Break Glass - 2020 USA Elections

1111214161719

Comments

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    Attacking a record is fine but the backhanded, "I don't think you are a racist, but..." was below the belt.

    I'm imagining a counterfactual where Harris didn't lead off with that modifier. Mostly it comes out to Harris being criticized for implying that Biden's a racist. In other words the typical no-win situation women are frequently presented with, trying to thread the needle between doormat and bitch.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    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.)

    I think it's just the opposite. People wont dare say anything against a loud angry black woman because they fear they will be seen as guilty of stereotyping and biased thinking.
    While most people feel free to criticize men for "losing control."

    The debates were a perfect example. Most of the men were being careful to speak in a moderate voice and trying not to interrupt too much. There was some of that but not as much as the women were doing. (Biden even got shamed for stopping when he was supposed to.) While several of the women were shouting almost continually and refusing to stop when told to by the moderator.

    I think this reflects how they were coached as to what goes over well or does not go over well, right now:

    Loud angry woman = strong and passionate.
    Loud angry man = bully.

    "Truth to power," was another of Kamala Harris's sound bites, attributed to herself of course, on one of the news shows. She's doing everything she can to get people to picture her as a version of that poor little black girl integrating a school in the famous Norman Rockwell painting. It's part of why I find her so phony. She has been wealthy all her life and probably felt only a fraction of the racial prejudice experienced by people who are visibly African American. As Attorney General for the huge state of California she was one of the most powerful people in America. She can and did make decisions that literally meant the difference between life and death for people. Now she's a senator. She is hardly a small powerless little girl, bravely speaking up to a big scary, powerful man.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    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.)

    I think it's just the opposite. People wont dare say anything against a loud angry black woman because they fear they will be seen as guilty of stereotyping and biased thinking.
    I wouldn’t say it’s the opposite. I’d say both things happen.
    The debates were a perfect example. Most of the men were being careful to speak in a moderate voice and trying not to interrupt too much.
    It appeared to me that the men were doing quite a bit of interrupting.
    (Biden even got shamed for stopping when he was supposed to.)
    Who has shamed him? I haven’t heard anyone say that. I have heard some take his “my time is up” as metaphorical. That is not shaming.


    As has been said, we get it that you don’t like Harris. That’s your prerogative, especially in politics. But I’m afraid you haven’t said anything that prompts me to reconsider my perception of her.
    And I’m not trying to talk you into liking her.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Twilight wrote: »
    [Most of the men were being careful to speak in a moderate voice and trying not to interrupt too much. There was some of that but not as much as the women were doing. . . . While several of the women were shouting almost continually and refusing to stop when told to by the moderator.

    And if the debate organizers were to ask me my opinion (which they haven't, and probably won't), I would tell them that that's when I change channels. Reasoned, sober, eloquent discussion, yes. Shouting and interrupting, no.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    As has been said, we get it that you don’t like Harris. That’s your prerogative, especially in politics. But I’m afraid you haven’t said anything that prompts me to reconsider my perception of her.
    And I’m not trying to talk you into liking her.
    People have got to separate"like" from their voting. I know people who I do not like, but trust to do their jobs well and people I love who I do not trust to keep out of their own way.

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    As has been said, we get it that you don’t like Harris. That’s your prerogative, especially in politics. But I’m afraid you haven’t said anything that prompts me to reconsider my perception of her.
    And I’m not trying to talk you into liking her.
    People have got to separate"like" from their voting. I know people who I do not like, but trust to do their jobs well and people I love who I do not trust to keep out of their own way.

    Bingo.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    I don't think any of the Democratic candidates would do a worse job than the current occupant of the White House is doing. Indeed, I don't think the Man in the Moon would do a worse job than he's doing.

