The US Supreme Court allowed Trump’s Ban on Transgender people in the military.
This is just temporary, allowing the military to enforce the ban as the actual cases play out in the lower courts.
So this would mean you are against Biden winning the nomination as well, since he played an important role in the same crisis?
I was in support of Biden in 2008, even over and above Obama; I thought his experience, both domestically and w/r/t foreign policy, was more valuable than Obama’s unrealized idealism. Now Biden feels extremely dated. Also, he’s handsy with women and girls, and I’m worried what things might come out about him. And, while he’s done some admirable things, he’s also done a bunch of not-admirable things. Voting for the AUMF and the Iraq War being some of them.
I could sort of understand her becoming a prosecutor if her intent had been to drag the institution kicking and screaming into the 21st century, reforming it into something more fair and just. That does not appear to be what she did however. There’s nothing honorable about withholding exculpatory evidence or in defending others who have done so. That’s the mark of a prosecutor trying to buff their win record at the expense of actual justice.
That bothers me too, and I’m not someone who embraces the “progressive” label. I do however believe in justice for all, and there are few things that trouble me more than prosecutors who prioritize winning over justice.
Warren’s tiff with the Native American tribe she claims to descend from would be a pretty heavy albatross around her neck. Sanders I think would be an excellent General Election candidate, but for the primary he’s still somewhat hampered by a disconnect with non-white Democratic primary voters. Nevertheless in a 20 candidate field he might well dominate if he doesn’t come across as too old. Biden also stands to do well in a general election if he runs, having a great deal of street credit with the same blue collar voters who voted for Trump over Clinton. Can he generate sufficient excitement in the Democratic primary however? Does he want it badly enough to stick it out this time? And can he avoid sticking his foot in his mouth as he’s sometimes done in the past? That remains to be seen.
I feel I’d probably like Biden face to face as a man in the pub after work, but then I have the same feeling about you. His issue positions are often too conservative for me to seriously consider supporting him if a better candidate is available. However should he turn out to be the “lesser evil” against Trump or Pence on one side and Kamala Harris on the other, then I could see myself going with Biden, albeit fairly reluctantly.
I concur. He also (although Biden has that too) seems like someone who could actually smack Trump down in his favoured arena, meaning a verbal confrontation on live TV or even a written one on Twitter.
He can probably overcome some of the problems you mentioned, should he get to the general, by choosing a young, possibly really young ethnic (as in black, asian or native american) running mate. The democratic base will probably also push for that one to be female, but I’m less sure on that one. Most important is that it is a relationship that has actual, political chemistry.
This is like the second time in recent memory I’ve found myself agreeing with you, @p_tigras. Will wonders never cease?
Part of the whole voting for Iraq and Afghanistan was based on the aftermath of the Dems refusing to get behind the First Gulf War, we won that one in a convincing matter, and they got pummelled in the midterms.
Then they voted for an open ended conflict in a region that we should have never been involved in and we can now never leave because if we do and a South Vietnam occurs where the governments we set up collapse, it confirms that we spent all these years and lost thousands of Americans in vain.
I don’t think it’s a good excuse. But it was rooted in a past-butt whooping the Dems suffered.
I’m still of the opinion that everyone that voted for the AUMF in 2001 should be permanently banned from elected office. Yes, that includes Bernie Sanders. My point being, considerations of politics is no excuse for the wholesale murder and terrorizing of populations for decades.
Yeah, but that would mean that we cared about principles and wanted to make real moral stands. Considering that we as a nation are so afraid to confront the systems that keep 46% of America in conditions of poverty.
That we have a discriminatory education system that ensures that the greatest mechanism for social mobility- a functional public school system is never adequately funded for at-risk groups.
The fact that we leave inner cities to basically fend for themselves.
How we can’t seem to square the fact that anyone who isn’t heterosexual and male should be treated equally and even then with certain caveats.
We have a lot of things to work on as a nation and I don’t think anyone who holds the levers of power really want to fix them.
What was the first time?
After 3000+ Americans were murdered on 9/11/01 in NYC, opposing AUMF would have been political suicide. The Democrats should have been a bit more proactive in ensuring it wasn’t such a complete blank check however. There was no preventing the operation in Afghanistan, nor in my opinion should there have been given that al Qaeda was headquartered there, but allowing the AUMF to pass with wording vague enough that W, Cheney, Rumsfeld & Co. were able to contort it into de facto congressional permission to invade Iraq as well was a serious mistake on the part of Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle.
I also have serious moral qualms with Obama’s comfort level with the civilian casualties caused by “out of sight, out of mind” drone strikes as a more politically palatable alternative to boots on the ground. I’m all for chopping the head off the snake as expeditiously as possible, but when, to borrow an Israeli euphemism, it turns into “mowing the lawn” in a half dozen other countries you’ve never declared war on, and innocent civilians regularly get chopped up by your mower blades along with the snakes, it becomes not only morally repugnant, but also self-defeating as you end up creating more enemies than you’re killing.
