Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011121314 LastLast
Results 301 to 330 of 413

Thread: Democrat 2020

  1. #301
    Ja mata, TosaInu Forum Administrator edyzmedieval's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Fortress of the Mountains
    Posts
    10,829

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    At this point, seriously, old political actors should stop going in the limelight because they only cause significant problems.
    Last edited by edyzmedieval; 01-22-2020 at 23:38.
    Ja mata, TosaInu. You will forever be remembered.

    Proud

    Been to: :

    Swords Made of Letters - 1938. The war is looming - and Alexandre Reythier does not have much time left to protect his country.

  2. #302
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,364

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by edyzmedieval View Post
    At this point, seriously, old political actors should stop going in the limelight because they only cause significant problems.
    None of the young political actors are up to it.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  3. #303

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    I don't believe that was his point. I suspect he would agree with you (as do I) that personal behavior which attempts to empathize with an 'other' and which personally acknowledges the possibility of missteps and owning up to same and seeking means of redress would be and is a good thing.

    I believe his point was to express frustration on the "trap" of guilt that was counted against you despite having no active choice or behavior that generated that guilt. He and I are "white." So, in the eyes of quite a few folks, he and I are inherently guilty of the "sins" of privilege and advantage that the concatenations of history begat. I further believe that he, as I, believe that we should be judged on our behavior and utterances and that it is as patently silly to guilt-trip me (us) for being "white" as it would be to presume inferiority for someone who is "black" or "brown" or "yellow."
    Unfortunately, I would say that this is a pernicious strawman of white/conservative grievance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    I would take the point further - I was born white because my parents are white - in and of itself my "whiteness" is inconsequential to my character, as is my maleness. It is an inescapable fact that in a majority-white country I benefit from being part of the majority, but I reject any suggestion this is a "privilege" because that suggests I was given something I don't deserve.
    Then substitute a different word for the concept.

    To extend this and suggest my whiteness" makes me inherently less empathetic, less able to understand prejudice and suffering isn't really any different from suggesting, for example, that "Negros" are physiologically incapable of being fighter pilots.
    First of all, as your application of "physiological" entails it is entirely - profoundly - different. Second of all, you don't seem to understand what is meant by "privilege." Group membership and socialization makes one, among other things, more immediately empathetic to the ingroup and less to the outgroup. This takes work and life experience to mitigate. You sound like you want to deny this out of arrogance. You don't know everything bud.

    What makes this doubly disturbing is that if you look carefully you can see it's the white elite really pressing this agenda - which is my point about it being a stick to beat the white working class with.
    This could be right in the sense that white people are the majority and so will continue to be most numerous in such spaces. I suspect this is not the sense in which you make the claim, which is unfortunate to say the least.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 01-23-2020 at 06:25.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  4. #304
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,049

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Unfortunately, I would say that this is a pernicious strawman of white/conservative grievance.
    Which statement does suggest that I am truly damned in the offing for having chosen the wrong parents. Any argument I might proffer is not simply incorrect, but inherently valueless.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  5. #305
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,364

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    Which statement does suggest that I am truly damned in the offing for having chosen the wrong parents. Any argument I might proffer is not simply incorrect, but inherently valueless.
    The word "pernicious" implies malice, so your argument is not only valueless, it's made disingenuously.

    Note also that the burden of understanding is entirely on the white man, and it is (of course) the man.

    Note, finally, the attempt to redefine language in such a way as to make the counter-argument invalid.

    About a hundred years ago white people were telling Africans and Indians to sit down, shut up, and be grateful for the education. It seems some have transferred that unfortunate trait of the enlightenment over to lecturing other white people - especially the disadvantaged ones.

    A lot of people, mostly not white men, have been getting rather het up about the treatment of the Duchess of Sussex - which has been abominable - and more than a few (including the Ducal couple) have been calling it racism. I don't think that's true, I think anyone who saw the articles shaming the Duchess of Cambridge for being "too thin" after her marriage and unable to "produce an heir" were just as bad as anything her sister in law has endured. Coverage of women, especially aristocracy, tends to be chauvinistic. It doesn't need to be racist.

    ANYWAY - Lawrence Fox, a white actor, got into an argument with a coloured academic on Question time over this. Here's an unfavourable article:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a9294236.html

    Watch the clip - he eventually gets fed up and calls her racist for describing him as a "white privileged male". Listen to the audience - the groans - when she says it.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  6. #306

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    From the recent long Sanders interview with the NYT (they've released them this month, done with all or almost all the candidates I believe).
    This exchange is highly relatable from Sanders on a personal level, but I know it's not optimal.

    BStaples: One last thing from me, what is it — this calls for you to be a little self-critical. What are you likely to fail at or to do poorly as president?

    Sanders: Look, I don’t tolerate bullshit terribly well, and I come from a different background than a lot of other people who run the country. I’m not good at backslapping. I’m not good at pleasantries. If you have your birthday, I’m not going to call you up to congratulate you, so you’ll love me and you’ll write nice things about me. That’s not what I do. Never have. I take that as a little bit of a criticism, self-criticism. I have been amazed at how many people respond to, “Happy Birthday!” “Oh Bernie, thanks so much for calling.” It works. It’s just not my style. I try to stay focused on the important issues facing working families in this country, and I fight for them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    Which statement does suggest that I am truly damned in the offing for having chosen the wrong parents. Any argument I might proffer is not simply incorrect, but inherently valueless.
    Conservative victim culture gone mad!

    A responsibility for noticing basic facts of social relations does not damn you or inherently devalue your opinions. You're an educated person. Don't beat this obviously misguided drum, it's for people who are trying to excuse themselves of something.

