|
Post by filledeplage on Feb 28, 2019 9:58:58 GMT -5
thefederalist.com/2019/02/27/forcing-cohen-divulge-attorney-client-communications-damages-rule-law/"Having an attorney publicly testify against his client is the sort of thing you might seen in the Moscow trial under Joseph Stalin or Maoist China. It's an extreme and public breach of the shared public interest in protecting attorney-client privilege. Shame on the left, Shame on the ACLU. And shame on the media for rejoicing on the destruction of yet another constitutional principle on the altar of getting Trump." The writer is a labor, employment and public administration lawyer. Raiding a lawyer's office potentially exposes every document, that a client has ever given to a lawyer, including your rightfully and jealously-guarded privacy rights in medical records, wills, trusts, etc. If they sweep the whole set of file cabinets, your business is in those files. That is, even if, that is not the reason for the raid. It is just collateral damage. Who knows whose eyes will read your personal business? Attorney-client privilege is at least 500 years old. This is all in search of a Rule 35 (b)(1) motion, Fed. Rules of Criminal Procedure - which allows a judge to reduce a sentence within one year of sentencing if the government files a motion saying that the defendant "provided substantial assistance in investigating or prosecuting another person." www.abajournal.com/news/article/michael_cohen_pleaded_guilty_to_8_crimes_now_whatwww.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrm/rule_35
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2019 17:30:22 GMT -5
That’s a lot to wake up to 😀 Response will have to wait until after work. But I hear you. Sorry about that I write fast and then sometimes say a lot more than I originally meant to
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 28, 2019 21:06:07 GMT -5
Rather than go for anything resembling a point-by-point response—too many points!—I just want to make a general response with a few broad points. Tried to keep it brief because if we can help it, I'd rather not get into lengthy point-by-points. I fear I won't have the time to give them proper treatment.
1. You won’t get any defense of the modern (meaning, give or take, 40 years’ worth) Republican party from me. I don’t think the parties have behaved equally, and I do think that party has done more strategically intentional damage to our political system. (I think in some cases there are understandable, and in a few cases maybe even justifiable, reasons for it. But that’s not the point right now.) When I say there is room for criticism of everyone—or more importantly, that we need to be most ready to criticize our own positions and friends than our opponents and theirs—that doesn’t mean all criticism is equally deserved or doled out. It’s not false equivalency. It’s more in the spirit of removing the beam from my own eye before pointing out the speck in my neighbor’s.
2. I understand the feeling that “we are well beyond the point of making nice,” and the feeling that we don’t need compromises (especially when they feel like all give and no take).
3. Keep in mind I’m not even addressing policy issues at all, or even ideological issues. There’s no proscription for what to do in this line of my thinking: it’s exclusively about how to do it. I’m talking about conduct and the spirit of engagement, and I’m admitting up front that there’s a very real chance that behaving as I suggest results in losing. So this isn’t tactical or strategic political advice, by any means. I’m not advocating a course to victory so much as a course for (metaphorically) feeling OK in the face of St. Rocky at the pearly gates. 4. I do think we all have a problem relating to people whose ideologies are different from ours, not on the points they are making or policies they are advocating, but the thinking and motivation behind them. Ours are all (obviously!) noble and pure; theirs are all (obviously!) either stupid or evil. I really recommend checking out Jonathan Haidt, a name I know I've dropped a few times lately but I really stand behind. His books are good, but he's got plenty of lectures online too. Relevant here is "The Righteous Mind." 5. The big-picture reality—the one part that might be a sober-eyed reality—is that we can’t pummel opponents into submission. There is a huge minority of people who fundamentally disagree with us on anything (with the “we” and “us” in question being almost irrelevant: it applies to any we or us). Forcing through any kind of policy from any ideology at every political opportunity is to almost guarantee not agreement, but resentment. Not unity across ideological lines, but within ideological walls. People need to agree with solutions, and that will never happen by force. That means that nobody is likely to ever really have the solution s/he wants, especially not in any kind of short term. Not without totalitarianism to grease the wheels.
That's why I think taking the high road, being generous with our opponents at every opportunity even if they burn us, and working to make connections, wary partners--and later maybe even converts--is so important. If we don't, we'll get more of the same degenerating pattern. We might just get that anyway. Again, as I've said, I don't necessarily think I'm proposing a winning strategy.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2019 3:17:38 GMT -5
Rather than go for anything resembling a point-by-point response—too many points!—I just want to make a general response with a few broad points. Tried to keep it brief because if we can help it, I'd rather not get into lengthy point-by-points. I fear I won't have the time to give them proper treatment.
