|
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 28 2019 23:08 JimmiC wrote:
In many places in Canada we make a Aknowledgement Statement to recognize that we are residing on aboriginal land. The loval governments worked with the Elders in Open Call events and Round Table Discussions and was vetted through the Reconciliation Commitee's.
There is a short and long form, here is an example of the short "I would like to acknowledge that we are on
Blackfoot land and would like to give recognition to the Blackfoot people past, present and future."
And the long "The City of acknowledges that we
are gathered on the lands of the Blackfoot
people of the Canadian Plains and pays respect
to the Blackfoot people past, present and
future while recognizing and respecting their
cultural heritage, beliefs and relationship to the
land. The City of is also home to
the Metis Nation of Alberta, Region III."
I bring this up as the name does not matter so much it is the actions you take, and more than that the intention behind the actions you take. It is not calling it America that causes any issues, it is how the people that live their act and their intentions that does.
I understand the intention, but isn't such acknowledgement a bigger insult to the descendants of former inhabitants of the area than saying it used to be controlled by tribe X before it was taken by Europeans? You're basically telling them the land is still theirs without doing anything about it. If it's really theirs, why don't "you" give it back?
|
On June 28 2019 23:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 23:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:58 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:24 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote:
I am a bit too much online and "European" pretty much means "White" to me. And not in the harmless way. Outside of this forum I don't even use "white" any more, I use colonizer, settler, European, etc.. If white people born in America are colonizers then so are African Americans. Neither chose the place of their birth. It's people like me who leave Europe that you need to watch out for. Stolen people on stolen land is the phrasing I would use. There is a large contingent of Black people in the US that have adopted colonial ideologies though, skin color (or even the treatment that comes with it) isn't an inoculation to colonial ideologies. If it is possible for land to have an owner then who but the people who were born on the land and make use of it could possibly be that owner? Migration is a part of human society. The children of the migrants are no less entitled than the children of the other migrants who came a bit earlier. Historical ownership of wealth is a bit more tricky because the crimes of the father enrich the son. But as for the land itself, we all own it, or none of us do. We all own it, or none of us do, would be acceptable. Issue is, colonizers insist they own it, and no one else. The capitalists insist that only those with a deed own it, and that deed is traced back to the original crime. I’d be fine with the “colonizers” saying that the land belongs to all colonizers because that’s all of us. The problem here is dead people seizing the means of production from the people who generated the wealth and then granting their kids an exclusive right to it. You’re as much a colonizer of the US as any other born here.
Indigenous people didn't replace anyone, so no they are not colonizers. The descendants of stolen people are not colonizers in the sense that decedents of the thieves are simply because we both reside here. But it's true that any just outcome requires amiable resolution with indigenous peoples that could include Black people leaving too. Were we to stay despite the protest of indigenous peoples you're right that we'd be no different (with consideration for circumstances) than descendants of Europeans colonialists.
We think we could come to terms though, around the mutual expulsion of colonialists.
You're right imo that as a recent immigrant your reluctant embrace of colonialism is different (and potentially more hazardous) than either.
On June 28 2019 23:42 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 23:08 JimmiC wrote:
In many places in Canada we make a Aknowledgement Statement to recognize that we are residing on aboriginal land. The loval governments worked with the Elders in Open Call events and Round Table Discussions and was vetted through the Reconciliation Commitee's.
There is a short and long form, here is an example of the short "I would like to acknowledge that we are on
Blackfoot land and would like to give recognition to the Blackfoot people past, present and future."
And the long "The City of acknowledges that we
are gathered on the lands of the Blackfoot
people of the Canadian Plains and pays respect
to the Blackfoot people past, present and
future while recognizing and respecting their
cultural heritage, beliefs and relationship to the
land. The City of is also home to
the Metis Nation of Alberta, Region III."
I bring this up as the name does not matter so much it is the actions you take, and more than that the intention behind the actions you take. It is not calling it America that causes any issues, it is how the people that live their act and their intentions that does. I understand the intention, but isn't such acknowledgement a bigger insult to the descendants of former inhabitants of the area than saying it used to be controlled by tribe X before it was taken by Europeans? You're basically telling them the land is still theirs without doing anything about it. If it's really theirs, why don't "you" give it back?
In the US we're trained to see meaningless acknowledgements as significant progress.
|
My thoughts on last night's Democratic Primary Debate Night #1b:
TL;DR Results (in my humble opinion):
1st Place: Kamala Harris (5/5). Hands down, the best showing across both nights. Absolute beast. My top two favorites candidates have been Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren, but Kamala Harris is now top tier for me as well (I now have a top three, and I don't know the order anymore).
2nd Tier: Buttigieg (4.5/5), Gillibrand (4.5/5).
3rd Tier: Sanders (3.5/5), Biden (3/5).
4th Tier: Yang / Bennet / Swalwell / Williamson / Hickenlooper (Irrelevant / 5).
Various thoughts and stream-of-consciousness as I'm watching the debate:
General/Miscellaneous:
a. Between Gillibrand and Swalwell asserting themselves within the first 10 minutes of the debate (and eventually Harris), it's clear that the moderators are going to get walked all over by any candidate who wants more air time.
b. You have no control, moderators.
c. I like the transition into undocumented immigrants, especially the later question about civil vs. criminal offenses.
d. "The Obama/Biden Administration deported more than 3 million Americans." Wait, what? No they didn't. Not Americans. I'm assuming the moderator misspoke here.
e. I think this debate is more dynamic than the previous night's, and I have a lot less patience for the little league players on the stage. If this is your A-game, just go home. If it's not, then you didn't do your homework, so you should go home anyway.
f. Climate change is a softball question for everyone here.
g. Rachel Maddow: "I want to bring Governor Hickenlooper into this conversation." Me: "y tho."
h. Moderator: "Can you all please give us a one-word answer for this next question about the #1 most important policy-" Everyone: "FUCK YOU."
i. Moderator: "Naming just one country, which country would you choose to repair relationships with first? Just first? Just one country. One word. Just one." Everyone: "FUCK YOU."
Andrew Yang:
a. I don't know how Yang was supposed to explain how to pay for his entire pseudo-UBI plan in a single opening blurb, and I don't think it landed. Also, the moderator's initial and follow-up question seemed to be borderline-derisive. Regardless, Yang didn't do a good job of making his ideas sound appealing or believable, so ignoring what I already know about him and have seen from him, I think in this specific instance, his opening only gets a 2.5/5.
b. Bro, you gonna talk at all? You were offered very little air time through moderator questioning (which is bullshit), but you gotta fight for your right to talk on the main stage by interjecting.
c. Tonight was your chance to make your presence known. You didn't. Can't just blame the moderators for not offering you questions, especially when the other candidates were able to interject when they wanted.
d. Closing statement was nice, but it was too little, too late.
Pete Buttigieg:
a. Strong opening statement on reducing student debt, and a really nice elaboration on other post- high school options. 4.5/5.
b. Very smooth, measured, eloquent answers. Pete is speaking like Pete. He's not speaking much, but when he does, he's hitting home good points.
c. Nice answer about the path to citizenship.
d. Masterful interjection about the criminal vs. civil offense question and making it his opportunity to land a blow against Republicans who think they're being pro-God.
e. Strong, sincere response to the Eric Logan/ police officer case. Easily shook off Hickenlooper and Swalwell.
f. Really solid closing statement.
Joe Biden:
a. Appealed to anti-Trump sentiment from the first minute and just rambled; not a solid start, 2/5.
b. After getting kneecapped by Swalwell's opening, he had a reasonably good comeback with good ideas. Looks like Biden may have a little fight in him after all.
c. I think Biden's responses have been reasonably lukewarm... not awful, but he's being outshone by a bunch of other candidates on stage. I think his support goes down after this.
d. I feel like he's doing an okay job at playing defense, and I'm surprised at how much pro-Biden cheering he's getting from the crowd.
e. Yo, we get it, you know Obama.
f. Hollow closed statement. Meh.
Bernie Sanders:
a. A very "Bernie" opening statement, which is fine by me (and most people). Reasonably solid start, 4/5.
b. Not afraid to use strong language against Trump, which is nice.
c. Bernie defending his generation right after Biden defended from Swalwell, appealing to ideas over age. I get what he was going for, but I feel like the interjection seemed unnecessary from him, since obviously he's not being accused of being out-of-date like Biden.
d. Bernie is still on Bernie-mode, although his volume is turned up to 11.
e. Bernie got laughed at for his old gun quote; he didn't play that off very well. Also "ASSAULT WEAPONS ASSAULT WEAPONS ASSAULT WEAPONS"; come on, Bernie.
f. You gave me nothing new, Bernie. You already have the support of your supporters; nothing you said here is going to persuade others.
g. Nailed Biden on the Iraq War though.
h. Closing statement was as good as his opening, which were the two highlights of his appearance.
Kamala Harris:
a. I really, really like her opening statement, where she flipped the "How do Dems pay for all this" question on its head and reversed it for Republicans and everyone, in general, and then actually answered the question. Very solid start, 4.5/5.
b. "America doesn't want to witness a food fight; they want to know how we're going to put food on their table." IT'S OVER. HARRIS WINS IN TWENTY MINUTES. SHIT. Can I stop watching now? Epic mic drop moment, especially since she was able to silence everyone else on stage and go full-on Harris-Knows-Best on the rest of the candidates.
c. I love how she's prepared to take down the misconceptions about Trump's "amazing" economy. That really makes me think she'll do a great job in the general election vs. Trump.
d. She's doing a good job of strategically interjecting at opportune times.
e. Immigration responses on point. Extra points for using the "Her" pronoun when talking about the next president. You go, girl.
f. Thanks for bringing up race and reparations, Wiliamson; now let me own that shit, take down Biden, and drop some awesome anecdotes.
g. Good closing statement, although not as good as Gillibrand's imo.
