US Politics Thread

[Federberg]

I'm rather surprised that you make such a virtue (above) of Gabbard being "biracial" (which she isn't really, as she has some Asian and Samoan in her background, with lots of European in her admixture, so at least not "bi-",) whereas you continuously refer to Warren as "Lieawatha." She actually does have Native America in her background, which she grew up knowing from her family, and she got in trouble over it for PC reasons, which I thought wasn't your thing. That seems more about disliking Warren for being too progressive, rather than actually being a liar. For the record, I don't think Trump would eat her alive, nor would he Gabbard. Both are more qualified on policy and management. He'll just use dirt and misdirection against whomever is the candidate, and his loyalists will buy it, no matter what.

I think it's something like 1/16th or 1/32nd. Does that really count?? The fact that she put that on some of her college documentation tells a story about her that's hard to overcome. And then there's the fact that one of her brothers had to correct her claim that her father was a janitor. She tells a story sometimes that leaves a taint of mendacity and inauthenticity sadly. Trump can get away with stuff like that, but then he doesn't try to use purity tests on other people. It ends up leaving her looking like a bit of a hypocrite. I like some of what Warren has to say from a policy perspective, but she is hopeless at politics. I shudder to think what Trump would do to her. It would be X-rated

 

[Federberg]

I don't agree that it's only the Democrats who "play" identity politics. I don't know who "thinks" that ideas have color/gender, and that diversity doesn't apply to thoughts, ideas and character, as you say. I do think that the Democratic party in the US is and has been more the party of inclusion and diversity of opinion, while more and more (and under Trump in particular) the Republicans exclude based on religion and ethnicity. There is a narrowness of focus, and a lack of patience with ideas outside of the party line. One of the reasons that Democrats get criticized, even or especially from within, is that we have so many opinions and positions to include that it can be hard to focus our message. Ours is more difficult to break into sound-bites, because it contains nuance...something sorely lacking in the Republicans, esp. now. Trump has only a cudgel, which is sharply pronged with racist, nationalist poison on the prongs, and too many Republicans ignore that for the sake of retaining power.

while I agree that both sides play identity politics, I have to say... Dems come across as waaaaaay more whiny about it. Let's not kid ourselves that cancel culture which is more of a liberal tool doesn't show "narrowness of focus, and a lack of patience with ideas outside of the party line". Both sides of the same coin. Republicans seem more capable of overcoming their moral outrage and debating their view points. At least as far as I can observe from the outside. And I think it tends to p1ss of the quiet majority in the middle (which all of a sudden progressives seem to be contemptuous of...)

 

[britbox]

I'm rather surprised that you make such a virtue (above) of Gabbard being "biracial" (which she isn't really, as she has some Asian and Samoan in her background, with lots of European in her admixture, so at least not "bi-",) whereas you continuously refer to Warren as "Lieawatha." She actually does have Native America in her background, which she grew up knowing from her family, and she got in trouble over it for PC reasons, which I thought wasn't your thing. That seems more about disliking Warren for being too progressive, rather than actually being a liar. For the record, I don't think Trump would eat her alive, nor would he Gabbard. Both are more qualified on policy and management. He'll just use dirt and misdirection against whomever is the candidate, and his loyalists will buy it, no matter what.

I didn't say Tulsi was "biracial", I said she was mixed race... and in terms of democratic primaries, it probably *should* put a tick in her box. Personally, I don't care what race anybody is and judge them on individual character. I like Tulsi's character. She is smart, articulate and has crossover appeal. I'd be interested in your opinion of her.

Now, Warren is a liar. She's even apologized profusely to native Americans for her ridiculous claims. You seem to one of the last people on earth defending a position she's not even defending herself. Her dumb DNA tests showed she might have one ancestor ten generations back. The fact she probably got a leg up at University and applying for the state bar tells a lot about her character. This is kind of pity, seeing as I used to enjoy her pulling those Wall Street moguls apart at hearings. Her credibility is shot and Trump would make mincemeat out of her. Not liking Warren, has nothing to do with PC... it's more to do with her character issues.

I don't think Trump would destroy Gabbard by the way... but the Dems won't elect her anyway.

