SSCReader
4d ago
The party forced him out to get a new candidate. Anything else is pure fancy.
And none of that matters a jot. Doesn't matter how much pressure was put on him behind the scenes. That's normal politics. He stepped down. He could have chosen not to, no-one could have forced him. Being briefed against, or maneuvered against is politics 101. You may not like that, but that is the situation. Being pressured is a legitimate political tactic. Happens everywhere. David Cameron called the Brexit referendum because he was facing internal political pressure form his own back benches. It was still a legitimate referendum. Liz Truss stepped down because of huge pressure from her own side. Her ousting was perfectly legitimate.
SSCReader
4d ago
Many peoples tequests ate not verifiable in a way that matters though. I may in yheory be able to find out if my new customer asking to be. called Mrs Jones is or is not married, but I am not actually going to bother.
Taking people at their word has served me well for the last 50 odd years, and my experience is the vast vast majority of people are not hiding some complicated reason behind a mundane one. People largely are mundane. If blind Paul asks to know what colour everyone is wearing its very probably because it helps him navigate his world in some way, and very unlikely to be because he is trying to play some kind of power game.
SSCReader
4d ago
The Democrats changed their process multiple times in the past. But regardless of all that, when was the last time they had a candidate step down after the primaries?
Is your claim that decision is illegitimate? How so? You can't force someone to run, if they have decided not to, so therefore now they must try to come up with another choice. Failing to do so would be a dereliction of their duty.
They didn't decide they didn't like the candidate and replace him, the candidate stepped down. If they had tried to replace Biden without him stepping down then you may have had a point.
It has to be permissible to replace your candidate, if they die or step down. If Trump had been assassinated would any replacement have been illegitimate? Clearly not, I would argue. If Biden had a stroke, likewise. Replacing your candidate is unusual. But as long as it is done legally with the candidate choosing to step down or being unable to continue, then i can't see a reason it should be presumed illegitimate.
It may or not be a good decision. But that isn't the same thing.
SSCReader
4d ago
So like during a phone call, where you're not supposed to ask what people are wearing either (unless we're talking about a very particular type of a on me call)?
Right, but have you ever been the only one dialing into a conference room? Everyone else can see, and all you have is sound? Back in the day I used to have to do that all the time and it was legitimately a pain to make out who was talking, where everyone is in relation to each other and the like. I think it would actually be an improvement to try and construct a visualization in that circumstance. Especially if you don't know who is talking. Indeed what we ended up having to do is preface every statement with "This is Dave, department head of consular services, I think we need to consider the cost implications of adding to ambassadorial security" But that was clunky and time consuming. Now for most people particularly nowadays with video calling that is no longer something that crops up much. But if you are blind it is every meeting, every time. Building up a mechanism to help navigate that seems like exactly the thing that you would do in that circumstance.
I would suggest that the mundane reason for blind people needing/wanting better descriptions of who is talking and how to create visualizations to keep track is exactly the one that should be considered the default. When Bob in network engineering asks me to limit the use of resources on the mainframe on Fridays, I should also consider the mundane reason the most likely one, though it is possible he is training Skynet, the mundane is almost always correct, in my experience.
SSCReader
4d ago
Funnily enough, the single blind colleague I have ever worked with, asked for people to tell him their sex and a color of something they were wearing as well as their name. He said this helped him build a mental model of who was where in a meeting room and keep track of who was saying what.
This was over 20 years ago mind you, but perhaps it does help some blind people enough to have become a request/norm.
Before video conferencing was a thing dialing in via phone into a remote meeting was always a pain because keeping track of who said what was a trial. Unlike in a podcast, you're expected to interact back after all.
This may not be as unhelpful as you think in other words.
SSCReader
4d ago
That’s a real problem.
And I can equally say that the Republican convention picking a convicted felon is a real problem*, which the Republicans have now done and therefore they are breaking their own established norms and there must have been some reason they don't pick criminals, right? And thus the internal quality control performed by the Republicans is hopelessly compromised. But the truth it is is doesn't matter whether I think that, only whether Republicans accept the outcome or do not. As long as it was done legally, it is entirely up to Republicans to pick their candidate.
If I say that Trump is an illegitimate pick due to the above will that change your mind suddenly? Assuming not, why would you think Democrats will in the reverse situation?
*I don't actually think Trump is a bad candidate, but pretty clearly picking an convicted felon is highly unusual for them.