Kirsten Gillibrand:
a. Interesting opening about greed and capitalism, but I'm not really sure what to make of it. 3/5.
b. Within the first 10 minutes, her impressive assertiveness has shown that the moderators have no control over the situation.
c. Her interjections are less strategic than Harris's; it's starting to look like she's trying to bully her way into every comment, which I'm personally fine with (fight for the limelight) but I feel like the optics of it aren't as appealing as what Harris is doing. (She dialed it back for the second half of the debate.)
d. Gillibrand is continuing to land some really nice remarks, across the board, including immigration ideas.
e. Nice monologue about Roe v. Wade.
f. Inspirational closing statement.
Michael Bennet:
a. Opening statement about returning back to Obamacare plus a public option, which I figured would be Biden's opening. We can't go backwards. 2/5.
b. I agree with you that Mitch McConnell is a bad guy and that we need to end political gerrymandering.
c. There's literally nothing interesting about you. Confirmed via Google Image.
d. I don't know why so many questions were aimed towards you.
e. Your closing statement almost put me to sleep. At 11 AM.
Eric Swalwell:
a. Reasonable opening, touching upon a broad list of topics and OH SHIT BIDEN JUST GOT CALLED THE FUCK OUT HAHAHAHA. I don't know if this anecdote is true or not, but the chipping away of Biden is beginning!
b. Getting out-interjected by Harris.
c. Was Swalwell only here to take a swipe at Biden during the first few minutes of the debate?
d. Yes.
e. Cliche, canned closing statement, but I appreciate the diaper smell analogy.
Marianne Williamson:
a. Who the hell are you? Didn't even know you existed for the first 25 minutes of the debate, and now your "opening" statement is that substantive policy is too superficial to go up against a one-liner Barnum statement like Make America Great Again? Seriously, who are you?
b. Piling on Hickenlooper's point, which is safe I guess, but then you transition to some weird foreign policy jab.
c. Reparations! Wait, what? Random. Weird flex but okay.
d. Man on the moon, Green New Deal, New Zealand. wat.
e. Closing statement was wacky... there was something there for a second, and then I don't know.
John Hickenlooper:
a. I don't like his opening statement, from thinking that denying being socialists will make Republicans actually believe that, to already taking pot shots at the Green New Deal without context; 2/5.
b. Kind-of-okay response to the concentration camps and kidnapping we have at the border. I'll take it.
c. See Michael Bennet's (c).
d. Closing statement: Bro, you ain't "scrappy". See John Hickenlooper's (c).
VOD is here, starting at around 1:05:00 and lasting approximately 2 hours: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX7hni-zGD8t=1000
|
On June 28 2019 23:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +My thoughts on last night's Democratic Primary Debate Night #1b: TL;DR Results (in my humble opinion): 1st Place: Kamala Harris (5/5). Hands down, the best showing across both nights. Absolute beast. My top two favorites candidates have been Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren, but Kamala Harris is now top tier for me as well (I now have a top three, and I don't know the order anymore). 2nd Tier: Buttigieg (4.5/5), Gillibrand (4.5/5). 3rd Tier: Sanders (3.5/5), Biden (3/5). 4th Tier: Yang / Bennet / Swalwell / Williamson / Hickenlooper (Irrelevant / 5). Various thoughts and stream-of-consciousness as I'm watching the debate: General/Miscellaneous: a. Between Gillibrand and Swalwell asserting themselves within the first 10 minutes of the debate (and eventually Harris), it's clear that the moderators are going to get walked all over by any candidate who wants more air time. b. You have no control, moderators. c. I like the transition into undocumented immigrants, especially the later question about civil vs. criminal offenses. d. "The Obama/Biden Administration deported more than 3 million Americans." Wait, what? No they didn't. Not Americans. I'm assuming the moderator misspoke here. e. I think this debate is more dynamic than the previous night's, and I have a lot less patience for the little league players on the stage. If this is your A-game, just go home. If it's not, then you didn't do your homework, so you should go home anyway. f. Climate change is a softball question for everyone here. g. Rachel Maddow: "I want to bring Governor Hickenlooper into this conversation." Me: "y tho." h. Moderator: "Can you all please give us a one-word answer for this next question about the #1 most important policy-" Everyone: "FUCK YOU." i. Moderator: "Naming just one country, which country would you choose to repair relationships with first? Just first? Just one country. One word. Just one." Everyone: "FUCK YOU." Andrew Yang: a. I don't know how Yang was supposed to explain how to pay for his entire pseudo-UBI plan in a single opening blurb, and I don't think it landed. Also, the moderator's initial and follow-up question seemed to be borderline-derisive. Regardless, Yang didn't do a good job of making his ideas sound appealing or believable, so ignoring what I already know about him and have seen from him, I think in this specific instance, his opening only gets a 2.5/5. b. Bro, you gonna talk at all? You were offered very little air time through moderator questioning (which is bullshit), but you gotta fight for your right to talk on the main stage by interjecting. c. Tonight was your chance to make your presence known. You didn't. Can't just blame the moderators for not offering you questions, especially when the other candidates were able to interject when they wanted. d. Closing statement was nice, but it was too little, too late. Pete Buttigieg: a. Strong opening statement on reducing student debt, and a really nice elaboration on other post- high school options. 4.5/5. b. Very smooth, measured, eloquent answers. Pete is speaking like Pete. He's not speaking much, but when he does, he's hitting home good points. c. Nice answer about the path to citizenship. d. Masterful interjection about the criminal vs. civil offense question and making it his opportunity to land a blow against Republicans who think they're being pro-God. e. Strong, sincere response to the Eric Logan/ police officer case. Easily shook off Hickenlooper and Swalwell. f. Really solid closing statement. Joe Biden: a. Appealed to anti-Trump sentiment from the first minute and just rambled; not a solid start, 2/5. b. After getting kneecapped by Swalwell's opening, he had a reasonably good comeback with good ideas. Looks like Biden may have a little fight in him after all. c. I think Biden's responses have been reasonably lukewarm... not awful, but he's being outshone by a bunch of other candidates on stage. I think his support goes down after this. d. I feel like he's doing an okay job at playing defense, and I'm surprised at how much pro-Biden cheering he's getting from the crowd. e. Yo, we get it, you know Obama. f. Hollow closed statement. Meh. Bernie Sanders: a. A very "Bernie" opening statement, which is fine by me (and most people). Reasonably solid start, 4/5. b. Not afraid to use strong language against Trump, which is nice. c. Bernie defending his generation right after Biden defended from Swalwell, appealing to ideas over age. I get what he was going for, but I feel like the interjection seemed unnecessary from him, since obviously he's not being accused of being out-of-date like Biden. d. Bernie is still on Bernie-mode, although his volume is turned up to 11. e. Bernie got laughed at for his old gun quote; he didn't play that off very well. Also "ASSAULT WEAPONS ASSAULT WEAPONS ASSAULT WEAPONS"; come on, Bernie. f. You gave me nothing new, Bernie. You already have the support of your supporters; nothing you said here is going to persuade others. g. Nailed Biden on the Iraq War though. h. Closing statement was as good as his opening, which were the two highlights of his appearance. Kamala Harris: a. I really, really like her opening statement, where she flipped the "How do Dems pay for all this" question on its head and reversed it for Republicans and everyone, in general, and then actually answered the question. Very solid start, 4.5/5. b. "America doesn't want to witness a food fight; they want to know how we're going to put food on their table." IT'S OVER. HARRIS WINS IN TWENTY MINUTES. SHIT. Can I stop watching now? Epic mic drop moment, especially since she was able to silence everyone else on stage and go full-on Harris-Knows-Best on the rest of the candidates. c. I love how she's prepared to take down the misconceptions about Trump's "amazing" economy. That really makes me think she'll do a great job in the general election vs. Trump. d. She's doing a good job of strategically interjecting at opportune times. e. Immigration responses on point. Extra points for using the "Her" pronoun when talking about the next president. You go, girl. f. Thanks for bringing up race and reparations, Wiliamson; now let me own that shit, take down Biden, and drop some awesome anecdotes. g. Good closing statement, although not as good as Gillibrand's imo. Kirsten Gillibrand: a. Interesting opening about greed and capitalism, but I'm not really sure what to make of it. 3/5. b. Within the first 10 minutes, her impressive assertiveness has shown that the moderators have no control over the situation. c. Her interjections are less strategic than Harris's; it's starting to look like she's trying to bully her way into every comment, which I'm personally fine with (fight for the limelight) but I feel like the optics of it aren't as appealing as what Harris is doing. (She dialed it back for the second half of the debate.) d. Gillibrand is continuing to land some really nice remarks, across the board, including immigration ideas. e. Nice monologue about Roe v. Wade. f. Inspirational closing statement. Michael Bennet: a. Opening statement about returning back to Obamacare plus a public option, which I figured would be Biden's opening. We can't go backwards. 2/5. b. I agree with you that Mitch McConnell is a bad guy and that we need to end political gerrymandering. c. There's literally nothing interesting about you. Confirmed via Google Image. d. I don't know why so many questions were aimed towards you. e. Your closing statement almost put me to sleep. At 11 AM. Eric Swalwell: a. Reasonable opening, touching upon a broad list of topics and OH SHIT BIDEN JUST GOT CALLED THE FUCK OUT HAHAHAHA. I don't know if this anecdote is true or not, but the chipping away of Biden is beginning! b. Getting out-interjected by Harris. c. Was Swalwell only here to take a swipe at Biden during the first few minutes of the debate? d. Yes. e. Cliche, canned closing statement, but I appreciate the diaper smell analogy. Marianne Williamson: a. Who the hell are you? Didn't even know you existed for the first 25 minutes of the debate, and now your "opening" statement is that substantive policy is too superficial to go up against a one-liner Barnum statement like Make America Great Again? Seriously, who are you? b. Piling on Hickenlooper's point, which is safe I guess, but then you transition to some weird foreign policy jab. c. Reparations! Wait, what? Random. Weird flex but okay. d. Man on the moon, Green New Deal, New Zealand. wat. e. Closing statement was wacky... there was something there for a second, and then I don't know. John Hickenlooper: a. I don't like his opening statement, from thinking that denying being socialists will make Republicans actually believe that, to already taking pot shots at the Green New Deal without context; 2/5. b. Kind-of-okay response to the concentration camps and kidnapping we have at the border. I'll take it. c. See Michael Bennet's (c). d. Closing statement: Bro, you ain't "scrappy". See John Hickenlooper's (c). VOD is here, starting at around 1:05:00 and lasting approximately 2 hours: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX7hni-zGD8t=1000
This is a nice substitute for actually watching the whole thing, thanks!
