HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I supported the status qu...

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 10:54 PM

I supported the status quo

Meals on Wheels
The EPA
NEA and NEH
The State Department
The Voting Rights Act
Equal Rights
Equal pay for equal work
a DOJ that prosecuted hate crimes
A DOJ that enforced voting rights
A DOJ that defined freedom from rape as enforceable under Title IX
A White House that valued diversity rather than White Supremacy
ACA
A President who didn't insult our allies
A time when the US held elections without interference by a foreign power
When the government respected science
When hatred of immigrants and Muslims wasn't promoted from the Oval Office
When we had a president that respected all Americans, regardless of race, gender, religion or sexuality.

Now that status quo has been shattered, and there is nothing I want more than for it to be restored.


158 replies, 5824 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 158 replies Author Time Post
Reply I supported the status quo (Original post)
BainsBane Sunday OP
JHan Sunday #1
we can do it Sunday #6
DemocratSinceBirth Sunday #2
we can do it Sunday #3
BainsBane Sunday #4
JHan Sunday #5
sharedvalues Sunday #13
susanna Tuesday #96
sharedvalues Tuesday #146
susanna Yesterday #158
susanna Tuesday #95
Warren DeMontague Sunday #7
JHan Sunday #8
BainsBane Sunday #15
brer cat Monday #21
JHan Monday #22
BainsBane Monday #28
JHan Monday #59
susanna Tuesday #97
uponit7771 Monday #19
Gothmog Tuesday #148
Maru Kitteh Sunday #9
Jamaal510 Sunday #10
NanceGreggs Sunday #11
sheshe2 Sunday #12
Docreed2003 Sunday #14
uponit7771 Sunday #16
JI7 Sunday #17
BainsBane Monday #18
YoungDemCA Tuesday #136
bekkilyn Tuesday #138
BainsBane Tuesday #140
Gothmog Tuesday #149
Cha Monday #27
ailsagirl Monday #77
Cha Monday #81
BainsBane Monday #87
Hekate Monday #20
grantcart Monday #23
BainsBane Monday #25
fleabiscuit Monday #24
Cha Monday #26
BainsBane Monday #32
Cha Monday #33
DesertRat Monday #29
raven mad Monday #30
denvine Monday #69
fun n serious Monday #31
Blue_Warrior Monday #34
BainsBane Monday #35
Blue_Warrior Monday #36
BainsBane Monday #37
BainsBane Monday #38
Blue_true Monday #71
Vinca Monday #39
ucrdem Monday #40
BainsBane Monday #41
ucrdem Monday #43
BainsBane Monday #45
BainsBane Monday #46
betsuni Monday #42
BainsBane Monday #47
betsuni Monday #48
retrowire Monday #66
betsuni Monday #74
retrowire Monday #76
BainsBane Monday #86
JI7 Tuesday #88
betsuni Tuesday #91
betsuni Tuesday #90
BainsBane Tuesday #92
betsuni Tuesday #93
mcar Monday #44
Recursion Monday #49
BainsBane Monday #50
msanthrope Monday #51
BainsBane Monday #63
NurseJackie Monday #52
ismnotwasm Monday #53
NCTraveler Monday #54
KPN Monday #55
BainsBane Monday #56
KPN Monday #57
BainsBane Monday #58
Post removed Monday #60
BainsBane Monday #62
Gothmog Monday #61
IronLionZion Monday #64
retrowire Monday #65
BainsBane Monday #67
ismnotwasm Monday #68
BainsBane Monday #70
Blue_true Monday #73
JHan Tuesday #128
Blue_true Monday #72
retrowire Monday #75
BainsBane Monday #82
JI7 Tuesday #89
BainsBane Tuesday #98
retrowire Tuesday #99
betsuni Tuesday #100
retrowire Tuesday #101
JI7 Tuesday #102
retrowire Tuesday #103
JI7 Tuesday #104
retrowire Tuesday #105
BainsBane Tuesday #107
Gothmog Tuesday #150
JI7 Tuesday #108
retrowire Tuesday #109
JI7 Tuesday #112
BainsBane Tuesday #117
Ron Green Tuesday #110
BainsBane Tuesday #126
bekkilyn Tuesday #135
betsuni Tuesday #139
NurseJackie Tuesday #147
Cha Tuesday #153
BainsBane Tuesday #114
bekkilyn Tuesday #137
BainsBane Tuesday #106
retrowire Tuesday #113
betsuni Tuesday #115
retrowire Tuesday #116
betsuni Tuesday #119
retrowire Tuesday #121
BainsBane Tuesday #130
betsuni Tuesday #131
JI7 Tuesday #120
BainsBane Tuesday #125
BainsBane Tuesday #111
JHan Tuesday #151
mcar Tuesday #143
JHan Tuesday #152
betsuni Tuesday #154
George II Tuesday #122
retrowire Tuesday #123
George II Tuesday #124
retrowire Tuesday #127
BainsBane Tuesday #129
betsuni Tuesday #134
calimary Monday #78
ProudProgressiveNow Monday #79
betsuni Monday #80
R B Garr Monday #83
NastyRiffraff Monday #84
wildeyed Monday #85
susanna Tuesday #94
George II Tuesday #118
guillaumeb Tuesday #132
BainsBane Tuesday #142
guillaumeb Tuesday #144
BainsBane Tuesday #145
YoungDemCA Tuesday #133
BainsBane Tuesday #141
Cha Tuesday #155
YoungDemCA Tuesday #156
BainsBane Wednesday #157

Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 10:55 PM

1. I wish I could rec this a million times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHan (Reply #1)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 11:09 PM

6. Same here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 10:55 PM

2. Hillary was the small (c) conservative choice.

Some folks just like to blow shit up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 10:57 PM

3. Me too and I'm not making excuses for being a decent human being.

I'm not going to start sucking up to idiot bigots. Not now, not ever.

Fight for what's right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to we can do it (Reply #3)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 11:04 PM

4. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to we can do it (Reply #3)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 11:08 PM

5. ++++++

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to we can do it (Reply #3)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 11:33 PM

13. Me neither but remember many don't know anything but Fox News

Some districts haven't had a democrat run in them for a while, and people have been told in their churches that liberals are going to hell. And they watch Fox News.

The key is communicating with those people. They are Americans too and can come around. The bigots are real but a smaller group. Leave those behind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #13)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 02:05 AM

96. I hope you are right.

Those I know are dug in and think Trump is amazing and can do no wrong.

It's hard to communicate with people that are disgusted by you...because you are that crazy liberal they were taught (by FOX) to fear. I will forever be on the outside and I'm okay with that, but not okay with what THEY believe. Period. Never will be.

Welcome to DU, sharedvalues.

Peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to susanna (Reply #96)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 02:18 PM

146. Strategy: go right after fox

When talking to people who you know are parroting right wing talking points, I find it useful to disengage on the issue of the day and go right after Fox. (Which is the main issue)

"Did you know that a billionaire created Fox News to persuade people to destroy government so he could keep more profit?"

"Fox News lies - they said Pence's emails didn't matter but they were the same as Hillary's. Plus they didn't talk about Rove and Bush destroying far more emails and obstructing a government prosecution".

"Did you see the former Intel officer who said that Fox News is a disinformation mouthpiece of the Kremlin?"
http://observer.com/2017/03/donald-trump-wiretapping-kremlin-disinformation/

---

PS happy to be here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #146)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 12:34 AM

158. Oh, I do.

Then I get "that's fake news!"

Trust me, though. I do not give up. I am relentless. I really like some of your suggestions and will add them to my repetoire

Thanks, sharedvalues. I appreciate your response and ideas!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to we can do it (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 02:01 AM

95. Amen x10000000. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 11:09 PM

7. We went from the best POTUS of my lifetime, to.. this

So, yeah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 11:17 PM

8. Many didn't understand what attacking and destroying "the status quo" meant..

we now know.

I want that status quo back. Sigh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHan (Reply #8)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 11:45 PM

15. the bizarre thing

Is we continue to hear about the ills of the "status quo," with no seeming awareness that it's been destroyed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #15)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 12:22 AM

21. It has become a censuring epithet

that is flung in our faces. I see it often when I fail to support efforts to destroy the Democratic Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #15)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 12:24 AM

22. Yes... which isn't to say the status quo was perfect..

but wanting it improved is not the same as castigating it which many did. It's like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

While Obama's America was derided, the WH was invaded by Trump who is surrounded by imps intent on destroying rights ( and services) we've taken for granted. And Trump doesn't care about anyone or anything beyond himself.

