It's the Dems and the left who went insane. — fishfry

In what way?

Most people voted "don't care." You really should. The science is pretty clear about what humanity is facing, and it will effect all of us and all of our children. I'm talking specifically about climate change. This election is too important not to care.

Near as I can tell, the November election returns are a combined IQ test and mental health tally of the American adult. The results should make Nixon/McGovern look like a nail-biter. Should. (In '72 McGovern carried Massachusetts and Washington, D.C.) That is, how can anyone with a functioning brain, crazy or not, vote for Trump?

But the main point is to watch what the DNC did in 2016 and again in 2020. The DNC is at war with their own left. The GOP is a secondary target. If Biden wins, fine. If Biden loses, at least the Biden/Clinton/Obama wing of the party is in control for the next four years. That is the lens through which one processes the Kamala appointment. — fishfry

The fact is that Democratic party is a centrist party that knows it will get leftists to vote for it ...because there is no leftist party in the US!

Of course, there are many European Social Democratic Parties which leave capitalism and globalization alone and even promote them (starting with the Blairite wing of the Labor Party in the UK).

It's the Dems and the left who went insane.
— fishfry

In what way? — Michael

Even if you don't agree with the points I might make in response; I'm sure that if you follow politics you can at least imagine the points that might be made. Consider them made. I haven't got time over the next few days to respond to the comments I'd elicit from a more detailed response; otherwise I'd just let 'er rip. But really, it's a very long story. The day Teddy killed a girl and the Dems and liberals rallied behind him, that was the first time my leftist faith was shaken. It's been a long journey. But just two nights ago Colin Powell spoke at the DNC. Colin Powell who lied to the UN to assist Bush and the New York Times in lying the country into a ruinous war. You see the Dems are all in for the wars now. From Hillary's historic vote for the Iraq war, to Colin Powell speaking at the Democrat convention, is a straight line of descent into madness.

Given that the dems are basically the GOP lite, it's not altogether surprising.

↪fishfry I am black - and as far as we are concerned - Senator Harris is black, especially (though not only) because she identifies herself as black. Nonblacks - whether "whites" or not, "liberals" or not - don't get to define the color-ethnic identity of anyone else but themselves or their own. That's colonialist, sir; that's racist. :shade: — 180 Proof

Thank you for such a heartfelt and, may I say, provocative post. For what it's worth, questions of Ms. Harris's race are all over the media, both right and left. I'm not the only one who has questions and comments about her ethnic identity as it pertains to politics.

I don't care how she personally identifies or what her race is. But as a political player competing for high office and great power; everything about her is in play, including her race. She was chosen for her race. So I must stand my ground on at least one point: That I have every right, as a political observer, to discuss her race in the context of politics.

If I implied that I had any interest in her race of a non-political, or personal nature, that was surely not my intention and if I did that it would have been a case of poor writing on my part to fail to make that clear. I'm talking politics; and when it comes to politics, everything is in play.

↪fishfry I am black — 180 Proof

You represent modern sensibilities. You think your ethnic identity informs or amplifies or contextualizes the words you say. I'm from an older generation. I'm with Dr. King. I dream of the day when we are judged on the content of our character; and not the color of our skin. For that matter I'm with Michael Jackson: "It don't matter if you're black or white."

So I do understand that when you say you're black, it's important to you for rhetorical purposes. But for me, the meaning and power of your writing is in the writing; and not in the "meat pack" as some white rapper used to say.

↪fishfry I am black — 180 Proof

- and as far as we are concerned - Senator Harris is black,
[/quote]

You act like you speak for all black people. But you can only speak for yourself. I could link African-Americans saying this past week that Harris has not lived an authentic African-American life. Black opinion is not monolithic, despite what Joe Biden thinks. There is some evidence that your certainty of what black people think is inaccurate. Harris did very poorly in the Democratic primaries and polled very badly among blacks. I'm not saying they didn't think she was black ... but whatever they thought about her race, they didn't think much about her as a candidate.

especially (though not only) because she identifies herself as black. — 180 Proof

Oh my gosh are you going to make me bring up the spectacular case of Rachel Dolezal? An emotionally disturbed young woman who frizzed her hair and claimed she was black? She was even president her her local chapter of the NAACP, until news of her complete absence of African-American ancestry was revealed and she was forced to resign. Is she black because she says she is? Am I?

