Break Glass - 2020 USA Elections

1101113151623

Comments

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    The plagiarism issue goes to character, and good character is vital.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    It might be worth noting that in the 1988 campaign Biden's plagiarism took a turn from the merely shabby to the floridly weird when he was so impressed by the background of Labour leader Neil Kinnock that he adopted chunks of it as his own.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Excuse me while this baby boomer fades into the night.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    edited June 26
    (ETA: referring back to comment that it's about time we had a president who could string words together sensibly.)

    We've had many that could. This prez is an extreme anomaly.
  • Yes, but a minute in his presence seems a thousand years...
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    Yes, but a minute in his presence seems a thousand years...
    :notworthy:

  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    LC!!!

    You're not saying that T...is...God?!

    (vomit) (warding-off signs) (holy water rains down)
  • Heheheheh. No, I thought it was the other way around for the Lord? 😂
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Checking this spot for debate talk.

    I really, really liked Warren much more than I thought I did, she sounds ready for the job. Loved Castro (Castro for president sounds so weird.) Cory Booker is so handsome and smooth I don't know if I like him for his issues or just him. Beto O'Rourke? His pandering was embarrassing.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    I only heard the result and I have spent my evening composing little ditties and chants to celebrate Warren's win.
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    You can't really win a debate with 10 candidates. There was very little attacking of each other's policies and more jostling to be able to introduce oneself, especially since most of the candidates on the first night are unknown to most people. You can definitely lose a debate like this one by giving poor answers, and I think Beto did that by seeming unfocused and disoriented.

    Beto and Booker each injected a sentence of (rehearsed, memorized) Spanish into one of their responses and it came off as awkward, stilted, and not entirely accurate (although probably better than I would have done). Yes, they both have demonstrated on the campaign trail that they speak good Spanish, but don't trot it out in a debate, especially one in Miami co-hosted by Telemundo, unless it's perfect! Castro, despite being of Latino ancestry, is not fluent in Spanish but at least the sentence he trotted out was short and well delivered. (No one else tried to speak Spanish.)....and somewhere Buttigieg is smiling to himself and thinking "But can you speak Norwegian?" - I haven't seen how good Buttigieg's Spanish is yet.

    Warren was the star at the beginning but hardly got asked any questions at all in the second half because I guess the moderators wanted to give the other debaters a chance to speak. But it means there were a lot of very important topics she didn't get to speak about.

    I couldn't stand the interrupting and shouting for the chance to speak between questions, all of which was often rewarded with the offer of 30 seconds to speak which meant that the other candidates got less time. De Blasio and Delaney were particularly guilty of this, and it's often men who choose to do this and are rewarded for it. They should penalize them with fewer questions or even shut off their mike if they do this. But it makes good television so they allow it.

    By the way, for those who don't know, the Democratic primary debates (and Republican ones if they were holding them), run by the TV stations and the parties, have much fewer rules and conventions than the ones run by the League of Women Voters between the two major party candidates in the General Election. The Primary Debates are often designed to get ratings, are often woefully imbalanced in terms of how many questions a candidate is asked (the ones higher in the polling or who are more controversial or flashy tend to get asked more) and can often become shouting matches. The questions are often dumb, sensationalistic, or easy for a candidate to avoid answering directly. Often candidates will completely ignore what question they were asked so they can give some of their campaign speech on a completely different topic.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Both Beto and Cory speak Spanish as a second language. Beto was asked a question in Spanish so he responded in Spanish. Not sure of the context in which Cory responded. But, in both cases, it seemed they were responding to a specific question so they could not have known what the question would be. They were slow in their responses mainly because they had to think through their sentence.

  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Both Beto and Cory speak Spanish as a second language. Beto was asked a question in Spanish so he responded in Spanish.

    IIRC, his first Spanish answer was in response to a question in English. It struck me as irrelevant showing off. (I think I had given up and turned off the television before his Spanish response to a Spanish question.)

    Maybe Pete will give them some Norwegian or Dari this evening.

  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »

    IIRC, his first Spanish answer was in response to a question in English. It struck me as irrelevant showing off.
    Right, it was such obvious pandering that I laughed out loud and Cory almost did.

    CNN is calling Kamala Harris last night's winner and I was completely and forever turned off by her. I saw no reason for such an angry, personal. attack against Biden and glaring at him while talking about how some racist neighbor wouldn't let her kids play with her was unfair and the kind of "vote for me because I've had it bad" thing I never like to see. Biden speaks the truth when he says he's worked for civil rights all his life and just because he's old enough to be in a position where history has shown him to have been on the wrong side in an issue or two, doesn't make him evil. Busing was never a clear cut "good thing," little black children were sometimes spending two hours a day on a bus so they could go to a school where they felt out of place and frightened.

