.
I didn't say racist, I said xenophobic. And if you don't like being called xenophobic, hey, you're the one that tried to say that us foreign types don't get an opinion and should be ignored. Maybe don't say xenophobic things, you won't get called a xenophobe. The option to recant is always there.
My lol wasn't an invitation to start one. I'm not interested in one. I refused when a conversation was offered. I was simply stating that plainly rather than going the route of completely ignoring the offer. Make of that what you will.
In an article linked in the above article, it is explained that the money would come from the "Heat and Eat" program wherein some people are automatically being signed up for benefits for which they may or may not qualify:
Here’s how “Heat and Eat” works: In most states across the country, people who spend more than half their income on housing and utilities are eligible for deductions which increase their benefit levels. For the most part, that means food stamp recipients need to show state agencies their housing and utility bills in order to claim the deduction. But in “Heat and Eat” states, anyone who qualifies for energy assistance is assumed to also qualify for the shelter deduction. That means that state agencies can automatically increase how much their citizens receive in food stamps by giving them a purely symbolic energy subsidy. Anyone who receives even $1 in energy assistance is eligible for more food stamp benefits than they would otherwise receive.
If the proposed $8.7 billion cut went through, then only people who receive a minimum of $20 in energy assistance would qualify for the deduction. Last week, the Washington Post editorial board said that would mean closing a massive “loophole” in nutrition law which provides some food stamp recipients with unearned benefit hikes.
“While technically legal and undoubtedly well-intended, this maneuver results in many people receiving money based on utility expenses they did not actually incur,” wrote the Post’s editorial board. http://www.msnbc.com/all/food-stamp-users-face-another-hit
I am neither stating that we in the US provide enough for those in need nor that adding administrative barriers to accessing welfare/foodstamps funds is a good thing. I am merely pointing out that they are removing the automatic assumption that anyone who receives a certain type of benefits is qualified under current laws to receive another type of benefits. That seems less outrageous than the sensationalized headline makes it seem.
In an article linked in the above article, it is explained that the money would come from the "Heat and Eat" program wherein some people are automatically being signed up for benefits for which they may or may not qualify:
Here’s how “Heat and Eat” works: In most states across the country, people who spend more than half their income on housing and utilities are eligible for deductions which increase their benefit levels. For the most part, that means food stamp recipients need to show state agencies their housing and utility bills in order to claim the deduction. But in “Heat and Eat” states, anyone who qualifies for energy assistance is assumed to also qualify for the shelter deduction. That means that state agencies can automatically increase how much their citizens receive in food stamps by giving them a purely symbolic energy subsidy. Anyone who receives even $1 in energy assistance is eligible for more food stamp benefits than they would otherwise receive.
If the proposed $8.7 billion cut went through, then only people who receive a minimum of $20 in energy assistance would qualify for the deduction. Last week, the Washington Post editorial board said that would mean closing a massive “loophole” in nutrition law which provides some food stamp recipients with unearned benefit hikes.
“While technically legal and undoubtedly well-intended, this maneuver results in many people receiving money based on utility expenses they did not actually incur,” wrote the Post’s editorial board. http://www.msnbc.com/all/food-stamp-users-face-another-hit
I am neither stating that we in the US provide enough for those in need nor that adding administrative barriers to accessing welfare/foodstamps funds is a good thing. I am merely pointing out that they are removing the automatic assumption that anyone who receives a certain type of benefits is qualified under current laws to receive another type of benefits. That seems less outrageous than the sensationalized headline makes it seem.
In the article you quoted:
"Opponents of the new proposal view “Heat and Eat” as a crucial instrument for bringing more food assistance to many of those who need it most. Caryn Long, director of the food bank coalition Feeding Pennsylvania, emphasized that “Heat and Eat” policies benefited those who already qualified for both food stamps and energy assistance.
“They may be receiving a minimal benefit not because they’re not eligible for more, but because federal funding for the LIHEAP [energy assistance] program has been significantly cut,” she said. As msnbc reported earlier this week, federal energy assistance has been cut by one-third over the past three years.
In Pennsylvania alone, Feeding Pennsylvania estimates that the proposed cuts will cost food stamp recipients $136 million per year. That amounts to roughly 51 million meals annually, nearly half the number of meals which the food bank coalition provided to low-income Pennsylvania residents last year.
“There’s no way we can double our capacity to meet the need from these people who are going to lose [food stamp] benefits,” said Long, who added that she expected disabled and elderly food stamp recipients to be affected most significantly by the proposed cut.
Rep. McGovern told msnbc he intends to vote against any Farm Bill which includes the proposed cuts.
“I am not going to support a Farm Bill that increases hunger, period,” he said.
Although the White House has made clear its desire to pass a new Farm Bill, the debate over food stamps could make it impossible. Progressive Democrats have already signalled their willingness to kill the bill if that means preventing substantial cuts to the program, and some conservative Republicans might reject the proposed $8.7 billion cut as too small. In May, some House Republicans crossed the aisle to vote against a $20.5 billion food stamp cut which they didn’t consider steep enough.