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    The word "pernicious" implies malice, so your argument is not only valueless, it's made disingenuously.
    Quote Originally Posted by pernicious
    having a harmful effect, especially in a gradual or subtle way.
    You specifically should avoid making disingenuous comments in the most blatant possible manner.

    Note also that the burden of understanding is entirely on the white man, and it is (of course) the man.
    And? Why is this inappropriate?

    Note, finally, the attempt to redefine language in such a way as to make the counter-argument invalid.
    Nope. You don't present an accurate or coherent description of what it is you dislike, let alone a counterargument. Of course, the attempt would be like trying to dismiss the observation of the force of gravity - while crying "I am not a crank!"

    About a hundred years ago white people were telling Africans and Indians to sit down, shut up, and be grateful for the education. It seems some have transferred that unfortunate trait of the enlightenment over to lecturing other white people - especially the disadvantaged ones.
    You are not a victim and you are not being suppressed to be told that you don't know everything there is to know about marginalized experience. This is shameful.

    A lot of people, mostly not white men, have been getting rather het up about the treatment of the Duchess of Sussex - which has been abominable - and more than a few (including the Ducal couple) have been calling it racism. I don't think that's true, I think anyone who saw the articles shaming the Duchess of Cambridge for being "too thin" after her marriage and unable to "produce an heir" were just as bad as anything her sister in law has endured. Coverage of women, especially aristocracy, tends to be chauvinistic. It doesn't need to be racist.
    Notice how you say the coverage "doesn't need to be" racist. Which is of course inarguable, even trivial in itself. But you don't bother to evaluate, in concrete reality - that concrete reality being more relevant than hypotheticals - whether the coverage IS racist.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	xC873Y6.jpg 
Views:	11 
Size:	2.20 MB 
ID:	23250

    This gives the impression that whether or not something is in fact racist does not trouble you. So why even bring it up?
    Last edited by Montmorency; 01-25-2020 at 00:36.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  7. #307
    Hǫršar Member Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hordaland, Norway
    Posts
    6,352

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurando View Post
    To me it makes more sense to follow the vegas odds than the political polls. Politics is muddled, but money is just money. The people making the betting odds know exactly what they are doing, and they have no agenda other than to be as accurate as possible.

    Odds after debate have not been posted yet. Recent odds have Saunders and Biden neck & neck for the nomination with everyone else a distant second.
    The efficient markets hypothesis.
    Runes for good luck:

    [1 - exp(i*2π)]^-1

  8. #308
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,364

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    https://www.lexico.com/definition/pernicious

    Pernicious:

    Synonyms:

    harmful, damaging, destructive, injurious, hurtful, detrimental, deleterious, dangerous, adverse, inimical, unhealthy, unfavourable, bad, evil, baleful, wicked, malign, malevolent, malignant, noxious, poisonous, cancerous, corrupting, ruinous, deadly, lethal, fatal

    So, as we can all see - to describe something as "pernicious" is to imply there is malicious intent - because words do not exist in isolation, they are a negotiation between their own meaning and their surrounding synonyms.

    Oh, and here's an article obsessing over the Duchess of Cambridge's weight from last year: https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertain...er-build.html/

    Here's a couple from 2012, attacking her for being too thin to act as a brood-mare:

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-...weight-1699139 ; https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ting-thin.html

    Sure, sure, the press is only nasty to the Duchess of Sussex.

    All of this dovetails rather nicely into my opinion of the candidates back in the primaries.

    Overall, the field looks week from here, the serious candidates are too old - older than Trump - and the candidates not too old are also not serious enough. Warren is the only one of the candidates polling well right now who is younger than Trump and she's tainted by her past presentation of herself as Native American. In my judgement, and I may be wrong here, the mass of the American electorate will not look kindly on that, and I suspect many democrats also will not look kindly on it. I think Bernie or Biden could have beaten Trump last time but realistically Bernie's heart attack raises the real prospect he might die on the campaign trail whilst Biden's refusal to admit he still has a speech impediment coupled with his age makes him look senile. Bloomberg looks like the most virile of the three men but he entered the race so late he doesn't really have a lot of momentum.

    Historically the US has tended very strongly to elect older Germanic or Anglo-Saxon Protestant men from the upper middle class. Kennedy bucked the trend being both Irish and Catholic which Obama bucked it by having a Kenyan father and one should not underestimate how different this is to being a 'normal' African American when it comes to how he is 'read' by other people. So we also have to consider that Warren would be the first woman elected President and Bernie would be the first non-Christian, and both are from what America considers the hard Left. Generally speaking people tend to pick their first "unconventional" leaders from the Centre or the Right, unless they overthrow the Government in a revolution.

    My read on the current field is that Biden has the best chance of beating Trump, but he needs a younger running mate, but not too young, someone who can take over if he dies or has a stroke but doesn't make him look too worn out. Sanders increasing age, his health problems, and his political stances make him unlikely to beat Trump and that goes double for Warren. Whilst a disruptive Left-Wing candidate could have beaten Trump four year ago Trump is now dug in in the White House, he's the status quo, not the Right-Wing upset, so it will probably require a centrist with strong executive experience (which means Biden or Bloomberg) to unseat him.