1. You won’t get any defense of the modern (meaning, give or take, 40 years’ worth) Republican party from me. I don’t think the parties have behaved equally, and I do think that party has done more strategically intentional damage to our political system. (I think in some cases there are understandable, and in a few cases maybe even justifiable, reasons for it. But that’s not the point right now.) When I say there is room for criticism of everyone—or more importantly, that we need to be most ready to criticize our own positions and friends than our opponents and theirs—that doesn’t mean all criticism is equally deserved or doled out. It’s not false equivalency. It’s more in the spirit of removing the beam from my own eye before pointing out the speck in my neighbor’s.
2. I understand the feeling that “we are well beyond the point of making nice,” and the feeling that we don’t need compromises (especially when they feel like all give and no take).
3. Keep in mind I’m not even addressing policy issues at all, or even ideological issues. There’s no proscription for what to do in this line of my thinking: it’s exclusively about how to do it. I’m talking about conduct and the spirit of engagement, and I’m admitting up front that there’s a very real chance that behaving as I suggest results in losing. So this isn’t tactical or strategic political advice, by any means. I’m not advocating a course to victory so much as a course for (metaphorically) feeling OK in the face of St. Rocky at the pearly gates. 4. I do think we all have a problem relating to people whose ideologies are different from ours, not on the points they are making or policies they are advocating, but the thinking and motivation behind them. Ours are all (obviously!) noble and pure; theirs are all (obviously!) either stupid or evil. I really recommend checking out Jonathan Haidt, a name I know I've dropped a few times lately but I really stand behind. His books are good, but he's got plenty of lectures online too. Relevant here is "The Righteous Mind." 5. The big-picture reality—the one part that might be a sober-eyed reality—is that we can’t pummel opponents into submission. There is a huge minority of people who fundamentally disagree with us on anything (with the “we” and “us” in question being almost irrelevant: it applies to any we or us). Forcing through any kind of policy from any ideology at every political opportunity is to almost guarantee not agreement, but resentment. Not unity across ideological lines, but within ideological walls. People need to agree with solutions, and that will never happen by force. That means that nobody is likely to ever really have the solution s/he wants, especially not in any kind of short term. Not without totalitarianism to grease the wheels.
That's why I think taking the high road, being generous with our opponents at every opportunity even if they burn us, and working to make connections, wary partners--and later maybe even converts--is so important. If we don't, we'll get more of the same degenerating pattern. We might just get that anyway. Again, as I've said, I don't necessarily think I'm proposing a winning strategy.
Well, first off let's set a clear timeline here. I don't know if anyone here is aware of the Six Party Systems of United States history, but if you just google "six party systems" you'll find a detailed summary. Essentially every 50 odd years the key issues the electorate care about change, and as a result the electoral coalitions of both parties do so as well. The most recent realignment came in 1968 ( though personally I consider it 1972.) That's where the Democratic Party alienated their old base ( unions, Catholics and the Solid South) with things like the Civil Rights Act. Nixon brilliantly ( if nefariously) seized that opportunity with the Southern Strategy. You combine that with the appeals to evangelicals during the Reagan years and the modern right-wing coalition was born. By contrast, the Democrats built a new base of feminists and minorities thanks to the revisions to their primary system after '68. I just want anyone reading to know exactly what dates we're talking about here and why. Im glad we can agree Republicans are more responsible for the desecration of our political discourse and institutions over the course of the modern era. And believe me, if I had wanted to I could have provided twice the number of examples to back up that accusation. At this point, the competition between the parties is no longer a friendly one between different approaches to making a better world. No, at this point one party is flawed but reasonable while the other is ( and I do NOT say this lightly) an existential threat to mankind. At every turn they've targeted innocent people for use as pawns or collateral damage in their war games and corporate greed. They've taken us further and further into authoritarianism while muddying the terms and media to the point where none of us who can see what's going on are able to convince anybody else. If all this were not enough, the latest climate change reports say we have ten years max to change to renewables or humanity risks destroying the entire biosphere. ( But, as our esteemed colleague has kindly reminded us before, that's all a conspiracy to sell more sunscreen. Denial of climate change is a GOP position.) The point of my previous paragraph is that policy and ideological differences are and must be an intrinsic part of this conversation. The damage Republicans are doing cannot be ignored, minimized or compared to the issues with Democrats. ( Once more, I have misgivings with Democrats too, but can anyone name one single thing they've done that's as bad?) I resent your point #4 which seems to imply that I'm being hyperbolic and/or only attacking Republicans because they're not me. I'm looking at their policies objectively and the harm they have and will do. If you think I'm mistaken in my assessment of the danger, then all I'm asking you to do is prove