But even if food stamp benefits stay frozen at current levels for now, the program is due for a second “hunger cliff” in the next couple of years, when a $6 billion automatic cut kicks in.
“The government benefit in itself is not adequate, and states are struggling to help families and senior citizens to get by,” said McGovern. In a follow-up email, his office cited some of his constituents as an example. They included a senior citizen named William who receives $181 per month in food stamps and is struggling to cover medical expenses not covered by Medicaid. If the proposed cut goes through, said a McGovern spokesperson, then William would lose $80 per month in SNAP benefits.
“To just randomly pick a number, $8 billion, and go after this particular provision when there’s been no hearings to figure out what the consequences are…that’s just not the way we should be doing this,” said McGovern."
Seems like the title isn't that inflammatory at all. And the pro-cuts side talks about "program misuse" sounds like they are blaming poor people for receiving inadequate benefits and politicians for wanting to feed the hungry.
"Despite such data points, some Democrats remain bullish that the hill is too steep for Trump to climb. “Will he have some appeal to working-class Dems in Levittown or Bristol? Sure,” said Ed Rendell, the former Pennsylvania governor and Philadelphia mayor, who won landslides in the suburbs. “For every one he’ll lose one and a half, two Republican women. Trump’s comments like, ‘You can’t be a 10 if you’re flat-chested,’ that’ll come back to haunt him. There are probably more ugly women in America than attractive women. People take that stuff personally.”"
Seems like the title isn't that inflammatory at all. And the pro-cuts side talks about "program misuse" sounds like they are blaming poor people for receiving inadequate benefits and politicians for wanting to feed the hungry.
When compared to what the Republicans who control Congress wanted and the many necessary provisions within the bill, it seems to be pointing the blame at the Obama administration for making a reasonable compromise instead of blaming the Republicans for tying any such cuts to the bill in the first place. So yeah, still pretty sensationalized, I would say.
FiveThirtyEight had a piece on Tuesday pointing to evidence that Pennsylvania's probably the most likely swing state after Ohio and Florida for this election, and Trump seems to have a stronger appeal to the Appalachian belt than the best couple Republican candidates. So watch that state.
Comments
My primary point of view was and remains: Even if someone considers Former Secretary Clinton as the lesser of two evils, can't they concede that she is still vastly superior to Trump? I can respect supporting Senators Sanders, but I cannot understand the passionate hatred for Former Secretary Clinton. Did the republican smear campaign that began in the 90's really sway so many into believing that she is some great Satan? Are there legitimate reasons to disagree with some aspects of her long political career? Sure, but no more or less than most career politicians so far as I can tell. So, why abstain from voting for her in order to quash a Trump presidency?
I received very similar responses from all three people. These three are by no means a true sample set, so I am trying not to project their points of views upon others. I paraphrase their points here:
1) Former Secretary Clinton "seems shady" and untrustworthy but when I pointed out the similarities between her political career and most career politicians including Senator Sanders, somehow she was worse but no one could tell me specifically why. It was just a "feeling."
2) After some debate, all agreed that Senator Sanders's presidency would likely not improve key issues any more than Clinton's would (given the limited powers of the president and an potentially obstructive House and Senate), but that he could inspire the masses to engage in an ambiguous political revolution. (I heard the same thing regarding President Obama, Howard Dean, etc. I will believe it when I see it and, given that Senator Sanders lacks the charisma of many other so-called revolutionary progressives, I am even more skeptical.)
3) That a Trump presidency would inspire a revolution, when asked to clarify what such a revolution would entail, all stated that they would anticipate amd even welcome a violent uprising. One even likened Trump to Hitler (her words not mine), but she seemed to welcome the idea of doing actual battle against "evil."
Specific policies of any candidate were never incorporated or invoked by these people beyond vague references to Sanders supporting the working class and Clinton having "bad policies that have hurt the poor at home and overseas." When asked for specifics, my requests were ignored.
I am almost as disturbed by these people's reactions as I am by avid Trump supporters. The "my way or burn it to the ground" attitude could undo the progress we've made in repairing the nation post-President Bush. It is also the same mentality of the obstructionist stance adopted by the Republican party. It is reckless, shortsighted, immature, and hypocritical.
3 Supreme Court Justices, contol of the military, and my lack of funds to facilitate a move out of the country. That's all the reason I need to vote for whoever becomes the democratic nominee (it's going to be Clinton).
The good part, is in talking to a lot of my Bernie or Bust friends they generally were not Democratic voters anyhow, and tended to vote third party or something else before (and maybe came over for Obama) I suspect that % is pretty actually low and a great deal of them when exposed to the campaign that is coming will come around. No point in pushing hard right now there is 5 months of this.
#BobbyOrBust
"According to an Atlanta Police Department report obtained by The Daily Beast, both parties “began a conversation about politics which got Mr. Pierce upset.” (Pierce, a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter, was allegedly infuriated when he learned he was talking to a Bernie Sanders fan.) The fight did not begin at a bar, as previously reported, but on the 23rd floor of the hotel.
