"She was warned... given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted"
Talk Pro and Con
Join LibraryThing to post.
This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1LolaWalser
Oh, how familiar this feels! Misogynist scum everywhere attempts to shut up women in their rights in the same way and with the same pretexts. And with most delicious unintended consequences:
Ornery Senate Republicans Just Handed Elizabeth Warren Her Campaign Slogan
That's right, dickheads! Thanks for volunteering! Some favours just can't be bought.
Weirdly--or not--while the Repugnants apparently actually removed Warren from the debate on Sessions, Sanders has just delivered a speech on the same lines, including reading King's letter, without getting interrupted and told to sit and desist.
Ornery Senate Republicans Just Handed Elizabeth Warren Her Campaign Slogan
That's right, dickheads! Thanks for volunteering! Some favours just can't be bought.
Weirdly--or not--while the Repugnants apparently actually removed Warren from the debate on Sessions, Sanders has just delivered a speech on the same lines, including reading King's letter, without getting interrupted and told to sit and desist.
2sturlington
#ShePersisted trending on Twitter: https://twitter.com/hashtag/ShePersisted?src=tren&data_id=tweet%3A8293379192...
3LolaWalser
AHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA! Orrin Hatch whining that Warren treated a fellow senator "with disdain"... Rubio saying this is "flirting" with FIGHTS and THROWING CHAIRS--like they do in those foreign savage countries... moaning about the loss of "DECORUM", the COLLEGIALITY in their ole boys' club....!!!
Great show! You GO, Elizabeth!
Great show! You GO, Elizabeth!
5jjwilson61
I don't see how it can be constitutional to treat Senators differently than other cabinet appointments on the Senate floor. So if you're a President and you don't want the Senate bad-mouthing your cabinet picks just appoint a Senator.
6prosfilaes
>5 jjwilson61: I'm sure it's Constitutional; the Constitution doesn't say much about the President's cabinet. But it's such a stupid ham-fisted application of the rule that I'm sad it was so party-line. Not a single Republican thought it might be unwise to set a practice of limiting criticism of the cabinet appointee?
7jjwilson61
>6 prosfilaes: Well, the constitution gives the Senate the responsibility to advise and consent which it can't do if its not allowed to impugn the character of the appointees.
8timspalding
Weirdly--or not--while the Repugnants apparently actually removed Warren from the debate on Sessions, Sanders has just delivered a speech on the same lines, including reading King's letter, without getting interrupted and told to sit and desist.
Yes, multiple senators pledged to read it aloud, to emphasize the injustice they see here, to support Warren, and prove a point.
The Republicans have clearly decided that continued muzzling of this letter isn't to their benefit.
I can see why some people run to sexism as the answer, but, in my opinion, it's a pretty strange response. This is a partisan fight, not a gender fight. The censure vote was along party, not gender lines. The senators reading it out after Warren weren't trying to show they had a penis and could get away with stuff. They were saying "you're going to have to silence all of us, one by one." McConnell et al. were not trying to shut up all women senators, and cheering Bernie Sanders on for being a man. They wanted to silence critics, and realized that they'd have to silence every single Democratic senator, making the situation worse for them.
Yes, multiple senators pledged to read it aloud, to emphasize the injustice they see here, to support Warren, and prove a point.
The Republicans have clearly decided that continued muzzling of this letter isn't to their benefit.
I can see why some people run to sexism as the answer, but, in my opinion, it's a pretty strange response. This is a partisan fight, not a gender fight. The censure vote was along party, not gender lines. The senators reading it out after Warren weren't trying to show they had a penis and could get away with stuff. They were saying "you're going to have to silence all of us, one by one." McConnell et al. were not trying to shut up all women senators, and cheering Bernie Sanders on for being a man. They wanted to silence critics, and realized that they'd have to silence every single Democratic senator, making the situation worse for them.
9theoria
>1 LolaWalser: Warren's hot speech melted the Senate Republican snowflakes.
