US Politics Thread

[Moxie]

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.

Like tented, I really hadn't been exposed to a lot of the PC culture that seems to be plaguing college campuses. (And thanks for the link, @tented.) However, I think this is a peripheral discussion to what goes on in US politics, and is rather a distraction. Also, you keep using the word "intersectionality" as if it's a bad thing. I'm not sure it's harmful that minority groups discuss the varieties and strata of worth and importance within their own subset. And I'm not sure how it impacts the general discussion, and yet you use it as if it does. I wonder how you define it.

Personally, I found this useful:

Everyday Sociology Blog: Intersectionality for Beginners

By Peter Kaufman Intersectionality is one of those terms that we use a lot in sociology but we don’t always do a good job of explaining. I know I’m guilty of this. Sometimes I’ll be talking with students in class...

www.everydaysociologyblog.com

 

[Moxie]

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.

Warren is by any estimation a fine human being, good politician, and a person who came from not much to make herself a Harvard professor, a US senator, and a viable contender for the US presidency. I wonder how many of these virtues can be applied to Trump? Oh, right, he's President. Though he sure didn't win the popular vote. He's no intellectual. He admits he doesn't read. He got handed his lot in life by his dad. He's not really someone that you'd put up, morally or ethically against...well, basically anyone. So why so hard on Warren?

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Like tented, I really hadn't been exposed to a lot of the PC culture that seems to be plaguing college campuses. (And thanks for the link, @tented.) However, I think this is a peripheral discussion to what goes on in US politics, and is rather a distraction. Also, you keep using the word "intersectionality" as if it's a bad thing. I'm not sure it's harmful that minority groups discuss the varieties and strata of worth and importance within their own subset. And I'm not sure how it impacts the general discussion, and yet you use it as if it does. I wonder how you define it.

Personally, I found this useful:

Everyday Sociology Blog: Intersectionality for Beginners

By Peter Kaufman Intersectionality is one of those terms that we use a lot in sociology but we don’t always do a good job of explaining. I know I’m guilty of this. Sometimes I’ll be talking with students in class...

www.everydaysociologyblog.com

It is worse than bad, it is horrible. It creates a hierarchy of victimhood that does not take into account the "individual" at all. Intersectionality stops any meaningful discussion about any important subject if you do not belong to a certain tribe. According to intersectionality , if you are a trans member of a minority group and have a disability or something, your opinion is the most valued out there. According to intersectionality, if you are a white hetero male, you have absolutely no say in any issues regarding racism , sexism, opression, abortion, feminism and the list goes on and on. Intersectionality assigns gender and color to opinions which is just about the most dangerous philosophy ever created. Intersectionality only cares about your victimhood status. The more boxes you check on that, more valuable you and your opinions are. Intersectionality does not recognize you as an individual . You are defined by the color of your skin or what is between your legs. Pretty much the opposite of what King preached, which is the content of your character. Your competency.
Intersectionality is the bastard child of identity politics and it is the surest way to divide any country into various tribes and historically speaking, tribes always fight.

 

[Moxie]

It is worse than bad, it is horrible. It creates a hierarchy of victimhood that does not take into account the "individual" at all. Intersectionality stops any meaningful discussion about any important subject if you do not belong to a certain tribe. According to intersectionality , if you are a trans member of a minority group and have a disability or something, your opinion is the most valued out there. According to intersectionality, if you are a white hetero male, you have absolutely no say in any issues regarding racism , sexism, opression, abortion, feminism and the list goes on and on. Intersectionality assigns gender and color to opinions which is just about the most dangerous philosophy ever created. Intersectionality only cares about your victimhood status. The more boxes you check on that, more valuable you and your opinions are. Intersectionality does not recognize you as an individual . You are defined by the color of your skin or what is between your legs. Pretty much the opposite of what King preached, which is the content of your character. Your competency.
Intersectionality is the bastard child of identity politics and it is the surest way to divide any country into various tribes and historically speaking, tribes always fight.

I have to say that this seems an extreme take on it. You keep insisting that "it" doesn't care about the individual, whereas I think the basic philosophy is to dig deeper into the individual, and not just a general minority. I think the exclusion of white hetero males in terms of certain discussions is that they/you are not relevant. I don't think that's an unfair point. Sometimes inter-minority discussions need to happen without the white male intervention. Why not accept with a certain grace that you're not relevant to every conversation? I don't see where content of character is excluded, or competency. You conflate discussion with victimhood, and I think that's not wholly fair.

