Break Glass - 2020 USA Elections

1457910

Comments

  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Of course, that's certainly what Thomas seemed to think.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Joe's biggest problem is being so touchy feely with women.

    BTW--he is far from being a Southern Gentleman. He was born in Pennsylvania and has spent most of his life in the mid Atlantic states.

    Over the years Biden has changed a lot--grown, if you will. Yes, he mishandled the Clarence Thomas case, but he has later said he regretted not believing Anita Hill. As a former state prosecutor he did favor the death penalty. With the latest developments in DNA evidence, he has taken a more neutral position.

    Regardless, I think he is too old. We just cannot have octogenarians running this country,
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited April 1
    Twilight wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Twilight wrote: »
    What are everyone's thoughts about Joe Biden?

    <snip> . . . His voting record seems very pro-women and fairly anti-war.

    I'm not sure that being a consistent anti-abortion vote in the Senate or his handling of the Clarence Thomas* confirmation hearings qualify as "very pro-women".

    His Wikipedia page on political positions say this: "In September 2008, Biden was barred by Joseph Francis Martino, the bishop of Scranton, Pennsylvania, from receiving Holy Communion in the diocese because of his support for abortion rights."

    The fact that Biden hadn't lived in Scranton since he was ten years old probably took some of the sting out that. It should also be noted that Bishop Martino, at the time, seemed to consider any cooperation with the Democratic Party to be cooperating with evil and promoting abortion. He got into a similar tiff with anti-abortion Democratic Senator Bob Casey, Jr. the following year when Casey supported the Obama administration rescinding the Mexico City Policy (a.k.a. the global gag rule).

    At any rate, it seems like a poor payback for Biden's consistent votes in favor of the Hyde Amendment every time it came up during his Senate tenure, or his willingness to cross party lines in favor of the Hatch Amendment, one of only two Judiciary Committee Democrats to do so, or his support for any of the other countless anti-abortion measures that came up in the Senate during his tenure there.

    These and other problematic positions from Biden's Senate career are ably summarized in this article by Rebecca Traister.
    Twilight wrote: »
    So he's not not as liberal as I am but his moderate leanings have made me think he might actually have a chance of being elected, and I think that's of paramount importance this time.

    Regardless of where he falls relative to you, Biden is also significantly to the right of where the median Democratic voter is these days. The idea that he'd be the one to generate massive enthusiasm from Democrats for his election is dubious, especially considering his previous two failed presidential runs argue against Biden being some kind of extremely competent campaigner.
    Twilight wrote: »
    * I don't think you had to have been on Anita Hill's side, in that particular fight, to be considered "pro-women." That's like saying if you weren't on Clarence Thomas's side you were against African Americans.

    Joe Biden would seem to disagree with you. At the (on this occasion ironically mis-named) Joe Biden Courage Awards last week he said:
    “A brave lawyer, a really notable woman, Anita Hill, a professor, showed the courage of a lifetime talking about her experience being harassed by Clarence Thomas,” Biden said. “But she paid a terrible price. She was abused in the hearing. She was taken advantage of. Her reputation was attacked. I wish I could have done something.”

    Yes, if only Joe Biden were in a position where he could have done something! Perhaps in some way get the attention of the Judiciary Committee Chairman, Senator . . . [ checks notes ] . . . Joe Biden. Maybe he could have convinced Chairman Biden to call at least one of the other women who were willing to corroborate Hill's account under oath.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited April 1
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Regardless, I think he is too old. We just cannot have octogenarians running this country,

    A point expanded by blogger Paul Campos. (The following is a quote from Paul Campos, not @Gramps49.)
    For example, in politics, talent is not scarce. At all. Not even a little bit. How many people from the constitutionally eligible pool in America would make good presidents? Literally millions. (If the bar is set at “better than Donald Trump” the answer would be tens of millions). Even if you want to pare down the pool by insisting that good candidates already have substantial experience in government and/or electoral office, you’re still in the hundreds of thousands. At least.

    <snip>

    Here’s one tiny example of how this frankly banal insight should be deployed: It’s obviously insane to nominate somebody to be president who will spend the majority of his first term in his 80s. There’s about a 10% risk that such a person will begin to undergo the early stages of senile dementia during his term, which for obvious reasons would be a catastrophe of Trumpian proportions, especially since early-stage dementia may take quite a long time to develop to a point where the invocation of Section 4 of the 25th Amendment is clearly warranted, by which time we could all be dead or worse.

