Recent Posts

The woman of color "implication" (because I don't think they ever outright said it), which was more recent (post Floyd) is really when the right went nuts.  Which...you know...speaks volumes.  But, honestly, I'm still not sure its effective.  The people that went nuts, and the talking heads who were up in arms, were likely not voting for a Biden ticket no matter who was on the other end. Their "racial objections" is just one more excuse, IMHO.

And I also completely agree with the last bit: Dems are AWFUL at messaging and optics.  Though I have to say...yesterday's campaign event hit all the marks.  It showed exactly why you want her on the ticket.  She humanized Biden in ways he hasn't been able to, so far.   It was a good look pretty much all the way around.  Even the awkwardness of the COVID prevention stuff played pretty well.  Makes them both look like they are taking this a lot more seriously than the Repubs.

Ah, I had the impression it was stated outright, but it may have just been various sources presenting it that way. I will say, it's remarkable how successfully the right have weaponized identity politics in a way that does pull people who are politically disinterested, so I wouldn't discount any effect it's had. Like I said, they're great at optics and tactical gaming of discussion; look at guys like Dave Rubin, Tim Pool and Michael Tracy who claim to be centrists or even Liberals to game the discourse by suggesting they are just calling balls and strikes when they are in reality repeating right wing talking points verbatim. And you'll notice those types lean HEAVILY on "anti-identity politics" rhetoric (which is itself identity politics, but again, they package it in a way that suggests it is not). And one of the reasons it's so effective is because the left has no organized pushback to it. The right has had Frank Luntz crafting rhetoric and we have... nobody. The right has countless billionaire funded think tanks, who in turn fund these youtubers like Rubin, Shapiro, and so on. Our youtubers are self-funded and don't benefit from youtube's algorithm like the right does. The right has had Rush Limbaugh spreading rhetoric for decades. We have... Thom Hartmann? 

In a funny way, I wish we were as collectivist as the right claims, because then we might have more organized messaging infrastructure (or any at all, frankly). That alone could be an angle of attack if we were crafting rhetoric; "the right claims to be all about individualism, but they collectively unionize to lobby their agenda?!?!?!  ". It's not even hard.

I didn't watch the announcement, but I have no doubt she will be an asset. The contrast of grown-ups running the show will be stark.

[identity]

Unlike PermissionToLand, I dont see EVERYTHING thru the prism of race and identity politics.

You literally made this about identity politics when nobody else was talking about it. You hear of the first woman of color as a VP and your response was purely about her identity and connecting it to a political narrative about "wokeness". Who do you think you're fooling? That's some very mediocre trolling, you know.

And I'm not going to judge anyone as a racist just because they dont agree with me.

Ah, the classic "you'd call a squirrel racist!". What a pathetic dodge. You're actually tacitly admitting you were being racist because you don't even try to defend what you said, you just immediately turn around and attack the person calling you out with a strawman. It's literally a scholarly recognized move of narcissists. "DARVO": Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.

I called your statement racist because it was nakedly so; you see a woman of color breaking a barrier of society and your immediate impulse is to denigrate her and suggest she got the job because of "identity politics" instead of her qualifications. That is about as plain an example of racism as you get. That is exactly what racists in 1964 said about Martin Luther King. It's literally a trope of racism. And so is your response; to turn it around on the person calling you out instead of addressing the issue.

So when you walk like a duck and quack like a duck...

How well did Kamala Harris do in the primary compared to Amy Klobucher?  Sometimes people need some substance and  authenticity. Being of mixed Jamaican and Indian ethnicity as well as a female is how she was born, not a qualification.

Klobuchar... "substance and authenticity"!  

Do I need to repeat myself? "You'd think the job of literally REPRESENTING the people of a nation might be suitable to those who actually represent all demographics of the country and not just the dominant one... America should [not] only be run by the white men who the existing power structure of white men decide are "most qualified" (as determined by metrics that are set by white men and reflect what white men value as important)."

Why are you so afraid to actually respond to what I say with a direct rebuttal? It's pretty sad that you have to pretend I didn't say things so you can keep repeating the same thing. Kind of a microcosm of right wing "thought"; you just accept an ideological point on faith and repeat it no matter how thoroughly it's been debunked right to your face.  

Rebuttals and counter-arguments are Communist!!!

Biden had to pick a black woman ( or he was going to have a problem)

Yes, leaving a group of 41 Million people, who have been historically disenfranchised, without high level representation for yet another cycle IS a problem. It's pretty amazing that you can take issue with black people getting political representation and not see how that is racist.

Trump on Kamala Harris: "Nasty woman"

Trump on pedophile & human trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell: "I wish her well"

He started this awhile back.....mentioning EPA regulations that restricted water flow through showers and toilets.

Yeah.

Still, it's like an episode of Seinfeld...




/jarmo

US calls for shower rules to be eased after Trump hair complaints https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53761744


 





/jarmo

He started this awhile back.....mentioning EPA regulations that restricted water flow through showers and toilets.

Given this report, and his penchant for fast food, I think we can surmise why he mentioned toilets, too.   

[I dont see EVERYTHING thru the prism of race and identity politics.]

Unlike PermissionToLand, I dont see EVERYTHING thru the prism of race and identity politics.  And I'm not going to judge anyone as a racist just because they dont agree with me.

How well did Kamala Harris do in the primary compared to Amy Klobucher?  Sometimes people need some substance and  authenticity. Being of mixed Jamaican and Indian ethnicity as well as a female is how she was born, not a qualification.

Biden had to pick a black woman ( or he was going to have a problem) . And out of that field, Harris was the safest bet as far as doing no harm and it makes sense. Also, there was a prior working relationship there between Biden's late son Beau and Harris which likely helped.

Prepare for that ripping sensation again....

