|
Post by The Cincinnati Kid on Apr 8, 2020 19:00:17 GMT
Yes, it is fascinating. How many times has Biden run for President now (three times?), and he could barely get to double digits in the polls (I'm not sure he did). Nobody wanted him. He was accused of and I think proven to be plagiarizing his speeches. So now, because he's older and wiser (ha ha), and was lucky enough to be picked - and win - as a Vice-President, he's now the man we want to lead the nation as our next President? Huh? His past of mediocrity isn't even what bothers me most. It isn't delightful, but there is a long line of also-ran/lifer types who ran for president, sometimes repeatedly, and some won. What worries me about Biden is his inability to speak for more than a few sentences without stumbling, seeming to forget what he's saying, or saying very strange things. Frankly, this puts him into the same territory the president is in for me: if you cannot speak in coherent paragraphs, I don't trust you to lead the nation. All that said--and I suspect here's where we differ--I still wouldn't hesitate to vote for him over the incumbent. I'll just keep my fingers crossed he would put some reasonably sane and mostly harmless people into his Cabinet and other appointed positions, and the aircraft carrier can continue on toward the great cliff at edge of the world. Hopefully slowly.
I've been watching most of Trump's press conferences, and I always ask myself how Biden would handle question after question. On the other hand, I don't think he'd be creating a hostile environment by constantly attacking reporters. I always thought Bernie's support was overblown. He only seemed like the number #1 candidate because there were so many moderates staying in the race splitting the vote. He also had the advantage of some not so diverse states going first. The writing was on the wall when Biden easily won South Carolina.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 8, 2020 19:04:55 GMT
You're right, TCK.
Bernie and Warren had been hurting each other as the progressives, but there were three, four, five, six different more moderate candidates at any time those final few months.
But then again, I have two thoughts along those lines.
1) Trump was in a similar position in '16, yet he ended up winning. All along, he was polling with low numbers, but people thought once you didn't have Bush, Rubio, Christie, Walker, etc., splitting that vote, Trump would fall quickly.
2) The moderates were forced by Bernie in '16 to at least talk more progressive. The first six months at least of 2019 were almost insane, compared to historical Democratic primaries. You had people talking about universal healthcare, serious criminal reform, recreational weed, decriminalization of other drugs, housing support, decriminalization of illegal immigration ... and those were the "moderates."
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Apr 8, 2020 19:08:07 GMT
Yes, it is fascinating. How many times has Biden run for President now (three times?), and he could barely get to double digits in the polls (I'm not sure he did). Nobody wanted him. He was accused of and I think proven to be plagiarizing his speeches. So now, because he's older and wiser (ha ha), and was lucky enough to be picked - and win - as a Vice-President, he's now the man we want to lead the nation as our next President? Huh? His past of mediocrity isn't even what bothers me most. It isn't delightful, but there is a long line of also-ran/lifer types who ran for president, sometimes repeatedly, and some won.
What worries me about Biden is his inability to speak for more than a few sentences without stumbling, seeming to forget what he's saying, or saying very strange things. Frankly, this puts him into the same territory the president is in for me: if you cannot speak in coherent paragraphs, I don't trust you to lead the nation.
All that said--and I suspect here's where we differ--I still wouldn't hesitate to vote for him over the incumbent. I'll just keep my fingers crossed he would put some reasonably sane and mostly harmless people into his Cabinet and other appointed positions, and the aircraft carrier can continue on toward the great cliff at edge of the world. Hopefully slowly.
I agree with your first two paragraghs, but I can't vote for the guy. And that's not a pro-Trump statement. Even though I do have reservations about Biden's age/possible mental deterioration, that's not my biggest stumbling block. I think, if he wins, he'll only be a one-term President and will be able to stumble to the finish line with, like you said, "some reasonably sane and mostly harmless people". I don't trust the guy. I think he's shady and crooked, and he's been cashing in on his power and his years' of making "connections". I know I sound like Rudy Giuliani, but that's how I feel. I don't believe a word Biden says. I think he's just trying to say things that will get him elected. Trump has brought out several bad deals that Obama/Biden did, and I don't want to go...back...to that administration, those days, which I fear we would if Biden wins.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 8, 2020 19:15:21 GMT
When it comes to shady ethics, I'd say:
1) I have little to no faith in any candidate who becomes the nominee. 2) I can't imagine a Biden administration being more corrupt than the Trump administration.
|
|
|
Post by The Cincinnati Kid on Apr 8, 2020 19:24:43 GMT
When it comes to shady ethics, I'd say: 1) I have little to no faith in any candidate who becomes the nominee. 2) I can't imagine a Biden administration being more corrupt than the Trump administration. On top of that, I don't want another one or two conservative supreme court justices. I don't see Ginsburg lasting through a Trump second term. That might be motivating me to vote for Biden more than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 8, 2020 20:08:27 GMT
On top of that, I don't want another one or two conservative supreme court justices. I don't see Ginsburg lasting through a Trump second term. That might be motivating me to vote for Biden more than anything else. That's a good topic and a whole other bag of worms. I really, really don't like the fact that our culture has gotten to the point where we (seemingly rightly) view purportedly apolitical judges as partisan judges.
