US Politics: Make Thread Titles Great Again

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

He dropped a utensil and couldn't go back for it...so she let him have it. I think I'd be kind of pissed too if I paid someone to take care of my shit and when we sat down to eat, I had a salad with no fork. I might let the dude have it too.

Um -- what is the part of having to handle a whole lot of stuff with only two hands while the call to board a flight is in progress?  Have you never dropped anything during this process?  If so, I will insist you never or hardly ever fly anywhere.  Between the boarding pass and i.d. -- necessary for even the shortest domestic flights -- the carryons -- and how much carryon do you think a female politician who is going to be doing public appearances with photographers etc. will have?  and then his own carryon, which as aide is probably substantial as well.  You are really not understanding this situation.  She behaved very very very badly.  She's utterly dead to me, as she's not shown accomplishment that might make up for her being a thorough going asshole.

On a better candidate and much more pleasant one:

Listened to Pete Buttigieg, the millennial gay mayor of South Bend, IN, talking NPR's "The Takeaway" about who he is and why he's running for the Dem prez nom.

I gotta say, he sounds more intelligent and articulate than his elders.  He talks sense, in the same way that AOC does. His greatest hurdle, it seems to me, is his name -- people learning it, and learning how to pronounce it and how to spell it.

Best of all, he articulates so well that terrible, blind determination of the Dems thinking that they just need to win an election and everything will go back to how it was politically.  He understands and articulates so well that their way it was is exactly why we got the orange nazi in the first place.  He understands and articulates that we can't go back, and no matter what happens politically, the consequences of 2016 elections are now with us forever -- including the social media and hostile foreign powers meddling to get what they want.

I don't really like any of those Dems who have insisted they should be the next Dem nom -- except Buttigieg, I think.  Now I'll have to learn how to pronounce and spell his name.

He can be heard here from the interview on the Brian Lehrer Show here in NYC.

https://www.wnyc.org/story/mayor-buttigieg-americas-future/

A Slate piece went up this weekend:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/pete-buttigieg-court-packing-electoral-college.html

Here's a piece from the NY Times from last month:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-mayor-south-bend-president.html

You all might like checking him out, though in this group you all probably already have checked him out.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I both agree and disagree.

 

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

I have mixed feelings about this.

I agree that the story(ies) both are sexist in a way and probably not sexist.  On the latter, as I mentioned on Friday Amanda Terkel at HuffPo - who has been behind much of these stories, clearly has the closest relationship with most of these anonymous staffers, and certainly isn't a sexist herself at all - clarified that many of the sources were female staffers themselves, and reported on these staffers' pushback that their accusations are based in sexism.  That's definitely fair - there's no reason to believe these accounts are rooted in any personal sexism directed towards Klobuchar, and claiming they are without any evidence doesn't help anybody. 

I've also heard complaints that these accounts are all anonymous - like that hurts their credibility in some way.  Uh, no, it's entirely understandable (and advisable) that the staffers remain anonymous if they want to continue working in DC.  They don't even have to necessarily be worried about Klobuchar's reaction or any efforts on her behalf to block their employment (which again is the most concerning accusation I've seen) - being identified here could undoubtedly hurt potential employment in the future.

At the same time, all of that does not mean the accusations aren't still under a systemic backdrop of sexist standards against female politicians and women in power in general.  As many pointed out, if these stories were recounted about, say, John McCain, they would probably be treated as endearing for the candidate.  Hell, I remember Dick Morris used to always recount an anecdote in which Bill Clinton got so enraged he literally started choking Morris.  Now, Morris doesn't and didn't really have virtually any credibility, but that accusation wouldn't have been shrugged off like it was if Morris was talking about, ya know, the other Clinton.  Most importantly, there's this background of the story that gets repeatedly reported as well:

Quote

The most concrete data point that appears in almost all of these stories comes from a surveyof staff turnover by Senate office from 2001 to 2016. It’s called “the worst boss” list. Klobuchar topped it. (She slipped to third-worst in the 2018 version, a point cited far less frequently.)

The rest of the list is interesting. Of the top 10 “worst bosses” in the Senate in 2016, seven were women and just three were men. At the time, then, about a third of female senators were worse bosses than nearly 96 percent of all male senators. That could be objectively true. Or maybe there’s something else going on.

That disparity is really all you need to know about there being a sexism problem when it comes to perceptions of "bad" bosses.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Yeah, she can be Schrodinger's Boss, both terrible and a not-beneficiary of sexism at the same time.