I dont see EVERYTHING thru the prism of race and identity politics.

*Proceeds to frame everything thru the prism of race and identity politics*

Seriously, do you not even understand what you just wrote?  I'm actually thinking you don't.

About a woman who has been in politics for most of her adult life. She was the San Fran DA. She was the AG of one of the largest, most populace, states in the country. She is a Senator and she's been there for as long as Trump has been president.

She arguably has more experience than Obama did when he ran at the TOP of the ticket in 2008.  And she inarguably has more experience than Trump did when HE ran at the top of the ticket in 2016.

You are the first (and only) person (not on Fox News) I've seen insinuating she's not well qualified and only was chosen for her racial/gender profile.  HOW IS THAT NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT BASED ON RACE AND IDENTITY POLITICS??!!

Also, you continue to ignore the fact Klobuchar called Biden and outright told him she didn't want the job. She wasn't even a consideration.  I gave you the short list yesterday.  Of those options....who exactly would you have picked? Who was more qualified and a better fit?

As to how well she did in the primaries vs Klobuchar...um, we'll never know. Because she pulled out in December of 2019 BEFORE THE FIRST CAUCUS OR PRIMARY EVEN HAPPENED.  She ran out of money.  You can take that to mean anything you want, but what you can't do is compare primary results that never happened.

I'd also like to add my standard point, which provides context for most of your objections when it comes to anything Dem: You voted for Trump.  WHAT political and public service qualifications did he have when you voted for him? What foreign policy experience? How can you POSSIBLY take the piss out of ANYONE for a lack of qualifications here? Especially one that only seems to exist in your own mind....

US calls for shower rules to be eased after Trump hair complaints https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53761744


 





/jarmo

Yes, it was good strategy to announce you're going to put a woman on the ticket with you.

I have to disagree there, announcing he would pick a woman of color before hand basically served up a talking point to the right, which you can see they are leaning on heavily in this very thread. If he just chose her without saying anything before hand, it would have denied them that talking point and still garnered all the appeal of a truly representative candidate regardless. Tactically, it was a bad move. But that's how it goes; Dems = good policies, bad tactics and optics. GOP = bad policies, good at optics and dirty tactics.

One thing: Read what I wrote again.  I don't disagree with you, actually.  The "woman" part (which he committed to months ago) was good overall strategy.  Suburban women basically are what elected Trump, and they are the demographic moving away from him.  Committing to putting a woman on the ticket, to help appeal to that demographic and speak directly to them is a good idea, and it's not one the right REALLY latched on to.

The woman of color "implication" (because I don't think they ever outright said it), which was more recent (post Floyd) is really when the right went nuts.  Which...you know...speaks volumes.  But, honestly, I'm still not sure its effective.  The people that went nuts, and the talking heads who were up in arms, were likely not voting for a Biden ticket no matter who was on the other end. Their "racial objections" is just one more excuse, IMHO.

And I also completely agree with the last bit: Dems are AWFUL at messaging and optics.  Though I have to say...yesterday's campaign event hit all the marks.  It showed exactly why you want her on the ticket.  She humanized Biden in ways he hasn't been able to, so far.   It was a good look pretty much all the way around.  Even the awkwardness of the COVID prevention stuff played pretty well.  Makes them both look like they are taking this a lot more seriously than the Repubs.

Unlike PermissionToLand, I dont see EVERYTHING thru the prism of race and identity politics.  And I'm not going to judge anyone as a racist just because they dont agree with me.

How well did Kamala Harris do in the primary compared to Amy Klobucher?  Sometimes people need some substance and  authenticity. Being of mixed Jamaican and Indian ethnicity as well as a female is how she was born, not a qualification.

Biden had to pick a black woman ( or he was going to have a problem) . And out of that field, Harris was the safest bet as far as doing no harm and it makes sense. Also, there was a prior working relationship there between Biden's late son Beau and Harris which likely helped.

I don't doubt nor ignore the fact that there are fans who want new music.  

After all these years of people needing/wanting things I've come to realize there's a group of people who will always want something else. No matter that they have.

Whether it's a reunion, new music, a tour or something else.

Nor do I deny the fact that, these comments about the need for new music, have so far resulted in zero new music been released any faster....



/jarmo

Well I’m certainly not part of that group, I’m pleased and proud to be able to say. I would also add that the group you refer to is a small yet vocal minority. Trouble is, in the age of the internet and social media that we live in, the small and contentious voices get heard more than they should. It would be wrong for the band and anyone else to assume that fans wanting new music (and expressing that wish on Internet forums) is part of group of trolls who do nothing but spread bad feeling and animosity. Fans wanting to hear new music from their favourite band are not the enemy!

I'd agree with that 100%. The main issue with the internet, and social media in general, is that it amplifies the vocal, aggressive minority and makes it seem that they're the majority. It's why I won't use social media really. Most big fans I've encountered, in real life and online, genuinely just want the best for their favourite band, and care passionately. And sometimes when people care passionately they may criticize things, but I really do think it comes from caring, in most cases. They also praise highly too.

Absolutely. The vast majority of Guns fans (including those who visit online forums) love GNR and are respectful towards the band. They are genuinely excited about and hopeful for a new release. Look how well the Greatest Hits vinyl is selling for instance. The gold splatter version is sold out in most online shops. Guns fans get so excited about anything new from the band. Maybe too much attention is paid to a small group of online trolls (of around maybe 30 people?) and their spew. 

It's actually back in stock everywhere now, as I think they probably did that thing of being ultra-cautious until they knew how many copies they would be receiving. Anyway, if people want it, it's everywhere again now. But your point still stands of course. Most fans just love the band, and it's only a tiny vocal minority who criticize anything and everything.....and they probably do it just for the purpose of trolling.