|
Post by The Cincinnati Kid on Jun 30, 2019 0:19:23 GMT
I know there's a subforum for it, but really why bother with it when we only have a few active members. I figure everything can be contained here in this thread. This may or may not be an effort to get Kapitan to post more because I enjoy readings his views on what's happening in politics. I watched both Democratic debates and didn't really get excited about any of the candidates except maybe Pete Buttigieg. Harris seemed strong, but I think it's more because of her alpha personality rather than her actual ideas. I think she'll be exposed as the field dwindles. I thought the busing issue was a weird thing to pin on Biden, but obviously it worked. Marianne Williamson was really intriguing at first, then the more she talked, the more I thought she might be a little crazy.
|
|
|
Post by The Cincinnati Kid on Jun 30, 2019 0:22:19 GMT
Just read the shoutbox and it seems Kapitan and I are already on the same page.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jun 30, 2019 14:37:10 GMT
Calling me out of retirement? You asked for it...
I hate the whole damn thing. I don't expect some sort of shangri-la where everyone has pure motives and exceptional manners, but the stench of our political affairs is overwhelming. I hate that we've got a pair of cynical, corporate entities more alike than different aside from branding that manipulate the uninformed or unintelligent to believe that messaging of good v evil, and convince the more informed or intelligent that taking a cynical "with us or against us/lesser of two evils" perspective is necessary to prevent the worse (and worst) case scenario. I hate that they're all advised and shaped by the same nasty industry, egged on by media that make most of their money during these campaigns (and especially when they get dirty).
The first debates failed in my opinion in that they weren't even particularly good TV. (They weren't ever going to be good debates. That wasn't even an issue.) But the quantity of characters on stage, the limited time to each, the inability of moderators to keep people from talking over one another, and of course the technical gaffes on both nights all contributed to the train wreck.
There's a year and a half to go and I'm sick to death of it all already. And that's without even beginning to consider the candidates themselves, the actual politics of it all. I'm very pessimistic about things on a national level and am glad that I can usually live my life with all of this in perspective.
That said? I think the Democrats are making a gigantic strategic mistake by going all-in on more progressive positions than they've taken in the recent past. There are still plenty of moderates who aren't wedded to Trump, some/many of whom were two-time Obama voters, who are going to think all the candidates are doing is living up to the FoxNews and Republican critique of Democrats as the party of "free stuff." A center-left candidate who can show legitimate progressive credentials and concern without looking insane or extreme, if s/he could also stand up to the president in general election campaigning, could have a clear path the presidency. Instead, candidates are publicly espousing positions that often poll pretty poorly nationally in search of some blessing of the almighty woke. Just strategically, I don't think it's a good idea.
Further, I don't personally believe it's the right thing to do. America is a large, diverse country. Neither party has a majority, much less a strong majority. No ideology has a majority. Imposing the will of a minority upon the country only further divides and further demonizes and advances the same kind of fighting we've got now. I don't like much of what the current administration is doing, but I don't see the answer as being some ever-shifting, increasingly small, secular Holy of Holies in command, slapping the wrists and "canceling" any- and everyone who doesn't fall in line on the issue of the day--especially if they're simultaneously eliminating personal responsibility (which is hand in hand with personal freedom after all) by making everything free, canceling all debt ... all purportedly to be paid by the devilish-wealthy. (Not a sustainable model, as the wealthy cease being wealthy at some point, and the bar for "wealthy" drops.)
My personal positions range across a pretty wide ideological spectrum depending on the specific issue, but increasingly over the past couple years I have come to believe that my personal positions aren't very important. General fairness and general workability matter a lot more. Compromise is key. And common sense is nice, too.
I'd lose elections by historic margins with my current attitude.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jun 30, 2019 15:09:14 GMT
And what the heck, since I'm on a roll...
Bennet. I thought he had a pretty bad debate--he wasn't much of a speaker, frankly--but I like him as a senator. And I like what I've heard him say in the past. I like his distaste for the Tea Party-turned-Freedom Caucus and his diagnosis of their negative impact on our government. But I don't know that he's presidential material, and it's irrelevant since he has no chance.
Biden. Oof. Looked like he was trying to live up to the president's criticisms as he looked old, confused, and stumbling. He was actually my favorite going into the 2008 elections, but at this point I think he is doomed. His record of pragmatism would have been the stuff of nominations and electoral victories 25 years ago, but very few people respect it anymore. The longer the record, the weaker your odds. As with sports, a totally unseen rookie is the better prospect than the solid starter, even though history will almost certainly prove otherwise every time.