How about Liz Warren? Claimed to be Native-American, did use that lie for professional advantage even though she says she didn't. When the issue finally blew up after her fiasco of a DNA test, the actual Native-American leaders blasted her six ways from Sunday.

Self-identification is not much of a standard in my opinion. Is that all she's got? Indian mom, Jamaican dad (going back generations, no African ancestors in sight, and ownership of a slave plantation to boot), Jewish husband. So she fits a checkmark for black on the Dem ticket? You really think the African-American voters will buy it? We shall see. Myself I think it's a cynical play by the Dems. That is a point of politics. Her "actual" race doesn't matter. Some experts think there's no such thing as race. The politics of her race are what matters; and that is a legitimate subject of discussion.

Nonblacks - whether "whites" or not, "liberals" or not - don't get to define the color-ethnic identity of anyone else but themselves or their own. — 180 Proof

Bullshit. I have freedom of speech and the Constitution does not say I can't make political observations of a racial nature. I am NOT making a personal judgment about Harris's race, I don't care about her race on a personal basis. Politically, I think it's quite cynical of the Dems to slot in someone like Kamala for an ethnic slot. I think deep down you know exactly what I'm saying.

That's colonialist, sir; that's racist. :shade: — 180 Proof

I'm so not a racist that remark didn't even push my buttons. It's silly. That the best you can do?

By the way can you just tell me exactly what it was that I said that led you to this? You didn't quote any of my text and I don't remember writing anything about Harris that isn't already well-known by people who've followed her career.

You believe Trump is for peace?

:vomit:

You believe Trump is for peace? — creativesoul

Yes most definitely. He has not started any new wars. The Dems are chomping at the bit for more wars. The selection of Biden is a huge win for the war party. Don't you remember the 2016 GOP debates when Trump knocked Jeb! out of the contest by attacking him for his brother W's war? Trump has always been for peace and against the bipartisan War party. What can I do to wake liberals up to that? Hillary was a bloodthirsty warmonger. On Obama's watch we destroyed Libya, Syrian, and Yemen. The neoliberal Democrats are ascendent in the party. Only Trump stand for peace. If the fools on the left manage to elect Biden, you will see.

Are you claiming to be completely unaware of Biden's fifty year record of passionate warmongering? Serious question. Do you know his record? Biden voted for the Iraq war and promoted it with passion. He has been for every war since he's been in Washington. Don't you even know this? Trump is the only one out there for peace.

Res ipsa loquitur (or, more your speed, "it is what it is" re: your remarks). You doth protest too much - with ahistorical and banal rhetoric of privilege - methinks.

I hate her abortion stance but there is a greater good

I vote for

If an abortion was happening in front of me, i'd stop it. I think people would be tempted to as much evil if it was made illegal. All kinds of stuff. So I just ignore the issue

Res ipsa loquitur (or, more your speed, "it is what it is" re: your remarks). You doth protest too much - with ahistorical and banal rhetoric of privilege - methinks. — 180 Proof

You think people's free speech rights are determined by the color of their skin. You're an actual racist.

That said, we're talking politics. Harris polls very badly with actual African-Americans. She flopped miserably in the primaries.

I'm disappointed you chose not to engage with anything I said. You claimed that self-identification is all that matters when it comes to race. I gave you the examples of Rachel Dolezal and Liz Warren and asked your opinion. Your silence speaks for you.

and Liz Warren — fishfry

"Two weeks ago, Sen. Elizabeth Warren released the results of a genetic test showing she has a small but detectable amount of Native American DNA. The report concluded there is “strong evidence” she had a Native American ancestor approximately six to 10 generations ago. But many have misconstrued the results — including President Donald Trump, who wrongly claimed Warren “doesn’t have any Indian blood.”

"Two weeks ago, Sen. Elizabeth Warren released the results of a genetic test showing she has a small but detectable amount of Native American DNA. The report concluded there is “strong evidence” she had a Native American ancestor approximately six to 10 generations ago. But many have misconstrued the results — including President Donald Trump, who wrongly claimed Warren “doesn’t have any Indian blood.” — tim wood

I'm sure if you read into the details of your (unreferenced) article you would know that first, there are insufficient samples for scientists to have a specific marker for Native American blood. She might have something like 1/1024 south or central American indigenous blood: about as much as the average white person walking around. Your post is disingenuous in the extreme based on the factual content of that incident. And more to the point, actual Native American tribes were furious with her. It turns out that DNA tests are politically incorrect in the Native American community. Who knew! We all (except for you) learned that from the extensive reporting around her bungled DNA test.