me wrong, show me why things aren't as bad as I'm saying. Anyway, the point is playing nice, throwing them softballs, not attacking their insane positions, trying to compromise with them...that's not only strategically unsound ( Trump won the White House being as contemptuous and cruel as possible) but it's also putting the population of America and entire planet in grave danger considering what they want to do in power. At the end of the day, that's all there is to it--that's the end of the conversation as far as I'm concerned. It would be nice if we lived in a kinder, more intellectually curious and good-faith electorate but we don't. We have to build one, and the way to do so is by following the various reforms I offered previously. In response to point #5, my policy suggestions are what I believe it will take to fix the national discourse. Just demanding everyone be nicer isn't helpful or realistic especially in this climate. McGovern was nice. Perot was nice. Hillary ( for all her faults--I certainly wasn't a fan) was more intelligent and had clearer answers. Elections, at least national elections, are not won by kindness and gentility. They just simply aren't, and the people who've already tried to play it your way lost and will lose again, mark my words. The reason it doesn't work is because our society and institutions don't allow that strategy to work. We do not value educated discussions; zingers and gaffes are what get all the airtime. We do not know alternative paths because political science isn't taught in schools. We don't have productive discussions because our debates are structured like quiz shows with 60 seconds of speaking time per question. Do you consider any of these statements inaccurate? Your point #5 implies I'm trying to force my policies on others but I'm not. Just offering them to others as a way to get out of this hole we're in. Nothing I suggested ( with the possible exception of #7) was or should be in any way considered partisan or controversial. I suggested new parties to give people more choices, a return of investigative journalism, better education... These are the very principles America was supposed to be built upon, just unfortunately the founders didn't always know the best way ( FPTP was all that existed back then, we've since learned better voting methods.) That, plus our modern society has corrupted the old values and institutions. Frankly, if America as a society is going to consider education, accurate reporting and more viable candidates in elections to be so disagreeable, then democracy is already dead in this country. Calling my suggestions "totalitarianism" is just so inaccurate I don't know what to say, and I find that descriptor insulting, quite frankly. What you suggest in your final paragraph is feel-good platitudes, not a real solution. And not only that, it's exactly what the Democrats did throughout the Sixth Party system, and therefore what got us here.
Look at the general election debates. I did--every single one--and I tell you with confidence that each cycle the Democrats borrowed more and more phrases and policies from Republicans. Make a note of how many times the republican nominee makes a point of how their democratic opponent is "the most liberal senator/governor in America today," turning the very word "liberal" into an insult. And look at each time the democrat disavows the word and points out their conservative or rightist votes/actions in order to appeal to both sides. Over time, this has allowed the Overton Window to shift so far to the right that what would have been a republican in 1960 is now a democrat, and democrats with the policies they had in the '60s are considered radical communists (Bernie and AOC, anyone?) Look at the 2000s debates and notice how Bush flat out lies--campaigning as an isolationist and even accusing Gore of being too fond of wars and nation-building. Then compare that to how he governed in office, giving us our worse overseas quagmire of nation-building gone wrong in our history. Look at Trump promising infrastructure reform at the debates and then spending all his time golfing instead of spearheading a program through Congress when it was dominated by his party. Look at Romney trying to lie about Obama's response to the Benghazi attack (fortunately the moderator called him on it.) Then ask yourself, how can you ignore or be friendly towards people who outright lie about what they're going to do? How do you sit back, let them win on lies and then screw up our country even more? Look at Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis' convention speeches. They are practically a capitulation to the Republicans. They practically bend over backwards to try to win the Regan voters back. How did that work out? Oh right...landslide losses. Bill Clinton completely abandoned a lot of old Democratic positions in governing--look up the Third Way on google or wikipedia, this is not baseless conjecture on my part. Ask yourself, how the hell did we go from FDR/Stevenson/LBJ and McGovern to get Centrist candidates like Clinton/Gore/Kerry and Hillary? How did we go from campaigning on a basic income and universal healthcare in '72 to Hillary "secret Wall Street speeches"/"universal healthcare will never ever happen" Clinton? Ask yourself, how did the Obama years work out, when he tried so hard from the beginning to reach across the aisle? Oh right...unprecedented republican obstructionism including defaming their own healthcare plan from ten years prior (and championed by their own 2012 nominee!) TL;DR: Your solution is no solution at all, it's baseless fantasy and in fact exactly what got us to this point.
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Mar 1, 2019 7:25:21 GMT -5
You're taking my post too personally. While it might start from some of your positions, not every sentence or conclusion points a finger at you. In fact, very little of it is related to you. Rest easy, you're not being accused of anything.