46% of America in conditions of poverty? That strikes me as a bit of a stretch. That’s the approximate percentage of Americans on some form of government assistance I believe, but it includes social security and medicare recipients, most of whom are not impoverished.
Speaking as someone who has first hand experience on both sides of the classroom, I consider this statement an extreme oversimplification. The political left pretty much controls public education in my state. The school system in my district effectively has a blank check to write it’s own budget. On top of that the state heavily subsidizes education in my district. The local board of education wastes millions every year on poorly considered projects, chasing the latest educational fads, with nothing to show for them, as achievement test scores continue to drop. All the political right does is point, laugh, and say this is why we need competition and vouchers. And most of the local lions of the left quietly do exactly what the political right recommends, they send their own children to private schools.
The relationship between law enforcement and most of those gang-run inner city communities is so toxic that even cities run by the political left are at loggerheads on how to heal the breach. Even the hiring of many more officers who are PoC doesn’t seem to have helped to address that breach.
People aren’t robots. It takes time to shift cultural attitudes. And they have shifted dramatically over time, including on gay rights. I wonder if the progressives of the current millenial generation like many of their baby boomer parents will unload the progressive mantle and turn into a group of mostly grumpy conservatives in 40 years when faced with a new set of progressive
causes battles being pushed by their juniors.
Democracy tends to reward those who are good at getting elected over those who are actual problem solvers. There is much to be said about a benign technocrat despot, but the problem with benign technocratic despots is what comes after them as their children often are neither benign nor particularly competent…
I wonder what causes those might be.
From the perspective of today’s progressives, the causes haven’t really changed, and that will likely be true with tomorrow’s progressives as well. Nevertheless if you look at the different waves of feminism, for example, you can see distinct differences. I probably should have used the word “battles” instead of “causes” in the quoted text above.
Hi, so I’m 17 and have been into Politics for quite a long time. When it comes to my placement I’ve fluctuated from Conservative to Classical Liberal with each interaction with a moderate I tend to believe more in my Classical Liberal values however I tend to move towards Conservative with each Communist I incounter.
With all that said I’m a Gen Z, by the law of being born on 2001, I don’t know if this is a trend but my generation seems to be more extreme and more conservative. If anyone has any arguements or ideas to the contrary but I have reservations seeing I turned my Communist classmate into a Fascist. I personally have met more Fascicts and Communists my age and below then above and more Fascists in general. I hate to say it but Im getting the vibe that denocracy is going to collapse in my life time
I doubt it, while most political stances are present in all generations I do not see the conditions for the relatively impoverished Millenial generation compared to the two before (and likely the two after us) shaping us up to swing from great activists to neo-liberal, laissez-faire fiscal conservatives. The conditions for a great pivot on the scale of the Boomers are just not there for us. That pivot was fairly extraordinary by the way and there is little evidence of anything like it happening on quite the same scale in the generation directly above us, Gen-X. Gen Z looks to be a bit more conservative, but probably not by that much. If you want a new great conservative generation in the making, look to the one now in the making, “generation Alpha”.
While older people trend more conservative on average I don’t think we’re going to see the huge swing from the great activist to the great conservative/neoliberal generation the Boomers pulled, as the two generations before them didn’t make such huge swings either.
Though this is just my hunch, I’m no social scientist and certainly no researcher, just a jurist and occasional armchair historian. .
Party: Peaceful fascist
You don’t necessarily need to shift your personal politics to become a conservative, though. If everyone else’s politics shift and you stay where you started, you’re effectively the new conservative.
Theoretically true, but in that case it would be the younger generations who would have to make an unprecedented shift. To be sure it is possible I could end up like Sanders at that age, who is in practice a fairly moderate Social Democrat, but to become a conservative is probably out of bounds for me, unless gen-z or the new one below it does a truly epic paradigm shift of the kind that doesn’t happen all that often.
Apart from Lenin’s invention of the one party state and the entwining of state and party the ancient Greeks and Romans would reasonably recognize both our politics and some of our most common causes. The precursors to state welfare, such as pensions were not unknown in some Greek city states and Rome and in a way we’re still struggling with slavery and involuntary labour.
But like the Tiger said, it is certain that as I age further an old fossil like me is likely to at one time become out of touch with some of the “battles” faced by the younger generations.