That's why I get upset at busterism, and attempts to this day to kick the party when it's down. It's dumb and destructive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHan (Reply #22)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 01:16 AM

28. It serves the interests of the people they care about

Which does not include the overwhelming majority of Democrstic voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #28)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 11:47 AM

59. that .. and also..

it's heady. And the GOP , particularly Karl Rove types, know this.

The right knows the allure of self righteousness among progressives and use that to fracture us, and it always works. People actually cheered on getting rid of the "establishment" under a Democratic President, and agreed with a Republican candidate on "getting rid of it" as if Trump's views had an ounce of legitimacy. It didn't matter that Trump's version of "getting rid of it" is starving green energy and pushing unlimited drilling, taking the issue of wages off the table, wanting "deregulation" - not regulatory reform but "DE"regulation, dismissing climate change and assembling an advisory team made up of people who hate every government agency that protects citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #15)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 02:08 AM

97. I think many don't realize it yet. It's terrifying. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHan (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 12:01 AM

19. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHan (Reply #8)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 04:31 PM

148. So do I

I miss the Obama DOJ defending the voting rights act

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 11:23 PM

9. BB, I wish I could rec this about a hundred times or so.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 11:27 PM

10. The one thing

he was right about so far is that he'd shake things up--except not in a healthy way. After this election, I sometimes can't help but cringe when people use terms like "status quo" as a pejorative. Change can be good, but because of his so-called revolution and shake up, many historically-disadvantaged groups are in for some serious pain. There's a lack of order in this administration with new scandals coming out each week, and this guy is making a mockery of the U.S. around foreign leaders. The funny thing about all of this is that he has already backtracked on numerous campaign promises, including his promise to "drain the swamp".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 11:28 PM

11. Well done.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 11:30 PM

12. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 11:38 PM

14. That's the God's honest truth...

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 11:55 PM

16. Amen and Amen!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 11:59 PM

17. my problem with the status quo thing is that suddenly when a black man becomes president

and there is a strong chance of a woman becoming president they started complaining about establishment, status quo etc.

and they supported Trump who was born into wealth and has a history of being a failure at everything. a non white male would never be taken seriously who had a background like his.

so the complaints of the status quo, establishment along with their make american great "again" and wanting to go back to the old days to me showed their problem was pretty much with a black man and others who are non white males having any power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #17)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 12:00 AM

18. Exactly

And it wasn't just the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #18)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 11:47 AM

136. To be fair though, many on DU and other left-liberals have been consistently opposed to Reaganism.

And the great disappointment regarding Democratic Party leaders over the past few decades (and not exclusively Obama and both Clintons) for many has more to do with widely held perceptions that party leaders have been too willing to compromise, to one extent or another, with certain aspects of Reaganism. Whether you think these concerns are mistaken or not, there's still a lot of genuine disappointment there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #136)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 11:53 AM

138. +1 (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #136)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 12:10 PM

140. I can't begin to imagine what you think you're responding to

Because you obviously are not following the discussion.

And no, people who were not alive during the Reagan administration did not consistently oppose Reaganism, whatever you think that means. Additionally, you really aren't a person who should be talking about consistency.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #140)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 04:33 PM

149. I was alive and active politically during the reagan years and I opposed Reagan

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #17)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 12:50 AM

27. I know.. it was super Ridiculous and defied LOGIC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #27)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 06:54 PM

77. Yes. They are imbeciles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ailsagirl (Reply #77)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 08:20 PM

81. I'll kick to

that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ailsagirl (Reply #77)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 10:59 PM

87. Or just don't care

About the sort of concerns that affect many other Americans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 12:01 AM

20. Very very well said, BB

Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 12:33 AM

23. as State Department that worked for peace and a refugee

program motivated by mercy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #23)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 12:43 AM

25. Yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 12:37 AM

24. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Cha (Reply #26)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 06:49 AM

32. Imagine having a president

Who didn't embarrass the country on a daily basis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #32)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 06:53 AM

33. 16 years in a row..

