Jump to content

US Politics - Term of surrender? Or is it wise to follow the Dumpty?


Lykos

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Ninjaed by @Rippounet but when it comes to race and policy what is the difference between Warren and Sanders?  No one has solved racism in the US, and there are plenty of non-white people who seem to think that Sanders is the candidate whose policies are best for them.  What would Sanders selling out minorities for economic goals look like to you? 

Well, it'd probably look like cozying up to people who have declared anyone from the Middle east to be evil so that he'd earn their endorsement. It'd look like endorsing a candidate who had a long history of sexism without repentance (and yes, I know he retracted it after people got pissed off at him, but it's not like that wasn't part of his schtick before). It'd look like endorsing candidates  who were anti-choice.

30 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I mean I would in a heartbeat take universal healthcare or a more progressive tax system, affordable education, or stop denying prisoners the right to vote -- if the trade-off is Bernie doesn't criticize Joe Rogan.  What is Warren or Klobuchar or Biden going to do beyond that?  Some lip service that doesn't materially deviate in results?

Reparations?  

As I said, Warren has a lot of plans for that, and the good news is that most of them are entirely doable with executive power. So that's good. Mostly, she appears to actively care about doing things about that. Sanders...doesn't appear to. 

And the tradeoff isn't 'progressive tax for palling with Joe Rogan'. What do you think Joe Rogan's voters are going to want? Do you think they're going to want things like prison reform or LGBT rights restored? What this costs is basically all of those rights that Rogan folks who think it's awesome when he uses the n word or talks about trans people being inhuman don't care about or actively oppose. Because when you have people in your coalition who think other people aren't actually human, you don't tend to get a lot of compromise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ran said:

Every single Democrat in the race has some racists prepared to vote for them. Every single Democrat in the race has some homophobes and transphobes prepared to vote for them, too. You're not saying anything that doesn't apply to everyone else. Rogan's vote is not the one being sought and is immaterial. That of his audience is.

Sorry, you're right. Sanders is willing to tacitly endorse people who are racist or sexist and not criticize them at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Ran said:

It's the votes of his viewers, who are not necessarily in alignment with him on all of his particular ideas but may be willing to countenance that Sanders is the right way to go.  You can't appeal to the viewers of a person by telling the viewers that the person is a stupid bigot.

Disagree entirely.  Part and parcel of McCain's "legend" is him pushing back on that old woman during a rally that said Obama was an "Arab."  I mean, there's some underlying issues there - i.e. even if Obama is an Arab, why is that a problem? - but the point is McCain actually gained "capital" politically by standing up to his racist supporters.  Accordingly, I don't think it's too much to ask for Sanders to simply make a statement, or respond to a question from the press which his people could very easily arrange, and say "while I appreciate Joe's endorsement, a lot of his past comments are hurtful to many people and I think it's inappropriate for him to describe people in such a way."  Strategically, that would GAIN Sanders support, because the media would be all over it in terms of his political "courage."  Let alone that normatively it's the right thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DMC said:

"while I appreciate Joe's endorsement, a lot of his past comments are hurtful to many people and I think it's inappropriate for him to describe people in such a way." 

Ah, well, that I can agree with as a kind of appropriate statement. Denouncing Rogan in strident terms would be dumb when Rogan is immaterial, he's just a platform to reach people whose votes matter. But sure, saying he doesn't agree with Rogan on many things... well, everyone more or less knows Sanders doesn't, so no harm in restating it. And indeed, his spokesperson basically already said that they don't share all the same beliefs, and that Sanders won't be swayed to adopt Rogan's views just because he endorsed him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Ran said:

And indeed, his spokesperson basically already said that they don't share all the same beliefs, and that Sanders won't be swayed to adopt Rogan's views just because he endorsed him.