As for the rest, I'm not going to respond further. There's no reason to repeat ourselves, and I really don't want to dedicate the time or energy into complex and lengthy rebuttals and rebuttals of rebuttals. I understand and appreciate your points.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2019 7:32:05 GMT -5
You're taking my post too personally. While it might start from some of your positions, not every sentence or conclusion points a finger at you. In fact, very little of it is related to you. Rest easy, you're not being accused of anything.
As for the rest, I'm not going to respond further. There's no reason to repeat ourselves, and I really don't want to dedicate the time or energy into complex and lengthy rebuttals and rebuttals of rebuttals. I understand and appreciate your points.
Fair enough. Captain. I've made my point and I guess you have too, so there's nothing else that needs to be said.
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Mar 1, 2019 7:36:36 GMT -5
Not that needs to be. That could be? Sure, lots! But really, at least for now on this board, I'm more interested in keeping things more easily accessible to everyone and not getting too in-depth. If we were sitting down over a drink or eleven, I'd be more than happy to go back and forth all day and night.
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Mar 1, 2019 9:11:00 GMT -5
A couple quick-hitters.
(I wish more papers dedicated more resources to science reporting.)
- Purely on a party-strategy, nuts and bolts level (not with respect to my policy preferences), it is going to be interesting to see whether the Democrats can be more unified in their House majority than the late-Boehner and Ryan GOP Houses were. After a strong performance (mostly) in the Cohen hearings, this meeting doesn't seem great for party unity. (iluvleniloud, if you read this story you'll definitely see aspects of our recent conversation playing out. Speaker Pelosi, for what it's worth, seems to be on your side.)
- Thank goodness some semblance of sanity has returned as India and Pakistan appear to be cooling off. I'm not a big fan of nuclear powers ramping up rhetoric or escalating violence, because--call me old-fashioned--I still remember that nuclear weapons exist and can end life as we know it...
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2019 10:37:17 GMT -5
Not that needs to be. That could be? Sure, lots! But really, at least for now on this board, I'm more interested in keeping things more easily accessible to everyone and not getting too in-depth. If we were sitting down over a drink or eleven, I'd be more than happy to go back and forth all day and night. I think it's important to go in-depth and provide as much context as possible. This is because without the full story you get ignorant (not an insult, just a fact) discussions--memes, 140 character tweets, vacuous buzzwords, denial/gaslighting and ad hominems--essentially everything that's wrong with political discourse today. To have an intelligent, productive discussion which even has a prayer of convincing someone or arriving at an objective truth, everyone needs to know the full story of how we got in this situation. I know a lengthy post isn't as attractive to the masses as an image-macro from Facebook or wacky soundbite from YouTube, but I refuse to water my statements down when it comes to a subject this important. ^None of that is said in an argumentative way. And frankly, I don't want to waste time repeating the same points again and again if the other person isn't going to agree either. After both people have laid out their argument fully, if nobody can or will admit they were wrong, it's probably better to just let it go. This might be another principle we try to abide by in this subforum to keep things civil. (I remember we were discussing that earlier.) I also appreciate that we're not getting distracted by the peanut gallery either. With regard to your article, yeah progressives are pissed off after 2016 and speaking as one myself, I don't blame them. Many people don't have healthcare, my generation is absolutely crippled by predatory student loan rates (at astronomical interest rates to boot) and if we don't mitigate our carbon footprint now, there won't be a next generation. Compounding the frustration, we played it the Centrists' way last time around and lost in what should have been a slam dunk victory. Bernie is the most popular Senator in America and back in the '16 primaries he was polling ahead of Trump. Now he's breaking records in terms of the small donations he's getting, and many other candidates are copying his ideas and/or moving further left for the first time since 1972. We even have a democratic candidate promising to enact Universal Basic Income, which is something even Bernie did not do last time around. Speaking from experience, on Reddit and Facebook, anytime me or any of my friends expressed a preference for Bernie we had Clinton apologists coming in from left and right to shit on us. I recall being asked condescendingly "is this your first election?" almost every day, told I was a nazi responsible for Trump if I didn't vote for Clinton, that I was a stupid kid... One of my uncles (who saw me post my debate/speech analyses throughout the year, trying to educate myself) told me I had no right to have an opinion on political issues because I don't own my own business yet. Point is, after what we suffer last time around, we are not going to be taken for granted again. The rise of unconventional candidates on both sides attacking the status quo (Trump and Bernie, obviously) is proof that the old neoliberal status quo just isn't cutting it for people anymore. I strongly believe a new realignment, a Seventh Party System, is coming this election. As far as Pelosi goes...good. I was worried when she was announced as Speaker, and frankly I still think we need someone younger and more exciting/charismatic. But she played Trump like a fiddle with the shutdown and if she's FINALLY going to play hardball with the right I'm all for it. It's about damn time.