The Planet would have Loved it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 01:37 AM

29. Excellent post! k&r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 06:16 AM

30. Me, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to raven mad (Reply #30)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 04:31 PM

69. Thanks for that!

I hadn't heard that song in a very long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 06:22 AM

31. Yes! I also supported the status quo and want it back nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 07:02 AM

34. It's a good start (keeping what we've got)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Warrior (Reply #34)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 07:27 AM

35. We don't have it anymore

Cant you see that? The goal of crushing the status quo succeeded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #35)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 07:30 AM

36. Many on your list aren't gone yet and can still be fought for. Trumps budget hasn't passed yet

And won't if we fight!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Warrior (Reply #36)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 07:34 AM

37. I agree with that

and I also think it's time for people who don't favor the White Supremacist agenda to stop talking about the ills of a status quo that no longer exists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Warrior (Reply #36)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 07:38 AM

38. Actually there are five entries on that list

That still exist. The rest do not. We must fight, which means prioritizing those values. Too many do not and see little downside in the erosion of values that don't impact them. And we unfortunately see people far more concerned with placating Republican voters than standing up for the subaltern.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Warrior (Reply #34)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 04:54 PM

71. When we get power again, we are going to have to fight to get back where

we were. Once we start to get some traction, the alt-left will pillor us about making progress too slowly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 07:57 AM

39. I so wish Hillary was boring us to death and that there was nothing to post about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 08:13 AM

40. International leadership in climate accord, fair trade, peaceful relations

All gone or going. It's easy to smash things up when all you care about is sending the last load of ivory down the river. . .



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #40)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 08:16 AM

41. Excellent addition

It's hard to think of everything given how destructive the Trump administration is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #41)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 08:24 AM

43. It's chilling.

So much progress made in the face of the most vicious, dishonest and insulting opposition from (ahem) all sides and it's gone in a matter of weeks. I heard a zippy radio ad yesterday for the selective service. Not for the Army, for the draft. WTF?!?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #43)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 09:10 AM

45. The Selective Service?

What on Gods earth are they up to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #43)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 09:53 AM

46. edit

Wrong place

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 08:16 AM

42. Stupid that the words "status quo" and "establishment" and others suddenly have only negative

meanings. I will soon celebrate the anniversary of the day I took a man to city hall and made them make papers to say we are married. That was twenty-seven years ago. I thank all the gods and spirits and luck that I am still establishment status quo married, that the man and I are cheerleaders for each other, that incremental change and evolving positions and compromise happened. That is life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #42)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 09:58 AM

47. It particularly bothers me

When used in the present tense, as though nothing has changed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #47)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 10:01 AM

48. Yes, that is particularly stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #42)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 03:45 PM

66. That's not what status quo and establishment meant during the primaries

Oh boy.

We're going to have a democratic party that misuses these terms in the midterms arent we.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #66)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 05:15 PM

74. What does it mean then?

Try to answer without using the following: neoliberal, Third-Way, oligarchy, the DNC rigging everything, corporatism, authoritarian, elite, Goldman Sachs, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #74)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 06:35 PM

76. I need none of those words to say that the status quo was used in reference tooooooooo....

MONEYED POLITICS.

As in, revolving door politics and special interests having waaaaay too much control and say in how our government works. It's a real thing, no one can doubt that.

If people want to get real upset because the words "oligarchy" and "corporatism" accurately describe it as well then... geez, let's all get mad at buzzwords even though they're factual and hurt no one to use them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #76)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 10:07 PM

86. Again, why not say "moneyed politics"?

Why make it deliberately vague?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #86)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 12:46 AM

88. because it would sound odd with their support for Trump

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #88)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 01:10 AM

91. That's the reason!

This kind of propaganda is clever, making people who understand the secret meanings part of the in-crowd, like Fox viewers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #86)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 12:58 AM

90. I'm going to have to get a copy of the True Progressives' Revolutionary Dictionary

to figure out this language. I think "establishment" means a type of pickled herring served with raw onions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #90)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 01:33 AM

92. He is determined to avoid answering the question

I've posed it three times, and I get crickets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #92)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 01:55 AM

93. I'm sure any answer would be a plate of scrambled words with a side of insult, anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 08:41 AM

44. Amen!

I supported the status quo and want it restored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 10:14 AM

49. More people should have read Katznelson

https://www.amazon.com/Fear-Itself-Deal-Origins-Time/dp/1522600086

American populism is a dangerous, dangerous thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #49)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 10:47 AM

50. I bookmarked it

Thanks for the link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 10:51 AM

51. you're so establishment. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #51)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 03:25 PM

63. Of course

It's the XX thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 11:12 AM

52. In pursuit of "perfection" foolish people were willing to destroy everything good...

... and dismiss it as "status quo". The TOXIC DIVIDERS tried to portray Democrats as being "corrupt" or "morally bankrupt". They said there was "no difference" between Democrats and Republicans.