Also true: you can be a terrible boss and treat your subordinates like crap, and do great things for humanity at the same time. People used to tout Bill Gates as an example of this. Most people tend to empathize with the one, and treat the many with disinterest or abstraction. Some of the thinking behind the aid/charity ads on TV focus on the plight of a single individual for this. And then you have the minority of people who are able to empathize with the many and not really care about the one. Maybe Klobuchar falls in the latter (like Gates), I don't know. 

She is too centrist for me, and for that reason I am out. Treating her aides like crap means I probably would never befriend her, if I were ever to travel in her rarefied circles.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

 

 

That disparity is really all you need to know about there being a sexism problem when it comes to perceptions of "bad" bosses.

I would tend to agree. A dude who is a hardass is just a dude, so hardassness is expected and accepted. A woman who is a hardass OTOH, is being the opposite of the sensitive nuturing motherly type that traditionalism expects all women to be.

Fortunately none of my managers have been hardasses, men or women, and they've all been reasonably competent as managers.

The other thing about politicians is that having management experience is not a pre-requisite. So a lot of politicians may have never been in a management position, and thus they lack fundamental managerial skills. As well, many of them have personalities that suit being a politician, but don't suit governing or managing people.

[Bonnot OG]

Oh look, Cornyn showing what a lot of us knew he was with quoting BM, a fascist. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

4 hours ago, Zorral said:

Um -- what is the part of having to handle a whole lot of stuff with only two hands while the call to board a flight is in progress?  Have you never dropped anything during this process?  If so, I will insist you never or hardly ever fly anywhere.  Between the boarding pass and i.d. -- necessary for even the shortest domestic flights -- the carryons -- and how much carryon do you think a female politician who is going to be doing public appearances with photographers etc. will have?  and then his own carryon, which as aide is probably substantial as well.  You are really not understanding this situation.  She behaved very very very badly.  She's utterly dead to me, as she's not shown accomplishment that might make up for her being a thorough going asshole.

 

I think you just do your job. If I drop something I need that's important while boarding, then that's on me. I fucked up. If my job is to carry things and make sure things get where they're going, and I drop something while boarding, then that'son me. If my boss yells at me and is mean? Whatever, all I can do is learn from it. This thing of taking her down when she's campaigning seems petty. And sexist. Because I never hear about this kind of thing with men in power. I don't care about her as a candidate, but this kind of thing seems strange to draw such a line in the sand on.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

5 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I think, like others have said, the part that really grinds my gears is her holding grudges and affecting future employment. 

One thing I've seen brought up a lot is that this is a sexist angle of attack to take against her. I both agree and disagree. I disagree in that I want to know how someone treats their staff, as it gives insight into the person, so I want to hear from all the candidates' staffs on how they're treated. I agree in the sense that if there are similar stories about male candidates that aren't being reported, then that would be sexist.

Agreed. My last boss holds grudges this way with me, and we butted heads for years. I hated him.  But when a list of things was brought up to report him for, bullying was quickly pushed aside. We needed tangible demonstrations of his ability to manage effectively, yet if he were a woman, I wonder if the bullying thing could go front of center.

Holding grudges is a real problem. I don't know what to think on this except that it's easy for me. She's too centrist, so I can move on, but I get that people can really empathize on this issue.

[Varysblackfyre321]

Well this Politico article on Trump's popularity among hispanics bummed me out. But sadly was not surprising https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/24/2020-hispanic-voters-donald-trump-225192 

I  hope someone could rip apart this article in explaining why its arguments are wrong. If not I think it's s clear signal for democrats to  evolve in terms of how they deal with the Hispanic community.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Bonnot OG said:

Oh look, Cornyn showing what a lot of us knew he was with quoting BM, a fascist. 

Well he's just following Trump's lead again. Tweeting the words of fascists and white supremacist- nothing racist about that says most  of his supposedly non-racist supporters.  But it appears he's arguing hes only quoting it to show how fascist democrats are. 

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

I think you just do your job. If I drop something I need that's important while boarding, then that's on me. I fucked up. If my job is to carry things and make sure things get where they're going, and I drop something while boarding, then that'son me. If my boss yells at me and is mean? Whatever, all I can do is learn from it. This thing of taking her down when she's campaigning seems petty. And sexist. Because I never hear about this kind of thing with men in power. I don't care about her as a candidate, but this kind of thing seems strange to draw such a line in the sand on.

