|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 04 2019 08:18 Velr wrote:
Pete Butitigieg so far has told me that white male privelidge trumps being gay. Juding by some comments from the "nice" left.
That's quite unbelievable. And I mean that sincerely, in that I don't believe it.
|
On June 04 2019 13:39 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 09:13 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2019 08:08 IgnE wrote:On June 04 2019 03:30 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 01:58 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 00:54 Simberto wrote:On June 04 2019 00:39 iamthedave wrote:On June 03 2019 23:18 JimmiC wrote:[quote] It is really strange how these people just keep skewing older and older, I bet the average age of a politician in Canada is 20 years or more younger. I think a lot of wisdom comes with age but you are certainly not a quick as you once were. They really need some balance, like if the President is going to be in in 70's have a VP in their 40's. Because of discrimination issues I don't think you could do a upper age limit (I could see someone challenging the lower one as well) but I do think that yearly cognitive tests once you reach say 65 would be reasonable. And they should be done by a independent doctor. It doesn't feel like there are any independent people left but that would allow the few that are still capable to do it and people to have faith that they could. Here is another example of why war is not good for the environment. Not only do you have all the damage from the planes themselves but I'm fairly sure blowing up oil tankers is not proper disposal. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Forces-Blow-Up-Three-Oil-Tankers-In-Syria-Enforcing-Oil-Embargo.html?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notification&utm_campaign=PushCrew_notification_1559358724&_p_c=1# I think it's just luck of the draw. Right now Trump's the right's pick, and Bernie seems to be the left's pick. Old dudes are in, middle-aged dudes are out. It's not the fault of the older generation that the young(er) 'uns can't come up with a good idea to save their careers. I don't agree. The US system requires you to acquire a lot of reputation and favors to even think about running for president. The older you are, the more things you have done in the political sphere, and thus the more likely you are to place higher among the group of possible candidates due to people having heard of you and you having acquired connections to rich donors and powerful people in your party. Usually, this is counterbalanced by two effects. People deciding to retire, which they simply don't seem to do in US politics, and old people appearing kind of crusty and oldfashioned, which leads to younger people (i say younger, these younger people are still way older then most on this forum) with "fresh ideas" looking more attractive to voters. For some reason, that also does not seem to happen. I think 2016 is a textbook example of why "that also does not seem to happen". Every time a politician is looking to be replaced, up pops the newest spawn of Satan/strong challenger to run against them ensuring a vibrant debate culminating in a replacing of the old guard doesn't happen, lest we risk the alternative. You mean how Martin O'Malley never stood a chance? The other 3 (Clinton herself, Sanders and Webb) were all well over 65 (I assume that's the retirement age in the US as well). Mostly referring to the constant refrains about how the primary was basically a formality and how Biden is now leading the Dem primary, and when those who really don't like Sanders are jammed, they will use the "There's so little unity among Dems, I wish they fell in line like Republicans" refrains we saw in 2016 But those seem like two somewhat separate issues. "The establishment" wanting centrist status quo candidates doesn't mean those candidates have to be ancient. O'Malley was pretty much a clone of Hillary when considering policy points, but was 20 years younger. But had no backing. Meanwhile, the front runner of the more left-wing candidates is even older than Hillary. And all of the younger candidates are treated as opportunistic upstarts with not much chance. Why? Obama wasn't ancient. Nor was Bush before him. It seems to be something of the zeitgeist where baby-boomers are clutching their last chance for power or so? I dunno. But I'd rather see them train young people who have similar ideologies than frantically hold onto power themselves. Pete Buttigieg is a centrist technocrat. He’s young. He signed up for the military after 9/11 to fight evil. He’s a white male. But he’s also got a lot of identity cred with the younger crowd. One of the things that Buttigieg seems to be doing that many prominent democrats do is to go way left on certain social issues to compensate for some of his heresies on other issues. The two social issues that he is jumping up and down on are abortion rights and gay identity politics. What's "way left" on gay identity politics? The war was won. It's over.