Are you claiming to not have read these facts at the time?

Come on, man. This was beneath you. Do your homework. That test was a major political embarrassment for her. And it wasn't two weeks ago, it was in 2018.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-dna-test-2020.html

You think people's free speech rights are determined by the color of their skin. You're an actual racist. — fishfry

Yep, again you've no clue WTF you're talking about. At least from 1791 to 1965 non-white citizens of the United States effectively had no "free speech rights" which was/is racist (Faulkner). You clearly take for granted that just because you have "free speech" that I have to accept how you, a white person, uses that "right" to tell me, a non-white person, how we think, or should think, and whether or not non-whites have 'properly self-identified' according to your ignorant (old colonialist) standards. Well, that's the prerogative of a 173+ year old legacy of racist presumption. :shade:

Your words betray your oblivious, or willful, ignorance, mister, and I won't be baited into making futile attempts to drill through your privileged incorrigibility to inform or correct you now that you've flaunted your true colors. Agree to disagree, or not; there's surely no benefit on my end to talk at you any further (or past one another) about Kamala Harris or the social-political perceptions and proclivities of non-white citizens like me.

Are you claiming to not have read these facts at the time?

Come on, man. This was beneath you. Do your homework. That test was a major political embarrassment for her. And it wasn't two weeks ago, it was in 2018. — fishfry

Yep, Read it then. And apparently the methodology was good. and yes, somewhere between 1/64th and 1/1024th. And yes, being a member of a tribe according to some tribes is political rather than blood. But what, exactly, did she claim? That family lore had her as part Indian, and that she was part Indian. The lore was wrong, but that's how it is with lore, but the testimony of her DNA supported her claim. And where does that leave us? With this question: what is your problem?

And where does that leave us? With this question: what is your problem? — tim wood

:up:

I'm shaken by how 'mercans make an individual's race so pivotal.

Yep, Read it then. And apparently the methodology was good. and yes, somewhere between 1/64th and 1/1024th. And yes, being a member of a tribe according to some tribes is political rather than blood. But what, exactly, did she claim? That family lore had her as part Indian, and that she was part Indian. The lore was wrong, but that's how it is with lore, but the testimony of her DNA supported her claim. And where does that leave us? With this question: what is your problem? — tim wood

As with my remarks about Kamala Harris, my comments on Liz are political and not personal. Whatever you may think is the truth of the matter, as if such a thing exists ... after all we're all quarks from the Big Bang, all in the same quark tribe ... but there is no question that she was hurt badly POLITICALLY. Enough to peel off just enough support to keep her from going all the way in the primaries. She'd be a hell of a lot better candidate than Biden. I don't agree with Liz on much but I totally admire her brilliance and force of will.

That is why I linked a New York Times article whose main theme was the political damage she had done to herself with the DNA test.

I am just surprised you'd bring this up. The talking points are well known and thoroughly litigated in the media and online; and at this point even if it turned out that she was a full-blooded Native-American after all -- IT WOULD NOT MATTER. She had "phony" attached to her persona in a portion of the public's mind.

I can distinguish between political analysis and one's personal feelings. Not everyone does, especially these days. Why do you ask what is my problem? You are taking something personally, and I'm willing to listen to what you think that might be. Because even the NYT admits that the DNA stunt backfired and hurt her badly. Surely you do not dispute this, regardless of your feelings for her policies.

Why do you accuse me of personal ... what ... malevolence? wrongthink? whatever ... when from where I sit, I am typing in my opinions about the state of politics.Which might be different than yours.

And if you recall there was a greater point on the table (still is) so you are taking my remarks about Ms. Warren totally out of context.

Agree to disagree, or not; there's surely no benefit on my end — 180 Proof

I'm disappointed that you prefer not to dialog at all with people you disagree with. A lot of that going around these days. All the best.

Maybe because the point was already made rather clearly in this thread.

anyone who delves into the debate of whether she is or is not black enough seems to be conceding that her blackness matters. It shouldn't. — Hanover

I'm disappointed that you prefer not to dialog at all with people you disagree with. — fishfry

Differing conclusions (or interpretations) are worthy of probative discussion but not incommensurable premises (i.e. "facts").