    Poll tracker here bears out what I was saying a week or so ago: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...tion-6730.html

    Biden is kinda flat, Warren and Sanders continue to leach each other (Sanders currently winning) and everyone else is an also-ran. The only thing that might upset this is if Bloomberg continues that upward trend. if he starts to pick up momentum and leaches Sanders and warren then when he drops out (as I expect he will) those votes will go to Biden. Given the acrimony between Sanders and Warren and the relatively clsoe margins I suspect they may both go to the convention and end up in a mutual suicide pact.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  9. #309

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    So, as we can all see - to describe something as "pernicious" is to imply there is malicious intent - because words do not exist in isolation, they are a negotiation between their own meaning and their surrounding synonyms.
    No, that is not how words work. They are not quantum superpositions. And unfortunately for you, I never said anything about intent. I do wonder about yours.

    Sure, sure, the press is only nasty to the Duchess of Sussex.
    No one claimed the press was not nasty to Middleton. But you knew that.

    We can do this for a long time.

    Overall, the field looks week from here, the serious candidates are too old - older than Trump - and the candidates not too old are also not serious enough. Warren is the only one of the candidates polling well right now who is younger than Trump and she's tainted by her past presentation of herself as Native American. In my judgement, and I may be wrong here, the mass of the American electorate will not look kindly on that, and I suspect many democrats also will not look kindly on it.
    It is a fact that as of now we know that Democrats do not give a crap about that, perhaps because they are not like you in important respects. That is why Warren's favorability has been so good, and increasingly so this year (up to the Medicare funding-related media attacks in October and November). She is tied for top favorability with Sanders and Biden (who has only lost favorability over time). Why do you care so little about evidence? The world is not to be abstracted and hypostatized so you can explore the minutiae of fairy tales.

    As for Warren's electoral prospects, Sanders is currently polling at the top of NH and is far enough along to be considered tied with Biden in Iowa. We will discuss this more in a few days, but unless someone (Warren, Buttigieg) surges well enough to outperform in Iowa then it's a Biden-Sanders race from here on out. That's all that can be said.

    Critically, until Iowa happens realize that we don't know what the outcome (of Iowa) will be. Treat it as a four-way tie for now - all campaigns are surging into Iowa during this final week to secure a fresh advantage, which could make current figures obsolete in short order. (Also keep in mind that - if you didn't know already - Democratic primaries operate according to a specific set of proportional representation formulas, so "winning" will be a matter of media perspective.)

    Sanders increasing age, his health problems, and his political stances make him unlikely to beat Trump and that goes double for Warren.
    Why? Clearly Sanders' greatest liability is his epidemiological profile indicating a very high probability of either death or infirmity within 8 years - this is part of why many prefer Warren - but health aside what's the evidence?

    Whilst a disruptive Left-Wing candidate could have beaten Trump four year ago Trump is now dug in in the White House, he's the status quo, not the Right-Wing upset
    This is Trump's race to win. The incumbency effect was a plausible worry in 2017. It's been 3 years and the record shows he is vastly unpopular, even more than 2016, and majorities report outright refusal to vote for him.

    It's not impossible to make the case that he can balance on the knife's edge once again, you would need to apply similarly fine analysis to construct it - not gut feeling.

    (I might comment later about Trump as he relates to theories of political time.)

    so it will probably require a centrist with strong executive experience (which means Biden or Bloomberg) to unseat him
    This is known as wishful thinking.

    Biden is kinda flat, Warren and Sanders continue to leach each other (Sanders currently winning) and everyone else is an also-ran. The only thing that might upset this is if Bloomberg continues that upward trend. if he starts to pick up momentum and leaches Sanders and warren then when he drops out (as I expect he will) those votes will go to Biden. Given the acrimony between Sanders and Warren and the relatively clsoe margins I suspect they may both go to the convention and end up in a mutual suicide pact.
    Biden has maintained unbroken his strong equilibrium in national polling, but he hasn't been definitively in the lead in Iowa or New Hampshire since September. The national polling is obsolete now that votes are to be held.

    I'll save you some time: there is no reason to believe that Bloomberg can be a factor after the voting begins and the race has consolidated. He is not listed on the ballots of the first four primaries. He will soon be forgotten - even if he spends half a billion on advertisements a month from now.



    Actually, I might as well use this post to lay out the major scenarios for the early primaries (i.e. the straightforward ones):

    No more verbiage is necessary to assess the current environment than has always been available. We know and have known that Biden is a clear but vulnerable frontrunner. So how can this proceed through voting?

    1. Sanders maintains a lead into Iowa and strongly outperforms Biden. Sanders is currently polling even better in New Hampshire, so if he does well in Iowa it's almost certain he will do well in New Hampshire. If he outperforms Biden and all others in NH, his strong polling in Nevada suggests he will almost certainly pull off the same there. If Sanders can demonstrate a sweep of the first three, then even South Carolina is at risk for Biden. If Sanders can outperform Biden even here then he goes into Super Tuesday as a frontrunner and has fairly good odds of winning the nomination.
    2. Biden just continually pulls off pluralities through Super Tuesday and maintains enough momentum to outlast Sanders (always the last competitor standing) for a boring but clear victory - similar to Clinton's.

    There are other scenarios of course. Those involve varying spoiler performances by Warren or Buttigieg or anyone else, or they involve close races in the early primaries such that multiple candidates can be slugging it out for even a plurality even well into March or April.

    One way or another I'd prefer the ultimate result to be clear sooner rather than later.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 01-26-2020 at 02:09.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  10. #310
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,364

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Monty, until you apologise for impinging my character this will be the last time I ever respond to you - there is no point us conversing if you believe I am a liar and fraud.

    Let me just say two things though:

    1. That's exactly how words work, especially in English. George Orwell wrote a whole book about how you can control people by stripping the English language down to the minimum number of "useful" words. I suggest you read it, it's very prescient today.