Booker. I liked Booker to some extent until his grandiose Spartacus schtick in the Kavanaugh hearings. Now I just want to forget him. The guy has been grooming himself to be president for quite a while, but I don't think he's going to see the moment. Because now he has actually been somebody for a while.
Buttigieg. Not going to let himself become a Sen. Booker, he's out-Obamaing Obama. Strike while the iron is hot. I like him ... but he's a kid. A really smart and talented kid. Might make a great president someday. But I continue to believe in experience and wisdom, at least to some degree.
Castro. His big unveil was to decriminalize illegal immigration, basically making illegal entry the equivalent of a parking ticket. Connect the dots: free health care to illegal immigrants, and it isn't illegal to illegally enter anymore. Yeah, I'm sure the border crossings will just disappear and we won't have any issues with that...
De Blasio. Main takeaway: annoying.
Delaney. Poor fellow has been campaigning for like two years already and still nobody knows him. Seems like a traditional centrist Democrat. Can't imagine he's going to qualify for another debate.
Gabbard. I've heard a few interviews with her before and do like her focus on our wasteful and counterproductive military efforts and expenditures. But I don't know enough about her beyond that foreign policy discussion.
Gillibrand. Competing with Booker for most annoying person alive. She strikes me as a fourth-rate Hillary Clinton, changing her positions on almost everything since entering the senate. I also find her explicit campaigning "for women" and being a "women's candidate" tremendously offensive. I mean that seriously. It's one thing to argue that people have implicitly focused on men too much: that's probably fair. The answer to an unbalanced teeter-totter isn't unbalancing it the other way, however good that feels. (That sentence actually describes my frustration with much of the so-called woke left of the day.)
Harris. I've gone from having no real opinion of her to disliking her. The attack of Biden was so laughably calculated, so obviously fake and cynical, it was just ridiculous. She both mischaracterized his actual position and the entire issue itself, then interjected her little sob story as if an anecdote changes a broad reality (which it does emotionally, sadly...), all to sell some merch and spur her flagging campaign. Now I despise her on a personal level. She's also been pretty "impressive" in saying any- and everything at any given time to give the "right" answer. She's a regular Gillibrand on that.
Hickenlooper. In a better world, he'd be a serious consideration for the job.
Inslee. I was curious to see him. I wasn't impressed.
Klobuchar. Trying a little too hard with the Midwestern appeals (something about her uncle and his hunting stand, "all foam, no beer" etc.). I like her a lot as someone who does a ton of minor bipartisan stuff that isn't impressive .. except it builds relationships for the eventual big stuff. She also has generally avoided the over-promising that a) won't get done and b) wouldn't be popular and c) probably can't happen regardless. The anti-AOC. Bless her.
O'Rourke. What a fucking buffoon. It's kind of fun watching an empty vessel break, I guess.
Ryan. No chance, but it's nice having another voice of reason.
Sanders. I think he's destined to go down as the sacrificial lamb who changed the party dramatically but never got the nomination. Not bad for someone who's not in the party to begin with, I guess.
Swalwell. I wish Biden would have put him over his knee and spanked him, that smarmy, smirking disrespetful brat.
Warren. Really smart. Full of ideas. I think she's actually behaving more progressive than her history shows her to be, though she's clearly left of the modern centrist Democratic party. That's a shame. But she'd make a solid candidate. Hopefully she avoids claims about her heritage going forward... (the president is going to eat her up on that, and it's her own fault)
Williamson. I still think they ought to lock her and the president in a room somewhere, put a fake camera in there and tell them it's the real debates, and just let them go. I can only imagine what they'd get accomplished. Jeez, that lady is batshit crazy.
Yang. While his UBI proposal isn't something I'm sold on, I LOVE Andrew Yang. Relatively nonpartisan, smart, progressive without pandering woke, financially conscious. No chance whatsoever, except maybe if lightning strikes to be an influencer of the legitimate candidates.
Bullock, Gravel, Messam, Moulton, Sestak. Not at the debates. No chance. Last I heard, Gravel's campaign was being run by children online (Literally.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2019 6:28:52 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.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 4, 2019 14:02:46 GMT
As the lone Republican to support impeachment hearings against the president, he obviously didn't have a future in the party in the near term. He would have faced a Republican challenger to his seat, and has faced the Twitter ire of the president and decreasing support of his colleagues. He had already left the "Freedom Caucus" within the House.
