|
Post by jk on Dec 9, 2019 20:49:42 GMT
Also coming out of semi "retirement" to weigh in quickly. I have yet to see the debate but in terms of policy I like Bernie, Warren and Yang thus far. Yang in particular since he's willing to talk about Universal Basic Income, which I consider to be THE most important socio-economic issue of our time. (The fact that Warren and Bernie even refuse to go that far says a lot.) I saw Yang on the Joe Rogan podcast and he's worthy of more time than he received at the debate. Word is his microphone was unplugged for much of the debate. Im worried by the sheer number of candidates. I know it's early, but by my memory (it's been awhile since I watched the other televised primary debates from every cycle) this number is nigh unprecedented. And part of what led to Trump was the ridiculous number of candidates, allowing him to skirt by for longer than he had a right to with only a meager plurality. I worry that something like this might happen to the Democrats now--or that they'll do a repeat of their own 2016 fiasco and coronate Biden (clearly the "establishment" favorite) when there are far more exciting options. The most charismatic candidate has won every election in the modern era, and not only is Biden not exciting in terms of policy but he's far from being as smooth as he came off in 1988. He missed his chance and shouldn't even be on stage, quite frankly. (Yes, he has the right to run but he's not going to win and may sabotage the country's future like Hillary did last time.) I'll have to get around to watching later. This must have been "leni's" last post here. (Or was there anything later than this?) And then she deleted her account. I wish her well.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Dec 9, 2019 20:53:46 GMT
The impeachment hearings, going on now, are every bit the circus one might expect. Hypocritically high-minded speeches are bookended by incessant arguments over procedural rules and the occasional protest from the peanut gallery. Considering we have a foregone conclusion in the House and another (opposite) one in the Senate, this all seems like a waste of time. Agree.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Dec 9, 2019 20:54:20 GMT
This hearing is such an embarrassment. And I mean that entirely outside of the underlying issues. Two institutional behemoths--the parties--are making a mockery of the more important institution--the government of the country--with each blaming the other. It's so gross. And it's so unnecessary. The republicans control the outcome. Why not pretend to be unbiased and respectful of the institution? Is there no longer value in even just appearing to rise above it? Regardless of what some or most of them are saying now, they all know that Trump deserves criticism and that the executive branch should be kept in check. Why not play the responsible adult and simply make the argument in (somewhat) good faith that Trump's actions just aren't serious enough to warrant removal from office? Of course, the bar should be much higher than that. Agree again.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Dec 14, 2019 14:04:07 GMT
So I've been following the impeachment proceedings pretty closely...I probably shouldn't post this because I lack the research and knowledge to defend or even discuss it, but what the heck. I think it's time to do away with the two party system. The system is too counter-productive. I don't think there should be political parties. Everybody should be considered independent. I think everybody who wants to vote should be issued a voting card with their name with a number on it. That's it.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 14, 2019 14:36:26 GMT
I agree that the two-party dominated system is really struggling right now. I think it can work, I think it has worked much better, but right now it's really damaging the country. I don't know the best solution, but it's not this.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Dec 14, 2019 15:42:23 GMT
George Washington and I are with you, SJS.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Dec 19, 2019 18:12:13 GMT
So, anything new?
Oh, yeah, there's a Democratic Party debate tonight, and they're down to seven people on the stage.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Dec 19, 2019 18:23:01 GMT
I turned it on for the vote last night. Too historic not to.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Dec 19, 2019 18:25:16 GMT
I turned it on for the vote last night. Too historic not to. Same here. Flip-flopped back and forth between CNN and FOX to hear completely different perspectives.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 19, 2019 19:52:25 GMT
Yesterday I was leading a training session at our satellite office about 45 minutes outside of the city, so I heard about an hour and a half of the impeachment hearing in all. I don’t know that I heard a single person saying something that struck me as fair, complete, and sincere. I know some people have accused me of drawing false equivalencies in pursuit of some image of fairness, but I mean this very honestly and literally. Every single person from both sides sounded at least half full of it. The funny thing was how much of what various people on both sides said was true. Just not complete, not in perspective, not fairly or honestly presented. When confronted or contradicted by the other side’s facts or perspectives, the next representative would just come out and repeat the same point that had just been contradicted. Two of many examples: - Team 1: The facts are undisputed. - Team 2: We wholly dispute the facts. - Team 1: The facts are undisputed. - Team 1: We were not allowed in hearings or to question witnesses. - Team 2: You were in every hearing and questioned witnesses. - Team 1: We were not allowed in hearings or to question witnesses. It reminded me of Chris Christie calling out Marco Rubio for repeating the same talking points on-script during a 2016 GOP primary campaign debate, only to have Rubio literally fall into the identical script. (At least Christie had the guts to call it out, mocking, “He just did it again! He’s doing it right now!”) Another example was in how they described some of the witnesses who came from within government. Republicans denigrate them as “unelected lifelong Washington bureaucrats,” as if there were something inherently wrong with working for our government in a professional capacity; Democrats canonize them as “selfless, brave public servants” as if working those jobs were evidence of deity. The truth is in between, just as it is with everyone. Think about where you work: some people are great employees, but a-holes; some are terrible employees, but good people; some are lazy, or hard-working, or middle-of-the-road. Yesterday America could have used a nonpartisan ombudsman to sit there and call B.S., to call out lies, and to call out obvious omissions or emphases. To call out faux sympathetic or patriotic tropes. Both were so quick to claim they had the mandate of the American people, were acting on behalf of the interests of the American people, and blamed the opposition for being not just mistaken, but cynical, political, and downright unpatriotic. All it did for me was reinforce my disappointment that Democrats and Republicans aren’t two different things, they’re just two sides of one coin. To push the analogy, we don’t need another coin flip, we need an exchange of currency.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Dec 19, 2019 20:06:59 GMT
That's what I found most revolting. Don't insult my intelligence by telling me that you're working "for the people" or trying to "uphold the constitution". No, you're main agenda is winning the White House in 2020.
