It appears that a certain segment of this site, from top to bottom, want to redefine the mission of this site for such a purpose. It's pretty clear that a lot of people here share a genuine hatred for the left. Therefore, I would really like to know if this site's future involves becoming an echo chamber for the Democratic brand and the face behind that brand in the White House or the faces behind Democratic leadership in the broken House and Senate. Is this what most people here want?
If so, why even comment or debate on this site? Why not just sign up for the email list of Obama For America and leave it at that? Better yet, why not just merge this site with Obama for America? If we must all shut up and fall in line during election time, let us know when qualitative ideas are allowed to be discussed again. Don't NR or ban us for uprating and speaking the truth. Just tell us to leave for a certain amount of time until it's OK to stand for something again.
Let us know that any left wing idea or defense of social security against chained CPI will not be acceptable during election season, because the end justifies the demeaning of seniors already struggling from the sequester. OFA did the same thing to shout down their members wanting to push for a public option during the health care reform debate. After all, this really is a problem at a so called open forum for free expression of progressive ideas and policy; the brand has nothing to do with the New Deal platform or why we have the Democratic platform that we do today.
We have it because of the left, from Eugene Debs's Socialist Party to Huey Long to Dr. Townsend's Union Party harshly criticizing FDR, even more harshly than many people complain Obama critics here do. This is the platform that won over the coalition that provided the votes for New Deal Democrats to win Democratic elections for 8 terms. This made sure that the New Deal platform became a reality while expanding on it with the Great Society. This is what defines the party. One can't redefine "more and better Democrats" because one likes whoever wears the brand, but perhaps many think that if we just repeat this over and over again, in an echo chamber, we magically can?
No. If we really are the reality based community, we can't. It matters not how much some like this charismatic third way politician from Hope(or his wife) or that charismatic third way politician from Chicago whom is our President. The New Deal improved the lives of most people in this country for generations, so it's worth defending against people who don't value it as much as their loyalty to anyone who wears the brand without respecting the platform. That's not to say the American people do not deserve more, because they do. People get more in European, particularly Scandinavian countries that have made even higher demands of their leaders during times of crisis; those leaders also delivered on a higher level.
So because of that, more countries in the modern western world have superior safety nets and superior health care systems. They didn't get those systems by spitting out venom towards anyone having trouble or complaints with their roll out. Contrast that with the behavior of many posters here who chastise anyone having trouble with the Affordable Care Act website for one thing. To make matters worse, many people do not know how elitist it looks when anyone who has genuine problems signing up for or affording health care because the Bronze plan is not affordable to them as promised is insulted.
It shouldn't be inconceivable that there would be multiple problems even despite the website, since most people who should have paid attention to this from the beginning and either fought for HR 676 or a public option, that 30 million people would be left out. Thanks to President Obama's pick, Justice Kagan, siding with the Roberts court, people in red states are also screwed out of the Medicaid expansion as well. Not to mention the unaffordable deductibles no one seems to want to talk about.
No. This kind of behavior is simply not going to win people over. It will just make them aware that you have sufficient income and resources, and they don't. I also find it very ironic that the same kind of people who practice this behavior, love to lecture about site etiquette out of one side of their mouth, while perpetuating this kind of elitist behavior on the other. Think about that.
Moving on; this behavior points to a strong desire many have for critics to shut up and to have a more or better Democratic echo chamber. That's NOT what I remember about the site since we didn't fall in line to support Joe Lieberman even though Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer did in the CT primary in 2006, but maybe things are changing here at Daily Kos, and not for the better. I base this on the heavy handed punitive measures for uprating factual statements or making factual statements during an election, which is the only time there is leverage for issues to come to the forefront, not after.
They chant in unison about how this is a Democratic site for electing better Democrats so a certain segment should shut up. They feel it is their duty to follow critics of this administration, the neoliberals they hired, and the neoliberal policy they conduct around and insult them while reminding them that, yes, they still don't like them. I don't do this sort of thing, because I find it childish and juvenile. It's the behavior of a reactionary instead of someone with original thoughts and observations. This is why those who mis-categorize us in the so called Obama sux contingent versus the Obama rocks contingent, are, of course, making a false equivalence, so I reject that outright.
I think those of us who strongly state our opinion do not deserve to be thrown in with reactionaries who wait until the White House or Congress do something and then react by defending whatever it may be. We, on the other hand, know what must be done, and have a good idea of the steps needed to get there. We know those steps are not even being pursued, so we react by criticizing them while thinking of the population suffering from the ongoing private ponzi debt deflation depression we are in. We are not reacting to how any particular politician's image looks or what one would think their image is while imaging they are vicariously living through that politician, like the Obama Rox contingent.
So we are nothing alike nor are we anywhere near that coin at all. No, the only way it's about Obama sucking is that the Presidency is more powerful than it has even been, and it has always been powerful and always affected Congressional legislation and budgets, specifically during a crisis which sets a trajectory for decades sometimes. The White House is usually involved in shaping the budget process to start out until it is hammered out. Therefore, it matters when the President makes decisions that hurt the population this way.
So that's why it's a false equivalence; we know what policy needs to be passed to reach a certain threshold, and when that is not even tried, like it hasn't for the past 5 years, THAT sucks. For us, it's not about reflexively opposing everything the President does. We just know x policy won't close the y gap. It must in order to even begin to solve problems. Problems like the long term unemployed in this country.
It would be a whole lot easier to just be a dick and not provide sources for what my strong and sometimes harsh observations and opinions are based on, but I provide sources all the time. Therefore, when anyone up top or on the bottom here equates sourced arguments with insults coming from commentators who always show up and spam my diaries with dozens of comments to remind me that, yes, they still don't like me, it tells me and those that think like me, that we are not respected at this site at all. I remember when Markos said this was against the rules, but I guess it isn't. Not really.
There are others who try to conflate a diarist's strong opinion, based on sources, with a diarist who "creates a mosh pit." They do this in order to try to explain why this rule is never enforced. It's easy to see why this is false; my observations and opinions are based on sources that show massive economic pain and suffering. I get angry that others do not seem to show the same empathy that comes from actually observing what is going on to people in the world around them and how the White House and Congress's policies have not even recognized the threshold of these problems. What they enable hurts people, and I say it with sources to make my point.
Therefore, I take too much time to research these issues when I write about them to be lumped in with people who care too little to take the time to properly respond to the source material. They can't claim to be informed enough to comment in my diary in order to gaze why my observation and reaction to my observations, from the data in my sources, is what it is, unless they put forth this minimal effort. Too many don't, and it is allowed.
We're supposed to be different from conservatives during the post 9/11 hysteria period that conflated feelings with facts. Fact: These are harsh times, so I am going to use harsh terms in order to form my harsh opinion on why the failure to deal with these times in a harsh way is immoral. I am going to explain that it doesn't matter if people do not like harsh facts or the way they are explained. There is still the fierce urgency of now, as coined by MLK, today. It didn't matter if some found it "condescending" that way back in the day.
It also didn't matter that one of King's most derided, yet most important speeches about the Vietnam war was harsh; it needed to be for these same reasons; it was the truth! It still is the truth! I base my observations on these same truths and don't sugarcoat it either. People can debate my sources, but few ever do, and that is allowed for some reason even though in the FAQ it says Daily Kos prides people who use links to back up their assertions. Maybe not so much?
You find sources and links throughout most of my work to back up my opinions and observations(however harsh), yet, it is neither respected or protected from people who claim to be running a reality based community. So, since the standards of a high school debate class or MLA format paper seem to be too much, I have to ask why we want to pretend this is a place for genuine debate? Why not declare this as an echo chamber if we are not going to uphold the same standards we once did? I sadly think that's what many people here really want going by their actions.
And as Ian Welsh pointed out, among other things as to why the progressive blog movement failed, this won't bode well for this site in the future if this is what people want. That being said, we on the hated left would like to know.
Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 8:40 PM PT: Some have erroneously claimed my deductible reference is an error based on one anecdotal in the Chicago Tribune article I linked to. However, since I research and back up everything I do, I researched all plans in Illinois using a handy tool used by WebMD, CNN, and MSN Money that gives you all info on deductibles available; they are right in line with what I was referencing in the article; the Tribune analysis of 21 of 22 Bronze plans, not the anecdotal of one consumer. This has proven credibility like all sources in my diaries.
So like I said, deductibles are unaffordable, likely even with subsidies because of the other out of pocket costs. The fact that people feel the need to ridicule people who point this out without really doing any research, proves the thesis of this diary correct. The diary stands.