    Harris wasn't the only one who seemed to think telling a sad story was the way to win the nomination. The first hour seemed to be one candidate after another talking about the tragic situation at the border. We know all about that! We also know Trump is the worst president ever. Tell us something about why you'll make a better nominee for the Democrats than the other people on the stage.

    I like Buttigieg (sp) and the Colorado governor. The rest just had me shaking my head.

    I think Simon Toad's lady won the nomination last night.
  • Pangolin GuerrePangolin Guerre Shipmate
    edited June 28
    While responses in Spanish may in fact be cynical, pandering, and/or whatever, I have a couple of observations.

    Hispanics are a quickly growing demographic. It can't hurt to demonstrate a willingness to reach out, especially given the hostility in some quarters to English/Spanish bilingualism. Low hanging fruit. It's also signalling a liberal attitude, when one recalls how John Kerry's facility in French was regarded as highly suspect by some in the media, and more broadly.

    In Canada it would now be impossible to become PM without speaking French. While I think that that is not a bad thing, it has also disqualified some very able individuals. It also subjects us to some truly terrible French during leadership debates. Les Trudeau and Mulroney fĺip back and forth effortlessly, and many ministers - others, not so much. Also, many of our best journalists and commentators are fully bilingual.

    My advice to American politicos with any ambition: learn Spanish. A Norwegian-American who speaks Spanish well? Would be priceless.

    All that said, the joke in the 1990s was that PM Jean Chretien was the only PM who spoke neither official language.
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    Can I fly in from Jacindaland and demand a Warren-Harris (or even vice versa) gig? The world needs it (or very akin to it ... I'd prefer Harris-Buttigieg but that might be pushing the envelope too far).
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    CNN is calling Kamala Harris last night's winner and I was completely and forever turned off by her. I saw no reason for such an angry, personal. attack against Biden and glaring at him while talking about how some racist neighbor wouldn't let her kids play with her was unfair and the kind of "vote for me because I've had it bad" thing I never like to see.
    Interesting how people hear and perceive things differently. I didn't detect any anger in what Harris said; I thought she was respectful but firm in her own views.

    Perhaps that's because I already liked her, or perhaps it's because I heard her as one lawyer listening to another lawyer.

    I don't dislike Biden, but I don't get particularly excited about him either. In my estimation, the main thing he has had going for him is the perceived status as "most likely to be able to beat Trump." After last night, I question that perception.

    Zappa wrote: »
    Can I fly in from Jacindaland and demand a Warren-Harris (or even vice versa) gig? The world needs it (or very akin to it ... I'd prefer Harris-Buttigieg but that might be pushing the envelope too far).
    The Harris-Buttigieg gig has been my dream team for a while.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I heard her as one lawyer listening to another lawyer.

    I heard her as an experienced trial lawyer who knows how to subtly prejudice a jury against. someone. "I don't think you're a racist..." followed by a story about how she was a child who was bused to school and he was against busing (as a requirement in all school districts.) It was a complicated issue and he had no time to delve into all it's aspects. People were just left with the idea that she thinks he's almost a racist.

    I heard her say that we shouldn't have politicians who are merely intellectualizing issues but they need to have experienced them. She then tells a story about growing up and seeing her mother in the kitchen at 3AM "trying to figure it out." We're left with an impression of a poor, black single mother wondering where their next meal is from. Harris's mother was a doctor from India married to an economics professor.

    She was leading the pack in shouting over others for the first half of the show and then, suddenly, when everyone is talking at once, she puts out her hands to stop them and says, paraphrasing, "Americans aren't here for a food fight, they're here to put food on the table." Like she alone is the quiet peace maker.

    There's a falseness to her. So many times her words sounded like slogans at a rally, guaranteed to get applause, but neither original ideas, nor solutions to the problems.

    Also she, and half the candidates up there, were very ageist. I'm probably not voting for Biden, but I think he deserves respect for all the progressive work he's done during his career and there's no reason to think his age would make him unfit to do the job.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    As I said, we heard and perceived her and the debate very differently, Twilight.
  • Nick Tamen: The Harris-Buttigieg gig has been my dream team for a while.

    Nice to know there's at least that one thing you and I can agree on.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »

    IIRC, his first Spanish answer was in response to a question in English. It struck me as irrelevant showing off.
    Right, it was such obvious pandering that I laughed out loud and Cory almost did.