    I really don't care which Democratic candidate gets the nomination. I'll vote for that candidate. It would be nice, however, if the best man or woman were actually to win.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Going to pass the torch comment. One reason I think the younger candidates lean toward socialism is because they think capitalism has not worked for them. Several of them mentioned they are still carrying high student loans. I have said it before, I will say it again: the student loan program is keeping younger generations as indentured servants. They cannot afford to buy a home. They delay getting married and having kids. They cannot build up a retirement nest egg. All of these impact future growth of the country. Biden does not seem to understand this. Bernie does, but I see other deficits for him (mainly along the lines of being able to set up a government)
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Sorry for the double post. Latest Democratic poll https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/ shows the top four people are Biden (33) Bernie (19) Harris (12) and Warren (12). All the others are in single digits. That means Harris got what she wanted. She knocked a few points off Biden's lead, stole a number of points from Bernie and Warren, and left all the others in the dust.

    I think these four will go on into the next few debates. The others will probably not make it beyond the next debate.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited June 30
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    As has been said, we get it that you don’t like Harris. That’s your prerogative, especially in politics. But I’m afraid you haven’t said anything that prompts me to reconsider my perception of her.
    And I’m not trying to talk you into liking her.
    People have got to separate"like" from their voting. I know people who I do not like, but trust to do their jobs well and people I love who I do not trust to keep out of their own way.
    Agreed.

    Though there is a sense of “like” that means “support” or “think has the best chances,” as in “who do you like in the next race?”

  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Latest Democratic poll https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/ shows the top four people are Biden (33) Bernie (19) Harris (12) and Warren (12). All the others are in single digits.

    Three of those are 70+. Sorry to be ageist, but I'm 67 and do not want another POTUS older than I am. Warren would be 71 at her Inauguration and 75 at the end of her (first) term. The other two are several years older. Reagan was a few weeks short of 70 at his Inauguration, and look how he aged over the next eight years.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Latest Democratic poll https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/ shows the top four people are Biden (33) Bernie (19) Harris (12) and Warren (12). All the others are in single digits.

    Three of those are 70+. Sorry to be ageist, but I'm 67 and do not want another POTUS older than I am. Warren would be 71 at her Inauguration and 75 at the end of her (first) term. The other two are several years older. Reagan was a few weeks short of 70 at his Inauguration, and look how he aged over the next eight years.

    Yeah, except I'm closing me eyes to Warren's age :)

    The Presidency is a very tough gig. Even if you do it part-time like Trump. Mind you, I sometimes wonder whether campaigning to be President is equally tough. I know that even when I was in my 30's I couldn't keep up the pace, or deal with the stress. I take my hat off to everyone but Trump.
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Yeah, except I'm closing me eyes to Warren's age :)

    I'm not. There's just something about her I don't like. I'm not sure what it is, but I'd be much happier with her continuing in the Senate and staying out of the White House.

    But if she's the candidate, I'll of course vote for her.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    I'm not. There's just something about her I don't like. I'm not sure what it is, but I'd be much happier with her continuing in the Senate and staying out of the White House.

    But if she's the candidate, I'll of course vote for her.
    I think she's a better senator than she would be executive; we need her in the Senate. She's also too left-wing for me in some ways. But, yes, I'd definitely vote for her if it came to that.


  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Today's Twitter-snit between Sarah Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez reminded me of one reason I prefer the old folk. With one orange-haired exception, I think they tend to spend less time on social media.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    She has been wealthy all her life and probably felt only a fraction of the racial prejudice experienced by people who are visibly African American.

    What's the standard for being "visibly African-American"? The brown paper bag test? Sen. Harris would seem to fall on the 'can't get a country club membership' side of that line. There's a depressing history of white folks policing the boundaries of what counts as African-American. Last time around it was Obama not counting as black because his mother was white and his father was from Africa, not America. This time it seems like the argument is going to be that Kamala doesn't count because her ancestors were enslaved in some country other than the United States.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    I just knew you would make something out of that. I'm not questioning anyone's self-identity and I didn't say she "didn't count as black," or any of those other arguments you're trying to put on me. I'm saying I seriously doubt if she had police pulling her over and security guards following her around stores based on her appearance the way many black people have, because I'm sure I'm not the only person who thought she was white until she said otherwise.

