US Politics: The American Messias, Greenland and attacks on Jews voting Democrats. Or as we call it Wednesday.

[felice]

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

It's quite alright that people have senior moments.  It's not alright that Mr. Senior Moment is drafted to slay Trump.  

...and then act as President of the most powerful country in the world for another eight years while human civilisation is facing an existential crisis. If he's having senior moments now, what's he going to be like by the end of his second term?

1 hour ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Don't Americans overall loooooove their military and the people in it?

Well, politicians probably can't get away with failing to pay lip service to it, at least. I'd guess genuine enthusiasm would tend to be more of a Republican trait? Not exclusively, of course.

1 hour ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Hmmm, that seems like an oversimplification to me (and I am very much a progressive). As far as I can tell, Buttigieg's political views seems along the lines of Obama, and young people certainly flocked to him.

That was twelve years ago Did his administration really live up to the hype?

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, felice said:

That was twelve years ago Did his administration really live up to the hype?

Disagree with the implication here.  I don't think you need a Bernie/Warren-esque platform to generate excitement from younger voters.  Is anyone succeeding at doing so right now?  No, but I don't think it's really about where a candidate falls on the political spectrum.

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 hours ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Don't Americans overall loooooove their military and the people in it? If so, that should be an asset for Pete. I agree that he needs to work on winning over African-Americans, but at the same time I am completely baffled how Biden seems to get a pass from said community about him crowing over how well he worked with segregationists back in the day (and then doubled down on it). 

The people who blindly love the military, or claim to, aren't the people who are going to vote democratic.  I mean, these are the same people who voted for Cadet Bone Spurs.  

And Biden polls well with black voters for the same reason he polls well with anyone, he's been around awhile and has name recognition, and despite his record he's had their support for a long time.  He doesn't poll that well with younger black voters.

Quote

Hmmm, that seems like an oversimplification to me (and I am very much a progressive). As far as I can tell, Buttigieg's political views seems along the lines of Obama, and young people certainly flocked to him. But yeah, I can see why someone drawn to Warren and Sanders might be lukewarm at best towards Buttigieg. But my thinking is more that if Biden (hopefully) and Harris lose steam then he should be able to pick up those voters. 

But I also feel that Buttigieg's 'moderatism' gets overstated. He strikes me as one of the few candidates that calls for fundamental structural change to make the U.S. democracy actually more democratic (i.e. reflective of the majority again). That seems a long way off Biden's "everything will be fine as long as we get rid of Trump" approach. 

You're making the mistake of assuming Obama was elected specifically for his policies, or because he was a moderate.   He was elected because he was inspirational and because he was the most liberal candidate available and promised change.  Buttigieg isn't.  Obama didn't have a huge field of contenders.  If you want a candidate that's promising change, seems like Sanders, Warren, Castro, or even Gabbard (also a vet) are where you'd go. 

 

 Buttigieg fired the police chief of South Bend in 2012 or 2013.  The chief had taped white officers using racist language, probabaly illegally.  I think mayor Pete fired him but never released the tapes or disciplined the racist officers.  It sounds like the community didn't respond well to him firing a black police chief who was investigating racism amongst white officers.  

And then earlier this year a white officer shot and killed a black South Bend resident and his body camera wasn't on.  The officer wasn't fired.  Mayor Pete later admitted he shod have done more.  

There's probabaly other stuff as well.

[Ser Reptitious]

3 hours ago, felice said:

That was twelve years ago Did his administration really live up to the hype?

Obama was far too naive for far too long regarding Republican obstructionism. That was his biggest failing. Yet despite that, his presidency seems to be remember fondly by many (most?) Democrats, hence Biden trying to cash in on that sentiment.

 

2 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

You're making the mistake of assuming Obama was elected specifically for his policies, or because he was a moderate.   He was elected because he was inspirational and because he was the most liberal candidate available and promised change.  

As @DMC pointed out, being inspirational doesn't necessarily require a specific set of policies. Buttigieg could be inspirational and moderate (as far as the Democratic spectrum goes) at the same time and probably excite young people in a similar vein as Obama. 