    CNN is calling Kamala Harris last night's winner and I was completely and forever turned off by her. I saw no reason for such an angry, personal. attack against Biden and glaring at him while talking about how some racist neighbor wouldn't let her kids play with her was unfair and the kind of "vote for me because I've had it bad" thing I never like to see. Biden speaks the truth when he says he's worked for civil rights all his life and just because he's old enough to be in a position where history has shown him to have been on the wrong side in an issue or two, doesn't make him evil.
    He is not evil, but his clay hardly ends at his feet.
    Twilight wrote: »
    Busing was never a clear cut "good thing," little black children were sometimes spending two hours a day on a bus so they could go to a school where they felt out of place and frightened.
    Busing is problematic because white people circumvented it by leaving public schools, neighbourhoods and even cities. The concept was, and is, good. But people did not let it work.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    I heard her as an experienced trial lawyer who knows how to subtly prejudice a jury against. someone.

    So unfair. She used . . . rhetoric! In a debate!!! Can you believe it?
    Twilight wrote: »
    "I don't think you're a racist..." followed by a story about how she was a child who was bused to school and he was against busing (as a requirement in all school districts.) It was a complicated issue and he had no time to delve into all it's aspects.

    Not that complicated. Or at least Biden's position on busing wasn't that complicated.
    Daniel Dale
    Biden's claim tonight that he only opposed federally mandated busing and did not generally oppose "busing in America" was a flagrant misrepresentation of his position in the '70s and '80s. He'd made crystal clear he opposed busing as a concept, as a matter of principle.

    Biden's remarks on busing in the 1970s were generally very unequivocal -- "I oppose busing. It's an asinine concept." "A bankrupt concept." "Busing does not work." He expressed pride for making anti-busing sentiment "respectable" among liberals.

    As recently re-reported by WaPo, Biden said things like this about busing: “What it says is, ‘In order for your child with curly black hair, brown eyes, and dark skin to be able to learn anything, he needs to sit next to my blond-haired, blue-eyed son.’ That’s racist!"

    It wasn't just words: working with avowed racists, Biden pushed legislation to make it difficult to run busing programs. There *was* a caveat: he said he would support busing in cases where it'd been proven that a community had been intentionally segregated. But otherwise no.

    Biden's campaign says that his position on busing would not have stopped the particular local busing program that Kamala Harris was a part of, since it was voluntarily adopted by the local community. In general, though: she was not mischaracterizing his opposition to busing.

    Biden campaign’s argument is that him saying in the ‘70s that he opposed busing was understood then to mean he simply opposed federal-mandated busing, not all busing. Like when GOP said under Obama they oppose health reform, was obvious it meant Obamacare, not all health reform.

    As an additional matter of incompetence, how does any Democrat in 2019 seriously make a "state's rights" argument against desegregation?
  • NicoleMRNicoleMR Shipmate
    I just hope once the field gets winnowed down a little we don't see candidates backstabbing each other; our first priority must be to get Trump out of office, and it won't happen if the candidates are busy tearing each other to shreds, or running as "independents" as spoilers.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Nice to know there's at least that one thing you and I can agree on.
    There's probably a fair deal more than one thing, as I hope we'll find.

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    The Harris-Buttigieg gig has been my dream team for a while.

    As long as we're dreaming anyway . . .

    The sheer size, scope, stench, and sliminess of the mess that will be left behind when the current Sultan shunters off to "where ignorant armies clash by night" makes me wonder why anyone in their right mind would even want this job. But it also means we might want to re-model the current structure. The Veep job as it currently stands is basically useless except as tie breaker in Senate votes (the present incumbent fills the role admirably); he's sort of like the "spare" in the "heir-and-a-spare" set-up in UK royalty. We might need more VPs to help detoxify, sanitize, and fumigate the Hallowed Halls.

    Harris for President. Maybe she can do something about the Turtle.
    VP for Restructuring the Economy: Warren
    VP for Anything He Cares to Tackle: Buttigieg
    VP for Finally Opening Honest Discussions about Race: Booker
    VP for Health Care Reform: Sanders
    VP for Detoxifying White House, Senate, & House with White Sage Smudges: Williamson

    . . . and I yield my time to the good folk of this Ship for further nominations . . .

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Twilight wrote: »
    I heard her as an experienced trial lawyer who knows how to subtly prejudice a jury against. someone.

    So unfair. She used . . . rhetoric! In a debate!!! Can you believe it?
    Twilight wrote: »
    "I don't think you're a racist..." followed by a story about how she was a child who was bused to school and he was against busing (as a requirement in all school districts.) It was a complicated issue and he had no time to delve into all it's aspects.

    Not that complicated. Or at least Biden's position on busing wasn't that complicated.
    Daniel Dale
    Biden's claim tonight that he only opposed federally mandated busing and did not generally oppose "busing in America" was a flagrant misrepresentation of his position in the '70s and '80s. He'd made crystal clear he opposed busing as a concept, as a matter of principle.

    Biden's remarks on busing in the 1970s were generally very unequivocal -- "I oppose busing. It's an asinine concept." "A bankrupt concept." "Busing does not work." He expressed pride for making anti-busing sentiment "respectable" among liberals.

    As recently re-reported by WaPo, Biden said things like this about busing: “What it says is, ‘In order for your child with curly black hair, brown eyes, and dark skin to be able to learn anything, he needs to sit next to my blond-haired, blue-eyed son.’ That’s racist!"

    It wasn't just words: working with avowed racists, Biden pushed legislation to make it difficult to run busing programs. There *was* a caveat: he said he would support busing in cases where it'd been proven that a community had been intentionally segregated. But otherwise no.

    Biden's campaign says that his position on busing would not have stopped the particular local busing program that Kamala Harris was a part of, since it was voluntarily adopted by the local community. In general, though: she was not mischaracterizing his opposition to busing.

    Biden campaign’s argument is that him saying in the ‘70s that he opposed busing was understood then to mean he simply opposed federal-mandated busing, not all busing. Like when GOP said under Obama they oppose health reform, was obvious it meant Obamacare, not all health reform.

    As an additional matter of incompetence, how does any Democrat in 2019 seriously make a "state's rights" argument against desegregation?
    A real problem then, and unfortunately still, is that many white people support desegregation in theory, but not if it affects them. That is the real Secret of NIMBY.
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    Nick Tamen: The Harris-Buttigieg gig has been my dream team for a while.

    Nice to know there's at least that one thing you and I can agree on.

    Me too, but I'm not sure about the order. Yes, I know Harris has more experience.

    I wish they could be Co-Presidents, but there's no time to rewrite the Constitution before the election.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    I was always in favor of busing myself, but it seems like a very old issue to bring up in 2019. It almost seems like she went over every vote Biden has ever cast to find this one old issue, while she herself is criticized by many Californians for decisions she made as state Attorney General much more recently.

    She certainly went into the debate determined to tell the world her school bus story. She had already had the t-shirts made up saying "that little girl was me." Her taxes have been turned in showing that she and her husband made 1.9 million last year, she owns two million dollar houses, the couple tends to give about 2 percent to charity, but some years nothing at all. That would all be fine if she didn't try to give the impression that she's going to be a better politician than most because she's actually experienced hardships of poverty and is so worried about the people in need.

    What has she done that makes so many people think she would be a good president?
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    I'm only an 'anyone but Trump' when it comes to Republican alternatives. For the Democrats, I want a damn good President again, not just a stand-in. Everyone who reads the American Politics threads knows that I love Elizabeth Warren. In trumpist terms, she says what I think, more or less. I also love the way that she has been plugging away at the same issues since she was a teenager.

    But, as Ohher says, the Democrats actually have a wealth of talent. Lots of people vying for the nomination are just crazy full of talent, from Klochbar to Harris to Mayor Pete to Castro to Cory Booker, and the one who is just a superstar, the rightful Governor of Georgia, isn't even one of the 20-odd candidates. This is not an exhaustive list.

    NicoleMR is spot on. These guys don't need to tear each other down. But Harris was right to call out Biden. What the hell is he doing? He needs to drop the torch.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited June 29
    Twilight wrote: »
    I was always in favor of busing myself, but it seems like a very old issue to bring up in 2019. It almost seems like she went over every vote Biden has ever cast to find this one old issue, while she herself is criticized by many Californians for decisions she made as state Attorney General much more recently.
    I don’t know that Biden’s voting record on busing would have been brought up in last night’s debate at all had Biden not talked just last week about how he worked with segregationists to get things done. (And then when criticized by Corey Booker about his choice of segregationists as his example said Booker owed him an apology.)

    It shouldn’t have been a surprise to Biden or to his team that it might come up in some form last night. And as @Crœsos has noted, it was unfortunate that he defended himself with a form of a state’s rights argument. Biden was not served well by those who were supposed to be prepping him for the debate.

    What has she done that makes so many people think she would be a good president?
    About as much or maybe a bit more than any of the rest of them. She’s smart. I’d argue she perhaps has more relevant experience than Obama did.

    And perhaps most importantly, she’s showing signs (as she did in the Kavanaugh hearings) that she could go toe-to-toe with Trump.

    Simon Toad wrote: »
    But Harris was right to call out Biden. What the hell is he doing? He needs to drop the torch.
    Biden’s “I’m still holding the torch” line made me wince. All I could think was “you kids get off my lawn.”

    I’ve heard others wonder if there was a metaphor in the way he at one point stopped in mid-answer (because the clock had run) and said “I see my time is up.”

  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Twilight wrote: »
    I was always in favor of busing myself, but it seems like a very old issue to bring up in 2019. It almost seems like she went over every vote Biden has ever cast to find this one old issue, while she herself is criticized by many Californians for decisions she made as state Attorney General much more recently.
    I don’t know that Biden’s voting record on busing would have been brought up in last night’s debate at all had Biden not talked just last week about how he worked with segregationists to get things done. (And then when criticized by Corey Booker about his choice of segregationists as his example said Booker owed him an apology.)
    I agree that it probably wouldn't have been brought up at all if a large part of the population wasn't already angry at him over that. I actually think Booker, who I like, was wrong to ask Biden to apologize for a statement that was obviously using the segregationists as a worst case example of how he was able to cross the aisle and work with Satan himself if it meant getting important bills passed. But it was taken as a terrible thing to say by the population at large and Harris was all too happy to plan on bringing it up during the debate so even more people could misunderstand it and she could bring out the forty year-old busing decision. This gave her a chance to get choked up over her own busing, sell t-shirts and present herself as a great defender of African Americans when her own recent record as a prosecutor shows her as anything but.Kamal Harris prosecutor.

    What has she done that makes so many people think she would be a good president?
    About as much or maybe a bit more than any of the rest of them. She’s smart. I’d argue she perhaps has more relevant experience than Obama did.

    And perhaps most importantly, she’s showing signs (as she did in the Kavanaugh hearings) that she could go toe-to-toe with Trump.

    I think most of the candidates have better experience than she has. Either as senators with longer careers or as governors or big city mayors.

    As for going toe to toe with Trump. I don't consider him a good speaker at all so I think they all could do that.
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    But Harris was right to call out Biden. What the hell is he doing? He needs to drop the torch.
    Biden’s “I’m still holding the torch” line made me wince. All I could think was “you kids get off my lawn.”

    I’ve heard others wonder if there was a metaphor in the way he at one point stopped in mid-answer (because the clock had run) and said “I see my time is up.”

    I winced at "Pass the torch." It was rude and the same as telling someone they are too old and should retire. No one has the right to tell someone else when that time is right for them.

    Our political positions are not passed down like crowns to kings, the people decide who they want by vote and if a young person has better ideas and seems like they will do a better job they will get that vote. Asking for the torch is like asking Dad to give him a car when he should be capable of going out there, earning the money and buying his own car.

    The ageism is just rampant these days. Imagine if someone had told Harris she should step down and let a real man do the job.

  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    NicoleMR wrote: »
    I just hope once the field gets winnowed down a little we don't see candidates backstabbing each other; our first priority must be to get Trump out of office, and it won't happen if the candidates are busy tearing each other to shreds, or running as "independents" as spoilers.

    You've summed it up precisely!
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    I agree that it probably wouldn't have been brought up at all if a large part of the population wasn't already angry at him over that. I actually think Booker, who I like, was wrong to ask Biden to apologize for a statement that was obviously using the segregationists as a worst case example of how he was able to cross the aisle and work with Satan himself if it meant getting important bills passed.

    If you're going to claim that it was a great thing to work with segregationists to pass important bills it should not be surprising if people look at the bills you considered so important, like anti-busing measures. It's something Biden should have been prepared for, and opposing federal intervention against local racial discrimination does not seem like a winning position in today's Democratic party, especially given Republican gerrymandering efforts and embrace of white nationalism.

    It should also be noted that the Senate collegiality Biden is so nostalgic for was a product of white supremacy. Even if it we believe it to be a good idea to restore that status quo ante (something I'm not sure everyone would be okay with) it doesn't seem even broadly possible. There's too much support within the Democratic party today for the civil rights of black people and the inclusion of women in politics.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    I agree that it probably wouldn't have been brought up at all if a large part of the population wasn't already angry at him over that. I actually think Booker, who I like, was wrong to ask Biden to apologize for a statement that was obviously using the segregationists as a worst case example of how he was able to cross the aisle and work with Satan himself if it meant getting important bills passed. But it was taken as a terrible thing to say by the population at large . . . .
    I don’t think it was taken as “terrible” by the population at large. I think it was taken as tone deaf, and as a confirmation that he can’t stop putting his foot in his mouth.

    But regardless, if it was seen as negative by “the population at large,” that’s a problem, because eventually he’ll need the votes of the population at large.

    No one has the right to tell someone else when that time is right for them.
    Biden apparently thought he had the right to do that in the speech that was being quoted back to him Thursday night.

    But more importantly, the electorate does. And there are good indications that a decent chunk of the electorate (Democratic and otherwise) thinks that Biden’s time has passed. He reinforces that perception when he invokes segregationists or defends his position with a states’ rights argument. It would be stupid for the other candidates and for the party to ignore that.

    And I don’t think it can be simply dismissed as ageism. Many of those who think Biden’s time has passed support Bernie. They don’t think Biden is too old; they think his ideas are.