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Mar 1, 2019 10:55:26 GMT -5
Regarding the long posts, I'd counter that it's not a matter of depth or detail. The more points brought in, the more points requiring (or at least inviting) responses. Original topics get lost on tangents. We end up with "omnibus bill" level discussions, and that's something that I think excludes the more casual would-be participant. Frankly it usually turns me off, too, not because I don't or can't understand the points and don't have something to say. It's just a time suck and can be exhausting sometimes. I think those things just go better in conversation (or more formal and drawn-out correspondence).
That's more or less why I aim to keep things bite-sized. I believe strongly in editing and clarity. I fail in it, but I believe in it.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2019 11:14:06 GMT -5
Regarding the long posts, I'd counter that it's not a matter of depth or detail. The more points brought in, the more points requiring (or at least inviting) responses. Original topics get lost on tangents. We end up with "omnibus bill" level discussions, and that's something that I think excludes the more casual would-be participant. Frankly it usually turns me off, too, not because I don't or can't understand the points and don't have something to say. It's just a time suck and can be exhausting sometimes. I think those things just go better in conversation (or more formal and drawn-out correspondence).
That's more or less why I aim to keep things bite-sized. I believe strongly in editing and clarity. I fail in it, but I believe in it.
Again, I resent that comparison. You brought up wanting a more friendly, productive electorate and I explained to you why that isn't the case and then offered a simple 7-point plan to fix it. This is kind of a complicated issue, the terrible state of discourse in America, and it required a nuanced answer. Trying to cram answers to these kinds of complicated problems into 60 seconds or 140 characters is exactly why our elections and discussions are a total joke. Define casual participant. Frankly, being in a democracy takes work. You need to be informed on the issues to be a good voter. Just parroting the buzzwords on FOX that week isn't enough. Just sticking with one guy because he's cuter and made a witty zinger at the debate doesn't cut it. If you don't have grasp of some basic framework of our history (and no, the Declaration/Constitution lessons from school isn't enough) then get online and take a few hours to learn. I taught myself all this stuff over the course of the last election because, as it turns out, it WAS my first election and I wanted to be an informed voter. Somehow, I now know more about political science than anyone else I know. That's not a self-aggrandizement, that's a condemnation of everyone twice my age who never had the care to do the same in all this time. I'm not saying know EVERYTHING and be a total expert, but if anything I said in my last three big posts is so complicated you can't follow the gist of what I'm saying or take 2 minutes to google a term as you read, I don't know what to say. Honestly, if you feel that way about my posting style than I just won't bother anymore. I want to actually have a meaningful discussion, not trading the same platitudes each side always throws around for the millionth time. I think this preference for "bite sized" discourse that doesn't "offend" anyone is a big reason why someone like Trump got elected in the first place, and why things aren't going to get better after he's gone. Americans, at least a significant number of them, are too lazy and/or willfully ignorant to put in the basic amount of work that democracy requires to function properly. If you don't want to put in the time to think about it, or question what's happening, you get authoritarianism. And whadda ya know, that's exactly what's happened.