    The only reason to run such a crazy risk would be if the talents of President Eightysomething were so remarkably special and rare that it would make sense to take the risk. They aren’t, and it doesn’t.

    Because talent is not scarce.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Something I've wondered: does Biden still make huge verbal gaffes, misspeak a lot, etc.? He used to be known for that, then seemed to stop. I've never been sure whether he actually got some control over the problem, or if the media just stopped covering it.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited April 1
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Something I've wondered: does Biden still make huge verbal gaffes, misspeak a lot, etc.? He used to be known for that, then seemed to stop. I've never been sure whether he actually got some control over the problem, or if the media just stopped covering it.

    Biden didn't so much misspeak as make what are known as "Kinsley gaffes", when a politician accidentally tells the truth. Biden was known for that and for phrasing things inartfully. I suspect that the media has stopped covering it since he became a private citizen again. He still occasionally says something that gets press attention, though.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    I'm not a fan of Biden, but I don't know much about him. It strikes me that the current controversy is both a genuine example of a problematic way of relating to women and a political hit.

    My impression is that hugging is big in America as a way of greeting or showing affection, but that touching someone on the shoulders and nozzling the back of their head is more idiosyncratic. In a work situation I would consider that to be suggestive of sexual harassment (but requiring a pattern of conduct to be actionable), and I would have thought that in the 1990's too. It is evidence of a bloke who thinks he is too sexy for his shorts.

    I get the desire for a moderate, but Biden... I dunno.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    My impression is that hugging is big in America as a way of greeting or showing affection, but that touching someone on the shoulders and nozzling the back of their head is more idiosyncratic. In a work situation I would consider that to be suggestive of sexual harassment (but requiring a pattern of conduct to be actionable), and I would have thought that in the 1990's too. It is evidence of a bloke who thinks he is too sexy for his shorts.

    I get the desire for a moderate, but Biden... I dunno.

    To me he comes across, not so much as a guy who thinks he's sexy, as an old guy who sees every woman under fifty as a daughter or grand daughter. Rubbing noses, kissing backs of the head, all seem like grandpa stuff to me and I can honestly say that I would have laughed if a man had done those things to me.

    But other women aren't me and younger ones seem to be drawing a much harder line in the sand about inappropriate touch. That's probably a good thing. I think it might be a good time for most social touching, including the incessant hugging some women do, to stop. The Japanese have the right idea.

    As for Biden, I'm leaning toward ... he's too old.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    Twilight wrote: »
    What are everyone's thoughts about Joe Biden? ...
    He seems to be handsy and entitled. He didn't do a thing to help Anita Hill when he easily could have.

    My major objection to him is that he is a plagiarist of long standing. I regard that as pretty close to unforgivable. (But, then, I write for a living.)



  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Wow, Rossweisse. the plagiarism and the out right lies within the stolen speech. Finally I'm shocked when the hair kissing and a few other things had just left me unsure what to think.

    Nope.

    Next!
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    He's also too old.

    Pete Buttigieg looks good to me. He's an Episcopalian, married to the first guy he ever dated, a classically trained pianist, a polyglot, a good administrator and a reasonable individual. Any of these things would make him look good compared to the incumbent.


  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    He's also too old.

    Pete Buttigieg looks good to me. He's an Episcopalian, married to the first guy he ever dated, a classically trained pianist, a polyglot, a good administrator and a reasonable individual. Any of these things would make him look good compared to the incumbent.


    He's raising Butt-loads of money. (Coat. Get.)
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Does a gay presidential candidate have much of a chance in 2020?

    I don't have a problem with a gay president. But a lot of people would, or think they would, or think they should. And might vote for T because of that.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Yeah, it's a point. But I'm inclined to say 'screw those bastards'. Wouldn't a virulent bigot already be rusted-on Trump?

    I would like to see Buttigieg as an activist VEEP or Governor for four or eight years. Just on principle, I'm reluctant to have someone without significant experience in a high-pressure environment as President. That's my only concern so far. My wife reckons he's great.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    They don't have to be virulent bigots. They could just be people who've been taught that gayness is against God, Nature, etc. Or who haven't knowingly even met someone gay. Or who have a strong "Ewww, ickkk!" sense they haven't gotten past. Or even deeply, deeply closeted gay folks.

