General politics

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

I can't get over the name. It bugs the **** out of me.

 

Call it the Green Deal.

I've been thinking about this.

 

Hell, I'd just call it The Deal. As in, "ok here's the f---ing deal..." 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I've been thinking about this.

 

Hell, I'd just call it The Deal. As in, "ok here's the f---ing deal..." 

Okay, we keep condensing this. I present:

THUD

[PseudoSABR]

 

I can't get over the name. It bugs the **** out of me.

 

Call it the Green Deal.

I think echoing the New Deal gave it substance by analogy: what was a huge formless effort suddenly seemed possible, because well, we've done it before.

 

The aesthetics of the term the Green New Deal are unfortunate, but I think it's had incredible cache both in social and main stream media.  Even McConnel is willing to put it to a vote to shut everyone up about it.

[Mike Sixel]

Not the point. You don't even HEAR about men behaving badly unless their peckers are flapping around. That's the actual point here.

I can't fix that. Can you? Because you can decide who you vote for. I get the point, but what are you going to do about it? I'm going to use this information to inform my decision. Just as I will about any story on any candidate. So, it's the point that actually matters in terms of what I can do.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Okay, so I stepped out of my liberal bubble a bit and accepted a few random "liberal" friends on Facebook, many of them interlinked.

 

Holy ****, I'm starting to see a much larger problem here.

 

My liberal friends are so much more honest with themselves than most liberals I met over the past several hours.

I'm kinda swinging back to Levi's side here. I've just witnessed rampant defense of Warren's "native americanism" while condemning Klobuchar's "awful treatment of aides" while also seeing Harris' "tough on crime was necessary".

 

It just... It makes my brain hurt. So much.

 

I was so safely in my liberal bubble of niceness that I forgot liberals are nearly as ****ing awful as conservatives, they just wrap it in pretty paper.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I can't fix that. Can you? Because you can decide who you vote for. I get the point, but what are you going to do about it? I'm going to use this information to inform my decision. Just as I will about any story on any candidate. So, it's the point that actually matters in terms of what I can do.

No, but you can ignore it and fight back. Point out that it's an unfair comparison because Joe Biden - white liberal savior - also had the same accusations. Or do a bit of research and find that John McCain was also a son of a bitch to his aides.

 

Fight back. Don't just shrug and say "okay, she's kind of a bitch" when the point is that no one else cared when men were bitches. Say something, for Christ's sake.

[stringer bell]

 

I think echoing the New Deal gave it substance by analogy: what was a huge formless effort suddenly seemed possible, because well, we've done it before.

 

The aesthetics of the term the Green New Deal are unfortunate, but I think it's had incredible cache both in social and main stream media.  Even McConnel is willing to put it to a vote to shut everyone up about it.

McConnell wants to put it to a vote so that vulnerable Democrats and presidential candidates are on record as supporting a "socialist" piece of legislation. Mitch will do nothing unless it benefits his party (in his eyes). He remains the absolute worst in my opinion.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Okay, so I stepped out of my liberal bubble a bit and accepted a few random "liberal" friends on Facebook, many of them interlinked.

 

Holy ****, I'm starting to see a much larger problem here.

 

My liberal friends are so much more honest with themselves than most liberals I met over the past several hours.

I'm kinda swinging back to Levi's side here. I've just witnessed rampant defense of Warren's "native americanism" while condemning Klobuchar's "awful treatment of aides" while also seeing Harris' "tough on crime was necessary".

 

It just... It makes my brain hurt. So much.

 

I was so safely in my liberal bubble of niceness that I forgot liberals are nearly as ****ing awful as conservatives, they just wrap it in pretty paper.

 

The first Dem who uses the word "Woke" during campaigning should be shot into space.  For the greater good really.

 

So many of your average liberals can be absolutely insufferable to listen to, much yet side with at the voting booth.  Yet....I want to...because the Republicans are bordering on evil.  They have to lose and lose badly.  I just wish the left wouldn't it make it so freaking hard to join up with them.

[PseudoSABR]

 

McConnell wants to put it to a vote so that vulnerable Democrats and presidential candidates are on record as supporting a "socialist" piece of legislation. Mitch will do nothing unless it benefits his party (in his eyes). He remains the absolute worst in my opinion.

Oh, I know.  I think he's wrong about it being an albatross.  Liberal, much less socialist, was a bad word not long ago.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The first Dem who uses the word "Woke" during campaigning should be shot into space.  For the greater good really.