 

Quote

Buttigieg fired the police chief of South Bend in 2012 or 2013.  The chief had taped white officers using racist language, probabaly illegally.  I think mayor Pete fired him but never released the tapes or disciplined the racist officers.  It sounds like the community didn't respond well to him firing a black police chief who was investigating racism amongst white officers.  

And then earlier this year a white officer shot and killed a black South Bend resident and his body camera wasn't on.  The officer wasn't fired.  Mayor Pete later admitted he shod have done more.  

There's probabaly other stuff as well.

Thanks for the info. Buttigieg definitely needs to work on that, if he hopes to assemble an Obama-type coalition.

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 hours ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Obama was far too naive for far too long regarding Republican obstructionism. That was his biggest failing. Yet despite that, his presidency seems to be remember fondly by many (most?) Democrats, hence Biden trying to cash in on that sentiment.

 

As @DMC pointed out, being inspirational doesn't necessarily require a specific set of policies. Buttigieg could be inspirational and moderate (as far as the Democratic spectrum goes) at the same time and probably excite young people in a similar vein as Obama. 

 

Thanks for the info. Buttigieg definitely needs to work on that, if he hopes to assemble an Obama-type coalition.

Maybe he could be, but he's not.  And I don't see any moderate candidate exciting young people, that just seems completely antithetical.  Obama turned out to be slightly less liberal and progressive than he seemed, and there wasn't a realistic more progressive option. 

 

 

[Zorral]

Buttigieg's pluses are the same pluses, more or less, in the other candidates, so they don't distinguish him particularly. The negative issues with Buttigieg  are easy to find, and summarized here -- scroll down to "Key Criticisms':