    That's the last response you're ever getting from me. Further attempts to engage me publicly, unless they are to apologise, will be treated as harassment and reported accordingly. Any attempting to engage me privately will be stated likewise, regardless of stated intent.

    Edit: No, just one point, not being dragged back into the gutter.
    Last edited by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus; 01-26-2020 at 17:47.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  11. #311
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,364

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    The SNL spoofs of the debates are rather amusing, also illuminating in what the writers pick up on.





    Joe is creepy, Sanders is a really old man, Warren thinks she's a serious contender but isn't. Both sketches reference Warren's "unfortunate" past choices.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  12. #312

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    To address the matter obliquely, one form of disreputable conduct is to:

    Insult by speaking without an ounce of consideration.
    Deflect, deny, and distract when criticized.
    Jeeringly pantomime injury at resulting harsh receptions.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  13. #313
    Ja mata, TosaInu Forum Administrator edyzmedieval's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Fortress of the Mountains
    Posts
    10,829

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Gentlemen, this thread has come multiple times to our attention and not because of positive reasons.

    I will kindly ask you to stop any form of personal insinuations or anything that can easily be interpreted as a personal attack. Stick to the outlying matter of the debates.
    Ja mata, TosaInu. You will forever be remembered.

    Proud

    Been to: :

    Swords Made of Letters - 1938. The war is looming - and Alexandre Reythier does not have much time left to protect his country.

  14. #314

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Notes on the field: Biden is often derided for his record and centrist temperament, and candidates like Bennet and Klobuchar emphasize their bipartisan conservative bona fides, but at least nominally (i.e. by their platforms alone) a different picture emerges.

    I could be wrong, but the right flank of the 2020 Democratic field seems to be running further to the left than any Democratic nominee in 50 years (McGovern).

    If correct this observation seriously undermines certain leftist narratives about the nature of the Democratic party - though at the same time may be some vindication for some of Sanders' more controversial strategic choices.


    Now, with Sanders you need some nuance. He calls himself a socialist, and has maintained this title as a sort of brand throughout his political career, but he never speaks out against capitalism. "Unfettered" capitalism, yes. "Predatory" or "crony" capitalism yes - but never "capitalism." He has avowed in multiple speeches that he values private enterprise, does not want public ownership of the means of production, and openly idolizes FDR's ethos and his Second Bill of Rights. In the vote on the now-discredited 1994 crime bill he took an explicitly moderate stance: “So what you have is a balance here. You have more money going to law enforcement, more money going into jails. You have, on the other hand, significant sums of money going into prevention, beginning to allow us to deal with violence against women, child abuse and other very serious problems." He has a long record, going back to his mayorship, of bipartisan compromise.

    So a lot of people have complained that Sanders, by record and by rhetoric, is really just a New Deal liberal who strangely applies the word "socialist" in the same way that Republicans have for a century.

    In early 2019 when his platform - other than the well-worn ground of Medicare for All - was still thin on the ground, it was easy to think so. 'Why does Warren have a wealth tax but not Sanders? Why does Warren have a social housing plan but not Sanders?' In the second half of 2019 however this changed as Sanders began to unveil a comprehensive platform. This included national rent control, the biggest climate plan likely ever proposed worldwide by a mainstream politician (including outright nationalization of power generation), a bigger and better wealth tax, and an employee ownership plan more radical than Jeremy Corbyn's. At that point you can say, 'Oh. OK. I guess maybe he's still a true-blue socialist after all.'

    For this I think we can credit Elizabeth Warren. By staking out some left-wing policy territory in preemption of Sanders, she pulled his posture left - and her emphasis on detailed plans drove almost all contenders, including Sanders, to pursue the same detail and comprehensiveness for themselves. (Which makes some of the narcissism of irrelevant differences displayed by Sanders fanatics toward Warren pretty misguided to put it kindly.)

    All in all, the center of the Democratic coalition has clearly moved left since 2016 and this should be encouraging even to critics of electoral politics and the "Establishment"*.

    *Bernie Sanders is on the Senate Democratic leadership committee, making him literally an establishment Democrat. The outsider narrative was always such annoying tripe when applied to a lifelong politician.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 01-27-2020 at 18:12.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  15. #315
    Ni dieu ni maītre! Senior Member a completely inoffensive name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    I live on the org, feeding off of what few thanks are tossed at my posts. It is up to you to make sure I don't starve.
    Posts
    8,438
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    I would take the point further - I was born white because my parents are white - in and of itself my "whiteness" is inconsequential to my character, as is my maleness. It is an inescapable fact that in a majority-white country I benefit from being part of the majority, but I reject any suggestion this is a "privilege" because that suggests I was given something I don't deserve. To extend this and suggest my whiteness" makes me inherently less empathetic, less able to understand prejudice and suffering isn't really any different from suggesting, for example, that "Negros" are physiologically incapable of being fighter pilots.
    I get benefits from my whiteness, but it has no impact on how that has shaped me.
    But also these benefits are deserved, even though it is inconsequential to my character and was assigned to me randomly.

    If I can take you at face value, than you simultaneously understand those who don't share the white benefits and yet you justify keeping society structured to keep said benefits.

    I'm with Monty, it seems that you fully understand the racist implications of modern conservatism but you understand that to acknowledge that reality is a threat to your socio-economic status.
    In all these papers we see a love of honest work, an aversion to shams, a caution in the enunciation of conclusions, a distrust of rash generalizations and speculations based on uncertain premises. He was never anxious to add one more guess on doubtful matters in the hope of hitting the truth, or what might pass as such for a time, but was always ready to take infinite pains in the most careful testing of every theory. With these qualities was united a modesty which forbade the pushing of his own claims and desired no reputation except the unsought tribute of competent judges.

