HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Dalton555 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »

Dalton555

Profile Information

Member since: Sun May 1, 2016, 11:18 PM
Number of posts: 1,447

Journal Archives

I have in the past contemplated how the general public votes

And I am guilty of wondering in the past if people of color, sexual minorities, and women might face a tougher battle in a general election. A lot of my worries about gender have been put to rest, as studies have indicated that women and men do not have differential success in elections. White voters tend to respond to dog whistle politics, however.

This whole dust-up between Warren and Sanders bugs me because on the one hand he is being accused of saying something along the lines of my own thinking in the past. But also because it's taken on such a hateful tone. Twitter in particular has some extremely hateful attacks on Warren by Sanders supporters and on Sanders by Warren supporters. It's like everyone believes he was accused of murder, or some horrific wrongdoing. The accusations and the defenses are histrionic.

The pessimistic part of my mind, however, thinks that we were all deluding ourselves if we thought that Democrats would act like angels during a primary. When you run a campaign, you have thousands of people working under you and all of them are fired up for your victory and for the loss of the other candidates. In that atmosphere, some pretty mean and terrible attacks tend to get floated by campaign workers.

In an ideal world, politicians would be saints with full knowledge of everything that their campaign is doing, and they would always interdict any problematic campaign strategy. In the real world, we got people.

Nutjob Krystal Ball excoriates Warren

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/478464-hilltv-host-krystal-ball-accuses-warren-of-accuses-warren-of-launching-vicious-attack-on-sanders

TRUMP CAMPAIGN AGREES CNN MODS OUT TO GET BERNIE

For what it's worth.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/478374-trump-campaign-agrees-cnn-mods-out-to-get-bernie

Goodbye Marianne Williamson

I was never a supporter of her White House bid, but I used to like her a lot more.

Much of what she said during the campaign was bothersome to me. I actually got mad at her when she tweeted that non-citizens should not be allowed to buy land in the United States. That was shocking. I really don't like blood and soil arguments, no matter who makes them.

In defense of Tulsi Gabbard, a little

I am on record as not supporting her candidacy and also I've said/posted strong criticism of her on a variety of grounds, but I will say this: Except for the impeachment vote and a small handful of other votes, I don't have actual policy problems with her. Her votes tend to be in the okay range.

Even her recommended censure of Trump is very direct and condemns his actions unequivocally and directly. (I used to think that censure was the best/wisest policy, until about the first week of October.)

For me, I was at first interested in her because of her policy ideas (minus the Assad nonsense) and background. I have a strong positive regard for Vaishnava or Krishna-centered Hinduism, ever since reading Prabhupada's Bhagavad-Gita translation in my teens (forty years ago). Then I learned that she wasn't a member of an ISKCON group, and then I learned more about the Chris Butler cult, and it was all repellent and deceptive and criminal.**

Even now, although I mistrust her on several fronts, my hope for her is that she grows as a person and seasons as a politician and learns how to relate to human beings better. I haven't liked her candidacy for the White House (I don't see why she was running against Hillary Clinton, except to try to draw the Hillary haters), but I think she could be a positive force in our nation's politics.

She's so often a disappointment to me, and I think that's why I tend to excoriate her for her mistakes. Part of me always hopes that she pulls through and shakes off the nonsense.

***

Let me add, I posted this because I was doing my positivity exercises this morning and because I had posted a bunch of stuff about her earlier, she was on my mind.

Occasionally, for a positivity meditation, I picture a political figure or public figure that I have strong negative feelings about, and I interrogate my *feelz* about them and my thoughts about them. Sometimes, I learn that I have actual positive regard for people whose politics bug me (I secretly love Kellyanne Conway, for instance, and don't get me started on John Boehner). Sometimes, I find that I hate people even more than I think I do! But with Gabbard, I still believe that she has a role to play in our national drama, and I'm always hoping that it's a good role. She didn't ask to be born into that family or into the SIF cult, and although I have in the past been mistrustful of her "conversion" from right-wing ideology to mindful progressivism, there are other times when I'm not so sure that her conversion was fake.

I apologize for the meandering post. I was just dealing with my own negativity and reminding myself to be a loving person.

Gabbard has sent goons after people who question her cult involvement

She grew up in the science of identity cult, attended cult schools, associates only with members of the cult, and even her so-called campaign is mostly just an operation that pours money back into the cult.

A woman in Hawaii who began investigating the leaks found herself targeted by a vicious team of enforcers.

This is absolutely not someone that the Democratic party should run for president. Forget about her vote on impeachment. Gabbard is not who she claims to be.

https://twitter.com/realchrissyg?s=20

Electability.

This morning, I found myself engaged in debate with someone supporting one of the minor candidates. I was instructed that unless I supported this single digit candidates I was not serious about politics. I was also told that I did not understand electability.

I countered by saying that electability is a subjective judgment we make about a candidate, based in part about how much we like them, how we imagine other people respond to them, and other subjective factors. I was told that no, it is a scientific fact that one of the single digit candidates is universally more electable.

(Of course later it came out that the person was an independent who hates the Democratic party, etc, etc)

So I dug around to see if research has been done on electability and how this construct is used in our politics. And I found this very interesting article.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/electability-eye-beholder-what-hell-do-we-actually-know-about-n1020576

Bloomberg is saying good things

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/474135-bloomberg-unveils-proposal-to-increase-earned-income-tax-credit-federal

I'll admit, I have been very negative about Bloomberg. My trust level for him wasn't very high.

But I have to admit he is a rational and decent person. If he becomes our nominee, I will joyfully vote for him. Even though I'm not supporting him during the primary at this point.

Science of identity cult

The cult leaders rants have become public in recent months. I wonder if this has something to do with Gabbard's decision to pull out of normal campaigning.

You can't really quote Chris Butler without replacing his words with symbols in many cases. He is a straight up sociopath.

https://bylinetimes.com/2019/10/03/islamophobic-world-view-of-tulsi-gabbards-guru-revealed-in-unearthed-recordings-can-she-still-run-for-president/

Yang & "white f******s"

When Shane Gillis used anti-gay slurs, Yang announced that he wanted to meet with him to absolve him.

Why does Yang have the power to make these anti-gay slurs acceptable?

Did he ever meet with Gillis?
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »