U.S. Politics: Moscow Mitch

[all swedes are racist]

21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

Let me give you a real example of how these stereotypes work. One course I took in college was Cultural Psychology. We did an exercise early on in the course in which the entire class was told to close their eyes and picture what a person using food stamps looks like. The class was very diverse, and yet every student had the same answer: a woman of color. These types of stereotypes are wide spread and exist in all ethnic groups.

Also, for what it’s worth, the correct answer is white women.

you do realize that that is, even if not malicious or hateful, very racist?

and literal lol if you think obama wasn’t an extremely talented and shrewd politician who would absolutely choose a running mate with retrograde views on race for political advantage. c’mon now

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Perhaps he was testing the waters, but it’s also quite possible that Biden did what he does best, blurt s*** out.

Is it possible?  Of course, anything's possible.  But pretty damn unlikely.  Let's look at the actual comments:

Quote

BIDEN: Look, I am Vice President of the United States of America. The president sets the policy. I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men marrying women are entitled to the same exact rights. All the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly I don’t see much of a distinction beyond that. […] I think Will & Grace probably did more to educate the American public than almost anything anybody has done so far. People fear that is different and now they’re beginning to understand.

That's not a misspeak or a gaffe.  That's clearly prepared position taking.  And considering what happened afterwards, seems pretty clear it was the administration using their second most notable figure to get the message out there while maintaining caution.  A rather typical Obama move.

As for when Obama came out for it, it wasn't until October 2012.  That interview quoted above was in early May 2012.  So, five months.  I don't know if you would call that "quickly" or not, but I wouldn't.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, a good and nice guy said:

you do realize that that is, even if not malicious or hateful, very racist?

and literal lol if you think obama wasn’t an extremely talented and shrewd politician who would absolutely choose a running mate with retrograde views on race for political advantage. c’mon now

It wasn’t inherently racist. It was done to show that our culture conditions us to believe things that aren’t true. There are a number of different studies that address this issue.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

Is it possible?  Of course, anything's possible.  But pretty damn unlikely.  Let's look at the actual comments:

That's not a misspeak or a gaffe.  That's clearly prepared position taking.  And considering what happened afterwards, seems pretty clear it was the administration using their second most notable figure to get the message out there while maintaining caution.  A rather typical Obama move.

As for when Obama came out for it, it wasn't until October 2012.  That interview quoted above was in early May 2012.  So, five months.  I don't know if you would call that "quickly" or not, but I wouldn't.

Hmm, I seem to recall it was a lot short time period than that. I guess not. That timeline does make your stance a lot more plausible.

[HexMachina]

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It wasn’t inherently racist. It was done to show that our culture conditions us to believe things that aren’t true. There are a number of different studies that address this issue.

So not inherently racist, just institutionally racist?

[DMC]

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Hmm, I seem to recall it was a lot short time period than that. I guess not. That timeline does make your stance a lot more plausible.

I really don't think the timing makes it more "plausible."  Could have been the next day, point is Biden remained in Obama's good graces afterwards by all accounts I know of.  If Biden "forced his hand" on the issue, that wouldn't be the case.  Biden speaking out was pretty plainly a trial balloon in my book.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

So not inherently racist, just institutionally racist?

Institutional racism is a different construct. What these studies look at is stereotypes and how they become ingrained in a culture. Another example are studies that use word association with different ethnic groups, and the last one I read (a while back) concluded that all ethnic groups, including African Americans, associate violent terminology more so with African Americans than any of the other ethnic groups in the study.

[Zorral]

Seeing stories in many places that the Dems are actually in the process of the process to begin impeachment.  Even Nadler says so.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/09/impeachment-inquiry-trump-has-feared-is-here/

Quote

 

“We are investigating all the evidence, gathering the evidence,” Nadler added. “And we will [at the] conclusion of this — hopefully by the end of the year — vote to vote articles of impeachment to the House floor. Or we won’t. That’s a decision that we’ll have to make. But that’s exactly the process we’re in right now.”

