CDZ How did we get to this point?

[Synthaholic]

In a perfect world, who would be your nominee?

Of the current crop, Yang, easily. And unfortunately he can't be veep, because he has a dick and the wrong skin color. Such is the state of the Democratic Party.

If the field were wide open, I don't know.

Don’t be disingenuous. It’s not “the state of the Democratic Party”. It was a conscious decision, in 2020, that it was finally time to declare that the VP will be a woman. There is not a thing wrong with that. No different from a Republican saying his VP will be an Evangelical. If you can’t think up more than just a few women who could be VP then that’s on you. I don’t feel like it is limiting in the least.

Not limiting in the least, disqualifying at least half the potential veep picks simply because they're men.

And I'm being disingenuous. Okay.

It’s only limiting if you believe there are not many women who could be POTUS.

It’s disingenuous to attribute a positive decision to “the state of the Party”, as if it has fallen or been diminished in some way.

I'm being perfectly honest when I say that the party has largely succumbed to political correctness and Identity Politics.

You can certainly deny it, or disagree with it, but the last thing I'm being is disingenuous.

I'm afraid this condition may do in 2020 what it largely did in 2016: Help him win.

So the way to not be accused of political correctness is to pick a White male VP?

 

[Mac1958]

In a perfect world, who would be your nominee?

Of the current crop, Yang, easily. And unfortunately he can't be veep, because he has a dick and the wrong skin color. Such is the state of the Democratic Party.

If the field were wide open, I don't know.

Don’t be disingenuous. It’s not “the state of the Democratic Party”. It was a conscious decision, in 2020, that it was finally time to declare that the VP will be a woman. There is not a thing wrong with that. No different from a Republican saying his VP will be an Evangelical. If you can’t think up more than just a few women who could be VP then that’s on you. I don’t feel like it is limiting in the least.

Not limiting in the least, disqualifying at least half the potential veep picks simply because they're men.

And I'm being disingenuous. Okay.

It’s only limiting if you believe there are not many women who could be POTUS.

It’s disingenuous to attribute a positive decision to “the state of the Party”, as if it has fallen or been diminished in some way.

I'm being perfectly honest when I say that the party has largely succumbed to political correctness and Identity Politics.

You can certainly deny it, or disagree with it, but the last thing I'm being is disingenuous.

I'm afraid this condition may do in 2020 what it largely did in 2016: Help him win.

So the way to not be accused of political correctness is to pick a White male VP?

Nope. You just don't pander for primary votes by promising to pick a female. You don't exclude any number of qualified vice presidential running mates because they have a dick, or because their skin is too light.

This is madness, especially when there is a profoundly damaged and dangerous buffoon on the ballot for the other party.

Look, you're going to defend this. I get it. Let's not beat a dead horse.

 

[petro]

Looking at the "options" we have in November for President, I can't help but wonder how we got here (by the way, if you think your guy is a great option, this thread probably isn't for you). And full disclosure: It could definitely just be me, and maybe I've just become too cynical over years.

Anyway, for those of you who agree with me that we've really sunk in the quality of our "leaders" and "candidates", why do you think that is? Right now, I can only come up with two ideas:

First, with the advent of the internet and the proliferation of "news" sources (ha ha), I strongly suspect that our REAL "Best & Brightest" know to stay the hell out of politics, since anyone who jumps in will be immediately and viciously attacked in real life, online, and in every other possible way. Their families will be scrutinized to an absurd degree, and they and their families' lives may never be the same again. So we end up with people who just exist only on their egos, everything else be damned.

Second, maybe it's just me/us. Maybe as we age, our cynicism increases and people with big names just impress us less. Maybe the quality of our options hasn't increased much, and my frustration is more about being worn down over time by all the BS than it is about the quality of these people.

Your thoughts?

A large solution is federally financed elections, getting all money out of our politics. Then you find out who is public service-minded and who is an opportunist. Of course, it would decimate the lobbying industry.

Agreed. But how?
Are we the people forced to hire our own lobbyists to rid the system of lobbyists?
Perhaps Americans need to start a bipartisan Go Fund Me page to buy back our politicians.

 

[Correll]

In a perfect world, who would be your nominee?

