[kenberg]

thepossum, on 2023-August-28, 22:48, said:

I think I would know what I was talking about than anyone else. People need more imagination

Antifascist and antiauthoritarian to make it simple. My socialism is especially of the libertarian variety. And I am a strong advocate for reasonable markets and investment and fair returns on risk
Liberal as in liberal - ie free to be and do what you feel like as long as you don't hurt anyone else

I can at least try can't I?

I would have no idea who to vote for in the USA. At least in Australia I can play around with preferences a bit

Human Rights. Its simple really if you consider they apply to everyone

I honestly don't understand the need for so many on these forums to go ad hom. Why? It's a fundamental failure in basic argument and decency. Where do people learn that its acceptable. Bridge Clubs?

Categories can be tricky. I recall a one-square newspaper cartoon from the 50s. A teen-age girl was talking with her friends about her boyfriend: "He would like to be an existentialist but he can't figure out what it means".

[pilowsky]

thepossum, on 2023-August-28, 22:48, said:

I would have no idea who to vote for in the USA. At least in Australia I can play around with preferences a bit

I mentioned ages ago that when I did the vote compass in Australia it put me roughly in the middle of the political spectrum - basically right-wing of the Labor party.
When I did the US version of vote compass I ended up as a radical socialist.

For the average middle of the road Australian there isn't a sane option in the USA - with the possible exception of Bernie Saunders.

[kenberg]

pilowsky, on 2023-August-29, 08:15, said:

I mentioned ages ago that when I did the vote compass in Australia it put me roughly in the middle of the political spectrum - basically right-wing of the Labor party.
When I did the US version of vote compass I ended up as a radical socialist.

For the average middle of the road Australian there isn't a sane option in the USA - with the possible exception of Bernie Saunders.

Yes, this is an often-stated view. If the rest of the world wants to write us off as crazy there is not all that much we can do about it. We won't be joining the Sanders camp because Australians say we are nuts if we don't. I very much hope that we can get past the Trump era. And I very much hope we can accept that 80 is a bit too old for taking on the job of the presidency. I hope for a lot of things, but I am not hoping that we all come to see Sanders as the only viable candidate. He is a decent guy but there are a lot of decent guys ("guys" being gender-neutral for the purposes of this post). I hope we can again come together and run two decent guys, one a D, one an R, and return to some semblance of normalcy. Normalcy by our standards. If that means crazy by Australian standards we will live with it.

[Gilithin]

pilowsky, on 2023-August-29, 08:15, said:

I mentioned ages ago that when I did the vote compass in Australia it put me roughly in the middle of the political spectrum - basically right-wing of the Labor party.
When I did the US version of vote compass I ended up as a radical socialist.

For the average middle of the road Australian there isn't a sane option in the USA - with the possible exception of Bernie Saunders.

You need to be a little careful with political surveys to understand precisely what they are charting. Traditionally US political graphs plot economically(fiscally) liberal/conservative against socially liberal/conservative. In contrast, European surveys traditionally plotted radical/conservative against tough(authoritarian)/tender(liberal). I have no idea where Australian politics stands in that regard - maybe economically(fiscally) liberal/conservative against levels of misogyny?
The simple truth though is that you are essentially correct, US politics offers a basic choice between Right and More-Right by the standards of most of the world. I disagree that there are no sane options though; you just have to understand where the fault lines are in American politics. There is a distinct danger in the coming years of the country genuinely hitting a point where half of the population have no sensible candidates for multiple generations but one would hope that the People will pull things back before we get there. One would hope...

[pilowsky]

Gilithin, on 2023-August-29, 13:51, said:

I disagree that there are no sane options though; you just have to understand where the fault lines are in American politics.

What I said was "To an Australian there are no sane options."
This is a comment about political concerns in one place relative to another and the extent of the differences in priority between the two.
I'm not commenting on the mental health of Americans vis a vis Australians.

[garfinkle]

Gilithin, on 2023-August-29, 13:51, said:

. One would hope...

I have seen T shirts advertised emblazoned with "I Miss The America I Grew Up In". That matches my sentiments, and I've been tempted to buy one and wear it. But sadly I think we've passed the point of no return. The crazies have the power and a plan to hold on to it. So I'll just buy a T shirt emblazoned with "I Never Dreamed I'd Someday Become A Grumpy Old Man But Here I Am....Killin' It".

