Biden says Trump is America’s first ‘racist’ president

:360degreeeyeroll:

Wow. This is a good time for me to write "derp" for the first time. Derp.

If Biden loses, I'm pretty sure it will be because he failed to get the black community to vote for him, because of several shits like that.

arugula2 wrote:

Spinozasgalt wrote:I'm not going to ignore my actual experiences with leftists and in leftists spaces because your analysis doesn't make room for them, sorry. If you want to spectate, go into leftist spaces and see what the class-first and anti-identity politics socialists are like.

My analysis is wide open to "them" - whoever they are. I sincerely want to know the flavor and content of this "socialist" racism (let's not now migrate to "leftist", it can confuse things). I am literally inviting you to teach me about it. What is openness, if not this?

To spectate is to see. Should you persuasively point out the "pipeline" and the resultant "racist socialist" wave, I will do more than that. But first, I want to see. That's the "open" thing to do, and I am open to your ideas.

No, you are not. And if you think the "I'm so very open to hearing about your experiences, even while I put them in scare quotes and refer to the concepts you use to capture them as 'imaginary'" thing is new to me...it ain't.

Spinozasgalt wrote:

arugula2 wrote:

Spinozasgalt wrote:I'm not going to ignore my actual experiences with leftists and in leftists spaces because your analysis doesn't make room for them, sorry. If you want to spectate, go into leftist spaces and see what the class-first and anti-identity politics socialists are like.

My analysis is wide open to "them" - whoever they are. I sincerely want to know the flavor and content of this "socialist" racism (let's not now migrate to "leftist", it can confuse things). I am literally inviting you to teach me about it. What is openness, if not this?

To spectate is to see. Should you persuasively point out the "pipeline" and the resultant "racist socialist" wave, I will do more than that. But first, I want to see. That's the "open" thing to do, and I am open to your ideas.

No, you are not. And if you think the "I'm so very open to hearing about your experiences, even while I put them in scare quotes and refer to the concepts you use to capture them as 'imaginary'" thing is new to me...it ain't.

The scare quotes are an expression of doubt, sure, but not yet a dismissal of the ideas. Here are the concepts I am openly doubting: the socialist-to-rightwing "pipeline" you claimed exists, and the trend of "racist socialists" you claimed exists. I am not outright dismissing them yet, because frankly idk what to make of them yet (on the face of it, the one seems like an intuition born of narrow personal experience, and the other seems incoherent). Later you changed "socialist" to "leftist", and I'd have the same questions either way, but let's stick to "racist socialists" for now, because I need to know if this is a concept people should be aware of - ie, if it's real & meaningful.

[Edit: The "pipeline" I took to be a metaphor, and hypothetical. I get to call it imaginary so long as you're presenting it that way. Ball's political stances are blatantly progressive - much moreso than other so-called "left" media, such as MSNBC and CNN. And progressive (the likely viewer who aligns with her) is the exact opposite of Trumpist or right-wing. So, obviously you were describing a hypothetical. If I misunderstood, and you were instead describing an actual, measured trend, then the world deserves to hear about it.]

"Racist socialists", like I said above, seems incoherent (in present-day America). Are these people calling themselves socialists and being racist in the same breath? Strong candidate for trolls imo, but... idk if that's where you're coming from, because I am lacking the data from your personal experience.

Though I am doubting them, I sure am inviting you to show they are real things - things that anyone can demonstrate. That's just how it is. And the invitation is open.

Now, if you've faced racist or otherwise bigoted attacks online, I feel for you. As a gender non-binary African American, that's basically my daily existence. But I don't let it get in the way of skepticism & rationality, especially when it comes to identifying the ideological foes of humanity (ie, self-serving & corrupt, want to exploit people, sometimes use the language of social justice to do so). I've seen plenty of minds get yanked this way and that by emotional manipulation and marketing tactics. The human brain is susceptible, and I am human - so I train myself to question easy categorizations of people, especially if they seem to be co-opting the movements most important to social justice and, frankly, to the survival and dignity of my people. I'm getting better at identifying the manipulation, and... it often manifests in ill-defined attacks/dismissals of large groups of people, usually delivered with the emotional conviction of something good, like social justice.

