2020 Elections

[Kron3007]

As a Canadian, I have long known that I cannot predict or understand the American Electorate.  However, it seems to me that what matters more in the US is the personality of the candidate rather than how well you think they would understand policy and make sound calls for the country.  I first realized this when Bush was elected as I didnt think he would stand a chance.  It is almost like Americans elect the person they would prefer to have a beer with rather than lead their country. 

Yes, the "beer test" seems to be a distinctly American thing. The closest we've come is Trudeaumania (V 1.0 and 2.0), but even those don't last very long.  I can't remember which (American) writer it was, but he pointed out the long-standing disdain for "cerebral" people and the embrace of the "action-oriented" leader.

Googling around, I found several items of interest regarding the DJT odyssey. When he was younger and not yet in office he came across less angry, combative and more creative in his thoughts. One was an interview with Larry King in which he said Oprah Winfrey would be his favorite as a running mate (racist?); a David Letterman interview where he thought Mike Tyson should be released from prison early, perform at Trump's facility and raise millions be donated to rape victims (racist?); a Jordan Peterson interview where he says Donald Trump is clearly highly intelligent.
Other: obviously father Fred was a driven, severe man who liked  young donald because he had the right stuff to be forged in the image of his mega- businessman father. A brother, Fred, was not of their temperament, retiring more than competitive, and drank himself to premature death. It took Donald years to understand how Fred Sr's rejection of brother Fred was so destructive, but he did finally get it and regret his part in it.

Yes, DJT definitely seems like he has evolved into the thing that he is.  Perhaps part of aging?

However, just because he said Oprah would be a good running mate and wanted to do a fund raiser with Tyson dosnt mean he is not racist.  This is like the claim that having a black friend means you cant be racist.   

Half the nation, frankly, thinks you and the rest of academia full of crap, supercilious, insufferable. This will continue for the near future.

True, and in a survey 25% of people said they would not eat food that contained DNA.

[mahagonny]

But your answer to MW's question is disingenuous, because we all know that the inference is half of us (republicans) are eminently and threateningly racist. Which is not nice, and not demonstrated. And there are some pretty smart people around who have forceful counterarguments.
If that were not the story that has wide currency, there would be little reason for racism to be so prevalent in discussions, news commentary.

Remember, racism is a bad thing for a person to cultivate, because it is not nice.

Half the nation, frankly, thinks you and the rest of academia full of crap, supercilious, insufferable. This will continue for the near future.

True, and in a survey 25% of people said they would not eat food that contained DNA.
[/quote][/quote]

[my new comment] The point being, democrats, including and maybe even especially some of the most extensively educated members of society, repeatedly think they are convincing people of their views when they are not. I find this interesting.

[marshwiggle]

However, just because he said Oprah would be a good running mate and wanted to do a fund raiser with Tyson dosnt mean he is not racist.  This is like the claim that having a black friend means you cant be racist.   

Absent explicit virtue-signalling, is there anything that can establish a person as non-racist? Or since one can't prove a negative, is everyone provisionally guilty so that over time their "racist-liklihood score" goes down unless/until they do something inappropriate? And are there "inappropriate" things that aren't explicitly racist, but which are nevertheless wrong?

Well, I think all humans are inherently bias and this includes towards various different groups of people.  I suppose I dont think anyone is could be considered completely non-racist as such, and it is really just a question of the degree of racism.  It's like when people talk about media outlets or scientists being unbiased, I see this as impossible.  All we can do is minimize racism and bias. 

But your answer to MW's question is disingenuous, because we all know that the inference is half of us (republicans) are eminently and threateningly racist. Which is not nice, and not demonstrated. And there are some pretty smart people around who have forceful counterarguments.
If that were not the story that has wide currency, there would be little reason for racism to be so prevalent in discussions, news commentary.

Remember, racism is a bad thing for a person to cultivate, because it is not nice.

No, you miss the point. If everyone is somewhat racist, then people are divided into "racist-racists" and "racist-anti-racists".

Doesn't that clear it all up?

[spork]

I'll guess that all the people yammering about race on this thread are white. Zzzzz.

[marshwiggle]

I'll guess that all the people yammering about race on this thread are white. Zzzzz.

Since every politician, news commentator, and anyone else in front of a microphone is talking about "systemic racism", then it's a popular topic.

[mahagonny]

I'll guess that all the people yammering about race on this thread are white. Zzzzz.

Go ahead and put more blacks on the tenure track if you like. I won't interfere. I think it's something like two per cent currently.

edited to add: If I've been yammering about anyone it's mostly white academics who are on the self-appointed 'anti-racism' kick. Honestly, it has been a personal disappointment to see what some of them have been doing. The 'just because someone has a black friend does not mean he is not a racist' riff is very stale. It sounds like dog whistling.