Every generational cohort in modern history that has been studied has grown increasingly conservative as it aged. The Greatest Generation was firmly in the camp of the Democratic Party from FDR’s New Deal onward, but became less and less progressive as they aged to the point where those that are still alive can mostly be considered conservative today. The same has occurred even more dramatically with the Boomers. The Silent Generation, as their name implies, was never particularly active politically, but they’ve shifted to the right of where they once were as well. The jury is still out on Gen X and younger. Gen-X is more of a middle of the road generation with older Gen-X’ers trending Republican and younger Gen-X’ers trending Democrat, but with that generation there is a big caveat. Older Gen-X’ers grew up during the Reagan boom years and tend to be nostalgic over the Reagan era while younger Gen-X’ers grew up during the Clinton boom years and tend to be nostalgic over the Clinton era.
With the end of the Soviet empire, the fall of the Berlin wall, and the elimination of mandatory Civics classes in most parts of the US, Millenials and Gen-Z’ers are more disconnected from the both the lessons and the baggage of the past, for good or ill. They certainly don’t have Gen-X’s wariness of socialism.
This is pretty much what I meant when I mentioned how one generation’s progressives can turn into the next generation’s conservatives. Like a train, the cause moves on, but the battles change, and a significant proportion of the older people are continually getting off the train, for whatever reason(s) they are not as concerned or engaged with the new battles, or perhaps even considering them a step too far, while a similarly significant proportion of younger people are continually getting on, eager to take up the fight and make a difference.
You’re exactly correct. We see the shift consistently in disagreement between civil rights leaders. 1920’s feminists tended to be extremely against civil rights for black men and women. Civil Rights fighters of the 60’s often consisted homosexuality the most disgusting sin. Now we have gay and lesbian people arguing that trans people aren’t real.
Give it 20-40 years and today’s trans people will be arguing that robots don’t have souls or something.
The fight changes, and the people don’t.
Gay folk have been beaten and stabbed to death in the past too,not just shot. You can’t outlaw kitchen knives and fists. Firearms are neither good nor evil. They’re a tool, a tool that some abuse, but many more view as a means of self-empowerment. Many on the political left didn’t grow up with firearms and aren’t comfortable with them. That’s completely understandable. They’re certainly dangerous in the way fire is dangerous and they do warrant caution, especially from the inexperienced. Highly irresponsible depictions in film don’t help either.
As is your right. This is one place where you and I will have to agree to disagree as I firmly believe in the right to self defense. I do not wish to be entirely reliant on a police force that usually arrives too late to make a difference. Furthermore there are already over 300 million firearms in the US. It would take decades for a comprehensive, national gun control policy to have an effect. Everything else is just disarming victims as criminals by definition aren’t likely to turn in their guns just because you pass a law.
I agree with the way you’ve framed this. A credible threat of violence in the service of liberty is not without value. Furthermore, a modern armed to the teeth military may well balk at firing on a resistance movement with great popular support.
To my knowledge 3d printing isn’t capable of making reliable firearms yet. Printed guns may look like the real thing, but they’re still little better than zip guns, unable as yet to take the wear and tear of firing multiple rounds.
I have mixed feelings on whether civilians plotting a violent insurrection is a good thing. At times it may be a necessary thing, but given that there is almost always collateral damage, and that collateral damage is measured in innocent lives, I tend to see it as a last resort.
You don’t shoot him just because he’s a bigot. If he’s only hating on you, you call the police. OTOH if the bigot attempts to break into your home and kill you, then you shoot him. Better him than you.
That’s not so easy in most parts of the US. “Gay panic” doesn’t really fly any more in 2019, and “indigenous culture” has never really flown as a defense in the US that I can recall. In those few districts where you could be bankrupted, your allies in the political left are already overwhelmingly dominant and you should already have the law overwhelmingly on your side against that bigot. So theoretically you shouldn’t have to worry about bigots assaulting you in that scenario since the government is your friend.
Given that its your home and you likely know it far better than our friend Cascat you should be able to use that to your tactical advantage, and with something like a shot gun loaded with buckshot, it doesn’t really matter if he’s a better shot as long as you aim in the right direction. It comes down to being willing to take responsibility and ownership for your own defense (and those you love), and the self-empowerment mindset that comes from that. Getting the training you need so you know what you’re doing is certainly a necessary part of that, and putting holes in paper targets semi regularly is not only fun, but improves accuracy.
An armed society is a polite society is a favorite saying of quite a few RKBA advocates I’ve known. Another point they often make is that very nearly every mass shooting in the US has occurred in areas where carrying a gun is either highly restricted or banned. The shooter didn’t hesitate to ignore the sign and break the law. To an unhinged person looking for attention, that gun free zone sign looks like this.
BTW the US Supreme Court earlier this week agreed to hear its first 2nd amendment case in nine years.
If the Court chooses to rule very narrowly then it will only affect the single rather extreme NYC ordinance that will almost certainly be struck down. A broader ruling could have much greater impact. Either way the case won’t be heard until the Autumn, and the decision won’t be published until Spring or early Summer of 2020.