Biden's finished. I like Bernie in many ways. He's authentic, can sell an argument. I just don't agree with a lot of what he says. I'd give him a tiny chance... but largely agree with Federberg's analysis. That basically leaves Bloomberg. Tented's post was interesting... he might be the Dems best shot.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I don't agree that it's only the Democrats who "play" identity politics. I don't know who "thinks" that ideas have color/gender, and that diversity doesn't apply to thoughts, ideas and character, as you say. I do think that the Democratic party in the US is and has been more the party of inclusion and diversity of opinion, while more and more (and under Trump in particular) the Republicans exclude based on religion and ethnicity. There is a narrowness of focus, and a lack of patience with ideas outside of the party line. One of the reasons that Democrats get criticized, even or especially from within, is that we have so many opinions and positions to include that it can be hard to focus our message. Ours is more difficult to break into sound-bites, because it contains nuance...something sorely lacking in the Republicans, esp. now. Trump has only a cudgel, which is sharply pronged with racist, nationalist poison on the prongs, and too many Republicans ignore that for the sake of retaining power.

For someone who lives in the US, I am shocked you do not know the answer to this. Have you not heard about all the people banned from speaking at college campuses because they may have conservative opinions? That is the leftists's doing. Have you not heard the story of Bret Weinstein? Ben Shapiro, Anne Coulter?
Your dream version of the left does not exist in campuses. As a white hetero man, I would NEVER be able to talk about race , gender or abortion issues in any campus in the US today, because my identity does not match. Because "As a white male straight guy, part of the patriarchy, what makes you think you have anything to contribute to the subject at hand?" would be the first question that I would be asked and then the protests would start before the leftists retreat to their safe spaces because they were micro agressed just by my presence. Do you want video examples of this?

I am not disagreeing that right plays the identity politics game . Leftists, with their intersectionality, take it to stupid heights.

 

[tented]

For someone who leaves in the US, I am shocked you do not know the answer to this. Have you not heard about all the people banned from speaking at college campuses because they may have conservative opinions? That is the leftists's doing. Have you not heard the story of Bret Weinstein? Ben Shapiro, Anne Coulter?
Your dream version of the left does not exist in campuses. As a white hetero man, I would NEVER be able to talk about race , gender or abortion issues in any campus in the US today, because my identity does not match. Because "As a white male straight guy, part of the patriarchy, what makes you think you have anything to contribute to the subject at hand?" would be the first question that I would be asked and then the protests would start before the leftists retreat to their safe spaces because they were micro agressed just by my presence. Do you want video examples of this?

I am not disagreeing that right plays the identity politics game . Leftists, with their intersectionality, take it to stupid heights.

When I was in college, in the early/mid 1980s, Louis Farrakahn came to give a speech. There was no discussion of not allowing him even to step foot on campus. Out of curiosity, I — a gay atheist — decided I would go. Unsurprisingly, I disagreed with everything he had to say, but I went nevertheless just to learn more about him.

I can’t help but think if Farrakahn were to be invited today, he wouldn’t be allowed on campus after marches and demonstrations.

But you know what? I survived, and lived to tell the tale. I didn’t need a safe space. I didn’t suffer from micro aggressions. I simply went to hear a speech, didn’t like it, and moved on.

 

[Federberg]

When I was in college, in the early/mid 1980s, Louis Farrakahn came to give a speech. There was no discussion of not allowing him even to step foot on campus. Out of curiosity, I — a gay atheist — decided I would go. Unsurprisingly, I disagreed with everything he had to say, but I went nevertheless just to learn more about him.

I can’t help but think if Farrakahn were to be invited today, he wouldn’t be allowed on campus after marches and demonstrations.

But you know what? I survived, and lived to tell the tale. I didn’t need a safe space. I didn’t suffer from micro aggressions. I simply went to hear a speech, didn’t like it, and moved on.

Amen! This generation are a bunch of self indulged whiny bitches quite frankly and I don't see how they'll survive when they get into the real world, without some fairly radical change. I blame the University administrators for letting the nonsense get out of hand

 

[britbox]

When I was in college, in the early/mid 1980s, Louis Farrakahn came to give a speech. There was no discussion of not allowing him even to step foot on campus. Out of curiosity, I — a gay atheist — decided I would go. Unsurprisingly, I disagreed with everything he had to say, but I went nevertheless just to learn more about him.