His statement makes clear what a lawsuit filed Wednesday by his committee states: that the “Judiciary Committee is now determining whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the President based on the obstructive conduct described by the Special Counsel.”

 

Also seeing more stories show up about Warren on a regular basis these last 7 - 10 days.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/surging-in-polls-warren-has-clear-path-to-the-nomination.html

Quote

 

..... Put all that together with the inability of any candidates outside the Big Four of Biden, Warren, Sanders, and Harris to gain any momentum at all, and for the first time you can clearly see a plausible path to the nomination for Warren.

Given her competition with Sanders for a similar pool of voters, Warren can probably afford to practically ignore Biden and Harris and focus on riding her organization to a better performance than Bernie in Iowa on February 3 (he doesn’t have her organization but does have a strong volunteer base), which should give her a bump in New Hampshire (February 11). Beating Sanders there, where Bernie won 61 percent of the vote in 2016, could be a game-changer for Warren, much like fellow Massachusetts candidate John Kerry’s win in the first two states over Sanders’s fellow Vermonter Howard Dean in 2004.

As noted above, Warren is well positioned in Nevada (which caucuses on February 22) and can probably stand aside and benefit in South Carolina (February 29) either from Biden being weakened or Harris all but eliminated. And she’s doing pretty well in polls for the big Super Tuesday (March 3) states of California (running second behind Biden in a new SUSA poll) and Texas (running third behind Biden and a likely-to-be-eliminated Beto O’Rourke in the polling averages). Her own state of Massachusetts votes on Super Tuesday as well.

This scenario helps explain why Warren has been so careful to avoid any friction with Sanders. She’s in a good, if hardly unassailable, position to squeeze Bernie out of the race by the beginning of March if Bernie-or-Bust voters don’t talk him into staying the course at Warren’s expense. If she can win that implicit progressive sub-primary and Harris continues to flounder, she could be in a one-on-one competition with Joe Biden earlier than anyone might have managed, and that could produce her best shot at the nomination.

 

 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/07/elizabeth-warren-nevada-democrats-2020-1449938

Quote

 

LAS VEGAS — Kamala Harris hired a dream team of operatives. Joe Biden has solid establishment support. Bernie Sanders heads a volunteer army. And Julián Castro is seen as a “sleeper.”

But of the two dozen Democrats running for president, none matches Elizabeth Warren when it comes to the size of her campaign operation, the crowds at her rallies and the buzz among activists and operatives in Nevada.

“Elizabeth Warren just has a gigantic campaign,” said Laura Martin, executive director of the social justice organization Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada. “There are counties all over rural areas where some campaigns are just doing tours, but she has staff there. And that was a strategy President Obama had in 2008 when he won Nevada.”

Another Democratic operative put it more bluntly: “Warren has built a monster.”

 

Drove upstate today.  We are the sorts who always explore the radio bands -- and have Sirius too -- when driving.  Unless it were a music program one literally could not get away from tvillain's voice and his name.  I do not recall ANY president being this omnipresent in the media 24/7, no matter whether so called right, left or neutral.  Nobody anywhere talks about anything else.  It's horrible. Gonna go off media all together for this weekend I think.  A head cleanse ... man, I'm jonesing now to get back to Cuba where one's head really does get the garbage cleaned out.  But Cuba too is getting more and more connected every couple of months.

[Fragile Bird]

I am going to repeat this for those who did not get the message in the last thread.

The US has so many shootings because you have so many guns, and easy access to guns. Period. It’s not video games, it’s not mental illness, it’s not the terrible influence of the internet, it’s because you have So. Many. Guns.

Period.

[Darth Richard II]

6 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I am going to repeat this for those who did not get the message in the last thread.

The US has so many shootings because you have so many guns, and easy access to guns. Period. It’s not video games, it’s not mental illness, it’s not the terrible influence of the internet, it’s because you have So. Many. Guns.

Period.

No shit. There was actual disagreement about that?

[HexMachina]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Institutional racism is a different construct. What these studies look at is stereotypes and how they become ingrained in a culture. Another example are studies that use word association with different ethnic groups, and the last one I read (a while back) concluded that all ethnic groups, including African Americans, associate violent terminology more so with African Americans than any of the other ethnic groups in the study.