It's natural that any person in any job is going to see things through his/her worldview, even when doing theoretically concrete tasks like Chief Justice Roberts's "calling balls and strikes" analogy. But it does seem almost indisputable that we are well beyond that. I hate it. I don't know how best to change, whether "going back" is the proper solution or (to stick rhetorically along the same lines) "going forward" ... to something.
It is undeniable that the president believes his appointees, and even his party's appointees, are "his." He says so. Often. And he says the opposite, too. Often. That is horrible. Toxic. Wrong (morally). It has to change.
But as long as it is the way it is, I think we're better off keeping a roughly even split, whether 5-4 or 4-5.
|
|
|
Post by The Cincinnati Kid on Apr 17, 2020 16:58:59 GMT
This and his other tweets are pretty dangerous (and stupid) if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 17, 2020 18:44:20 GMT
This and his other tweets are pretty dangerous (and stupid) if you ask me. Same crap in Minnesota, where nobody thinks we've hit peak infections yet and where we haven't gotten anywhere near the testing we need even for sick people, much less potentially formerly sick people to confirm who is and isn't safe going forward. So yeah, great thinking by the president.
The desire to restart the economy isn't wrong.
The necessity to constantly second-guess our path in an unprecedented situation is necessary.
There is always a push and pull between freedom and safety.
Even with those things in mind, it's hard to imagine a less helpful spokesman/leader. Discounting anything he did or didn't do, just on words and tone alone, he has been terrible throughout. Inconsistent, combative, egotistical, thin-skinned ... just terrible. He's dealing with a combative, inconsistent, egotistical, thin-skinned media, I don't deny that. But that's not an excuse, especially when you're the most powerful human being on earth and are supposed to be leading through a crisis. You rise above. You're the boss.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 22, 2020 12:15:04 GMT
Yesterday I saw a fascinating COVID-19 study (which also has a political angle, which is why I'm posting it here) that shows a few things I think are important for us all to keep in mind. First, my takeaways, then the more direct story.
1. People are easily influenced by media. Most of us know this (but assume it to be true of everyone except ourselves).
2. Making overly broad generalizations is a good way to make yourself wrong.
The study looked at COVID infection rates among Sean Hannity viewers versus Tucker Carlson viewers. Both of course are prominent Fox opinion personalities with nightly shows. But contrary to popular narrative, that network's coverage has not been monolithic: Carlson was taking it more seriously earlier, while tending to be in lock-step with the president, Hannity dismissed it for weeks. The results? From the abstract:
"In line with the differences in content, we present novel survey evidence that Hannity’s viewers changed behavior in response to the virus later than other Fox News viewers, while Carlson’s viewers changed behavior earlier. ... First, we document that greater viewership of Hannity relative to Tucker Carlson Tonight is strongly associated with a greater number of COVID-19 cases and deaths in the early stages of the pandemic. ... Furthermore, the results suggest that in mid-March, after Hannity’s shift in tone, the diverging trajectories on COVID-19 cases begin to revert."
Personally I'd be curious seeing a similar study involving a few other groups, maybe Rachel Maddow viewers, CNN primetime (whatever their shows are) viewers, and maybe no-TV NPR kind of people. But regardless, it shows how powerful outlets like this are. We're all responsible for ourselves, of course, but filtering information isn't easy for a lot of normal people. It would be nice if journalists tried to put aside their ideology or, more importantly, their political self-interest on occasion and focused on providing accurate information as best they could. In this case, Hannity's failures compared to Carlson's resulted in sickness and presumably death.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on May 1, 2020 15:50:30 GMT
Not really politics related, but not really not politics related, if you know what I mean. This is interesting, though.
Heterodox Academy (a very interesting and in my opinion admirable organization that promotes pluralism and true diversity of thought) released its most recent study about students' self-censorship in colleges. The interesting thing is that in most categories, the group most likely to self-censor is the group that is, in modern intersectional or progressive thought, to be the one atop the hierarchy that "oppresses" others. The one exception is religion.