Cori Bush, Missouri's 1st district.

Single mother, sometimes homeless. A trained nurse, with two hospitalizations for covid-19. Became political as a reform activist during the Ferguson riots in her home state. Will be the first-ever African American Congresswoman from Missouri. Ejected an entrenched dynasty of low-impact corporatists. A 5-point margin in St. Louis City, and a narrow 2-point loss in St. Louis County* sums up the trend: it took 2 years and better name recognition, but the alignment of working class & politically disaffected voters behind a grassroots, social justice progressive makes basic sense. Wants a living wage for all, tuition-free state college, student debt cancellation, securing abortion rights, police reform. Intends to fight for it, not dole out platitudes.

She joins Jamaal Bowman, New York 16th district. Ditto on most of the parallels there.

Endorsed by progressive organizations such as the Justice Democrats (recruited both, and Bush was a founding member), Sunrise Democrats, Working Families Party (Bowman), and the Democratic Socialists of America.

(*Spelling it out here. St. Louis County, median income: 65k; poverty rate: 10%; African American: 25%. St. Louis City, median income: 41k; poverty rate: 23%; African American: 45%.)

Noticed Krystal Ball has a take on Cori Bush's win... I find The Hill brand gimmicky and scripted, but... let's see... poverty, activism, complacent & dirty-dealing opponent, police reform, Medicaid expansion... all relevant to Cori Bush's platform, and relevant to the race.



Was curious about MSNBC's take... found Cori Bush had landed an interview a few hours ago. This is the clip:



The host opens by relating that he'd just had a conversation with Angela Duckworth (psychology professor) and Zerlina Maxwell (political commentator) about Michelle Obama's "low-level depression" and Duckworth's advice. I tried to hunt down the interview with the two ladies, and all I could find was this clip with Zerlina Maxwell's response:



Duckworth, in the lower panel, is listening but isn't heard. I find that curious. Anyway, Zerlina Maxwell seems to pivot her point against something which must've just been said (probably by Duckworth), summed up as a 'smoothening': "While everybody's experience in this pandemic is not equal, everyone has had some impact. Their life is fundamentally different than it was in the before time." I am curious to hear the earlier part of the convo; and much of the rest of what she says is platitudinal pap.

When I did a search for Angela Duckworth & msnbc, the most recent interview I got is this clip from 2 months ago, titled "Each person is suffering in their own way", with the topic being covid-era stress (so, general overlap with the above conversation):



In addition to explaining what stress is (its biological roots), how it can be harmful, and how some people are able to focus on the things in their lives they have control over (to reduce stress over the things beyond their control), here's what this psychology professor underlined for the host's sake: someone complaining about 'zoom fatigue' and someone worried about having a job or being able to pay rent - these are very different experiences, and she warns against being "tone deaf" and says "there's a lack... of empathy".

Anyway, back to his opening remark in today's Cori Bush interview. Michelle Obama's "low-level depression" - and now I'm confident that whatever comment was pivoted against, in the convo he references, was probably Duckworth underscoring the importance of acknowledging how these stressful times affect poor people much more severely. Cori Bush's historic victory was largely about poverty. In response to his vapid intro, she does a pivot of her own, it seems: "Somebody has to represent their voice.* Let me tell you - I won't forget the way that it felt every single time I received my paycheck, and I looked at it, and I knew that I didn't have anything left from it. It was going all over to bills. Or the Monday before I would get paid - and I knew - I was happy... on Friday I'm gettin' paid... but I knew I didn't have anything left over. And I knew I still wasn't able to put money to the side for my student loans... having money left over to save in case something happened. And so, yeah, I went back to school, I tried to, you know, better myself. Went into nursing. But then there was still this fight. When do we stop struggling? You know, so that's why I'm running for office. Because I don't want people to go through what I've gone through. You know, this fight doesn't have to be this way. We should be able to have a better quality of life."

I tried to only highlight the relevant words or phrases relating to her core platform, but... who the fuck am I kidding. It's her entire response. Then the anchor (or whoever's talking into his earpiece) recalibrates with a pantomime of indignation about $600 relief checks the Senate refuses to ratify. It's all catch-up from there, and he never catches up.