His column asks Americans to reject "rhetoric that divides and dehumanizes us."
The president responded to the news by tweeting that Amash was "one of the dumbest & most disloyal men in Congress" and "a total loser."
Very conservative in a libertarian-leaning way, he has been rumored as a possible Libertarian Party presidential candidate. Clearly he would have no chance at a national victory, but is interesting in that he could potentially cost the president electoral college votes in the key state of Michigan if he does well.
It will be interesting to see whether he does maintain a public profile or goes into private life. (Like most of our legislators, he's an attorney by trade.)
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 19, 2019 19:10:12 GMT
I'm frustrated.
There is an important debate within the Democratic party at the moment as the high-profile freshman House members receive tremendous media attention but push ideas that are in some cases slightly and in some cases far out of line with the party-at-large. They are in effect openly feuding with the leadership of their party for the direction of the party. That's fine. It's their right. They ran on those positions and got elected on those positions.
Personally I am not a fan with them, sometimes in terms of policy and other times in terms of style. I believe some of their policy ideas are, to be blunt, silly utopianism. And further, because some are not supported even by the majority of their party, much less of the country at large, they seem like blunders ... especially coming from freshmen.
That leads into the problems I have with their style. Their certainty in their own propositions isn't something admirable, in my opinion: humility on matters of policy (and philosophy) is warranted in a complex world with so many unknowns at every turn. Their own confidence isn't only confidence, but regular criticism of those who don't jump on board--including their party's leadership. They or their staff members have within the past couple of weeks said that moderate Democrats are the equivalent of racist segregationists in the '30s and '40s in the South; that "we don't need any more brown faces that don't want to be a brown voice," and the same for black, Muslim, and queer "faces" and "voices" (as if their idea of appropriate politics for these groups were an essential component of being in those groups ... basically calling dissenters Uncle Toms of sorts); and so on.
However, when challenged (again, by their own party leadership), the response is usually that these evil powers of this country are being unfair to them, singling them out, because they are women of color, or Muslim, or outspoken.
But no. They are being singled out because they have singled themselves out, said things that are relatively unique, and not only put forward positions but personal criticism. If I slap you in the face and you yell at me in response, I'd be wrong to say you are unfairly singling me out with your yelling.
This was bad enough. But the president of course has been weighing in, previewing a general election that's him versus them. And of course, a disproportionate number of Democratic presidential candidates are falling in line with those freshmen's positions (I cynically think because of their tremendous online popularity more than anything, though obviously Sen. Sanders's positions have really grown in popularity since his previous run).
The result is everyone is calling everyone a racist, or un-American, or unpatriotic, or evil. And worse, it feels to me that most people want--INSIST--that everyone else pick a side. But if the two sides are the president and those four congresswomen, I choose neither side. I don't accept that it's one or the other. I opt out.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Jul 19, 2019 19:29:29 GMT
The result is everyone is calling everyone a racist, or un-American, or unpatriotic, or evil. And worse, it feels to me that most people want--INSIST--that everyone else pick a side. But if the two sides are the president and those four congresswomen, I choose neither side. I don't accept that it's one or the other. I opt out.
1) That seems to be exactly what's going on right now. It's frustrating, disheartening, ugly, you name it. 2) Why are those four congresswomen so popular? Based on media coverage, you'd think there were, maybe, a dozen members of congress. Does division and controversy drive ratings? While I've always been skeptical, my trust in the media has completely vanished.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 19, 2019 20:07:19 GMT
2) Why are those four congresswomen so popular? Based on media coverage, you'd think there were, maybe, a dozen members of congress. Does division and controversy drive ratings? While I've always been skeptical, my trust in the media has completely vanished. I think there are different reasons, and of course despite their own self-branding and the media's branding, they are different people with different characteristics. (And rather than start every sentence below with "I think," let's just understand that what I'm saying below is what I think. Most of it is not objective fact.)
A wave of progressivism has grown in the past few years. Sen. Sanders introduced concepts that ring true to people who were watching some states (and eventually the federal government) dismantle the ACA, which itself of course had already caused trepidation and change; and as they were struggling to enter or advance in the work force. So suddenly something like single payer healthcare, free education, and severe limits on corporations' profits made sense.
A wave of social justice and identity-focused consciousness, promoted through BLM and similar groups as well as "[whatever] studies" programs and arguably higher education in general, has become widespread.