  16. #316
    Hǫršar Member Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hordaland, Norway
    Posts
    6,352

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    I'm with Monty, it seems that you fully understand the racist implications of modern conservatism but you understand that to acknowledge that reality is a threat to your socio-economic status.
    I am not sure what PFH's position is, so I cannot comment on that.

    A general observation I want to make is that the link between the existence of a disprivileged group and any benefits the individuals that do not belong to this group may receive is non-trivial.

    If you pick a random individual from the group that is not disprivileged, there is no guarantee that this person in sum would be worse off if the disprivileged group either disappeared or had never existed in the first place.

    Compared to such scenarios, some non-disprivileged individuals could be better off, but others could potentially be worse off. As an example, the latter could happen if the disprivileged group was a great source of anti-social behaviour and the least wealthy members of the non-disprivileged group simultaneously had a much greater exposure to the consequences of this behaviour compared to the rest of their group. Given the complexity of societies, it is also difficult to exclude the possibility that certain individuals with other levels of income would be better off without the disprivileged group.

    The status for the majority of the non-disprivileged group could be more or less unchanged, particularly if the disprivileged group is small by some measure.
    Last edited by Viking; 02-01-2020 at 17:40.
    Runes for good luck:

    [1 - exp(i*2π)]^-1

  17. #317
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,364

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    I get benefits from my whiteness, but it has no impact on how that has shaped me.
    But also these benefits are deserved, even though it is inconsequential to my character and was assigned to me randomly.

    If I can take you at face value, than you simultaneously understand those who don't share the white benefits and yet you justify keeping society structured to keep said benefits.

    I'm with Monty, it seems that you fully understand the racist implications of modern conservatism but you understand that to acknowledge that reality is a threat to your socio-economic status.
    You're falling into the same trap of reading things that aren't there.

    All I said was that my fact of being white is not, in itself, a privilege, and that simply because I am white and (much more importantly) from a stable and well-adjusted family does not mean I am incapable of understanding the plight of those less fortunate than I.
    You could, if you wish, describe me as "lucky" but again this isn't something I need to feel bad about and it doesn't necessarily blind me to those less fortunate than myself.

    You also have to bear in mind that the modern rhetoric on race is highly American-centric and cannot actually be applied consistently across Europe. For example, I grew up in a part of England that was statically almost 100% white - out of thousands of people there might be ten who were not white. As such non-whites do not form an "outgroup" in the society I grew up in because there aren't enough of them to be a group. From this is followed that being white was not anywhere near as useful as being local. The out-group in this society were the non-locals and not the non-whites (some of whom were local). Now, If I (say) go to New York or even London then the import of my "whiteness" changes, at that point it matters less that I'm local and more that I'm white, and well dressed. The thing is, none of this is anything to do with me - really - it's not something I really control it's just how other people apply their prejudices to me.

    So, you see, I reject the paradigm that says I have "white privilege" and I am completely unburdened by "white guilt" - though I do have a certain amount of "middle class guilt".

    To suggest from that that I "fully understand the racist implications of modern conservatism but [I] understand that to acknowledge that reality is a threat to [my] socio-economic status." is to completely misunderstand my point. You're also making assumptions about my "socio-economic status". What do you imagine that is, exactly? Nice house in the suburbs? I rent a room in a house-share, at 33, because I can't make anything like enough money to get a deposit even on my own flat. Hell, I can't even afford to save for my pension.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  18. #318
    Member Member Greyblades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,300
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Sins of the father combined with racism. Thank god, the heyday of such thinking is ending. We can confine it to history alongside phrenology and all the other flavour of the day insanity. Looked back on as a passing trend to be quietly embarrassed about.

    Or we could, if it wasnt one of the motivators behind the uk police not investigating the pakistani rape gangs that targeted white and sikh girls throughout the last 20 years.

    So no, no sinking into quiet embarrassment, not for this one. Hurry up and die on Trump's hill, irrelevance cannot come fast enough.
    Last edited by Greyblades; 02-02-2020 at 22:41.
    Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    Don't be scared that you don't freak out. Be scared when you don't care about freaking out
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  19. #319

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Let's talk about the Democratic primaries and some useful info for following along.

    Sanders is tied with Biden in the Iowa polls last we know. However, to avoid being blindsided, treat this as a 4-way tie. Anything can happen really.

    After that are New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. Then Super Tuesday.

    How All the Primaries Are Structured

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ary-delegates/

    Why is so much attention given to early primaries, despite the low proportion of delegates? Because we expect (though sometimes overmuch) candidates who do best to pick up momentum going into Super Tuesday, 1 month after Iowa, at which 1/3 of all pledged delegates in the race will be assigned. But here is the point at which we have to introduce the delegate math. At the Democratic National Convention in July, candidates will win in the first round if they can gain a majority of pledged delegates over the course of the primaries. Candidates who drop out can award any delegates to other candidates. If the first round fails to deliver a winner, the second round introduces the unpledged superdelegates. We will set those aside for now and put stock in the appearance of a clear winner by the first round.

    For some this is a reminder, but others may be surprised to learn that that for many years now the Democratic primaries (as opposed to Republican) have been allocating delegates according to proportional representation. This year the threshold is uniform for all states at 15%. A complication is that 35% of pledged delegates are awarded according to a state's total vote, while 65% are awarded according to district/county vote - which of course can fluctuate below or above a candidate's state vote, above or below the threshold.