    Seriously, you seem to be criticizing politicians for being politicians.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited June 29
    Twilight wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Twilight wrote: »
    I was always in favor of busing myself, but it seems like a very old issue to bring up in 2019. It almost seems like she went over every vote Biden has ever cast to find this one old issue, while she herself is criticized by many Californians for decisions she made as state Attorney General much more recently.
    I don’t know that Biden’s voting record on busing would have been brought up in last night’s debate at all had Biden not talked just last week about how he worked with segregationists to get things done. (And then when criticized by Corey Booker about his choice of segregationists as his example said Booker owed him an apology.)
    I agree that it probably wouldn't have been brought up at all if a large part of the population wasn't already angry at him over that. I actually think Booker, who I like, was wrong to ask Biden to apologize for a statement that was obviously using the segregationists as a worst case example of how he was able to cross the aisle and work with Satan himself if it meant getting important bills passed. But it was taken as a terrible thing to say by the population at large and Harris was all too happy to plan on bringing it up during the debate so even more people could misunderstand it and she could bring out the forty year-old busing decision. This gave her a chance to get choked up over her own busing, sell t-shirts and present herself as a great defender of African Americans when her own recent record as a prosecutor shows her as anything but.Kamal Harris prosecutor.

    What has she done that makes so many people think she would be a good president?
    About as much or maybe a bit more than any of the rest of them. She’s smart. I’d argue she perhaps has more relevant experience than Obama did.

    And perhaps most importantly, she’s showing signs (as she did in the Kavanaugh hearings) that she could go toe-to-toe with Trump.

    I think most of the candidates have better experience than she has. Either as senators with longer careers or as governors or big city mayors.

    As for going toe to toe with Trump. I don't consider him a good speaker at all so I think they all could do that.
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    But Harris was right to call out Biden. What the hell is he doing? He needs to drop the torch.
    Biden’s “I’m still holding the torch” line made me wince. All I could think was “you kids get off my lawn.”

    I’ve heard others wonder if there was a metaphor in the way he at one point stopped in mid-answer (because the clock had run) and said “I see my time is up.”

    I winced at "Pass the torch." It was rude and the same as telling someone they are too old and should retire. No one has the right to tell someone else when that time is right for them.
    Ageism is a thing, but the effects of age are a thing as well. As far as internal v external determinations, it is not an either/or.
    The point in time in which we live is part of the environment which helps shape us and Biden is of an age to have been active in a time where his behaviours and actions were acceptable.¹ His flaw² is that he will not accept that he was wrong and he doesn't quite get that his transgressions are actually transgressions.
    Age doe not mean one will be out of touch, but it can be a factor.

    ¹Within certain parameters of acceptable, of course.
    ²Though the rigidity of thinking is more likely a feature than a bug, just one that doesn't adapt well to a complex society.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    There's another awkward fact not discussed here: the rationale Biden offered for work with segregationists was "bipartisanship." But two of the segregationists (IIRC) he worked closely with were Tallmadge and Eastland -- both Democrats. Recall this was before the Southern Strategy, when most of the most virulent segregationists were in fact Southern Democrats. No "bipartisanship" involved, then.

    And no matter how you slice it, there is nothing remotely civil about racism or support for political maneuvers designed to perpetuate it.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Could it be that some here thought Harris was angry because---well---she is a woman? I thought she showed good debate style.

    The one thing I thought Biden did wrong was when he was been challenged to pass the torch was him responding that he still had the torch. It was like signaling take it from me if you can.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Could it be that some here thought Harris was angry because---well---she is a woman? I thought she showed good debate style.

    The one thing I thought Biden did wrong was when he was been challenged to pass the torch was him responding that he still had the torch. It was like signaling take it from me if you can.

    Years ago I worked in an educational setting which revolved around "isms;" our mission was to train social change agents. I had a boss who, whenever I brought up issues affecting women (and therefore also me), would respond with, "You sound angry." I let this pass without comment a few times. Finally I responded with, "Yeah? And so?" He just stared at me. I noticed, though, that he never again made that comment to me. I wonder if you're right, and some of us have "rules" that women just aren't supposed to get angry. Or criticize. Or speak truth to power.

    Fuck that noise.

  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Could it be that some here thought Harris was angry because---well---she is a woman? I thought she showed good debate style.


    I actually thought she was angry because she was angry. Can you honestly watch her and think she was not? Funny how no one thought Elizabeth Warren was angry, even though she's a woman. A woman who managed to spend her time on stage talking about what she wanted to achieve for the country, she didn't feel the need to attack anyone at all.

    Truth to power? Is Kamala Harris a powerless person? If honesty means so much to her she might want to stop giving false impressions about herself and her family.