Well... fuck you, Susan Sarandon! You're overrated and short-sighted. A privileged rich white-woman who'll never feel the real world effects of her vanity and her unwillingness to accept pretty-damn-good instead of a dysmorphic and fun-house mirror perception of what she believed "absolutely-perfect" ought to be.

Even today... after ALL we know... Susan Sarandon and others are still attacking Democrats and smearing the Democratic Party. It's so maddening to see how these smug pseudo celebrities and other disloyals continue to attack the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates. Their "one-size-fits-all" approach to national politics is so naive.

They're compulsive gamblers who want to "let it ride". Greedy. They hold nothing back... they keep nothing in reserve... they're willing to bet it all (and LOSE IT ALL) with their unrealistic believe of some BIG PAYDAY at the end. Well... real life, and real politics don't work that way.

But, hey... it sells books and movie tickets... isn't that right Susan Sarandon?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 11:19 AM

53. Yup

A government turning the tide on climate change, on healthcare, opening doors for policy that benefits the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 11:22 AM

54. Providing more people with affordable health insurance they can use.

Continuing to shift the tax burden in a more progressive direction.

There never was a status quo party. Nothing about our run was "status quo".

Fuck all of those who push that bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 11:32 AM

55. So did I ... there was no other option (sadly).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #55)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 11:33 AM

56. Sadly?

You absolutely had an option to overturn everything listed above: Donald Trump, or voting third party, which is the same thing. Trump has been wildly successful in smashing the status quo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #56)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 11:35 AM

57. Yes.

Are you saying I shouldn't have voted for Hillary?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #57)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 11:41 AM

58. I am asking why you feel sad

about supporting the principles, agencies, and programs articulated above. Is your sadness mitigated by the fact that the status quo has been destroyed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #58)


Response to Post removed (Reply #60)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 02:58 PM

62. Elections are choices

For most of the nation's history, there has been a choice between two candidates. There is nothing new about that. What is different now is that we have a population, too many of whom can't muster compassion even in the face of lives lost and disrupted (immigration raids, massive increase in hate crimes) by the Trump administration and instead remained focused on their own egos. It is fitting that such a culture would produce a narcissist as president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 12:06 PM

61. I stand with BainsBane

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 03:31 PM

64. Make America Great Again!

It was really great up until 2 months ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 03:43 PM

65. You're kinda confusing the definition of the "status quo" that was used during the primaries

But if you want to make it confusing like that, go ahead and fly your flag. Lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #65)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 03:54 PM

67. "status quo"

the existing state of affairs. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/status%20quo

The problem with contentless buzzwords is they are not precise. Status quo, as Merriam Webster makes clear, means the existing state of affairs. If people mean to convey something else, they should find more precise language. That they refuse to do so and instead opt for vague terms is notable, possibly even deliberate.

I am not talking about the primaries or GE. Some rather bizarrely continue to use the phrase in the same way, as though nothing has changed. Perhaps it is because for them, from their position of privilege, nothing has changed. They continue to be insulated from the turmoil that the Trump administration has created for millions of families across the country. Whatever the explanation, its use is discordant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #67)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 04:05 PM

68. "Status quo" "oligarchs" "Goldman Sacs"

All overused to the point of mind numbing uselessness. Discussing each topic has merit, but as descriptive phrases they sucked early on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #68)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 04:42 PM

70. they haven't improved with time either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #68)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 05:05 PM

73. Oligarchs is such a misplaced word, like every rich

person is a evil bastard. The word make no allowance for the real world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_true (Reply #73)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 11:08 AM

128. +++++

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #65)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 05:03 PM

72. How about I define "status quo" as displaying famed common sense.

Take that and fly your flag. In four years, Trump could destroy everything that we have fought 20 long, hard years to accomplish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_true (Reply #72)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 06:33 PM

75. mmhmm yeah but instead of getting combative with me

you could acknowledge that the usage of "status quo" has been in regards to moneyed politics and the corruption that comes from that.