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Mar 1, 2019 11:27:13 GMT -5
Sorry you're offended. You're more than welcome to post whatever, however you'd like. But we might be playing different sports, here.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2019 11:50:24 GMT -5
Sorry you're offended. You're more than welcome to post whatever, however you'd like. But we might be playing different sports, here. It's okay. It's just, I think if everyone had the full context we'd all be a lot better off. You wouldn't give someone a book to read before you taught them grammar, syntax and definitions first so they could properly understand it. And to me, that's exactly what we ask the people to do, getting dropped in the middle of a ~250 year ongoing reaction with thousands of actors, ideologies and organizations at work all the time. They need to know what all these individual pieces of the puzzle are, how they affect everything else and why. That's just the way learning works, about any subject. Politics is a very special subject because, living in a democracy, it's the collective duty of the citizenry to know these things. If we cannot or do not take on this responsibility, the elites will be more than happy to do it for us--and that's how things have gotten so screwed up now to where a reality TV star looked like a good choice to half the electorate. If we don't take on the burden of democracy, we get authoritarianism and with only ourselves to blame.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Mar 1, 2019 12:27:55 GMT -5
Sorry you're offended. You're more than welcome to post whatever, however you'd like. But we might be playing different sports, here. It's okay. It's just, I think if everyone had the full context we'd all be a lot better off. You wouldn't give someone a book to read before you taught them grammar, syntax and definitions first so they could properly understand it. And to me, that's exactly what we ask the people to do, getting dropped in the middle of a ~250 year ongoing reaction with thousands of actors, ideologies and organizations at work all the time. They need to know what all these individual pieces of the puzzle are, how they affect everything else and why. That's just the way learning works, about any subject. Politics is a very special subject because, living in a democracy, it's the collective duty of the citizenry to know these things. If we cannot or do not take on this responsibility, the elites will be more than happy to do it for us--and that's how things have gotten so screwed up now to where a reality TV star looked like a good choice to half the electorate. If we don't take on the burden of democracy, we get authoritarianism and with only ourselves to blame. At my peril...real politics is learned in the context of a boots-on-the-ground campaign where many are brought together either working for a ballot question or candidate. There is always an endless need for field workers to do door knocks, make phone calls, stand out with signs at rush hours, stuff envelopes, work at the polls, on your feet for shifts of usually 4 hours minimum, on election day. If you are there when the polls close, you "take the count" read off each machine, and report it back to the headquarters so they have a read of how their candidate fared, and whether they will have a victory party that night or have to concede to the opposition. In that event - you are at a wake. You get to experience what a political organization is from the bottom up. It is an opportunity to get to know a candidate, their positions, network with others, and it is not forever. Once election day comes, your duties are over; until the next time. Some people get bitten with the bug to seek office, and end up running for office in exactly this way.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2019 1:04:14 GMT -5
This one time I will respond again, but Im not going to continue this line of discussion beyond this one response, because whenever I do, somehow and someway I get burned for doing so.
Im not denying that campaign volunteer work isnt a valuable experience. I didnt do so last cycle because I was still in college and didnt have time. This cycle I plan to compaign for Bernie or possibly someone else who has better positions once I get around to checking them out.
But thats only one aspect of politics and frankly its not one that helps when it comes to making informed decisions or understanding the motives of different parties and factions. All your suggested activity teaches is the work and emotional struggle candidates go thru, not the context of why things are this way, or alternate political ideologies we could learn from. Its a part of politics but not "real politics." Thats ridiculous.
Frankly, as a young person sincerely trying to learn this subject and use it to help, Im tired of being lectured to all the time no matter what I do.
I spread articles on Facebook, or make quick comments about current events and Im accused of not knowing the full story, of being too young to understand, yadda yadda. Old boomers whine about the vacuousness of twitter and the millennials. I raise issue with the surveillance state in 2013 and the sheep bleat out "if you've done nothing wrong you should have nothing to hide." My older family members lecture me about how I have no right to complain because "you dont know struggle"/"youre better off than people in the third world." Like, with one side of their mouth singing the praises of the founders and with the other telling someone to shut up for wanting to preserve our civil liberties.
I take the time to learn and be able to discuss older candidates, party trends and other ideologies intelligently. All so I can be told Im stupid because its my first election (nevermind I know what happened in every US presidential election anyway). And that Im not worthy of an opinion because I dont own a business yet. And now that I write too extensively and alienate "casual participants." I spend many hours researching and putting together constitutional reforms based on European innovations, suggestions from former US magistrates and the Anti-Federalist papers and Im a "disturbing communist." Somehow, because I havent volunteered yet I dont know "real politics" even though Ive seen more debates, speeches, know the platforms of all US parties throughout our history, I actually know what Socialism means...
It feels like no matter what I do its wrong and someone is going to throw some BS technicality in my face for why I cant participate or why my participation is less valuable than anyone elses. Thats why Im frustrated and more than a little insulted at this point.
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Mar 2, 2019 9:38:58 GMT -5
With 4 million Democratic presidential candidates declared and the election almost two years away, I know middle-tier candidates don't matter to much of anyone, but because she's from my home state, I'm specially interested Sen. Amy Klobuchar.
Popular in Minnesota, she won more than 60% of the last vote and, while liberal enough to keep progressives happy, she has also compromised to pass legislation. Usually it's uncontroversial; often they're secondary (or tertiary ... or lower) priorities. But it still felt like something.
Sadly in the past few weeks there has been a lot of coverage of her as a bad boss. An abusive--sometimes weirdly abusive--boss. She's admitted to some of it, while some is being blamed on sexist ideas of women in powerful positions.
So I've been struggling with a) exactly the context and how much to believe (though there's obviously some "there" there), and b) what to do about it. Her politics pretty well align with mine, but character matters. I'm thinking a lot about disqualifying lines.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Mar 2, 2019 12:06:59 GMT -5
With 4 million Democratic presidential candidates declared and the election almost two years away, I know middle-tier candidates don't matter to much of anyone, but because she's from my home state, I'm specially interested Sen. Amy Klobuchar.