Im still struggling to see a real distinction here between these stereotypes and racism. Just because certain views have become ingrained about a culture doesnt make them not racist, surely? And he fact members of that group may share those views also doesnt mean they arent racist either. Maybe im just being dense here but whats the difference here?

31 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

No shit. There was actual disagreement about that?

Just the usual trolls

[Bonnot OG]

2 hours ago, a good and nice guy said:

you mean sokal’s original parody, lehman’s reading of it, or the ‘archie carter’ piece published by quillette the other day?

Archie Carter Lol. Andy Ngo is real silent about why that article was pulled where as the person that said they were Archie Carter has said they were just fucking with that Nazi rag, which showed how little they face check.

[all swedes are racist]

7 minutes ago, Bonnot OG said:

Archie Carter Lol. Andy Ngo is real silent about why that article was pulled where as the person that said they were Archie Carter has said they were just fucking with that Nazi rag, which showed how little they face check.

lol did you see that jacobin article. not only did quillette put the piece out totally uncritically, they fabricated lines themselves that weren't in the original, just incredible

[Jaxom 1974]

1 hour ago, Darth Richard II said:

No shit. There was actual disagreement about that?

I know a couple people that believe the quantity of guns isn't an issue...

[Jace, Extat]

I'd make the best revolutionary. I'd be all "Long live the Republic! Long live the Revolution! Long live the worker!" And then at my signal a hundred guillotines would fall at once.

After this display the next batch of citizens and prisoners would be admitted to witness my speech.

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

It wasn’t inherently racist. It was done to show that our culture conditions us to believe things that aren’t true. There are a number of different studies that address this issue.

That is literally what racism is.  It's believing something to be true about race that isn't.  There are other things that racism is too, like genuinely believing someone is subhuman based on their race but subconsciously assuming something like that is definitely racist.  It's not shooting up black people but it's the exact same reason it happens - many cops have it ingrained that black people are a threat to them.

And I'm not even sure I'd describe the reaction to Biden's words as outrage, more like, "told you so, do you want to have to have this conversation everyday till next November?". 

[ThinkerX]

meanwhile, there is more going on than watching Biden fumbling for the self destruct button to his campaign...like this gem, a step towards Trump's dream of a 'proper internet media.'  Will it stand up to court challenges?  And will Trump include his own unique definition of 'free speech?'

 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-house-proposal-would-have-fcc-and-ftc-police-alleged-social-media-censorship/ar-AAFAbES?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=msnclassic

 

A draft executive order from the White House could put the Federal Communications Commission in charge of shaping how Facebook, Twitter and other large tech companies curate what appears on their websites, according to multiple people familiar with the matter.

 

The draft order, a summary of which was obtained by CNN, calls for the FCC to develop new regulations clarifying how and when the law protects social media websites when they decide to remove or suppress content on their platforms. Although still in its early stages and subject to change, the Trump administration's draft order also calls for the Federal Trade Commission to take those new policies into account when it investigates or files lawsuits against misbehaving companies.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

Seeing stories in many places that the Dems are actually in the process of the process to begin impeachment.  Even Nadler says so.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/09/impeachment-inquiry-trump-has-feared-is-here/

Also seeing more stories show up about Warren on a regular basis these last 7 - 10 days.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/surging-in-polls-warren-has-clear-path-to-the-nomination.html

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/07/elizabeth-warren-nevada-democrats-2020-1449938

Drove upstate today.  We are the sorts who always explore the radio bands -- and have Sirius too -- when driving.  Unless it were a music program one literally could not get away from tvillain's voice and his name.  I do not recall ANY president being this omnipresent in the media 24/7, no matter whether so called right, left or neutral.  Nobody anywhere talks about anything else.  It's horrible. Gonna go off media all together for this weekend I think.  A head cleanse ... man, I'm jonesing now to get back to Cuba where one's head really does get the garbage cleaned out.  But Cuba too is getting more and more connected every couple of months.