What I do find true about the Republican's stance is that this impeachment is setting a very dangerous precedent. Oh, with or without this impeachment, any party in the majority can impeach a president. That's nothing new. But now you have a revenge factor, a "what's good for the goose..." scenario. The Republicans won't forget this. Obviously.
EDIT: My post got jumbled. I was trying to quote The Kapitan's sentence/point about "Both were quick to claim they had the mandate of the American people..."
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 19, 2019 20:14:43 GMT
I agree ENTIRELY that this is a horrible precedent. Yes, Pres Trump is unique and unprecedented in many ways. But the practice of a disgruntled House impeaching an opposite-party president at every opportunity seems almost inevitable going forward, including for less extreme presidential personalities. Just as every election of my adult life has been sold as “the most important election” (of decades, of lifetimes, or ever), so will the “dangers” of every president be sold by opposition Houses.
Unless the tone and machinations of our political environment changes...which seems highly unlikely anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 20, 2019 13:47:40 GMT
Oh, yeah, there's a Democratic Party debate tonight, and they're down to seven people on the stage.
I ended up caving in and watching. I will say this: things are finally beginning to get interesting. (This is in reality about the time these things ought to be STARTING, not winding down...) Seven people on stage was still too many, but at least it was possible to hear people say more than a sentence or two in total. Heck, we even got to hear some from Andrew Yang!
The debate seemed to be run more professionally (by PBS and Politico) than it had been by the cable news outlets. A bit less of the manufactured drama, the forced narratives, etc., though it could still be much, much better.
Candidates began taking on one another more directly, too. I suppose that's good and bad. On one hand, you need differentiation to make decisions; on the other, it's just more made-for-TV drama half the time. But we saw Buttigieg v Warren as "establishment v rebel" (kind of interesting in that Buttigieg is more an outsider than Warren...); Buttigieg v Klobuchar as moderate v moderate; Biden v Sanders on healthcare and war records; to name a few.
One storyline the media has been pushing that has gotten on my nerves is the complaining that the Democratic Party has failed by not having more people of color on stage at this point. Eight people qualified for this debate; two (Yang and Harris) were people of color. Harris dropped out, that's not the DNC's fault. But it was 25% racial minorities on that stage until then. Not bad.
But further, there was no racism blocking Booker, Patrick, Castro, or Gabbard. (People seem to forget Yang and Gabbard are not white, by the way. Interesting how that works.) There were criteria for achieving polling and fundraising numbers. They didn't reach them. If grassroots and moneyed Democrats are choosing more white than black people, that's not DNC racism.
But there is a bigger point here. We had among those seven people on stage one homosexual, one Jew, one Asian, and two women. Five of seven candidates would qualify for historical "minority" status in some category. These were not seven old, straight, WASP men. (And further, including a broader range doesn't exclude the previously included, either. We ought not be worried if a straight white guy ends up the nominee any more than we should if one doesn't. The best person should win.)
I'd remind the Democratic base that their previous candidate was a woman, and the one before that was a black man. No, we don't have a perfectly unbiased society. But things are so obviously trending in the right direction, it's absurd to pretend there is a sinister oppression going on.
Apologies for the 4-paragraph rant. But it has gotten on my nerves how the media and activists are so focused on this.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Dec 20, 2019 13:54:41 GMT
I watched the debate, too. Yes, they had seven candidates, but seriously, how many of them have a realistic chance of getting the nomination? Two - Biden and Warren. And, other than a stray week last summer and the odd poll here and there, Warren hasn't really challenged Biden. This is Biden's race to win, or lose. He's been the front-runner since Day One, he's been in front by almost double digits consistently, and I don't see that changing unless he has a melt down.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 20, 2019 13:59:46 GMT
I could imagine a dark horse in this. I wouldn't bet on it, but I could imagine it. In some ways this reminds me of the 2016 GOP race, with a million candidates including several frontrunner types and up-and-comers, all losing in the end. The big difference, of course, is that we saw Trump as a major force basically from Day One. He had about 30-35% in GOP polling from the beginning, which wasn't always enough to lead but was enough to be noticed. And nobody has that now in the Dem side, not even the leaders.
So Sanders, he could win the nomination, maybe. I could see Bloomberg ending up with it. Or even something insane, something like a Buttigieg. There is talk of a brokered convention, a last-minute candidate (I keep hearing Michelle Obama, which seems ludicrous).
I don't see any of that happening. I think the most likely candidate is Biden with Warren not far behind. But all the talk is evidence that Democrats aren't very happy with their candidates.
|
|