 

So many of your average liberals can be absolutely insufferable to listen to, much yet side with at the voting booth.  Yet....I want to...because the Republicans are bordering on evil.  They have to lose and lose badly.  I just wish the left wouldn't it make it so freaking hard to join up with them.

The weird thing is that my actual super liberal friends - who are much more liberal than myself - are so much more tolerable, despite their cries for completely random **** like basic income (something I don't necessarily disagree with) or removal of gender from society (maybe not so much...). They have some pretty out there ideas but can articulate them well enough to make it an interesting discussion.

 

But do you know what they actually have? Awareness. Of themselves, of society, of the world. I can disagree with them over finances or gender studies or whatever... and they listen and rebut, knowing that I may not agree with them but we can all walk away understanding each other a little bit better.

It's good to remove myself from that liberal bubble, if only to realize that something much worse exists outside and still calls itself "liberal". That world appears to be rife with conflict, hatred, and cannibalism.

Oh, and it's still super racist and gender-specific, just for funsies.

[TheLeviathan]

I have a similar group I go out with for drinks.  Weed smokers, outright socialist, etc.  I enjoy those conversations and as someone who is in favor of many liberal platforms (with some caution) it makes for good conversation.  But as you said, they listen to the counter points that put their beliefs on shaky ground.  They're willing to concede that there are weaknesses to their suggestions.  

 

Then I listen to your average liberal activist and I wonder if we ought to be building an arc to save humanity as a species before conservatives and liberals around the world slowly choke us all to death with their insufferable stupidity.

 

GoFundMe page for a space arc, I'm warming up to it.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Okay, so I stepped out of my liberal bubble a bit and accepted a few random "liberal" friends on Facebook, many of them interlinked.

 

Holy ****, I'm starting to see a much larger problem here.

 

My liberal friends are so much more honest with themselves than most liberals I met over the past several hours.

I'm kinda swinging back to Levi's side here. I've just witnessed rampant defense of Warren's "native americanism" while condemning Klobuchar's "awful treatment of aides" while also seeing Harris' "tough on crime was necessary".

 

It just... It makes my brain hurt. So much.

 

I was so safely in my liberal bubble of niceness that I forgot liberals are nearly as ****ing awful as conservatives, they just wrap it in pretty paper.

Fools know no home.  Plenty of stupid people are liberal.  But that says nothing about who the candidate should be.  That many liberals are insufferable speaks nothing about what the direction of the country should be.  (And of course the primary will bring ridiculous in-fighting. Duh.)

 

And really, both-side-ism? Uggggggh.

[stringer bell]

 

The Republicans have their own divide.  Never-trumpers and RINOs, etc.

 

I think the divisions within the Democratic party are largely over stated and make for a clickable media narrative.  

Just as with the midterms, true independents can be picked off by an authentic Democrat in 2020, enough to throw out the incumbent president and keep the House and perhaps even take the Senate. The man in the White House is (IMHO) a criminal, a narcissist, and truly out of touch for starters and the policies he has championed are all red-meat right wing. Anyone that is truly between the two major parties has a pretty easy choice in two years. Trump is what unites the Democrats and I would expect that if he was vanquished that some large cracks in the coalition would occur. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Just as with the midterms, true independents can be picked off by an authentic Democrat in 2020, enough to throw out the incumbent president and keep the House and perhaps even take the Senate. The man in the White House is (IMHO) a criminal, a narcissist, and truly out of touch for starters and the policies he has championed are all red-meat right wing. Anyone that is truly between the two major parties has a pretty easy choice in two years. Trump is what unites the Democrats and I would expect that if he was vanquished that some large cracks in the coalition would occur. 

 

In fairness, these same points were made prior to Trump winning the first time.  And we all know how that turned out.  Assumptions are dangerous. It's important, IMO, to approach this with a more concrete strategy for winning.  We still elect the President with the electoral college, whomever whens the Democratic nomination better be able to hold the blue states and flip a few midwestern/rust-belt states.

 

So then you ask yourself....what appeal accomplishes that?  Too early to say at this point probably, but that's how you win.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

The weird thing is that my actual super liberal friends - who are much more liberal than myself - are so much more tolerable, despite their cries for completely random **** like basic income (something I don't necessarily disagree with) or removal of gender from society (maybe not so much...). They have some pretty out there ideas but can articulate them well enough to make it an interesting discussion.

 

But do you know what they actually have? Awareness. Of themselves, of society, of the world. I can disagree with them over finances or gender studies or whatever... and they listen and rebut, knowing that I may not agree with them but we can all walk away understanding each other a little bit better.