https://www.axios.com/pete-buttigieg-2020-presidential-election-factsheet-indiana-mayor-020c5afc-c8a2-4691-940c-b271e63306b1.html

~~~~~~~~~

Economists destroyed the economy:

Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In 

"Why did America listen to the people who thought we needed “more millionaires and more bankrupts?” By Binyamin Appelbaum 

Mr. Appelbaum is a member of The New York Times Editorial Board and the author of the forthcoming “The Economists’ Hour: False Prophets, Free Markets and the Fracture of Society.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/24/opinion/sunday/economics-milton-friedman.html?

Quote

 

....Accounts of the rise of inequality often take a fatalistic view. The problem is described as a natural consequence of capitalism, or it is blamed on forces, like globalization or technological change, that are beyond the direct control of policymakers. But much of the fault lies in ourselves, in our collective decision to embrace policies that prioritized efficiency and encouraged the concentration of wealth, and to neglect policies that equalized opportunity and distributed rewards. The rise of economics is a primary reason for the rise of inequality.... 

....This is not just bad for those who suffer, although surely that is bad enough. It is bad for affluent Americans, too. When wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few, studies show, total consumption declines and investment lags. Corporations and wealthy households increasingly resemble Scrooge McDuck, sitting on piles of money they can’t use productively. 

Willful indifference to the distribution of prosperity over the last half century is an important reason the very survival of liberal democracy is now being tested by nationalist demagogues. I have no special insight into how long the rope can hold, or how much weight it can bear. But I know our shared bonds will last longer if we can find ways to reduce the strain....

 

One could say much the same about professional political 'scientists' and their political poll 'n stats wonkery-wankery; they and the economists dance cheek-to-cheek in the tendencies that destroy paths of equality and democracy.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

And I don't see any moderate candidate exciting young people, that just seems completely antithetical.

You're gonna have to convince me how moderate and exciting are antithetical.  Bill Clinton inspired young people while explicitly running as a moderate.  That was a different time, sure, but just cuz no one's doing it now doesn't mean it can't happen.  Hell, I'd argue none of the more progressive candidates right now are particularly exciting.

[DireWolfSpirit]

That was twelve years ago  Did his administration really live up to the hype?

Umm Yeah, in some ways he exceeded it.

He inherited an economic mess from Bush and guided us out of it in FDR fashion. Plus he delivered on hunting down Bin Laden, and he expanded HC coverage to millions.

All the while he managed to not be a racist, homophobic, climate change denier like what were stuck with now. History is and will continue to remember Obama"s well. I'd vote for Michelle in a heartbeat over anyone currently running.

[Ser Reptitious]

27 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Buttigieg's pluses are the same pluses, more or less, in the other candidates, so they don't distinguish him particularly. The negative issues with Buttigieg  are easy to find, and summarized here -- scroll down to "Key Criticisms':

https://www.axios.com/pete-buttigieg-2020-presidential-election-factsheet-indiana-mayor-020c5afc-c8a2-4691-940c-b271e63306b1.html

In terms of the pluses, his supreme court plan stands out, though. In terms of saving the U.S. democracy that is exactly the kind of 'tweak' that the system badly needs!

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

You're gonna have to convince me how moderate and exciting are antithetical.  Bill Clinton inspired young people while explicitly running as a moderate.  That was a different time, sure, but just cuz no one's doing it now doesn't mean it can't happen.  Hell, I'd argue none of the more progressive candidates right now are particularly exciting.

Well I doubt I could do that, it's extremely subjective.  What's exciting about being moderate right now?  At least medicare for all or universal healthcare or reducing student debt are things that will get people out to vote.  

I guess Beto might be an exception, but I feel like he had his window, and it was Texas.  

Moderate and inspirational might not be antithetical, but I'd say that given the current political climate and where the country is they'd be a very unlikely combo.  

And was Clinton really inspirational?  Or did have the most popular third party candidate in our lifetime siphoning votes more off the right than the left?  It's clear that he was a minority President, not sure how overall Dem turnout was at the time but was he really that inspirational?

You also have him running against an unpopular incumbent cobbled by the infamous "no new taxes" right before jacking up middle class taxes.  I suppose you could make a similar argument for Obama post Bush II, but the difference is that Obama had the charisma beforehand, Clinton I think has been romanticized after the fact.  Would be interesting, I suppose, on some level, for someone who is interested in that sort of stuff, to study (it ain't me chief).

What would a moderate even run on?  Would it matter?  Are inspirational and actual policy even connected? I think they are, but either way, at the end of the day, you're either exciting or you're not.  Mayor Pete isn't.  

On top of the stuff I quoted from his past, black and latinx voters have historically been more conservative on certain social issues like LGBTQ rights and marriage outside traditional hetero shit than the electorate as a whole.  I'd imagine it's less of a trend than 20 years ago, and not sure if this still holds true, but I remember back in 2008 California had same sex marriage beaten in a referendum basically because Obama mobilized so many black and latinx voters for the same election.  At least that was the narrative at the time.  