If the msnbc people accidentally omitted Duckworth's part in that recent interview, and if they cut out a less clueless opening to the host's interview of Cori Bush, that's something. For now, I'll assume they know how to do their jobs, and that they're showing me what they want to show me.

Krystal Ball's highly-scripted, give-and-take punditry is far superior political journalism than this garbage, and far more in touch with reality & regular people's concerns.

(*And no, she doesn't mean Michelle Obama.)

Another relevant highlight, and then hopefully I can re-train the youtube algorithm to avoid The Hill...



Krystal's dissection of the GOP is often lethal, especially when she's not being overly scripted. Whoever's hosting opposite her almost always has to stammer through rhetorical gymnastics trying to undermine her critiques of the fake GOP brand. (Saagar is generally the worst of them.) Her arguments are more persuasive than theirs.


Marquita Bradshaw's primary win for Senate in Tennessee. Backed by the local Memphis chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America. Wants to fight for Medicare for All, Green New Deal.
Her FEC financial summary (< $8000 on hand).
Her opponent Mackler's FEC financial summary (> $2,000,000 on hand).

The person who came in 2nd in the primary is another progressive named Robin Kimbrough Hayes, running on a platform of police reform and health care disparities. Mackler came in 3rd. Mackler was backed by the Dem party leadership. I'll let people guess which one is Mackler:


(source)

The poseur co-opting-social-justice mask of neoliberalism in America gets thinner each cycle. People's eyes gradually open to it. It's just going to require grind and perseverance, and gutsy candidates with a reason to fight. Money buys most things, but it doesn't buy everything.

Hard to find a "the basics" Mackler promotional piece. This one is a promotional interview-article in a Jewish publication with national reach. I tried to get a sense of the company's ideological slant, but it's pretty opaque - though its opinion section generally takes the easy road and is geared to provoking absolutely no one. The bulk of the piece focuses on his and his wife's Jewish outlooks, which makes sense for the venue. The piece opens by mentioning George Floyd and the protests/riots. Mackler is asked, and offers the expected "George Floyd and his family deserve justice" and "It took too long for Officer Chauvin to be arrested." Then this courageous take:

And he had harsh words for President Trump as well: “Inciting violence is not leadership.”

Be still my heart.

His wife (a rabbi) refers to her ministry of "social justice and advocacy" as relates to her husband's candidacy. I tried to piece together the train of thought by re-reading the previous sections. Apparently, she's referring to his...

...goals as a senator is to incentivize young people to participate in public service programs – either in the military or in civilian programs like AmeriCorps. “This president, for three budgets in a row, sought to reduce or zero out service programs,” he said.

“Those programs should have been seen as down payments on a more robust civic system. We should be encouraging more people to serve their communities.”

Social justice as parody. AmeriCorps employs 80,000 people a year. Medicaid otoh gives life-saving health services to millions of Americans, and is under constant GOP threat.

But the bulk of his promotional stuff touts his military tours (flew helicopters and used drones in the Iraq war) and his legal expertise around drone use. (Interview.)

arugula2 wrote:

Spinozasgalt wrote:

arugula2 wrote:

Spinozasgalt wrote:I'm not going to ignore my actual experiences with leftists and in leftists spaces because your analysis doesn't make room for them, sorry. If you want to spectate, go into leftist spaces and see what the class-first and anti-identity politics socialists are like.

My analysis is wide open to "them" - whoever they are. I sincerely want to know the flavor and content of this "socialist" racism (let's not now migrate to "leftist", it can confuse things). I am literally inviting you to teach me about it. What is openness, if not this?

To spectate is to see. Should you persuasively point out the "pipeline" and the resultant "racist socialist" wave, I will do more than that. But first, I want to see. That's the "open" thing to do, and I am open to your ideas.

No, you are not. And if you think the "I'm so very open to hearing about your experiences, even while I put them in scare quotes and refer to the concepts you use to capture them as 'imaginary'" thing is new to me...it ain't.