It's good to remove myself from that liberal bubble, if only to realize that something much worse exists outside and still calls itself "liberal". That world appears to be rife with conflict, hatred, and cannibalism.

Oh, and it's still super racist and gender-specific, just for funsies.

they, them, their

 

You sure you got them pronouns right?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Fools know no home.  Plenty of stupid people are liberal.  But that says nothing about who the candidate should be.  That many liberals are insufferable speaks nothing about what the direction of the country should be.  (And of course the primary will bring ridiculous in-fighting. Duh.)

 

And really, both-side-ism? Uggggggh.

I didn't both-side-ism, I used the word "nearly" to differentiate. One is clearly worse than the other.

 

And you know that, Pseudo. I don't come within a country mile of thinking one side is close to as bad as the other.

[Mike Sixel]

No, but you can ignore it and fight back. Point out that it's an unfair comparison because Joe Biden - white liberal savior - also had the same accusations. Or do a bit of research and find that John McCain was also a son of a bitch to his aides.

 

Fight back. Don't just shrug and say "okay, she's kind of a bitch" when the point is that no one else cared when men were bitches. Say something, for Christ's sake.

No one cares? You know that about me? Interesting.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

they, them, their

You sure you got them pronouns right?

Actually, that's not terribly funny to me because loads of those friends are transgender, inter-gender, non-gender, or whatever they may call themselves (not an insult to call them that, merely confusion on my part, I always try to do my best about what a person likes to be called).

If someone wants to be called he, her, him, hers, them, their, kaleidoscope, whatever. I respect people. If a person wants to be called something, do you know what it takes for me to remember that?

 

VIRTUALLY NOTHING.

 

Sure, sometimes, I get it wrong and the person corrects me. I apologize and then *nothing happens*. Amazing how not being an ******* to a person gets you so far in life.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I didn't both-side-ism, I used the word "nearly" to differentiate. One is clearly worse than the other.

 

And you know that, Pseudo. I don't come within a country mile of thinking one side is close to as bad as the other.

I do know that.  So I checked to make sure, in the most accusatory manner possible, because I am your friend, and I like conflict. 

[biggentleben]

 

Sure, sometimes, I get it wrong and the person corrects me. I apologize and then *nothing happens*. Amazing how not being an ******* to a person gets you so far in life.

 

My freshman year of college, my dad came to pick me up after my last final of my first quarter at the U of M. He'd driven from South Dakota the previous night, so he came up and spent some time checking out the residence hall now that it actually had kids in it. As we were headed to the elevators to leave, we passed a study lounge where a friend was studying, a friend who happened to be my first Jewish friend after having no exposure to such in rural SoDak. I went in to wish him good luck on his remaining final and leave. I introduced my dad, and the following conversation occurs:

 

Dad: What are you studying for?

 

Friend: Advanced Physics (he was a physics major, so it was not a basic course, but I couldn't tell you the actual name 20 years later)

 

Dad: Yikes! This is why I stick to the farm! (chuckle from everyone in the room) Well, you have a Merry Christmas!

 

Me: *completely blank face, obviously mortified as my father wheels a suitcase toward the elevator*

 

Friend: Ben, no worries, it's cool. He's a great guy. Have a good break!

 

I know those conversations can happen still today because I have had them. I've screwed up so many times with a recent out trans friend's pronouns, and she is so incredibly gracious, knowing that 30+ years of calling her "he" and "him" is not going to go away easy. I've asked someone their plans for Easter and found out they were Muslim. I've talked about recent legislation regarding Native Americans and found out the person I was speaking with had Native ancestry. Not once did that person tear me down, make an example of me, nor did they disavow any knowledge of my existence. I made an honest mistake, apologized, and we moved forward as friends.

 

There's a tremendous TED talk from Jon Ronson regarding online shaming, and I do think that's taken away a lot of our ability to have an honest apology and assume the best in a person...

 

That talk for anyone interested: https://youtu.be/wAIP6fI0NAI

[LaBombo]

 

I'm going to stick my neck out and say that gender is a confounding factor in nearly every single aspect the HuffPo article raised.

 

 

Beat me to it. Lots of guys in the Senate are giant, colossal asshats. Yet I don't see the HuffPost going out of their way to beat them down and the HuffPost is generally LIBERAL.

 

Come on, liberals, get your **** together. Criticism is fine and welcome but this is pretty clearly digging into gender territory. A man is tough when he screams at his interns. A woman is just so... mean... when she does it. Stop it, women! Don't be so MEAN!

 

Well, sexism is certainly one way to go if you're doubting the credibility of the article. But is the sexism narrative hammer really the right tool for this particular job?