All the best.

Same to you.

I'm shaken by how 'mercans make an individual's race so pivotal. — Banno

There's a probably correct assumption that tribalism controls at some level and so people expect that someone of similar ethnic likeness will better protect their interests than someone not. That results in race based voting and in placing one's own in positions of power, which only perpetuates the problem.

It's especially a problem in Australia. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/world/australia/study-diversity-multicultural.html

I'm shaken by how 'mercans make an individual's race so pivotal. — Banno

Don't you live in Oz?

Maybe because the point was already made rather clearly in this thread. — Benkei

I wasn't reading the entire thread and I'm afraid I don't recall the referent for this remark. I'm pretty sure I've said my piece here. One individual (@180 Proof I'm discussing you so as a courtesy I'm tagging you so you'll see this. I'm not soliciting a reply or meaning to address you. Just think it would be rude to refer to you without letting you know) believes that not only are my ideas wrong, but that I don't even have the right to express them by virtue of personal characteristics of mine that the individual hasn't even bothered to inquire about and can't possibly know! Whether this kind of thinking will peak, crest, and fade away; or whether the US is headed for a re-run of Chairman Mao's cultural revolution, I can't say.

I do know that these political discussions sometimes turn into struggle sessions. Here's a photo of me after I shot off my two cents about Kamala.

Differing conclusions (or interpretations) are worthy of probitive discussion but not incommensurable premises (i.e. "facts"). — 180 Proof

If you ever want to exchange views I'd enjoy that. I know you're sincere. I think you're a victim of a terrible ideology that's sweeping the country. You have no idea of the struggles that have gone before.

But one thing. You have not given me the courtesy of telling me exactly what it is I said that bothered you. Tell me exactly what I said so that at least I know what you're talking about.

And on what evidence do you decide I have certain ethnic characteristics; decide that I'm the enemy on that basis; and declare that even speaking to me is unthinkable? Where did this insanity come from? You can't run a society that way. You hate me and you haven't a single shred of evidence as to who I am and what I am and where I've been. The fact that you "feeeeel" angry at me is enough for you to point the finger and cast me out of the world.

Your teachers and your society have failed you to have allowed you to believe this poison. It's on them, not you. You yourself are a perfectly decent person, one who should study a little history. I hope that you're young and that in your journey through life, you will come to some compassion and understanding. If you're old, there's no hope. Either way ... you've been led astray. You have toxic ideas.

Point and shame. If you get enough people to think and act the same way you can terrorize an entire country. For the record, I stand opposed. I stand for free speech, free expression, and free exchange of ideas, especially with those with whom you disagree.

FOX Noise: fu45 to Bob Woodward, 2.7.20

https://youtu.be/5Z8nV10dFcw

"Trump knew in February. He knew that Covid-19 virus passed through the air. He knew it is deadlier than the flu. He knew it is dangerous to more than just our elderly and vulnerable. He purposely downplayed the pandemic. And now 190,000 Americans are dead."
~next VPOTUS, Sen. Kamala Harris, 9.9.20

Yes most definitely. He has not started any new wars. — fishfry

Got very close with Iran. Really close.

After the drone attack on Qasem Soleimani, Iranians did retaliate by firing ballistic missiles into several US bases. First time US troops were attacked with ballistic missiles. With huge luck no US servicemen were killed, wounded casualties were 110 which, of course, the Trump administration was totally silent about and Trump lied about it:

The number of US troops who sustained traumatic brain injury when Iran launched missiles at their base in Iraq last month has risen to 110, the Pentagon said Friday.

The figure is one higher than the last toll, which was announced on February 10.

All of the wounded were diagnosed with mild traumatic brain injury, the Pentagon said in a statement, adding that 77 had already returned to duty. President Donald Trump had initially said that no Americans were hurt in the strike on the Ain al-Asad base in western Iraq on the night of January 7-8, although authorities later reported that nearly a dozen troops were wounded.

(The reason for brain injury and concussions was the blast wave from the explosions.)

. The Dems are chomping at the bit for more wars. The selection of Biden is a huge win for the war party. Don't you remember the 2016 GOP debates when Trump knocked Jeb! out of the contest by attacking him for his brother W's war? — fishfry

He as the neocons were Republicans, as you likely know.