    Moreover, some states have been apportioned bonus delegates according to their position in the schedule (later primaries get bigger bonuses).

    https://www.270towin.com/content/202...ate-allocation

    The Democratic Party uses bonus delegates to reward any location* that schedules its nominating contest later in the calendar. A 10% bonus goes to states that will hold their contest in April, 2020, with 20% awarded to those that wait until May or June. Separately, states that hold their primary after March 24th can get a 15% bonus for participating in a 'regional cluster' - basically holding their event on the same date as at least two neighboring states (as defined by the party rules).

    Although the effect is not huge, because the whole calendar has been moved up so much this year. The majority of pledged delegates will have been awarded shortly after Super Tuesday in March.

    As a result of the bonus delegates, the total number of pledged delegates is increasing to 3,979 from 3,768. This increases the 'magic number' to win on the first ballot from 1,885 to 1,990. Adding 766 superdelegates brings the total to 4,745, a majority of which is 2,373.

    This is all a long-winded way of observing that we don't really know how momentum will affect candidates. Proportional representation in abstract minimizes the applicability of the concept somewhat, and the field is very different than in 2016. You could argue for a number of plausible effects in either direction. The most likely favorable scenario for progressives as of now is that Sanders does well in Iowa, sweeps New Hampshire and Nevada (where he's currently #1 anyway), at least ties Biden in South Carolina, beats him on Super Tuesday, and maintains a comfortable margin through the rest of the primaries. But maybe Sanders or Warren sweep the early primary but can never close the gap with a strong and stable Biden. Who knows. We won't know for sure for a long time yet. Conversely, if Biden sweeps the early primaries then he's probably going to coast to victory and what follows will be a grueling wait for the final stretch general election to begin...

    The bottom line is, winning in early states will be irrelevant if Sanders or Warren cannot achieve a higher long-term average than Biden. I repeat, a Democratic candidate must gain a higher long-term average (accounting for transferred delegates) than Joe Biden or they cannot win.

    The Iowa Primary

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...caucuses-work/

    So what's happening tomorrow (or today for Europeans at the time of posting) in Iowa? The Iowa primary is actually a caucus (which should be abolished), and what we need to know about that in terms of the contest is that there are two rounds of voting. In a given caucus site everyone physically aggregates with copartisans in a nonsecret ballot to calculate their candidates vote in the first round. If the candidate's vote exceeds the 15% threshold, those votes are locked. Those who have voted for a candidate below the threshold can now add their votes to a viable candidate, or they can persuade other non-viable voters to join them in order to push their candidate over the threshold. In a four-way race (actually Klobuchar has been getting momentum lately, so five-way provisionally) there could be an especially strong tendency for a second-round realignment to occur in many locations.

    The votes in caucus sites are added together to get the individual district votes, whence delegates are awarded per the earlier description (65%), and the district votes add to the statewide vote, whence delegates are awarded as well (35%). The large number of candidates reaching double digits, as well as the caucus features, are what make the final outcome of Iowa so unpredictable. Traditionally, Iowa has delivered at least one surprise per cycle.




    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    I am not sure what PFH's position is, so I cannot comment on that.

    A general observation I want to make is that the link between the existence of a disprivileged group and any benefits the individuals that do not belong to this group may receive is non-trivial.

    If you pick a random individual from the group that is not disprivileged, there is no guarantee that this person in sum would be worse off if the disprivileged group either disappeared or had never existed in the first place.

    Compared to such scenarios, some non-disprivileged individuals could be better off, but others could potentially be worse off. As an example, the latter could happen if the disprivileged group was a great source of anti-social behaviour and the least wealthy members of the non-disprivileged group simultaneously had a much greater exposure to the consequences of this behaviour compared to the rest of their group. Given the complexity of societies, it is also difficult to exclude the possibility that certain individuals with other levels of income would be better off without the disprivileged group.

    The status for the majority of the non-disprivileged group could be more or less unchanged, particularly if the disprivileged group is small by some measure.
    Don't wax wistful about the liquidation of undesirables.

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    All I said was that my fact of being white is not, in itself, a privilege
    It is, in itself, a privilege - or if a different label is preferred, a demographic dividend. The dividend metaphor works well in capturing the essence of the concept in my opinion.

    and that simply because I am white and (much more importantly) from a stable and well-adjusted family does not mean I am incapable of understanding the plight of those less fortunate than I.
    One is not incapable of understanding other perspectives. But one has to put in the effort. Understanding is not an automatic property to be linearly correlated with self-regard.

    You could, if you wish, describe me as "lucky" but again this isn't something I need to feel bad about and it doesn't necessarily blind me to those less fortunate than myself.
    It confers responsibilities.

    You also have to bear in mind that the modern rhetoric on race is highly American-centric and cannot actually be applied consistently across Europe.
    At least Americans have been confronted by the issue of race over generations. Don't be like the Euroweenies prevalent in Youtube comments who gloat over "not having race issues like America" despite being at least as racist as we are.

    As such non-whites do not form an "outgroup" in the society I grew up in because there aren't enough of them to be a group.
    You didn't grow up around Medieval peasants; English countryfolk have a concept of black and brown others, and this status can be realized in any individual contact. Localness would be one more dimension.

    The thing is, none of this is anything to do with me - really - it's not something I really control it's just how other people apply their prejudices to me.
    Certainly - we're describing a social phenomenon. But as a member of society, you too have been exposed to prevalent modes of thinking. There is an impulse to think of oneself as a special case in all sorts of matters, but it is usually fallacious.

    So, you see, I reject the paradigm that says I have "white privilege" and I am completely unburdened by "white guilt" - though I do have a certain amount of "middle class guilt".
    Privilege has nothing to do with guilt.