When your up this way it's radio Woodstock 100.1 for tunes or 90.3 wamc public radio.  It's not as bad as CNN, but they definitely spend a lot time on Trump.

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 hours ago, The Mother of The Others said:

Snip.    .

How do you explain overall rates of violence being down in this country since the dawn of video games?  

Like, violent crime is down from the 50s, 60s, and 70s.  

And once you start with the "any government control is bad" shit you might as well just stop typing.  Not interested in walking someone who just discovered libertarianism through it's swiss cheese and smoke and mirrors ideological framework.  

You think those AOC quotes are some kind of gotcha moment?  Do you really think that an AR15 is going to help you of the government actually wanted to take you into custody?  

It's like a seatbelt on a fucking airplane.

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

That’s an extremely cynical, and somewhat demeaning, take on Obama, his morals and his decision making process. I for one think it’s highly unlikely that he would have sought out Biden as first a mentor and then his partner on the campaign trail if he thought he was a racist. Everyone can have misguided stereotypes, but that’s not the same as being a racist, at least not in this case. 

Again, when you choose to redefine words to mean what you want them to, arguments magically get won. 

When you look at Biden's record, you see a person who has a lot of racist political PoVs. Those are his actions. That's also true for both Bill and Hillary Clinton, it's true for John Kerry, it's true for virtually any politician who has been in any office since the 90s. It doesn't mean that I think Biden is the antichrist or that we should vote against him no matter what. This is what 'racist' means to you - that because someone is racist, they are entirely the enemy and hideous. That's not what it actually means. 

Obama had to regularly deal with a whole lot of racists in order to get things done. What, you think Joe Liebermann wasn't racist? Please. Here's the uncomfortable truth about racism in the US: people of color have to make a choice every single minute whether or not they're going to speak up and fight that battle or let it go. Every minute, they're deciding whether or not it's worth it to lose their job, make their career harder, make their family life harder, make their kids' school life harder when someone is racist to them. Most of the time they just let it go, because it isn't worth the struggle at that point. But that in no way means it isn't racist; it means that they just haven't been called out on it by that person. If you haven't heard it yet, it means that you're not worth the effort to educate. 

If you think that Obama vetted everyone by saying 'let's rule out anyone who did anything racist' you're high. 

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

And the paragraph I deleted was just plain nonsense. 

Yeah, I think it's pretty telling you don't go into that at all. Your argument remains that Biden can't be racist because he has black friends. 

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

As is this. I have written at length here and elsewhere about how racism has a lot of grey areas. It’s not black and white. Treating it that way is what you guys are doing. 

Racism does have a lot of grey areas. That's why Biden's form of racism isn't something automatically ostracizing. But it doesn't mean it's not, ya know, actually racist. In particular Biden shows repeatedly a massive amount of unconscious racial bias. That's typical for someone in their 70s. It's not particularly weird. I doubt it's particularly malicious. But don't pretend that the racism isn't there. 

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

That’s the point. There are smart ways to help people evolve and there are dumb ways that will only further entrench their bigoted views. 

How is talking about Biden's racism with you entrenching Biden's bigoted views?

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Likewise, how can you have so much certainty that he’s a racist when he immediately tried to clean it up. 

For the same reason that when someone insults me first and then says sorry it doesn't make the insult just disappear. That came from somewhere. Do people regularly misspeak and say 'poor' when they mean 'black'? 

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Let me give you a real example of how these stereotypes work. One course I took in college was Cultural Psychology. We did an exercise early on in the course in which the entire class was told to close their eyes and picture what a person using food stamps looks like. The class was very diverse, and yet every student had the same answer: a woman of color. These types of stereotypes are wide spread and exist in all ethnic groups. 

And that's racism. That it's widespread and throughout the culture is more a product of the welfare queens of Reagan's 80s than it being somehow okay to be racist. 

Let me ask you this - do you think that that is acceptable that their thought is that black women are the ones on food stamps? Is that the right stereotype? 

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Also, for what it’s worth, the correct answer is white women.

The correct answer is 'someone who needs food assistance'.