I dislike the term because it’s used in such weird and inconsistent ways. Am I a SJW because I believe blacks are treated differently than cops by police and jury’s? Because transgenders pissing by me is hardly concerning and has already been happening throughout our lives? Because I don’t give a flying fuck about gay pride parades and feel like I need a hetero one?
I was reading about a fucking video game with a gay character on a games site and all the incels were complaining about this being forced on them. If treating people with respect regardless of my differences between their gender, skin color, sexual orientation makes me a social justice warrior then I’ll proudly wear the label.
He is, and somehow we’re 4 years and a bunch of us are asking the same question as we did in 2016 - these are the best two people we can get for candidates?
(That said, I’m voting for Biden without the slightest hesitation. There’s a world of premium between “gaffe machine” and “mentally unfit”.)
It is somewhat incredible to me, to be honest. Boris Johnson or Theresa May may not be the world’s brightest or skilled, but they are miles better than the US choices.
What on earth does it say about the DNC that they had 4 years to choose a candidate and they chose Biden?
What does it say about the GOP that they had 10+ qualified candidates and chose Trump?
Perhaps your take is right, but I’ll take “mentally unfit” over train-wreck laws and policies any day of the week. He’s only the President, after all. I’m a lot more concerned with where the Presidential signature goes than what he says or how he acts.
Good manners, tact, consistent Presidential demeanor and a good choice of words are all nice things to have. We can’t have nice things. Not until we sort our shit.
Also, while I don’t agree with your calculus re:Biden vs Trump, I do understand it. As a China hawk, I’ll vote for a potato that will promise policy opposing the CCP.
Edit: I realise I cannot vote in the US, but us Brits have to keep an eye on the colonies. We await the moment of weakness that allows us to retake y’all.
Millions of people have written millions of words about this, but I think it was a rejection of the status quo and the Republican establishment more than anything else. That seems like a fairly obvious conclusion. What do I know though? I’ve never voted in a Republican primary.
People better than I am at mind-reading seem to believe there were all kinds of retrograde and hateful thoughts in the hearts of Trump voters. A lot of people seem to believe their take.
I think this is correct. I’d go one further and say that Trump was chosen as the Anti-Obama candidate. Hilary was, and is, a vile candidate, but I suspect that there was more than a little anti-Obama sentiment in those polling booths.
Actually, it’s not that crazy. Who else? Try again with the “first woman president” thing? (Warren, Harris, Klobuchar)? Opt for Booker or Buttigieg? The boogeyman of the right, Comrade Sanders? These are all choices fraught with a non-negligible degree of risk.
As the 2020 will won (or lost) by Trump and not won by the Dem candidate, they’re going with what they perceive is the most inclusive candidate - Biden, the reason being that he’ll be able to survive short media appearances and repeat prepared talking points. A pretty low bar actually.
Karl Rove is back. It doesn’t get any more “establishment” that that.
Yes, they simply cannot afford to experiment this time with “breaking new ground”, either by choosing a woman or a gay man when every vote counts in the battleground states, even from bigots.
The ideology of the Dem base prevents another “straight white male” to prevail in the primaries, even if they pretend to be Latino.
Edit: Nevertheless, I think it’s a sign of progress that Buttigieg effort was hampered not by his sexuality but the fact that he worked for McKinsey.
Oh, I disagree. The Eastern Roman Empire had its share of incompetent lunatics in the 7th and 8th century.
Fair point, the superpower status ends with Heraclius and the cataclysm.
I was actually referring to Phocas. Had there not been Phocas and his rule characterized by cronyism and spectacular incompetence, perhaps the ERE wouldn’t have fought the Persians to a bloody draw and lost to the desert Arabs.
The irony that a large majority of black voters will vote for the Party that enslaved them, gave them segregated facilities, and now tells them what they must do in order to be black? I assure you, the irony is not lost on me. It’s not hard to explain, though. Stockholm Syndrome is a thing, after all.