Jim: Roundtable time again. . Remember our e-mail
address is thethirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com. Participating in our roundtable are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava, and me, Jim; Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude; Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man; C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review; Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills); Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix; Mike of Mikey Likes It!; Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz); Ruth of Ruth's Report; Trina of Trina's Kitchen; Wally of The Daily Jot; Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ; Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends; Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub. Betty's kids did the
illustration. You are reading a rush transcript.
Jim (Con't): So it's November 22nd and the president is still not declared. Any thoughts?
Wally: I believe C.I. has repeatedly noted that the electoral college meets on December 14th -- that's when the issue will be decided. I think the country can wait, we can all wait.
Jim: So anyone disagree?
Marcia: No. With Wally. Count votes. Be transparent. End it by following the process.
Jim: What about the press conference last week?
Rebecca: What about it? No media outlet covered it seriously. It became a joke about hair dye dripping down someone's face. The accusations themselves? Like something out of a SCANDAL episode -- in fact, like what the whole Fitzgerald Grant presidency turned on in that show. But that doesn't mean it's not accurate. I have no idea. There was no proof offered.
Jess: And while claims are made at press conferences, we expect evidence in court. And I do think the press -- including Tucker Carlson in that assessment. In the end, we may have nothing but claims. But that's what happens with press conferences.
Rebecca: And that's a good point. But in terms of the public opinion, you do need to present some sort of case in a press conference, some sort of supporting evidence, if you have it. I'm not trying to argue the law with you, Jess, you're an attorney, I'm not. But public relations was my field and that press conference never should have been held from a p.r. stand point. You're making what maybe truthful claims -- let's say, for the sake of argument, that they were. Even if they were truthful claims, you have to know that the bulk of the country is going to, at the very least, scratch their heads. And you have to know that those opposed to you -- a large number of people -- are waiting to ridicule you. That was amateur hour and a p.r. embarrassment. I'm not referring to legalities or to the truth of the claims, I'm saying everyone should have known, going in, the potential pitfalls but there is no indication that anyone did. The press conference had an impact. As C.I. said in Polly's Brew, it spooked the public and some of the people willing to wait for the process to carry out changed their minds as a result. It was a nightmare.
Trina: True or false, the claims came off as crazy talk -- the media coverage encouraged that. And I'm just not in the mood. I'm already having to still endure the crazy talk from WSWS. I assume it will continue until Donald Trump concedes.
Jim: Alright. From one fool to another, Nancy Pelosi. She's going to continue as Speaker of the House.
Cedric: And we're all going to suffer. How many times is she allowed to fail before the party says enough? She's not a leader.
Kat: Even in her better days, she was not a leader. In 2007, she couldn't handle a basic press conference. I watched as Steny Hoyer talked over her and then Rahm Emanuel had to rescue the press conference. She's unable to speak well. She's unable to fight successfully. She is someone who needs to go into retirement.
Betty: Can I jump in? C.I. did a great piece talking about an earlier Speaker ("The American people suffer, the Iraqi people suffer, who is the US Congress serving?") I don't know why the party pretends Nancy accomplishes anything unless it's that the party doesn't want to accomplish anything and is perfectly fine with doing nothing to help the American people in the midst of a pandemic.
Kat: I think that's what they want, collectively, they're fine with it. The could buck her, they could come up with legislation and demand a vote. They don't. At the end of the day, they're okay with doing nothing. Their passive/aggressive nature is responsible for a lot of suffering.
Betty: I wish I could say you were wrong but their actions back you up.
Jim: Any other observations about the elections?
Stan: I'm surprised that Jo Jorgensen, the Libertarian Party's presidential nominee only got 1% of the vote nationally.
Ann: The Green Party, my party, did even worse. Apparently, pandemic combined with fear mongering does not lead many to consider third party options.
Jim: Okay, let's wind down. Ava and C.I. take on cancel culture and address issues of inclusion in their latest piece. Any comments?
Ruth: They are correct. To many people opposed to cancel culture do not also fight for inclusion. "Identity politics" is a very easy word to hide behind when you're not working for inclusion.
Isaiah: Agreed. And some are complaining that, for example, Joe Biden's team can 'only' find diversity on Wall Street. Of course, that's not true. But what is true is that, especially with regards to women, RISING, et al are not doing their part to elevate women.
Elaine: For example, when's the last time Margaret Kimberley was on RISING? Has she ever been invited on that program? Has Katie Halper ever had her on? I don't think so. It's a circle jerk and it's mainly men. There are so many people of color, so many women, so many LGBTQ persons who are never invited on. But these same programs want to hiss 'identity politics!'
Marcia: If they practiced inclusion, things would be different. It's on them.
Jim: Okay, with that we are winding down. This has been a rush transcript. E-mail us at thethirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com or common_ills@yahoo.com. Thank you.