 

Obviously the article was written by two women, but co-author Amanda Terkel isn't just any female HuffPo reporter. She's also their Washington Bureau Chief. And literally everyone above her in the editorial pyramid - Senior Editors, Deputy Editor, Managing Editor, Executive Editor, Editor-in-Chief.. every one of them is female. Overwhelmingly female leadership is such a point of pride for HuffPo that it even tweeted a photo of an all-female editorial meeting in 2016.

 

Along with the less satisfying narrative offered by the idea of sexism against a woman by women, there's a plausibility issue as well, since there have been no credible allegations (that I could find, anyway) of sexist negative coverage by HuffPo of the other female presidential candidates' conduct.

 

And since I've disputed the credibility of the sexism explanation, it's only fair to offer an alternative theory as a target for return fire, so here goes.

 

On 2/5, AP beat reporter Elana Schor continued her ongoing coverage of Klobuchar's possible candidacy by breaking the news that an announcement was coming the following week.  Well prior to that day, all the other announced 2020 candidates had announced co-sponsorship of the GND, while Klobuchar pointedly had not.

 

Late in the evening of 2/6, HuffP ran the piece about Klobuchar's alleged tantrums, one that rehashed the same LegiStorm data from an old Politico piece dating way back to April, no less.

 

On 2/7, as the GND was officially rolled out, Elana Schor breathlessly reported that Klobuchar WOULD co-sponsor the GND.

 

Is that sequence of events any sort of proof that Klobuchar finally signed the Green New Deal/2020 suicide pact because HuffPo left the 'Mean Boss' horse's head in her bed the night before? Of course not.

 

But Klobuchar is clearly the GND's most reluctant signatory, a fact she made plain by refusing to mention it by name at her campaign kickoff and then reinforced since then with an open and complete disavowal of GND's most... what's the polite word?.. controversial goals.

 

Anyway, call it a conspiracy theory if you like, and feel free to tear it apart. I've no stake in the matter, and fwiw, I think Klobuchar would make a better president (if not candidate) than most of the rest of the field.

[Squirrel]

 

Well, sexism is certainly one way to go if you're doubting the credibility of the article. But is the sexism narrative hammer really the right tool for this particular job?

 

Obviously the article was written by two women, but co-author Amanda Terkel isn't just any female HuffPo reporter. She's also their Washington Bureau Chief. And literally everyone above her in the editorial pyramid - Senior Editors, Deputy Editor, Managing Editor, Executive Editor, Editor-in-Chief.. every one of them is female. Overwhelmingly female leadership is such a point of pride for HuffPo that it even tweeted a photo of an all-female editorial meeting in 2016.

 

Along with the less satisfying narrative offered by the idea of sexism against a woman by women, there's a plausibility issue as well, since there have been no credible allegations (that I could find, anyway) of sexist negative coverage by HuffPo of the other female presidential candidates' conduct.

 

And since I've disputed the credibility of the sexism explanation, it's only fair to offer an alternative theory as a target for return fire, so here goes.

 

On 2/5, AP beat reporter Elana Schor continued her ongoing coverage of Klobuchar's possible candidacy by breaking the news that an announcement was coming the following week.  Well prior to that day, all the other announced 2020 candidates had announced co-sponsorship of the GND, while Klobuchar pointedly had not.

 

Late in the evening of 2/6, HuffP ran the piece about Klobuchar's alleged tantrums, one that rehashed the same LegiStorm data from an old Politico piece dating way back to April, no less.

 

On 2/7, as the GND was officially rolled out, Elana Schor breathlessly reported that Klobuchar WOULD co-sponsor the GND.

 

Is that sequence of events any sort of proof that Klobuchar finally signed the Green New Deal/2020 suicide pact because HuffPo left the 'Mean Boss' horse's head in her bed the night before? Of course not.

 

But Klobuchar is clearly the GND's most reluctant signatory, a fact she made plain by refusing to mention it by name at her campaign kickoff and then reinforced since then with an open and complete disavowal of GND's most... what's the polite word?.. controversial goals.

 

Anyway, call it a conspiracy theory if you like, and feel free to tear it apart. I've no stake in the matter, and fwiw, I think Klobuchar would make a better president (if not candidate) than most of the rest of the field.

Wasn't this theory mentioned in the course of this discussion already? I thought it was. I thought someone made the point that they thought perhaps this article was an example of the more liberal media source attacking a more mainstream Democrat in order to push a more liberal agenda? Or something like that.

[TheLeviathan]

It's definitely a left-sided attack.  To me, I viewed it as the further edges of the left view her as a threat and are trying to knock her down before she starts.