    Let me please get a few things clear. I'm not rooting for Biden. He's not my candidate of choice. I was on the other side 40 years ago during the busing debates. I'm not here to defend him.



    I am interested in the Harris's attack on him, as to what it says about her, not Biden. Her willingness to plan a low personal attack on a fellow Democrat who has had an over-all good record in civil rights. I think she also knew he wouldn't be able to defend himself against a woman without looking bad. I think she's loud, bullying, dishonest and mean spirited -- in other words -- she reminds me of Trump. I can picture years of insults and twitter wars between the two of them

    For four years, I've been looking forward to someone in the White house who acted like a dignified, fair minded, slow to anger leader. Someone with the Presidential manner of a Carter or Obama. Someone who wouldn't take the low road in a debate. Someone who can argue a point in a quiet, measured voice. I thought Buttigieg demonstrated that he could do that. Elizabeth Warren certainly did.

    If you think women are not capable of conducting themselves with quiet power, or that they have to act like angry redneck men to prove they're strong women, then you've got the feminist message wrong.

  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Biden's treatment of Anita Hill was abominable, and he gave the eulogy at Strom Thurmond's funeral. What he did back in the day was acceptable because sexism and racism were accepted. He can't run from his past, but he does need to demonstrate that he can grow and change. So far there isn't any evidence that he can.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Lil Buddha quote

    Ageism is a thing, but the effects of age are a thing as well.
    Age doe not mean one will be out of touch, but it can be a factor.

    ¹Within certain parameters of acceptable, of course.
    ²Though the rigidity of thinking is more likely a feature than a bug, just one that doesn't adapt well to a complex society.
    This reminds me so much of the 1960's reasons why women shouldn't be managers, bosses or military officers. "Women's bodies were vulnerable at certain times of the month, they weren't all emotional at that time but would we want such a woman making decisions?"

    I did one of those Life Expectancy calculators on Biden using his present age, general health, education, economic level etc. It said he can expect to live to 94. Just as some women have terrible PMS that can effect performance, and some older people get dementia, not all do and I wouldn't suggest not hiring women or seniors because of it. I'm definitely not going to rule out Elizabeth Warren because of her age or her gender.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    Biden's treatment of Anita Hill was abominable, and he gave the eulogy at Strom Thurmond's funeral. What he did back in the day was acceptable because sexism and racism were accepted. He can't run from his past, but he does need to demonstrate that he can grow and change. So far there isn't any evidence that he can.

    This. Plus it'apparent that he is trying to run ON his past (he's the one bringing it up), and that's just not going to fly in 2019-20, especially when it's riddled with BS.

    As for Twilight's calculations of Biden's life expectancy, how is that relevant? It's not his death in office I'd necessarily be concerned about (there would presumably be an able Veep to carry on); it's his decision-making in office which needs vetting -- his ability to rapidly take on board new and emerging information, analyze current situations, take well-informed advice and apply it quickly and accurately. Harris presented an opportunity to display these qualities. He flunked that test.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    Lil Buddha quote

    Ageism is a thing, but the effects of age are a thing as well.
    Age doe not mean one will be out of touch, but it can be a factor.

    ¹Within certain parameters of acceptable, of course.
    ²Though the rigidity of thinking is more likely a feature than a bug, just one that doesn't adapt well to a complex society.
    This reminds me so much of the 1960's reasons why women shouldn't be managers, bosses or military officers. "Women's bodies were vulnerable at certain times of the month, they weren't all emotional at that time but would we want such a woman making decisions?"

    I did one of those Life Expectancy calculators on Biden using his present age, general health, education, economic level etc. It said he can expect to live to 94. Just as some women have terrible PMS that can effect performance, and some older people get dementia, not all do and I wouldn't suggest not hiring women or seniors because of it. I'm definitely not going to rule out Elizabeth Warren because of her age or her gender.

    Age and cognitive abilities are connected. This is not controversial. Were I saying people of advanced age should be discriminated because of their age, then it would be ageist. I am not saying this, however,
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    . . .
    I am interested in the Harris's attack on him, as to what it says about her, not Biden. Her willingness to plan a low personal attack on a fellow Democrat who has had an over-all good record in civil rights. I think she also knew he wouldn't be able to defend himself against a woman without looking bad. I think she's loud, bullying, dishonest and mean spirited . . .

    I take issue with this.

    First, was it Harris who brought up busing? No; it was Biden, trying to claim "bipartisanship" on siding with two segregationist Dems (which is hardly bipartisan). Are you claiming that Harris somehow knew in advance that Biden would bring this up? Because that's the only way she could have planned this.

    And may I ask why it's "low," or even "personal" to critique someone on their very public service record? What should she base her critiques on, then? Or are you saying no Democrat should ever criticize any other Democrat? I suspect that will make it difficult to narrow the field.

