PDA

View Full Version : Nevertheless, She Persisted



Mjölnir
02-09-2017, 09:59 AM
NYTimes: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/08/nevertheless-she-persisted-becomes-new-battle-cry-after-mcconnell-silences-elizabeth-warren/?utm_term=.23e99919843e

Senator Warren was rebuked on the floor of the Senate while reading a letter from Martin Luther King Jr's widow into the record -- in opposition to Senator Session's nomination as Attorney General. This has gotten a lot of attention. A couple of points that many are missing:

-She wasn't rebuked for reading a letter from Correta Scott King; she was rebuked for violating Senate Rule XIX, which prohibits impugning a sitting Senator while speaking on the floor, she had called him a "disgrace to the Justice Department". The letter was later read in its entirety by a different Democrat Senator who refrained from calling Sen Sessions a "disgrace".

-Senator McConnell in rebuking her, made this a big deal when it really wasn't ... no one would have paid attention to the late night debate (really stalling the eventual confirmation) had he not rebuked her. The event creating a new motto "Neverless, She Persisted" and actually enabling a fundraising boost for the DNC and Sen Warren.

-Sen Warren's face when she was told to "take a seat" was funny.

I think the Dems are fighting the wrong fight with President Trump's cabinet ... expending capital when they may need it later. Based on the rule change (nuclear option) in 2013, they can slow it down, kick and scream ... he will get his cabinet. Even with the opposition to the Education Secretary, the 2 Republicans that dissented did so as a 'face save' with their constituents, if needed they would have voted to confirm. The current Supreme Court nominee if confirmed will not ideologically shift the Court from when Justice Scalia was there, the next Supreme Court nominee will be where they will need to / want to dig in.

sandsjames
02-09-2017, 11:44 AM
She was not shut down while reading the letter...and the "she persisted" crap all over social media is annoying as hell. She was allowed to complete the letter...not sure why they said that's when it happened. Guess it makes a better story.

Mjölnir
02-09-2017, 11:59 AM
She was not shut down while reading the letter...and the "she persisted" crap all over social media is annoying as hell. She was allowed to complete the letter...not sure why they said that's when it happened. Guess it makes a better story.

I thought it was while reading it and didn't make it all the way through.

Yes, it makes a better story & hash tag though to say it was during it (if she finished) and to say the rebuke was for the letter and not her lead-in to the letter (which was her words ... not Mrs. King's) ... in the same way that it is a better story to call the travel restrictions from President Trumps EO a "Muslim ban" vice that it targeted specific countries (yes predominantly Muslim ones) with higher than average radical extremism.

sandsjames
02-09-2017, 12:15 PM
I thought it was while reading it and didn't make it all the way through.

Yes, it makes a better story & hash tag though to say it was during it (if she finished) and to say the rebuke was for the letter and not her lead-in to the letter (which was her words ... not Mrs. King's) ... in the same way that it is a better story to call the travel restrictions from President Trumps EO a "Muslim ban" vice that it targeted specific countries (yes predominantly Muslim ones) with higher than average radical extremism.

Guess we can't expect things to be much different though...overt lies are the norm, whether coming from the media or from the administration. The assumption from most now is that the majority are just going to look at the headline and not pay attention to the entire story (as happened with you on this story). Unfortunately, there's no where to go to get a non-opinionated, non-partisan news story about anything. There are NO options.

Mjölnir
02-09-2017, 12:23 PM
Guess we can't expect things to be much different though...overt lies are the norm, whether coming from the media or from the administration. The assumption from most now is that the majority are just going to look at the headline and not pay attention to the entire story (as happened with you on this story). Unfortunately, there's no where to go to get a non-opinionated, non-partisan news story about anything. There are NO options.

Media, administration & opposition.

I didn't get my opinion on it from the headline, when I watched the video of it, I thought (still think) she was reading from the letter.

EDIT: Sen Warren's Facebook stream of her reading the letter had more (of the letter) than what she got out on the floor ... I don't think she had finished it (maybe was interjecting her out thoughts at points) ... not sure.

Bos Mutus
02-09-2017, 01:23 PM
-She wasn't rebuked for reading a letter from Correta Scott King; she was rebuked for violating Senate Rule XIX, which prohibits impugning a sitting Senator while speaking on the floor, she had called him a "disgrace to the Justice Department".

