But he’s the candidate for president. You agree Biden is anti-rioting then?
Well, that’s helpful. Be sure to let the people who think the economy and historically high unemployment, progress on a COVID solution, aging infrastructure, Russian and Chinese malfeasance, access to affordable health care, immigration, climate policy, and worries about losing jobs to automation or outsourcing are high priority concerns that they instead need to be worried about “fragility”.
Good God. Fragility.
Used to be, we talked policy on PWI - anyone want to talk about the real issues confronting the country in 2020 and the presidential election?
Btw, @Sloth - if you can explain why a Canadian PM is giving this speech in the rain instead of an American President on the 75th anniversary of Normandy, I’ll vote for your solidarity party in 2020:
No not by a long shot. But, and this is a sticking point for people, it appears he doesn’t really have a spine in many ways. I had someone say it to me today, and they’re no fan of Trump’s. So then you’re looking at Kamala for a lot of talking points and she’s shown entirely too much willingness to engage on those points wrt BLM, very progressive stances and such. Too much willingness for many of the more conservative posters here, and for me personally.
Also, for me and I think for others the question isn’t “does Marxism rule the streets?” (It doesn’t). The real question is “does Marx-influenced progressive ideology gain more mainstream acceptance?” This is plausible although you can debate the likelihood of it.
The key point is - if we’re going to stop a Marxist influenced ideology - do we want it to gain more acceptance in mainstream before we address it? The answer to that is easy for me: NO. There’s nothing more permanent than an idea, and I personally see no way to be successful in quashing it after it reaches mainstream acceptance. Therefore I accept that the battle must come before it has gained that much traction and while it still revolves around morons like it does currently.
I do think the posters here are sincere, which while maybe a bit on the alarm side isn’t crying wolf per se. Also, I’d rather have sincere disagreements than play games, which I fully agree is going on at the national scale.
I can’t and it’s absolutely, positively SAD. I said it in all caps so you know I’m serious . He should have been there, and loss of American leadership on the global stage is a major point for me in 2020.
I hear what you’re saying, but I think it’s just not that large of an issue. At the top of of the Democratic ticket is a 40 year moderate, not some beret-wearing radical.
Plus, the BLM stuff continues to be overstated. One of the organizations has identified as Marxist, but there’s no serious debate that everyone in support of the broader slogan “Black Lives Matters” is also signing on to Marxist ideology. If that’s true, the hosts of College Football Gameday are a bunch of Marxists. Ridiculous - can we stop with this nonsense now? (Not pointing this at you.)
My point being - I’ll be the first to defy any legitimate move in the direction of actual Marxist ideology. But I don’t think we’re seeing anything remotely close to that - not in the Democratic Party or otherwise.
I think the “Marxist ideology” stuff is overblown for political reasons - again, trying to scare people into voting a certain way. It’s all a bunch of theatre - there’s no real danger here. So we shouldn’t act like there is.
Agree on the ticket for sure. It’s just that I don’t think anything of this ideological nature can be said to be a small issue to begin with. But there’s no argument from me that imminent Marxist domination is not on the horizon. I do see it being the next battle, as these things go in cycles and this one is long overdue.
No question at all. There’s no question at all that the majority of people who champion this slogan are anything close to marxist. The problem is that increased financial leverage and social visibility will lead to a larger problem from the actual Marxist group down the road.
After all, as I said earlier to someone else, I’m confident in MY ability to parse crappy journalism and ideology, but not other people’s. And that’s how the stubborn fringe gets hold of the mainstream.
I certainly don’t think there’s going to be any short term civil war issue or anything. My interests can be said to be looking at the long term through a proactive lens.
Certainly. Definitely not in the mainstream of the party, but on the fringes I think it’s possible.
Yes
To me long term danger is still danger. Not in the manner you’re talking about of course. We agree on that. I just don’t think we should say it isn’t there at all. Something about Nassim Talib’s maxim that people inappropriately discount long term risk in favor of perceived short term risks.