I think you're showing again that you don't know much about airports and boarding and all the rest.

This may be sexist in some ways, but it still holds true that she behaved very badly.  What this does is dramatize that she doesn't have anything to offer that others aren't offering.  

[ThinkerX]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Well this Politico article on Trump's popularity among hispanics bummed me out. But sadly was not surprising https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/24/2020-hispanic-voters-donald-trump-225192 

I  hope someone could rip apart this article in explaining why its arguments are wrong. If not I think it's s clear signal for democrats to  evolve in terms of how they deal with the Hispanic community.

It is no great surprise to me.  In the comments sections of the political articles I read, there is a large number of Trump supporters with Hispanic names.  From other articles, to me, it looks like there is a large minority - not far shy of a plurality - of Hispanics that would be considered conservative or center right.  Worth noting that republican strategists dreamed for decades of wooing Hispanic voters precisely because many of them were conservatives.  (apparently the bases racism got in the way of this dream). To assume minority = democratic/liberal voter is a major delusion I see here and elsewhere. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

19 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

It is no great surprise to me.  In the comments sections of the political articles I read, there is a large number of Trump supporters with Hispanic names.  From other articles, to me, it looks like there is a large minority - not far shy of a plurality - of Hispanics that would be considered conservative or center right.  Worth noting that republican strategists dreamed for decades of wooing Hispanic voters precisely because many of them were conservatives.  (apparently the bases racism got in the way of this dream). To assume minority = democratic/liberal voter is a major delusion I see here and elsewhere. 

You know as much as I’d like to be on a high horse and wag my finger at those who thought minority=Democratic/liberal voter I just can’t.  I’m ashamed to say I’ve been guilty of this type of thinking as well.  I thought it was a given Hispanics wouldn’t need that much convincing to vote against the man. But that’s patently absurd. It’s not a given Hispanic voters unilaterally come out in major opposition against Trump.

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

It is no great surprise to me.  In the comments sections of the political articles I read, there is a large number of Trump supporters with Hispanic names.  From other articles, to me, it looks like there is a large minority - not far shy of a plurality - of Hispanics that would be considered conservative or center right.  Worth noting that republican strategists dreamed for decades of wooing Hispanic voters precisely because many of them were conservatives.  (apparently the bases racism got in the way of this dream). To assume minority = democratic/liberal voter is a major delusion I see here and elsewhere. 

The surprise to me is why there aren't more African American's who are long term Republicans, though the racism against this minority is even stronger than against Latinos.

One feature of both African Americans and Latinos is that they are more religious than whites (African American's much more so, and Latinos somewhat more so). The left is becoming increasingly, and nastily, antagonistic to religious people, and at some point the religious bigotry may overwhelm the racial bigotry to drive more of the religiously minded minority towards political parties and ideologies that affirm their religious world view. What's the difference between being regarded as a lesser human because you're religious vs being regarded as a lesser human because of your skin colour? Not much once the hate and vitriol gets to more or less the same level.

Latinos are proportionally more of the members of the more fundamental / highly conservative type Christian sects than African Americans, e.g. they make up a larger proportion of evangelicals, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons than do African Americans. OTOH, the most maligned religion in the USA (Islam), especially by the right, has a lot more African Americans and than Latinos. Even though Muslims tend more heavily towards social conservatism and stark gender roles, African American Muslims are hit by the double right-wing whammy of racism and Islamophobia. Also this means Latinos mostly travel in Christian circles and have very little exposure to Islam within their own ethnic communities. Whereas there's more mixing of Christian and Muslim within African American communities, which means more opportunities to develop tolerance and mutual respect.

To me that mostly adds up to Latinos tending more towards social conservatism than African Americans, and this potentially also evolving into economic conservatism with time.

The other thing with Latino Americans is that there may be resentment towards the "illegals" from south of the border, in that the "legals" got here legitimately and through hard work etc etc, whereas the illegals are trying to do it "the easy way" and are also "making the rest of us look bad". There seems to be a sub-group of those kinds of resentful immigrants in pretty much all immigrant / 2nd generation communities where there is an illegal immigrant community. Here we have that kind of attitude among Pacific Island communities where there's a large legal immigrant and 2nd / 3rd generation community, but also a group of illegals and over-stayers.