I get not wanting to be "impugning" the other Senators during the normal course of business.

But, it seems like that rule should be suspended when they're having a hearing about one particular Senator. How can you have a fair hearing if negative information is not allowed in the hearing?

Also, does he vote on his own nomination?

Mjölnir
02-09-2017, 02:36 PM
I get not wanting to be "impugning" the other Senators during the normal course of business.

But, it seems like that rule should be suspended when they're having a hearing about one particular Senator. How can you have a fair hearing if negative information is not allowed in the hearing?

Negative information can be debated on/introduced into the record (technically the period for Senators to give their speeches for or against is called "debate" for purposes of actions on the floor) ... but there is a difference between calling someone unqualified and calling them a disgrace. As I have been reading about it, what ran Senator Warren afoul of Rule XIX (McConnell) was her own comments (calling Sessions a disgrace) prior to staring the letter from Mrs. King.


Also, does he vote on his own nomination?

In theory he could, however he did not, he voted "present". I don't know of any Senator who ever has voted for their own confirmation, it was a question that came up in a discussion forum with the Clerk's Office when I was working there. There is no rule against it.

garhkal
02-09-2017, 07:30 PM
What gets me is even AFTER being warned reading from that letter violated rule XIX, she and DOZENS of other Dems still persisted to read from it.
SO WHAT was the damn point in ordering her to stop, for violating the rule, if NOT A DOG GAWD DAMN THING happens to her for persistently violating that rule??

sandsjames
02-09-2017, 07:40 PM
What gets me is even AFTER being warned reading from that letter violated rule XIX, she and DOZENS of other Dems still persisted to read from it.
SO WHAT was the damn point in ordering her to stop, for violating the rule, if NOT A DOG GAWD DAMN THING happens to her for persistently violating that rule??

Good lord, man...do you pay any attention to any news? Even the fake stuff? It wasn't about the letter...it was about the comments she made in conjunction with the letter that violated the rule.

Rainmaker
02-09-2017, 07:46 PM
Unfortunately, there's no where to go to get a non-opinionated, non-partisan news story about anything.

There never was a such thing as unbiased media. The only difference is people are aware of it now.

But, we're far better off that the leftist monopoly on information's been busted.

Because at least now we can hear some counterpoints to the globalist narrative & try to draw informed conclusions.

sandsjames
02-09-2017, 08:03 PM
There never was a such thing as unbiased media. The only difference is people are aware of it now.

But, we're far better off that the leftist monopoly on information's been busted.

Because at least now we can hear some counterpoints to the globalist narrative & try to draw informed conclusions.

Yeah, you mean the very small percentage of people who care about an informed decisions? We've had this discussion before in here...you go talk to 10 random people walking down the street and ask them who the VP, or any questions along those lines. Good luck getting more than one person to respond correctly. The hardcore people like you spend the majority of their time browsing different sites in order to come up with ammunition to throw at the other side. The normal, average person, who falls into the extremely large majority, plays Candy Crush while The Bachelor is on in the background. It's hard for those who are addicted to this politics bullshit to understand that most people just don't care past the point of hitting the "share" or "like" button on some meme that looks related to something they might agree with.

Rusty Jones
02-09-2017, 08:07 PM
There never was a such thing as unbiased media. The only difference is people are aware of it now.

There was until Reagan eliminated the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. That's how we got Fox News.

efmbman
02-09-2017, 08:42 PM
There was until Reagan eliminated the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. That's how we got Fox News.

That was an interesting read - thanks for mentioning it.

Rainmaker
02-09-2017, 08:45 PM
That was an interesting read - thanks for mentioning it.

It also coincided with the rise & dominance of CNN.

It was a good fist step. But, the internet really broke it open.

sandsjames
02-09-2017, 08:58 PM
It also coincided with the rise & dominance of CNN.

It was a good fist step. But, the internet really broke it open.

I can't remember anything except for CNN until at least the mid 90's. Even in Desert Shield/Desert storm there was only CNN. Maybe it was just our cable company...not sure. Those were the days when Wolf Blitzer was actually useful. Still remember watching him dive under tables every time the sirens would go off...the first televised war...pretty much set us up for failure with the expectations that every war from that point on could be "shock and awe" and ended in under a week.

Rainmaker
02-09-2017, 09:25 PM
Those were the days when Wolf Blitzer was actually useful. Still remember watching him dive under tables every time the sirens would go off.