Of the current crop, Yang, easily. And unfortunately he can't be veep, because he has a dick and the wrong skin color. Such is the state of the Democratic Party.

If the field were wide open, I don't know.

Don’t be disingenuous. It’s not “the state of the Democratic Party”. It was a conscious decision, in 2020, that it was finally time to declare that the VP will be a woman. There is not a thing wrong with that. No different from a Republican saying his VP will be an Evangelical. If you can’t think up more than just a few women who could be VP then that’s on you. I don’t feel like it is limiting in the least.

Not limiting in the least, disqualifying at least half the potential veep picks simply because they're men.

And I'm being disingenuous. Okay.

It’s only limiting if you believe there are not many women who could be POTUS.

It’s disingenuous to attribute a positive decision to “the state of the Party”, as if it has fallen or been diminished in some way.

I'm being perfectly honest when I say that the party has largely succumbed to political correctness and Identity Politics.

You can certainly deny it, or disagree with it, but the last thing I'm being is disingenuous.

I'm afraid this condition may do in 2020 what it largely did in 2016: Help him win.

So the way to not be accused of political correctness is to pick a White male VP?

Nope. You just don't pander for primary votes by promising to pick a female. You don't exclude any number of qualified vice presidential running mates because they have a dick, or because their skin is too light.

This is madness, especially when there is a profoundly damaged and dangerous buffoon on the ballot for the other party.

Look, you're going to defend this. I get it. Let's not beat a dead horse.

trump is not damaged nor dangerous.


other than that, good post.

 

[LoneLaugher]

In a perfect world, who would be your nominee?

Of the current crop, Yang, easily. And unfortunately he can't be veep, because he has a dick and the wrong skin color. Such is the state of the Democratic Party.

If the field were wide open, I don't know.

Don’t be disingenuous. It’s not “the state of the Democratic Party”. It was a conscious decision, in 2020, that it was finally time to declare that the VP will be a woman. There is not a thing wrong with that. No different from a Republican saying his VP will be an Evangelical. If you can’t think up more than just a few women who could be VP then that’s on you. I don’t feel like it is limiting in the least.

Not limiting in the least, disqualifying at least half the potential veep picks simply because they're men.

And I'm being disingenuous. Okay.

It’s only limiting if you believe there are not many women who could be POTUS.

It’s disingenuous to attribute a positive decision to “the state of the Party”, as if it has fallen or been diminished in some way.

I'm being perfectly honest when I say that the party has largely succumbed to political correctness and Identity Politics.

You can certainly deny it, or disagree with it, but the last thing I'm being is disingenuous.

I'm afraid this condition may do in 2020 what it largely did in 2016: Help him win.

Yes. They nominated a 78 year old white moderate dude. That’s identity politics ina nutshell.

 

[Synthaholic]

In a perfect world, who would be your nominee?

Of the current crop, Yang, easily. And unfortunately he can't be veep, because he has a dick and the wrong skin color. Such is the state of the Democratic Party.

If the field were wide open, I don't know.

Don’t be disingenuous. It’s not “the state of the Democratic Party”. It was a conscious decision, in 2020, that it was finally time to declare that the VP will be a woman. There is not a thing wrong with that. No different from a Republican saying his VP will be an Evangelical. If you can’t think up more than just a few women who could be VP then that’s on you. I don’t feel like it is limiting in the least.

Not limiting in the least, disqualifying at least half the potential veep picks simply because they're men.

And I'm being disingenuous. Okay.

It’s only limiting if you believe there are not many women who could be POTUS.

It’s disingenuous to attribute a positive decision to “the state of the Party”, as if it has fallen or been diminished in some way.

I'm being perfectly honest when I say that the party has largely succumbed to political correctness and Identity Politics.

You can certainly deny it, or disagree with it, but the last thing I'm being is disingenuous.

I'm afraid this condition may do in 2020 what it largely did in 2016: Help him win.

So the way to not be accused of political correctness is to pick a White male VP?

Nope. You just don't pander for primary votes by promising to pick a female. You don't exclude any number of qualified vice presidential running mates because they have a dick, or because their skin is too light.