[Badsmerf]

So women can't have sexist views against women? Labombo? I get that isn't your whole point, but that argument falls flat. It sounds to me like she isn't a very nice person, and I bet many in Congress are similar.

 

There is also an Atlantic article attacking our new Muslim women in Congress for being anti Semitic after they made comments critical of a pro Israel lobby making payments (which they deny). That article is even worse than the Klobuchar article.

 

The left is truly beginning to cannibalize itself. Sad to see, but many predicted this.

[LaBombo]

 

Wasn't this theory mentioned in the course of this discussion already? I thought it was. I thought someone made the point that they thought perhaps this article was an example of the more liberal media source attacking a more mainstream Democrat in order to push a more liberal agenda? Or something like that.

 

Oh, cut the false modesty! Sorry, Simpsons reference, couldn't resist. It was you who posted a single sentence arguing that the Klobuchar article was more likely an example of "the more liberal attacking the more moderate" than sexism.

 

So my apologies for not acknowledging or crediting that post, and for taking up a great deal of space without adding anything to the discussion for you.

 

But it might be worth noting that your point included no specifics about the nature of the possible ideological rift between HP and Klobuchar, and that it was immediately dismissed by multiple posters who are apparently sticking with the idea that sexism was the root motivation of the piece.

 

[Squirrel]

 

Oh, cut the false modesty! Sorry, Simpsons reference, couldn't resist. It was you who posted a single sentence arguing that the Klobuchar article was more likely an example of "the more liberal attacking the more moderate" than sexism.

 

So my apologies for not acknowledging or crediting that post, and for taking up a great deal of space without adding anything to the discussion for you.

 

But it might be worth noting that your point included no specifics about the nature of the possible ideological rift between HP and Klobuchar, and that it was immediately dismissed by multiple posters who are apparently sticking with the idea that sexism was the root motivation of the piece.

Well, I thought that maybe your post was an example of the lone woman in the boardroom not being heard, then the big man comes along, says the same thing, and is heard. I mean ... there's your sexism.

 

(And yes, I'm kidding .... or am I .... .... .... )

 

But I have commented for years that I don't see any unity among the left ... near or far ... and they do more to tear each other apart than finding common ground and unifying around that, even if individually we don't get everything we want in a candidate. So, my simple sentence was really more or less something I've been saying for a while and to me, that was but one example.

[PseudoSABR]

It could also be that Klobuchar is a really crummy boss and that speaks to her executive ability.  Though the reasons the story got out and pushed, is probably a combination of both leftists-against-estabies and a bit of sexism. 

[LaBombo]

 

Well, I thought that maybe your post was an example of the lone woman in the boardroom not being heard, then the big man comes along, says the same thing, and is heard. I mean ... there's your sexism.

 

(And yes, I'm kidding .... or am I .... .... .... )

 

But I have commented for years that I don't see any unity among the left ... near or far ... and they do more to tear each other apart than finding common ground and unifying around that, even if individually we don't get everything we want in a candidate. So, my simple sentence was really more or less something I've been saying for a while and to me, that was but one example.

 

Believe it or not, the mansplaining angle occurred to me as I wrote that last post, but text in general is so gender-neutral that after a thorough and unbiased  evaluation of what I wrote, I let myself off the hook.

 

And your original post definitely applies to other situations, which in turn brings up a difficult and ongoing struggle within both parties: balancing the desire for unity with the occasional need for what I'm going to call (for lack of a better term) self-policing. 

 

One additional thought on the sexism component of political reporting...I've already cast my vote for HuffPo's motivation being ideology rather than sexism. But one area that I think women might be a little more guilty of passive sexism toward other women is with regard to the type of question being asked of candidates.

 

Not all bias is with malicious intent. But if you're going to ask female candidates about things like balancing career with parenting and marriage, ask the male candidates too.

[LaBombo]

 

It could also be that Klobuchar is a really crummy boss and that speaks to her executive ability.  Though the reasons the story got out and pushed, is probably a combination of both leftists-against-estabies and a bit of sexism. 

 

It's definitely true that there's no mutual exclusivity here. HuffPo's motives could be purely political without those motives diminishing the concerns over AK's alleged Jekyll/Hyde thing.

 

As a related aside, it seems worth mentioning that while there was ample evidence even before Trump that being a bad boss is a worrisome quality in a president, Klobuchar's disgruntled former employees would seem at first blush a more manageable liability than some of the baggage being toted into race by the other runners.

[Vanimal46]

 

Things that make you go hmm....