10RickHarsch
>8 timspalding: As I see it, sexism is not necessarily 'the answer' as you so oddly put it; but it is impossible with this generation of hogs, as I so eloquently put it, not to see it as part of the problem. Of course Devos was is a woman and was just christened stupid and obedient enough to serve, but Warren is a woman who was disobedient and spoke her mind. Obviously it WAS partisan, but it was not only partisan.
11LolaWalser
>8 timspalding:
I can see why some people run to sexism as the answer, but, in my opinion, it's a pretty strange response. This is a partisan fight, not a gender fight.
Tim, you persist in not getting it. One isn't exclusive of the other in the slightest! Sexism never turns off in a misogynistic society. Racism never turns off in a racist society.
>9 theoria:
Decorum! Decorum! Racist garbage like Strom Thurmond infested that club for half a century, but--ho boy, do they value DECORUM!
I can see why some people run to sexism as the answer, but, in my opinion, it's a pretty strange response. This is a partisan fight, not a gender fight.
Tim, you persist in not getting it. One isn't exclusive of the other in the slightest! Sexism never turns off in a misogynistic society. Racism never turns off in a racist society.
>9 theoria:
Decorum! Decorum! Racist garbage like Strom Thurmond infested that club for half a century, but--ho boy, do they value DECORUM!
12timspalding
>11 LolaWalser:
Certainly, sexism isn't turned off. But for it to "be" sexism in some meaningful sense, you need more than the continued exsitence of sexism. You have to claim that Warren was silenced in part because she was a woman.
That is, just because sexism is always true in our world, and especially true in the Trump administration, doesn't mean that, if an apple falls from a tree, sexism is a good lense for understanding it. Here, you can't say "misogynist scum everywhere attempts to shut up women in their rights" if the shutting up would have happened whether it were Warren or another senator who made the same comments and read the same letter.
Was it because she's a woman? What evidence do you have? Is your opinion falsifiable, or is it just faith? I don't see any evidence, but I see ample evidence of a more general and repeated campaign against criticism and debate. Attempting to claim that the Republicans are fine with a man saying the same thing (you said so in message 4) is a silly, blinkered misinterpretation of how the thing actually played out, and was understood by both sides: Republicans wanted to squash comment. Democrats saw an opportunity to leverage that and called the Republican bluff. Republicans realized they couldn't shut down 48 senators, without blowing it up and hurting Sessions' chances even more.
Certainly, sexism isn't turned off. But for it to "be" sexism in some meaningful sense, you need more than the continued exsitence of sexism. You have to claim that Warren was silenced in part because she was a woman.
That is, just because sexism is always true in our world, and especially true in the Trump administration, doesn't mean that, if an apple falls from a tree, sexism is a good lense for understanding it. Here, you can't say "misogynist scum everywhere attempts to shut up women in their rights" if the shutting up would have happened whether it were Warren or another senator who made the same comments and read the same letter.
Was it because she's a woman? What evidence do you have? Is your opinion falsifiable, or is it just faith? I don't see any evidence, but I see ample evidence of a more general and repeated campaign against criticism and debate. Attempting to claim that the Republicans are fine with a man saying the same thing (you said so in message 4) is a silly, blinkered misinterpretation of how the thing actually played out, and was understood by both sides: Republicans wanted to squash comment. Democrats saw an opportunity to leverage that and called the Republican bluff. Republicans realized they couldn't shut down 48 senators, without blowing it up and hurting Sessions' chances even more.
13lriley
It's odd....in January I was watching campaign like television ads extolling Sessions for the good work he did promoting civil rights back in the 60's and asking NYS'ers to urge Schumer and Gillibrand to confirm him. In my entire life by the way I've never seen a campaign style like ad for a would be cabinet appointee. Who ever came up with that bullshit was stretching absurdity into unchartered territory (my guess it was that Breitbart jerkoff Bannon). Warren reading off Coretta Scott King's letter was the first to directly challenge this phony narrative with something so devastating that what we saw is the republican party circling the wagons around this asshole who is going to become attorney general. McConnell and company were caught out--they can't deny what is plainly true. Now all they want is for the truth to go away.