The scare quotes are an expression of doubt, sure, but not yet a dismissal of the ideas. Here are the concepts I am openly doubting: the socialist-to-rightwing "pipeline" you claimed exists, and the trend of "racist socialists" you claimed exists. I am not outright dismissing them yet, because frankly idk what to make of them yet (on the face of it, the one seems like an intuition born of narrow personal experience, and the other seems incoherent). Later you changed "socialist" to "leftist", and I'd have the same questions either way, but let's stick to "racist socialists" for now, because I need to know if this is a concept people should be aware of - ie, if it's real & meaningful.

[Edit: The "pipeline" I took to be a metaphor, and hypothetical. I get to call it imaginary so long as you're presenting it that way. Ball's political stances are blatantly progressive - much moreso than other so-called "left" media, such as MSNBC and CNN. And progressive (the likely viewer who aligns with her) is the exact opposite of Trumpist or right-wing. So, obviously you were describing a hypothetical. If I misunderstood, and you were instead describing an actual, measured trend, then the world deserves to hear about it.]

"Racist socialists", like I said above, seems incoherent (in present-day America). Are these people calling themselves socialists and being racist in the same breath? Strong candidate for trolls imo, but... idk if that's where you're coming from, because I am lacking the data from your personal experience.

Though I am doubting them, I sure am inviting you to show they are real things - things that anyone can demonstrate. That's just how it is. And the invitation is open.

Now, if you've faced racist or otherwise bigoted attacks online, I feel for you. As a gender non-binary African American, that's basically my daily existence. But I don't let it get in the way of skepticism & rationality, especially when it comes to identifying the ideological foes of humanity (ie, self-serving & corrupt, want to exploit people, sometimes use the language of social justice to do so). I've seen plenty of minds get yanked this way and that by emotional manipulation and marketing tactics. The human brain is susceptible, and I am human - so I train myself to question easy categorizations of people, especially if they seem to be co-opting the movements most important to social justice and, frankly, to the survival and dignity of my people. I'm getting better at identifying the manipulation, and... it often manifests in ill-defined attacks/dismissals of large groups of people, usually delivered with the emotional conviction of something good, like social justice.

Nope, not good enough. I know you want me to do all this work for you and then you'll ask further questions and make me do more. But the thing is, no.

And your little digs at my "narrow personal experience" even while you can't fathom that racist socialists are a thing and your self-promotion of your rationality and skepticism at the end are about what I expected. It's always "social justice" that's used for grifting, but here you are going to bat for someone who soft pedals Tucker Carlson. You can have her.

arugula2 wrote:To spectate is to see. Should you persuasively point out the "pipeline" and the resultant "racist socialist" wave...

If I'm not mistaken, Spinozasgalt is referencing the whole "red-brownism" trope again...




It's basically when a Little Red Book fits comfortably into the breast pocket of a brown shirt... or so a racist feminist like Thorne Melcher will tell you in a muckraking article like this one (from which the above screenshot is taken).
The red-brown concept is born out of the horror experienced by some 'progressive' leftists... the horror that a more moderate leftist might find common ground with a moderate rightist on some issues, thereby threatening the all-or-nothing utopianism of the 'progressives'.

Oh, Mike.

Mike_L wrote:

arugula2 wrote:To spectate is to see. Should you persuasively point out the "pipeline" and the resultant "racist socialist" wave...

If I'm not mistaken, Spinozasgalt is referencing the whole "red-brownism" trope again...




It's basically when a Little Red Book fits comfortably into the breast pocket of a brown shirt... or so a racist feminist like Thorne Melcher will tell you in a muckraking article like this one (from which the above screenshot is taken).
The red-brown concept is born out of the horror experienced by some 'progressive' leftists... the horror that a more moderate leftist might find common ground with a moderate rightist on some issues, thereby threatening the all-or-nothing utopianism of the 'progressives'.

So basically what you’re saying is that the left should be more non-partisan with the partisan part of the right. You just described the Clinton Presidency. Go you.

That's more-or-less what the present-day Dems are pushing for with Joe Biden as candidate... someone who pretends to hew left, but resolutely maintains the status quo. (Example: Biden chiming with BLM, but then balking at the movement's demand to "defund the police").