 

[Moxie]

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

Frank Bruni wrote an op-ed today in the NYT: Bernie Sanders Prevails. Cue the Party Panic. I agree with you. The inclination for the Dems seems to be trending moderate. This is also why Iowa and NH may have seen the last of their going first in the primaries. No matter how much the media reminds us that they're small states and very "white," who wins/does well has a big bearing on how things are perceived, going forward, and that is skewed wrongly. We would be much better served putting up larger states with more diverse populations as the first to vote, to get a better sense of the temperature of the general electorate. Plus, why is the story that Bernie won NH? Buttigieg was very close second, and he'd done well in Iowa. Same with Klobachar, a close 3rd in both. NH was practically a "gimme" for Bernie, but he didn't perform as well as he had done last time in many districts. I know NH particularly well. For example: Hanover, which is where Dartmouth College is, near my home base and is very liberal, went for Bernie last time, but Buttigieg this time. This tells me something. I think the trend is clearly moderate for Dems.

 

[Federberg]

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.

Relax Moxie. If you look carefully you’ll see my number is different from his. I’m sure that if @mrzz is reading this thread he’ll have spotted what I did. I only appeared to take his word it was subtle math humour at Cali’s expense

 

[Federberg]

Relax Moxie. If you look carefully you’ll see my number is different from his. I’m sure that if @mrzz is reading this thread he’ll have spotted what I did. I only appeared to take his word it was subtle math humour at Cali’s expense

The joke might actually be on myself by the way. Looking at Cali’s post I assumed that his number convention “1,1024” was an error. We write 1/1024. Guess that’s how you do it on your side of the water

 

[britbox]

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.

The Dems don't care about backgrounds? Since when? For somebody who trots out the "male white privilege" stuff on a regular basis, you're not selling this "Who cares?" argument very well. Not well at all.

If nobody cares about Warren's "native heritage" other than Trump supporters, why did she feel it necessary to apologize to the Native Americans last year and remove those DNA tweets?

"People on my side of the aisle" and "Conservatives abroad" is quite funny. It shows the level of ignorant tribalism on show here. I've already suggested that my favoured candidate is actually a black female Democrat candidate... just not your "type of democrat" I guess... and I voted Labor in the last state elections here in Australia... (although admittedly Libs (Conservative) at Federal level).

Given a choice of Gabbard v Trump... I'd prefer Gabbard. Give me a choice between Trump and Warren... I'd vote Trump. Not everybody shares your (quite dull) binary world view where they support a political party like a football team.

...and just to add Nancy Pelosi was an utter disgrace at that State of Union address.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I have to say that this seems an extreme take on it. You keep insisting that "it" doesn't care about the individual, whereas I think the basic philosophy is to dig deeper into the individual, and not just a general minority. I think the exclusion of white hetero males in terms of certain discussions is that they/you are not relevant. I don't think that's an unfair point. Sometimes inter-minority discussions need to happen without the white male intervention. Why not accept with a certain grace that you're not relevant to every conversation? I don't see where content of character is excluded, or competency. You conflate discussion with victimhood, and I think that's not wholly fair.

I want you to name one serious subject that requires people to debate and discuss in depth that would be better off by rejecting opinions and ideas from a certain race or gender.

 

[Moxie]

The Dems don't care about backgrounds? Since when? For somebody who trots out the "male white privilege" stuff on a regular basis, you're not selling this "Who cares?" argument very well. Not well at all.

If nobody cares about Warren's "native heritage" other than Trump supporters, why did she feel it necessary to apologize to the Native Americans last year and remove those DNA tweets?

"People on my side of the aisle" and "Conservatives abroad" is quite funny. It shows the level of ignorant tribalism on show here. I've already suggested that my favoured candidate is actually a black female Democrat candidate... just not your "type of democrat" I guess... and I voted Labor in the last state elections here in Australia... (although admittedly Libs (Conservative) at Federal level).

Given a choice of Gabbard v Trump... I'd prefer Gabbard. Give me a choice between Trump and Warren... I'd vote Trump. Not everybody shares your (quite dull) binary world view where they support a political party like a football team.

...and just to add Nancy Pelosi was an utter disgrace at that State of Union address.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I meant that the Warren business is over for democrats, as far as I can tell. She apologized for her cultural insensitivity (not for lying, which she didn't do,) and we moved on. So let it go.