14cpg
>13 lriley: "In my entire life by the way I've never seen a campaign style like ad for a would be cabinet appointee."
For a supreme court nominee rather than a cabinet appointee, and "against" rather than "for", but there were campaign-style television ads in response to Bork's nomination.
For a supreme court nominee rather than a cabinet appointee, and "against" rather than "for", but there were campaign-style television ads in response to Bork's nomination.
15RickHarsch
What do the quotes signify? I was against Bork, but I don't know if I was "against" him.
17LolaWalser
Just leaving this here--Warren is quoted from a conversation with Trevor Noah:
What's most egregious to Warren, however, about McConnell and his party's actions that night is the way they chose to defend Sessions's past behavior.
“(Coretta) talks about what Jeff Sessions directly did as the U.S. Attorney for Alabama,” Warren said. “And you notice the Republicans are not saying ‘Hey, those aren’t the facts, or something has changed, or he did all these other things afterward.’ No—what they’re saying ‘You don’t get to talk about that.’”
What's most egregious to Warren, however, about McConnell and his party's actions that night is the way they chose to defend Sessions's past behavior.
“(Coretta) talks about what Jeff Sessions directly did as the U.S. Attorney for Alabama,” Warren said. “And you notice the Republicans are not saying ‘Hey, those aren’t the facts, or something has changed, or he did all these other things afterward.’ No—what they’re saying ‘You don’t get to talk about that.’”
18LolaWalser
The banner on Twitter's @POTUS account:
What is misogyny, what is racism, episode 16 billion--that right there. Their expression and programme all in one.
What is misogyny, what is racism, episode 16 billion--that right there. Their expression and programme all in one.
19timspalding
>18 LolaWalser:
No question. It's stacked with men. That's no coincidence. Certainly Trump is a misogynist pig. That doesn't mean that the first and best explanation for literally anything that happens in politics is misogyny. On the contrary, to label misogyny when Senate Republicans use institutional rules against Senate Democrats in predictable, partisan ways isn't misogyny any more than water flowing downhill is misogyny.
To back up the specific allegations here--that the Senate specifically acted to silence women not political opponents trying to kill Sessions' nomination--requires evidence and argument. It's not sufficient to say the actors are misogynist, or the description loses all usefulness and meaning; if every action or vote on any topic at any time no matter what the motive is misogyny, you've lost the ability to call out when misogyny is actually involved.
No question. It's stacked with men. That's no coincidence. Certainly Trump is a misogynist pig. That doesn't mean that the first and best explanation for literally anything that happens in politics is misogyny. On the contrary, to label misogyny when Senate Republicans use institutional rules against Senate Democrats in predictable, partisan ways isn't misogyny any more than water flowing downhill is misogyny.
To back up the specific allegations here--that the Senate specifically acted to silence women not political opponents trying to kill Sessions' nomination--requires evidence and argument. It's not sufficient to say the actors are misogynist, or the description loses all usefulness and meaning; if every action or vote on any topic at any time no matter what the motive is misogyny, you've lost the ability to call out when misogyny is actually involved.
20RickHarsch
>19 timspalding: But it aint a courtroom. They silenced Coretta King and the most vocal female opponent. I would say one can assume misogyny as a contributing factor.
21LolaWalser
>19 timspalding:
That doesn't mean that the first and best explanation for literally anything that happens in politics is misogyny.
Something I never said.
To back up the specific allegations here--that the Senate specifically acted to silence women not political opponents trying to kill Sessions' nomination--requires evidence and argument.
Lol, whatever! Have a nice discussion with yourself!
That doesn't mean that the first and best explanation for literally anything that happens in politics is misogyny.
Something I never said.
To back up the specific allegations here--that the Senate specifically acted to silence women not political opponents trying to kill Sessions' nomination--requires evidence and argument.
