US Politics: Presidential Harris-ment!

[fionwe1987]

2 hours ago, Fury Resurrected said:

It is 100% not true that Warren supporters didn’t harass anyone. I got bothered a ton by Warren fans for holding her indigenous Rachel Dolezal act against her

I don't know what form this harassment took, but if that's how you phrased it, I have no doubt that plenty of people called you out on spouting BS. 

As for Sanders, I feel he was just fundamentally wrong to try to fit a revolution into a political primary. I hope the Left has learned the lesson from these two primaries. 

You can go the Warren/Castro/Jayapal route of making the case for a much more left-of-center economic and governing structure while using the structure of the Democratic Party. Co-opt the existing "establishment", instead of trying to browbeat them or eradicate them. There are genuine reasons to get them to listen, if not on everything, on a lot by showing them the massive grassroots fundraising and the enthusiasm these ideas encourage. And pointing out to them how ideas like voting rights reform and lobbying reform while morally correct also help them politically. 

Or you can do the Bernie route, which is just destined to fail. You can say FU to the Democratic establishment. But when they fuck you back, you have to acknowledge that means they have more power than you, instead of acting outraged that they dared to use it. 

The theory of Bernie's candidacy in 2020 was very bizarre. Instead of using his enormous influence to do the political horse trading that would get more establishment figures to his side, he continued to alienate them. So why would they unilaterally give up the power they have accrued? Out of the goodness of their hearts?

I hope the Left has learned it's lesson. When given two candidates like Warren and Bernie, pick Warren if you want to win the primary. Pick Bernie if you want to burn down the party and create a third party. I'm even sympathetic to that idea, and without the coronavirus, or Trump as the opposition, that could get somewhere. But it doesn't make a whole lot of sense in this decade, when the Republicans are still powerful enough that most voters will strategically vote for the guys who've the only proven track record of beating them: the Democratic establishment.

[Fury Resurrected]

7 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

I don't know what form this harassment took, but if that's how you phrased it, I have no doubt that plenty of people called you out on spouting BS. 

As for Sanders, I feel he was just fundamentally wrong to try to fit a revolution into a political primary. I hope the Left has learned the lesson from these two primaries. 

You can go the Warren/Castro/Jayapal route of making the case for a much more left-of-center economic and governing structure while using the structure of the Democratic Party. Co-opt the existing "establishment", instead of trying to browbeat them or eradicate them. There are genuine reasons to get them to listen, if not on everything, on a lot by showing them the massive grassroots fundraising and the enthusiasm these ideas encourage. And pointing out to them how ideas like voting rights reform and lobbying reform while morally correct also help them politically. 

Or you can do the Bernie route, which is just destined to fail. You can say FU to the Democratic establishment. But when they fuck you back, you have to acknowledge that means they have more power than you, instead of acting outraged that they dared to use it. 

The theory of Bernie's candidacy in 2020 was very bizarre. Instead of using his enormous influence to do the political horse trading that would get more establishment figures to his side, he continued to alienate them. So why would they unilaterally give up the power they have accrued? Out of the goodness of their hearts?

I hope the Left has learned it's lesson. When given two candidates like Warren and Bernie, pick Warren if you want to win the primary. Pick Bernie if you want to burn down the party and create a third party. I'm even sympathetic to that idea, and without the coronavirus, or Trump as the opposition, that could get somewhere. But it doesn't make a whole lot of sense in this decade, when the Republicans are still powerful enough that most voters will strategically vote for the guys who've the only proven track record of beating them: the Democratic establishment.

Yeah, we actually know when white people are being offensive toward us, thanks. See, that’s kinda the whole problem is white people think they get to make the call on what is racist to groups they aren’t part of and most of the time the answer is “only when it’s someone I already dislike” Talk to more indigenous people if you don’t understand why what she did is a huge deal.

[TrackerNeil]

39 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Look, I'm not saying that you're necessarily wrong, but it could just as easily be said that most definitely the media, and to a lesser extent the Democratic party, explicitly ran against him.

I won't dispute that, except I see that differently. If Bernie Sanders failed to unite the party behind him, the fault is not the party's but his.