This is madness, especially when there is a profoundly damaged and dangerous buffoon on the ballot for the other party.

Look, you're going to defend this. I get it. Let's not beat a dead horse.

So you have no problem with the decision to only hire a woman, just them announcing it. Got it.

 

[Trotsky's Spectre]

Identity Politics.

This is correct. As I see it, the racial narrative in particular is imposed on protest in order to derail the discussion of class. The recent multi-ethnic, multi-racial protests against police violence were effectively derailed in that manner. In proportion to the success of this petty-bourgeoisie campaign, the original issue receded from view. Racism is real, it is ugly, and it is all too common in our society -- particularly in reactionary organizations such as police bodies. The key point however, is that race is not a means of class rule. State violence is.

Whether the administration of class rule is perpetuated by a male or female, a straight or gay, a Roman Catholic, evangelical, Muslim or atheist is matters naught for the proletarian class. That's the rub.

-- Trotsky's Spectre --

 

[RandomPoster]

It would be used to disadvantage polarized candidates that some people love and some people hate.

 

[Levant]

Looking at the "options" we have in November for President, I can't help but wonder how we got here (by the way, if you think your guy is a great option, this thread probably isn't for you). And full disclosure: It could definitely just be me, and maybe I've just become too cynical over years.

The thread isn't for me; I think Trump is doing great. I'm able to look at the pre-Covid economy, at the lowest unemployment for all minority and special interest groups, at the stock market and my retirement portfolio, and recognize that he's been great for the United States. I can look at the China travel ban, his response to the China virus, his thousands of hospital beds sent and built in NY that Governor Cuomo refused to use because he didn't want credit for saving the day to go to Trump, thousands of beds, ventilators, etc., unused while Cuomo sent infected elderly into nursing homes killing many thousands of Americans. Yes, I think my guy is a great option.

Others have goals of socialism and/or communism, and think Biden will be great and recognize that Trump is the antithesis of socialism and communism - but these people have beliefs and took a side. They took a side I don't agree with but, still, they took a side. They think their guy is a great option.

Then there are those for whom this thread was intended. People too weak, too cowardly, to take a side. It seems it's for those luke-warm, can't get off the fence because the fence post is up their ass, can't-we-all-get-along, centrists.

 

[Mac1958]

Then there are those for whom this thread was intended. People too weak, too cowardly, to take a side. It seems it's for those luke-warm, can't get off the fence because the fence post is up their ass, can't-we-all-get-along, centrists.

That's where the two wings are so wrong.

To me, weakness is choosing a "side" and obediently spinning, deflecting, making excuses for, and attacking for it. There is no principle or bravery in that. There is no strength or honesty or backbone in just playing the tribal game and refusing to hold one's side accountable. None. It is cowardice.

I chose my side of the fence a long time ago: Opposite ideological fundamentalism. Wingers on both ends. The increase and spread of ideological fundamentalism is what has led us to this ugly, divisive, destructive point, and there are no signs of it slowing down.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Then there are those for whom this thread was intended. People too weak, too cowardly, to take a side. It seems it's for those luke-warm, can't get off the fence because the fence post is up their ass, can't-we-all-get-along, centrists.

That's where the two wings are so wrong.

To me, weakness is choosing a "side" and obediently spinning, deflecting, making excuses for, and attacking for it. There is no principle or bravery in that. There is no strength or honesty or backbone in just playing the tribal game and refusing to hold one's side accountable. None. It is cowardice.

I chose my side of the fence a long time ago: Opposite ideological fundamentalism. Wingers on both ends. The increase and spread of ideological fundamentalism is what has led us to this ugly, divisive, destructive point, and there are no signs of it slowing down.

Isn't it awkward to complain about "refusing to hold one's side accountable" when you yourself merely straddle a fence?

The Left is moving on their long-sought revolution. As with any attacking enemy force, they need to be put down.

 

[Mac1958]

Then there are those for whom this thread was intended. People too weak, too cowardly, to take a side. It seems it's for those luke-warm, can't get off the fence because the fence post is up their ass, can't-we-all-get-along, centrists.

That's where the two wings are so wrong.

To me, weakness is choosing a "side" and obediently spinning, deflecting, making excuses for, and attacking for it. There is no principle or bravery in that. There is no strength or honesty or backbone in just playing the tribal game and refusing to hold one's side accountable. None. It is cowardice.

I chose my side of the fence a long time ago: Opposite ideological fundamentalism. Wingers on both ends. The increase and spread of ideological fundamentalism is what has led us to this ugly, divisive, destructive point, and there are no signs of it slowing down.

Isn't it awkward to complain about "refusing to hold one's side accountable" when you yourself merely straddle a fence?

The Left is moving on their long-sought revolution. As with any attacking enemy force, they need to be put down.

Good example of my point.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Then there are those for whom this thread was intended. People too weak, too cowardly, to take a side. It seems it's for those luke-warm, can't get off the fence because the fence post is up their ass, can't-we-all-get-along, centrists.

That's where the two wings are so wrong.

To me, weakness is choosing a "side" and obediently spinning, deflecting, making excuses for, and attacking for it. There is no principle or bravery in that. There is no strength or honesty or backbone in just playing the tribal game and refusing to hold one's side accountable. None. It is cowardice.

I chose my side of the fence a long time ago: Opposite ideological fundamentalism. Wingers on both ends. The increase and spread of ideological fundamentalism is what has led us to this ugly, divisive, destructive point, and there are no signs of it slowing down.

Isn't it awkward to complain about "refusing to hold one's side accountable" when you yourself merely straddle a fence?

The Left is moving on their long-sought revolution. As with any attacking enemy force, they need to be put down.

Good example of my point.

Nope. It disintegrates your point. Those who believe in nothing, believe anything.

 

[Jitss617]

Looking at the "options" we have in November for President, I can't help but wonder how we got here (by the way, if you think your guy is a great option, this thread probably isn't for you). And full disclosure: It could definitely just be me, and maybe I've just become too cynical over years.

Anyway, for those of you who agree with me that we've really sunk in the quality of our "leaders" and "candidates", why do you think that is? Right now, I can only come up with two ideas:

First, with the advent of the internet and the proliferation of "news" sources (ha ha), I strongly suspect that our REAL "Best & Brightest" know to stay the hell out of politics, since anyone who jumps in will be immediately and viciously attacked in real life, online, and in every other possible way. Their families will be scrutinized to an absurd degree, and they and their families' lives may never be the same again. So we end up with people who just exist only on their egos, everything else be damned.

Second, maybe it's just me/us. Maybe as we age, our cynicism increases and people with big names just impress us less. Maybe the quality of our options hasn't increased much, and my frustration is more about being worn down over time by all the BS than it is about the quality of these people.

Your thoughts?

Donald Trump is the greatest president in the history of America, you can’t stand it

 

[Mac1958]

Then there are those for whom this thread was intended. People too weak, too cowardly, to take a side. It seems it's for those luke-warm, can't get off the fence because the fence post is up their ass, can't-we-all-get-along, centrists.

That's where the two wings are so wrong.

To me, weakness is choosing a "side" and obediently spinning, deflecting, making excuses for, and attacking for it. There is no principle or bravery in that. There is no strength or honesty or backbone in just playing the tribal game and refusing to hold one's side accountable. None. It is cowardice.

I chose my side of the fence a long time ago: Opposite ideological fundamentalism. Wingers on both ends. The increase and spread of ideological fundamentalism is what has led us to this ugly, divisive, destructive point, and there are no signs of it slowing down.

Isn't it awkward to complain about "refusing to hold one's side accountable" when you yourself merely straddle a fence?

The Left is moving on their long-sought revolution. As with any attacking enemy force, they need to be put down.

Good example of my point.

Nope. It disintegrates your point. Those who believe in nothing, believe anything.

The post you quoted obviously went right over your head. I'm fine with that.

 

[Mac1958]

And now it turns away from conversation about the OP and towards personal attacks.

Hopefully we can return to the former soon.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Then there are those for whom this thread was intended. People too weak, too cowardly, to take a side. It seems it's for those luke-warm, can't get off the fence because the fence post is up their ass, can't-we-all-get-along, centrists.

That's where the two wings are so wrong.