Popular in Minnesota, she won more than 60% of the last vote and, while liberal enough to keep progressives happy, she has also compromised to pass legislation. Usually it's uncontroversial; often they're secondary (or tertiary ... or lower) priorities. But it still felt like something.
Sadly in the past few weeks there has been a lot of coverage of her as a bad boss. An abusive--sometimes weirdly abusive--boss. She's admitted to some of it, while some is being blamed on sexist ideas of women in powerful positions.
So I've been struggling with a) exactly the context and how much to believe (though there's obviously some "there" there), and b) what to do about it. Her politics pretty well align with mine, but character matters. I'm thinking a lot about disqualifying lines.
That is very interesting, but not shocking, as sometimes electeds get a huge ego once they get in the seat, and their true colors start showing. One of the little political quizzes of the week was a question as to what she ate her salad with, when the aide forgot to get a fork. A comb or some other object... Part (most) of me does not believe the story because most inner offices of politicians are well-stocked with a fridge, booze, a dry bar, and paper plates, cups, and plastic or other cutlery to entertain at a moment's notice. Much entertainment is done in those offices, whether it is for a breakfast meeting with coffee and donuts and pastries, or drinks before dinner, and where the real business (horse trading) happens. If that office didn't have plastic forks - then someone on the floor would have. If you are a political aide - some compadre can provide a fork. Sounds like b.s. to me. Political operatives who end up working for an elected, often land in another office, because they are good foot soldiers, and don't need a roadmap around the halls of Congress, especially to get a congressperson a plastic fork. Please. It does not pass the smell test. They buy that stuff by the crate. Klobuchar could end up being ok - but if multiple similar sounding stories arose, then it is another story.
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Mar 3, 2019 12:05:28 GMT -5
The substance of the allegations seems real: Klobuchar has admitted to some, and a significant number of sources including her defenders admit late-night irate emails, public beratings, throwing things across the office. Her staff turnover rate is the highest in the senate. So it's not just about eating a salad with a comb and forcing the aide who forgot to bring silverware to clean it afterward.
It's more a matter of deciding what that does to the chances of someone whom I might support. Deciding where to draw the line on an asshole as president if she might otherwise be the best choice.
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Mar 3, 2019 15:06:11 GMT -5
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2019 17:39:32 GMT -5
Frankly, as a young person sincerely trying to learn this subject and use it to help, Im tired of being lectured to all the time no matter what I do. I spread articles on Facebook, or make quick comments about current events and Im accused of not knowing the full story, of being too young to understand, yadda yadda. Old boomers whine about the vacuousness of twitter and the millennials. I raise issue with the surveillance state in 2013 and the sheep bleat out "if you've done nothing wrong you should have nothing to hide." My older family members lecture me about how I have no right to complain because "you dont know struggle"/"youre better off than people in the third world." Like, with one side of their mouth singing the praises of the founders and with the other telling someone to shut up for wanting to preserve our civil liberties. I take the time to learn and be able to discuss older candidates, party trends and other ideologies intelligently. All so I can be told Im stupid because its my first election (nevermind I know what happened in every US presidential election anyway). And that Im not worthy of an opinion because I dont own a business yet. And now that I write too extensively and alienate "casual participants." I spend many hours researching and putting together constitutional reforms based on European innovations, suggestions from former US magistrates and the Anti-Federalist papers and Im a "disturbing communist." Somehow, because I havent volunteered yet I dont know "real politics" even though Ive seen more debates, speeches, know the platforms of all US parties throughout our history, I actually know what Socialism means... It feels like no matter what I do its wrong and someone is going to throw some BS technicality in my face for why I cant participate or why my participation is less valuable than anyone elses. Thats why Im frustrated and more than a little insulted at this point. Take heart, Cassandra. All your hard work and your passion for what you believe in will eventually bear fruit. Trust me. You can have that in writing if you like. I know, I know, jk sounding off in a political thread. But it irks me to see what began as a productive discourse turning sour. And once again, it's you who gets to suffer most.