Why change it's intended use?

Should we march through the midterms with signs saying "GO BACK TO THE STATUS QUO!"

No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #75)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 08:26 PM

82. If that is truly the intended use

Then why not say that instead of status quo?

Why keep it deliberately vague? Why insist listeners be mindreaders rather than using more descriptive language?

People can only understand what is said to them. The standard meaning of words is defined in dictionaries. You are insisting that people are wrong to understand the word in terms of its standard usage. I submit it is the responsibility of the person communicating to express their point clearly, in accordance with standard English.

Many have observed that status quo only became commonly used against an AA president and a female presidential candidate. Yet even knowing that concern, some continue to use the term without qualification, when many more precise words are available in the English language.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #75)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 12:48 AM

89. So Why was it used against Tom Perez who use to work as a garbage man to help pay for college ?

it was used against Tom Perez but not donald Trump .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #89)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 02:58 AM

98. Snap

Excellent question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #89)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 07:01 AM

99. It was ABSOLUTELY used against Trump

And the Tom Perez guy? I have no idea and was never apart of that conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #99)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 09:38 AM

100. Status quo was used against Trump?

Could you please give an example where Trump was described as status quo?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #100)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 09:39 AM

101. I and many others referred to him

As the prime example of money corrupting politics. He openly bragged about doing so.

He, the fat cat that got rich off the corruption in wall st is a grand symptom of the status quo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #101)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 09:53 AM

102. This is just not true .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #102)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 10:13 AM

103. Okay.... Head in sanddddd

http://time.com/4519718/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-change/

I know both Hillary and Trump were marked with the status quo phrase.

I know that my side was chanting that on both of them, not just Hillary.

Let's not be in denial about that.

And before you get more combative, I voted Hillary in the general. I wanted things to stay as they were and possibly get better. I knew Trump was never the option to knock down, "the status quo"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #103)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 10:20 AM

104. no. it was not used on both. in fact trumps popularity was explained as being because people did

not want the status qou like Hillary.

And Tom perez was attacked as status quo by most who opposed him. They knew nothing about him out could not give any actual specifics. Just attacked with same things hillary was.

I don't care who you voted for. It's just fucking not true that trump was attacked as being status quo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #104)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 10:24 AM

105. Uhhh...

Given proof

Still denies it.

Gooooooalllllllllllposts moved.

Sorry, it was said. It was written. I used it in arguments against my fellow Bernie supporters who tried Bernie or bust. Others joined me. Is it so hard to admit that some people said this and some people said that?

It's unbecoming of a democrat to be in denial of facts. Just accepting this minute truth changes nothing, why resist it so harshly? Not all of the hard left is lockstep with each other. I renounced JPR as soon as I saw their flirtation with Trump.

We're on the same side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #105)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 10:28 AM

107. Where's your proof?

In terms of Trump, you need look no further than jackpineradicals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #107)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 04:36 PM

150. JPR is the site for trump, putin and russian lovers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #105)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 10:29 AM

108. that was NOT proof and was in fact the opposite. lakoff was responding

To all the bullshit out there which was attacking hillary as status quo and trump as being the anti.

In fact this article backs up what i said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #108)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 10:31 AM

109. It backs up what I said

That both were called the status quo. The article calls Trump the status quo, that author is not the only person in the world with that thought and if you think that, that's a bit naive but OK.

I know what happened. Head above the sand over here. Both were called status quo. Fact.

Continue the tantrum if you must.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #109)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 10:34 AM

112. no it doesn't . he was responding to the attacks on Hillary as being status quo

And trump as being against it.

This is like saying the media calls out trump lies and giving rachel maddow as an example when she does not represent what most of the media does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #109)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 10:43 AM

117. The article is challenging the common notion that Clinton was status quo

and Trump wasn't. You may have used the term to refer to Trump, but it was not widespread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #105)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 10:33 AM

110. retrowire, I'm afraid you're beating your head against the wall here.