    I'm less worried about currently ardent T supporters voting for him again. They probably will. I'm more worried about people who have become uncomfortable with T, but also are uncomfortable about gayness. They might well decide T is the lesser of two evils.

    And that's not just Republicans. Some Democrats voted for T the first time, too.
  • My main issue with Buttigieg is that he is the spitting image of my older brother. Same nose, same mouth, same eyebrows, same colouring. They even have some of the same facial tics.

    So I find myself going “what’s my brother doing on the TV? And why’s his accent changed like that?” It’s highly disconcerting.

    I grant that it’s not a good reason for not wanting him to be President.

    More seriously, I read… somewhere… that’s there’s actually not that much distance on policy between him and Elizabeth Warren. I also have my doubts whether disaffected Republicans can be persuaded to vote for a gay person and I believe the Democrats have to pick up those votes if they want to win. I’m kind of conflicted on this, because in an ideal world it would be the best person for the job regardless, but at the same time I think they have to choose someone electable beyond their own constituency if they want to get rid of Trump.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited April 2
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    He's also too old.

    Pete Buttigieg looks good to me. He's an Episcopalian, married to the first guy he ever dated, a classically trained pianist, a polyglot, a good administrator and a reasonable individual. Any of these things would make him look good compared to the incumbent.
    He’s looking very good to me, too. Aside from the things you mentioned, he’s also a Rhodes scholar who’s able to communicate clearly and intelligently. (A plus in my book, maybe not so much in the books of those who voted for Trump.) And he’s a veteran who served in Afghanistan. I wonder if that might temper the reactions of some who’d be disinclined to vote for him because he’s gay.

    To me, he’s seeming like the most impressive of the bunch right now. But I what I want more than anything is sons be who can beat Trump. I don’t know that Buttigieg is the one who can do that—not yet, at least.

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    I can't think of anyone in Australia who would not vote for someone who is gay other than a virulent bigot. If their motive is their faith, that's fine. In an Australian context they are highly likely to be very conservative. Maybe that's different in America, but I find it hard to believe. How can people not have been exposed..... uh oh.

    Sorry, stream of consciousness posting here. I have just thought of a group of Australians who might not be virulent bigots and still have a problem voting for a gay candidate: first and second generation Australians who have grown up in a context where their religious observance is a vital part of their culture as immigrant Australians. I'm thinking about smaller ethnic communities who bond together at church - Melbourne's Coptic community is an excellent example.

    So, sorry GK. You're absolutely right. I was being dumb in labelling people so broadly.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Does a gay presidential candidate have much of a chance in 2020?

    I don't have a problem with a gay president. But a lot of people would, or think they would, or think they should. And might vote for T because of that.

    This was discussed a bit on the Old Ship in the context of the 2012 presidential election. The general sentiment was that by 2012 campaigning as the anti-gay candidate was a net loser in American politics, that it repelled more people than it attracted. The chief difference was that this was in a context of a candidate who was arguably in favor of gay rights, not someone who was gay himself. I'm not sure that makes a difference, though.

    What might make a difference is the development of targeted social media bot campaigning, where a campaign can more plausibly distance itself from alleged internet randos distributing a vile whisper campaign.
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    Pete Buttigieg looks good to me. He's an Episcopalian, married to the first guy he ever dated, a classically trained pianist, a polyglot, a good administrator and a reasonable individual. Any of these things would make him look good compared to the incumbent.

    Here's a less positive review of Buttigieg's candidacy as seen through the lens of his autobiography. I don't necessarily agree with everything in it, but thought it would be useful as further information. I was also pretty grateful that the author spelled out his own biases up front.
    Before I dive into Shortest Way Home’s account of the life and career of Peter Buttigieg, let me be up front about my bias. I don’t trust former McKinsey consultants. I don’t trust military intelligence officers. And I don’t trust the type of people likely to appear on “40 under 40” lists, the valedictorian-to-Harvard-to-Rhodes-Scholarship types who populate the American elite. I don’t trust people who get flattering reams of newspaper profiles and are pitched as the Next Big Thing That You Must Pay Attention To, and I don’t trust wunderkinds who become successful too early. Why? Because I am somewhat cynical about the United States meritocracy. Few people amass these kind of résumés if they are the type to openly challenge authority. Noam Chomsky says that the factors predicting success in our “meritocracy” are a “combination of greed, cynicism, obsequiousness and subordination, lack of curiosity and independence of mind, [and] self-serving disregard for others.” So when journalists see “Harvard” and think “impressive,” I see it and think “uh-oh.”