Hindsight's 20-20 and looking back, it's clear now that CNN was "Fake News" even then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8Lkp8Lesoo


pretty much set us up for failure with the expectations that every war from that point on could be "shock and awe" and ended in under a week.

They made sure we unleashed hell on them for 6 weeks straight first. That's because real Generals still ran the military then, and not these PC hacks, we have now.

Rainmaker still remember sitting in 20 miles on the Saudi side of the border watching the flash from Daisy cutters being dropped onto entrenched troops.

The unbelievable destruction on the convoy up to KCIA was a sight to behold. Should've taken Bagdad down while they had the forces in-place to occupy it. But, the politicians let 'em off the hook.

sandsjames
02-09-2017, 09:39 PM
They made sure we unleashed hell on them for 6 weeks straight first. That's because real Generals still ran the military then, and not these PC hacks, we have now.

It's a little bit different when there's an actual organized army to fight against.

Bos Mutus
02-09-2017, 09:47 PM
Yeah, you mean the very small percentage of people who care about an informed decisions?

All information is biased to some degree. It's always been a tenet of critical reading to consider the bias and intent.

What these yahoos wanna do now is equate any bias to 'fake news'...delegitimize the media. This allows them to publish any propaganda and it's "just as good, just as trustworthy"...basically, no rules.

Of course with the internet now and social media...anyone can say anything. There is no accountability, no vetting of information. And anonymous, unnamed, unvetted, made up internet stories are "just as good as those biased media outlets."

As I've been saying for awhile, the Information Age is over, we are in the Misinformation Age. The media rightfully gets much of the blame for this...as a profession, it's lost its ethics.

...but, as you say, most people have no desire to make informed decisions anyway. They are fans of a political party...they don't need a rational reason to support a candidate or party, they just root for them because that's their side, like trying to rationalize an informed decision on whether one should root for the Mets or Yankees.


We've had this discussion before in here...you go talk to 10 random people walking down the street and ask them who the VP, or any questions along those lines. Good luck getting more than one person to respond correctly. The hardcore people like you spend the majority of their time browsing different sites in order to come up with ammunition to throw at the other side. The normal, average person, who falls into the extremely large majority, plays Candy Crush while The Bachelor is on in the background. It's hard for those who are addicted to this politics bullshit to understand that most people just don't care past the point of hitting the "share" or "like" button on some meme that looks related to something they might agree with.

Social media, memes, Twitter...are perfect platforms for this. Basically, they are the new version of the bumper sticker. The ultimate straw-man arguments...destroy the opposition by ridiculing a caricature of the other argument to put down brilliantly...add in a funny picture, some snarky obnoxiousness and boom...fans can continue supporting their team

Rainmaker
02-09-2017, 09:52 PM
It's a little bit different when there's an actual organized army to fight against.

CENTCOM wanted 300K troops, bushite Neocon idiots only wanted 80K, so the compromise was they only got 1/2 what the plan called for.

The rest is history. We can what if it to death. But, They blew it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gen-zinni-theyve-screwed-up/

Rainmaker
02-09-2017, 10:05 PM
What these yahoos wanna do now is equate any bias to 'fake news'...delegitimize the media.


yahoos wanna delegitimize the media??!!

The "media" delegitimized itself.

The corruption exposed at CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WPost, Politico, etc, with something like 45 of them getting caught red-handed colluding with the DNC to sway the primary for Hillary, and Donna Brazille's the only one forced to step down and all the polls methodology being proved rigged through statistical oversampling.......

we could go on and on and on..... But, the bias is so plainly obvious (to anyone but the most died in the wool leftist) what's been happening....

It's impossible to believe that anyone could STILL consider them to be anything But, illegitimate.

efmbman
02-09-2017, 11:16 PM
The "media" delegitimized itself.

I would agree with that to some extent. Over the course of the last 20 years, it seems the corporations that own (and thus control) the media outlets picked sides. Over time, they began to pander to their base to ensure those that agreed with them continued to tune in (fulfills the confirmation bias that most people have).

In the worst cases, we have media corporations that own / control multiple media outlets that spew opposing views on political issues just to make sure they have an audience no matter what the subject matter is.

I'm sure some will consider this a conspiracy theory, but how could a major corporation remain impartial when it comes to politics and elections? There are billions of dollars at stake.