Jump to content

US Politics: Out in the Cold


DMC

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

So if people are idiots at 25, they are doomed for life?

No, but look at the current context.  If Dems want to be the anti-racist party it's time to demonstrate that they are willing to do more than pay lip service.  

And like Kal mentioned, it's the pragmatic thing to do.  It costs them nothing to do the right thibg here.  Northam should resign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More on Dem 2020 possible candidates  ... Heard an interview with Gov. Inslee this morning on our NPR affiliate, saying that if he did run for President his platform would be climate change and environment-focused.  Was a really good interview and I hope he runs just to force the party to make this a central platform plank.  Hammer the message of working together on climate change and income inequality.  

Sorry for double post.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

No, but look at the current context.  If Dems want to be the anti-racist party it's time to demonstrate that they are willing to do more than pay lip service.  

And like Kal mentioned, it's the pragmatic thing to do.  It costs them nothing to do the right thibg here.  Northam should resign.

One can be anti-racist while acknowledging that people make mistakes over their life. It's not as if Northam is still running around in blackface - he called for the Confederate Memorials to be taken down, which is surely far more relevant to judging him in 2019 than an idiotic photo from 1984.

As for pragmatism, you're basically setting a precedent - any Democrat who has ever made a mistake at any point in their lives is finished. Which makes them sitting ducks for Republican attacks.

(Seriously. Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, pretty much every twentieth century Democratic President apart from Carter, would have never survived this sort of scrutiny). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

One can be anti-racist while acknowledging that people make mistakes over their life. It's not as if Northam is still running around in blackface - he called for the Confederate Memorials to be taken down, which is surely far more relevant to judging him in 2019 than an idiotic photo from 1984.

As for pragmatism, you're basically setting a precedent - any Democrat who has ever made a mistake at any point in their lives is finished. Which makes them sitting ducks for Republican attacks.

(Seriously. Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, pretty much every twentieth century Democratic President apart from Carter, would have never survived this sort of scrutiny). 

Byrd and Kennedy are dead and this isn't the past century.   It's time to be accountable.  

 

And as to the bolded, that's a pretty ridiculous and absurd conclusion to draw.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Byrd and Kennedy are dead and this isn't the past century.   It's time to be accountable.  

And as to the bolded, that's a pretty ridiculous and absurd conclusion to draw.  

Accountability is not the same as hounding someone for a mistake thirty five years ago, when they have clearly changed. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, DMC said:

If you think Booker has a better chance of doing this than Harris or anyone else, I think that's pretty naive.  At least for you, who I respect quite a bit.

Again, I'm not saying he has a better chance of getting any specific legislative accomplishments done than any other Democratic president. I'm saying he had an impressive display of skills that I consider important in a President, skills relevant to numerous aspects of the job, not just dealing with Congress.

I'm also not saying he's the only one with those skills, I like a lot of the candidates quite a lot. But, compared to the other ones that are also current senators, I think he's the best job of demonstrating those skills.

14 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

@Fez,I'm curious, does Booker not come across as completely fake to you? I have him ranked high because I think he can win, and I've met him before and he seems like a decent guy, but whenever I see him on T.V. I can't help but feel it's an act. What really lost me was when he behaved so over the top during the Kavanaugh hearings. He acted like he was risking his job to leak incredibly important information and made a huge scene about it all for it to turn out to be a nothing burger. 

I mean, yeah, he's got some fakeness to him, but no moreso than most other politicians. I think some of the other candidates are more authentic, but that's not a quality that I particularly care about. I have two criteria, 1) Do I think they can win? and 2) How would they do as President?

Booker isn't the only one I think can beat Trump, I think most of them can (but not all, I really think Warren would lose; the DNA test saga would absolutely become the new email server) but I think Booker would comfortably win, on the same tier as Biden and a couple others. He's got charisma, he's appealing to some of the lower propensity Democratic voters, and I think he's decision (at least based on his first speech) to run on an optimistic message let's him more draw the most effective contrasts to Trump.

And I think any Democratic president would have roughly the same amount of legislative accomplishments and probably only minor variations in getting policies implemented through executive orders or foreign policy. However, I think some of the candidates have a much greater risk of shooting for the moon on policy, badly failing (bills falling to the filibuster or Democratic disagreements, and/or ambitious EOs that get overturned by the courts), and having a terrible 2022 midterm. I don't have that concern with Booker. And, on the flip side, I also don't have the concern that I have with Biden, that he would be too moderate, too accommodating to Republicans, and not moving the country forward to the greatest extent that a President actually can. (I still rate Biden 3rd on my list simply because I think he would have the easiest time beating Trump and that's key).

There's over a year until I vote, and I'm sure the candidates will move up and down my list as time goes on. I'm not committed to Booker or anyone else. What I am committed to are those two criteria and I'll vote for whoever I think best fulfills them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Besides, Republicans doing the same thing are resigning:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/24/politics/blackface-florida-state-secretary/index.html

The relevant question is whether he has changed from being the sort of person who insults Hurricane Katrina victims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Accountability is not the same as hounding someone for a mistake thirty five years ago, when they have clearly changed. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and all that.

This is how we end up with all these creeps, racists, and theives in power to begin with.  How are Dems supposed to fight bigotry if they can't even ask Northam to resign?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Acknowledge that bigotry can be overcome, and that people can mend their ways? You can't fight bigotry without actually getting the bigots to stop being bigoted, and Northam clearly has stopped.

Such an acknowledgement strikes me as more healthy than saying "Northam was a racist thirty five years ago. There is no path to redemption, and he will burn in eternal hell-fire for it. The end." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Acknowledge that bigotry can be overcome, and that people can mend their ways? You can't fight bigotry without actually getting the bigots to stop being bigoted, and Northam clearly has stopped.

Such an acknowledgement strikes me as more healthy than saying "Northam was a racist thirty five years ago. There is no path to redemption, and he will burn in eternal hell-fire for it. The end." 

Sure it can be 'overcome' (that word makes it sound like stopping being a bigot  is akin to learning how to live  with  a missing limb something)  But just because he's changed doesn't mean he deserves to be governor.  

This isn't that different than claiming Kavanugh's life was 'ruined' if he didn't get to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Acknowledge that bigotry can be overcome, and that people can mend their ways? You can't fight bigotry without actually getting the bigots to stop being bigoted, and Northam clearly has stopped.

Such an acknowledgement strikes me as more healthy than saying "Northam was a racist thirty five years ago. There is no path to redemption, and he will burn in eternal hell-fire for it. The end." 

No on is saying he should burn in hell if he's redeemed himself, but they ARE saying he shouldn't be the governor of a state. There are a ton of qualified people that can take his position who never wore a KKK hood. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

(Seriously. Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, pretty much every twentieth century Democratic President apart from Carter, would have never survived this sort of scrutiny). 

Ya know, maybe that's okay. Or maybe one can acknowledge the mistakes of the past and work to make them better, as Byrd tried to do. 

But I think we can move past the kind of obfuscation that Clinton and Kennedy did, and end some careers early based on mistakes, and be okay with that. There are enough good people out there that we don't have to accept casual horrible racism any more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 4:53 AM, Seli said:

Even translated to factual positions "fiscal conservatives/social liberals" isn't where the hole is in US politics, that is where the libertarians exist.

GOP is currently "fiscal conservative"* and socially reactionary; Democrats fiscal moderates and social moderates (sweeping up a lot of the more progressive voters because those don't have anywhere else to go to); libertarians cover "fiscal conservatism"* and a very selective section of social liberty;

The potential seems to be in community-oriented fiscal moderates/social conservatives, which is where the GOP has been haemorrhaging for example immigrant votes in recent elections. Basically the US, most Anglo societies, could do with a CDU.

*fiscal conservative only the in the US political debate sense

The hole is people who support social programs and liberties to varying degrees, but think they need to be approached in a responsible way fiscally. I.E., not aligned with Trump's social views, and also not aligned with D's fiscal views, or rather, lack thereof. That there's not a clear term for this makes it confusing to discuss and even get on the same page. Just noticed how confusing this is this past few weeks. 

The GOP gave up any claim to fiscal conservativism a long time ago (Graham just suggested a raise to the debt ceiling, right on cue) and tax cuts wouldn't just be aimed at corporations, they'd also be geared to small and mid-sized business. They really don't care any more except as an excuse to get in the way of  the Ds. I'd call moderate Dems fiscal moderates, but not Ds in general. None of them are talking deficit or discussing the practicalities of how they'll actually pay for the long list of things they're proposing. They're definitely not discussing the underlying problem of why healthcare and college is so expensive. 

The bolded is over my head. :blush: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...