US Politics - Primary Numbers

[OldGimletEye]

3 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I am not a moral relativist. 

I consider myself left of center and moral relativism is something that I dislike, along with some of the other epistemological confusion that goes on the left, that in my opinion needs to be fought against and doesn't serve left wing interest.
I get the impulse for moral relativism, as it provides an argument for respect for other people's personal choices, and in the view of some, provides an argument against intervening in other societies.
That said, a moral relativist stance works against progressive interest and often makes the left looked confused and hypocritical.

[Conflicting Thought]

7 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

  Good to find common ground!  It is true though that I am probably center-right.  Interestingly enough, I think I agree with a lot of you on the issues that this country faces, and also about thinking that the issues are urgent. 

• Climate change
• Health care (I've come around on single-payer; don't think I'll ever get to single provider, but that's another story)
• Education (but I don't believe in free college for all.  I DO however believe in "Free-K" (i.e., free education starting at age 3; and honestly, I'd back a European style creche system).

I don't trust government to be the solution as much as a lot of you all seem to because the impermanence that this creates as a result of our system of government (and, current administration is a QED I told you so moment, but I digress).  That said, I'm not a "free marketer" (that's magical thinking and just dumb) either.  So, (i) I believe that the government needs to provide some solutions to these problems, (ii) I believe in the concept of "public goods" for which the public should pay for with tax money, but (iii) just like I don't believe that there is no such think as a public good, nor do I believe that everything can be solved merely by government intervention and that a lot of the things being proposed by the left ALSO include a lot of magical thinking.    I have some weird out-there views on open borders and also on privacy.  I believe in personal responsibility and accountability.  I think family, relationships and community are important and should be supported, but my definitions of each are broad and expansive.  I believe in self-determination.  I am not a moral relativist.  I have highly informed and technical views about tax policy about which I will bore you all.

And so the GOP has lost me.  It is unethical, thinks only in the short term, opposes individual rights again and again (unless they are religious, which is BS), is for closed borders, doesn't care about privacy, is doing active harm to the environment, has no plan on health care, and has less than no plan on education (I don't count vouchers - all it's doing is involving government in religious education which is so insidious and bad, I can't even believe it).  But the Democratic party only has me because the alternative is SO BAD.  I realize there aren't many 'mes' that exist (though there is a decent contingent on the board (hi @Ser Scot A Ellison @Ormond @Mudguard).  That's ok.  I'm ok being quirky, and I'm also ok and non-threatened by lots of other points of view.  I've learned a lot of stuff and evolved myself over the years!

Wow i dont get how that could be characterized as center-right, like damn, (you are for open borders?,) in my country, you would be considered a  communist (like, not even joking). Im in shock. 

[JGP]

31 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Lol, speaking of Stormy Daniels...

Michael Avenatti found guilty of extortion on all counts, for trying to shake down Nike for $25M. In New York.

Sources report to having heard him repeatedly mumbling, 'basta'  as he was led out of the courtroom.

[Conflicting Thought]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I consider myself left of center and moral relativism is something I that I dislike, along with some of the other epistemological confusion that goes on the left, that in my opinion needs to be fought against and doesn't serve left wing interest.
I get the impulse to for moral relativism, as it provides an argument for respect for other people's personal choices, and in the view of some, provides an argument against intervening in other societies.
That said, a moral relativist stance works against progressive interest and often makes the left looked confused and hypocritical.

Indeed, i consider myself far left (anarchist), but i aslo think moral relativism is "problematic". 

[ThinkerX]

a minor Medicaid defeat for Trump...at least until the Supreme Court weighs in...and even then he might lose...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/trump-backed-work-for-medicaid-plan-is-rejected-on-appeal/ar-BB100y1G?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=msnclassic

The Trump administration’s legal bid to restore a work requirement for Medicaid benefits in Arkansas was rejected on appeal, a blow to the government’s larger effort to reshape U.S. health-care policy.

[ThinkerX]

Legal push back against Trump on the McCabe mess...

 

 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/justice-dept-wont-charge-andrew-mccabe-the-former-fbi-official-who-authorized-the-investigation-of-president-trump/ar-BB100rHv?ocid=msnclassic

 

The Justice Department will not charge former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe with lying to investigators about a media disclosure, according to people familiar with the matter and McCabe’s legal team, ending a long-running inquiry into a top law enforcement official who authorized the bureau to investigate President Trump and soon became the commander in chief’s political punching bag.

 

The department revealed the decision to McCabe’s team Friday; it was unclear whether there were other plans to make it public. The move was said to infuriate Trump, who has raged publicly and privately in recent months that McCabe and others he considers political enemies should be charged with crimes.

 

also looks like the military is unwilling to investigate a certain soldier who incurred Trumps wrath...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/army-wont-investigate-vindman-over-impeachment-testimony-top-leader-says/ar-BB100L9J?ocid=msnclassic

 

The Army will not investigate Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the former National Security Council staffer who testified in the president’s impeachment investigation, the service’s top civilian said Friday.

Trump keeps up his vindictive behavior, it could cost him a tiny slice or two of votes come election day...

 

[Zorral]

Honestly cannot even envision myself voting for Bloomberg for anything.  I sure as hell didn't vote for him for mayor. Not even in this one, because it's not going to improve a damned thing to have him there instead, except he won't be as crazy in behavior in public. He will certainly build rationally upon what bedbug has accomplished.

 

[Fragile Bird]

12 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Honestly cannot even envision myself voting for Bloomberg for anything.  I sure as hell didn't vote for him for mayor. Not even in this one, because it's not going to improve a damned thing to have him there instead, except he won't be as crazy in behavior in public. He will certainly build rationally upon what bedbug has accomplished.

 

Don't vote for him in any primary, but do vote for him in the election if he wins the nomination. He's going to build on what Trump did? Nonsense! Bloomberg is a long time supporter of the environment, will try to bring in gun controls (far harder than anyone else has tried, I bet) and will increase taxes on the wealthy. He won't go as far as Warren said she'd go, but he will increase them. I'll bet he'll restore a helluva a lot of Obama regulations Trump has trashed.

I heard yesterday that Bloomberg has now built an organization larger than the one Obama had when he was elected, and he hasn't even made it to a debate yet, let alone been picked.

But what's important is, if he doesn't win the nomination, that organization will be made available to whoever does win the nomination. Yes, that includes Sanders. Bloomberg has come out with the confirmation he will support whoever wins, even people he has serious policy disagreements with. Whoever wins will have their own organization, but double the coverage in every state ain't gonna hurt. Bloomberg is committed to defeating Trump.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

In policy news, the Pentagon is transferring just under $4b to Homeland Security for an additional 100 plus miles of wall. I guess a xenophobic vanity project is more important than defense, let alone feeding kids in schools and making sure they have books and computer labs…..

[Mlle. Zabzie]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

In policy news, the Pentagon is transferring just under $4b to Homeland Security for an additional 100 plus miles of wall. I guess a xenophobic vanity project is more important than defense, let alone feeding kids in schools and making sure they have books and computer labs…..

Yes?  Because he can now say that the wall was built?  Incumbency advantage ftw?

[Week]

2 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

What does Warren have to do with the post I responded to? The poster suggested that Sanders and Bloomberg had both done bad things and were old and had long histories. So why are you bringing up Warren? The point was that whatever you want to say about Sanders, he doesn't have a history of racist misogyny. Some people assume he does, I guess, but the worst you can say about him is that he might have a race blind spot (though that's debatable). 

Mean culpa, my poor reading - I missed the reference to Sanders. Apologies.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

22 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

In policy news, the Pentagon is transferring just under $4b to Homeland Security for an additional 100 plus miles of wall. I guess a xenophobic vanity project is more important than defense, let alone feeding kids in schools and making sure they have books and computer labs…..

Entitled millenial.

Next gen gets raised old school in cages.  And the only book they'll ever need or read, is The Art of the Deal. And arguably a copy of the constitution, if you choose to raise Libertarian.

Once they are twelve, they get a free NRA membership card, and two M17s (in case they lose one, you know kids).

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Just now, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Entitled millenial.

Next gen gets raised old school in cages.  And the only book they'll ever need or read, is The Art of the Deal. And arguably a copy of the constitution, if you choose to raise Libertarian.

Once they are twelve, they get a free NRA membership card, and two M17s (in case they lose one, you know kids).

I refuse to support this unless those do-nothing kids have to actually buy the ammo.  If they can't afford it, they can do a year of hard labor at the border building a wall.

[A True Kaniggit]

36 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I refuse to support this unless those do-nothing kids have to actually buy the ammo.  If they can't afford it, they can do a year of hard labor at the border building a wall.

Buy the ammo? You want them to be lazy buying things?

They can make their own ammo. 

The hard labor at the wall should be mandatory for all at the age of 18 for a period of 2 years. Unless the child has a medical condition of course. Like bone spurs. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

47 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I refuse to support this unless those do-nothing kids have to actually buy the ammo.  If they can't afford it, they can do a year of hard labor at the border building a wall.

What kind of savage, unprincipled monster are you? The Second Amendment also now extends to ammo, and thus has become an entitlement that triggers at birth. If you can’t pray and spray with your two government mandated M17s, what’s the point of having them?  

[ThinkerX]

Trump asserts he has a legal right to meddle in Justice Department cases.  Perhaps another rough of congressional investigations awaits?

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-claims-legal-right-to-interfere-in-justice-dept-cases/ar-BB1004nO?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=msnclassic

 

WASHINGTON — President Trump asserted Friday that he had the legal right to intervene in federal criminal cases, a day after Attorney General William P. Barr publicly rebuked him for attacks on Justice Department prosecutors and others involved in the case of Roger J. Stone Jr., the president’s longtime friend.

 

In a morning tweet, Mr. Trump quoted Mr. Barr saying that the president “has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case.” The president said he had “so far chosen” not to interfere in a criminal case even though he insisted that he is not legally bound to do so.

“This doesn’t mean that I do not have, as President, the legal right to do so, I do, but I have so far chosen not to!” he said.

 

[karaddin]

I'm in the camp that thinks the Stop and Frisk policy, along with his recent defence of that, show that even if Bloomberg has changed since some of those earlier comments, he really hasn't changed enough.

I think there's a real tendency to form unwarranted positive opinions of people they have familiarity with just because they maintain civility and don't exhibit any obvious bigotries even when you can look at their career history and sometimes see it.

I'm not intending to call anyone out with this, but I'm pretty sure I remember someone saying that Barr was someone with integrity based on their awareness of him through a workplace context (don't recall the exact context, just that it wasn't through regular public channels) and he's certainly not exhibiting a lot of integrity at the moment. It's perfectly understandable that this happens though, it's a natural impulse to try and see the best in people. I just think that in cases where there is a public record on their decision making, or when people make comments that functionally tell us who they are, we should believe that evidence despite their apparent civility rather than extending further benefit of the doubt.

For me Bloomberg's racist policies as mayor and continued defence of his actions and statements are that. He's not going to be throwing red meat to the racist base like Trump, but he does not view all people as equal and he's not going to be tethered to working for all people equally. He'll definitely make the presidency more presentable though.

None of which is to say don't vote for him in the election, just not in the primary.

ETA: I kinda mixed up 2 different things in this post:

1. Familiarity with someone that maintains civil and professional behavior can leave us feeling like we have a better picture of who they are and that they are good people

2. Where you have the capacity to supplement the impression of a people from 1. with their actual actions (ie what they do, not what their civility implies) you should trust their record of actions.

The comment about Barr is only referring to part 1. I don't know enough about him to know if he had a public record that would have predicted his current behavior and I'm not blaming whoever that was for having that impression of him.

I will add that there's a kind of related point 2a that was also in my head - when someone revels in both bigotry and incivility, repeatedly promises to do awful shit and follows through on attempting to do said shit, and over the course of multiple years has gone from "maybe we'll have a third term. Haha it's a joke" to just straight up suggesting multiple terms past his two legal terms while the propaganda outlet supporting him immediately jumps into justifying it with "impeachment reset the clock for him, he should have 3 terms" then maybe, just fucking maybe, believe that he intends to at least try and do what he's suggesting. It's not a joke, it was never a joke, and the individuals of a certain persuasion that come in and try to paint taking it seriously as ridiculous are doing their part in normalising the idea by dismissing concerns. They aren't acting in good faith, don't treat their arguments like they are.

[Zorral]

4 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

I heard yesterday that Bloomberg has now built an organization larger than the one Obama had when he was elected, and he hasn't even made it to a debate yet, let alone been picked

Obama didn't have billions of dollars that he gouged through information domination of the financial industries either.

To compare this campaign in any way with Obama's is an endorsement of billionaires BUYING the nomination and presidency. For one thing it mattered to Obama's campaign that I gave it donations.  I matter so little to Bloomberg's campaign he doesn't even want a donation from the likes of me.  Which one is going to be representing my interests and which one is not?

Also Bloomberg is a coward.  He's always been a gop, and now he pretends to be a dem.  He doesn't have the guts to take on the bedbug as a republican, which says a whole lot about his chances of getting the Dems out to vote for him.

Black people will not vote for him and without the black vote that's that.  Watch, read, listen to what stop and frisk really meant in the experience of black people in NYC -- particularly for black women.  Bloomberg is goddamned terrorist.  Just because he's more polite about his racism and the rest -- in public! -- doesn't change a goddamned thing.

I will NOT vote for him, no matter what.  I'll vote for my local candidates for local offices.  But I won't vote for him for POTUS.  It's the same thing we already have, just slicker.

 

 

[A True Kaniggit]

27 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Obama didn't have billions of dollars that he gouged through information domination of the financial industries either.

To compare this campaign in any way with Obama's is an endorsement of billionaires BUYING the nomination and presidency. For one thing it mattered to Obama's campaign that I gave it donations.  I matter so little to Bloomberg's campaign he doesn't even want a donation from the likes of me.  Which one is going to be representing my interests and which one is not?

Also Bloomberg is a coward.  He's always been a gop, and now he pretends to be a dem.  He doesn't have the guts to take on the bedbug as a republican, which says a whole lot about his chances of getting the Dems out to vote for him.

Black people will not vote for him and without the black vote that's that.  Watch, read, listen to what stop and frisk really meant in the experience of black people in NYC -- particularly for black women.  Bloomberg is goddamned terrorist.  Just because he's more polite about his racism and the rest -- in public! -- doesn't change a goddamned thing.

I will NOT vote for him, no matter what.  I'll vote for my local candidates for local offices.  But I won't vote for him for POTUS.  It's the same thing we already have, just slicker.

 

 

No lesser of two evils thing?

Guys an asshole. But you consider him worse than Cadet Bonespurs on racism?

If it somehow comes down to that. 

[Mexal]

34 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Obama didn't have billions of dollars that he gouged through information domination of the financial industries either.

To compare this campaign in any way with Obama's is an endorsement of billionaires BUYING the nomination and presidency. For one thing it mattered to Obama's campaign that I gave it donations.  I matter so little to Bloomberg's campaign he doesn't even want a donation from the likes of me.  Which one is going to be representing my interests and which one is not?

Also Bloomberg is a coward.  He's always been a gop, and now he pretends to be a dem.  He doesn't have the guts to take on the bedbug as a republican, which says a whole lot about his chances of getting the Dems out to vote for him.

Black people will not vote for him and without the black vote that's that.  Watch, read, listen to what stop and frisk really meant in the experience of black people in NYC -- particularly for black women.  Bloomberg is goddamned terrorist.  Just because he's more polite about his racism and the rest -- in public! -- doesn't change a goddamned thing.

I will NOT vote for him, no matter what.  I'll vote for my local candidates for local offices.  But I won't vote for him for POTUS.  It's the same thing we already have, just slicker.

As someone who lived in NY while Bloomberg was Mayor, it's not the same thing as Trump. I don't want him as President but I will vote for him if it means no Trump.