Lol, whatever! Have a nice discussion with yourself!
22LolaWalser
I can't find/figure out the following information--why* weren't other senators who read King's letter after Warren rebuked, and what does that imply for her ban (or whatever it is called) from the debate?
*I mean what's the "official" justification for that and how can it stand, if indeed they don't issue an apology to her, retract the ban or whathaveyou.
*I mean what's the "official" justification for that and how can it stand, if indeed they don't issue an apology to her, retract the ban or whathaveyou.
23StormRaven
To back up the specific allegations here--that the Senate specifically acted to silence women not political opponents trying to kill Sessions' nomination--requires evidence and argument.
I don't think Lindsey Graham did the GOP any favors with this comment.
I don't think Lindsey Graham did the GOP any favors with this comment.
24LolaWalser
Article about this on The Globe and Mail, plus, for those of us not on Facebook, Warren's video of reading the letter--currently seen almost 12 million times:
King’s letter and Warren’s stand: Four quotes to explain the ‘she persisted’ meme
King’s letter and Warren’s stand: Four quotes to explain the ‘she persisted’ meme
26RickHarsch
Long overdue--Well Spalding, this is no courtroom and that is not proof. I hope you feel better now that you see more of the ugliness of the event you've steeped yourself judiciously in. Good call.
27jjwilson61
>22 LolaWalser: My understanding was that the Republicans realized that the Democrats wouldn't stop and they were just digging themselves into a deeper hole for every Democrat they silenced so they stopped. Can you imagine the headlines if they rebuked and silenced every Democratic Senator?
28timspalding
>22 LolaWalser:
The answer is quite clear. They silenced Warren, but it backfired massively. Warren's speech went viral online, she toured various shows, newspapers printed the letter (which was otherwise obscure), etc. The Democrats saw that this was gold--it personalized the whole nomination fight in a way that cut through the boring narrative. They realized that the best thing they could do was blow this up more by reading the letter, and fighting the ban extensively. What were the Republicans going to do—hold every single Democratic Senator in contempt? And if they did, GREAT.
By the way, subsequent speeches included two of the other Democratic women senators—Mazie Hirono and Tammy Baldin, who read from the same King letter. I'm not sure why they're ignored in the telling of this narrative.
>22 LolaWalser: LolaWalser: My understanding was that the Republicans realized that the Democrats wouldn't stop and they were just digging themselves into a deeper hole for every Democrat they silenced so they stopped. Can you imagine the headlines if they rebuked and silenced every Democratic Senator?
You are a sexist. It's been proved. All explanations other than sexism prove you're one.
The answer is quite clear. They silenced Warren, but it backfired massively. Warren's speech went viral online, she toured various shows, newspapers printed the letter (which was otherwise obscure), etc. The Democrats saw that this was gold--it personalized the whole nomination fight in a way that cut through the boring narrative. They realized that the best thing they could do was blow this up more by reading the letter, and fighting the ban extensively. What were the Republicans going to do—hold every single Democratic Senator in contempt? And if they did, GREAT.
By the way, subsequent speeches included two of the other Democratic women senators—Mazie Hirono and Tammy Baldin, who read from the same King letter. I'm not sure why they're ignored in the telling of this narrative.
>22 LolaWalser: LolaWalser: My understanding was that the Republicans realized that the Democrats wouldn't stop and they were just digging themselves into a deeper hole for every Democrat they silenced so they stopped. Can you imagine the headlines if they rebuked and silenced every Democratic Senator?
You are a sexist. It's been proved. All explanations other than sexism prove you're one.
29cpg
>15 RickHarsch:
The quotation marks were to signify that I was using the words "against" and "for" as makeshift adjectives.
ETA: "When you use a word that in itself is not unusual, but locate it in a context in which it would have a different nonstandard sense or is jargon related, enclose it in quotation marks." (whitesmoke.com) A preposition being used as an adjective is being used in a nonstandard sense.
The quotation marks were to signify that I was using the words "against" and "for" as makeshift adjectives.