The issue there is, again from a strategic standpoint, a statement from a spokesperson is not going to satisfy the people that are pissed off about Sanders championing Rogan's endorsement.  The more I talk about this subject, the more I think it's ridiculous - it's not like Joe Rogan matters that much and it's not like he's a Nazi or anything.  But, I think Sanders is making a mistake and even missing an opportunity here by trying to just paper over it.

ETA:  One point I meant to mention but kept on forgetting to (which is appropriate) - Bernie Sanders is asking us to elect him as the President of the United States.  Even with all my cynical and analytical tendencies, I do not think it's too much to ask for political leaders to actually demonstrate moral fiber when seeking major office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think it's not necessary and also a waste of time to worry about endorsements from B-list celebrities.  The top tier candidates probably have dozens to perhaps hundreds of these types of endorsements.  It's not necessary to point out your disagreements with each one of these endorsements, particularly if the endorsement wasn't asked for.  Did Sanders actively seek out Rogan's endorsement?  Simply appearing on Rogan's show isn't a request for an endorsement.  It's just an opportunity for free publicity, which you would have to be idiotic not to take.  And just because you appear on someone's show, it doesn't mean that you endorse that person's views, beliefs, and conduct.  What's with all this guilt by association?

Each candidate's time is very limited and can best be spent elsewhere rather than issuing a never ending string of disagreements with celebrities that most people don't care about.  Spending precious time worrying about crap like this seems to me like a good way to lose an election.

The only times an apology or clarification is necessary is if an actual official campaign surrogate or official member of the campaign states something that needs correcting.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mudguard said:

Did Sanders actively seek out Rogan's endorsement?

His campaign tweeted out emphasizing the endorsement.  That's the issue.  If him/his campaign just ignored it, yeah, I'd agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Well, it'd probably look like cozying up to people who have declared anyone from the Middle east to be evil so that he'd earn their endorsement. It'd look like endorsing a candidate who had a long history of sexism without repentance (and yes, I know he retracted it after people got pissed off at him, but it's not like that wasn't part of his schtick before). It'd look like endorsing candidates  who were anti-choice.

As I said, Warren has a lot of plans for that, and the good news is that most of them are entirely doable with executive power. So that's good. Mostly, she appears to actively care about doing things about that. Sanders...doesn't appear to. 

And the tradeoff isn't 'progressive tax for palling with Joe Rogan'. What do you think Joe Rogan's voters are going to want? Do you think they're going to want things like prison reform or LGBT rights restored? What this costs is basically all of those rights that Rogan folks who think it's awesome when he uses the n word or talks about trans people being inhuman don't care about or actively oppose. Because when you have people in your coalition who think other people aren't actually human, you don't tend to get a lot of compromise. 

Yeah the bolded is what I'm curious about - how is whatever Warren's planning (which you haven't actually described) different?  How is it going to address the heart of racism in America or whatever you feel like Sanders plans are lacking?

Re: Rogan.  I think Rogan is an idiot and from what I know of his fans they are largely uneducated and not that politically involved.  They're basically men under 40.  I think it was dumb for Sanders to plug the endorsement without a conditional statement like the one DMC mentioned.  at the same time, it's kind of odd that Sanders' critics have gone from whining that he doesn't know how to compromise and has been the same stubborn asshole for years, and then in the next breath claim that he's about to change his stances on lgbtq rights or treating Muslims like people just because Joe Rogan endorsed him.  

Should we be primarying moderate incumbents?  When are the purity tests ok?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Yeah the bolded is what I'm curious about - how is whatever Warren's planning (which you haven't actually described) different?  How is it going to address the heart of racism in America or whatever you feel like Sanders plans are lacking? 

I linked to it above. You can read Warren's plans yourself if you so choose. 

As to how it's actually different? Well, for starters it's backed by the communities that it is attempting to help. It is given first rank as far as an actual issue she cares about. It may not address the heart of racism or fix everything; I didn't claim it would. But it doesn't simply say 'racism sucks, so we can't do anything about it' and move on. It helps some. Not enough, and not finally, but some. 

And all the money redistribution doesn't solve it at all. 