    Kamala Harris is black because she says she's black, I'm not questioning that, but if you think her life experience has been the same as that of the people in America who are more obviously of African descent, then you must not have meant all the things you've said about how bad profiling is.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    I just knew you would make something out of that. I'm not questioning anyone's self-identity and I didn't say she "didn't count as black," or any of those other arguments you're trying to put on me. I'm saying I seriously doubt if she had police pulling her over and security guards following her around stores based on her appearance the way many black people have, because I'm sure I'm not the only person who thought she was white until she said otherwise.

    Kamala Harris is black because she says she's black, I'm not questioning that, but if you think her life experience has been the same as that of the people in America who are more obviously of African descent, then you must not have meant all the things you've said about how bad profiling is.
    Harris is light, but she ain't white. And that means she is very likely to have faced harassment in the US.
    Whilst there is something of a hierarchy in harassment, few people with an all season tan and an Indian name are going to get off completely.
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    I'm saying I seriously doubt if she had police pulling her over and security guards following her around stores based on her appearance the way many black people have, because I'm sure I'm not the only person who thought she was white until she said otherwise.
    But brown people face the same things -- they might be Latinx, or Middle-Eastern, or some other ethnicity that the right wing considers to be bad hombres.
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    edited July 1
    I'm surprised, after her earnest but bizarre performance at the debate, that more has not been said about Marianne Williamson.

    If you can find YouTube clips of her debate quotes (a couple are in the link), please watch them, preferably with the aid of, at the very least, alcohol. You will not be sorry :wink:. Having been raised in a surreal New Age environment, though, I find her a bit triggering :smile: :smile: :smile:.

    (Yes, she can speak articulately about history and brings up some important points - but no, just nononononononononononononono.)
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    I'm surprised, after her earnest but bizarre performance at the debate, that more has not been said about Marianne Williamson.

    More is being said. She got a small boost in cable news mentions and a moderate boost in online stories. It's just that there wasn't that much being said about her in the first place and "more" is relative.
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    I confess that my own worry about Warren's or Harris' tone, dismissal of Buttigieg as just not electable, and criticism of Biden as being in a mental haze or Sanders as being incapable of saying, no matter what question he is asked, anything other than the same sentences he has been saying for years and years are all influenced in part by my own subconscious sexism, racism, self-directed homophobia, and ageism.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    Twilight wrote: »
    I'm saying I seriously doubt if she had police pulling her over and security guards following her around stores based on her appearance the way many black people have, because I'm sure I'm not the only person who thought she was white until she said otherwise.
    But brown people face the same things -- they might be Latinx, or Middle-Eastern, or some other ethnicity that the right wing considers to be bad hombres.

    I don't think she looks the least bit Latinx. I just looked at some Google images of her, I would have guessed Italian or Greek ancestry. Whichever, she sure is pretty.

    The young Trump's stupid tweet that she wasn't a "black American" because her father was Jamaican made me decide he must not be a white American because his mother is from Czechoslavakia.

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    Twilight wrote: »
    I'm saying I seriously doubt if she had police pulling her over and security guards following her around stores based on her appearance the way many black people have, because I'm sure I'm not the only person who thought she was white until she said otherwise.
    But brown people face the same things -- they might be Latinx, or Middle-Eastern, or some other ethnicity that the right wing considers to be bad hombres.

    I don't think she looks the least bit Latinx. I just looked at some Google images of her, I would have guessed Italian or Greek ancestry. Whichever, she sure is pretty.

    The young Trump's stupid tweet that she wasn't a "black American" because her father was Jamaican made me decide he must not be a white American because his mother is from Czechoslavakia.

    I dunno, Twilight; just because she doesn't look Latinx to you doesn't mean much. People see what they look for. The number of people in my lily-white state who think Sikhs are Muslims would shock you.
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »
    ...The number of people in my lily-white state who think Sikhs are Muslims would shock you.

    Such as this Sikh gentleman who was shot a few days after 9/11 (I knew one of his brothers).

    :cry:
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate
    I remember that, Pigwidgeon. Horrible. (And it would have been just as horrible had he been a Muslim.)
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited July 2
    There was a Brazillian guy shot in the London Underground a few days after a bombing campaign there. Brown is danger to the deplorables and trigger-happy cops.