    I rent a room in a house-share, at 33, because I can't make anything like enough money to get a deposit even on my own flat. Hell, I can't even afford to save for my pension.
    At least you're a white guy.


    Irony: Today's Superbowl is Chiefs vs. 49ers (the 49ers legally enslaved and massacred the "Chiefs"). From what I hear the Chiefs won (in the Superbowl, not in history), though don't allow yourself any symbolic transference.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 02-03-2020 at 05:25.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  20. #320
    Member Member Greyblades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,300
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Elizabeth Warren proposes criminal penalties for spreading voting disinformation online

    The woman who pretended to be a chereokee for the better part of half a century wants to set up the ministry of truth.
    Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    Don't be scared that you don't freak out. Be scared when you don't care about freaking out
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  21. #321

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Wrong and wrong.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  22. #322
    Member Member Greyblades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,300
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Wrong and wrong, to you.

    She's claimed native american decent in legal documents starting in the 1980's and she maintained the pretence 30 odd years, the story she spun was of a parent having cherokee and delaware blood, all evidence is to the contrary.

    To enforce such criminal penalties you would need a legal arbiter of what does and does not count as disinformation: that is what a ministry of truth is. Unless you are proposing she's so dumb as to think it could be done otherwise.
    Last edited by Greyblades; 02-03-2020 at 10:08.
    Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    Don't be scared that you don't freak out. Be scared when you don't care about freaking out
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  23. #323
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,364

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
    Wrong and wrong, to you.

    She's claimed native american decent in legal documents starting in the 1980's and she maintained the pretence 30 odd years, the story she spun was of a parent having cherokee and delaware blood, all evidence is to the contrary.

    To enforce such criminal penalties you would need a legal arbiter of what does and does not count as disinformation: that is what a ministry of truth is. Unless you are proposing she's so dumb as to think it could be done otherwise.
    This is Warren's millstone - it doesn't really matter it it was naive wistfulness or a cynical attempt to "cash in" or "pander" because the fact is she did it, and she's possibly whiter than I am.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  24. #324
    Hǫršar Member Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hordaland, Norway
    Posts
    6,352

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Don't wax wistful about the liquidation of undesirables.
    Read that post again. With the mind of a scientist, not that of a partisan.
    Runes for good luck:

    [1 - exp(i*2π)]^-1

  25. #325

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
    Wrong and wrong, to you.

    She's claimed native american decent in legal documents starting in the 1980's and she maintained the pretence 30 odd years, the story she spun was of a parent having cherokee and delaware blood, all evidence is to the contrary.

    To enforce such criminal penalties you would need a legal arbiter of what does and does not count as disinformation: that is what a ministry of truth is. Unless you are proposing she's so dumb as to think it could be done otherwise.
    If I'm telling you you're categorically wrong, you should take the clue and look into it for yourself. It's not even a lot of work I'm asking for.

    She did not "pretend" anything, as we have already covered here.

    If you would read your CNBC article on Warren's plan against digital disinformation - or even just read the headline - you would have found that proposed penalties pertain to voting information, which is currently 100% set and established by the government and no one else. As is done (I assume) everywhere else, voting is publicly administered, i.e. ministered by 'Ministries of Ministration' (I could forgive you if you assumed otherwise for the case of the United States). Follow the link to the Warren campaign's own release for more:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    GOVERNMENT ACTIONS TO ADDRESS DISINFORMATION
    In addition to the steps that campaigns and the tech companies can take by themselves, I will take a series of actions as president to further address the spread of disinformation:

    Push to create civil and criminal penalties for knowingly disseminating false information about when and how to vote in U.S. elections: Voter suppression efforts of any kind offend basic American values. In both the 2016 and 2018 elections, online disinformation sought to depress voter turnout by telling people they could vote via text, giving people the wrong date for election day, and more. I will push for new laws that impose tough civil and criminal penalties for knowingly disseminating this kind of information, which has the explicit purpose of undermining the basic right to vote.

    Reinstate the position of cybersecurity coordinator at the National Security Council: The Trump Administration eliminated this critical position, weakening our defenses against cybersecurity threats and disinformation. As president, I will reinstate the position and empower the coordinator so that our country is safe.

    Convene a summit of countries to enhance information sharing and coordinate policy responses to disinformation: Countries around the world are struggling to address disinformation -- and certain governmental and non-governmental actors are targeting multiple countries. As president, I will push to convene a summit of countries dedicated to addressing this problem so that they can share information and coordinate responses to disinformation.

    Establish rules around information and data sharing to ensure that platforms can share with each other and with the government while respecting individuals’ privacy: Both the government and major tech companies have access to information that can be helpful in identifying sources of disinformation. My administration will encourage robust data sharing between tech companies and between those companies and the government so that disinformation can be quickly identified and addressed -- while at the same time crafting those rules so that both the government and tech companies respect individual privacy. I will also push to institute a standard for public disclosure when the government identifies accounts conducting foreign interference so that Americans who have interacted with those accounts are notified.

    Consider additional sanctions against countries that engage in election interference through disinformation: In the case of Russian interference, this would include sanctions for financial institutions that supported interference, Russia’s cyber sector, and people in Vladimir Putin’s orbit who supported and facilitated interference.