Yeah I'm not sure why supporting women and the LGBT community needs to be viewed as "way left on certain social issues", nor will I ever understand why conservatives always distance themselves from civil rights with language like that, as if caring about other people is a blemish and not a badge of honor. I guess it's supposed to misrepresent the mainstream popularity and overwhelming support as something that's fringe and therefore controversial.
|
On June 04 2019 13:39 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 09:13 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2019 08:08 IgnE wrote:On June 04 2019 03:30 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 01:58 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 00:54 Simberto wrote:On June 04 2019 00:39 iamthedave wrote:On June 03 2019 23:18 JimmiC wrote:[quote] It is really strange how these people just keep skewing older and older, I bet the average age of a politician in Canada is 20 years or more younger. I think a lot of wisdom comes with age but you are certainly not a quick as you once were. They really need some balance, like if the President is going to be in in 70's have a VP in their 40's. Because of discrimination issues I don't think you could do a upper age limit (I could see someone challenging the lower one as well) but I do think that yearly cognitive tests once you reach say 65 would be reasonable. And they should be done by a independent doctor. It doesn't feel like there are any independent people left but that would allow the few that are still capable to do it and people to have faith that they could. Here is another example of why war is not good for the environment. Not only do you have all the damage from the planes themselves but I'm fairly sure blowing up oil tankers is not proper disposal. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Forces-Blow-Up-Three-Oil-Tankers-In-Syria-Enforcing-Oil-Embargo.html?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notification&utm_campaign=PushCrew_notification_1559358724&_p_c=1# I think it's just luck of the draw. Right now Trump's the right's pick, and Bernie seems to be the left's pick. Old dudes are in, middle-aged dudes are out. It's not the fault of the older generation that the young(er) 'uns can't come up with a good idea to save their careers. I don't agree. The US system requires you to acquire a lot of reputation and favors to even think about running for president. The older you are, the more things you have done in the political sphere, and thus the more likely you are to place higher among the group of possible candidates due to people having heard of you and you having acquired connections to rich donors and powerful people in your party. Usually, this is counterbalanced by two effects. People deciding to retire, which they simply don't seem to do in US politics, and old people appearing kind of crusty and oldfashioned, which leads to younger people (i say younger, these younger people are still way older then most on this forum) with "fresh ideas" looking more attractive to voters. For some reason, that also does not seem to happen. I think 2016 is a textbook example of why "that also does not seem to happen". Every time a politician is looking to be replaced, up pops the newest spawn of Satan/strong challenger to run against them ensuring a vibrant debate culminating in a replacing of the old guard doesn't happen, lest we risk the alternative. You mean how Martin O'Malley never stood a chance? The other 3 (Clinton herself, Sanders and Webb) were all well over 65 (I assume that's the retirement age in the US as well). Mostly referring to the constant refrains about how the primary was basically a formality and how Biden is now leading the Dem primary, and when those who really don't like Sanders are jammed, they will use the "There's so little unity among Dems, I wish they fell in line like Republicans" refrains we saw in 2016 But those seem like two somewhat separate issues. "The establishment" wanting centrist status quo candidates doesn't mean those candidates have to be ancient. O'Malley was pretty much a clone of Hillary when considering policy points, but was 20 years younger. But had no backing. Meanwhile, the front runner of the more left-wing candidates is even older than Hillary. And all of the younger candidates are treated as opportunistic upstarts with not much chance. Why? Obama wasn't ancient. Nor was Bush before him. It seems to be something of the zeitgeist where baby-boomers are clutching their last chance for power or so? I dunno. But I'd rather see them train young people who have similar ideologies than frantically hold onto power themselves. Pete Buttigieg is a centrist technocrat. He’s young. He signed up for the military after 9/11 to fight evil. He’s a white male. But he’s also got a lot of identity cred with the younger crowd. One of the things that Buttigieg seems to be doing that many prominent democrats do is to go way left on certain social issues to compensate for some of his heresies on other issues. The two social issues that he is jumping up and down on are abortion rights and gay identity politics. What's "way left" on gay identity politics? The war was won. It's over.
Hardly. People on the right still want to fight it. It does seem to be over in the UK, after the Tories passed the gay marriage bill. But there's a lot of US Republicans who seem to think it's a battle worth fighting.
|
On June 04 2019 20:01 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 13:39 IgnE wrote:On June 04 2019 09:13 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2019 08:08 IgnE wrote:On June 04 2019 03:30 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 01:58 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 00:54 Simberto wrote:On June 04 2019 00:39 iamthedave wrote:
[quote]
I think it's just luck of the draw. Right now Trump's the right's pick, and Bernie seems to be the left's pick. Old dudes are in, middle-aged dudes are out. It's not the fault of the older generation that the young(er) 'uns can't come up with a good idea to save their careers.