    I try my best to be fair, though. I thought former Michigan gubernatorial candidate Abdul El-Sayed was suspect because of his shiny résumé. But after examining his proposals and listening to his speeches, I realized he was the real deal. He had done well in school, but he was genuinely outraged by preventable human misery, talked openly about taking on corporate oligarchy, and had bold plans for revolutionizing health care, environmental policy, and just about everything else. I have lots of friends who are the products of elite institutions, but became critical of those institutions after being exposed to their inner workings. If Pete Buttigieg is one of those, great!

    Pete Buttigieg is not one of those.

    Part book review, part candidate assessment. It's fairly long though.
    More seriously, I read… somewhere… that’s there’s actually not that much distance on policy between him and Elizabeth Warren.

    Warren has the additional advantage that she can explain her policies in ways that even political reporters can understand. All those years as a professor, I guess, where you have to be able to teach not just the bright young things but the legacy admissions as well. I haven't seen enough of Buttigieg to know whether the same can be said of him too.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Here's a less positive review of Buttigieg's candidacy as seen through the lens of his autobiography.

    The house demolition program (as one of the few things he seems to have actually done in power) is one of those typically managerialist projects laced with more than a whiff of cruelty - someone should tell him that people can see through the 90s.

  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Does a gay presidential candidate have much of a chance in 2020?

    If you're going to have a gay candidate (and I suspect that the majority would be fine with a gay president, but enough of a minority would have a problem with it that it would shift the numbers too far towards Trump) then at least having one called Buttigieg gets all the puerile ass-jokes out of the way early.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    America is not as much of a hugging nation as you might think. We certainly pull back from kissing on both cheeks as the French (only an example--I know other cultures have not problem with it). I remember one time when a Kenyan male friend and I were at dance in college and he placed his hand in mine. I did not pull away, but I could tell some other people were very leery of it. We are both hetro. That was in the 70's and, ya, you can see some same sex couples holding hands on campus communities now.

    As far as having a LBGTQA presidential candidate at this point, I am not sure we are quite there yet; but LBHTQA people have been elected mayors of a number of cities. For all I know, we may have a governor as well. However, we have yet to elect a female president, and the Republicans--especially tRump--are doing everything they can to nullify the legacy of our one mixed race president.

    I do look forward to the type of society that MLK Jr dreamed about when we can look at another person not for the color of his or her skin--or sexual orientation--but at the content of their character. We still have a long, long way to go.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    As far as having a LBGTQA presidential candidate at this point, I am not sure we are quite there yet; but LBHTQA people have been elected mayors of a number of cities. For all I know, we may have a governor as well.

    Two so far, both currently serving. Kate Brown of Washington (who identifies as bisexual and is in an opposite-sex marriage) and Jared Polis of Colorado (who identifies as gay and is in a same-sex marriage). Mr. Polis took office this January, succeeding fellow Democrate John Hickenlooper who is now busily running for president.
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Does a gay presidential candidate have much of a chance in 2020?

    I don't have a problem with a gay president. But a lot of people would, or think they would, or think they should. And might vote for T because of that.

    I can't imagine that there are more people who would feel uncomfortable voting for a gay candidate than there are people who would feel that a female candidate is either too "shrill" or too "soft." Ditto people who, even after Obama, feel that a candidate of color, especially a woman of color, is too "angry," "polarizing," is more involved in "identity politics" compared to white candidates who actually have similar policies and rhetoric, and, as people like my parents said about Obama, has a "secret agenda" or even is "plotting against America." All these people would say they are not against a candidate because they are female or of color, but some might be hiding their biases while others might not be conscious of them, but believe me, they are there, as they were with Obama and Hillary.

    And then there are the people who see the appeal of Bernie's policies but freak out at the word Socialist and people who think of Biden and Bernie as too old (even though Trump was the oldest president ever at the age of his inauguration).