3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Re: Rogan.  I think Rogan is an idiot and from what I know of his fans they are largely uneducated and not that politically involved.  They're basically men under 40.  I think it was dumb for Sanders to plug the endorsement without a conditional statement like the one DMC mentioned.  at the same time, it's kind of odd that Sanders' critics have gone from whining that he doesn't know how to compromise and has been the same stubborn asshole for years, and then in the next breath claim that he's about to change his stances on lgbtq rights or treating Muslims like people just because Joe Rogan endorsed him.  

I don't see why arguing Sanders won't change his stances is a bad point. That said, I think it's more accurate to say that he just won't work that hard towards some of his stances, and cozying up to Rogan like people is a good example. Same, again, with cozying up to sexists, and cozying up to anti-choice candidates. It shows that he doesn't really care that much about that issue. And that's fine! If economic inequity is your number one concern and you are willing to compromise other things in order to get that taken care of, that's entirely a rational point of view. 

But like Trump, when someone shows you who they are, you should believe them. 

3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Should we be primarying moderate incumbents?  When are the purity tests ok?

Again, go back to the David Duke example. When is it not okay to accept someone's endorsement uncritically? When is it not okay to court someone's endorsement? I think it's fine to go for Rogan, or go that young Turk, or go for whoever. As @Ran said, at some point you want to get as many people voting for you as you can. But that carries a choice, and Sanders appears to have made his. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I linked to it above. You can read Warren's plans yourself if you so choose. 

As to how it's actually different? Well, for starters it's backed by the communities that it is attempting to help. It is given first rank as far as an actual issue she cares about. . 

Ah I did miss the link, but I have read both Warren's and Sanders' plans on this and they are virtually identical.  

And I'm not seeing Warren's platform getting more backing from the communities affected as opposed to Sanders'.  I'd be interested to see any data on this, because we have plenty of anecdotal criticisms and endorsements of both of them from all sorts of minority communities. 

Quote

It may not address the heart of racism or fix everything; I didn't claim it would. But it doesn't simply say 'racism sucks, so we can't do anything about it' and move on. It helps some. Not enough, and not finally, but some

Will just state here that 'racism sucks, we can't do anything about it' is not a remotely accurate summary of Sanders position, which is virtually indistinguishable from Warren's, which I suspect you know.  Here it is.

Eta: here we have Sanders tacit endorsement of islamophobia:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Ah I did miss the link, but I have read both Warren's and Sanders' plans on this and they are virtually identical.  

And I'm not seeing Warren's platform getting more backing from the communities affected as opposed to Sanders'.  I'd be interested to see any data on this, because we have plenty of anecdotal criticisms and endorsements of both of them from all sorts of minority communities. 

As a counterpoint to this, an LGBT organization literally just endorsed warren tonight. 

3 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Will just state here that 'racism sucks, we can't do anything about it' is not a remotely accurate summary of Sanders position, which is virtually indistinguishable from Warren's, which I suspect you know.  Here it is.

Eta: here we have Sanders tacit endorsement of islamophobia:

I guess I just dont believe him when he says these things. I dont believe he is particularly caring of pro choice when he backs anti choice candidates. I dont think he is particularly for womens rights when he backs openly sexist people. And I dont believe he is serious about racism because he backs people like Rogan uncritically (and continues to do so now!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

But there's a waiver process, so it's fine!

 

"Is Bernie the next McGovern or the next Trump?

 

I think this is another interesting encapsulation. In particular it is hard for me to imagine people wanting someone wanting to disrupt a great many things when the general perception of the economy is sound. Those campaign ads speak for themselves, and independents who are risk averse aren't going to go after a guy wanting to wipe out or modify every single bit of government policy. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Another dynamic with Bernie's candidacy that I think is worth pondering:

We've heard a bit about the phenomenon of to what extent Bernie supporters won't turn out if Bernie is not the nominee.  Partly based on 2016 however fair or unfair that narrative but also partly based on polling out there right now.  

Another angle though is that if Bernie is the nominee to what extent do the establishment Dems support him now that the show is on the other foot?  As many predicted you're starting to see a lot more pushback against Bernie from Dem corners lately, and I suppose this is the natural time for that to happen.  If he wins the nom though how will that continue or not?  

It depends, also, on how many bones the winner throws at the losing side. The classic move is to have a VP of the other faction in order to unite the party. I'll be enthusiastic about Biden about the time he promises not to kick student loan debtors in the balls, again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

And I dont believe he is serious about racism because he backs people like Rogan uncritically (and continues to do so now!)

Rogan is not running for anything. Sanders is not "backing" him or endorsing him. You are choosing to over-read these things because you say you don't trust him, which is your prerogative, but it's worth noting that Sanders is believed by a substantial margin to be the most honest candidate:

You are definitely an outlier if in fact you believe he is not generally trustworthy.

I very much hear you about being concerned that Sanders will be a sub-optimal choice for the general election, and that he may be a sub-optimal choice as president. But the objection you're making here is hard to credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Triskele said:

ETA:  I see that the yield curve inverted again and that growth was just 2.1 in the latest report.  

Yeah the slowdown in GDP growth definitely perked my ears yesterday morning.  That's a (even the) key indicator for presidential elections.  Not something you ever want to wish for, but if this keeps up, Trump is fucked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I linked to it above. You can read Warren's plans yourself if you so choose.

Right. The main problem here is that we're clearly seeing different things.

It seems to me the crushing majority of Warren's concrete measures are in fact economic in nature. Even measures which wouldn't be (judicial ones especially) have economic aspects (which they should) like cash-bail or ending private prisons.
Worse even, and to my own surprise, very few measures are aimed specifically at minorities. Some are, like additional funding for historically Black Colleges or her "plan for entrepreneurs of color" but most are really traditional socialist/socialistic/leftist measures.

What I see is political messaging. The website goes to great lengths to explain how socialist/socialistic measures will help members of minorities.

And of course, this is where Bernie and Warren differ.
To my eyes Bernie is an "old-school socialist" focused on class struggle and the economic dimension of social issues. His strategy is based on the hope that he can gather the support of most working-class Americans. In other words I think he hopes to steal some voters from Trump.
While we're at it, I'll add that Bernie is rather close to a European socialist and is immensely popular in France.
Warren by contrast is closer to a "typical" modern American liberal. She's positioned herself as a champion of minorities and people suffering from discrimination. She even did her best to present herself as a woman of color. Contrary to Bernie I think she focuses on the Democratic electoral base.

Different messaging, different strategies imho.
You said you don't trust Bernie... Well, nor do I trust Warren. They're both professionals at this point and messaging should be taken with a bit of salt whether it looks good or bad.
Bernie's record as a lawmaker is far more worrying than anything he can say or fail to say on cultural issues...
 

8 hours ago, Kalbear said:

But it doesn't simply say 'racism sucks, so we can't do anything about it' and move on. It helps some. Not enough, and not finally, but some. 

And all the money redistribution doesn't solve it at all.

From Warren's website I'd say she definitely thinks money redistribution will contribute to solving things... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mudguard Re Roberts:

Quote

Schumer also got a final answer on a matter that observers have been wondering about for months: Should there be a 50-50 vote on witnesses, would Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over the Senate trial, break it? The answer was no.

“I think it would be inappropriate for me, an unelected official from a different branch of government, to assert the power to change that result so that the motion would succeed,” Roberts said in response to a question from Schumer. 

A vote by Roberts would not have been unprecedented: The chief justice in the 1868 trial of President Andrew Johnson was allowed to cast a tie-breaking vote on two procedural motions. But Roberts said he disagreed that he was bound by that precedent.

“I do not regard those isolated episodes 150 years ago as sufficient to support a general authority to break ties,” Roberts said. 

 

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...