I don't agree. The US system requires you to acquire a lot of reputation and favors to even think about running for president. The older you are, the more things you have done in the political sphere, and thus the more likely you are to place higher among the group of possible candidates due to people having heard of you and you having acquired connections to rich donors and powerful people in your party. Usually, this is counterbalanced by two effects. People deciding to retire, which they simply don't seem to do in US politics, and old people appearing kind of crusty and oldfashioned, which leads to younger people (i say younger, these younger people are still way older then most on this forum) with "fresh ideas" looking more attractive to voters. For some reason, that also does not seem to happen. I think 2016 is a textbook example of why "that also does not seem to happen". Every time a politician is looking to be replaced, up pops the newest spawn of Satan/strong challenger to run against them ensuring a vibrant debate culminating in a replacing of the old guard doesn't happen, lest we risk the alternative. You mean how Martin O'Malley never stood a chance? The other 3 (Clinton herself, Sanders and Webb) were all well over 65 (I assume that's the retirement age in the US as well). Mostly referring to the constant refrains about how the primary was basically a formality and how Biden is now leading the Dem primary, and when those who really don't like Sanders are jammed, they will use the "There's so little unity among Dems, I wish they fell in line like Republicans" refrains we saw in 2016 But those seem like two somewhat separate issues. "The establishment" wanting centrist status quo candidates doesn't mean those candidates have to be ancient. O'Malley was pretty much a clone of Hillary when considering policy points, but was 20 years younger. But had no backing. Meanwhile, the front runner of the more left-wing candidates is even older than Hillary. And all of the younger candidates are treated as opportunistic upstarts with not much chance. Why? Obama wasn't ancient. Nor was Bush before him. It seems to be something of the zeitgeist where baby-boomers are clutching their last chance for power or so? I dunno. But I'd rather see them train young people who have similar ideologies than frantically hold onto power themselves. Pete Buttigieg is a centrist technocrat. He’s young. He signed up for the military after 9/11 to fight evil. He’s a white male. But he’s also got a lot of identity cred with the younger crowd. One of the things that Buttigieg seems to be doing that many prominent democrats do is to go way left on certain social issues to compensate for some of his heresies on other issues. The two social issues that he is jumping up and down on are abortion rights and gay identity politics. What's "way left" on gay identity politics? The war was won. It's over. Hardly. People on the right still want to fight it. It does seem to be over in the UK, after the Tories passed the gay marriage bill. But there's a lot of US Republicans who seem to think it's a battle worth fighting.
A lost of people still think the Confederacy isn't over and it will rise again.
|
confederacy is alive in well in some parts of america
|
Even with all the mad contradictions on the right its difficult to imagine people taking a stance against other people being allowed to be gay while also promoting personal freedom. Its only on issues where they can use technicalities to swerve the obvious contradictions that they are still fighting (ie transgender use of toilets etc.)
Of course anyone with any integrity can see that in those cases personal freedom shoudn't be forgotten, but we aren't dealing with those types of people.
|
On June 04 2019 20:14 Jockmcplop wrote:
Even with all the mad contradictions on the right its difficult to imagine people taking a stance against other people being allowed to be gay while also promoting personal freedom. Its only on issues where they can use technicalities to swerve the obvious contradictions that they are still fighting (ie transgender use of toilets etc.)
Of course anyone with any integrity can see that in those cases personal freedom shoudn't be forgotten, but we aren't dealing with those types of people.
The key is to just say a bunch of times that you're for personal freedom, when in reality you're for order and tradition.
|
On June 04 2019 20:41 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 20:14 Jockmcplop wrote:
Even with all the mad contradictions on the right its difficult to imagine people taking a stance against other people being allowed to be gay while also promoting personal freedom. Its only on issues where they can use technicalities to swerve the obvious contradictions that they are still fighting (ie transgender use of toilets etc.)