Gender: the group that is more likely to self-center is men (23% to 17%) Race: whites (31% to an average of all other groups of 17%) Politics: Republicans (29-37% depending on specific topic; 15-27% Dems; 21-31% Independents) Religion: Atheists (37%; 30% Jewish; 28% agnostic; 19% Christian and Hindu; 17% Buddhist; 12% Muslim)
My speculative opinion is that because colleges and universities tend to be progressive/intersectional right now, and that general framework is largely about power dynamics, it is 1) uncomfortable to be the person contradicting the actual power structure, which is the professor; 2) almost in poor taste to contradict the purportedly oppressed groups (at least within that intersectional framework), just as a matter of manners. (As an analogy, nobody goes to a Catholic Bible study and stands up in the middle to explain that actually Jesus was just a prophet and Muhammad taught the one true path to salvation.)
My position on this is that while it might be natural for people to feel that way, it's a tragedy. First, I don't actually support that framework/ideology, and so I think being intimidated into silence while it grows is a mistake. But second, I don't think any ideology deserves to go forward unchallenged.
The best solution isn't so much demanding students to speak up, especially if their professors overwhelmingly fall into a different camp and may penalize them academically for it, but rather ensuring that academic is actually free and diverse. More specific to the study in my first link, it's important to keep in mind that being a man doesn't disqualify a person from having views about gender, being white of race, being atheist of religion, and being Republican of politics. Even if one accepts the extremely controversial positions that those other groups are in some way oppressed, being oppressed does not make one correct. Being a victim does not make one correct. It does not inflate the value or merit of one's opinion, even though it could reasonably offer some other criterion that weighs into that opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on May 1, 2020 19:39:53 GMT
More directly politically relevant, I don't think anyone has mentioned that we've got a couple of high profile (potential) third party candidates making news recently.
Former Gov. Jesse Ventura is investigating a bid for the Green Party nomination for president.
Seems highly unlikely either could garner a significant percentage of the vote, but I do hope to see the major "minor" parties' nominees on the debate stages ... though I doubt it. Because the system is, in that respect, rigged by the major parties.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on May 8, 2020 13:34:29 GMT
I haven't been fond of the NYT generally the past few years, but I think this op-ed is right on the money regarding the Justice Dept. dropping charges against Gen. Michael Flynn, who had twice in court pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about his (apparently illegal) conversations with Russian foreign officials.
I am not saying the FBI didn't have its own issues, seemingly pretty biased against the Trump administration. But even if that's true, Flynn (again, seemingly illegally) spoke to Russian officials, and then (was charged with and admitted twice to having) lied to investigators about it. The president himself said he fired Flynn for lying to the FBI and to VP Pence.
There is a very obvious pattern happening lately. People who are clearly not innocent are getting off, and people who opposed the president are being dismissed. This isn't how the justice system ought to work.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on May 8, 2020 13:53:54 GMT
I'd like to jump in the politics' discussion, but there is so much craziness going on, I don't know where to start - or stop. Since I've been self-quarantining, I have been following the news more than usual. Frankly, after a while, it gets sickening. Before I even watch it, I know what the Republicans are going to say and I know what the Democrats are going to say. And, I also know what each TV network is going to say. I even know what they're going to cover - or not. They will intentionally dwell on something, and then completely ignore something else. Sometimes I literally get so fed up with all of it that I just turn off the TV. I can't take it.
Politics, and specifically the two party system, is ruining this country.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on May 8, 2020 14:16:16 GMT
Politics, and specifically the two party system, is ruining this country.
Amen. It's so obvious it ought not require saying, but:
When you make half of the population your enemy, half of the population is your enemy.
Whatever the short-term benefit (e.g. electoral results), how is that a good way to operate?
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on May 8, 2020 14:28:08 GMT
Do you know what is depressing? If Trump wins the election, we will have four more years of the Democrats making his presidency - and life - as miserable as they possibly can. EVERY DAY. And, if Biden wins, the Republicans will spend the next fours years trying to prove that Biden isn't competent enough to be President. EVERY DAY. You already know what position MSNBC and CNN will take, and the same with FOX. Hell, I already know what my computer home page will say!
There comes a point where I can't take it anymore. For awhile, the media made it intriguing, thorough, and even educational. Now, it's almost unbearable. The pandemic, Flynn, Barr, Schiff, sexual harassment/assault, the economy, the upcoming election...I used to kind of look forward to hearing what people were saying and writing. Now, I've had enough. And we're only gonna deeper into it as November approaches. OK. Rant over.
|
|