[Varysblackfyre321]

10 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The surprise to me is why there aren't more African American's who are long term Republicans, though the racism against this minority is even stronger than against Latinos.

One feature of both African Americans and Latinos is that they are more religious than whites (African American's much more so, and Latinos somewhat more so). The left is becoming increasingly, and nastily, antagonistic to religious people, and at some point the religious bigotry may overwhelm the racial bigotry to drive more of the religiously minded minority towards political parties and ideologies that affirm their religious world view. What's the difference between being regarded as a lesser human because you're religious vs being regarded as a lesser human because of your skin colour? Not much once the hate and vitriol gets to more or less the same level.

Latinos are proportionally more of the members of the more fundamental / highly conservative type Christian sects than African Americans, e.g. they make up a larger proportion of evangelicals, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons than do African Americans. OTOH, the most maligned religion in the USA (Islam), especially by the right, has a lot more African Americans and than Latinos. Even though Muslims tend more heavily towards social conservatism and stark gender roles, African American Muslims are hit by the double right-wing whammy of racism and Islamophobia. Also this means Latinos mostly travel in Christian circles and have very little exposure to Islam within their own ethnic communities. Whereas there's more mixing of Christian and Muslim within African American communities, which means more opportunities to develop tolerance and mutual respect.

To me that mostly adds up to Latinos tending more towards social conservatism than African Americans, and this potentially also evolving into economic conservatism with time.

The other thing with Latino Americans is that there may be resentment towards the "illegals" from south of the border, in that the "legals" got here legitimately and through hard work etc etc, whereas the illegals are trying to do it "the easy way" and are also "making the rest of us look bad". There seems to be a sub-group of those kinds of resentful immigrants in pretty much all immigrant / 2nd generation communities where there is an illegal immigrant community. Here we have that kind of attitude among Pacific Island communities where there's a large legal immigrant and 2nd / 3rd generation community, but also a group of illegals and over-stayers.

So you think Democrats will modulate their messages towards the Hispanic community? Or keep hitting the same beats they think the majority of the Hispanic care the most about-immigration reform, granting undocumented immigrants protections(especially dreamers), opposing the construction of the wall etc etc? 

[The Anti-Targ]

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

So you think Democrats will modulate their messages towards the Hispanic community? Or keep hitting the same beats they think the majority of the Hispanic care the most about-immigration reform, granting undocumented immigrants protections(especially dreamers), opposing the construction of the wall etc etc? 

I'd like to think decent politicians support sensible and just policies on immigration, and work out how to convince people on the conservative side of their communities fringes that their positions are the right way to go.

I guess the other element to the potential conservatising of Latinos is the whole thing around MS-13 / illegals committing crimes thing. Like most ethnic communities most victims of Latino criminals are members Latinos. So that ties crime with immigration in Latino communities in a way that is far less prevalent in African American communities. You don't see conservatives blaming "black on black" crime on black immigrants. In that case it's all about the "drugged out losers coming out of the projects". With Latinos the conservative mantra is "the illegals are all the murderers and rapists."

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Well this Politico article on Trump's popularity among hispanics bummed me out. But sadly was not surprising https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/24/2020-hispanic-voters-donald-trump-225192 

I  hope someone could rip apart this article in explaining why its arguments are wrong. If not I think it's s clear signal for democrats to  evolve in terms of how they deal with the Hispanic community.

Oh, wow, there are so many reasons not to get too bummed out by that article.  There's some obvious and/or technical ones, starting with the simple fact there's no reason to read too much into demo cells in a few polls this far away from the election.  The article mentions one big reason why - the very high marginal errors with such small samples, but that's part of a bigger issue.  Pollsters don't have any idea what the composition of the Hispanic electorate is going to look like yet. 

Nobody has the best data thus far to even start building those models, which are the basis for weighting such demo cells.  Plus one of the obvious non-technical reasons why is we have no idea is because we have no idea how the Democratic candidate will appeal to Hispanic voters.  Until there's better information, there is always going to be highly volatile and wide confidence intervals on the samples of demo breakdowns, that's just the nature of the beast. 

Further, as the article notes, looking at the rolling average and the average of other polls, it appears his approval has risen to ~32-36.  Is that a concerning trend?  Sure.  Is it something to keep an eye on?  Absolutely.  But Republicans got 29% of the Hispanic vote in 2018 and Trump got 28% in 2016 according to the exit polls, so it's not that much of a jump - in fact it's basically within an average margin of error.  Which leads to the main reason not to get bummed out about the article:  It creates the impression the hispanic vote is "key" to Democrat victory, and that's simply not what the exit polls suggest.