    As for this: " I think she also knew he wouldn't be able to defend himself against a woman without looking bad," I'm just gobsmacked.

    If a politician with 40-odd years of experience can't defend himself against another politician without making himself "look bad," he is (A) in the wrong line of work, and / or (B) has made some piss-poor decisions.

    Look, I get that you have no use for Kamala Harris; that's your right and privilege. I have a few irrational dislikes of my own. But at least I'm willing to admit mine are irrational.

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    edited June 29
    Apologies to all for triple-posting.

    Apologies to hosts in the event that I still haven't got the hang of urls.

    Apologies, Twilight; you were apparently correct about the preplanning. At least the NYTimes thinks so.

    (Nearly but not quite your URL needed to begin with ‘http://‘ or, in this case ‘https://‘, but it’s fixed now. BroJames Purg Host)
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    Ruth wrote: »
    Biden's treatment of Anita Hill was abominable, and he gave the eulogy at Strom Thurmond's funeral. What he did back in the day was acceptable because sexism and racism were accepted. He can't run from his past, but he does need to demonstrate that he can grow and change. So far there isn't any evidence that he can.

    Exactly, Ruth. He's still the same handsy entitled fellow that he always was. He's one of the candidates of whom I think, "Well, I'll vote for him if he's chosen to be the candidate, but..."

  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Harris will not get my vote because Warren is prepared to be president and Harris at this point is not. But the notion that she shouldn't criticize Biden's record is ridiculous. And the idea that he can't defend himself against a woman without looking bad is simply sexist, because it means female politicians can't attack male politicians' records.

    The leaks coming out of his campaign make him look terrible, too. There's an article from a couple of weeks ago here: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2019/06/21/hmm-is-joe-biden-being-undermined-by-his-own-staff-n2548649 . And I saw on Twitter that staff told a reporter that he was resistant to debate prep. What staffers are leaking makes him look bad, and that they are doing it is worse. If his own staff doesn't believe in him enough to protect him from bad press, why should we vote for him?
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    edited June 30
    Ruth wrote: »
    Harris will not get my vote because Warren is prepared to be president and Harris at this point is not. But the notion that she shouldn't criticize Biden's record is ridiculous. And the idea that he can't defend himself against a woman without looking bad is simply sexist, because it means female politicians can't attack male politicians' records.

    The leaks coming out of his campaign make him look terrible, too. There's an article from a couple of weeks ago here: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2019/06/21/hmm-is-joe-biden-being-undermined-by-his-own-staff-n2548649 . And I saw on Twitter that staff told a reporter that he was resistant to debate prep. What staffers are leaking makes him look bad, and that they are doing it is worse. If his own staff doesn't believe in him enough to protect him from bad press, why should we vote for him?

    Attacking a record is fine but the backhanded, "I don't think you are a racist, but..." was below the belt. And yes men can defend themselves against women with out looking bad but if he had responded as angrily and aggressively as I think he would have liked to, I believe a lot of people would have hated him for it. Imagine him suddenly leaning across Bernie and shouting questions at her, saying, "Kamala Harris, I don't think you're a racist, but I would like to know why so many African Americans went to prison why you were California's Attorney General, why you failed to implement statewide use of police body cameras, why you opposed a bill that would have required the attorney general’s office to investigate police shootings and why you advocated sending parents of truant children to jail?"

    I agree that Biden's staffers not seeming to like him says a lot. Harris may serve one good purpose if she turns people away from him. Just so they turn to someone other than her.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    I really didn't see much wrong with Harris' attack on Biden. To me, she is in the pack of candidates and she had to do something to stand out. I think attacking Uncle Joe was a pretty good strategy, and I'm not sure I see anything wrong with her attacking him for his past behavior.

    However, I do not like Joe Biden, and I like Harris. I don't think she should be the nominee this time around, but I'm happy to see her get exposure.

    Most of our leaders are in their 50's in Australia, Prime Ministers, State Premiers and Opposition Leaders. I think Biden and Sanders don't show signs of the cognative problems associated with age at this point, but what I think when I see them is 'too old too slow'. I hope the process eliminates them both.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »
    I wonder if you're right, and some of us have "rules" that women just aren't supposed to get angry. Or criticize. Or speak truth to power.
    Especially, it seems at times, black women.

    (To be clear, I am not suggesting that is the case in this thread.)
    Ruth wrote: »
    Harris will not get my vote because Warren is prepared to be president and Harris at this point is not.
    I like Warren and (most of) her plans, but I just don’t believe she can win the general election. I think she will be seen as too liberal by the voters who are going to decide the election, and enough of them will end up sticking with the evil they know.
Sign In or Register to comment.