Of course anyone with any integrity can see that in those cases personal freedom shoudn't be forgotten, but we aren't dealing with those types of people. The key is to just say a bunch of times that you're for personal freedom, when in reality you're for order and tradition.
No, no, they are for personal freedom, as long as you use that freedom for making the right decisions, like being white, straight, protestant, conservative and male.
People who don't use their freedom to make these correct choices don't deserve that freedom.
|
On June 04 2019 17:30 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 08:18 Velr wrote:
Pete Butitigieg so far has told me that white male privelidge trumps being gay. Juding by some comments from the "nice" left. That's quite unbelievable. And I mean that sincerely, in that I don't believe it.
There was an Article in "Die zeit" that litellary paints him as being an overpriviledged white male. Its also basically a pure attack piece.
|
Found one by a Lukas Hermsmeier, is it the one?
|
Norway28806 Posts
Buttigieg is obviously a highly privileged individual. I understand if people consider this less than ideal, or even disqualifying. But what makes him stand out is not his identity, but his competence as a speaker. I'm definitely a sanders kind of guy policy wise (well, to the left of that, but from any reasonably plausible american candidate, sanders for sure), but like.. I've watched some buttigieg interviews by now, and the fox town hall in particular. And he is just.. so good at answering questions. It's not just rubio memorizing either, the guy is just obviously extremely intelligent and knowledgeable, in a way that makes him able to handle the tough questions he wasn't specifically prepared for, too. (Or, he's just so well prepared that this doesn't happen. )
I dunno if it works in today's political climate. But in terms of old fashioned political talent, Buttigieg is one of the more impressive I've seen, honestly. That doesn't mean you should prefer him as a candidate - it might even make you more skeptical because it's hard to combine old fashioned political talent with ingenuity - but it's still highly impressive.
|
On June 04 2019 23:07 Nebuchad wrote:
Found one by a Lukas Hermsmeier, is it the one?
Yes, that one.
I agree with Drone, he wouldn't be my first choice but boy can he speak and his ability to come out on top answering even the most loaded questions is pretty staggering.
He isn't a super duper progressive but why should all Democrats be like that? I get the feeling that he gets a bit more dirt thrown at him by the progressives/far left than he deserves.
I mainly blame him for not really having actual policies/plans, he might well be the second coming of christ or just some truely gifted bullshit artist  .
|
On June 04 2019 20:14 Jockmcplop wrote:
Even with all the mad contradictions on the right its difficult to imagine people taking a stance against other people being allowed to be gay while also promoting personal freedom. Its only on issues where they can use technicalities to swerve the obvious contradictions that they are still fighting (ie transgender use of toilets etc.)
Of course anyone with any integrity can see that in those cases personal freedom shoudn't be forgotten, but we aren't dealing with those types of people.
I think the modern version is allowing people to be gay and allowing other people to discriminate them to oblivion because freedom.
|
On June 04 2019 23:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Buttigieg is obviously a highly privileged individual. I understand if people consider this less than ideal, or even disqualifying. But what makes him stand out is not his identity, but his competence as a speaker. I'm definitely a sanders kind of guy policy wise (well, to the left of that, but from any reasonably plausible american candidate, sanders for sure), but like.. I've watched some buttigieg interviews by now, and the fox town hall in particular. And he is just.. so good at answering questions. It's not just rubio memorizing either, the guy is just obviously extremely intelligent and knowledgeable, in a way that makes him able to handle the tough questions he wasn't specifically prepared for, too. (Or, he's just so well prepared that this doesn't happen. )
I dunno if it works in today's political climate. But in terms of old fashioned political talent, Buttigieg is one of the more impressive I've seen, honestly. That doesn't mean you should prefer him as a candidate - it might even make you more skeptical because it's hard to combine old fashioned political talent with ingenuity - but it's still highly impressive.
Of the candidates I think Buttigieg is much more of "another Obama" than someone like O'Rourke. Can't argue with his rhetorical cleverness. I just think his policy (or lack thereof) leads to irreparable climate collapse so supporting him is sorta suicidal/genocidal by way of putting the human species at risk.
The big problem being the same with Obama, if Buttigieg wins the neolibs go back to brunch, and we're hosed.
|
I find myself liking Warren more and more, but I still feel like she is a "build order loss" vs Trump.