    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    This is Warren's millstone - it doesn't really matter it it was naive wistfulness or a cynical attempt to "cash in" or "pander" because the fact is she did it, and she's possibly whiter than I am.
    While I'm not sure what it would mean for someone to be whiter than you (skin tone?), it is perfectly plausible that 'lying socialist Pocahontas' could become a millstone for Warren in the general, just as 'corrupt socialist Sleepy Joe' could become a millstone for Biden, or 'Communist-Socialist Millionaire Bernie' could become a millstone for Sanders. To the extent anyone is actually swayed by the smears at what point do we hold those stupid and malicious voters accountable for their stupidity and malice? Do they not have agency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    Read that post again. With the mind of a scientist, not that of a partisan.
    I'm not even raising your long-held perspective on the ideal world order here, just describing what you said.

    You said:

    A general observation I want to make is that the link between the existence of a disprivileged group and any benefits the individuals that do not belong to this group may receive is non-trivial.

    If you pick a random individual from the group that is not disprivileged, there is no guarantee that this person in sum would be worse off if the disprivileged group either disappeared or had never existed in the first place.

    Compared to such scenarios, some non-disprivileged individuals could be better off, but others could potentially be worse off. As an example, the latter could happen if the disprivileged group was a great source of anti-social behaviour and the least wealthy members of the non-disprivileged group simultaneously had a much greater exposure to the consequences of this behaviour compared to the rest of their group. Given the complexity of societies, it is also difficult to exclude the possibility that certain individuals with other levels of income would be better off without the disprivileged group.

    The status for the majority of the non-disprivileged group could be more or less unchanged, particularly if the disprivileged group is small by some measure.
    The "existence" of a disprivileged group is the predicate of benefits to a privileged group.

    Economically-disprivileged members of a privileged group may be worse off if they are disproportionately exposed to "antisocial behavior" from a disprivileged group.

    It is difficult to exclude the possibility that some would be better off in the case of the disprivileged group not being around (i.e. ceasing to exist in contact with the privileged group).

    If a disprivileged group is "small by some measure" then their absence (i.e. removal) would not negatively affect most members of the privileged groups.

    If this is the mind of a scientist, then it is the mind of a Mengele.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  26. #326
    Member Member Greyblades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,300
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    If I'm telling you you're categorically wrong, you should take the clue and look into it for yourself. It's not even a lot of work I'm asking for.

    She did not "pretend" anything, as we have already covered here.
    Yes she did: she listed herself on the minority law teacher list at the university of pensylvania between 1987 and 1995.

    We have her acknowledging it happened, claiming she did so "in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am."

    If you would read your CNBC article on Warren's plan against digital disinformation - or even just read the headline - you would have found that proposed penalties pertain to voting information, which is currently 100% set and established by the government and no one else. As is done (I assume) everywhere else, voting is publicly administered, i.e. ministered by 'Ministries of Ministration' (I could forgive you if you assumed otherwise for the case of the United States). Follow the link to the Warren campaign's own release for more:
    I have major issues with that part; inflicting on people the average court's inability to determine intent is cruel and unusual, but that is not what I was reffering to.

    If you had looked down two paragraphs you would have found this:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Establish rules around information and data sharing to ensure that platforms can share with each other and with the government while respecting individuals’ privacy: Both the government and major tech companies have access to information that can be helpful in identifying sources of disinformation. My administration will encourage robust data sharing between tech companies and between those companies and the government so that disinformation can be quickly identified and addressed -- while at the same time crafting those rules so that both the government and tech companies respect individual privacy. I will also push to institute a standard for public disclosure when the government identifies accounts conducting foreign interference so that Americans who have interacted with those accounts are notified.


    The platforms are being censorious enough individually, we (or at least "I") do not want a government office coordinating what gets boosted and what gets suppressed. This is an immensely dangerous proposal and should be ringing warning bells in every mind who reads it. I would like to believe most people arent stupid enough to believe only "thier guys" will ever end up in a position to use such an oppressive organ.
    Last edited by Greyblades; 02-04-2020 at 10:44.
    Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    Don't be scared that you don't freak out. Be scared when you don't care about freaking out
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  27. #327
    Ja mata, TosaInu Forum Administrator edyzmedieval's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Fortress of the Mountains
    Posts
    10,829

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    And of course, the writing was kind of the wall for this - Iowa caucus voting counts are being delayed because of improper voting delegations.
    Ja mata, TosaInu. You will forever be remembered.

    Proud

    Been to: :

    Swords Made of Letters - 1938. The war is looming - and Alexandre Reythier does not have much time left to protect his country.

  28. #328
    Member Member Greyblades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,300
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Does Iowa usually have such issues?
    Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    Don't be scared that you don't freak out. Be scared when you don't care about freaking out
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  29. #329
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,364

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
    Yes she did: she listed herself on the minority law teacher list at the university of pensylvania between 1987 and 1995.

    We have her acknowledging it happened, claiming she did so "in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am."
    What I find so bizarre about this point is the lack of self-awareness, Warren is to Anglo-Saxon she could pass for English at first glance (where most Americans don't, too pretty). Despite this her "I am", by which I mean her self-identification, is not "I am white". It is, at best, naive and it looks like wilful self-delusion. Apparently Warren used to be economically right-wing so perhaps her self-identification as "not white" was an alternative way of assuaging her middle-class guilt.

    In any case, outside the Left-Wing of the democratic party I can't see this playing well with the "average blue collar worker" whom Warren supposedly seeks to help.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  30. #330
    Member Member Greyblades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,300
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by edyzmedieval View Post
    And of course, the writing was kind of the wall for this - Iowa caucus voting counts are being delayed because of improper voting delegations.
    Took me a while to realize the connotations to that; this is going to be gasoline to the "dems rig primaries" flame should bernie lose iowa.
    Last edited by Greyblades; 02-04-2020 at 17:14.
    Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    Don't be scared that you don't freak out. Be scared when you don't care about freaking out
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011121314 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO