talkpolitics | The divide on the left.

Some of the time I feel like things like "net neutrality" and issues of freedom of expression and surveillance take center-stage in our progressive communities and issues like public housing, welfare, min. wage, work safety, don't get much attention at all. If your main concern is addressing poverty and inequality things like "net neutrality" might seem hopelessly abstract. In the same way, I think that some progressives just don't get a lot of issues that are related to poverty and ongoing racism.

"Progressives" need to do a better job of getting to know organizations that work with poor and minority communities. More cross-pollination. There's this gap-- and, frankly, the people with the most resources should do the most reaching to bridge it.

In NYC I've seen good progressive ideas fail since a large number of working class and poor Democrats just don't "get" what the progressives are talking about. It's really easy for whatever lobby it is that benefits from the legislation not getting passed to use some populist BS to piss off these Democrats and get them to pressure the elected officials for the dumbest things. And who can blame them? Progressives rush in at the last moment breathlessly explaining their pet policies. I think some of the organizations who focus on class, gender and race issues just say "where were you when we needed your help?" But in the end everyone loses.

When I have tried to talk about this in the past suddenly EVERYONE who is a self-identified progressive is also suddenly so very "working class" --and they get in a huge huff since they think I'm calling them a bunch of latte-drinkers.

Well, goddammit, a lot of progressives do drink lattes and we (yes, I said "we") don't know enough about the issues that matter to poor and working class Democrats or what the hell we can do to address these issues. In addition, a lot of self-identified progressives don't really 'get' issues that involve race or gender that well either.

ACORN should still be around. So, who's next? The far Right was successful in taking this organization down. And this isn't abstract, it's serious. I have seen the positive impact that they had and it will leave a huge gaping hole. So, since it worked, you can bet the Right is going to do it again. If we let some of our people end up isolated as ACORN was they won't be able to fight back-- I don't think ACORN spent any money on PR people, they wanted every penny to go to the work. That's idealism, and they were eaten alive becuase of it. It doesn't have to be this way, though, if enough people step up to the plate to protect the people who are doing the good work-- maybe we'll get to know each other better and be a more powerful because of it.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

i did bother to look, and all it does is refute just what happened in cali, but my comment was more about your attack of the so called "far right" with someone whom i consider part of the "far left"

Again, go to the office of the attorney general and read it. Maddow makes correct quotations and summaries. She also adds something to the picture by posting old Fox coverage of the whole matter from last year, that's why I use her instead of just the official investigation.
I don't care what you think about Maddow or any other host for that matter, in this case she made a factual and good summary, and the clips from Fox are fucking hilarious.

holy shit calm down damn!
i''m not saying she's wrong or lying. i just thought it was funny you used maddow to me that would be like using glenn beck as your citation.

Why are you saying "calm down"? ...

sealwhiskers seems calm to me?

People get annoyed with the 'ZOMG THE PERSON IS LIBERAL THEY'RE TOTALLY UNBELIEVEABLE LIKE BECK' shtick. No, Beck is unbelievable because he makes shit up and thrives on hyperbole. Just because a person is on the opposite side of the spectrum politically doesn't make them equally wrong. That's called the distributed middle fallacy. Learn it, live it, love it.

calm down

heh, don't disturb my foaming at the mouth dude.. ;)

Okay, you think it's funny that I bash the far right and use Maddow as a source for it. I get it. (you think she's "far left" which I think is a joke)
I however refer back to the actual point of my comment, that Maddow cited a legitimate source correctly (which btw makes your "funny" aspect much less funny, since people like Glenn Beck are notoriously known for citing falsely), and you basically don't disagree with that.

Glad we straightened that out.

thats how i roll :)

so basically you're mistrustful of anybody who isn't on your side despite being unable to cite any evidence beyond difference of subjective opinion as opposed to objective fact.

golly, bipartisanship sure ain't no fool's game no-sirree

No, a liberal citing Maddow is not like a conservative citing Beck.

Maddow has facts; Beck has nonsense and a chalkboard.

Maddow engages in journalism--tho she clearly has a view and isn't afraid to share her view. Beck is not doing journalism, he's doing fear-mongering.

If Beck ever told the truth about anything, why wouldn't a person use him as a source?

The divide on the left.

Re: the far right=bunch of lying tossholes

Re: the far right=bunch of lying tossholes

Re: the far right=bunch of lying tossholes

Re: the far right=bunch of lying tossholes

Re: the far right=bunch of lying tossholes

Re: the far right=bunch of lying tossholes

Re: the far right=bunch of lying tossholes

Re: the far right=bunch of lying tossholes

Re: the far right=bunch of lying tossholes

Re: the far right=bunch of lying tossholes