As for "red-brownism" maxing out...
He's in the picture (above). He's been identified as the brown part of red-brownism, he's a highly visible figure, he may become the GOP's successor to Donald Trump... and, if he does, he may just become US President...
(Politico article).

Mike_L wrote:That's more-or-less what the present-day Dems are pushing for with Joe Biden as candidate... someone who pretends to hew left, but resolutely maintains the status quo. (Example: Biden chiming with BLM, but then balking at the movement's demand to "defund the police").

As for "red-brownism" maxing out...
He's in the picture (above). He's been identified as the brown part of red-brownism, he's a highly visible figure, he may become the GOP's successor to Donald Trump... and, if he does, he may just become US President...
(Politico article).

So what’s your point. You seem to be saying that centre left, whatever that means in American politics, is just hubris hyperbole and anything to the left of that is fascistic. You seem to be oversimplifying a lot here.

Edit changed words to intended meaning

Biden pretends to hew left? Lmao.

felltoearth wrote:

Mike_L wrote:That's more-or-less what the present-day Dems are pushing for with Joe Biden as candidate... someone who pretends to hew left, but resolutely maintains the status quo. (Example: Biden chiming with BLM, but then balking at the movement's demand to "defund the police").

As for "red-brownism" maxing out...
He's in the picture (above). He's been identified as the brown part of red-brownism, he's a highly visible figure, he may become the GOP's successor to Donald Trump... and, if he does, he may just become US President...
(Politico article).

So what’s your point. You seem to be saying that centre left, whatever that means in American politics, is just hubris hyperbole and anything to the left of that is fascistic. You seem to be oversimplifying a lot here.

Edit changed words to intended meaning

Those whom Spinozasgalt has identified as "red-brownist" writers (Glenn Greenwald, Max Blumenthal, Caitlin Johnstone, etc.) have said for years that there's little difference (in practice) between Washington Democrats and Washington Republicans. Ideologies regarding race, immigration, abortion and religion may vary, but when it comes to domestic economic policy and overseas foreign policy, they're pretty-much the same. Both sides are beholden to Big Money and the Military Industrial Complex, both support foreign interventions (e.g. Obama actually expanding on the wars started by Bush), both unwaveringly support Israel, and so on.

...and anything to the left of that is fascistic.

Not fascistic. Daft... plain daft. A Marxist hodgepodge of BLM, AOC, Bernie Sanders and countless factions of leftists split along innumerable fault-lines of identity politics... all of them clamoring to run the US in much the same way that Seattle's short-lived CHAZ/CHOP was run. It won't happen, simply because the Establishment will never allow it to happen.

Trump has lost a lot of his erstwhile supporters, so it may well be Biden in November. Then maybe Carlson in 2024.
Regardless of who's in the White House, the rich will get richer, and everybody else will simply grind along... just like in most of the rest of the world.

So you are oversimplifying. Thanks for the clarification.

Spinozasgalt wrote:Nope, not good enough. I know you want me to do all this work for you and then you'll ask further questions and make me do more. But the thing is, no.

It takes hard work to identify the American trend of "racist socialists" and the evidence for an actual "socialist to right-wing pipeline"? I'm not asking for a lot of detail, mind you - just enough to differentiate the claim from hyperbole/narrow personal experience/easy intuition. When a claim is made, it's either made for show or to point out a real thing in the world. If you wanted to point out a real thing in the world, but then don't want to defend it against the minimal evidence to the contrary... that's on you. I'm still going to ask for receipts.

And your little digs at my "narrow personal experience" even while you can't fathom that racist socialists are a thing and your self-promotion of your rationality and skepticism at the end are about what I expected. It's always "social justice" that's used for grifting, but here you are going to bat for someone who soft pedals Tucker Carlson. You can have her.

I can indeed fathom that "racist socialists are a thing". We don't need to keep tweaking claims here. What I doubted is that they are a trend in American political reality today. If they are not, then the claim at least could be pidgeon-holed as a kind of random experience (internal or external) one is bound to encounter in life - or, much more likely, a trolling - rather than a meaningful movement the average person should be concerned with. I'd like to know which it is, that's all.

The "dig" wasn't a dig... it was a volunteering of a possible explanation for perceiving a "pipeline" of the kind you described. I have now given what I think is a reasonable counter-argument, twice (that exposure to "leftist" propaganda can be claimed with equal surface merit by GOP-ers, as a kind of "pipeline" in the other direction, undermining the alarm). So far no response to that logic. I have also, I think, given numerous examples in these last 2 pages about how Krystal Ball does indeed promote progressive ideas, often rigorously, and almost always more persuasively than most so-called "leftist" outlets out there. That logic, too, is so far unanswered.

And, no thank you. I don't want to "have her". I've already explained my problems with The Hill, namely that they are overly scripted, and each side does seem to negotiate beforehand some of the insistence or doggeddness with which they'll press their point sometimes - including opposite Carlson. On the other hand:



I've made a reasonable argument, even, that the overall balance on that show favors the progressive side, for the simple fact that Krystal has a more formidable presentation. Probably (imo) because she actually believes what she says - unlike her conservative co-hosts, who routinely contort themselves to try to undermine her points. That, too, is an advantage for the "left", because the mixed-ideology viewers can see that. Exposure, here, is an asset. A media island can't do that. (Not to mention that, for example, islands like MSNBC are garbage journalism - and I say that only with receipts, which you can also find on this page if you want).

"Social justice" and "grifting"..? Yes, please, more attention to that link is always better. The sooner the charade is exposed and killed, the sooner this godforsaken country can unmoor itself from its racist, classist, misogynistic bedrock. There are charlatans out there who use the language of social justice to bolster their own careers at the expense of ordinary people, and they currently control most of the Dem party in America, and virtually all of the so-called "left" media. It's pretty easy to identify them, too: they always somehow forget to talk about poverty, unless someone reminds them. (I also made an effort to highlight that disparity in these last two pages, with current events topics, and even a Krystal Ball analysis.) Before you dismiss the charge of grifting & social justice in the Dem party, make some indication that you understand the history of racial politics in this country. I've done a brief zoom-in involving St. Louis and Detroit in these two pages. Offer some hint that it registers with you at all. Otherwise your scoffing at the charge is just scoffing.

The "social justice" robe is merely the latest fashion - they have no choice but to wear it, because the GOP nabbed the "racist", "christian", and "patriotic" robes. Dem party leadership is literally wearing whatever's left. But a con is a con is a con.

I will point out, again: every assertion I've made for my outlook, I've tried to back with reason and evidence.

Mike_L wrote:That's more-or-less what the present-day Dems are pushing for with Joe Biden as candidate... someone who pretends to hew left, but resolutely maintains the status quo. (Example: Biden chiming with BLM, but then balking at the movement's demand to "defund the police").

<snip>
...he's a highly visible figure, he may become the GOP's successor to Donald Trump... and, if he does, he may just become US President...

I snipped out the red-brownism stuff only because I have a headache & can't fully absorb it right now.

The Dem strategy with Biden is complex, but yes it definitely leans on a return to a Clintonite strategy of wooing suburban, white, "professional" voters... who happen to vote Repub at least as often as Dem. The two outliers since Clinton '92 have been Obama '08 (which emphasized the youth vote) and Trump '16 (racist bumpkin vote, with a non-negligible evangelical boost). But generally, when the boat isn't getting rocked, both parties compete for the most reliable voting blocs. Old people are generally fixed entities: if you've voted red or blue most of your old-ass life, your old brain is unlikely to change gears. So the suburban middle-aged white "professional" is the last useful bloc of reliable voters. (I may be forgetting something right now, but I think that's reasonable.) (Added: And no, the "black" vote is not a meaningful target bloc, except maybe in '08, as a boost, similar to evangelicals in '16.)

The steadfast concern of this bloc is personal finance. A few other concerns are semi-solid, and they shift with the times. And though these people are no less susceptible to emotional manipulation than any other bloc, they do already inhabit/populate the dominant media outlets, so the chance of a planned variability in their thinking is fairly low. The only thing a political strategist can count on, is some major event in the real world. And Trump is such an event. Nevermind covid-19 and its impact, Trump has turned off a lot of those suburbanites who voted for him in 2016.

It's a groove in the earth, and the water must flow into it. Humans are rarely imaginative enough to purposefully shape the future.