I can’t help but think if Farrakahn were to be invited today, he wouldn’t be allowed on campus after marches and demonstrations.

But you know what? I survived, and lived to tell the tale. I didn’t need a safe space. I didn’t suffer from micro aggressions. I simply went to hear a speech, didn’t like it, and moved on.

I can identify with this.

At Uni, we used to have guest speakers and I went to watch a guy called Arthur Scargill. Americans won't know this guy, but all Brits of a certain age will. He was the head honcho of the National Union of Miners. Everyone in the UK remembers the Miners Strike. It changed the country - politics, unionism, socialism and much more. People died, miners were murdered by fellow miners. Scargill was a far-left socialist and I went in strongly opposed to what he was selling.

But boy, could that man talk... He didn't change my mind on anything politically... but I totally understood how he could sell an argument. He was an amazing speaker. I didn't agree with much he said, but he packaged it together so well. I understood why he got such a big following. Some call it rabble-rousing, but hugely effective nevertheless.

 

[tented]

Amen! This generation are a bunch of self indulged whiny bitches quite frankly and I don't see how they'll survive when they get into the real world, without some fairly radical change. I blame the University administrators for letting the nonsense get out of hand

Absolutely. Instead of acting like the adults in the room — teaching and enforcing the concept of free speech — they’ve been acting like simpering, spineless fools. I don’t like Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, or the loathsome Milo Yiannopoulos, but I think they should be allowed to speak. If students don’t like someone, or disagree with their views, then don’t go. But they absolutely shouldn’t try to stop everyone else from hearing them, just because they don’t want to. These “leftists” have gone so far left, they’ve circled round, and become authoritarians.

Nathan Heller wrote an interesting article about Oberlin College, and the trouble they’ve been having with these issues. I didn’t realize things had become so out of control.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Absolutely. Instead of acting like the adults in the room — teaching and enforcing the concept of free speech — they’ve been acting like simpering, spineless fools. I don’t like Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, or the loathsome Milo Yiannopoulos, but I think they should be allowed to speak. If students don’t like someone, or disagrees with their views, then don’t go. But they absolutely shouldn’t try to stop everyone from hearing them, just because they don’t want to. These “leftists” have gone so far left, they’ve circled around, and become authoritarians.

Nathan Heller wrote an interesting article about Oberlin College, and the trouble they’ve been having with these issues. I didn’t realize things had become so out of control.

The story of what happened to Bret Weinstein at Evergreen should be studied. And he was as left as you could get and still he was a victim of the cancel culture.

 

[Federberg]

These “leftists” have gone so far left, they’ve circled round, and become authoritarians.

This...

 

[calitennis127]

She actually does have Native America in her background, which she grew up knowing from her family, and she got in trouble over it for PC reasons, which I thought wasn't your thing.

Yes, 1/1024th, which is less than the average white person in the United States. Warren is a despicable fraud who lied about being Native American to get ahead in life. You simply won't face up to that reality because she has become a feminist icon of the Democratic Party and you want to see a woman be president.

 

[Federberg]

I think these New Hampshire results are terrible for Sanders in particular and progressives in general. Based on the numbers if you call Warren and Sanders the progressives they barely got a third of the vote. The narrative from the press is that the contest between moderates and progressives could go either way. If this is correct it isn't even close. As soon as the moderates pick their representatives then this race is over. Assuming they do that quickly enough. As for Sanders, it's probably unfair to point out that his share of the vote has collapsed since 2016 given that there are more people in the race this time. But the main thing for me is the argument Bernie bros bring up that he can extend the voting pool by bringing in the youth vote. If NH and Iowa are examples of what's to come in these primaries there is simply no evidence of this. If that doesn't happen then he isn't worth the centrist votes he'll surely lose. Dems better wake up and dump Sanders as quickly as possible. Nothing good will come of it

 

[calitennis127]

That said, I'd have Bloomberg over Trump in a heartbeat. It's not what I want. I'd prefer an actual policy politician who could lead us back to a more normal system of government, with respect to the system of checks and balances.

Sure. Coming from Moxie, who adores Obama, the president who once said "I've got a pen and I've got a phone" regarding his ability to carry out executive actions. I doubt Moxie ever complained about Obama lacking respect for our system of checks and balances. As usual, Moxie's conception of reality is totally upside down.