SSCReader
4d ago
But you said above you weren't talking about legality, just legitimacy, because currently they haven't broken any laws right?
Is your position now as long as they don't break any laws, whoever they pick is legititimate?
SSCReader
5d ago
Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder. If Democratic voters accept it then it is by definition legitimate.
The sysyem for how the Democrat party picks its candidates is wholly controlled by the Democrat party. The only people they have to convince are their voters. Thats it. There is no other measure.
SSCReader
7d ago
Sure, it could have been. My point is we don't know what the close protection element knew when and what their preplanned positions and roles were. Was she the coordinator in which case her position there might be fine but she messed up on the roof issue, or should she be in the cover team, or the fire tram, or whatever. There is simply too much we don't know.
SSCReader
8d ago
The gunman was what over a 100 yards away with a rifle on a roof, having her side arm out doesn't help. Again, it may be correct that she was not doing what she was supposed to, but there is an awful lot of armchair quarterbacking going on, when we have no idea what her role was supposed to be.
At that moment as well as the snipers there are at least 2 rifle armed officers just below/ to the sides of the podium, who run up while Trump is still being covered.
If her job was to direct the cover and tell them when to move, then she may well be exactly where she was supposed to be. If her job was to dive in front of Trump then she wasn't. But we don't know.
SSCReader
8d ago
USSS members should be 6’5” terrifying meat shields with guns.
Nah, you want someone calm under pressure first, relatively innocuous, so around 6 feet or so. Good with guns and probably combat experience. That will make most of your good candidates men, but you don't want 10 Jack Reacher's. For a start they need to be able to fit inside vehicles with the principal and some to be able to blend into your crowds if needed. 25-35 and if you have a female principal you will also want some female officers, as your principal is likely to try and keep men out of the bathroom with her at least in a lot of cases. The Secret Service is going to have to guard women at some point, so at least a few of them should be women as well. The female close protective officers I met were certainly...butcher than average, but they could still put on a dress for a garden party or ambassadorial function. Not all of your security should stand out.
SSCReader
8d ago
Even then, it depends on whether she was even supposed to be jumping in. Close protection officers will have designated roles in the event of an attack. Some will be tasked with covering/moving the principal. Others will be tasked with looking for exits/shooters. It's hard to tell from that angle but she may be looking past the scrum, and be in charge of telling them which way to move. It's hard to do that from inside the scrum itself. And your sniper teams are probably going to be occupied with putting down the target.
Source: I've never been important enough to warrant close protection, but I have travelled extensively with people who have, so I have talked to them a fair bit. Not the Secret Service, but the idea remains similar. Not everyone is supposed to dive on the principal.
Without knowing what her specific task was, we have no way of judging if she was doing it well or not.
SSCReader
13d ago
I wonder if this puts a damper on trying to replace Biden. Trump was already favored to win, and running against someone surviving an assassination attempt adds an even more uphill struggle.
Who is going to want to jump in? For most Democratic politicians in contention now, letting Biden run and lose, so they can run against a new contender in 28, has got to look like a better proposition personally than the nasty fight to replace Biden, then going against a hero bumped Trump.
SSCReader
13d ago
Actually, that's irresponsibly optimistic: why would black people stop once equality has been achieved?
Because they are people just like you and I, they aren't monsters or the like. With white friends and white partners and white bosses and white employees., and so on and so forth.
Your points are pessimistic and do not take into account other situations where similar situations play out and rapprochement is being worked upon. Real race blind integrated liberal democracy has not been tried in the United States. Largely because the US is not ready for such. The US is not villainous or uniquely evil for having slavery in its past. But its fix was incomplete and now the situation is where it is today. The choices down the line as I see it are a new civil war, or further attempts at proper integration. The first will be terribly catastrophic, the second is difficult. So it goes.
SSCReader
13d ago
but it requires that black people give up their grievances
Sure, but that is a step by step process and at a population level not so easy. People do not just give up their grievances. But they can be put in a position where other things are more valuable. Self-interest is the only cure that sticks I think. As Catholics became wealthier, were given the opportunities to make up for those they had been denied, became more aware that the government bodies that had specifically oppressed them were now more responsive to them, all of a sudden support for the IRA began to disappear.
Until Sinn Fein itself decided the way forward had to be through democracy, as support for violence was drying up. But you can't keep things the same and think that is going to work. It clearly hasn't.
Hell, they didn't even have to actually make things equitable, they just had to say they were going to try and make some good faith efforts. As the Catholic Middle class began to rise, that did the rest.