This place has become an echo chamber.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ron Green (Reply #110)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 11:06 AM

126. No one is stopping you

from going back to your regular echo chamber.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ron Green (Reply #110)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 11:46 AM

135. Yep, it doesn't matter that you voted for Hillary

You have to be in complete lockstep. Practically everyone who has been using the term "status quo" knows it is about big money corruption in politics for years now, and then when you define it for them who have suddenly made up their own uses for it for post-election, they come back with, "No, it doesn't mean that." So it's extremely silly when people here are going, "YAY! We want status quo, please bring it back, it's wonderful!" As if it's actually gone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #135)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 12:06 PM

139. Practically everyone who has been using the term "status quo" to mean something it isn't

has used these words to attack those who support Democrats: lockstep, cheerleaders, echo chamber, fans, hive mind, cult of personality, bind allegiance, swarm, etc. That's the status quo for people who attack Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #139)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 02:27 PM

147. Oh my god, yes! YES! Exactly! Thank you for pointing it out and...

... for stating it so clearly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #139)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 05:38 PM

153. Mahalo, betsuni! Exactly as they are

Projecting!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #105)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 10:39 AM

114. "The establishment is trying to steal the presidency from Trump"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #104)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 11:51 AM

137. The reason they argued that 45 wasn't status quo

is because they had this stupid idea that since he's a billionaire, he wouldn't need to take money from big money corporate and wealthy donors and would be able to do whatever he wanted without being corrupted by those sorts of bribes. Of course, they didn't somehow think that he's one of the sources of this corruption because he *is* one of the wealthy donors corrupting politics, so they gave over the entire chicken farm to the wolf. So yes, he's not only status quo...he's one of the sources of it, but he was able to con and convince them that he was on their side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #101)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 10:26 AM

106. The JPR "progressives"

insist he represents resistance to the status quo and establishment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #100)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 10:35 AM

113. Here

http://time.com/4519718/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-change/

I and many others spoke this truth to the Bernie or busters as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #113)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 10:40 AM

115. So you agree that all the attacks against Hillary Clinton as being status quo were bullshit.

Great!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #115)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 10:43 AM

116. Uhhhh

Where did you get your reasoning skills?

Read what I've written to know what ive said. Nothing more, nothing less. XD

Both candidates were called the status quo. That's, literally the subject of this conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #116)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 10:52 AM

119. I got my reasoning skills on sale at a reasoning skills store.

Do you think I got ripped off? I think I still have the receipt around here somewhere. I'm totally going to ask for my money back. Thanks, man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #119)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 10:53 AM

121. My sincerity is only met with defensive mockery. Meh. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #119)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 11:15 AM

130. I'd be happy to contribute to a gofundme account

for the needy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #130)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 11:25 AM

131. I wonder how much really good reasoning skills cost.

Maybe I get used but perfectly fine reasoning skills at a thrift shop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #116)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 10:52 AM

120. you might as well claim birther attacks were made on both sides

And bring up Ted cruz canadian thing as being equal to what happened to Obama .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #116)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 11:04 AM

125. Now you're changing the goal posts

No one asked what you said. We were discussing the meaning of the term status quo. You insisted it meant money in politics, but the common usage and dictionary definition indicates its meaning is far broader: "the existing state of affairs."
What you happen to have said to your friends isn't relevant to a discussion of the meaning of a word. You've repeatedly ignored my posts pointing to the dictionary definition and asking, if the purpose is to convey "moneyed politics," why not just say that? You obviously can't come up with a response to that very simple question, so you conspicuously avoid it.

You seem to think you're being clever, but you're not. You googled status quo and Trump and posted an article that refutes your claim rather than providing evidence for it. That is a matter of basic reading comprehension. Now you insist the only thing you claimed is what you said in private conversations during the general election. No. You insisted that my OP was changing the definition of the word and that is was wrong for me to use it as I have. That was your entree into this argument. So now you again change the terms of the discussion to compensate for your inability to defend your claims against basic questions about the standard meaning of words as defined by Merriam Websters. If the point were to reference "moneyed politics," people would say "moneyed politics." Instead, they deliberately keep it vague. That is a deliberate choice.

Unless you have had your head in the sand, this can't be the first time you've seen people point to the gendered and racial implications of the condemnation of status quo in regard to Obama and Clinton. Those criticisms have been waged for more than a year, so that anyone who truly wanted to limit their condemnation to money in politics would chose more precise language. That they don't says a great deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to BainsBane (Reply #111)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 04:52 PM

151. Yes..

Busterism.