    That said, I have bad reactions in certain situations when I am in foreign countries. I don't like being around places where there are lots of tourists and lots of street vendors. I feel uncomfortable and defensive, and I sometimes react poorly when approached. I am remembering two episodes, one in Florence a few years ago, when the street vendors all looked Syrian (suggestible I am) and the second was last year near the Eiffel tower when all of the street vendors seemed to be young black kids. The better side of myself wants to act with friendliness and compassion, but I am scared and anxious, so instead I bark and bare my teeth. So who am I to judge? My fear and anxiety simply has to have a racist element.

    @stonespring that Williamson has no business being there. She's an embarrassment, as bad as Trump.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Williamson has no business being there. She's an embarrassment, as bad as Trump.
    My far left West Virginia friend and I went over all the candidates on the phone yesterday and concluded we would vote for any of them over Trump including Marianne. At least we can be sure she would save the people at the border.

    She reminded me about what a good guy John Hickenlooper seems to be and that while he was governor of Colorado he actually succeeded in making some of the changes we want in this country.
    I'm ashamed to admit he slipped my mind because he was just what I say I want, a soft spoken, intelligent, modest person.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    I just knew you would make something out of that. I'm not questioning anyone's self-identity and I didn't say she "didn't count as black," or any of those other arguments you're trying to put on me. I'm saying I seriously doubt if she had police pulling her over and security guards following her around stores based on her appearance the way many black people have, because I'm sure I'm not the only person who thought she was white until she said otherwise.

    Kamala Harris is black because she says she's black, I'm not questioning that, but if you think her life experience has been the same as that of the people in America who are more obviously of African descent, then you must not have meant all the things you've said about how bad profiling is.

    I'm not the expert in Kamala Harris' life experience you consider yourself to be. I will note that:
    1. Elementary school administrators were willing to classify the girl in this picture as "black". I'm not convinced they were the only people to do so. Sen. Harris does not seem to look terribly out of place with the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus.
    2. The premise that police harassment is less for lighter-skinned black people than it is for darker-skinned ones seems dubious at best. Citation? Nor is racial discrimination always based only on physical appearance. Good thing "Kamala" is such a white-sounding name.
    3. Playing the Oppression Olympics, where nothing can ever be considered bad unless no one has it worse than you, is a sucker's game that only serves to justify oppressive behavior.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »

    I'm not the expert in Kamala Harris' life experience you consider yourself to be. I will note that:
    1. Elementary school administrators were willing to classify the girl in this picture as "black". I'm not convinced they were the only people to do so. Sen. Harris does not seem to look terribly out of place with the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus.
    2. The premise that police harassment is less for lighter-skinned black people than it is for darker-skinned ones seems dubious at best. Citation? Nor is racial discrimination always based only on physical appearance. Good thing "Kamala" is such a white-sounding name.
    3. Playing the Oppression Olympics, where nothing can ever be considered bad unless no one has it worse than you, is a sucker's game that only serves to justify oppressive behavior.
    1. I doubt if any elementary school teacher decided her race, but rather went with the box her mother checked when she first brought her to school. That particular picture is the one Harris herself chose to put on the T-shirts and illustrate her "poor little black girl on a bus" story. I'm sure all things about the photo were considered.
    2. The charge of racial profiling by police has always said that the police were more likely to pull over drivers or stop pedestrians who they perceived as black. They don't see the person's name until after they've been pulled over and if the person's race is vague enough to be undetermined until after they've been stopped then it can hardly be called a case of profiling at all.
    3. Please remember that it is Harris, not me, who is playing the Oppression Olympics. She is the one who announced during the debate that she was better able than the other people on the panel to discuss certain subjects because of her special experience with that oppression. If she really didn't have an experience that compares with the typical black person's in America then her claim that she's better suited to represent them than the other candidates is invalid. In other words, she has played her race card, but her card has been denied, sorry for any inconvenience.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    3. Please remember that it is Harris, not me, who is playing the Oppression Olympics. She is the one who announced during the debate that she was better able than the other people on the panel to discuss certain subjects because of her special experience with that oppression. If she really didn't have an experience that compares with the typical black person's in America then her claim that she's better suited to represent them than the other candidates is invalid.