Frustration with the Democratic party seems to have boiled over in some circles, particularly among further-left activists, for what they see as three decades of being sold out by centrists like Pres. Clinton and his political descendants. Just as Tea Party activists saw centrist Republicans as dealing with the devil and abandoning the goals too often, I think the far left feels the same.
The Democratic Party in general has valued diversity in such a way as to not simply accept diverse people, but celebrate individuals who represent minority positions as if that were a virtue. (Instead of being open to people regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc., it seems currently to act as if it were a strength, a blessing, to be of a minority--or what they would call oppressed--group.)
Social media exists now. It rewards certain things. Respectful, nuanced discussion is not among them.
Socialism and communism have been viewed through rose-colored glasses since the fall of the Soviet Union.
AOC is young, pretty, and charismatic.
The media in general is a joke at the moment, and I say this as the holder of a journalism degree, an institutionalist in general, and someone who believes strongly in journalism. TV news has been a joke for decades, and yet the then-joke version seems like some kind of ideal compared to the current iteration. And print journalism never recovered from its internet-driven spiral two decades ago, never reinvented itself appropriately, and now is mostly a few (inter)national powerhouses feeding everyone else, with a lot of automated aggregators and clickbait in the mix. BREAKING NEWS! OMG, LOOK AT THE TWEET. OH NO, A PRETTY GIRL WAS KIDNAPPED (oh, and 53 murders yesterday, to say nothing of what happened in state legislatures and city councils nationwide) AND LOOK, ALYSSA MILANO RETWEETED AOC!
In other words, I think some of the political winds make a movement such as theirs inevitable. And I don't even think it's bad, necessarily: if you're a leftist, you're going to think the center is too far to the right (to say nothing of the right). When people can't get healthcare or health insurance, that's bad. When large numbers of people fail within the economy, that's bad. When politicians are overly corrupt--and politicians always become overly corrupt--that's bad.
But revolutions aren't good things. They cause chaos, and there's no real reason to believe that your team is going to be the one to clean up the chaos.
And the totally blurred lines between (highly profitable, let's remember) entertainment and politics aren't good things.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Jul 19, 2019 20:34:18 GMT
The media in general is a joke at the moment, and I say this as the holder of a journalism degree, an institutionalist in general, and someone who believes strongly in journalism. TV news has been a joke for decades, and yet the then-joke version seems like some kind of ideal compared to the current iteration. And print journalism never recovered from its internet-driven spiral two decades ago, never reinvented itself appropriately, and now is mostly a few (inter)national powerhouses feeding everyone else, with a lot of automated aggregators and clickbait in the mix. BREAKING NEWS! OMG, LOOK AT THE TWEET. OH NO, A PRETTY GIRL WAS KIDNAPPED (oh, and 53 murders yesterday, to say nothing of what happened in state legislatures and city councils nationwide) AND LOOK, ALYSSA MILANO RETWEETED AOC!
haha or Chris Pratt's Gadsden flag T-shirt! How is that news? It's not racist. Only a few twitter trolls were "outraged", I bet. Anyway, surely there must be widespread support and belief in journalism across the country. I wish the media would self-correct. That they'd believe it was in everyone's best interest. Btw, the rattlesnake symbol has a pretty cool history going back to publications by Benjamin Franklin.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 19, 2019 20:40:38 GMT
A lot of what the media is doing wrong can be boiled down to these:
- is it saving cost? ("reporting" on social media is much, much cheaper than real reporting; aggregators are cheaper than people; veteran journalists--who may have more perspective and judgment--cost more than young ones; editors of content and copy are fewer and fewer, leading to errors and bad judgment; etc.)
- is it drawing attention? (controversy trumps--no pun intended--importance; beauty and sex, ditto)
The mainstream media used to criticize politicians for giving more attention to inflammatory wedge issues than they warranted; now the media is the bellows fanning that flame.
And it's deeply ironic that the mainstream media, which is pretty obviously pro-Democratic party in its framing and messaging of news, is following capitalist, corporate interests in its descent into trashdom.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 19, 2019 20:52:53 GMT
I should add, however, that one big factor is also feeding the nonsense: us.
If the public weren't more interested in nonsense and controversy than it is reasonable discussion of issues, then the media wouldn't be feeding us such trash. If they are following their corporate interests, it means they're following the demand we demonstrate. That's our fault.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 20, 2019 13:19:57 GMT
KDS has mentioned this general topic a handful of times over the years, and this morning it got to me (again) too. Forgive me yet another long politics-thread rant. (And remember, it's not my fault: I was retired!)