Did you say you were a Kamala Harris man? I don't remember, but fine. I'm sorry she dropped out...she was top of my list for a time.

 

[calitennis127]

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.

Britbox, you are being too kind to Warren (and Moxie). Warren's public lying does not stop with her fraudulent Native American claims. She even lied about being sexually harassed by a polio victim.

 

[calitennis127]

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.

Yes, because you assume the moral superiority of your own side and repeatedly brush aside the most blatant examples of corruption and fraud when committed by Democrats. Elizabeth Warren can lie about being Native American and have women of color resign from her campaign over charges of racism. Hillary Clinton can destroy 13 cell phones and delete 30,000 emails in the midst of a federal investigation. A Democratic FBI agent can alter an email to help secure a FISA warrant on Carter Page. Adam Schiff can obtain the phone records of his political opponents and lie on national TV about whether his staff had contact with the so-called "whistleblower." Joe Biden can shake down Ukraine so that his son's personal enrichment remains unaffected.

As a Democrat, you can do all these things and more, and in Moxie's words, "it really doesn't come up." Why? Because everything is about professing allegiance to the LGBT social agenda and its church, the Democratic Party. As long as you do that, you can get away with murder.

 

[calitennis127]

Yeah, Moxie, she didn't lie about being Native American. Sure. Lol. Read the bottom left-hand corner of the registration card. What an upstanding person she is:

×

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Yeah, Moxie, she didn't lie about being Native American. Sure. Lol. Read the bottom left-hand corner of the registration card. What an upstanding person she is:

×

Don't be too harsh on Warren Cali, maybe she meant she was from New Delhi or something

 

[britbox]

Britbox, you are being too kind to Warren (and Moxie). Warren's public lying does not stop with her fraudulent Native American claims. She even lied about being sexually harassed by a polio victim.

Just reading about that now. Sounds like a bit of #MeToo fraud for political advantage.

 

[britbox]

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I meant that the Warren business is over for democrats, as far as I can tell. She apologized for her cultural insensitivity (not for lying, which she didn't do,) and we moved on. So let it go.

Did you say you were a Kamala Harris man? I don't remember, but fine. I'm sorry she dropped out...she was top of my list for a time.

She wasn't on my radar. Maybe @Federberg talked about her a bit.

 

[Moxie]

She wasn't on my radar. Maybe @Federberg talked about her a bit.

Sorry...you said that your preferred Democratic candidate was a black female. The one on offer was Kamala Harris, so I thought you were being specific, not generic. It's a shame she dropped out...she'd have been tough on the incumbent. I think you'd have liked her. I'm also sorry that Corey Booker dropped out. Two charismatic candidates who couldn't get traction/funding enough to stay in, while billionaires can jump in or stay in, just because they can self-fund. That part gets discouraging.

 

[mrzz]

Relax Moxie. If you look carefully you’ll see my number is different from his. I’m sure that if @mrzz is reading this thread he’ll have spotted what I did. I only appeared to take his word it was subtle math humour at Cali’s expense

I am following but with very little time and disposition to post unfortunately. 1/1024 is a gross simplification yes, but bullshit is bullshit (and that is my technical opinion after reading the quoted article above).

 

[Moxie]

I want you to name one serious subject that requires people to debate and discuss in depth that would be better off by rejecting opinions and ideas from a certain race or gender.

I'm talking about academic and political discourse, which is not to say that you wouldn't be invited to the table at the pub. Everyone has the right to opine on whatever. But sometimes a minority group wants to nut a few differences out, amongst themselves. The notion of "Intersectional" does come from the feminist movement, and being a woman is the only minority group I can claim to be part of. I have said here that sometimes these squabbles can be less than productive, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't be hashed out. An example of this is the gay community accusing Mayor Pete of not being "gay" enough. Yes, some of these things can be detrimental to the greater good of the "group." What I don't understand is why it bothers you so much, when it has nothing to do with you.

 

[Moxie]

The joke might actually be on myself by the way. Looking at Cali’s post I assumed that his number convention “1,1024” was an error. We write 1/1024. Guess that’s how you do it on your side of the water

It was an error. We write it as you do, but it was easily understood, particularly when you corrected it, which is why it seemed you were sneering, not merely making a joke. I did respond to more interesting parts of the conversation, which you haven't yet reacted to. Hopefully you will. It does get discouraging to make the effort, when you pick the lowest hanging fruit, and then all I get is a "Relax, Moxie."