|
On June 28 2019 23:53 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 23:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:My thoughts on last night's Democratic Primary Debate Night #1b: TL;DR Results (in my humble opinion): 1st Place: Kamala Harris (5/5). Hands down, the best showing across both nights. Absolute beast. My top two favorites candidates have been Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren, but Kamala Harris is now top tier for me as well (I now have a top three, and I don't know the order anymore). 2nd Tier: Buttigieg (4.5/5), Gillibrand (4.5/5). 3rd Tier: Sanders (3.5/5), Biden (3/5). 4th Tier: Yang / Bennet / Swalwell / Williamson / Hickenlooper (Irrelevant / 5). Various thoughts and stream-of-consciousness as I'm watching the debate: General/Miscellaneous: a. Between Gillibrand and Swalwell asserting themselves within the first 10 minutes of the debate (and eventually Harris), it's clear that the moderators are going to get walked all over by any candidate who wants more air time. b. You have no control, moderators. c. I like the transition into undocumented immigrants, especially the later question about civil vs. criminal offenses. d. "The Obama/Biden Administration deported more than 3 million Americans." Wait, what? No they didn't. Not Americans. I'm assuming the moderator misspoke here. e. I think this debate is more dynamic than the previous night's, and I have a lot less patience for the little league players on the stage. If this is your A-game, just go home. If it's not, then you didn't do your homework, so you should go home anyway. f. Climate change is a softball question for everyone here. g. Rachel Maddow: "I want to bring Governor Hickenlooper into this conversation." Me: "y tho." h. Moderator: "Can you all please give us a one-word answer for this next question about the #1 most important policy-" Everyone: "FUCK YOU." i. Moderator: "Naming just one country, which country would you choose to repair relationships with first? Just first? Just one country. One word. Just one." Everyone: "FUCK YOU." Andrew Yang: a. I don't know how Yang was supposed to explain how to pay for his entire pseudo-UBI plan in a single opening blurb, and I don't think it landed. Also, the moderator's initial and follow-up question seemed to be borderline-derisive. Regardless, Yang didn't do a good job of making his ideas sound appealing or believable, so ignoring what I already know about him and have seen from him, I think in this specific instance, his opening only gets a 2.5/5. b. Bro, you gonna talk at all? You were offered very little air time through moderator questioning (which is bullshit), but you gotta fight for your right to talk on the main stage by interjecting. c. Tonight was your chance to make your presence known. You didn't. Can't just blame the moderators for not offering you questions, especially when the other candidates were able to interject when they wanted. d. Closing statement was nice, but it was too little, too late. Pete Buttigieg: a. Strong opening statement on reducing student debt, and a really nice elaboration on other post- high school options. 4.5/5. b. Very smooth, measured, eloquent answers. Pete is speaking like Pete. He's not speaking much, but when he does, he's hitting home good points. c. Nice answer about the path to citizenship. d. Masterful interjection about the criminal vs. civil offense question and making it his opportunity to land a blow against Republicans who think they're being pro-God. e. Strong, sincere response to the Eric Logan/ police officer case. Easily shook off Hickenlooper and Swalwell. f. Really solid closing statement. Joe Biden: a. Appealed to anti-Trump sentiment from the first minute and just rambled; not a solid start, 2/5. b. After getting kneecapped by Swalwell's opening, he had a reasonably good comeback with good ideas. Looks like Biden may have a little fight in him after all. c. I think Biden's responses have been reasonably lukewarm... not awful, but he's being outshone by a bunch of other candidates on stage. I think his support goes down after this. d. I feel like he's doing an okay job at playing defense, and I'm surprised at how much pro-Biden cheering he's getting from the crowd. e. Yo, we get it, you know Obama. f. Hollow closed statement. Meh. Bernie Sanders: a. A very "Bernie" opening statement, which is fine by me (and most people). Reasonably solid start, 4/5. b. Not afraid to use strong language against Trump, which is nice. c. Bernie defending his generation right after Biden defended from Swalwell, appealing to ideas over age. I get what he was going for, but I feel like the interjection seemed unnecessary from him, since obviously he's not being accused of being out-of-date like Biden. d. Bernie is still on Bernie-mode, although his volume is turned up to 11. e. Bernie got laughed at for his old gun quote; he didn't play that off very well. Also "ASSAULT WEAPONS ASSAULT WEAPONS ASSAULT WEAPONS"; come on, Bernie. f. You gave me nothing new, Bernie. You already have the support of your supporters; nothing you said here is going to persuade others. g. Nailed Biden on the Iraq War though. h. Closing statement was as good as his opening, which were the two highlights of his appearance. Kamala Harris: a. I really, really like her opening statement, where she flipped the "How do Dems pay for all this" question on its head and reversed it for Republicans and everyone, in general, and then actually answered the question. Very solid start, 4.5/5. b. "America doesn't want to witness a food fight; they want to know how we're going to put food on their table." IT'S OVER. HARRIS WINS IN TWENTY MINUTES. SHIT. Can I stop watching now? Epic mic drop moment, especially since she was able to silence everyone else on stage and go full-on Harris-Knows-Best on the rest of the candidates. c. I love how she's prepared to take down the misconceptions about Trump's "amazing" economy. That really makes me think she'll do a great job in the general election vs. Trump. d. She's doing a good job of strategically interjecting at opportune times. e. Immigration responses on point. Extra points for using the "Her" pronoun when talking about the next president. You go, girl. f. Thanks for bringing up race and reparations, Wiliamson; now let me own that shit, take down Biden, and drop some awesome anecdotes. g. Good closing statement, although not as good as Gillibrand's imo. Kirsten Gillibrand: a. Interesting opening about greed and capitalism, but I'm not really sure what to make of it. 3/5. b. Within the first 10 minutes, her impressive assertiveness has shown that the moderators have no control over the situation. c. Her interjections are less strategic than Harris's; it's starting to look like she's trying to bully her way into every comment, which I'm personally fine with (fight for the limelight) but I feel like the optics of it aren't as appealing as what Harris is doing. (She dialed it back for the second half of the debate.) d. Gillibrand is continuing to land some really nice remarks, across the board, including immigration ideas. e. Nice monologue about Roe v. Wade. f. Inspirational closing statement. Michael Bennet: a. Opening statement about returning back to Obamacare plus a public option, which I figured would be Biden's opening. We can't go backwards. 2/5. b. I agree with you that Mitch McConnell is a bad guy and that we need to end political gerrymandering. c. There's literally nothing interesting about you. Confirmed via Google Image. d. I don't know why so many questions were aimed towards you. e. Your closing statement almost put me to sleep. At 11 AM. Eric Swalwell: a. Reasonable opening, touching upon a broad list of topics and OH SHIT BIDEN JUST GOT CALLED THE FUCK OUT HAHAHAHA. I don't know if this anecdote is true or not, but the chipping away of Biden is beginning! b. Getting out-interjected by Harris. c. Was Swalwell only here to take a swipe at Biden during the first few minutes of the debate? d. Yes. e. Cliche, canned closing statement, but I appreciate the diaper smell analogy. Marianne Williamson: a. Who the hell are you? Didn't even know you existed for the first 25 minutes of the debate, and now your "opening" statement is that substantive policy is too superficial to go up against a one-liner Barnum statement like Make America Great Again? Seriously, who are you? b. Piling on Hickenlooper's point, which is safe I guess, but then you transition to some weird foreign policy jab. c. Reparations! Wait, what? Random. Weird flex but okay. d. Man on the moon, Green New Deal, New Zealand. wat. e. Closing statement was wacky... there was something there for a second, and then I don't know. John Hickenlooper: a. I don't like his opening statement, from thinking that denying being socialists will make Republicans actually believe that, to already taking pot shots at the Green New Deal without context; 2/5. b. Kind-of-okay response to the concentration camps and kidnapping we have at the border. I'll take it. c. See Michael Bennet's (c). d. Closing statement: Bro, you ain't "scrappy". See John Hickenlooper's (c). VOD is here, starting at around 1:05:00 and lasting approximately 2 hours: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX7hni-zGD8t=1000 This is a nice substitute for actually watching the whole thing, thanks!