My current list of "If I was allowed to just choose the president":
1. Yang
2. Bernie
3. Warren
4. Inslee
My list in terms of "confidence against Trump":
1. Bernie
2. Buttigieg
3. Biden
4. Inslee
|
On June 05 2019 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
I find myself liking Warren more and more, but I still feel like she is a "build order loss" vs Trump.
My current list of "If I was allowed to just choose the president":
1. Yang
2. Bernie
3. Warren
4. Inslee
My list in terms of "confidence against Trump":
1. Bernie
2. Buttigieg
3. Biden
4. Inslee
trump will beat any of these people.
in other news, are you guys really talking about gays? its already *current year* for crying out loud!!
|
Looks like the census is trying some underhanded stuff next year. By lowering the population of POC, they can claim larger % of crimes than others. I expect this to go to court (I think it already did once).
2020 Census Could Lead To Worst Undercount Of Black, Latinx People In 30 Years (mod edit needed)
Challenges threatening the upcoming 2020 census could risk more than 4 million people to be missing from next year's national head count, according to new projections by the Urban Institute.
The nonpartisan think tank found that the danger of an inaccurate census could hit some of the country's most difficult-to-count populations the hardest. Based on the Urban Institute's analysis, the 2020 census could lead to the worst undercount of black and Latinx people in the U.S. since 1990.
"Miscounts of this magnitude will have real consequences for the next decade, including how we fund programs for children and invest in our infrastructure," says Diana Elliott, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute who co-wrote the report released Tuesday.
Nationally, black residents could be undercounted by as much as 3.68 percent.
|
On June 04 2019 13:39 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 09:13 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2019 08:08 IgnE wrote:On June 04 2019 03:30 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 01:58 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 00:54 Simberto wrote:On June 04 2019 00:39 iamthedave wrote:On June 03 2019 23:18 JimmiC wrote:[quote] It is really strange how these people just keep skewing older and older, I bet the average age of a politician in Canada is 20 years or more younger. I think a lot of wisdom comes with age but you are certainly not a quick as you once were. They really need some balance, like if the President is going to be in in 70's have a VP in their 40's. Because of discrimination issues I don't think you could do a upper age limit (I could see someone challenging the lower one as well) but I do think that yearly cognitive tests once you reach say 65 would be reasonable. And they should be done by a independent doctor. It doesn't feel like there are any independent people left but that would allow the few that are still capable to do it and people to have faith that they could. Here is another example of why war is not good for the environment. Not only do you have all the damage from the planes themselves but I'm fairly sure blowing up oil tankers is not proper disposal. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Forces-Blow-Up-Three-Oil-Tankers-In-Syria-Enforcing-Oil-Embargo.html?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notification&utm_campaign=PushCrew_notification_1559358724&_p_c=1# I think it's just luck of the draw. Right now Trump's the right's pick, and Bernie seems to be the left's pick. Old dudes are in, middle-aged dudes are out. It's not the fault of the older generation that the young(er) 'uns can't come up with a good idea to save their careers. I don't agree. The US system requires you to acquire a lot of reputation and favors to even think about running for president. The older you are, the more things you have done in the political sphere, and thus the more likely you are to place higher among the group of possible candidates due to people having heard of you and you having acquired connections to rich donors and powerful people in your party. Usually, this is counterbalanced by two effects. People deciding to retire, which they simply don't seem to do in US politics, and old people appearing kind of crusty and oldfashioned, which leads to younger people (i say younger, these younger people are still way older then most on this forum) with "fresh ideas" looking more attractive to voters. For some reason, that also does not seem to happen. I think 2016 is a textbook example of why "that also does not seem to happen". Every time a politician is looking to be replaced, up pops the newest spawn of Satan/strong challenger to run against them ensuring a vibrant debate culminating in a replacing of the old guard doesn't happen, lest we risk the alternative. You mean how Martin O'Malley never stood a chance? The other 3 (Clinton herself, Sanders and Webb) were all well over 65 (I assume that's the retirement age in the US as well). Mostly referring to the constant refrains about how the primary was basically a formality and how Biden is now leading the Dem primary, and when those who really don't like Sanders are jammed, they will use the "There's so little unity among Dems, I wish they fell in line like Republicans" refrains we saw in 2016 But those seem like two somewhat separate issues. "The establishment" wanting centrist status quo candidates doesn't mean those candidates have to be ancient. O'Malley was pretty much a clone of Hillary when considering policy points, but was 20 years younger. But had no backing. Meanwhile, the front runner of the more left-wing candidates is even older than Hillary. And all of the younger candidates are treated as opportunistic upstarts with not much chance. Why? Obama wasn't ancient. Nor was Bush before him. It seems to be something of the zeitgeist where baby-boomers are clutching their last chance for power or so? I dunno. But I'd rather see them train young people who have similar ideologies than frantically hold onto power themselves. Pete Buttigieg is a centrist technocrat. He’s young. He signed up for the military after 9/11 to fight evil. He’s a white male. But he’s also got a lot of identity cred with the younger crowd. One of the things that Buttigieg seems to be doing that many prominent democrats do is to go way left on certain social issues to compensate for some of his heresies on other issues. The two social issues that he is jumping up and down on are abortion rights and gay identity politics. What's "way left" on gay identity politics? The war was won. It's over.