Due to the record high turnout, comparing the 2018 midterms to 2016 is actually a better indicator than usual for figuring out what the opposition party needs to do to beat the incumbent this time.  If you compare the differences between 2016 and 2018, the gains the Dems made clearly have little to do with the Hispanic vote.  The key demo gain for the Dems is in age:  Hillary won 18-44 year olds - which accounted for 44% of the electorate - by 14 points.  The Dems won the age group by 25 points in 2018, albeit with only 35% of the electorate, which reflects the fact midterm electorates are older. 

If they can hold onto that 11 point marginal gain while the percentage of the electorate increases to average presidential size, that's how you beat Trump.  And that difference, if you scroll down and compare the age & race breakdowns, is a somewhat spread across race, but if anything it was the change in 18-44 year old white voters that led to the Dems' success in 2018.  Hell, Trump actually won 18-29 year old whites in 2016.  That's very unlikely to happen again.

[mormont]

5 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

What's the difference between being regarded as a lesser human because you're religious vs being regarded as a lesser human because of your skin colour? 

Well, the latter is widespread in the US and the former is not, to begin with.

It's true that many on the left are atheist and that many have issues with organised religion, even with evangelicals who weaponise their faith to oppress minorities. But where are these instances of people of faith 'being regarded as a lesser human'? Perhaps by a few in the extreme rationalist atheist community, but to be quite honest, those guys (and it is almost all guys) tend to be libertarians rather than leftists. 

Unless you subscribe to the 'war on Christmas' rhetoric, you're tilting at windmills with that one. 

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

5 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

and at some point the religious bigotry may overwhelm the racial bigotry to drive more of the religiously minded minority towards political parties and ideologies that affirm their religious world view.

I think you wildly underestimate how deeply rooted the disgust of Republicans are within these communities. To put it another way, you will see Evangelical Christians voting Democrat before you see Republicans winning the African American vote. Its the single strongest constituency of any group and by a good margin. The saying goes they "arent voting FOR Dems, they are voting AGAINST Republicans!"

[Larry of the Lawn]

8 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I'd like to think decent politicians support sensible and just policies on immigration, and work out how to convince people on the conservative side of their communities fringes that their positions are the right way to go.

I guess the other element to the potential conservatising of Latinos is the whole thing around MS-13 / illegals committing crimes thing. Like most ethnic communities most victims of Latino criminals are members Latinos. So that ties crime with immigration in Latino communities in a way that is far less prevalent in African American communities. You don't see conservatives blaming "black on black" crime on black immigrants. In that case it's all about the "drugged out losers coming out of the projects". With Latinos the conservative mantra is "the illegals are all the murderers and rapists."

This really doesn't seem accurate or realistic.  I think conservative, Republican voting latinx tend to overlook the idiotic and clearly false ms-13 comments and the "rapists and murderers" rhetoric, but vote GOP for other reasons.  This is why you had so many conservative politicians rushing to condemn Trump when he started saying this shit.  It's not that different from many of the left wing in the US voting  Dem but hating the support of the military industrial complex and neo-colonial murder/intervention policies.

I think the anti-abortion stance so many Republicans hold is common ground with some of the strongly religious latinx communities, but it's not a universal or even that strong of an alliance.  When I lived in San Diego most of my co-workers came from a community that was part Catholic and part LDS, and they often talked about being frustrated that Dems were pro-choice because this was an important issue for them, but they hated the GOP racist rhetoric.  They tended to vote GOP, but loved Obama.  

I jus think there's a lot more nuance than "religion = GOP", mostly for the reason Mormont mentioned, and also, Latinx voters aren't a monolith.

 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

House Democrats, now armed with their own subpoena power, aren't waiting for the results of Mueller's investigation. Schiff and Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) have already agreed to work together on a probe of Deutsche Bank.

"We are moving forward," Schiff said.

For Schiff, Deutsche Bank is a starting point as his committee investigates possible money laundering by the Trump Organization. Waters, who has called for the president's impeachment, has said her inquiry into the "Trump money trail" would also start with the bank.

 

House Democrats target Trump’s personal finances
Why did Deutsche Bank lend money to Trump business when others refused?

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/25/trump-money-deutsche-bank-1204497