I will happily vote for Buttigieg if he gets the nomination and will encourage everyone else to as well.  But it's a little late in the game to suddenly become inspirational or fix those two issues he's already had back home.  But then again, who knows?Maybe he can tackle a South Bend cop that's about to murder a person of color on national TV before next November.

I'd prefer him to pretty much anyone except Sanders, Warren, Castro, Inslee,* Harris, Booker, or Klobuchar.  

*Obviously not happening anymore

[Larry of the Lawn]

So... For climate policy, why isn't anyone running on a one child per family policy?  World wide really?  

 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

What's exciting about being moderate right now?  At least medicare for all or universal healthcare or reducing student debt are things that will get people out to vote.

What's exciting about being left, right, or moderate at any time?  You can have interesting, even inspiring, policy proposals from whatever point on the ideological spectrum.  Policy doesn't really excite nor inspire people no matter what it is, candidates do - at least in our two party system.  FDR didn't (originally) run on the New Deal, JFK ran to the right of fucking Richard Nixon on the missile gap (and lied about it), Jimmy Carter ran as a moderate outsider.  I mean, I guess I'm wrong about that - policy does lead movements, especially in other countries throughout history, but those are usually pretty fucking scary movements and subsequent regimes.

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

I'd say that given the current political climate and where the country is they'd be a very unlikely combo.  

That's fair, it's definitely true that the DSA is the emergent and exciting thing on the left right now.  But say Obama had a twin with the exact same policy preferences and ability to inspire.  You don't think that'd be the most exciting candidate in this field?

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

And was Clinton really inspirational?

Well, he was certainly more inspiring than everyone else he was running against that cycle.  I was only 7-15 during his campaigns/presidency, but I remember it well enough.  It's not romanticism after the fact.  Him playing the sax on Arsenio Hall, Toni Morrison calling him the first black president.  He was the cool president even before everybody found out he was getting blowjobs from interns in the Oval.

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

What would a moderate even run on?  Would it matter?  Are inspirational and actual policy even connected? I think they are, but either way, at the end of the day, you're either exciting or you're not.  Mayor Pete isn't.

Again, I think you're overestimating the impact of ideology/policy agenda on a candidate's success, at least in the context of the American presidency.  As for the bolded, that's exactly what I'm saying.  And to clarify, I wasn't making an argument for Mayor Pete, just challenging the concept.  Buttigieg definitely particularly excite me, although he's a solid candidate that should get more run in a few more cycles or so.

[DanteGabriel]

Clinton was the first Boomer President. Amazing that that was once a "young and exciting" selling point, but it was. People thought that him being a Fleetwood Mac fan was pretty cutting edge for the presidency.

[Larry of the Lawn]

 

 

48 minutes ago, DMC said:

What's exciting about being left, right, or moderate at any time?  You can have interesting, even inspiring, policy proposals from whatever point on the ideological spectrum.  Policy doesn't really excite nor inspire people no matter what it is, candidates do - at least in our two party system.  FDR didn't (originally) run on the New Deal, JFK ran to the right of fucking Richard Nixon on the missile gap (and lied about it), Jimmy Carter ran as a moderate outsider.  I mean, I guess I'm wrong about that - policy does lead movements, especially in other countries throughout history, but those are usually pretty fucking scary movements and subsequent regimes.

That's fair, it's definitely true that the DSA is the emergent and exciting thing on the left right now.  But say Obama had a twin with the exact same policy preferences and ability to inspire.  You don't think that'd be the most exciting candidate in this field?

Well, he was certainly more inspiring than everyone else he was running against that cycle.  I was only 7-15 during his campaigns/presidency, but I remember it well enough.  It's not romanticism after the fact.  Him playing the sax on Arsenio Hall, Toni Morrison calling him the first black president.  He was the cool president even before everybody found out he was getting blowjobs from interns in the Oval.

Again, I think you're overestimating the impact of ideology/policy agenda on a candidate's success, at least in the context of the American presidency.  As for the bolded, that's exactly what I'm saying.  And to clarify, I wasn't making an argument for Mayor Pete, just challenging the concept.  Buttigieg definitely particularly excite me, although he's a solid candidate that should get more run in a few more cycles or so.

Clinton wasn't that inspiring, at least not Obama levels.  He turned out 55% of the electorate in 92, less in 96, compared to Obama's 58 and 54.2.  And Clinton might not have won either if not for Perot.

As to the bolded, the only reason we're even talking about this is that Ser Repetitious said Pete could be exciting, which is a great way of saying someone has a face for radio.  "He could be 7 ft tall if his parents had fed him better".   And my entire point is that he isn't, and that his baggage isn't going to be fixed this election cycle.  There's nothing of Obama or even Clinton there.  