However, just because he said Oprah would be a good running mate and wanted to do a fund raiser with Tyson dosnt mean he is not racist.  This is like the claim that having a black friend means you cant be racist.   

Absent explicit virtue-signalling, is there anything that can establish a person as non-racist? Or since one can't prove a negative, is everyone provisionally guilty so that over time their "racist-liklihood score" goes down unless/until they do something inappropriate? And are there "inappropriate" things that aren't explicitly racist, but which are nevertheless wrong?

Well, I think all humans are inherently bias and this includes towards various different groups of people.  I suppose I dont think anyone is could be considered completely non-racist as such, and it is really just a question of the degree of racism.  It's like when people talk about media outlets or scientists being unbiased, I see this as impossible.  All we can do is minimize racism and bias. 

But your answer to MW's question is disingenuous, because we all know that the inference is half of us (republicans) are eminently and threateningly racist. Which is not nice, and not demonstrated. And there are some pretty smart people around who have forceful counterarguments.
If that were not the story that has wide currency, there would be little reason for racism to be so prevalent in discussions, news commentary.

Remember, racism is a bad thing for a person to cultivate, because it is not nice.

No, you miss the point. If everyone is somewhat racist, then people are divided into "racist-racists" and "racist-anti-racists".

Doesn't that clear it all up?

No it doesn't, because there is no mainstream debate over whether or not we are against racism. We are against it. That question has been settled for many years.

[Kron3007]

But your answer to MW's question is disingenuous, because we all know that the inference is half of us (republicans) are eminently and threateningly racist. Which is not nice, and not demonstrated. And there are some pretty smart people around who have forceful counterarguments.
If that were not the story that has wide currency, there would be little reason for racism to be so prevalent in discussions, news commentary.

Remember, racism is a bad thing for a person to cultivate, because it is not nice.

Half the nation, frankly, thinks you and the rest of academia full of crap, supercilious, insufferable. This will continue for the near future.

True, and in a survey 25% of people said they would not eat food that contained DNA.

[/quote]

[my new comment] The point being, democrats, including and maybe even especially some of the most extensively educated members of society, repeatedly think they are convincing people of their views when they are not. I find this interesting.
[/quote]

No, that is your inference (and often media's). I suspect that the average level of racism among republicans is higher than among democrats, but there would be a lot of overlap with some democrats being more racist than some republicans and vice versa.   

I totally agree that the intellectual argument dosn't convince voters and it is one of the problems with some of the approaches democrats tend to take.  Fortunately, I am not a politician and it is not my goal to get people to vote either way.

[Kron3007]

However, just because he said Oprah would be a good running mate and wanted to do a fund raiser with Tyson dosnt mean he is not racist.  This is like the claim that having a black friend means you cant be racist.   

Absent explicit virtue-signalling, is there anything that can establish a person as non-racist? Or since one can't prove a negative, is everyone provisionally guilty so that over time their "racist-liklihood score" goes down unless/until they do something inappropriate? And are there "inappropriate" things that aren't explicitly racist, but which are nevertheless wrong?

Well, I think all humans are inherently bias and this includes towards various different groups of people.  I suppose I dont think anyone is could be considered completely non-racist as such, and it is really just a question of the degree of racism.  It's like when people talk about media outlets or scientists being unbiased, I see this as impossible.  All we can do is minimize racism and bias. 

But your answer to MW's question is disingenuous, because we all know that the inference is half of us (republicans) are eminently and threateningly racist. Which is not nice, and not demonstrated. And there are some pretty smart people around who have forceful counterarguments.
If that were not the story that has wide currency, there would be little reason for racism to be so prevalent in discussions, news commentary.

Remember, racism is a bad thing for a person to cultivate, because it is not nice.

No, you miss the point. If everyone is somewhat racist, then people are divided into "racist-racists" and "racist-anti-racists".

Doesn't that clear it all up?

I see what you are getting at, but my point is that dividing us into two groups in the first place would be wrong because it is not black and white (pun intended). 

There are also a lot of people (myself included) that are somewhat ambivalent.  Sure, I have opinions and may express them in a pseudo anonymous forum, but I am hardly out on the street marching or fighting for change.  I dont think of myself as racist, but I definitely have my biases. 

More important than labeling people racist or not racist, is to look at policy and address systemic inequality.         

[mahagonny]

I totally agree that the intellectual argument dosn't convince voters and it is one of the problems with some of the approaches democrats tend to take.  Fortunately, I am not a politician and it is not my goal to get people to vote either way.

I don't see what is particularly abstruse about saying the best, most urgently needed or most efficacious way to help black Americans succeed more is to fight systemic racism. The fact that more people don't agree does not prove they don't understand the argument.

Start talking about absence of the father in the home and its detrimental effects on young black men, and you're a racist. Blaming the victim. Except Obama said that very thing.

[Sun_Worshiper]

@DecisionDeskHQ calls AZ for Biden. Expect other networks to follow suit soon.

Will Trump end this ridiculous lie about vote fraud? Probably not, but this may push a few more in the GOP to congratulate Biden and concede that this election is effectively over.

[Kron3007]

I totally agree that the intellectual argument dosn't convince voters and it is one of the problems with some of the approaches democrats tend to take.  Fortunately, I am not a politician and it is not my goal to get people to vote either way.

I don't see what is particularly abstruse about saying the best, most urgently needed or most efficacious way to help black Americans succeed more is to fight systemic racism. The fact that more people don't agree does not prove they don't understand the argument.

Start talking about absence of the father in the home and its detrimental effects on young black men, and you're a racist. Blaming the victim. Except Obama said that very thing.

Many people don't believe there is systemic racism, so they would not agree with this. 

[marshwiggle]

I totally agree that the intellectual argument dosn't convince voters and it is one of the problems with some of the approaches democrats tend to take.  Fortunately, I am not a politician and it is not my goal to get people to vote either way.

I don't see what is particularly abstruse about saying the best, most urgently needed or most efficacious way to help black Americans succeed more is to fight systemic racism. The fact that more people don't agree does not prove they don't understand the argument.

Start talking about absence of the father in the home and its detrimental effects on young black men, and you're a racist. Blaming the victim. Except Obama said that very thing.

Many people don't believe there is systemic racism, so they would not agree with this.

We could talk about systemic discrimination against humaities graduates. Unemployment and under-employmenty and the adjunct situation all disproportionately affect humanities graduates. What is the solution? Reparations - i.e. tax graduates of other programs to feed the money to humanities gradautes? And given that, as humanities recruiters love to point out, many CEOs are humanities and very successful finacially, should they get reparations as well?

The systemic label automatically assumes equality of outcomes precludes any meaningful discussion about agency.

[mahagonny]

I totally agree that the intellectual argument dosn't convince voters and it is one of the problems with some of the approaches democrats tend to take.  Fortunately, I am not a politician and it is not my goal to get people to vote either way.

I don't see what is particularly abstruse about saying the best, most urgently needed or most efficacious way to help black Americans succeed more is to fight systemic racism. The fact that more people don't agree does not prove they don't understand the argument.

Start talking about absence of the father in the home and its detrimental effects on young black men, and you're a racist. Blaming the victim. Except Obama said that very thing.

Many people don't believe there is systemic racism, so they would not agree with this.

OK I see your point. Speaking for myself, I am not qualified to say there is no systemic racism, I am willing to believe there is, but the people who say there isn't enough of a systemic racism factor to explain the differences in prosperity between American blacks and whites or American blacks and American Asians (Glenn Loury would be one) have more ring of truth for me than the chorus of liberal academics.
Particularly when other factors are hugely present -- the dissolution of the black family for example.

[mahagonny]

We could talk about systemic discrimination against humaities graduates. Unemployment and under-employmenty and the adjunct situation all disproportionately affect humanities graduates. What is the solution? Reparations - i.e. tax graduates of other programs to feed the money to humanities gradautes?

Why try to jump start a boring discussion like that one when you've got a proven money maker with traction already humming along, with Al  Sharpton, pro basketball players, Hollywood, mass demonstrations, already fanning the flame? Screw the humanities graduates. They made poor life choices. We've got a place for them where they won't make trouble: adjunct land.

[Kron3007]

I totally agree that the intellectual argument dosn't convince voters and it is one of the problems with some of the approaches democrats tend to take.  Fortunately, I am not a politician and it is not my goal to get people to vote either way.

I don't see what is particularly abstruse about saying the best, most urgently needed or most efficacious way to help black Americans succeed more is to fight systemic racism. The fact that more people don't agree does not prove they don't understand the argument.

Start talking about absence of the father in the home and its detrimental effects on young black men, and you're a racist. Blaming the victim. Except Obama said that very thing.

Many people don't believe there is systemic racism, so they would not agree with this.

We could talk about systemic discrimination against humaities graduates. Unemployment and under-employmenty and the adjunct situation all disproportionately affect humanities graduates. What is the solution? Reparations - i.e. tax graduates of other programs to feed the money to humanities gradautes? And given that, as humanities recruiters love to point out, many CEOs are humanities and very successful finacially, should they get reparations as well?

The systemic label automatically assumes equality of outcomes precludes any meaningful discussion about agency.

We could talk about that, but it is obviously silly.