    She had a story about the tangible effect of desegregation on her own life which illustrated how Biden's opposition to Brown v. Board would have materially affected her and, by extension, others like her. Just how "typical" does a black person's experience have to be for it to be relevant and why are you the person to set the standards for what's "typical" and what matters?

    I'm not convinced by your assertion that wealth or privilege or a slightly paler skin tone will perfectly insulate black people from the effects of American racism or that if it doesn't that's irrelevant because there's always somebody who has it worse.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    1. I doubt if any elementary school teacher decided her race, but rather went with the box her mother checked when she first brought her to school. That particular picture is the one Harris herself chose to put on the T-shirts and illustrate her "poor little black girl on a bus" story. I'm sure all things about the photo were considered.

    Other photos are available: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/10/kamala-harris-president-parents-shyamala-gopalan-donald-harris-berkeley/

    I personally am not a great fan for other reasons, but this seems like nit picking of type that is beyond reasoned argument.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    2. The charge of racial profiling by police has always said that the police were more likely to pull over drivers or stop pedestrians who they perceived as black.
    They don't see the person's name until after they've been pulled over and if the person's race is vague enough to be undetermined until after they've been stopped then it can hardly be called a case of profiling at all.
    Being pulled over is only the first part of harassment and profiling. Even if there is a “legitimate” reason for the initial stop, the treatment after that point is subject to profiling and harassment based on race.

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Look, Twilight, we got your memo: you don't care for Sen. Harris; that's your right. What on earth is this obsession with picking apart everything she says and does? Nobody here is insisting that you vote for her.
    Twilight wrote: »
    1. I doubt if any elementary school teacher decided her race, but rather went with the box her mother checked when she first brought her to school. That particular picture is the one Harris herself chose to put on the T-shirts and illustrate her "poor How does this black girl on a bus" story. I'm sure all things about the photo were considered.

    How does this behavior differ from that of other candidates? When I ran for office, I chose photos and slogans which I thought spoke to who I am and how I'd vote the issues. What's wrong with that? Was I immoral to calculate what might help me win a seat as a state rep?
    Twilight wrote: »
    2. The charge of racial profiling by police has always said that the police were more likely to pull over drivers or stop pedestrians who they perceived as black. They don't see the person's name until after they've been pulled over and if the person's race is vague enough to be undetermined until after they've been stopped then it can hardly be called a case of profiling at all.

    Again, the only perceptions any of us can be certain of is our own. She looks like a person of color to me. I live in a rural, nearly all-white state, and I read comments written by students whose "perceptions" of folks with Harris's cafe au lait skin color would curl your toes.
    Twilight wrote: »
    3. Please remember that it is Harris, not me, who is playing the Oppression Olympics. She is the one who announced during the debate that she was better able than the other people on the panel to discuss certain subjects because of her special experience with that oppression. If she really didn't have an experience that compares with the typical black person's in America then her claim that she's better suited to represent them than the other candidates is invalid. In other words, she has played her race card, but her card has been denied, sorry for any inconvenience.

    If there's any insisting going on here, Twilight, it's yours. Her busing story bore no relation, to my ear, to a "poor me" story; quite the opposite. Busing was supposed to help all students, not just black kids. It was a "lucky me" story: how she benefited from a policy that Biden opposed. Again, how is Harris's use of personal anecdote to illustrate how policy works any different from any other candidate?

  • Potato potahto. You see Oppression Olympics, I see a Whitesplaining old patrician politician.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Ohher quote
    Look, Twilight, we got your memo: you don't care for Sen. Harris; that's your right. What on earth is this obsession with picking apart everything she says and does? Nobody here is insisting that you vote for her.

    I'm not obsessed with her, in fact I've tried to change the subject to talk about other debaters several times. I only seem obsessed because my criticism of her has been quoted and questioned 24 times and I'm trying to answer those posts.

    Since the debates, her funding has overflowed and her polling numbers have soared. She's now just a few points behind Biden.

    The question should not be why is Twilight obsessed, but why are all of you and half the nation acting like this woman is the second coming of Christ? She may well be our pick to go up against Trump and that's incredibly important. We should be nitpicking and analyzing every word. We should be asking ourselves if the three emotional stories she told during the debate included good, rational ideas about how to help those situations, or just displays of her throat catching acting skills in order to manipulate the soft hearts of liberals.

    You all keep saying I don't have to like her but you don't have to keep defending her either.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Here is an article praising Elizabeth Warren to the sky and stars from The American Conservative. It's explicitly about her economic policy not her social policies. Nevertheless, with praise from the lunatic Carlson and others including Daniel McCarthy, I am starting to wonder whether this is a trap!
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Looks like we won't have whatshisname to kick around any more.
    Rep. Eric Swalwell is expected to abandon his uphill run for president Monday and announce that he will instead seek a fifth term in the House.

    Swalwell’s plans were confirmed by a Capitol Hill source with knowledge of his intentions.

    That seems like a better use of Swalwell's time and energy.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited July 8
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Here is an article praising Elizabeth Warren to the sky and stars from The American Conservative. It's explicitly about her economic policy not her social policies. Nevertheless, with praise from the lunatic Carlson and others including Daniel McCarthy, I am starting to wonder whether this is a trap!

    The American Conservative is probably the only avowedly conservative publication in the US that occasionally publishes sane and worthwhile stuff. Their foreign policy stuff tends to be particularly good. They tend to be anti neocon (and not in the fake Trump way). On the other hand they insist on running articles by that insufferable narcissist Rod Dreher... Oh well. My point is that praise for Warren in the American Conservative pages is not necessarily a kiss of death.

    Tidied up quote for clarity. BroJames Purg Host
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    SirPalomides--

    What about the National Review?
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    I haven't even looked at National Review in 15+ years. My vague past impression was not a good one.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate

    They tend to be anti neocon (and not in the fake Trump way).

    Actually, my theory on Trump is that personally he was probably anti-neocon, eg. you may recall that, during the primaries, he described himself as "very neutral" on the status of Jerusalem, which was probably the closest to a pro-Palestinian position that's ever been taken by a leading contender for one of the major parties.

    He also claims to have been against the Iraq invasion from the start, but I gather that claim is disputed by others. In any case, I think that once in office, he more or less just farmed out foreign-policy to the Republican mainstream, which means slavish devotion to the Likud, among other things.

    As for conservative anti-neocons, I've enjoyed some of their writings over the years, and they probably do a more effective job of articulating anti-war and anti-imperialist positions than the left does: "We shouldn't invade those countries because it's none of our business" probably plays better in Peoria than "We shouldn't invade those countries because it's racist and colonialist and you need to check your skin privilege".

    That said, I tend to put the neo-isolationists in the "handle with care" category. Most of them didn't have any problem with invading, or at least seriously interfering, in the affairs of other countries when the enemy was Communism, but probably thought(if these days secretly) that letting Hitler run rampant would have been the right thing to do.

  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    I agree- in certain contexts, their politics could take them into very dark corners. They are generally smart people (again with a certain bespectacled, stupid-haired, sniveling exception) who don't seem terribly evil, even if some of their commitments are... hm. Their executive editor Kelley Vlahos and a few other contributors have great in-depth articles about the astonishing corruption and waste in the "defense" industry- stuff that other sources, including liberal ones, rarely seem to explore in as much detail.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited July 8
    I haven't even looked at National Review in 15+ years. My vague past impression was not a good one.

    I think I more or less stopped reading NR when you did, though I kept a casual eye on it for quite some time before that. I would say that, in keeping with the aims of William F. Buckley, they styled themselves as the broad voice of American conservativism, embracing and mediating between numerous tendencies. Whereas the American Conservative is geared more towards a narrower ideological niche, ie. social conservatives who are foreign policy "realists".