Obama On Executive Actions: ‘I’ve Got A Pen And I’ve Got A Phone’

CBS News | Breaking news, top stories & today's latest headlines

CBS News offers breaking news coverage of today's top headlines. Stay informed on the biggest new stories with our balanced, trustworthy reporting.

washington.cbslocal.com

These are the types of statements which show the mind-numbing level of ignorance and stupidity among the average Democratic voter, particularly white Democrats in the Northeast who use pseudo-intellectual rhetoric to serve their social agenda.

How in the hell has Trump not shown "respect to the system of checks and balances" in the U.S. government? Who could actually believe something this ridiculous?

Oh, I know. Someone who actually believes there was merit to the second article of impeachment that Trump "obstructed Congress" - a charge that the Hillary-supporting professor Jonathan Turley debunked at the Judiciary Committee hearings, not to mention Patrick Philbin during the Senate impeachment trial. I would also note that this charge was so absurd that not even Mitt Romney could vote for it.

As Turley said, it was Congress's abuse of power to bring this impeachment charge against Trump without going to the courts. Why? Because we have - yes, you said it - checks and balances in our government and it is the role of the judicial branch to resolve differences between the executive and legislative. But you have f-ing Moxie sitting here saying that Trump was the one not respecting the system of checks and balances. Remarkable.

Someone with a moment's faith in and idealism towards the Great American Experiment, not just some notion that it's a business to be run.

Moxie why don't you tell us where this official document called the "Great American Experiment" is and how Trump has violated its dictates? Did the founders of this country mandate that everyone should be delighted with the Obama administration's poor economic numbers, allowing China to bitch-slap the United States, and permitting tens of millions of people to enter the country illegally through a route controlled by human traffickers and drug cartels? Is objecting to that state of affairs equivalent to adherence to the "Great American Experiment"?

 

[Federberg]

^Come on mate. You work in banking if I remember correctly. I would hope that you have the intellectual integrity to at least note that Trump's economic numbers are in no way superior to Obama's. Let's get real here.

 

[calitennis127]

^Come on mate. You work in banking if I remember correctly. I would hope that you have the intellectual integrity to at least note that Trump's economic numbers are in no way superior to Obama's. Let's get real here.

Lol.....are you serious? The U.S. has the lowest unemployment rate its had since 1969 right now. If Obama had presided over that success we would never hear the end of it.

Did this happen under Obama?

Unemployment rate falls to its lowest level in 50 years

Unemployment rate falls to its lowest level in 50 years

The Labor Department's job report said that 136,000 jobs were added last month and unemployment fell to 3.5%, its lowest level in 50 years.

abcnews.go.com

 

[calitennis127]

I think it's something like 1/16th or 1/32nd. Does that really count??

Not even. It's 1,1024th. You were off by a few multiples.

The fact that she put that on some of her college documentation tells a story about her that's hard to overcome. And then there's the fact that one of her brothers had to correct her claim that her father was a janitor.

The fact that Moxie doesn't even know about these things shows what kind of one-sided, fact-omitting left-wing bubble she lives in. She actually thinks Warren is a noble human being who has beat the odds in life.

 

[Federberg]

Lol.....are you serious? The U.S. has the lowest unemployment rate its had since 1969 right now. If Obama had presided over that success we would never hear the end of it.

Did this happen under Obama?

Unemployment rate falls to its lowest level in 50 years

Unemployment rate falls to its lowest level in 50 years

The Labor Department's job report said that 136,000 jobs were added last month and unemployment fell to 3.5%, its lowest level in 50 years.

abcnews.go.com

it's about the delta mate. Don't embarrass yourself. What was the unemployment rate when the Obama administration started vs where it ended. Compare that to Trump, who took on a health economy. Threw over a trillion dollars of stimulus with tax cuts. On that basis it's not that great mate. He should have kept his promises and tried to do something about income inequality. And now we have the Fed who've basically started QE again after the repo scare last autumn. You can try to gaslight ignorant folk, but you picked the wrong person

 

[Federberg]

Not even. It's 1,1024th. You were off by a few multiples.



The fact that Moxie doesn't even know about these things shows what kind of one-sided, fact-omitting left-wing bubble she lives in. She actually thinks Warren is a noble human being who has beat the odds in life.