    Buttigieg is from a red Midwestern state, Indiana, and some think he might be more able than other candidates (other than perhaps Biden) to win back the Midwestern states of Wisconsin and Michigan (and the not-Midwestern-but-nearby) state of Pennsylvania that Hillary lost. And, as all the media likes to say, he has "millennial appeal."

    All that said, I'm not too crazy about him, because, regardless of his age, I don't think his executive experience as mayor of South Bend is good enough preparation for being president.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    Crœsos wrote: »
    ... Here's a less positive review of Buttigieg's candidacy as seen through the lens of his autobiography. ...
    Part book review, part candidate assessment. It's fairly long though. ...
    Fair enough. And after Obama and Trump, I would prefer to have a president with significant experience of governance.
    ... Warren has the additional advantage that she can explain her policies in ways that even political reporters can understand. All those years as a professor, I guess, where you have to be able to teach not just the bright young things but the legacy admissions as well. ...
    My sense of her is that she's a good legislator, but perhaps not executive material. I think she can be more useful in the Senate. She's also a little far left for me.

    I'm interested in Kirsten Gillibrand, and in Amy Klobuchar. I thought it was telling that the knives came out for Klobuchar the instant that she announced, on the grounds that she's a Mean Boss. That may be true, and is definitely concerning. My question is whether those stories would have been deemed interesting had she been born with a Y chromosome; that sort of (alleged) behavior seems to be far more acceptable coming from men.


  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited April 2
    Just an aside, in Australia conservative gay men in the closet used to be referred to as convinced batchelors. Is that the same in America? Basically, am I right in thinking that Jim Mattis and Lindsey Graham, both convinced batchelors in the press, are gay? If so, could Lindsey Graham be America's first gay President?

    Gramps, I can tell you that from the outside, America is SO a hugging nation, and California is the hugging capital of the world. They don't hug in Europe when they greet with a kiss. The hug is much more invasive.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    I always heard "committed bachelor."
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    I always heard "confirmed bachelor," but don't think it necessarily meant they were gay.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Hmmm...I'm not sure California is that huggy. IME, people don't *usually* hug someone they've just met, nor do they always have to hug someone they know. Even here in SF. Depends on your social crowd's rules, though. IME, usually no hugging at work, unless for a special occasion (retirement, engagement, marriage, new child) or maybe a promotion. But never everyone hugging everyone. And never hugging without at least a consenting facial expression from the huggee. Some people do ignore consent and protocols, but that's a really bad idea.

    As to European kiss greeting:

    IMHO, even air kisses would be very invasive. And greeting kisses that actually make landfall...eeeek! If both parties involved freely want to do that, great. But as a mandatory social protocol? No.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited April 3
    LOL, I guess its just up in Amador County!!! Or maybe its just that I am in no way shape or form a hugger. I'm with Pelosi on the stiff-armed handshake as the way to go!!!

    I shall withdraw without conceding on hug v kiss invasiveness. :tongue:
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Well, I think "Amador" means "loving", so...
    ;)
  • GK, I think that just goes to show how culturally determined these things are.

    A French person finds the kiss-kiss much less invasive than a hug. Also two kisses are considered less intimate than one FWIW. (Also if, like me, you are an aficionado of bright lipstick, you have to aim to miss or you cover everyone in the stuff :wink:)

    As a long-term French resident, I’ve got used to this being the norm and these days do feel quite surprised when people from other cultures go to hug me. One of the advantages I find in the French style of greeting is that everyone knows exactly where the boundaries are and what’s appropriate. Two kisses, left-right, possibly a hand on the arm but not more than that. Shake hands for more formal situations or people you know less well.
  • jedijudyjedijudy Heaven Host
    As a long-term French resident, I’ve got used to this being the norm and these days do feel quite surprised when people from other cultures go to hug me.

    Trying hard to remember if I hugged lver, and hoping I didn't offend her!! :confused:

    I was not raised to be a hugger or kisser. However, I am very much a hugger (and affectionate kisses on close relatives) now to almost all my friends.

    Which reminds me of the Joe Biden kiss on the head controversy. Ms Flores may very well be like those from my childhood home who don't take kindly to such things. Unfortunately, we have to learn to be aware of others who from past experience, or who just treasure their personal space, find such things offensive. I'm reminded of all the times Gibbs kisses Abby (NCIS) on the head, which I thought was really sweet. Someone else might have seen those scenes and shuddered.
  • I don't remember either, and I wouldn't have been offended if you did :wink:
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    GK, I think that just goes to show how culturally determined these things are.