    NR is probably also more likely to shift its overall stance to accomodate whatever becomes the dominant orthodoxy among conservatives. This was their front-cover during the last primary season, though I doubt they're publishing anything so iconoclastic at the present time, and are likely just going along to get along.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    I would say that, in keeping with the aims of William F. Buckley, they styled themselves as the broad voice of American conservativism, embracing and mediating between numerous tendencies.

    So the kind of anti-Civil Rights, pro-fascist viewpoint that's willing to physically threaten Gore Vidal on national television after calling him a "queer"? Yes, the rise of Donald Trump within the Republican party is a true mystery!
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    ^ FWIW, my characterization of NR as big-tent was not meant as an endorsement of any of the viewpoints within that particular tent, including Buckley's. Just that, in comparison to something like the American Conservative, it represents a broader range of tendencies.

    Fully agree that it's absolutely ridiculous to claim Trump as any sort of negation of what American conservativism has been since at least the days of Goldwater. In fact, I've actually been hoping that he doesn't get impeached, because I think Pence or any of the other "traditional Republicans" is likely to be worse.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    ...That seems like a better use of Swalwell's time and energy.
    Indeed.
    stetson wrote: »
    ...As for conservative anti-neocons, I've enjoyed some of their writings over the years, and they probably do a more effective job of articulating anti-war and anti-imperialist positions than the left does: "We shouldn't invade those countries because it's none of our business" probably plays better in Peoria than "We shouldn't invade those countries because it's racist and colonialist and you need to check your skin privilege". ...
    Max Boot, Michael Gerson, and Kathleen Parker are three good examples of principled conservatives/libertarians in the Washington Post. (Gerson, in particular, is the rare evangelical Christian who declares the truth of what Trumpism actually means in terms of his faith; he's not having "But judges!" as an excuse.)
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited July 10
    Since my first assessment of the various candidates' electoral prospects back in March we now have actual polling data (and better public awareness of the candidates to make that data meaningful). At the moment there seem to be only five real contenders in the race.

    The Front Runner
    • Joe Biden

    Biden has lost some ground since the first debate but is still the only candidate consistently polling above 20%. In some polls his support is as high as 30%.

    The Second Tier
    • Kamala Harris
    • Bernie Sanders
    • Elizabeth Warren

    These three are currently tied for second place, all polling at ~15%. For Harris and Warren this is an improvement. For Sanders it's a come-down from previous polling, though second place in a Democratic presidential primary should at least be familiar to him by now.

    The Long Shot
    • Pete Buttigieg

    Buttigieg is the only other Democratic candidate polling at (barely) above 5%.

    No Chance/Running for Cabinet
    • Michael Bennet
    • Corey Booker
    • Steve Bullock
    • Julián Castro
    • Bill de Blasio
    • John Delaney
    • Tulsi Gabbard
    • Kirsten Gillibrand
    • Mike Gravel
    • John Hickenlooper
    • Jay Inslee
    • Amy Klobuchar
    • Wayne Messam
    • Seth Moulton
    • Beto O'Rourke
    • Tim Ryan
    • Joe Sestak
    • Tom Steyer
    • Marianne Williamson
    • Andrew Yang

    All the candidates on the above list are polling below 3% support. Some closer to 0% than to 3%.

    The Dropouts
    • Richard Ojeda
    • Eric Swalwell

    These candidates have ended their run for the nomination.

    So that's the current state of the race, but as the shake-up following the first debate demonstrated the race is still very volatile and these standings could be changed on a single, well-turned (or badly-turned) phrase.
  • agingjbagingjb Shipmate
    If I were the Democrats, I'd draft Al Gore.

    But I'm not the Democrats, and I confidently expect my suggestion to be roundly mocked.
  • agingjb wrote: »
    If I were the Democrats, I'd draft Al Gore.

    But I'm not the Democrats, and I confidently expect my suggestion to be roundly mocked.

    But why? He's over 70, tied to the Clintons, and already lost* the 2000 election. And he's not exactly Mr. Charisma.

    *with the Supreme Court's assistance of course.
Sign In or Register to comment.