SSCReader
13d ago
All the things you mention are appeasement.
Then peace is never going to be possible in your paradigm. I prefer one that concretely offers that hope, and has shown that it can deliver.
SSCReader
13d ago
I'd argue it depends what you mean by appeasement. Back home significant concessions were made to Catholics including dismantling and replacing the entire police force with one that had 50% Catholics ( an over representation), quotas in government jobs etc. Parades commissions to limit where Unionists could march and much more.
Is that appeasement or is it recognizing that building trust with a group that has actually been oppressed requires steps if you actually want a chance at building a lasting peace after?
What is appeasement and what are concessions to make up for real discrimination from government entities?
Northern Ireland certainly isn't perfect now by a long shot but its certainly better than it was for both Protestants and Catholics. It isn't a zero sum enterprise.
Black people aren't going anywhere. They can be treated as an enemy (appeasement or defeat) or they can be treated as a part of the polity that must be somehow reintegrated or else long term stability is a massive risk.
There was a time I felt about Catholics that many people seem to feel about black communities. But time and experience has taught me I was wrong. Rapprochement is possible even with violent history. It does not have to be oppositional.
SSCReader
14d ago
I don't think it has shown that is the thing. Its shown that a group with very specific historical context in the US does so. But they don't outside of the US, black Africans have vicious intra-racial conflicts.
And yes, again in the US the historical context, numbers and forced nature has created an unusually close group that attempts to socially police its members to maintain safety in numbers (see also Northern Ireland) but that doesn't mean it will remain like some immutable law of physics, which your own argument illustrates, the very existence of people like Ben Carson et al shows that the group can and will fracture just like bigger groups as it becomes wealthier and more successful.
My wifes family are a good example, very mixed political views, wanting to moveaway from the city and obviously open to mixing with other groups. Add money, add success and you can get where you want to go. No need to move retrograde here. We have very clear examples that creating opportunities to make wealthier more comfortable people creates fractures along socio-economic lines instead which will solve the whole problem in the end.
SSCReader
14d ago
You're demonstrating my point right here. I assume by "their" and "them" that you're not black. So why are you so concerned with their outcomes and interests, even when those conflict with your own, either individually or tribally? It's certainly great for blacks that progressive non-blacks will take black interests as a priority. It's not so great for non-blacks.
I am a white Brit, living in America, my wife is black and I have a mixed kid. So I am certainly to an extent tied in with how they are treated. I am often the only white person at family gatherings ( though not always there is a white ex-marine married into the other side of the family). And of course my wife stands out when we have family gatherings back home in Northern Ireland in return. My experiences and situation make me an outside observer to both black and white communities in the US.
My overall point is though that long term the interests of blacks and whites in a shared polity converge. That is the project I am talking about. The US project. I think the progressive project will fail as well, long term and that is perfectly ok. I think the only long term solution is a much more liberal near race-blind solution, where factional tribalism will still occur (as that seems built in), but it is not race base (as we seem to deal really badly with that). But the black community (generalizing of course) is not ready for that yet. Whether you want to say it HBD, culture or racism, they are still doing poorly compared to those they see around them. So the siege mentality remains. Time and success seem to be the only exits, to get a longer term more stable franchise. So a thumb on the scale will help. Or even just the appearance of a thumb on the scale.
There are plenty of black people who are not terribly enamored of what the Democrat's have managed to accomplish, but just as with Trump and his white rural working class base (a group which also needs significant help) the people who at least say they will help you, even if they don't seem better than those who don't say it at all.
SSCReader
14d ago
I don't mock principles generally, so I am not clear exactly what you are saying here. Can you rephrase for clarity?
SSCReader
14d ago
For exactly the reason we are seeing here. Once one side is, the other will follow suit. Short term it is useful, but when you are in a minority, encouraging everyone else to do the same is a problem. Which is why long term I think it is a bad solution. It just needs to be long enough to get by. Which is a tricky balance to be fair.
SSCReader
14d ago
it's the Civil Rights era which resulted in whites being taught it was not right for them to act in their own racial or ethnic interest
And why did the Civil Rights era happen? Because of the after-effects of slavery and the Civil War.
White people are the ones who also ended slavery to be clear. Their feelings are not imposed from without, they emerged internally from the moral underpinnings of why they started to believe slavery was wrong in the first place.
But regardless of that, slavery is what led to the Civil War, and the Civil Rights Era led to DEI and so on. So I think my point is made.