Looks the same to me. It looks like an intellectual coward who can’t back up his own words. The best you can do is link someone else’s thoughts, because you can’t do your own thinking.
But yes, go on linking articles and speaking in broad narratives without getting into specifics. Go on characterizing those who disagree as simpletons and Trump cultists. Go on discussing politics at the depth of celebrity gossip.
I’ll be here to point out your absurdity, and you can chide me for not taking your next second-hand account of Trumpian Malfeasance at face value.
Hey now, I’m not the Secret Service planning a route after rain grounds a flight. I don’t know the logistics involving all the parties being discussed. Were some of these leaders staying closer having already planned for driving? I don’t know. And, really, I’m not interested at this point. This is a dead story unless names actually start dropping. There’s 10 different names calling into question the original and actual story (the widely aimed name-calling), if not out refuting it.
Eh. Not looking to do any heavy lifting for this Solidarity party. I’m under no illusion about their chances (none). On the surface, they’re a party I can exercise my vote with while still being at ease with my conscience. Then again, because of those chances, I’m not going to spends a lot of time digging below the surface with the party and it’s candidates.
The article has a bunch of data points I find concerning. I’m not over here running my own double blind studies. So, I link to the statistics. Now, take the statistics across a number of categories and note the disparities for AAs. It is my belief that while other factors are in play, that many disparities across that many categories suggests we have a problem with systemic racism.
Add that to my own anecdotal experiences - knowing certain decision-makers in my lines of work who won’t hire or staff AAs, and knowing of certain institutions and companies whose promotion culture is one of insiderism and good ole boy-ism (and AAs don’t get invited to participate and never get the “take him/her under my wing” treatment), and it’s clear to me that a charge if systemic racism has some legs.
So now, with this narrative, we have Harris gushing over a man accused of sexual assault, domestic abuse, and theft (Kavanaugh, anyone?). Along with his anti Semitic father. Now, maybe I’m just an oddball, but why not allow the wheels of justice to turn before personally meeting with? One who appears to who have been shot resisting arrest. An arrest being made because he was back, trespassing, on an alleged victim’s property. And, stealing her keys…Are we in bizarro world?
Yeah, great, Biden spoke out when the polls went south over the riots. Well, only to mostly blame right-wingers for left wing violence.
We’ll see where the wheels of justice go - but there’s something I’m not sure I understand: why is that you believe that if the person being attacked by cops has a bad history that excessive force is permissible in a way it wouldn’t be for someone who doesn’t have that history?
The law does not permit LEOs to kill people even if they are guilty of the crime they are being arrested for. You do realize that, right?
I’m looking for clarification on this issue - in the case of Blake, assume he resisted arrest: should cops be allowed to use lethal force to the tune of seven shots in the back? In the case of Floyd - does he get a different version of Due Process because he had a rap sheet?
You’ve raised a victim’s background several times - suggesting that the rules should be different for them than for those who don’t. True? Or am I misunderstanding you?
If tasing didn’t work and he’s now reaching into a vehicle containing a knife with an officer directly behind him, yes. Recall, they’ve already struggled with him, tased him, and followed him around the vehicle and to the door while warning him. There is more to it than your question suggests.
The victim’s background is to inform us that this was a legitimate attempt to arrest. Warrants and the, at the time, present 9-11 call.
Also, it seriously calls into question Harris’s visit and words. That was absolutely bonkers.
See if he had a warrant and then automatically move to an execution? No, I’ve never suggested that. And there’s enough to suggest this wasn’t such a case.
That isn’t what happened. Besides resisting arrest and assaulting the police and violating a restraining order, he was armed or attempting to arm himself. There was also a vehicle with children in it, that he was getting into.
And no one has said being a degenerate criminal means you should be shot. They are saying why assume the cop is wrong. Why assume racism when the suspect is a convicted, violent criminal? Why ignore resisting arrest and assaulting a cop as contributing factors?
Again, where are these examples of police hunting down innocent black men?
. He should have been there, and loss of American leadership on the global stage is a major point for me in 2020.