[JGP]

1 hour ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Yeah, we actually know when white people are being offensive toward us, thanks. See, that’s kinda the whole problem is white people think they get to make the call on what is racist to groups they aren’t part of and most of the time the answer is “only when it’s someone I already dislike” Talk to more indigenous people if you don’t understand why what she did is a huge deal.

It was big deal with a lot of Indigenous activists I follow. Made me do a few gut checks.

[edit: activists might not even be the right word. some of them are, certainly, but most are just follows i glommed onto from other follows. people that spoke -and speak- genuinely about their, their families, and their communities experiences]

[Fury Resurrected]

4 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

It was big deal with a lot of Indigenous activists I follow. Made me do a few gut checks.

It was a huge deal in the community (and actually a pretty widespread form of racist fetishization of indigenous people and indigenous erasure, everyone seems to know a white person running around saying some “part native” nonsense), and she has the same amount of indigenous support that Trump has. And white liberals are actually worse about this issue than conservatives.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I won't dispute that, except I see that differently. If Bernie Sanders failed to unite the party behind him, the fault is not the party's but his.

There's a rather large difference between failing to unite the party behind you, and being compared to Stalin on national TV by a (at the time) well-respected news anchor, with party members either being silent or tacitly encouraging such rhetoric.

ETA: I know moderates are ascendant right now, but apparently no one is noticing that the left is adopting, and has had success adopting, a Tea Party strategy, with several big names being knocked off by upstart lefties. The Democratic party can either facilitate a peaceful transfer of power, or the left will keep racking up more wins in safe districts, and then we can deal with the left's version of Tea Party craziness.

[JGP]

1 hour ago, Fury Resurrected said:

It was a huge deal in the community (and actually a pretty widespread form of racist fetishization of indigenous people and indigenous erasure, everyone seems to know a white person running around saying some “part native” nonsense), and she has the same amount of indigenous support that Trump has. And white liberals are actually worse about this issue than conservatives.

Huh. Conservatives don't care much at all; Liberals care only enough to exploit it. 

The dynamic is exactly the same in Canada.

[Fury Resurrected]

5 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

Huh. Conservatives don't care much at all; Liberals care only enough to exploit it. 

The dynamic is exactly the same in Canada.

Conservatives love being white so at least they don’t fake being something else. And at least with conservatives they don’t keep using indigenous people for woke points and then not actually doing anything to help indigenous people. I vote for Democrats most races for other reasons, but as an indigenous person I do not find them at all interested in solving issues surrounding indigenous poverty, indigenous sovereignty, MMIW, police brutality against indigenous people, treaty violations. They expect our support and that we will allow them photo ops with tribal members in traditional regalia, but they are not helping when they get power.

[JGP]

1 hour ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Conservatives love being white so at least they don’t fake being something else. And at least with conservatives they don’t keep using indigenous people for woke points and then not actually doing anything to help indigenous people. I vote for Democrats most races for other reasons, but as an indigenous person I do not find them at all interested in solving issues surrounding indigenous poverty, indigenous sovereignty, MMIW, police brutality against indigenous people, treaty violations. They expect our support and that we will allow them photo ops with tribal members in traditional regalia, but they are not helping when they get power.

Exactly the same in Canada. 

I once, as an alternative, suggested forming an Indigenous federal party here. It wasn't a horrible idea to my mind [seats at the table as opposed to those given; land stewardship of a much different nature than what's proposed by our Greens] but because I'm still unlearning I hadn't realized that of course that idea wouldn't go off well-- requiring a buy in to a system that's been dehumanizing and devaluing them for hundreds of years. And, lots of those I listen to outright reject being Canadian. Rightly so. No doubt the establishment would try to make them sign away more rights/claims to participate from within like that.   

[Martell Spy]

25 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

There's a rather large difference between failing to unite the party behind you, and being compared to Stalin on national TV by a (at the time) well-respected news anchor, with party members either being silent or tacitly encouraging such rhetoric.

ETA: I know moderates are ascendant right now, but apparently no one is noticing that the left is adopting, and has had success adopting, a Tea Party strategy, with several big names being knocked off by upstart lefties. The Democratic party can either facilitate a peaceful transfer of power, or the left will keep racking up more wins in safe districts, and then we can deal with the left's version of Tea Party craziness.

It's definitely happening, and it's big news, but it's at a much more measured pace than is/has happened with the Republican party. We are a long, long way until we get to the left equivalent of putting a QAnon conspiracy theorist in to actual office. The Seattle city council is getting pretty feisty though. They just voted to defund the police and the police chief resigned.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

It's definitely happening, and it's big news, but it's at a much more measured pace than is/has happened with the Republican party. We are a long, long way until we get to the left equivalent of putting a QAnon conspiracy theorist in to actual office. The Seattle city council is getting pretty feisty though. They just voted to defund the police and the police chief resigned.

It's definitely moving more slowly, but I have a feeling that a good part of that is because the Tea Party was extremely friendly to business interests, and the left isn't. But yes, it is definitely happening.

[fionwe1987]

1 hour ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Yeah, we actually know when white people are being offensive toward us, thanks. See, that’s kinda the whole problem is white people think they get to make the call on what is racist to groups they aren’t part of and most of the time the answer is “only when it’s someone I already dislike” Talk to more indigenous people if you don’t understand why what she did is a huge deal.

I'm not a White person, if that was being implied. I'm not sure it was, but I'd like to clarify anyway.

 

And no, I don't think an indigenous person cannot be angry at Warren for what she did. It was wrong, it was thoughtless, and yes, it was racist. If you were making that point and got harassed, I'm sorry that happened, and I'd honestly like to know what happened so I can update my view of Warren's supporters.

But if all you did was make a comparison to Rachel Dolezal, then I'm not surprised you got shouted down, though harassment if it occured would be wrong no matter what. That comparison is specious at best.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

It's definitely moving more slowly, but I have a feeling that a good part of that is because the Tea Party was extremely friendly to business interests, and the left isn't. But yes, it is definitely happening.

I don't think it has much to do with financial infusions.  It's psychological.  The right is inclined to go off a ledge in the name of ________.  The left, not as much, at least here.  More just worrisome, anxious, and unsure of themselves.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

it was racist.

Is it though? If you believe her and trust her on so many different things, is it not reasonable that she just believed what she was told by her parents? That's pretty common here in the interior of the United States. I was told the same thing when I was a little kid. 

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't think it has much to do with financial infusions.  It's psychological.  The right is inclined to go off a ledge in the name of ________.  The left, not as much, at least here.  More just worrisome, anxious, and unsure of themselves.

I would say financial considerations come into play a little bit, since the Tea Party was so heavily astroturfed, but I think your explanation plays a role as well.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I would say financial considerations come into play a little bit, since the Tea Party was so heavily astroturfed, but I think your explanation plays a role as well.

Meh, not gonna deny the Tea Party was astroturfed, but it worked.  All the GOP incumbent or handpicked candidates that were ousted in the 2010 primaries?  We had to deal with Christine O'Donnell!  That's not just money, that's the voters.

[fionwe1987]

26 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Is it though? If you believe her and trust her on so many different things, is it not reasonable that she just believed what she was told by her parents? That's pretty common here in the interior of the United States. I was told the same thing when I was a little kid. 

I don't think her belief (in a Native American ancestor) was racist. It was borne out by the DNA test, too.

What was racist was her releasing that test. The perception it gave was that having Native American ancestry proved by a DNA test gave you any right to call yourself a Native American. That's a pretty harmful position to take, and it was implicit in her video, or not rejected explicitly enough at the very least.

Which is why she ended up having to apologize. I'm glad she did it, but the whole saga was a blunder. I get that she was personally furious at being called a liar, and by extension she parents and family. She genuinely thinks this is true, and based on what she's said, the belief that her mom had Native ancestry did apparently make it hard for her parents to get married, so I can get how this becomes something you absorb as a child and hold on to as part of your identity. 

But however honestly they come by that belief, I don't think it's acceptable to use that belief to claim that you're part Native American. Especially because most people who grow up with those beliefs actually won't have it proved when they take a DNA test anyway. 

[Guest]

Here's a good discussion of something that I have kind of thought for a while, but haven't been able to put into words so succinctly: the lack of a risk budget.

Quote

Overall, we also really needed to have been thinking about the bigger picture, not just bars and restaurants and shopping malls and motorcycle rallies, but prioritizing schools. Who do you hold accountable for that?

I think governments at every level. One of the only examples I’ve seen of that kind of thinking came from Seattle, where they did a modeling study and estimated that their activity in the community—shopping, going to church, all of those things—would need to be at about 70 percent of the pre-pandemic levels in order to do other things. This ideal of a risk budget, if you will, where you take X amount of money or risk in this case from one pile and put it into the other. So if schools have this much percent, we should be bringing that down. Risk budgets will probably look different for each community or school district. But I think they could use a lot of help from state governments and from the federal government to have access to the right experts and to at least get some top-level priorities that they’re working with.

The one argument I've never seen leaders adequately answer is that it's not realistic to have everyone lock down indefinitely until we get a vaccine. I'm not saying that in the "open everything up" camp, but people will eventually need to do something different, and we need some economic activity. But there has never really been a easy-to-read risk assessment that's been mass-distributed.

If the eggheads were able to retort "well, anytime you leave your house you run a higher risk of catching the virus, but we encourage people to go to the park instead of to a bar if they feel they must congregate", or "eating outside is safer than inside, but still riskier than takeout or eating at home".

[fionwe1987]

10 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Here's a good discussion of something that I have kind of thought for a while, but haven't been able to put into words so succinctly: the lack of a risk budget.

The one argument I've never seen leaders adequately answer is that it's not realistic to have everyone lock down indefinitely until we get a vaccine. I'm not saying that in the "open everything up" camp, but people will eventually need to do something different, and we need some economic activity. But there has never really been a easy-to-read risk assessment that's been mass-distributed.

If the eggheads were able to retort "well, anytime you leave your house you run a higher risk of catching the virus, but we encourage people to go to the park instead of to a bar if they feel they must congregate", or "eating outside is safer than inside, but still riskier than takeout or eating at home".

The lack of risk budgets, and the lack of automatic stabilizers in economic planning are both big gaping holes in American government that have been revealed by the coronavirus.

With regard to lockdowns, I don't think anyone seriously argues for a permanent lockdown till we get a vaccine. The idea has always been to have a tough lockdown period when you build up capacity for hospitals, manufacture PPE, contact tracing and testing, then slowly open up with these measures in place so you can mitigate any local outbreaks before they become full blown community spread events that once again overtax the hospital systems and lead to spikes in death rates.

With ramdesevir and dexamethasone, we're already in a better place in terms of deaths. Of course, death isn't the only outcome from the disease we need to worry about, which is why those other things need to be done before opening up. 

The worst thing about the United States isn't that it opened to early. It's that it didn't use it's lockdown period to do the things that would have allowed reopening. 

[Fury Resurrected]

56 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Is it though? If you believe her and trust her on so many different things, is it not reasonable that she just believed what she was told by her parents? That's pretty common here in the interior of the United States. I was told the same thing when I was a little kid. 

That’s the thing though- it does not matter if you were told this by your parents. If you have no connection to indigenous culture and you enjoy the full measure of white privilege and you check the Native American box on any official form, you are faking an ethnicity. It wouldn’t even matter if it were **true** she was 1/64th Cherokee or something (the Cherokee Nation has much less strict enrollment guidelines than other tribes so this is the one white people always fake are), because it’s still misleading and disingenuous and trying to capitalize over something she’s not.
 

And the Rachel Dolezal comparison is important because EVERYONE understands its fucked up when a white person pretends to be black and almost nobody understands it is fucked up when white people pretend to be indigenous even though this is a pervasive problem and has been used historically to rob indigenous people of culture, of wealth, and even to straight up murder them (you can read Killers of the Flower Moon for more info on this).

The fact that a very left leaning member of this board (and others here have done the same, I’m not trying to pick on Tywin here) would suggest this as acceptable is proof it’s a huge problem, even on the left.

White people think they can claim indigenous identity without having any family members they have ever even spoken to with indigenous experience. And that they can and should repeat this as an example of why they can understand the struggles of POC. And that they can check it on college applications to up their chances of acceptance and scholarship money. That they can be a member of Congress and a presidential candidate and use that as part of their story to gain votes. And that all of this can be an honest mistake. That it can be brushed off by repeating a racist trope of “well I have high cheekbones!”

If you are BIPOC in a way that is appropriate and not pure grift to bring up- YOU WOULD KNOW FOR SURE