White people do vote tribally now, it is simply made up of sub-tribes (Blue and Red tribe are notably primarily white) because even prior to the Civil Rights era, white people are not and never have been a single tribal group, unlike ADOS who were turned into one by default after the erasure of their pre-existing tribal identities (this is a bad thing!).
The mistake you are making is thinking that because ADOS in the US have a singular (well not entirely, but close) identity and given the history in the US that they are more likely to vote racially tribally that means that white people should do the same. But that is a result of their history, and it is not something to replicate, it is a negative outcome for them, and for everyone else. It is something to be accepted for now, given the history, but it is not in and of itself a good thing. It is an outcome of a (possibly warranted!) siege mentality. And there are signs that identity is fracturing, but that is going to take time, rising economical outcomes and so on.
My interest is not the same as a French white person or an Amish one, so there is no reason for me to vote in their interest rather than my own. And in Africa, the tribal grouping are not all black people or all Africans, they have sub tribes and divisions. The only reason black people in the US largely have not had this, is because they were forced together by circumstance and numbers and treatment and because for large swathes of time they were treated as all being the same "tribe" whether they wanted to be or not.
The answer is not to double down on that. It is to understand that given the sweep of history, we both need (in my opinion) be sensitive to their current tribal outcomes and what needs to be done for them to feel empowered as part of a larger polity that treated them so badly for so long AND be clear eyed that racial tribalism is largely a bad thing, but that white people saying that to black people in America carries the weight of a history that cannot be ignored. The lessons white Americans learned from the Civil Rights era are positive, but the ADOS black community is not at a point where it can trust those same lessons. Though it is I think getting there. There is a bigger and bigger internal divide as urban black working class and middle class communities break from the underclass (Divestment, black homesteading etc.) But it is hampered by geographic and economic realities. It is this divide that will signal a social split, where racial tribalism can be replaced by "factionalism" as it is in white Americans. And additions of more recent African immigrants is also contributing to this.
But if in the mean time people who are working for white Americans to forget the lessons they learned succeed then the whole project is in danger in a way that black American tribal behavior on its own could never do (due to lack of numbers and resources).
American Progressives are right in the short term, but wrong in the long term. But you can't get to the long term without going through the short.
SSCReader
14d ago
I think if you were correct the Democrats would not be punching above their weight in reference to the EC. Or at the very least the people who believe as you do, do so only very weakly and it is out-weighed by the actual political affiliation of the candidates.
SSCReader
14d ago
And why do they feel that way in the United States of America? Why is the strategy that way? What formed some kind of divide between black and white people in the US of A? Any kind of situation or series of events that may have had some kind of impact on race relations? Something even the Founding Fathers thought might become an issue down the line? Might have caused a mild civil contretemps? Something that created a coalition of minorities? Something about discrimination being legally enshrined, one race being owned by the other?
The USA is the way it is because of the history of slavery and everything that came from it. Jefferson recognized it. So did many others from then until now. Saying Oh people prefer white candidates because Democrats push non-white candidates but refusing to go back the extra step as to WHY that coalition happened the way it did is probably the biggest frustration I have with parts of the right in America. You don't have to support how things are now (wokism etc.), to at least understand the chain of events that led to it. This didn't just spring up out of thin air due to racial spoils on behalf of black people. It was racial spoils on behalf of white people first, that was legally enshrined that then was overturned, over a long period of time. And the USA has been unable to escape that history. But ignoring that is not going to make it go away. And because Democrat's don't ignore it is why they punch above their weight. Like it or not, many white Americans do feel significant white guilt and that includes many conservatives who buy into the "All men are created equal" founding mythos. Whether they should feel that way or not is irrelevant, they do.
Wokism and DEI emerged in the US and not in say the UK because of the specific history of the United States. If you want to cut history off at a certain point and complain about how Democrats pushing DEI pushes you into preferring white candidates but without thinking about the extra cycle about what historical events caused them to push DEI in the first place, then you are going to struggle to attract people to your side, who do see those epicycles.
Do they? Are you sure about that? The legal frameworks are quite different, but the underlying politics is basically identical.
You are the chosen of your party with all the support in the world, until you are not. Then they brief against you and pressure you to step down/change course.
I'd suggest my position seems to more accurately reflect what is actually happening than yours. It is being seen as legitimate by the Democrat base.
It probably won't be enough to beat Trump, in any case.
More options
Context Copy link