Haha my pleasure  It was more interesting than the previous night's debate imo, which I wrote up here:
+ Show Spoiler +On June 28 2019 00:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2019 12:16 xDaunt wrote:
Yeah, we need to get the main contenders on one stage. Bernie, Biden, Harris, Warren, and Booker should not be broken up anymore. I agree, and I also think that having a smaller group of candidates on stage at the same time will be more useful; last night it felt very diluted. My thoughts on last night's Democratic Primary Debate Night #1a (#1b is tonight with the other candidates): TL;DR Results (in my humble opinion): 1st place: Julian Castro (4.5/5). He's the only low-polling candidate who piqued my curiosity and got me Googling him and his policies. He clearly won in the showdown vs. Beto, and other candidates went out of their way to agree with him and align themselves with him, which makes him look very strong. I don't see him suddenly surging into the Top 3 Democratic primary candidates, but if any of tonight's zero-polling candidates were to receive a bump, I would expect it to be him. 2nd Tier: Booker (4/5), Warren (3.5/5), Klobuchar (3.5/5). 3rd Tier: de Blasio (3/5), Delaney (3/5), Gabbard (2.5/5). 4th Tier: O'Rourke (2/5), Ryan (2/5), Inslee (2/5). Various thoughts and stream-of-consciousness as I'm watching the debate: General/Miscellaneous: a. I wish every candidate had a minute to give their own opening statement, instead of half-answering the first question or being confined to specific and different questions. (Closing statements were okay.) b. There's zero chance that the Republicans will watch this debate (too much Spanish speaking). c. Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd coming on stage and transitioning into mic issues. What the hell? Seriously? This is a presidential debate. I wouldn't be surprised if the debate lost a lot of viewers during this period of technical difficulties. d. One-word answers as responses to huge, important questions (like geopolitical threats) are lazy, stupid, and devoid of substance. There's a time and place for one-word answers, but debates beg for actual nuance and contextualization. Elizabeth Warren: a. 4/5 on the power and substance of opening statement; reasonably covered all the points I was hoping she'd hit. b. The instant hand raise in favor of government healthcare; well done, putting your money where your mouth is. c. Aligns herself with Bernie in many places, which is a very good idea (especially since Bernie isn't on stage with her). d. Managed to take back the mic a second or third time over the other candidates, which was impressive. e. Caught off guard by the "abortion term limit" question; didn't really answer it. f. Dammit, Warren, say "Fight like hell", not "Fight like heck". g. I'm not sure what to make of her initial gun answer, in that she gave a strong, emotional appeal to us handling guns in better ways, but didn't directly answer the question about what the federal government's role should be. My guess is that her non-answer is an appeal to the general election, not an appeal to the Democratic primary. h. Chuck Todd throwing Liz Warren a softball about how she has plans for everything (she hasn't really talked too much about her specific plans in the first half of the debate), but her response about Mitch McConnell was just meh. i. Final thoughts about Liz Warren: As the only frontrunner in this debate, she was in a uniquely risky position, but I don't think she gained or lost a ton of support here. I was hoping to see her feature more of her specific plans in this debate, and I don't really think she did that. She also didn't really exist in the second half of the debate. Maybe, as a Liz Warren supporter, my expectations were a little too high for what I wanted her to show in a debate format featuring nine other candidates. (I wonder if I'll feel the same way about Bernie Sanders tomorrow.) She got out relatively unscathed, and I really, really want to see her up against the other frontrunners. Beto O’Rourke: a. 3/5 on the power and substance of opening statement (he didn't answer the question but what he said likely came off as powerful, plus the Spanish will resonate). b. Very smart to be the first one to reference women's reproductive rights and overpopulation in prison. c. Beto is getting out-immigrant'ed by Castro, then mostly faded away into the background except for the occasional anecdote. Cory Booker: a. 2/5 on the power and substance of opening statement (he didn't answer the question and didn't even speak Spanish). b. Good answer about holding pharmaceutical companies accountable and dealing with opioid addiction. c. Nice Spanish answer to the ICE/ immigration question, and also discussing DACA. d. I appreciate the criticism of "thoughts and prayers" as a response to gun violence, although he didn't answer with much substance on what to do about it. e. Ignored a question to go back to guns. Meh. f. Did you know that Cory Booker is an African-American man in an African-American community!?!?!? g. I think, overall, Booker did a reasonably good job at appealing to a variety of people, interjecting at the right times, and commanding presence. Amy Klobuchar: a. 3/5 on the power and substance of opening statement, but pretty basic. b. "All foam and no beer" hit home for half, and came across as cringeworthy for the other half. c. Wrecked Jay Inslee's assertion about how he was the only one to fight for women's rights. d. Reasonable (not amazing, not awful) answers across the board, but really wasn't assertive or memorable. John Delaney: a. 4/5 on the power and substance of opening statement; he did a pretty good job of trying to outline why he's unique. b. Within 40 minutes, he's essentially become irrelevant. c. Shouting out of turn and getting shut down. Kewl. d. Response about Mitch McConnell was even worse than Warren's. Tulsi Gabbard: a. 3/5 on the power and substance of opening statement. b. Didn't contribute anything substantive to the healthcare discussion, and she had the opportunity to. c. I appreciate her anti-war and de-escalation stance, but I feel like this is the only thing I know about her and it's not enough. d. Good recovery from the LGBT support question. Julian Castro: a. 4/5 on the power and substance of opening statement (the cheers and clapping for the Equal Rights Act might tip it to 4.5/5). b. Strong pro-woman (and pro-trans) point about reproductive rights and Roe v. Wade. c. Good immigration plan and he's the first one to use raw language ("it should piss us all off"), which I really like. d. Took back the mic for immigration a second time, which was very impressive. e. Both Ryan and Booker are trying hard to align themselves with Castro, which shows Castro's strength. f. Good answer about police accountability and racial prejudice. g. Best closing statement. Tim Ryan: a. 2/5 on the power and substance of opening statement; I just found his answer (and stare) really boring. b. Dude, you know you can talk during this debate, right? (Some heavy irony later on in his closing statement, when he talks about the importance of being heard.) c. Good reference to emotional and mental health, although bullied kids aren't necessarily the ones who are shooting up schools. d. Got some cheers with appealing to blue collar workers. e. Did you just try to go up against Tulsi Gabbard on literally her only strength? The military? Really? Bill de Blasio: a. 4/5 on the power and substance of opening statement. b. Going out for blood against Beto, but I don't think it really landed. c. Good monologue about Democrats needing to be the party of immigrants. d. His interjections are coming off pretty coarsely now. e. Ignored a question to go back to guns. Meh. f. "I'm raising a black son" came off like a political stunt, somehow. Jay Inslee: a. 2/5 on the power and substance of opening statement; it's too early and easy to reference Trump. b. Repeatedly trying to come off as the "first" or "only" person to do something, and it's not really working. c. Climate change is "everything" to him... and he didn't really lay out specifics. VOD of the debate is attached, starting at the 2-hour mark and running for about 2 hours:
|
|
|
On June 28 2019 23:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:My thoughts on last night's Democratic Primary Debate Night #1b: TL;DR Results (in my humble opinion): 1st Place: Kamala Harris (5/5). Hands down, the best showing across both nights. Absolute beast. My top two favorites candidates have been Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren, but Kamala Harris is now top tier for me as well (I now have a top three, and I don't know the order anymore). 2nd Tier: Buttigieg (4.5/5), Gillibrand (4.5/5). 3rd Tier: Sanders (3.5/5), Biden (3/5). 4th Tier: Yang / Bennet / Swalwell / Williamson / Hickenlooper (Irrelevant / 5). + Show Spoiler +Various thoughts and stream-of-consciousness as I'm watching the debate: General/Miscellaneous: a. Between Gillibrand and Swalwell asserting themselves within the first 10 minutes of the debate (and eventually Harris), it's clear that the moderators are going to get walked all over by any candidate who wants more air time. b. You have no control, moderators. c. I like the transition into undocumented immigrants, especially the later question about civil vs. criminal offenses. d. "The Obama/Biden Administration deported more than 3 million Americans." Wait, what? No they didn't. Not Americans. I'm assuming the moderator misspoke here. e. I think this debate is more dynamic than the previous night's, and I have a lot less patience for the little league players on the stage. If this is your A-game, just go home. If it's not, then you didn't do your homework, so you should go home anyway. f. Climate change is a softball question for everyone here. g. Rachel Maddow: "I want to bring Governor Hickenlooper into this conversation." Me: "y tho." h. Moderator: "Can you all please give us a one-word answer for this next question about the #1 most important policy-" Everyone: "FUCK YOU." i. Moderator: "Naming just one country, which country would you choose to repair relationships with first? Just first? Just one country. One word. Just one." Everyone: "FUCK YOU." Andrew Yang: a. I don't know how Yang was supposed to explain how to pay for his entire pseudo-UBI plan in a single opening blurb, and I don't think it landed. Also, the moderator's initial and follow-up question seemed to be borderline-derisive. Regardless, Yang didn't do a good job of making his ideas sound appealing or believable, so ignoring what I already know about him and have seen from him, I think in this specific instance, his opening only gets a 2.5/5. b. Bro, you gonna talk at all? You were offered very little air time through moderator questioning (which is bullshit), but you gotta fight for your right to talk on the main stage by interjecting. c. Tonight was your chance to make your presence known. You didn't. Can't just blame the moderators for not offering you questions, especially when the other candidates were able to interject when they wanted. d. Closing statement was nice, but it was too little, too late. Pete Buttigieg: a. Strong opening statement on reducing student debt, and a really nice elaboration on other post- high school options. 