If we don't name it for what it is, they'll put all our candidates through that hell. If they can do it to Perez, they'll do it to anyone.. it's so incredibly dumb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #89)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 12:25 PM

143. Great question!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #75)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 05:31 PM

152. except the irony is that one of the ways to reverse the perniciousness..

of "moneyed politics" was to vote for a Democrat who would have put a justice on the bench who, in all likelihood, would have overturned Citizens United. This was an established democratic party view - to reverse citizen's united. Yet the Democratic Party got the brunt of the corporate smears, in what universe does that make sense?

There was more outrage from some against "moneyed politics" under a Democratic President instead of outrage against dark money which is a feature of conservative political funding.

skewed priorities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHan (Reply #152)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 05:46 PM

154. This is the point right here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #65)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 10:54 AM

122. "methinks thou doth protest too much" - in 60+ posts I didn't see the word "primary" used once.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #122)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 10:58 AM

123. Agreed

But that's where the term status quo was used most of the time, the generals as well. Really all the elections. My bad for the specifity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #123)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 11:01 AM

124. "Status quo" is an age old term, probably used more outside of politics than in politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #124)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 11:07 AM

127. Well said! Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #127)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 11:14 AM

129. LOL

You're the one who insisted it meant "moneyed politics."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #129)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 11:32 AM

134. Oh, I am so confused now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 07:09 PM

78. I also wish I could rec this a million times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 08:00 PM

79. K&R nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 08:05 PM

80. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 08:35 PM

83. K&R

Looks like the bloom is off the rose of the drama llama change election bullshit. Thank Gawd! Now back to experienced, steady, proven politicians. No more con jobs!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 08:57 PM

84. Another K&R

I mourn for what we lost, and what we could have had.

I hope those who didn't vote out of pique or voted third party don't get sick, are able to vote, can move to a place on earth where the air and water doesn't make them sick. And on and on.

I've never seen a president who sets out to destroy EVERYTHING this country has achieved. Drain the swamp? He's brought in poison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 09:31 PM

85. I know right!

Who knew healthcare was so complicated? Or that Trump campaign was entangled with Russia? Tillerson threatened nuclear war with N. Korea and then had to take a nap because he was sooooo exhausted. You know who didn't need a nap? The status quo. Clinton and Kerry seemed to be able job without so much drama and exhaustion. The sanest guy in the current admin is nicknamed MAD DOG! Jeez.

The problem with revolutions is that you can lose. Bigly. People forget that part. Gonna be fun looking at Neil MF Gorsuch for the next 20-odd years

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 01:59 AM

94. Thank you, BB.

This is an inspired post.

I rec'ed it with pride.

We are better than this.

On edit: I messed something up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 10:51 AM

118. A takeoff on a quote, "if that's status quo, then deal me in"!!! I think people get caught up...

...in catch phrases that can be extrapolated over many many things. And they throw the term around without clearly define what they're talking about.

Sure, if poverty is "status quo", we're against it. If war is "status quo", we're against it. Etc.

But there are lots of things that have been working for decades, and characterized as "status quo". What's wrong with that? For me breathing is "status quo", and I certainly don't want to change THAT "status quo"!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 11:29 AM

132. The US conservative, corporate media creates reality for many voters.

And your reality is not their reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #132)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 12:22 PM

142. You don't seem to understand

What I'm getting at.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #142)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 01:36 PM

144. I think that I did.

But reality for Trump voters is a different reality, and your concerns are not necessarily their concerns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #144)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 01:48 PM

145. I never imagined they were

My post was about the oft-repeated and ill-defined denunciation of the "status quo," not by Trump voters but those who purport to be on the left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 11:30 AM

133. I supported all of these things, but I also supported radically expanding all of them

I agree that this is a fucking nightmare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #133)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 12:21 PM

141. I'll wait to next week

And see what you decide to support then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #141)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 06:04 PM

155. ..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #141)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 11:07 PM

156. ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #156)

Wed Mar 22, 2017, 01:33 AM

157. Typically when people undergo a wholesale transformation

in their core values, they give it serious thought rather than treating it as a joke. But then that assumes that those changes come from seriously reflection rather than picking up the latest internet meme, as one might a new hairstyle.

Additionally, Insisting that elections should be determined by a select minority rather than the will of the majority of the electorate is incompatible with claims of support for voting rights and equal rights more broadly. You might note that those kinds of values were a crucial part of the status quo (per the list in the OP) that too many wanted destroyed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread