Jump to content

US Politics: Presidential Harris-ment!


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

Rudy Giuliani: U.S. Would Become ‘Banana Republic’ If Biden’s DOJ Prosecuted Trump
The president’s personal lawyer has persistently pushed for charges against Obama administration figures.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rudy-giuliani-banana-republic_n_5f34d346c5b6fc009a6190ba

Quote

 

Rudy Giuliani declared Wednesday that if a future administration under presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden tried to prosecute President Donald Trump ― as Giuliani himself has repeatedly advocated for Obama administration figures ― the country would devolve into a “banana republic.”

The president’s personal attorney made the comment during an appearance on Fox News guest-hosted by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Under a news banner reading “How Kamala Harris would abuse the DOJ,” Huckabee asked his guest how damaging it would be for a Biden administration to criminally prosecute a former president.

“We would become a banana republic, Governor,” Giuliani replied. “That’s where we’re headed.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

This is exactly where I'm at. So many people cry for policies that are simply not possible, and when you confront them with reality you're either not a real liberal, you're a centrist, you don't believe in the cause etc. It's such a joke. Saying you want something while advocating for a path that will always fail kind of means you never really wanted it. You just wanted to sound more woke than other people.

Pragmatism is not a bad thing, and it needs to stop being seen as a dirty word. You have to have a reasonable plan to achieve your goals. Just saying I want it isn't enough.

Sometimes there were no other choices. That's true for a lot of people. 

I understand the point you're making, but a lot of people simply lack the means and/or resources to learn more about their ancestry. Taking a bit of pride in it though is not a bad thing. Now since Warren is the example, should she identify as indigenous? No. Should she have used that to get ahead, assuming she did (I believe she said she never has, could be wrong)? No. But when asked what her heritage is, should she not include that if her parents told her she was only a few things? I don't know. I'm such a mutt so me being like 1/128th of something doesn't register for myself, but if she was only told a few things and given when and where she grew up, is it that surprising that it became a small bit of her personal identity, even if it was misguided?

That's not racism though. What would be racist is if she was told she had indigenous ancestry and then tried to hide it out of shame. What you're describing is more of a form of unintended cultural appropriation.

Like TN said, you can't just point at things you don't like and call it racist. Frankly the term is loosing all its meaning these days. 

No, it’s definitely unintentional racism of a kind that’s super pervasive. If there was a family rumor she was that amount African American she would never never say so publicly (or would describe it as rumor rather than fact) without digging and finding the source. That’s how you can tell this is impacted by having a lesser respect for indigenous people. The idea that a white person with no connection at all to native culture can just believe they are indigenous and claim that publicly with no actual investigation is racist. It relies on the assumption that indigenousness is invisible and could hide in our plain sight.

Especially in the northern areas where many actual indigenous people are pretty fair skinned, you get TONS of white people saying they “must be part native” because they tan nicely in the summer or because they have high cheekbones. People tell me this with full belief ALL THE TIME and use “well I’m part native” to justify all kinds of fetishization of indigenous culture. See, like, every white girl ever called out for wearing a war bonnet for photos, and every photographer who took those pictures. And in Warrens case she used it to trick Indigenous people (and even moreso the woke points white left)  into supporting her and believing she would advocate for us in government during a time a huge segment of her party and especially her wing of it are tired of politicians who don’t understand BIPOC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

This is exactly where I'm at. So many people cry for policies that are simply not possible, and when you confront them with reality you're either not a real liberal, you're a centrist, you don't believe in the cause etc. It's such a joke. Saying you want something while advocating for a path that will always fail kind of means you never really wanted it. You just wanted to sound more woke than other people.

There's a highly performative aspect to this, definitely, in which we all take pains to demonstrate we are Woker Than Thou. Reminds me of conservatives, who will sometimes grandstand in Congress against a measure even their leaders know must pass, because they must always demonstrate they are True Conservatives. When the left starts looking like the right, something's wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

lol

I have @Jace, Basilissa on ignore so I wouldn’t have seen this had you not quoted it. I’m sure it’s obvious why. 
 

But, never one to be mistaken for the “decent people” she is talking about, Jace very helpfully demonstrates how white people are benevolently happy to decide who and how best to advocate for a race they aren’t part of. I agree I am indeed pretty angry about racism and discrimination of indigenous people and I can see where that makes white people uncomfortable. I think “decent people” can look at that kind of thing and understand it the same way they can understand everyone else’s “rage posts” about issues of great importance to them.

As for the internet tough guy bit about “Leaving the internet in tears” lol, ok we are all very impressed by how hardcore and edgy you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, DMC said:

Sure, but considering the other three publicly noted their dissent, it's significant that Kavanaugh did not.

For sure, and I suspect he did vote with the majority. There's been a bunch of procedural votes where Roberts has dragged him along to a liberal majority. It's been an interesting quirk of his time on the bench.

But there's a difference between voting with the liberals and just being embarrassed at how much of a hack he is. Hopefully it's the former though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fez said:

But there's a difference between voting with the liberals and just being embarrassed at how much of a hack he is. Hopefully it's the former though.

True.  He must know though, especially in DC circles, that not joining the other three in expressing their dissent looks like he's siding with the majority to everybody else.  Maybe voting was the wrong phrasing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

No, it’s definitely unintentional racism of a kind that’s super pervasive. If there was a family rumor she was that amount African American she would never never say so publicly (or would describe it as rumor rather than fact) without digging and finding the source.

You don't know that, and to state it as fact is an exaggeration. I've spent more time learning about Japan, a country/culture/ethnic group that I have zero ties to than I have learning about Norwegians, an ethnic group that I actually have some distant ties to. And I'd much rather go to Tokyo than Oslo.

Quote

That’s how you can tell this is impacted by having a lesser respect for indigenous people. The idea that a white person with no connection at all to native culture can just believe they are indigenous and claim that publicly with no actual investigation is racist. It relies on the assumption that indigenousness is invisible and could hide in our plain sight.

Saying you identify with a group, and take pride in having some historical relationship with them, is the exact opposite of what racism is. She was ignorant, and it's a mistake many people make about all kinds of ethnic groups.  
 

Quote

Especially in the northern areas where many actual indigenous people are pretty fair skinned, you get TONS of white people saying they “must be part native” because they tan nicely in the summer or because they have high cheekbones. People tell me this with full belief ALL THE TIME and use “well I’m part native” to justify all kinds of fetishization of indigenous culture. See, like, every white girl ever called out for wearing a war bonnet for photos, and every photographer who took those pictures. And in Warrens case she used it to trick Indigenous people (and even moreso the woke points white left)  into supporting her and believing she would advocate for us in government during a time a huge segment of her party and especially her wing of it are tired of politicians who don’t understand BIPOC.

As @DanteGabriel joke around before, you're talking to a Jew who looks like Hitler's wet dream. Think I haven't heard people comfortable speaking out of turn about Jewish people? Not all of it is anti-Semitic. A lot of it is just dumb, ignorant people talking about things they don't really understand. 

But yes, since we're from the same place, I've heard those say things. I too have high cheek bones and have heard that line, and as a kid I would say yes I am, but as an adult I would probably just say I have some minor ancestry, but I don't identify as such. Blame it on the poor education system though more than people who say something foolish without really understanding why. Just with the above, a lot of people say dumb shit, but it's not always coming from a place of hate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

My complaint is not with "identity politics"--in my view, that's hardly a new phenomenon--but the way that critical thinking seems to have become quite unwelcome among the leftist/progressive/whatever set. 

Ironically the demonization of "centrism" largely stems from a great many people using that instead of critical thinking to determine the "reasonable" position. You don't need to analyse both sides and decide if one is completely valid and the other is without merit, just give equal weight to both sides, pick a compromise in the middle and you're done! You're the mature reasonable adult in the room and those that object to this approach are just being unfair.

If you want to pick a single example of this to blame I'd point the finger squarely at the media and climate change.

The backlash has spilled over into other areas and you certainly see the term used more widely than just cases of someone that treats their centrism as an ideology in and of itself, not I can understand where the back lash is coming from given that irresponsible shit is literally going to wreck our planets ability to sustain our civilization while that centrism - especially from the media - ensures we do nothing.

On the lived experience thing obviously the level of trust you have in the person relating their experiences is going to have an impact on how much you take their word. For me I trust Kay enough that just her first post on the subject was sufficient for me to recognise that her assertion of a double standard with respect to under emphasising Warren's issues on that front, and also the issue more generally. I had primarily empathised with how one could honestly believe in this family story and check that box without intending ill, but that doesn't mean it's ok, and I had not empathised enough with the impact of this* on the Indigenous groups and that's a default perspective I feel I needed to change. Obviously if these assertions are coming from someone you don't trust then you're going to be less receptive to the message, best case you'll do further introspection on your own. Worst case you'll ignore it until someone explains it to your satisfaction or someone you do trust repeats the point. But in this case if you trust Kay's perspective on these matters that should really be all you need to hear to accept that this is an issue that causes a lot of grief to her family and that Warren could have done better. I know Kay extends that attitude towards other experiences that she doesn't have.

*The impact of seeing the supposedly progressive party dismiss the impact on your community and refuse to take issues of racism against Indigenous groups with the same seriousness as other targets of racism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

There's a highly performative aspect to this, definitely, in which we all take pains to demonstrate we are Woker Than Thou. Reminds me of conservatives, who will sometimes grandstand in Congress against a measure even their leaders know must pass, because they must always demonstrate they are True Conservatives. When the left starts looking like the right, something's wrong.

This is pretty much how I feel. I've always said I'm to the left of almost everyone, but I realize what I want is not going to happen anytime soon so I'll work on and support those who can get some things done to work towards that goal. That's what I mean when I say stack victories rather than shoot for the moon. If you do the latter, you better be ready for what the consequences could be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

This is exactly where I'm at. So many people cry for policies that are simply not possible, and when you confront them with reality you're either not a real liberal, you're a centrist, you don't believe in the cause etc. It's such a joke. Saying you want something while advocating for a path that will always fail kind of means you never really wanted it. You just wanted to sound more woke than other people.

 

The debate over what is possible is part and parcel of the left/center divide in American politics. The reality is that we're going to need some kind of label to describe this divide, regardless of how individuals want to view themselves, and left and center are useful labels.  If you're routinely declaring that anything to the left of of mainstream Democratic Party opinion is impossible, you fall on the center side of this divide.

I would argue that using labels like left and center is really much more conducive to having a good faith debate about what's politically possible than what you want to do, which is to declare yourself a pragmatist, the final arbiter of what's politically possible who therefore occupies the furthest left position imaginable, and to say all those who disagree are a bunch of naifs who don't get a say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I was suggesting that I find our resident educator to be an inadequate advocate and her conduct little more than enraged lashing out at people who are too decent to lash back. If she tried to pull this shit somewhere else she'd quit the internet in tears.

This is an extremely trashy post.

No one has an obligation to educate you on stuff that is widely available.  

Warren was more than happy to enjoy the aesthetic benefits of the Native American designation without suffering any of the discrimination or material suffering the actual communities she's claiming a connection to have.  Google Pow Wow Chow.  And when she had the opportunity to apologize, she half-assed it, and then trotted out the DNA test much later to try to redeem herself in the most tone-deaf manner possible.  

If she'd been out there backing indigenous groups that would be one thing.  Did she reach out to them before or during her presidential campaign?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know exactly what part I play in this story. You don't make me uncomfortable my dear, you make me bored. So fragile are your truths that you apparently can't stand the sight of mine. However you will, will. I take no issues with a point well made, but I live in a world of cold and hate. I accept these things and work to make constructive change when able, knowing full well that my efforts would leave injustice festering daily. But I have what agency my society has seen fit to give, I use it opportunely. I do not rant and rave at allies for slights neither intended nor given, then retreat to the bulwarking of madmen and emotionally distintigrated. My voice is but a drop in an ocean, but with cunning and cruelty I can make it lash like a hurricane. You my dear are a child demanding the world be fair. It will not be, and your shrieks to the opposite serve only to denigrate the character you're so compelled to tell everyone about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I know exactly what part I play in this story. You don't make me uncomfortable my dear, you make me bored. So fragile are your truths that you apparently can't stand the sight of mine. However you will, will. I take no issues with a point well made, but I live in a world of cold and hate. I accept these things and work to make constructive change when able, knowing full well that my efforts would leave injustice festering daily. But I have what agency my society has seen fit to give, I use it opportunely. I do not rant and rave at allies for slights neither intended nor given, then retreat to the bulwarking of madmen and emotionally distintigrated. My voice is but a drop in an ocean, but with cunning and cruelty I can make it lash like a hurricane. You my dear are a child demanding the world be fair. It will not be, and your shrieks to the opposite serve only to denigrate the character you're so compelled to tell everyone about.

Maybe you're not the ally you think you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You don't know that, and to state it as fact is an exaggeration. I've spent more time learning about Japan, a country/culture/ethnic group that I have zero ties to than I have learning about Norwegians, an ethnic group that I actually have some distant ties to. And I'd much rather go to Tokyo than Oslo.

Saying you identify with a group, and take pride in having some historical relationship with them, is the exact opposite of what racism is. She was ignorant, and it's a mistake many people make about all kinds of ethnic groups.  
 

As @DanteGabriel joke around before, you're talking to a Jew who looks like Hitler's wet dream. Think I haven't heard people comfortable speaking out of turn about Jewish people? Not all of it is anti-Semitic. A lot of it is just dumb, ignorant people talking about things they don't really understand. 

But yes, since we're from the same place, I've heard those say things. I too have high cheek bones and have heard that line, and as a kid I would say yes I am, but as an adult I would probably just say I have some minor ancestry, but I don't identify as such. Blame it on the poor education system though more than people who say something foolish without really understanding why. Just with the above, a lot of people say dumb shit, but it's not always coming from a place of hate. 

Hate and unconscious racism are not the same thing. And sadly, unconscious and casual racism are a way bigger problem and stumbling block to actual progress than active hate is. If the average person who has no exposure to native people or issues sees someone like Elizabeth Warren or their white friends who say “I’m part native” and that’s what most of their exposure to it is- that an indigenous person is just a white person with high cheekbones experiencing nothing different than they are- it gives an incredibly damaging and false impression on the issue. Indigenous people are the least likely to have access to clean drinking water, the most likely to be homeless, the most likely to be murdered in police interaction, the most likely to be raped, the most likely to go missing and never found, the most likely to be a victim of child molestation and of sex trafficking. The idea that indigenous people have just gotten blended into mainstream society is insidious because it hides all of that, keeping anything from being done. And it makes actual indigenous people trying to amplify these issues to something where they are seen look like angry outliers when we MUST be loud to be audible over the din of redfacing whiteness.
 

White nationalists aren’t who keep indigenous people in these conditions. It’s the left who don’t want to look or listen because they can’t be racist against indigenous people when they can just say “well I’m part native”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I know exactly what part I play in this story. You don't make me uncomfortable my dear, you make me bored. So fragile are your truths that you apparently can't stand the sight of mine. However you will, will. I take no issues with a point well made, but I live in a world of cold and hate. I accept these things and work to make constructive change when able, knowing full well that my efforts would leave injustice festering daily. But I have what agency my society has seen fit to give, I use it opportunely. I do not rant and rave at allies for slights neither intended nor given, then retreat to the bulwarking of madmen and emotionally distintigrated. My voice is but a drop in an ocean, but with cunning and cruelty I can make it lash like a hurricane. You my dear are a child demanding the world be fair. It will not be, and your shrieks to the opposite serve only to denigrate the character you're so compelled to tell everyone about.

Whew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Warren was more than happy to enjoy the aesthetic benefits of the Native American designation without suffering any of the discrimination or material suffering the actual communities she's claiming a connection to have.

Again, there is no real evidence she actually did benefit from identifying as a Native American on personnel profiles from 1986 to 1995.  Literally all of the people that hired her - and they've all been asked - report it had no impact.  Could they be lying - and do they have an interest in lying?  Sure.  But many outright state they weren't even aware of it, and I'm inclined to take them at their word.  So, maybe it helped her get her the Penn and Harvard jobs.  But she still wouldn't have gotten those jobs if it wasn't for her own merit.  And it's incredibly unlikely her hiring prevented any other minority from getting those positions - she was recruited for them, she didn't apply.  That's why equating her actions to Rachel Dolezal's is not only false but laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

The debate over what is possible is part and parcel of the left/center divide in American politics. The reality is that we're going to need some kind of label to describe this divide, regardless of how individuals want to view themselves, and left and center are useful labels.  If you're routinely declaring that anything to the left of of mainstream Democratic Party opinion is impossible, you fall on the center side of this divide.

I would argue that using labels like left and center is really much more conducive to having a good faith debate about what's politically possible than what you want to do, which is to declare yourself a pragmatist, the final arbiter of what's politically possible who therefore occupies the furthest left position imaginable, and to say all those who disagree are a bunch of naifs who don't get a say. 

And if the person labeled "centrist" is actually more liberal than the so called "liberal?"

It's called fucking pragmatism. Centrist has become a slur on the left, and liberals use it against one another when they disagree with a position or find one insufficiently liberal. How is it all that different than conservatives call other conservatives cuckservatives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well for one calling someone a centrist doesn't betray a bizarre fixation/anxiety around the idea of being made a cuckold. RINO probably would have been a better analogy.

Also there's at least an actual major reason that drove the adoption of the left viewing centrism as a specific problem. As far as I can recall one of the original drivers of people using "cuckservative" was JEB! wearing mum jeans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Again, there is no real evidence she actually did benefit from identifying as a Native American on personnel profiles from 1986 to 1995.  Literally all of the people that hired her - and they've all been asked - report it had no impact.  Could they be lying - and do they have an interest in lying?  Sure.  But many outright state they weren't even aware of it, and I'm inclined to take them at their word.  So, maybe it helped her get her the Penn and Harvard jobs.  But she still wouldn't have gotten those jobs if it wasn't for her own merit.  And it's incredibly unlikely her hiring prevented any other minority from getting those positions - she was recruited for them, she didn't apply.  That's why equating her actions to Rachel Dolezal's is not only false but laughable.

Sorry I wasn't clear, I specifically said "aesthetic benefits" to imply she didn't actually get hired or anything for it.  My point was that she's going around claiming something she isn't, when the thing she's claiming comes with a lot of baggage she never had to carry.

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...