1/1,024th? So basically an American Indian sneezed at her one time? Lol! It just gets worse. And she published this to vindicate herself? Utterly pathetic

 

[Moxie]

I didn't say Tulsi was "biracial", I said she was mixed race... and in terms of democratic primaries, it probably *should* put a tick in her box. Personally, I don't care what race anybody is and judge them on individual character. I like Tulsi's character. She is smart, articulate and has crossover appeal. I'd be interested in your opinion of her.

Now, Warren is a liar. She's even apologized profusely to native Americans for her ridiculous claims. You seem to one of the last people on earth defending a position she's not even defending herself. Her dumb DNA tests showed she might have one ancestor ten generations back. The fact she probably got a leg up at University and applying for the state bar tells a lot about her character. This is kind of pity, seeing as I used to enjoy her pulling those Wall Street moguls apart at hearings. Her credibility is shot and Trump would make mincemeat out of her. Not liking Warren, has nothing to do with PC... it's more to do with her character issues.

I don't think Trump would destroy Gabbard by the way... but the Dems won't elect her anyway.

Biden's finished. I like Bernie in many ways. He's authentic, can sell an argument. I just don't agree with a lot of what he says. I'd give him a tiny chance... but largely agree with Federberg's analysis. That basically leaves Bloomberg. Tented's post was interesting... he might be the Dems best shot.

I was not defending Warren, I was pointing out a disparity in your interest in peoples' backgrounds. However, you say that you're merely thinking that it would "tick a box" for Dems. I don't think any Dems care about that, in terms of Tulsi, and I definitely don't think it would be in even the top 15-20 of things like about her. It's a bit of a stretch to make an issue of it, and I don't think she does. At the same time, you're also wrong that Dems care about the Warren issue re: Native heritage. It's something that Trump and his supporters hang onto, and conservatives abroad, I guess. But with all of her upside as a politician and policy person, and as a champion of working people, for people on my side of the aisle, it really doesn't come up.

 

[Moxie]

1/1,024th? So basically an American Indian sneezed at her one time? Lol! It just gets worse. And she published this to vindicate herself? Utterly pathetic

You're the guy that gave Britbox a hard time for being on the same side as Cali, and now you take his word on a random "fact," even though you know where the bulk of his "facts" come from. OK, here is a fact check on her ancestry, and where Cali got the "1/1,024th" from:

The Facts on Elizabeth Warren’s DNA Test - FactCheck.org

An in-depth look at the science behind the test and what the results do -- and don’t -- show.

www.factcheck.org

Essentially it was back-extrapolated by a conservative op-ed writer from commercial DNA date from 23andme, but it's not a real number. The link is worth a look, if you'd like to know more about how difficult all of this is to define. An interesting point that is made is about what percentage Native American DNA the "average" American might have. They say that chances change depending on where you are from in the US. Warren is from Oklahoma, which gives her a much higher percentage chance, as it would other Oklahomans, than it would, say, me.

You can also give a glance over this, which tells how she didn't benefit in any way from claims of First Nations background, and that it did come from a place that was sincere in terms of family lore.

Elizabeth Warren's 'Pocahontas' Controversy - FactCheck.org

Q: Is Sen. Elizabeth Warren part Native American? Is that how she got jobs as a professor at Ivy League law schools? A: Warren has released a report of a DNA test that claims to “strongly support” her statement that she has Native American ancestry, and no one has proved that she was ever hired...

www.factcheck.org

In part, it says this:

Warren, who was born and raised in Oklahoma, has said that her parents and grandparents, who are now deceased, were the sources of that information.

“I am very proud of my heritage,” Warren said at the time, according to news articles. “These are my family stories. This is what my brothers and I were told by my mom and my dad, my mammaw and my pappaw. This is our lives. And I’m very proud of it.”

In that 2012 campaign ad, Warren said that her parents had to elope because her father’s family didn’t like that her mother “was part Cherokee and part Delaware.”

We take our family lore at face-value. It was Trump who picked at this to raise doubts about Warren's credibility, and it sure has worked on some people. I don't see it as much of a big deal either way, but now people on this thread are repeating "truisms," not truths, so I thought it was worth shedding a little more light.