4.5/5. b. Very smooth, measured, eloquent answers. Pete is speaking like Pete. He's not speaking much, but when he does, he's hitting home good points. c. Nice answer about the path to citizenship. d. Masterful interjection about the criminal vs. civil offense question and making it his opportunity to land a blow against Republicans who think they're being pro-God. e. Strong, sincere response to the Eric Logan/ police officer case. Easily shook off Hickenlooper and Swalwell. f. Really solid closing statement. Joe Biden: a. Appealed to anti-Trump sentiment from the first minute and just rambled; not a solid start, 2/5. b. After getting kneecapped by Swalwell's opening, he had a reasonably good comeback with good ideas. Looks like Biden may have a little fight in him after all. c. I think Biden's responses have been reasonably lukewarm... not awful, but he's being outshone by a bunch of other candidates on stage. I think his support goes down after this. d. I feel like he's doing an okay job at playing defense, and I'm surprised at how much pro-Biden cheering he's getting from the crowd. e. Yo, we get it, you know Obama. f. Hollow closed statement. Meh. Bernie Sanders: a. A very "Bernie" opening statement, which is fine by me (and most people). Reasonably solid start, 4/5. b. Not afraid to use strong language against Trump, which is nice. c. Bernie defending his generation right after Biden defended from Swalwell, appealing to ideas over age. I get what he was going for, but I feel like the interjection seemed unnecessary from him, since obviously he's not being accused of being out-of-date like Biden. d. Bernie is still on Bernie-mode, although his volume is turned up to 11. e. Bernie got laughed at for his old gun quote; he didn't play that off very well. Also "ASSAULT WEAPONS ASSAULT WEAPONS ASSAULT WEAPONS"; come on, Bernie. f. You gave me nothing new, Bernie. You already have the support of your supporters; nothing you said here is going to persuade others. g. Nailed Biden on the Iraq War though. h. Closing statement was as good as his opening, which were the two highlights of his appearance. Kamala Harris: a. I really, really like her opening statement, where she flipped the "How do Dems pay for all this" question on its head and reversed it for Republicans and everyone, in general, and then actually answered the question. Very solid start, 4.5/5. b. "America doesn't want to witness a food fight; they want to know how we're going to put food on their table." IT'S OVER. HARRIS WINS IN TWENTY MINUTES. SHIT. Can I stop watching now? Epic mic drop moment, especially since she was able to silence everyone else on stage and go full-on Harris-Knows-Best on the rest of the candidates. c. I love how she's prepared to take down the misconceptions about Trump's "amazing" economy. That really makes me think she'll do a great job in the general election vs. Trump. d. She's doing a good job of strategically interjecting at opportune times. e. Immigration responses on point. Extra points for using the "Her" pronoun when talking about the next president. You go, girl. f. Thanks for bringing up race and reparations, Wiliamson; now let me own that shit, take down Biden, and drop some awesome anecdotes. g. Good closing statement, although not as good as Gillibrand's imo. Kirsten Gillibrand: a. Interesting opening about greed and capitalism, but I'm not really sure what to make of it. 3/5. b. Within the first 10 minutes, her impressive assertiveness has shown that the moderators have no control over the situation. c. Her interjections are less strategic than Harris's; it's starting to look like she's trying to bully her way into every comment, which I'm personally fine with (fight for the limelight) but I feel like the optics of it aren't as appealing as what Harris is doing. (She dialed it back for the second half of the debate.) d. Gillibrand is continuing to land some really nice remarks, across the board, including immigration ideas. e. Nice monologue about Roe v. Wade. f. Inspirational closing statement. Michael Bennet: a. Opening statement about returning back to Obamacare plus a public option, which I figured would be Biden's opening. We can't go backwards. 2/5. b. I agree with you that Mitch McConnell is a bad guy and that we need to end political gerrymandering. c. There's literally nothing interesting about you. Confirmed via Google Image. d. I don't know why so many questions were aimed towards you. e. Your closing statement almost put me to sleep. At 11 AM. Eric Swalwell: a. Reasonable opening, touching upon a broad list of topics and OH SHIT BIDEN JUST GOT CALLED THE FUCK OUT HAHAHAHA. I don't know if this anecdote is true or not, but the chipping away of Biden is beginning! b. Getting out-interjected by Harris. c. Was Swalwell only here to take a swipe at Biden during the first few minutes of the debate? d. Yes. e. Cliche, canned closing statement, but I appreciate the diaper smell analogy. Marianne Williamson: a. Who the hell are you? Didn't even know you existed for the first 25 minutes of the debate, and now your "opening" statement is that substantive policy is too superficial to go up against a one-liner Barnum statement like Make America Great Again? Seriously, who are you? b. Piling on Hickenlooper's point, which is safe I guess, but then you transition to some weird foreign policy jab. c. Reparations! Wait, what? Random. Weird flex but okay. d. Man on the moon, Green New Deal, New Zealand. wat. e. Closing statement was wacky... there was something there for a second, and then I don't know. John Hickenlooper: a. I don't like his opening statement, from thinking that denying being socialists will make Republicans actually believe that, to already taking pot shots at the Green New Deal without context; 2/5. b. Kind-of-okay response to the concentration camps and kidnapping we have at the border. I'll take it. c. See Michael Bennet's (c). d. Closing statement: Bro, you ain't "scrappy". See John Hickenlooper's (c). VOD is here, starting at around 1:05:00 and lasting approximately 2 hours: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX7hni-zGD8t=1000
Blows my mind that Sanders, Warren, and Harris can be interchangeable for you?
How/why do you think Kamala wasn't just baiting you with rhetoric that her record stands in opposition against?
She's twice reversed a position on healthcare and her shining moment on race is undermined by her enthusiastic participation in the systemic mass incarceration of Black and Brown people.
|
On June 28 2019 22:13 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote:
I am a bit too much online and "European" pretty much means "White" to me. And not in the harmless way. Outside of this forum I don't even use "white" any more, I use colonizer, settler, European, etc.. Wouldn't that be making us unduely taking exclusive use of colonizing/settling? We aren't the only ones to do it. Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 22:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 21:57 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 28 2019 21:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 21:18 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 28 2019 21:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: Wouldn't "Americans" be an accurate descriptor for peoples anywhere from Alaska to Argentina? Accurate but not useful, because "peoples anywhere from Alaska to Argentina" isn't what "americans" is used for in almost all contexts. It's the trouble with words being able to carry multiple meanings, which is most words in most languagues. I think it's worth investigating why US citizens feel entitled to the exclusive ownership of the term "Americans" and why those generally excluded, might not want the title. "American" is really the only good citizen name for the country name being USA. The country name being USA I would chalk up to historical accident (aka, the US founding fathers couldn't think of anything better). Edit: "Estadunidences" is actually used in portuguese and doesn't actually sound the worst. It's too bad because we lose the grouping category "americans", but I'm not sure this grouping category is that useful to begin with given the fundamental differences between nations of the Americas. More relevant categories might be Spanish/Portuguese/English America, South/North/Central America, or w/e. I personally have no need to call myself "american". In a few decades, depending on how things go in the EU, the same thing might start happening there. Could be that new generation start refering people from the EU as "europeans", to the detriment of non-EU european nations. Well, I don't think this is really probable because some measure of nationalism will always live on, but it's a possibility. The entitlement really does seem to boil down to nothing of substance, but rather convenience, superficial appeals, and basically whining that "I don't wanna change". And if "American" is loosed up that's nothing more than conceding to the superficial appeal of Mexicans that had stake in land before the US took it.
Why are we talking about North Americans as if they are the only Americans? If we're goint to loosen up the term "American" then what about Brazilians, or Peruvians, either of which have a longer history of colonization that the USA (but not longer than Mexico).
That said, this argument is stupid. I have lived in Brazil. Americano is perfectly accepted and means someone from the USA, and not someone from the Americas unless the context is very explicitly the latter.
In (Latin American) Spanish, Estadounidense exists and is used, but not as much as Americano, or more derogatively Gringo.
I mean... who actually cares? I don't hear Canadians complain either that they are excluded in the term American, and they are rich and white.
|
On June 29 2019 00:09 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 22:13 Gahlo wrote:On June 28 2019 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote:
I am a bit too much online and "European" pretty much means "White" to me. And not in the harmless way. Outside of this forum I don't even use "white" any more, I use colonizer, settler, European, etc.. Wouldn't that be making us unduely taking exclusive use of colonizing/settling? We aren't the only ones to do it. On June 28 2019 22:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 21:57 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 28 2019 21:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 21:18 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 28 2019 21:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: Wouldn't "Americans" be an accurate descriptor for peoples anywhere from Alaska to Argentina? Accurate but not useful, because "peoples anywhere from Alaska to Argentina" isn't what "americans" is used for in almost all contexts. It's the trouble with words being able to carry multiple meanings, which is most words in most languagues. I think it's worth investigating why US citizens feel entitled to the exclusive ownership of the term "Americans" and why those generally excluded, might not want the title. "American" is really the only good citizen name for the country name being USA. The country name being USA I would chalk up to historical accident (aka, the US founding fathers couldn't think of anything better). Edit: "Estadunidences" is actually used in portuguese and doesn't actually sound the worst. It's too bad because we lose the grouping category "americans", but I'm not sure this grouping category is that useful to begin with given the fundamental differences between nations of the Americas. More relevant categories might be Spanish/Portuguese/English America, South/North/Central America, or w/e. I personally have no need to call myself "american". In a few decades, depending on how things go in the EU, the same thing might start happening there. Could be that new generation start refering people from the EU as "europeans", to the detriment of non-EU european nations. Well, I don't think this is really probable because some measure of nationalism will always live on, but it's a possibility. The entitlement really does seem to boil down to nothing of substance, but rather convenience, superficial appeals, and basically whining that "I don't wanna change". And if "American" is loosed up that's nothing more than conceding to the superficial appeal of Mexicans that had stake in land before the US took it. Why are we talking about North Americans as if they are the only Americans? If we're goint to loosen up the term "American" then what about Brazilians, or Peruvians, either of which have a longer history of colonization that the USA (but not longer than Mexico). That said, this argument is stupid. I have lived in Brazil. Americano is perfectly accepted and means someone from the USA, and not someone from the Americas unless the context is very explicitly the latter. In (Latin American) Spanish, Estadounidense exists and is used, but not as much as Americano, or more derogatively Gringo. I mean... who actually cares? I don't hear Canadians complain either that they are excluded in the term American, and they are rich and white.
The other part of what I thought was worth investigation was why other people's regions are referred to as X America but they have no desire to adopt the moniker "American" or be included when it's used generically. Which I think Howie got, and responded along the lines of what I was thinking made sense. The backlash and "this is a dumb conversation" reaction is kinda why I think it's worth thinking about.
|
On June 28 2019 23:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Andrew Yang:
a. I don't know how Yang was supposed to explain how to pay for his entire pseudo-UBI plan in a single opening blurb, and I don't think it landed. Also, the moderator's initial and follow-up question seemed to be borderline-derisive. Regardless, Yang didn't do a good job of making his ideas sound appealing or believable, so ignoring what I already know about him and have seen from him, I think in this specific instance, his opening only gets a 2.5/5.
b. Bro, you gonna talk at all? You were offered very little air time through moderator questioning (which is bullshit), but you gotta fight for your right to talk on the main stage by interjecting.
c. Tonight was your chance to make your presence known. You didn't. Can't just blame the moderators for not offering you questions, especially when the other candidates were able to interject when they wanted.
d. Closing statement was nice, but it was too little, too late.