Increasingly, it seems like some people think everything has to be about political culture wars. All the time. Activism! Resistance! Movement! Not only do I not find that particularly admirable, I don't think it's helpful to anyone involved when it's a 24/7, turned-up-to-11 commitment.
I don't mean to talk about Planned Parenthood much: I don't think about it much, actually. But bear with me (and then on to sports!). The Planned Parenthood president stepped down the other day. Today she has an op-ed in the NYT explaining that the reason is she wanted to depoliticize the organization as much as possible. Basically she acknowledges it by definition has that aspect because it provides abortion, and thus supports abortion rights, etc.; but she says her goal was to emphasize other services and bring in people of diverse opinions as much as possible to help people understand it as a mainstream healthcare organization (that, yes, provides abortions too).
However, she was basically pushed out by those who presumably imagine themselves as heroes as they dress up in Handmaid's Tale smocks and pussy hats.
You can be for or against abortion; for or against this or that political leaning. But is a smaller, narrower mission always helpful? If you're fighting for support, isn't it a good idea to, um, build broad support? Apparently no, apparently purity of activism is superior.
Now, on to sportsAnd then I also see that ESPN's Dan Le Batard decided the twenty-five seconds of politics-free sports coverage we were enjoying was unacceptable. Time for politics! Did you see his comments? He said: "It is so wrong, what the president of our country is doing, trying to get reelected by dividing the masses, at a time when the old white man, the old rich white man, feels oppressed, being attacked, by minorities. And we here at ESPN don’t have the stomach for the fight. We don’t talk about what is happening unless there is some sort of weak, cowardly sports angle that we can run it through.” First of all, the same bored, tired old "rich white man" stuff. Yeah, that won't offend anyone--least of all the tiny, tiny handful of white guys who aren't rich (or old, for that matter) [sarcasm alert in there]. And second, ESPN doesn't have the stomach to talk about politics unless there is a "weak, cowardly sports angle"? ESPN IS A SPORTS NETWORK. I'm guessing Chess Life magazine doesn't cover NASA unless there's a weak, cowardly chess angle, and Cycle World magazine doesn't cover Mexican cuisine unless there's a weak, cowardly motorcycle angle. Le Batard can do what Jemelle Hill did, if he wants to talk politics: get a job covering politics. I won't speak for everyone--I'm sure people who bought Handmaids Tale outfits want to put them on as often as possible to get their money's worth--but I'd guess a lot of people, whether conservative, progressive, somewhere in-between, or apolitical, want to just enjoy sports without considering politics. www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/07/19/after-dan-le-batard-ripped-trump-espn-again-faces-political-mess/?utm_term=.18a9983db66b
Dedicating yourself to a cause is fine. People have every right to do that. But I'd humbly suggest that a singular focus leads to obsession, clouds judgment, and does more harm than good.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jul 20, 2019 13:46:21 GMT
Le Batard can do what Jemelle Hill did, if he wants to talk politics: get a job covering politics.
That's basically how I feel about Le Batard in a nutshell. I listen to Le Batard's radio show and watch his TV show. I think he is a very talented guy. I also like the way he does challenge "things" and isn't afraid to take a hard stance. But, sports is sports and politics is politics. It is very difficult to mix them, and I think it if you do, eventually it's all gonna come out politics, if you know what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 20, 2019 14:52:14 GMT
Le Batard can do what Jemelle Hill did, if he wants to talk politics: get a job covering politics.
That's basically how I feel about Le Batard in a nutshell. I listen to Le Batard's radio show and watch his TV show. I think he is a very talented guy. I also like the way he does challenge "things" and isn't afraid to take a hard stance. But, sports is sports and politics is politics. It is very difficult to mix them, and I think it if you do, eventually it's all gonna come out politics, if you know what I mean. Definitely. And the reason I think that matters--not just on a small, "oh it bugs me when people talk politics" level, but honestly I believe fundamentally in society--is that it means that no matter what we're doing, we're incorporating and emphasizing one of the main areas of division of society. That, by definition, means we're adding conflict.
If politics is one area of life among many, then at least its divisiveness (which is unavoidable, and that's fine) is somewhat isolated. We might have school, church, sports, hobbies, work, and friends and family into which we can escape, focus on other things. But schools are increasingly active politically. Churches are increasingly active politically. Sports networks and athletes are more active politically. Organizations dedicated to hobbies are increasingly active politically. Companies are increasingly active politically. And friends and family, especially through social media, are more vocal if not active politically.
It's an infection that makes it seem like we share nothing and fight over everything.
|
|