    A French person finds the kiss-kiss much less invasive than a hug. Also two kisses are considered less intimate than one FWIW. (Also if, like me, you are an aficionado of bright lipstick, you have to aim to miss or you cover everyone in the stuff :wink:)

    As a long-term French resident, I’ve got used to this being the norm and these days do feel quite surprised when people from other cultures go to hug me. One of the advantages I find in the French style of greeting is that everyone knows exactly where the boundaries are and what’s appropriate. Two kisses, left-right, possibly a hand on the arm but not more than that. Shake hands for more formal situations or people you know less well.

    I'm fine with air kisses, but I'm not crazy with actual kissing on the (face) cheeks (I knew someone was going to make a joke there). People often aim wrong and wind up kissing right at the corner of my lips, which sets off my germophobia, and in my attempts to move my cheeks into position so the kiss lands away from my lips I often end up confusing people so they wind up kissing me even closer to my lips. It's all very stressful. Handshakes also set off my germophobia, unless they can be followed by immediate hand washing or hand sanitizing once I can get out of sight - since I find it very hard to go so much as five minutes without inadvertently touching my face and I want my hands to be clean before the next time I do so. Because of this, hugs are my preference for people I know reasonably well but not intimately (if they are ok with a hug) as long as I can move my head away from theirs so that I don't breathe in what they exhale. I'm terrified that someone here is going to tell me that hugs are even worse than handshakes in terms of catching germs.

    And this is a thread about the 2020 election!
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited April 8
    Joe Biden's I get it video
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    I kind of hope that's enough for Biden to put this controversy to bed. Unless something else comes up it should be.

    (face) cheeks rofl :smiley:
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    edited April 6
    No, it's not even close enough, because he's already joking about it. He doesn't get it; he can't see how uncomfortable and how unhappy it can make someone to be touched when they don't want to be touched and when social norms don't allow them to complain about it.

    As for Pete Buttigieg: that Current Affairs article is damning. And even if he were the gay male AOC, which he most certainly is not, I don't think someone under 40 should go from being mayor of a small city to being president of the US.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Biden shouldn't run for president--but maybe to a therapist or to anti-harassment training.

    Something else in the article to which Ruth linked sent chills down my spine.
    Several minutes into his remarks, Mr. Biden spotted children in the audience. After welcoming them to the stage, Mr. Biden wrapped his arm around a young boy. “By the way, he gave me permission to touch him,” he said, to laughter.

    “Everyone knows I like kids more than people,” he added.

    He may well have asked, and it just wasn't reported in this story. But, if not, then (however innocently he may consciously have meant it) he took liberties with that kid, put him in a position where he couldn't really protest, lied about it, and joked about it.

    He's evidently not connecting the dots about his behavior with women--in the wake of #MeToo, no less! And he's not connecting the dots about respecting and protecting children, and letting them have control over their own bodies--in the wake of #MeToo and all the scandals about sexual abuse of kids.

    I was going to say "he's Catholic and it seems to mean a lot to him*; would he treat Mary the way he treats other women, would he wrap himself around young Jesus without permission?"--but it may well be that he would, and still wouldn't get it. And I'm guessing he probably doesn't take the RC abuse scandals as seriously as he should.

    *I saw him on Colbert's "Late Show" a couple years ago, and he was very emotional about his faith and depending on it. It didn't sound like PR. (Colbert is very openly Catholic, and talks about that with guests who are/were Catholic.)
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    yeah I saw that shortly after my recent post. I agree. He shouldn't run.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    No, it's not even close enough, because he's already joking about it. He doesn't get it.
    No he doesn't.
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    He shouldn't run.
    No, he shouldn't.

    I give up, from this point on I'm just going to bring names to this thread and let Croesos shoot them down until we finally get one that stands.

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    rofl. That's actually a pretty good method Twilight.

    Wikipedia tells me that the first serious event is a televised debate in June, with the first primary in February next year.