It sounds like his mic had been turned off for part of the debate. There are times you can see him start talking to try to get some words in, and candidates even turn to him as he does so, but you can't hear him speak.
|
On June 29 2019 00:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 00:09 Acrofales wrote:On June 28 2019 22:13 Gahlo wrote:On June 28 2019 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote:
I am a bit too much online and "European" pretty much means "White" to me. And not in the harmless way. Outside of this forum I don't even use "white" any more, I use colonizer, settler, European, etc.. Wouldn't that be making us unduely taking exclusive use of colonizing/settling? We aren't the only ones to do it. On June 28 2019 22:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 21:57 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 28 2019 21:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 21:18 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 28 2019 21:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: Wouldn't "Americans" be an accurate descriptor for peoples anywhere from Alaska to Argentina? Accurate but not useful, because "peoples anywhere from Alaska to Argentina" isn't what "americans" is used for in almost all contexts. It's the trouble with words being able to carry multiple meanings, which is most words in most languagues. I think it's worth investigating why US citizens feel entitled to the exclusive ownership of the term "Americans" and why those generally excluded, might not want the title. "American" is really the only good citizen name for the country name being USA. The country name being USA I would chalk up to historical accident (aka, the US founding fathers couldn't think of anything better). Edit: "Estadunidences" is actually used in portuguese and doesn't actually sound the worst. It's too bad because we lose the grouping category "americans", but I'm not sure this grouping category is that useful to begin with given the fundamental differences between nations of the Americas. More relevant categories might be Spanish/Portuguese/English America, South/North/Central America, or w/e. I personally have no need to call myself "american". In a few decades, depending on how things go in the EU, the same thing might start happening there. Could be that new generation start refering people from the EU as "europeans", to the detriment of non-EU european nations. Well, I don't think this is really probable because some measure of nationalism will always live on, but it's a possibility. The entitlement really does seem to boil down to nothing of substance, but rather convenience, superficial appeals, and basically whining that "I don't wanna change". And if "American" is loosed up that's nothing more than conceding to the superficial appeal of Mexicans that had stake in land before the US took it. Why are we talking about North Americans as if they are the only Americans? If we're goint to loosen up the term "American" then what about Brazilians, or Peruvians, either of which have a longer history of colonization that the USA (but not longer than Mexico). That said, this argument is stupid. I have lived in Brazil. Americano is perfectly accepted and means someone from the USA, and not someone from the Americas unless the context is very explicitly the latter. In (Latin American) Spanish, Estadounidense exists and is used, but not as much as Americano, or more derogatively Gringo. I mean... who actually cares? I don't hear Canadians complain either that they are excluded in the term American, and they are rich and white. The other part of what I thought was worth investigation was why other people's regions are referred to as X America but they have no desire to adopt the moniker "American" or be included when it's used generically. Which I think Howie got, and responded along the lines of what I was thinking made sense. The backlash and "this is a dumb conversation" reaction is kinda why I think it's worth thinking about. You get less backlash and dumb conversation remarks (and I agree it is a dumb conversation) when you make it clearer what your asking.
And why don't other people want to adopt the moniker of 'American'?
Because its basically a derogatory term in the rest of the world. They don't want to be associated with morbidly obese sweatpants wearers.
And yes this is not what all 'Americans' are like but that's stereotypes for ya.
|
On June 29 2019 00:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 00:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2019 00:09 Acrofales wrote:On June 28 2019 22:13 Gahlo wrote:On June 28 2019 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote:
I am a bit too much online and "European" pretty much means "White" to me. And not in the harmless way. Outside of this forum I don't even use "white" any more, I use colonizer, settler, European, etc.. Wouldn't that be making us unduely taking exclusive use of colonizing/settling? We aren't the only ones to do it. On June 28 2019 22:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 21:57 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 28 2019 21:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 21:18 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 28 2019 21:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: Wouldn't "Americans" be an accurate descriptor for peoples anywhere from Alaska to Argentina? Accurate but not useful, because "peoples anywhere from Alaska to Argentina" isn't what "americans" is used for in almost all contexts. It's the trouble with words being able to carry multiple meanings, which is most words in most languagues. I think it's worth investigating why US citizens feel entitled to the exclusive ownership of the term "Americans" and why those generally excluded, might not want the title. "American" is really the only good citizen name for the country name being USA. The country name being USA I would chalk up to historical accident (aka, the US founding fathers couldn't think of anything better). Edit: "Estadunidences" is actually used in portuguese and doesn't actually sound the worst. It's too bad because we lose the grouping category "americans", but I'm not sure this grouping category is that useful to begin with given the fundamental differences between nations of the Americas. More relevant categories might be Spanish/Portuguese/English America, South/North/Central America, or w/e. I personally have no need to call myself "american". In a few decades, depending on how things go in the EU, the same thing might start happening there. Could be that new generation start refering people from the EU as "europeans", to the detriment of non-EU european nations. Well, I don't think this is really probable because some measure of nationalism will always live on, but it's a possibility. The entitlement really does seem to boil down to nothing of substance, but rather convenience, superficial appeals, and basically whining that "I don't wanna change". And if "American" is loosed up that's nothing more than conceding to the superficial appeal of Mexicans that had stake in land before the US took it. Why are we talking about North Americans as if they are the only Americans? If we're goint to loosen up the term "American" then what about Brazilians, or Peruvians, either of which have a longer history of colonization that the USA (but not longer than Mexico). That said, this argument is stupid. I have lived in Brazil. Americano is perfectly accepted and means someone from the USA, and not someone from the Americas unless the context is very explicitly the latter. In (Latin American) Spanish, Estadounidense exists and is used, but not as much as Americano, or more derogatively Gringo. I mean... who actually cares? I don't hear Canadians complain either that they are excluded in the term American, and they are rich and white. The other part of what I thought was worth investigation was why other people's regions are referred to as X America but they have no desire to adopt the moniker "American" or be included when it's used generically. Which I think Howie got, and responded along the lines of what I was thinking made sense. The backlash and "this is a dumb conversation" reaction is kinda why I think it's worth thinking about. You get less backlash and dumb conversation remarks (and I agree it is a dumb conversation) when you make it clearer what your asking. And why don't other people want to adopt the moniker of 'American'?
Because its basically a derogatory term in the rest of the world. They don't want to be associated with morbidly obese sweatpants wearers.And yes this is not what all 'Americans' are like but that's stereotypes for ya.
This is such nonsense. I've been all over the world. Americans are generally liked.
|
On June 29 2019 00:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 00:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2019 00:09 Acrofales wrote:On June 28 2019 22:13 Gahlo wrote:On June 28 2019 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote:
I am a bit too much online and "European" pretty much means "White" to me. And not in the harmless way. Outside of this forum I don't even use "white" any more, I use colonizer, settler, European, etc.. Wouldn't that be making us unduely taking exclusive use of colonizing/settling? We aren't the only ones to do it. On June 28 2019 22:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 21:57 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 28 2019 21:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 21:18 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 28 2019 21:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: Wouldn't "Americans" be an accurate descriptor for peoples anywhere from Alaska to Argentina? Accurate but not useful, because "peoples anywhere from Alaska to Argentina" isn't what "americans" is used for in almost all contexts. It's the trouble with words being able to carry multiple meanings, which is most words in most languagues. I think it's worth investigating why US citizens feel entitled to the exclusive ownership of the term "Americans" and why those generally excluded, might not want the title. "American" is really the only good citizen name for the country name being USA. The country name being USA I would chalk up to historical accident (aka, the US founding fathers couldn't think of anything better). Edit: "Estadunidences" is actually used in portuguese and doesn't actually sound the worst. It's too bad because we lose the grouping category "americans", but I'm not sure this grouping category is that useful to begin with given the fundamental differences between nations of the Americas. More relevant categories might be Spanish/Portuguese/English America, South/North/Central America, or w/e. I personally have no need to call myself "american". In a few decades, depending on how things go in the EU, the same thing might start happening there. Could be that new generation start refering people from the EU as "europeans", to the detriment of non-EU european nations. Well, I don't think this is really probable because some measure of nationalism will always live on, but it's a possibility. The entitlement really does seem to boil down to nothing of substance, but rather convenience, superficial appeals, and basically whining that "I don't wanna change". And if "American" is loosed up that's nothing more than conceding to the superficial appeal of Mexicans that had stake in land before the US took it. Why are we talking about North Americans as if they are the only Americans? If we're goint to loosen up the term "American" then what about Brazilians, or Peruvians, either of which have a longer history of colonization that the USA (but not longer than Mexico). That said, this argument is stupid. I have lived in Brazil. Americano is perfectly accepted and means someone from the USA, and not someone from the Americas unless the context is very explicitly the latter. In (Latin American) Spanish, Estadounidense exists and is used, but not as much as Americano, or more derogatively Gringo. I mean... who actually cares? I don't hear Canadians complain either that they are excluded in the term American, and they are rich and white. The other part of what I thought was worth investigation was why other people's regions are referred to as X America but they have no desire to adopt the moniker "American" or be included when it's used generically. Which I think Howie got, and responded along the lines of what I was thinking made sense. The backlash and "this is a dumb conversation" reaction is kinda why I think it's worth thinking about. You get less backlash and dumb conversation remarks (and I agree it is a dumb conversation) when you make it clearer what your asking.
lol I mean what are you even trying to say?
I think it's worth investigating why US citizens feel entitled to the exclusive ownership of the term "Americans" and why those generally excluded, might not want the title.
Seems plenty clear to me. Yet you (despite mentioning it's been clarified) insist it's a dumb conversation (you insist on opining on) anyway...?
And why don't other people want to adopt the moniker of 'American'?
Because its basically a derogatory term in the rest of the world. They don't want to be associated with morbidly obese sweatpants wearers.
And yes this is not what all 'Americans' are like but that's stereotypes for ya.
I agree that it's basically a derogatory term, but I think it's deeper than fat people in sweatpants...
|
On June 29 2019 00:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 00:20 Gorsameth wrote:On June 29 2019 00:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2019 00:09 Acrofales wrote:On June 28 2019 22:13 Gahlo wrote:On June 28 2019 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote:
I am a bit too much online and "European" pretty much means "White" to me. And not in the harmless way. Outside of this forum I don't even use "white" any more, I use colonizer, settler, European, etc.. Wouldn't that be making us unduely taking exclusive use of colonizing/settling? We aren't the only ones to do it. On June 28 2019 22:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 21:57 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 28 2019 21:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 21:18 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 28 2019 21:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: Wouldn't "Americans" be an accurate descriptor for peoples anywhere from Alaska to Argentina? Accurate but not useful, because "peoples anywhere from Alaska to Argentina" isn't what "americans" is used for in almost all contexts. It's the trouble with words being able to carry multiple meanings, which is most words in most languagues. I think it's worth investigating why US citizens feel entitled to the exclusive ownership of the term "Americans" and why those generally excluded, might not want the title. "American" is really the only good citizen name for the country name being USA. The country name being USA I would chalk up to historical accident (aka, the US founding fathers couldn't think of anything better). Edit: "Estadunidences" is actually used in portuguese and doesn't actually sound the worst. It's too bad because we lose the grouping category "americans", but I'm not sure this grouping category is that useful to begin with given the fundamental differences between nations of the Americas. More relevant categories might be Spanish/Portuguese/English America, South/North/Central America, or w/e. I personally have no need to call myself "american". In a few decades, depending on how things go in the EU, the same thing might start happening there. Could be that new generation start refering people from the EU as "europeans", to the detriment of non-EU european nations. Well, I don't think this is really probable because some measure of nationalism will always live on, but it's a possibility. The entitlement really does seem to boil down to nothing of substance, but rather convenience, superficial appeals, and basically whining that "I don't wanna change". And if "American" is loosed up that's nothing more than conceding to the superficial appeal of Mexicans that had stake in land before the US took it. Why are we talking about North Americans as if they are the only Americans? If we're goint to loosen up the term "American" then what about Brazilians, or Peruvians, either of which have a longer history of colonization that the USA (but not longer than Mexico). That said, this argument is stupid. I have lived in Brazil. Americano is perfectly accepted and means someone from the USA, and not someone from the Americas unless the context is very explicitly the latter. In (Latin American) Spanish, Estadounidense exists and is used, but not as much as Americano, or more derogatively Gringo. I mean... who actually cares? I don't hear Canadians complain either that they are excluded in the term American, and they are rich and white. The other part of what I thought was worth investigation was why other people's regions are referred to as X America but they have no desire to adopt the moniker "American" or be included when it's used generically. Which I think Howie got, and responded along the lines of what I was thinking made sense. The backlash and "this is a dumb conversation" reaction is kinda why I think it's worth thinking about. You get less backlash and dumb conversation remarks (and I agree it is a dumb conversation) when you make it clearer what your asking. And why don't other people want to adopt the moniker of 'American'?
Because its basically a derogatory term in the rest of the world. They don't want to be associated with morbidly obese sweatpants wearers.And yes this is not what all 'Americans' are like but that's stereotypes for ya. This is such nonsense. I've been all over the world. Americans are generally liked.
Everywhere I have been, we are not hated... but liked isnt a word I would use. Kinda tolerated?
I have been told america can eat shit by some drunk people in different countries before.
I have only been to Europe and Canada though, so my sample size could be far smaller than yours
|
On June 29 2019 00:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 00:20 Gorsameth wrote:On June 29 2019 00:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2019 00:09 Acrofales wrote:On June 28 2019 22:13 Gahlo wrote:On June 28 2019 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote:
I am a bit too much online and "European" pretty much means "White" to me. And not in the harmless way. Outside of this forum I don't even use "white" any more, I use colonizer, settler, European, etc.. Wouldn't that be making us unduely taking exclusive use of colonizing/settling? We aren't the only ones to do it. On June 28 2019 22:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 21:57 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 28 2019 21:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 21:18 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 28 2019 21:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: Wouldn't "Americans" be an accurate descriptor for peoples anywhere from Alaska to Argentina? Accurate but not useful, because "peoples anywhere from Alaska to Argentina" isn't what "americans" is used for in almost all contexts. It's the trouble with words being able to carry multiple meanings, which is most words in most languagues. I think it's worth investigating why US citizens feel entitled to the exclusive ownership of the term "Americans" and why those generally excluded, might not want the title. "American" is really the only good citizen name for the country name being USA. The country name being USA I would chalk up to historical accident (aka, the US founding fathers couldn't think of anything better). Edit: "Estadunidences" is actually used in portuguese and doesn't actually sound the worst. It's too bad because we lose the grouping category "americans", but I'm not sure this grouping category is that useful to begin with given the fundamental differences between nations of the Americas. More relevant categories might be Spanish/Portuguese/English America, South/North/Central America, or w/e. I personally have no need to call myself "american". In a few decades, depending on how things go in the EU, the same thing might start happening there. Could be that new generation start refering people from the EU as "europeans", to the detriment of non-EU european nations. Well, I don't think this is really probable because some measure of nationalism will always live on, but it's a possibility. The entitlement really does seem to boil down to nothing of substance, but rather convenience, superficial appeals, and basically whining that "I don't wanna change". And if "American" is loosed up that's nothing more than conceding to the superficial appeal of Mexicans that had stake in land before the US took it. Why are we talking about North Americans as if they are the only Americans? If we're goint to loosen up the term "American" then what about Brazilians, or Peruvians, either of which have a longer history of colonization that the USA (but not longer than Mexico). That said, this argument is stupid. I have lived in Brazil. Americano is perfectly accepted and means someone from the USA, and not someone from the Americas unless the context is very explicitly the latter. In (Latin American) Spanish, Estadounidense exists and is used, but not as much as Americano, or more derogatively Gringo. I mean... who actually cares? I don't hear Canadians complain either that they are excluded in the term American, and they are rich and white. The other part of what I thought was worth investigation was why other people's regions are referred to as X America but they have no desire to adopt the moniker "American" or be included when it's used generically. Which I think Howie got, and responded along the lines of what I was thinking made sense. The backlash and "this is a dumb conversation" reaction is kinda why I think it's worth thinking about. You get less backlash and dumb conversation remarks (and I agree it is a dumb conversation) when you make it clearer what your asking. And why don't other people want to adopt the moniker of 'American'?
Because its basically a derogatory term in the rest of the world. They don't want to be associated with morbidly obese sweatpants wearers.And yes this is not what all 'Americans' are like but that's stereotypes for ya. This is such nonsense. I've been all over the world. Americans are generally liked.
It’s very ambivalent. Americans in Europe are known to be friendly, accessible, easy to talk to / have small talk with. That being said, Americans as a people are viewed with extreme skepticism and that has gone much, much worse in the last two years. Generally, the US is considered a totally fucked up country by most people here.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2018/10/01/americas-international-image-continues-to-suffer/
|
On June 29 2019 00:16 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 23:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Andrew Yang:
a. I don't know how Yang was supposed to explain how to pay for his entire pseudo-UBI plan in a single opening blurb, and I don't think it landed. Also, the moderator's initial and follow-up question seemed to be borderline-derisive. Regardless, Yang didn't do a good job of making his ideas sound appealing or believable, so ignoring what I already know about him and have seen from him, I think in this specific instance, his opening only gets a 2.5/5.
b. Bro, you gonna talk at all? You were offered very little air time through moderator questioning (which is bullshit), but you gotta fight for your right to talk on the main stage by interjecting.
c. Tonight was your chance to make your presence known. You didn't. Can't just blame the moderators for not offering you questions, especially when the other candidates were able to interject when they wanted.
d. Closing statement was nice, but it was too little, too late.
It sounds like his mic had been turned off for part of the debate. There are times you can see him start talking to try to get some words in, and candidates even turn to him as he does so, but you can't hear him speak.
That sucks; I wonder for how long? Surely he could have mentioned something during the commercials?
|
On June 28 2019 20:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
This is chilling. The fact that the POTUS discusses how great silencing the press would be with a dictator that jails and kills opposing journalists is absolutely appalling.
Why don’t republicans react on shit like that? It should be way beyond partisanship. I just don’t get those people.
It's an absolute disgrace. It's in line with his Kashoggi response. He's a fanboy of people that get their critics murdered. Why is he still leading the country...
|
On June 28 2019 23:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 23:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:My thoughts on last night's Democratic Primary Debate Night #1b: TL;DR Results (in my humble opinion): 1st Place: Kamala Harris (5/5). Hands down, the best showing across both nights. Absolute beast. My top two favorites candidates have been Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren, but Kamala Harris is now top tier for me as well (I now have a top three, and I don't know the order anymore). 2nd Tier: Buttigieg (4.5/5), Gillibrand (4.5/5). 3rd Tier: Sanders (3.5/5), Biden (3/5). 4th Tier: Yang / Bennet / Swalwell / Williamson / Hickenlooper (Irrelevant / 5). + Show Spoiler +Various thoughts and stream-of-consciousness as I'm watching the debate: General/Miscellaneous: a. Between Gillibrand and Swalwell asserting themselves within the first 10 minutes of the debate (and eventually Harris), it's clear that the moderators are going to get walked all over by any candidate who wants more air time. b. You have no control, moderators. c. I like the transition into undocumented immigrants, especially the later question about civil vs. criminal offenses. d. "The Obama/Biden Administration deported more than 3 million Americans." Wait, what? No they didn't. Not Americans. I'm assuming the moderator misspoke here. e. I think this debate is more dynamic than the previous night's, and I have a lot less patience for the little league players on the stage. If this is your A-game, just go home. If it's not, then you didn't do your homework, so you should go home anyway. f. Climate change is a softball question for everyone here. g. Rachel Maddow: "I want to bring Governor Hickenlooper into this conversation." Me: "y tho." h. Moderator: "Can you all please give us a one-word answer for this next question about the #1 most important policy-" Everyone: "FUCK YOU." i. Moderator: "Naming just one country, which country would you choose to repair relationships with first? Just first? Just one country. One word. Just one." Everyone: "FUCK YOU." Andrew Yang: a. I don't know how Yang was supposed to explain how to pay for his entire pseudo-UBI plan in a single opening blurb, and I don't think it landed. Also, the moderator's initial and follow-up question seemed to be borderline-derisive. Regardless, Yang didn't do a good job of making his ideas sound appealing or believable, so ignoring what I already know about him and have seen from him, I think in this specific instance, his opening only gets a 2.5/5. b. Bro, you gonna talk at all? You were offered very little air time through moderator questioning (which is bullshit), but you gotta fight for your right to talk on the main stage by interjecting. c. Tonight was your chance to make your presence known. You didn't. Can't just blame the moderators for not offering you questions, especially when the other candidates were able to interject when they wanted. d. Closing statement was nice, but it was too little, too late. Pete Buttigieg: a. Strong opening statement on reducing student debt, and a really nice elaboration on other post- high school options. 4.5/5. b. Very smooth, measured, eloquent answers. Pete is speaking like Pete. He's not speaking much, but when he does, he's hitting home good points. c. Nice answer about the path to citizenship. d. Masterful interjection about the criminal vs. civil offense question and making it his opportunity to land a blow against Republicans who think they're being pro-God. e. Strong, sincere response to the Eric Logan/ police officer case. Easily shook off Hickenlooper and Swalwell. f. Really solid closing statement. Joe Biden: a. Appealed to anti-Trump sentiment from the first minute and just rambled; not a solid start, 2/5. b. After getting kneecapped by Swalwell's opening, he had a reasonably good comeback with good ideas. Looks like Biden may have a little fight in him after all. c. I think Biden's responses have been reasonably lukewarm... not awful, but he's being outshone by a bunch of other candidates on stage. I think his support goes down after this. d. I feel like he's doing an okay job at playing defense, and I'm surprised at how much pro-Biden cheering he's getting from the crowd. e. Yo, we get it, you know Obama. f. Hollow closed statement. Meh. Bernie Sanders: a. A very "Bernie" opening statement, which is fine by me (and most people). Reasonably solid start, 4/5. b. Not afraid to use strong language against Trump, which is nice. c. Bernie defending his generation right after Biden defended from Swalwell, appealing to ideas over age. I get what he was going for, but I feel like the interjection seemed unnecessary from him, since obviously he's not being accused of being out-of-date like Biden. d. Bernie is still on Bernie-mode, although his volume is turned up to 11. e. Bernie got laughed at for his old gun quote; he didn't play that off very well. Also "ASSAULT WEAPONS ASSAULT WEAPONS ASSAULT WEAPONS"; come on, Bernie. f. You gave me nothing new, Bernie. You already have the support of your supporters; nothing you said here is going to persuade others. g. Nailed Biden on the Iraq War though. h. Closing statement was as good as his opening, which were the two highlights of his appearance. Kamala Harris: a. I really, really like her opening statement, where she flipped the "How do Dems pay for all this" question on its head and reversed it for Republicans and everyone, in general, and then actually answered the question. Very solid start, 4.5/5. b. "America doesn't want to witness a food fight; they want to know how we're going to put food on their table." IT'S OVER. HARRIS WINS IN TWENTY MINUTES. SHIT. Can I stop watching now? Epic mic drop moment, especially since she was able to silence everyone else on stage and go full-on Harris-Knows-Best on the rest of the candidates. c. I love how she's prepared to take down the misconceptions about Trump's "amazing" economy. That really makes me think she'll do a great job in the general election vs. Trump. d. She's doing a good job of strategically interjecting at opportune times. e. Immigration responses on point. Extra points for using the "Her" pronoun when talking about the next president. You go, girl. f. Thanks for bringing up race and reparations, Wiliamson; now let me own that shit, take down Biden, and drop some awesome anecdotes. g. Good closing statement, although not as good as Gillibrand's imo. Kirsten Gillibrand: a. Interesting opening about greed and capitalism, but I'm not really sure what to make of it. 3/5. b. Within the first 10 minutes, her impressive assertiveness has shown that the moderators have no control over the situation. c. Her interjections are less strategic than Harris's; it's starting to look like she's trying to bully her way into every comment, which I'm personally fine with (fight for the limelight) but I feel like the optics of it aren't as appealing as what Harris is doing. (She dialed it back for the second half of the debate.) d. Gillibrand is continuing to land some really nice remarks, across the board, including immigration ideas. e. Nice monologue about Roe v. Wade. f. Inspirational closing statement. Michael Bennet: a. Opening statement about returning back to Obamacare plus a public option, which I figured would be Biden's opening. We can't go backwards. 2/5. b. I agree with you that Mitch McConnell is a bad guy and that we need to end political gerrymandering. c. There's literally nothing interesting about you. Confirmed via Google Image. d. I don't know why so many questions were aimed towards you. e. Your closing statement almost put me to sleep. At 11 AM. Eric Swalwell: a. Reasonable opening, touching upon a broad list of topics and OH SHIT BIDEN JUST GOT CALLED THE FUCK OUT HAHAHAHA. I don't know if this anecdote is true or not, but the chipping away of Biden is beginning! b. Getting out-interjected by Harris. c. Was Swalwell only here to take a swipe at Biden during the first few minutes of the debate? d. Yes. e. Cliche, canned closing statement, but I appreciate the diaper smell analogy. Marianne Williamson: a. Who the hell are you? Didn't even know you existed for the first 25 minutes of the debate, and now your "opening" statement is that substantive policy is too superficial to go up against a one-liner Barnum statement like Make America Great Again? Seriously, who are you? b. Piling on Hickenlooper's point, which is safe I guess, but then you transition to some weird foreign policy jab. c. Reparations! Wait, what? Random. Weird flex but okay. d. Man on the moon, Green New Deal, New Zealand. wat. e. Closing statement was wacky... there was something there for a second, and then I don't know. John Hickenlooper: a. I don't like his opening statement, from thinking that denying being socialists will make Republicans actually believe that, to already taking pot shots at the Green New Deal without context; 2/5. b. Kind-of-okay response to the concentration camps and kidnapping we have at the border. I'll take it. c. See Michael Bennet's (c). d. Closing statement: Bro, you ain't "scrappy". See John Hickenlooper's (c). VOD is here, starting at around 1:05:00 and lasting approximately 2 hours: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX7hni-zGD8t=1000 Blows my mind that Sanders, Warren, and Harris can be interchangeable for you? How/why do you think Kamala wasn't just baiting you with rhetoric that her record stands in opposition against? She's twice reversed a position on healthcare and her shining moment on race is undermined by her enthusiastic participation in the systemic mass incarceration of Black and Brown people.
Sanders and Warren have been largely interchangeable for me, and I'll absolutely need to look into Harris more (I haven't looked into her policies as much), but if she debates and speaks like this all the time, she's going to castrate Trump in the general election debates.
Also, I need to do a lot of soul-searching when trying to compare how much the past is going to inform or change the present rhetoric and future positions of our eventual president. There's something to be said about consistency and never flip-flopping, but I also believe that plenty of people have views that progress over time, and that's something to be considered.
For now, I can sincerely say that Harris's performance has made me interested in taking a deep dive into her positions, and I hope that she and Bernie and Warren continue to have debates where they can take unique stances and have more opportunities to shine.
|
On June 29 2019 00:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 00:20 Gorsameth wrote:On June 29 2019 00:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2019 00:09 Acrofales wrote:On June 28 2019 22:13 Gahlo wrote:On June 28 2019 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote:
I am a bit too much online and "European" pretty much means "White" to me. And not in the harmless way. Outside of this forum I don't even use "white" any more, I use colonizer, settler, European, etc.. Wouldn't that be making us unduely taking exclusive use of colonizing/settling? We aren't the only ones to do it. On June 28 2019 22:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 21:57 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 28 2019 21:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 21:18 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 28 2019 21:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: Wouldn't "Americans" be an accurate descriptor for peoples anywhere from Alaska to Argentina? Accurate but not useful, because "peoples anywhere from Alaska to Argentina" isn't what "americans" is used for in almost all contexts. It's the trouble with words being able to carry multiple meanings, which is most words in most languagues. I think it's worth investigating why US citizens feel entitled to the exclusive ownership of the term "Americans" and why those generally excluded, might not want the title. "American" is really the only good citizen name for the country name being USA. The country name being USA I would chalk up to historical accident (aka, the US founding fathers couldn't think of anything better). Edit: "Estadunidences" is actually used in portuguese and doesn't actually sound the worst. It's too bad because we lose the grouping category "americans", but I'm not sure this grouping category is that useful to begin with given the fundamental differences between nations of the Americas. More relevant categories might be Spanish/Portuguese/English America, South/North/Central America, or w/e. I personally have no need to call myself "american". In a few decades, depending on how things go in the EU, the same thing might start happening there. Could be that new generation start refering people from the EU as "europeans", to the detriment of non-EU european nations. Well, I don't think this is really probable because some measure of nationalism will always live on, but it's a possibility. The entitlement really does seem to boil down to nothing of substance, but rather convenience, superficial appeals, and basically whining that "I don't wanna change". And if "American" is loosed up that's nothing more than conceding to the superficial appeal of Mexicans that had stake in land before the US took it. Why are we talking about North Americans as if they are the only Americans? If we're goint to loosen up the term "American" then what about Brazilians, or Peruvians, either of which have a longer history of colonization that the USA (but not longer than Mexico). That said, this argument is stupid. I have lived in Brazil. Americano is perfectly accepted and means someone from the USA, and not someone from the Americas unless the context is very explicitly the latter. In (Latin American) Spanish, Estadounidense exists and is used, but not as much as Americano, or more derogatively Gringo. I mean... who actually cares? I don't hear Canadians complain either that they are excluded in the term American, and they are rich and white. The other part of what I thought was worth investigation was why other people's regions are referred to as X America but they have no desire to adopt the moniker "American" or be included when it's used generically. Which I think Howie got, and responded along the lines of what I was thinking made sense. The backlash and "this is a dumb conversation" reaction is kinda why I think it's worth thinking about. You get less backlash and dumb conversation remarks (and I agree it is a dumb conversation) when you make it clearer what your asking. And why don't other people want to adopt the moniker of 'American'?
Because its basically a derogatory term in the rest of the world. They don't want to be associated with morbidly obese sweatpants wearers.And yes this is not what all 'Americans' are like but that's stereotypes for ya. This is such nonsense. I've been all over the world. Americans are generally liked. Note I am talking about the general concept of an American people in a stereotype context.
Not you as a person.
|
On June 29 2019 00:59 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 20:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1144523828921372672This is chilling. The fact that the POTUS discusses how great silencing the press would be with a dictator that jails and kills opposing journalists is absolutely appalling. Why don’t republicans react on shit like that? It should be way beyond partisanship. I just don’t get those people. It's an absolute disgrace. It's in line with his Kashoggi response. He's a fanboy of people that get their critics murdered. Why is he still leading the country... Because his supporters wish they could do the same.
Remember, the 'fake media' is the enemy of the people according to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