If you want me to concede the idea that policy and excitement or inspiration have no correlation I'd be happy to do so - but Mayor Pete isn't any of that.  And this isn't an electorate that's going to be inspired by merely promising to maintain Obama care and run against Trump.

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

And Clinton might not have won either if not for Perot.

This has been exhaustingly researched and it's very clearly a myth.

Fair enough on Mayor Pete, I wasn't disagreeing with you on that.

[Martell Spy]

Controversial Former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio Announces He’s Running Again
Arpaio was convicted of criminal contempt and later pardoned by President Donald Trump.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-arpaio-sheriff-pardon-running_n_5d631623e4b02cc97c8fb660

Quote

 

Joe Arpaio, the notorious former Arizona sheriff who was pardoned by President Donald Trump in 2017, on Sunday announced a bid to reclaim his old job in the state’s Maricopa County.

“Watch out world! We are back!” Arpaio, 87, said in a statement. “I will continue to stand and fight to do the right thing for Arizona and America, and will never surrender. Those who break the law will have to deal with this Sheriff.”

 

 

[Zorral]

As far as the discussion about voters being excited about a candidate matters or not, there is another kind of excitement too, which turns people out to vote against a candidate:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/24/opinion/sunday/trump-jews.html?
Mazel Tov, Trump. You’ve Revived the Jewish Left.

Quote

 

‘Only one political party is quite literally inciting white nationalists to shoot up our synagogues.’
By Michelle Goldberg

.... There are, of course, plenty of established Jewish groups that make it their mission to speak for the community. But it’s hard to overstate the degree to which left-wing Jews feel alienated from and betrayed by the Jewish establishment, which often seems more concerned with left-wing anti-Zionism and rhetorical overkill than with right-wing white nationalism.

Never Again Action was born in reaction to the perceived failures of mainstream Jewish organizations to stand up to Trump. In June, after Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez referred to migrant detention camps as “concentration camps,” establishment Jewish outfits like the Jewish Community Relations Council rushed to condemn her. Rubin was incredulous. A militantly xenophobic government is building internment camps for members of ethnic out-groups, and Jewish leaders worried that critics of this project were disrespecting the memory of the Holocaust?

“That compounded the outrage that a lot of Jews were feeling, that a mainstream Jewish institution would say something that just felt so out of touch,” she said. “That in part led us to really want to not just say in words, but actually take action to show how the Jewish community actually feels about this moment.”

People involved in the new Jewish left recognize that left-wing anti-Semitism exists. But they generally don’t believe it’s a threat on par with right-wing Jew hatred.

“No political party or movement is free of anti-Semitism,” said Ellman-Golan, who had to deal with the fallout from anti-Semitism at the Women’s March. But, she said, “only one political party is quite literally inciting white nationalists to shoot up our synagogues, drive cars into our peaceful protests, mail bombs to members of our community, burn black churches and mosques, and open fire on Latinx people.”

The Jewish left rejects the idea that anti-Zionism is equivalent to anti-Semitism, but even more than that, it rejects the idea that Israel is the guarantor of Jewish safety or the lodestar of Jewish identity.....

 

 

[Bonnot OG]

God, the more Biden opens his mouth the more I fucking despise him.

[Darth Richard II]

1 hour ago, Bonnot OG said:

God, the more Biden opens his mouth the more I fucking despise him.

Funny, I feel the same way about you.

[karaddin]

 

22 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Ok best name for reality show about what dumb shit Biden will do or say any given day go

Joe Says the Darndest Things

19 hours ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Well yeah, I certainly would hope, too, that nobody would vote for someone just because they tick a box. The overall package (policies, ideology, personality, etc.) should be what really counts. I was just mentioning it in passing because there is a sentiment among (some) Democrat voters that after every single president other than Obama having been a (usually older) straight white male, bringing a bit of diversity in would be a good thing (all other things being equal).

I feel like this is buying into the right wing strawman that identity politics is entirely about the identity and thats it, when in reality what is desired is a candidate that lives up to all hopes and expectations and isnt a straight white guy, not just any random person that isn't a straight white guy.

17 hours ago, DMC said:

Pretty sure you don't want that either, so I don't really know what you're whining about. 

...

And anyway, what the fuck is your point?  That America should strive to be more intolerant in order to preserve the western model that is based on republicanism, free enterprise, and..tolerance?

I know we generally avoid coming out and saying it but that particular poster is clear enough in his opinions I think its safe to say that he is whining that we haven't recognised that due to the superiority of European culture that we should all bow to his particular preferred demographic having supremacy over others. The irony of course being that the very thing he is using to try convince us of European cultural superiority is explicitly the things in our culture that he hates and wants to destroy. It shows even in the same post where he rails against diversity.