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Mar 3, 2019 18:54:29 GMT -5
It need not be sour: just a spoonful of sugar and all that. It remains an open forum and a free internet. We won't all agree on everything all the time. That doesn't mean we're not all valuable, valued, and welcome. What I think matters no more than what anyone else thinks, and vice versa. Everyone can continue as he or she sees fit (as if anyone needed my permission).
|
|
|
Post by lizzielooziani on Mar 3, 2019 20:45:18 GMT -5
It does bother me, the way Baby Boomers put down the younger generations, saying that they are hopelessly naive, that they haven't "lived" enough to know what's best for our country. It makes me shake my head, roll my eyes etc to see these same Baby Boomers forwarding memes to me that contain false info, or pictures that were obviously photoshopped. Who's being naive?? We Baby Boomers have let younger people down. We're "kicking the can down the road" with so many issues - health care, the environment, etc. I find the younger generation's passion to be refreshing . But I'm saddened by all my nieces and nephews have been saddled with. Difficulty in getting a decent paying job, student debt (no, they didn't major in basket weaving, but rather in fields such as teaching , science, business). They should have the right to have their say.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2019 22:18:36 GMT -5
Thank you, lizzielooziani for that. I cant tell you how appreciated that is. It's really frustrating being saddled with all these problems ahead, imbued with this sense of how important it is to get informed and active in the process, and then condescended to when you do. These remarks arent specifically aimed at Cap'n either because to a degree I can see his point too, while I disagree. This is more directed at my overall experiences trying be heard and respected at all. I say that tossing around all these arbitrary benchmarks someone has to meet in order to be taken seriously is really low. It's an ad hominem combined with moving the goal posts to try to silence someone whose arguments you cannot disprove with logical arguments and facts. It's not even just in politics where this happens; it can be as petty as "oh, you havent listened to this album as often as me!" Which just shows how ridiculous that behavior always is. It's a weak tactic to get an artificial leg up on the person you disagree with. Watch me volunteer this cycle and then we'll see how fast the definition of "real politics" changes in December 2020. As far as this specific thread, I think a more indepth discussion would be more helpful and interesting to people than a restatement of the headlines though. Not only is that more of a conversation in my opinion than trading sources, but at this point any "casual participants" left in politics need to fully understand whats at stake and get involved to fix it. If all the issues I went into dont scare you or inspire you to stop these things then you're never going to be a "non casual" and frankly shouldnt be catered to. Catering to the lowest common denominator in anything, especially something this important, isn't good for anybody. jk thank you for the kind words as always.
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Mar 4, 2019 8:39:46 GMT -5
Another moderate entered the Democratic presidential race, self-described “extreme moderate” John Hickenlooper, 2-time Colorado governor. The catch phrase he’s using is like the mirror of Bush’s “compassionate conservative”: “pragmatic progressive.” NYT columnist David Leonhardt’s column today pairs with this news, as he calls for Democrats to keep in mind the moderation that often matters in the general election. www.nytimes.com/2019/03/03/opinion/2020-moderate-democrats.html
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Mar 4, 2019 10:57:11 GMT -5
Another moderate entered the Democratic presidential race, self-described “extreme moderate” John Hickenlooper, 2-time Colorado governor. The catch phrase he’s using is like the mirror of Bush’s “compassionate conservative”: “pragmatic progressive.” NYT columnist David Leonhardt’s column today pairs with this news, as he calls for Democrats to keep in mind the moderation that often matters in the general election. www.nytimes.com/2019/03/03/opinion/2020-moderate-democrats.htmlInternally - the career big D party operatives who have seen the same people "on the way up" and "on the way down" - know a couple of things: First, they know they power of the incumbent to harness all that is tethered to it. Second, they know that their best shot is the candidate who can look closest to a "moderate." Third, they are all fighting for the same pool of votes, and are beating each other up, vying for the top ballot spots. A lot of them have similar platforms. Fourth, they know that AOC brand socialism (should we still be able to have children?) has brought her some big enemies and major blowback, such as the amazon in Queens project (jobs are jobs) and Cuomo, groups who have taken out billboards against her, as well as Greenpeace, the seminal policy maker for environmental marine preservation whose position is that eliminating all fossil fuels will prevent food from getting around the country, the agribusiness itself unless we have all electric tractors, and plows, electric motors on all fishing vessels, electric power plants that don't have coal to burn, electric airplanes, etc. AOC is the gift-that-keeps-on-giving, with photo ops with top ranking Dems, who will soon be (some have already) distancing themselves from her. Feinstein is already voicing opposition to the world-ending-in-12-years policies. Her goals might be aspirational (like building a bridge to Europe?) but implementation requires planning that involves industries that use fossil fuel and who employ thousands of workers. Debbie Dingel wants AOC to go to her state to observe what is involved in the auto industry, and work with her in a cooperative manner to school her on what is actually involved in attempting to shut down an industry instead of working to modify it for environmental needs, while keeping the workforce employed. www.wnd.com/2019/03/greenpeace-founder-destroys-aoc-youd-bring-about-mass-death/
|
|