[pilowsky]

garfinkle, on 2023-August-29, 18:10, said:

I have seen T shirts advertised emblazoned with "I Miss The America I Grew Up In". That matches my sentiments, and I've been tempted to buy one and wear it. But sadly I think we've passed the point of no return. The crazies have the power and a plan to hold on to it. So I'll just buy a T shirt emblazoned with "I Never Dreamed I'd Someday Become A Grumpy Old Man But Here I Am....Killin' It".

One often hears of demographics broken down as: the silent generation, boomers, millennials, gen X etc.
I prefer: Kids of today don't understand, It was better when I was young, me, entitled, really self-entitled, unbelievably self-entitled etc etc.

[Winstonm]

I was at my most vulnerable ages from the assassination of JFK through Vietnam, Kent State, 1968 Democratic Convention, assassinations of RFK and MLK and Watergate.

None of that is close to this separation. We on the left understood Nixon and his supporters but disagreed wholeheartedly; I have no idea what Trump supporters want other than a fictional world where Trump is a superhero.
You can’t debate or understand crazy.

Case in point: When Trump was indicted in DC I sent a message to a Trump supporter I know where I made the observation that Trump was trying to disqualify everyone’s vote both Dems and Repubs. Her response was, f&ck you, Winston.

[shyams]

Gilithin, on 2023-August-29, 13:51, said:

I disagree that there are no sane options though; you just have to understand where the fault lines are in American politics. There is a distinct danger in the coming years of the country genuinely hitting a point where half of the population have no sensible candidates for multiple generations but one would hope that the People will pull things back before we get there. One would hope...

You have RFK Jr running in this race, don't you? Why won't Americans vote for him in the Primaries?

Because my guess is that deep inside Dem voters know that their own political party will play ugly & ensure RFK Jr is not on the Dem ticket regardless of how many states he wins (in this hypothetical scenario).

Let me clarify:
1. I am not saying he will win. It is far more likely that he will lose most or all states that he contests. But even if he did start winning, he is not going to be your candidate.
2. If there was an alternative universe where a 69 year old (i.e. his son's present age) Senator RFK Senior was running against Biden, the Democrat establishment would have successfully thwarted his ability to be on the Dem ticket as well.

[Winstonm]

shyams, on 2023-August-30, 03:47, said:

You have RFK Jr running in this race, don't you? Why won't Americans vote for him in the Primaries?

Because my guess is that deep inside Dem voters know that their own political party will play ugly & ensure RFK Jr is not on the Dem ticket regardless of how many states he wins (in this hypothetical scenario).

Let me clarify:
1. I am not saying he will win. It is far more likely that he will lose most or all states that he contests. But even if he did start winning, he is not going to be your candidate.
2. If there was an alternative universe where a 69 year old (i.e. his son's present age) Senator RFK Senior was running against Biden, the Democrat establishment would have successfully thwarted his ability to be on the Dem ticket as well.

This particular Kennedy is a whacko anti-vaxxer. It would be like voting for Bigfoot or Nessie.

[shyams]

It really helps to have a readymade label to pin on a person. That way, one is fully justified never having to evaluate said person's actual political or administrative arguments.

If anything, it is an immediate descent into immorality if one even deigned to explore.

[Gilithin]

shyams, on 2023-August-30, 03:47, said:

You have RFK Jr running in this race, don't you? Why won't Americans vote for him in the Primaries?

Perhaps you would care to let me know who the last POTUS was who lost in the Primaries? I'll wait...

The simple truth is that incumbent Presidents get to stand for a second term. It is not a matter of red or blue, this is just US politics.

[shyams]

Gilithin, on 2023-August-30, 07:52, said:

Perhaps you would care to let me know who the last POTUS was who lost in the Primaries? I'll wait...

The simple truth is that incumbent Presidents get to stand for a second term. It is not a matter of red or blue, this is just US politics.

You are correct that nobody lost. However, LBJ did "lose" his primaries in a sense. He foresaw his defeat was likely and withdrew from the 1968 election cycle.

From Wikipedia: (Quote) LBJ was constitutionally permitted to run for a second full term in 1968. Initially, no prominent Democratic candidate was prepared to run against a sitting Democratic president. Only Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota challenged Johnson as an anti-war candidate in the New Hampshire primary, hoping to pressure the Democrats to oppose the Vietnam War.

On March 12, McCarthy won 42 percent of the primary vote to Johnson's 49 percent, an amazingly strong showing for such a challenger. Four days later, Senator Robert F. Kennedy of New York entered the race. Internal polling by Johnson's campaign in Wisconsin, the next state to hold a primary, showed the President trailing badly. Johnson did not leave the White House to campaign. (end quote)

[kenberg]

pilowsky, on 2023-August-29, 18:51, said:

One often hears of demographics broken down as: the silent generation, boomers, millennials, gen X etc.
I prefer: Kids of today don't understand, It was better when I was young, me, entitled, really self-entitled, unbelievably self-entitled etc etc.

You can view me and others of my age that way. No one can stop you. Of course, it's insulting, but perhaps more importantly I believe it is mistaken. Okay, I biked to wherever I wished, not always totally safe, I saw whatever movies I chose (some, such as The Lost Weekend, were a bit upsetting), I bought a car that I chose for myself when I was 15 (with the money I had made by working), I read whatever books I wanted to read and (at best) slimmed over assigned books that I did not want to read, I chose, without parental input, which of two available high schools I would attend, etc etc etc. But I assume that's not what you mean. I did not think the world owed me a living, nor did any of my friends think that way. So write us all off as unbelievably self-entitles if you wish, but my unbelievably self-entitled opinion is that you are wrong. There is a very old Barbara Stanwyck movie, The Lady Eve, in which she tries to explain women to Henry Fonda "The good ones aren't as good as you think they are, and the bad ones aren't as bad. Not nearly as bad". Well, sometimes people are as bad as you think they are, or even worse, but often I find some wisdom in the approach she suggests.

[Winstonm]

shyams, on 2023-August-30, 06:48, said:

It really helps to have a readymade label to pin on a person. That way, one is fully justified never having to evaluate said person's actual political or administrative arguments.

If anything, it is an immediate descent into immorality if one even deigned to explore.

If soneone is standing on a soapbox on the corner saying the world will end Tuesday I do not think it necessary to delve into his thoughts on the economy or voting rights. I’ve heard enough. Granted, he could be a genius but that is a risk I am prepared to take.

[johnu]

kenberg, on 2023-August-29, 10:26, said:

And I very much hope we can accept that 80 is a bit too old for taking on the job of the presidency. I hope for a lot of things, but I am not hoping that we all come to see Sanders as the only viable candidate.

Saying nothing about Bernie's qualifications, but he's already 81, and will be 83 by January 20, 2025.

[garfinkle]

pilowsky, on 2023-August-29, 18:51, said:

One often hears of demographics broken down as: the silent generation, boomers, millennials, gen X etc.
I prefer: Kids of today don't understand, It was better when I was young, me, entitled, really self-entitled, unbelievably self-entitled etc etc.

I presume from this response that you were born poor, oppressed, a "victim", and without hope. I offer you my sincerest sympathy for your miserable plight and my best wishes for a brighter tomorrow.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2023-August-28, 08:07, said:

I have no idea how they will find 12 jurors. I honestly believe I could judge his guilt/innocence on the merits of the specific case but I can understand why no one would believe me when I say so.

They found jurors for E Jean Carroll's case against Trump. They'll find jurors for this.

They obviously can't exclude every candidate juror who has opinions about Trump; as you suggest, they'd have to be hermits. They just need to decide that the potential juror is able to put their opinions aside and judge on the merits of the evidence.

[hrothgar]

shyams, on 2023-August-30, 06:48, said:

It really helps to have a readymade label to pin on a person. That way, one is fully justified never having to evaluate said person's actual political or administrative arguments.

OK, if you don't like anti Vaxxer, perhaps you prefer "Anti Semite" or "911 truther" or "Drug addict" or ...

There are a lot of different labels that one can attach to RFK Jr...
Very few of them are good

[kenberg]

hrothgar, on 2023-September-03, 10:33, said:

OK, if you don't like anti Vaxxer, perhaps you prefer "Anti Semite" or "911 truther" or "Drug addict" or ...

There are a lot of different labels that one can attach to RFK Jr...
Very few of them are good

Another way of looking at it: We usually record the news (PBS Newshour) and listen when it is convenient. If there is a segment about RFK Jr, we fast forward through it. I also fast forward through segments about alien landings (or I would if there were such segments) and fast forward through news about Taylor Swift (there is occasionally one of those).