To me, weakness is choosing a "side" and obediently spinning, deflecting, making excuses for, and attacking for it. There is no principle or bravery in that. There is no strength or honesty or backbone in just playing the tribal game and refusing to hold one's side accountable. None. It is cowardice.

I chose my side of the fence a long time ago: Opposite ideological fundamentalism. Wingers on both ends. The increase and spread of ideological fundamentalism is what has led us to this ugly, divisive, destructive point, and there are no signs of it slowing down.

Isn't it awkward to complain about "refusing to hold one's side accountable" when you yourself merely straddle a fence?

The Left is moving on their long-sought revolution. As with any attacking enemy force, they need to be put down.

Good example of my point.

Nope. It disintegrates your point. Those who believe in nothing, believe anything.

The post you quoted obviously went right over your head. I'm fine with that.

You seem fine with a lot of nonsense, and I'm fine with that.

 

[Mac1958]

Identity Politics.

This is correct. As I see it, the racial narrative in particular is imposed on protest in order to derail the discussion of class. The recent multi-ethnic, multi-racial protests against police violence were effectively derailed in that manner. In proportion to the success of this petty-bourgeoisie campaign, the original issue receded from view. Racism is real, it is ugly, and it is all too common in our society -- particularly in reactionary organizations such as police bodies. The key point however, is that race is not a means of class rule. State violence is.

Whether the administration of class rule is perpetuated by a male or female, a straight or gay, a Roman Catholic, evangelical, Muslim or atheist is matters naught for the proletarian class. That's the rub.

-- Trotsky's Spectre --

Yes and no - I think that class is inferred throughout the strategy of dividing people by race, so the two go hand in hand. So, if you're this color, you are automatically granted full grievance privileges; if you're that color, you must succumb and participate or be the enemy. The same rule applies along parallel issues, such as gender and religion.

The Left has played this game to great effect over the years, not slowing down long enough to identify or fully understand the building frustration and resentment it was causing. The result, as clear as a bell, was the election of Trump. Hell, I pointed this out here, years before Trump was elected, and even I underestimated how powerful it was.

Of course, the Right has done what the wings have always done, and comically over-reacted, over-compensated, and refused to hold itself accountable for its own misdeeds, some of which are accurately pointed out by the Left. This binary, tribal dynamic has been one of the primary driving forces behind this increasing and accelerating division.

 

[eagle1462010]

Then there are those for whom this thread was intended. People too weak, too cowardly, to take a side. It seems it's for those luke-warm, can't get off the fence because the fence post is up their ass, can't-we-all-get-along, centrists.

That's where the two wings are so wrong.

To me, weakness is choosing a "side" and obediently spinning, deflecting, making excuses for, and attacking for it. There is no principle or bravery in that. There is no strength or honesty or backbone in just playing the tribal game and refusing to hold one's side accountable. None. It is cowardice.

I chose my side of the fence a long time ago: Opposite ideological fundamentalism. Wingers on both ends. The increase and spread of ideological fundamentalism is what has led us to this ugly, divisive, destructive point, and there are no signs of it slowing down.

Isn't it awkward to complain about "refusing to hold one's side accountable" when you yourself merely straddle a fence?

The Left is moving on their long-sought revolution. As with any attacking enemy force, they need to be put down.

He doesn't straddle the fence his mission is to shift the blame of what his side has become and nothing more.

To the question I'm seeing.........DNC wants a black female for the BLM propoganda destroy machine to rally around.............a get out the vote choice for them.

 

[eagle1462010]

Yes and no - I think that class is inferred throughout the strategy of dividing people by race, so the two go hand in hand. So, if you're this color, you are automatically granted full grievance privileges; if you're that color, you must succumb and participate or be the enemy. The same rule applies along parallel issues, such as gender and religion.

The Left has played this game to great effect over the years, not slowing down long enough to identify or fully understand the building frustration and resentment it was causing. The result, as clear as a bell, was the election of Trump. Hell, I pointed this out here, years before Trump was elected, and even I underestimated how powerful it was.

For once you are correct.........not often............the DNC has shot itself in the foot by playing these riots and gender cards...............hell in the last election they lost the Union vote...........

shhhhh...........let them continue to shoot themselves in the foot.