    Here in Australia, we think there might be an election on May 18. The speculation was for an earlier date, but the Govt had to ask the Governor General to issue the necessary writs by today at the latest. The contrast is striking, but it doesn't save us from the pollies campaigning anyway.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Wikipedia tells me that the first serious event is a televised debate in June, with the first primary in February next year.

    If you can't wait for the debates CNN is doing town halls featuring Democratic candidates individually. Spotify has an archive of past town halls, not all of which are with presidential candidates.

    I think this is the first time there have been debates prior to the Iowa State Fair (August 8-18, 2019), which is usually seen as the start of presidential primary campaigning season. I guess that shows how eager everyone is this time around.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    You know I can't wait for the debates :).
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    edited April 8
    I think the debates will each take place over as many as three or more nights, given how many candidates there are. I worry that this might mean that fewer people watch the debates at all. I made a point of watching every debate for both parties in 2016 (I think I got all the Republican ones but there were so many that I don't remember). I was feeling pretty fatigued by the end.

    I stopped watching the "kids' table" debates of the minor Republican candidates pretty early on, even if that was a shirking of my civic duties, because it was all just too much. (I know the Democratic debates for 2020 will be different, mixing up the candidates so that on each night of a multiple-night debate you will get more famous candidates interspersed with less famous ones.)

    If each of the debates goes on for multiple nights, even someone as politically obsessed as I am may give up after a few of them.
  • Had a chat with my local hard-core Bernie fan yesterday. She's firmly convinced that if Bernie isn't the nominee, Trump will win. She also thinks Biden won't go the distance, and that his supporters (who tend to be older blue-collar workers) also like Bernie, and would support Bernie over Harris or Buttigieg.

    She thinks Bernie is in with a decent chance, because there's no Hillary - no single candidate for the Establishment to line up behind.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Maybe I shouldn't be so negative about Bernie in my head. My recollection is that socialism didn't used to be seen in a good way in the USA, even democratic socialism. I always thought that the best way to advocate for big govt in the USA was to .........

    Nope. I got nothing.

    Do you think people are willing to vote for a big govt policy platform?
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    I don't see myself supporting a Socialist, unless Trump is the only alternative. I'm a moderate. That's one reason (my being a moral human being is another) I detest Trump and all his works. I'm not sure an elderly Socialist is a rational answer to the problem.

  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    edited April 11
    The problem with Bernie or Warren (whom I really like) is that if they get the nomination an independent centrist (socially liberal or moderate, fiscally moderate or conservative) candidate might feel there is an opening to enter the race, take more votes from the Dems than from the Republicans, and give the race to Trump. A lot of the other Democratic candidates, at least in the policies they say they support, are not very far from the policies of Bernie or Warren, but the media still keeps painting Bernie and Warren as the candidates of "the left." Trump will still call all the candidates socialists. But the popular narrative outside the Democratic base and some blue-collar workers (I think a lot will still vote for Trump) has managed to associate Bernie and Warren with being "radical" - even if a majority of the country supports their policies when they are detached from the candidates and from the names the candidates and the media have given their policies.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited April 11
    Warren has come out with yet another detailed policy proposal, this one for a 7% tax on corporate profits above US$100 million. As proposed it applies to profits earned both within and outside the U.S. which would, theoretically, prevent the "offshoring" of profits. It could, conceivably, provide an incentive for corporations to split up, but given Warren's anti-monopolistic preferences that may be a deliberate feature, not a bug.
    “Amazon reported more than $10 billion in profits and paid zero federal corporate income taxes. Occidental Petroleum reported $4.1 billion in profits and paid zero federal corporate income taxes,” she wrote in a blog post for Medium.com, where she will unveil her plan. “In fact, year after year, some of the biggest corporations in the country make huge profits but pay zero federal corporate income taxes on those profits.”

    Using a surtax, rather than raising the corporate rate, would allow the tax code to target larger, more profitable companies.

    Warren said the tax code is “so littered with loopholes that simply raising the regular corporate tax rate alone is not enough” to combat the “armies of lawyers and accountants” that large businesses have to lower their tax bills.

    This contrasts with Sanders' deliberate vagueness, who seems closest to Warren in political preferences. If this continues through the primary I'm not sure there's any reason to prefer Sanders over Warren aside from the " . . . but she doesn't have a penis!" argument.

    Warren's own explanation of this new policy can be found on Medium.
Sign In or Register to comment.