ETA: "When you use a word that in itself is not unusual, but locate it in a context in which it would have a different nonstandard sense or is jargon related, enclose it in quotation marks." (whitesmoke.com) A preposition being used as an adjective is being used in a nonstandard sense.
30LolaWalser
So, days later, still no apology to Warren?
31LolaWalser
And still no formal justification of why others were allowed to read it.
Found one article speculating (no more) about why senator Merkley wasn't treated the same as Warren:
Elizabeth Warren couldn't read this letter on the Senate floor. Why did Jeff Merkley get to?
Found one article speculating (no more) about why senator Merkley wasn't treated the same as Warren:
Elizabeth Warren couldn't read this letter on the Senate floor. Why did Jeff Merkley get to?
32LolaWalser
lol
Nota bene: that would be the feelings of the racist who fought to bar blacks from voting.
Nota bene: that would be the feelings of the racist who fought to bar blacks from voting.
34StormRaven
33: Or to the native Americans they implicitly slur when they use her association with them as an insult.
35LolaWalser
California persists in resisting:
California vs. Trump: Lawmakers Push to Become "Sanctuary State" Despite Threats from Washington
Go solo, California! You know you want to!
California vs. Trump: Lawmakers Push to Become "Sanctuary State" Despite Threats from Washington
Go solo, California! You know you want to!
36jjwilson61
>35 LolaWalser: The only problem is that we'd be condemning the rest of the country to permanent Republicanism.
37prosfilaes
>36 jjwilson61: It would move the parties around. I think the California Republicans would become much more viable, but would have moved far to the left to make that possible. At the same time, the US Democrats would move to the right. I think within a decade, both countries would have a viable pair of parties; it's just the lines and issues would have moved.
38margd
What if the President denies California's request for Major Disaster Declaration, as payback for for unrelated reasons? Has a President ever withheld help for such reasons?
"...Although President Trump has not refused to provide federal aid to California, he also hasn’t yet approved Governor Brown’s request for it. Governor Brown requested a Presidential Major Disaster Declaration on 10 February 2017, but as of this writing President Trump has not responded to it:
Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. requested a Presidential Major Disaster Declaration for the state to bolster ongoing state and local recovery efforts following January storms that caused flooding, mudslides, erosion, power outages and damage to critical infrastructure across California.
Governor Brown also issued an executive order today that adds the counties of Amador, Mono and Riverside to the 49 counties already included in the emergency proclamation issued last month due to January storms. The order also authorizes state funding through the California Disaster Assistance Act for 34 counties impacted by the storms and directs the California Department of Transportation to formally request immediate assistance through the Federal Highway Administration’s Emergency Relief Program for Amador and Riverside counties.
It should be noted that Brown’s request for aid was made prior to issuance of the evacuation order. On 12 February 2017, Brown issued an emergency order to bolster the state’s response to the crisis..."
http://www.snopes.com/trump-federal-aid-california/
"...Although President Trump has not refused to provide federal aid to California, he also hasn’t yet approved Governor Brown’s request for it. Governor Brown requested a Presidential Major Disaster Declaration on 10 February 2017, but as of this writing President Trump has not responded to it:
Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. requested a Presidential Major Disaster Declaration for the state to bolster ongoing state and local recovery efforts following January storms that caused flooding, mudslides, erosion, power outages and damage to critical infrastructure across California.
Governor Brown also issued an executive order today that adds the counties of Amador, Mono and Riverside to the 49 counties already included in the emergency proclamation issued last month due to January storms. The order also authorizes state funding through the California Disaster Assistance Act for 34 counties impacted by the storms and directs the California Department of Transportation to formally request immediate assistance through the Federal Highway Administration’s Emergency Relief Program for Amador and Riverside counties.
It should be noted that Brown’s request for aid was made prior to issuance of the evacuation order. On 12 February 2017, Brown issued an emergency order to bolster the state’s response to the crisis..."
http://www.snopes.com/trump-federal-aid-california/