It’s not the policy so much as the flag waving that I was referring to.
|
|
|
On June 05 2019 01:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 13:39 IgnE wrote:On June 04 2019 09:13 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2019 08:08 IgnE wrote:On June 04 2019 03:30 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 01:58 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 00:54 Simberto wrote:On June 04 2019 00:39 iamthedave wrote:
[quote]
I think it's just luck of the draw. Right now Trump's the right's pick, and Bernie seems to be the left's pick. Old dudes are in, middle-aged dudes are out. It's not the fault of the older generation that the young(er) 'uns can't come up with a good idea to save their careers.
I don't agree. The US system requires you to acquire a lot of reputation and favors to even think about running for president. The older you are, the more things you have done in the political sphere, and thus the more likely you are to place higher among the group of possible candidates due to people having heard of you and you having acquired connections to rich donors and powerful people in your party. Usually, this is counterbalanced by two effects. People deciding to retire, which they simply don't seem to do in US politics, and old people appearing kind of crusty and oldfashioned, which leads to younger people (i say younger, these younger people are still way older then most on this forum) with "fresh ideas" looking more attractive to voters. For some reason, that also does not seem to happen. I think 2016 is a textbook example of why "that also does not seem to happen". Every time a politician is looking to be replaced, up pops the newest spawn of Satan/strong challenger to run against them ensuring a vibrant debate culminating in a replacing of the old guard doesn't happen, lest we risk the alternative. You mean how Martin O'Malley never stood a chance? The other 3 (Clinton herself, Sanders and Webb) were all well over 65 (I assume that's the retirement age in the US as well). Mostly referring to the constant refrains about how the primary was basically a formality and how Biden is now leading the Dem primary, and when those who really don't like Sanders are jammed, they will use the "There's so little unity among Dems, I wish they fell in line like Republicans" refrains we saw in 2016 But those seem like two somewhat separate issues. "The establishment" wanting centrist status quo candidates doesn't mean those candidates have to be ancient. O'Malley was pretty much a clone of Hillary when considering policy points, but was 20 years younger. But had no backing. Meanwhile, the front runner of the more left-wing candidates is even older than Hillary. And all of the younger candidates are treated as opportunistic upstarts with not much chance. Why? Obama wasn't ancient. Nor was Bush before him. It seems to be something of the zeitgeist where baby-boomers are clutching their last chance for power or so? I dunno. But I'd rather see them train young people who have similar ideologies than frantically hold onto power themselves. Pete Buttigieg is a centrist technocrat. He’s young. He signed up for the military after 9/11 to fight evil. He’s a white male. But he’s also got a lot of identity cred with the younger crowd. One of the things that Buttigieg seems to be doing that many prominent democrats do is to go way left on certain social issues to compensate for some of his heresies on other issues. The two social issues that he is jumping up and down on are abortion rights and gay identity politics. What's "way left" on gay identity politics? The war was won. It's over. It’s not the policy so much as the flag waving that I was referring to.
Can you point to some instances of this? I mean I know he is gay, but is that really something he brings up a lot?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