The woman told police that “she and her two friends were sitting in the hallway on the 23rd floor when Mr. Pierce and his girlfriend exited the elevator. Both groups of parties began a conversation about politics which got Mr. Pierce upset.”"
"“The people will have a chance to vote. If Donald Trump is elected president there will be a great opportunity to sit down and have a conversation about what that agenda looks like,” explained Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), who has long backed Hillary Clinton. “If he’s president, we’re going to have disagreement. But we’d better all figure out how to come up with an agenda for the American people.”"
For Obama, an Unexpected Legacy of Two Full Terms at War
Of course, personal comment, so take that how you will. My take on the campaign statement is a lot shorter.
It has some videos if you would like to see clips of the ordeal.
There were 64 potential delegates for sanders, six were seated after investigation found them eligible, and the other 58 were ineligible for various reasons, for example, failure to register as democrats by May 1st(Including one, hilariously, who did switch his registration - AWAY from the Democrats, to the Greens), their information(name, date of birth, etc) could not be found or identified, and they didn't respond to repeated requests from both the convention and the Sanders Campaign. Of that sixty-four, only eight even bothered to register for the state convention, six of those eight being seated, two being turned away for the above two reasons. Of the ineligible 58, only eight even bothered to show up, with the remaining 50 being completely MIA.
The eight who did show up, but were turned away due to being ineligible, would not have changed the result if the campaign and supporters got their wish and allowed them to be seated, it would have simply narrowed clinton's margin of victory to 25 delegates.
Eight potential hillary delegates were also turned away for failure to register for the party, or missing information.
So much for the claims of Voter Suppression by our xenophobic friend up there. Turns out, if you don't show up, and you don't follow the rules, you don't get a vote.
Now, as for longer versions.
Wapo.
The NV Democrats version. And more, but basically repeating the same points.
Slate.
A delegate gives her personal account.
In the article you quoted:
"Opponents of the new proposal view “Heat and Eat” as a crucial instrument for bringing more food assistance to many of those who need it most. Caryn Long, director of the food bank coalition Feeding Pennsylvania, emphasized that “Heat and Eat” policies benefited those who already qualified for both food stamps and energy assistance.
“They may be receiving a minimal benefit not because they’re not eligible for more, but because federal funding for the LIHEAP [energy assistance] program has been significantly cut,” she said. As msnbc reported earlier this week, federal energy assistance has been cut by one-third over the past three years.
In Pennsylvania alone, Feeding Pennsylvania estimates that the proposed cuts will cost food stamp recipients $136 million per year. That amounts to roughly 51 million meals annually, nearly half the number of meals which the food bank coalition provided to low-income Pennsylvania residents last year.
“There’s no way we can double our capacity to meet the need from these people who are going to lose [food stamp] benefits,” said Long, who added that she expected disabled and elderly food stamp recipients to be affected most significantly by the proposed cut.
Rep. McGovern told msnbc he intends to vote against any Farm Bill which includes the proposed cuts.
“I am not going to support a Farm Bill that increases hunger, period,” he said.
Although the White House has made clear its desire to pass a new Farm Bill, the debate over food stamps could make it impossible. Progressive Democrats have already signalled their willingness to kill the bill if that means preventing substantial cuts to the program, and some conservative Republicans might reject the proposed $8.7 billion cut as too small. In May, some House Republicans crossed the aisle to vote against a $20.5 billion food stamp cut which they didn’t consider steep enough.
But even if food stamp benefits stay frozen at current levels for now, the program is due for a second “hunger cliff” in the next couple of years, when a $6 billion automatic cut kicks in.
“The government benefit in itself is not adequate, and states are struggling to help families and senior citizens to get by,” said McGovern. In a follow-up email, his office cited some of his constituents as an example. They included a senior citizen named William who receives $181 per month in food stamps and is struggling to cover medical expenses not covered by Medicaid. If the proposed cut goes through, said a McGovern spokesperson, then William would lose $80 per month in SNAP benefits.
“To just randomly pick a number, $8 billion, and go after this particular provision when there’s been no hearings to figure out what the consequences are…that’s just not the way we should be doing this,” said McGovern."
Seems like the title isn't that inflammatory at all. And the pro-cuts side talks about "program misuse" sounds like they are blaming poor people for receiving inadequate benefits and politicians for wanting to feed the hungry.
"Despite such data points, some Democrats remain bullish that the hill is too steep for Trump to climb. “Will he have some appeal to working-class Dems in Levittown or Bristol? Sure,” said Ed Rendell, the former Pennsylvania governor and Philadelphia mayor, who won landslides in the suburbs. “For every one he’ll lose one and a half, two Republican women. Trump’s comments like, ‘You can’t be a 10 if you’re flat-chested,’ that’ll come back to haunt him. There are probably more ugly women in America than attractive women. People take that stuff personally.”"
Jesus the Democrats need better advocates.