Nina Turner: It Is Not Our Job to Fit Into the Democratic Establishment
The new president of Our Revolution on race, class, electoral strategy, and whether we’ll feel the Bern in 2020.Nina Turner is a “proud homegirl” of Cleveland, Ohio, where she was a state senator from 2008 to 2014 and a candidate for secretary of state in 2014. Long viewed as a rising star inside the Democratic Party, Turner began 2015 affiliated
( Read more... )
Anyway, you can literally look at anyone. All development means is they position them for responses nationally, support them monetarily, and make sure they stay the hell out of trouble. Of the women, if your standard isn't Nina Turner progressive (you said viable so I assume you don't necessarily need progressive), you have Tammy Duckworth, who has actual military experience which I consider extremely valuable, and Kamala Harris. You could throw a stone and hit a white dude (Sherrod Brown will still be younger than Sanders). Y'all may not like how corporate they are both both Castros are possible (honestly, again, if you can give them monetary support from less corporations, you can make a pretty good narrative about them becoming more progressive). They also have the same charm as Obama.
Priming a political candidate is not a terribly labor intensive process, but it does require investment by the party and a good idea about who is dynamic to other people.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Again, the first time anyone had even heard the name Obama was at the 2004 DNC. What you need is a galvanizing force, and scandal (unfortunately or fortunately depending on the person) has far less power.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
The quality of the scandal does matter, and that's why you suggesting that Sanders is more viable than any of these women doesn't make sense. Being unethical with money, when Sanders is presenting himself as the guy fighting against economic injustice is just as much as problem as Duckworth's time at the VA. And there's nothing about that article that even suggests scandal for Harris (for a lot of reasons those women are not going to find much support on either side of the isle; one side doesn't give a shit about misogyny, and the other side is going to argue, as they have when this issue comes up regarding refugees in Europe, that portraying Islam as uniquely misogynist, which is what Republicans will do, encourages violence against Muslims, including and perhaps especially Muslim women by non-Muslims, which is an increased risk of danger against them). You can't even argue any of this against Turner, and she will likely have Sanders ~blessing. You're asking for Caesar's law regarding scandal and that's ridiculous and isn't going to happen, legit ever.
If our sisters living under oppression don't even get a fair hearing
If our sisters under oppression don't realize other women shouldn't support them being used as tools to increase violence against their other sisters in oppression...
mascot of US self-image than judged on his merit
What on earth do you think is happening now? Trump is (dubiously) considered 1000% worse than Bush. The US self-image is even MORE of an issue now than it was in 2008. This very specific moment in history is psychologically more amenable to having a candidate who represents the opposite of the previous candidate. Nobody is still talking about either Obama's drone strikes or his deportations, despite the best efforts of the current administration, because Trump is so bad. If ever there was a moment, this is it.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Secondly, I'm not talking about Republicans being the same as Bush. I'm talking atmosphere. This isn't an extinction burst by any means, but this is a part of the cycle. Pretending otherwise is to be incredibly hopeless and to miss opportunity.
Thirdly, it's irresponsible to say that someone isn't viable but also say that you don't have enough information. If you can't argue against Nina Turner with the standards you're using because you don't have enough information, then what the fuck are you making definitive statements for? It's ridiculous to think that Sanders scandal doesn't affect him. Frankly, the fact that it's his wife is worse, and the fact that people are trying to implicate him now, when he's not running for anything, and when most Democrats are perfectly fine with using his influence but ignoring him otherwise, should tell you how bad it could be.
Fourthly, lmao the Tea Party. Where the fuck do you think these particular assholes came from? Again, having actually seen the Tea Party work in the states, unless you're willing to lie to them like Tea Party officials do and explicitly shit on the left and minorities, there's no amount of anger that will get them to see their politics as expansive enough to include others. The exclusion IS THE POINT. And the trump constituency IS extremely loyal, it's just only a third of the base. The other two thirds don't get fired up; they're looking for a win, and if Trump will give them one, then it's fine. Them being uncomfortable is a problem for him.
Lastly, I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or not. Hearings in Congress are there to bolster existing law so that people can re-up when it expires or they're there for existing legislation that being held in abeyance. If they're being held by a Republican, it's so a Republican can get law passed, and so far their actions are to give expansive foreign military power to the executive or to pass discriminatory laws domestically (or bolster the immigration ban). Why don't you explain to me how that helps the misogyny and trauma those women faced or the misogyny and trauma other Muslim women face from both other Muslims and non-Muslims in America and abroad? How exactly is it intersectional to allow a Republican to use this hearing to justify dropping bombs in countries with majority Muslim populations or to make it harder for American Muslims to get their family or to get refugees out of the exact situation those women described? Obama wasn't careful and Trump won't be either. It's not intersectional to allow women to face increased violence and discrimination, because other women chose to use people who would not help them to attempt to address the issue. There is no graph of seriousness (gross), but there should be an understanding that you don't go to the someone with a violent agenda to get your valid issues addressed when that agenda will engender the opposite of a solution and then expect other people to play along.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Trump's politics isn't trickle-down, rather years of Republican dogwhistling led to Trump's foghorning supporters. Here we agree, but frankly, your understanding of the zeitgeist speaks to the opposite perspective more than mine does, which is what I actually expressed if you read what I wrote.
You seem to have trouble comprehending what I wrote.
No you seem not to understand the context in which you wrote. If you comment on an article about Nina Turner, and say there are no viable candidates, and then respond to my refutation of that while being inclusive of Turner in that inviability, but then express ignorance regarding her? That's on you. And it's irresponsible rhetoric. Or manipulative rhetoric, whichever, you choose.
You don't understand the Tea Party or its adherents at all if you think their economic concerns are merely of survival rather than of selfhood. The politics I am so immersed in, the perspective I know so deeply is here. Racism and economics did not appear enmeshed within their demands by coincidence or happenstance. They are of a kind; you will not appeal to one without appealing to the other. They are within the founding understanding of economics, literally Jeffersonian. The racism and xenophobia existed and flourished when the Tea Party base had better economic prospects. It is deliberately crafted to be an existential fear.
who won't address their issues in a good way
I said a violent way.
If dropping bombs is all you can see in any interventionist policy
I said Republicans now. I actually never mentioned interventionist policies in general, nor withdrawal nor anything about removing ourselves from the conflict in the ME. I said that Republicans want to escalate the conflict in a way the deliberately impacts civilians, like those Muslim women. I said Trump and Obama would not be and was not careful, not that they would not or should have refrained. Do you realize your re-framing is rhetorically manipulative and dismissive or no?
Reply
No. Them being at the hearing was part of the Republican agenda.
You acknowledge those are valid issues, but are the Democrats really confronting those?
I mean...in the article you gave me those authors said that the Democrats had in fact shown support for this issue, unless the FGM and rape and torture Islamic extremists visited upon Africa doesn't count for Ayaan and Asra. And Ayaan is being called Islamaphobic by FGM victims and former-Muslims, or do victims only deserve support and belief and to be heard if they agree with Ayaan's rhetoric or methods? I wanted to stay on topic with the choice of venue, but if you're going to be contextless about Ayaan for rhetoric reasons, what's the point? It's not a prima faciedismissal of the trauma that Ayaan and Asra faced to align yourself with other people with the same trauma who find them dangerous, and Ayaan is significant enough for that criticism to be known about her. Your example isn’t really proof of a problem with Harris, unless you’d like to continue to strip all nuance.
Fear of future potential harassment
Again, violence is happening, not just harassment, violence. And to your general point, since it focuses on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and leftist perspective on that far more unsubtly than perhaps you intended? There are many many ways American adherence to one side or another masks anti-Semitism or Islamophobia (you seem like you don’t think it exists, but anyway). That still doesn’t make it understandable to align yourself with people who don’t give enough of a fuck to actually take you seriously, but will strip any nuance of your commentary to enact violence against people just like you openly. Do you really think other racially marginalized groups believe the Democrats and progressives aren’t full of racists? We still ain’t fucking with Republicans on the whole because we know that’s not an option that will do good, and it is an option that will do harm. But like, it’s pretty obvious you either don’t believe or don’t understand how institutional oppression is fed by every and any issue it can be fed by, so….
And if Muslim citizens brought up in European countries keep attacking their own nations, the rest of populace's kneejerk reaction would be to count them as 'monsters in the midst
This understanding of European (Christian, tbh)-Muslim relations is so deplorably ignorant or dismissive of European colonialism. Like even considering the necessary nuance of the long as hell conflict between European Christianity and African and Middle Eastern Islam, I think it’s actually intellectually dishonest to suggest that the European populace didn’t treat their slaves and brown lower classes as exploitable non-people to begin with. Like what fucking historians won’t tell you that European colonialism justified itself with the theory that non-Europeans were monsters. This is downright intellectually bankrupt. You want a quote, dear: “It’s that if you want to make a human being into a monster, deny them, at the cultural level, any reflection of themselves.” -Junot Diaz says. Or hell, read something by Said, who managed to criticize both Israel and Muslim countries and regimes without aligning himself with people who would destroy Muslims.
Reply
Euro-descended white people never tell themselves this, though. They’ll deliberately encourage religious extremism everywhere, and then be shocked and appalled, but they’ve never ever seen themselves of the colonial terrorists they were and are. It’s suspect when a perspective about terrorism never admits or acknowledges this.
I think I'm the only person in this conversation seeing things as they exist. Anyway, I'll keep trucking for liberation that does not require increased destruction against those it seeks to liberate, and you do whatever it is you do.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment