Liberal Identity Politics

Re: Blatham

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Blatham, Lone Voice's comments remind me of another tactic to muffle the people's voices. BBB

That tactic being, of course, asking uncomfortable questions.

C'mon, don't be afraid. We're only talking here. That's the point of a forum, isn't it?

As I only have a short amount of time each day to log in here (I'm a dirty capitalist making money on the backs of the poor), I can't address everyone

Blatham, Hannity is a idiot. Why would you bring him up?

And why stereotype? Everyone thinks they have me pegged, simply because of the questions I ask? (Dirty capitalist or not)

Blatham brings up valid points of people's tribal tendencies; indeed, why wouldn't a woman involved in the suffrage movement automatically cast her first vote for another woman? (Assuming a woman might have been on the ballot). My question involves Hillary as the BEST women's candidate

Another excellent point re MLK

But what of my question that BBB is refusing to answer?

What is it about Hillary? Do Dems consider her a self-made candidate?

Feinstein and Boxer from my state are two examples of women who 'earned' their office, in my opinion. Heck, in many a Californian's opinion.

Why are so many women blindly following a candidate who is only in the position she is in because she was first lady?

That's the truth, isn't it? I would think most women would find the idea of a candidate who reached her position based on the influence of her husband appalling, to say the least.

(Yes, she is the junior senator from New York. But does anyone truly believe Hillary would have been elected as a senator first time out without being first lady? And how does a few extra years as a senator make her more experienced than Obama?)

Is she the best woman at this time? Or, is it the fact she is a woman, plain and simple, who happens to possess the same set of political beliefs that cause so many women to blindly support her?

Why are you Dems refusing to address this?

BBB, I'm not attacking you. You've made it clear that you have contemplated your support, and I don't believe you would ever blindly support anyone. Frankly, I don't think anyone who has the wherewithal to log onto AK2 to would be a knucklehead voter.

I'm speaking of the woman who, when asked why she is voting for Hillary, replies she is doing so because they think it's time a woman is in the White House. I've had conversations with them; I've seen them interviewed on TV. They often are not aware of many of the current issues, but they know they want a woman as president.

Which, as I pointed out, makes them no better than the rednecks who always vote the white guy

0 Replies

LV wrote:

Quote:

Is she the best woman at this time? Or, is it the fact she is a woman, plain and simple, who happens to possess the same set of political beliefs that cause so many women to blindly support her?

Why are you Dems refusing to address this?

So many to blindly support her? How is her present case different from every election and every candidate? How would you set up criteria to measure this?

Is she the best woman at this time? Is McCain the best man at this time? Would Rudy have been the best man at this time? How do you go about measuring this? What other woman demonstrates such a policy-wonk grasp of myriad (and complex) issues, both domestic and international? Could either of us name even three or four?

Would she have gained the Senate seat had she not been Mrs Clinton? Odds would be seriously against that, but those odds would possibly be established by her gender rather than anything else. She has more than adequate smarts, she's tenacious, she works harder than anyone I've ever met, etc. And by accounts from Gingrich and many others, she has proved to be highly competent in representing NY in the Senate and effective in working with others to get legislation through.

Of course, you could ask, would George W Bush have had any sort of chance to become a governor not to mention president had he been a son in any other family?

Her gender IS important for all the reasons I explained earlier. Rosa Parks' color WAS important when she refused to give up her seat on a bus to a white man.

0 Replies

Here's a flip on the "gender card" ploy. But it is one which is entirely predictable from the right...

Quote:

War cheerleaders ask: "Is Obama man enough to be president?"
The overarching rule in our political discourse is that Democratic presidential candidates are not man enough to be President. Today, the single most masculinity-obsessed and gender-insecure commentator in America, Glenn Reynolds (followed closely by his wife), quotes an article from the supremely tough warrior John Podhoretz's magazine, Commentary, as follows:

Quote:
So we may have reached the perfect gender dilemma: is Obama "man enough" to be President?

A couple of weeks ago, Reynolds pondered: "OBAMA: Feminized?," and then linked to an article on Pajamas Media by his wife claiming that Obama is a symbol of "The New Feminized Majority." A few days earlier, Reynolds fretted that the Democrats' "plan" is to "Change America with Women's Values." Sounds really emasculating and scary.

The Commentary post promoted by Reynolds today makes clear how manliness is measured:

Quote:
Now it is Obama's turn to prove he can stand up to Clinton and McCain, to say nothing of real bad guys like Fidel Castro and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In this regard, his excessive deference to personal engagement . . . as a tool of foreign policy and his cool, aloof demeanor work against him. Can he take a punch or throw one?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html

An unacceptable characteristic for a male president is insufficient maleness.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Of course, you could ask, would George W Bush have had any sort of chance to become a governor not to mention president had he been a son in any other family?

Another outstanding comparison.

If Daddy Bush had not been President (and VP), odds are W would never have been elected Governor of Texas; hence, we would have never seen a national campaign from him.

By all accounts, he was a hard working governor...

Yet he never earned the White House. He was 'blindly' supported by conservatives only interested in seeing one of their own crowned.

Quote:

So many to blindly support her? How is her present case different from every election and every candidate? How would you set up criteria to measure this?

With Hillary, we are seeing the same thing occur, not only with liberals and Dems, but with women of all political persuasions. Some may say this is Hillary's strength; maybe it is. But talking to some of these women, they support Hillary because she is...

A woman. They might not even be sure of her politics. But they know she is female, and that is enough. For them.

My question for BBB: Is this right? As an open-minded liberal, do you agree with a person voting this way?

Or is this the same mindset as the redneck always voting the white guy?

Lastly, blatham, I appreciate the somewhat civil exchange. AK2 seems to get ugly during this time of year; both sides have gone from poking each other to flame throwers at the drop of a hat.

Nothing will be solved here; very few opinions will be changed. But it is fun to have a civil exchange with different ideas now and then, what?

Come back, BBB! Nothing slick or tricky here. No hate, either. We have different outlooks on life, but we probably are not all that different...

0 Replies

Agreed on civility. Back atcha.

Again, I'll argue that the matter isn't simple. I think it is both good and necessary to do what we can to break through these "glass ceilings". So, I personally want a woman in the WH and I want an african american there too. Until those two things happen, the absence of them constitutes evidence for a lack of real equality. I think everyone, other than serious racists/sexists do as well. But how is that going to happen?

One could imagine, I suppose, some sort of 'organic' scenario where a woman or a black are SO superior as presidential candidates that race or gender look irrelevant. I think that's an impossible standard. Can you recall or point to any election ever where such a candidate stood for office? And, politics being politics, even such a case would witness opposition attempts to make that candidate look full of failings and to make his/her fans appear as if they were supporting him/her for the wrong reasons (eg, gender or race).

You oversimplify the reality in any proposition that women voting for a woman or blacks voting for a black do so ONLY because of that criterion. And you present an impossible standard or scenario where race and gender will not make an appearance in the discourse about such candidates.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

One could imagine, I suppose, some sort of 'organic' scenario where a woman or a black are SO superior as presidential candidates that race or gender look irrelevant.

Isn't that, in essence, what is occurring now with Obama? He seems to be attracting quite a cross section (again, according to the identity politics obsessed media) of voters.

I agree there is a glass ceiling in politics. The example I keep using, about whites 'voting the white guy, ' stems from a somewhat unsavory experience in my state a number of years back.

In the race for governor in 1982, LA mayor Tom Bradley led in all the polls against his repub opponent. Bradley was an ex LA cop, strong on law and order issues, liberal on some social issues but somewhat conservative fiscally. Usually these make the hallmarks of a viable CA politician.

Bradley even led during exit polling, causing news organizations here to call the race in his favor. Next day it turns out the repub had won. What occurred, pollsters figured, is people fibbed during exit polling, saying they were voting for Bradley, who was black, while in reality they had voted for the white guy...

So, no, I don't think I'm oversimplifying the issue.

Some voters will mark their ballots simply based on the 'D' or 'R' that follows the candidate's name. Some will vote simply because of race and/or gender. I understand this.

I still can't understand a woman who would back a candidate (solely as a 'woman's candidate') who rode her husband's coattails into office. I mentioned Senator's Boxer and Feinstein from my state in a prior post; I could see your point, if one of them were the candidate.

Last, re your comment, "I think it is both good and necessary to do what we can to break through these "glass ceilings". "

To do what we can in what aspect? You're not suggesting the country find a lesser qualified candidate to run for president just to break through said ceiling, are you? Is name recognition more important than skill in bringing people together? Is possessing an ability to manipulate the media a beneficial skill for a president to have?

After eight years of someone who was elected because of name recognition, should we lower the glass ceiling just so we can say we are finally enlightened?

Or, is the ceiling not being lowered for Hillary?

I don't think it's being lowered for Obama; his communication skills along with his organizational ability have already convinced many he is ready for the White House.

Hillary, it seems, just simply hired her husband's main guy, Terry McAuliffe...

0 Replies

Damn right.

I hear about conservatives like they're all either in it for the money or the status quo that favors them, or they're religious nutjobs or alpha males that kill deer to make up for small dicks. More or less, but hell, there but for the grace of Satan go I.

With liberals you've got this aesthetic like, be a civic hero, wear trendy but inexpensive clothes, the sex falls into place, the environment will be safe, nothings worth hurting anyone over, we can eliminate social inequity, and make everyone happy. In it's own way it's worse because of the self-assurance, not to mention the naivety.

I'm a Libertarian for the record. None of the stereotypes I've heard really cuts me to the quick (I confess, I really do dislike the post office), but if I'm missing something I'd like to hear it.

At any rate this election is indicative of the fact that the Dems are living their aesthetic, as opposed to seeking to optimize reality relative to the assumption of their aesthetic being correct. This is a logical fallacy with nothing to do with Machiavelli. Should we buy it just to call their bluff?

0 Replies

Re: A lone voice

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

A lone voice wrote: "But I would think women would find the presidential campaign of someone like Hillary repugnant; gaining elective office solely on the coattails of a cheating, manipulative husband? (From her viewpoint? Or is this the ultimate revenge for a woman?)"

This is the fatal flaw in your theory. Hillary Clinton has established herself independently of her husband as one of the best respected senators in the congress and not on his "coattails." Your claim is insulting to all women, including me, who have not slept their way to the top and not depended on men for power. Hillary Clinton, a very independent woman, has risen to the top not using sex and has always not relied on male power to get her there.

BTW, you raised the gender and race issue yourself.

BBB

Please.

Hilly would not be a NY senator if her husband had not been elected President twice.

0 Replies

Lone Star

You have, and share with others here, a lower opinion of Clinton than my opinion of her. I consider her easily qualified for the office. I do not know which of the two, her or Obama, is likely to do a better job in the post. So in my view there's no issue here of 'dropping' the ceiling.

Rather what we have, I think, is a rather perfect opportunity to finally see a talented and qualified woman or african american as president. Sooner or later, precisely this situation will have to unfold. And it's here.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Lone Star

You have, and share with others here, a lower opinion of Clinton than my opinion of her. I consider her easily qualified for the office. I do not know which of the two, her or Obama, is likely to do a better job in the post. So in my view there's no issue here of 'dropping' the ceiling.

Rather what we have, I think, is a rather perfect opportunity to finally see a talented and qualified woman or african american as president. Sooner or later, precisely this situation will have to unfold. And it's here.

I'm not sure you understand the office, little darlin. This thing started with ass-kickers and it will, invariably, unless another 200 years goes by, end with ass-kickers. This situation don't mean ****, except if you're a tree-farming socialist that wants the crazy, freedom-loving country south of you to settle down.

We should probably have done it by now - at some point we're going to do well to choose a female and/or one of African-American descent over someone else - but seeing as the competition out-qualifies and out-ass-kicks them both, without regard to race, gender, or creed, that time ain't now.

0 Replies

hanno said

Quote:

At any rate this election is indicative of the fact that the Dems are living their aesthetic, as opposed to seeking to optimize reality relative to the assumption of their aesthetic being correct. This is a logical fallacy with nothing to do with Machiavelli. Should we buy it just to call their bluff?

I find this incomprehensible. What definition of "aesthetic" are you using here? What is the precise logical fallacy to which you refer?

0 Replies

Number 4 from dictionary.com as it turns out: "a philosophical theory or idea of what is aesthetically valid at a given time and place"

The logical fallacy is any one that starts with 'appeal to' and ends with the afore mentioned aesthetic (as projected by me, upon liberals) without returning to some part of the constitution to-the-letter.

0 Replies

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3137995#3137995

Smile

0 Replies

hanno wrote:

Quote:

At any rate this election is indicative of the fact that the Dems are living their aesthetic, as opposed to seeking to optimize reality relative to the assumption of their aesthetic being correct. This is a logical fallacy with nothing to do with Machiavelli. Should we buy it just to call their bluff?

blatham wrote:

Quote:

I find this incomprehensible. What definition of "aesthetic" are you using here? What is the precise logical fallacy to which you refer?

hanno responded:

Quote:

Number 4 from dictionary.com as it turns out: "a philosophical theory or idea of what is aesthetically valid at a given time and place"

I'm afraid this doesn't clarify. "Aesthetics", as the first two definitions (at dictionary.com) demonstrate, is a term which normally refers to perceptions or conceptions of beauty...

Quote:

1. pertaining to a sense of the beautiful or to the science of aesthetics.
2. having a sense of the beautiful; characterized by a love of beauty.

In quoting definition number 3, you've left out the following sentence which the dictionary provides to show an example of the use of 'aesthetic' given in definition number 3...

Quote:

the clean lines, bare surfaces, and sense of space that bespeak the machine-age aesthetic.

Given these normal meanings of the term, your sentence remains incomprehensible as you've written it...
"this election is indicative of the fact that the Dems are living their aesthetic."
And we aren't helped by what follows from that comma...
as opposed to seeking to optimize reality relative to the assumption of their aesthetic being correct.

Then, there's your response to my question on which specific logical fallacy you mean to point to...

Quote:

The logical fallacy is any one that starts with 'appeal to' and ends with the afore mentioned aesthetic (as projected by me, upon liberals) without returning to some part of the constitution to-the-letter.

You say "any one that starts with 'appeal to'..." which makes it a formal logical fallacy. And so you can't really get away with the 'any one' there. And that, along with the unclear or improper use of 'aesthetic', plus the rest of the passage which remains unclear, we aren't helped much by this 'clarification'.

Perhaps you could rewrite the passage in a more simple and clear manner so we can understand your point or argument.

0 Replies

numbers 1-3 huh?

I don't ask that you read anything by Arthur Machen in order to understand definition 4 as intuitively as I do - in truth that 30 hours of my 15th year could have been put to better use - but don't give me crap about 'normal meanings', if I know a word you don't, eat it.

I'm throwing the bullshit flag on your invocation of the rules of philosophy too - whine about the details but you know it's all emotion - no sociopath or self-actualized person (some of the definitions are remarkably similar) would ever vote Dem unless he/she had some interest in turning the political/governmental power on some demographic, or just abusing it, as is often the case even for the soft-headed.

0 Replies

Thanks for your response. It offers up a different sort of clarification than what I'd asked for but it is the clarification I expected.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Thanks for your response. It offers up a different sort of clarification than what I'd asked for but it is the clarification I expected.

Weak.

He put you down.

0 Replies

Yes, thus my desolation. The fellow is pretending knowledge and coherence. I'll give you a simple (ought to be) assignment, finn. Go back and look at the passage I initially pointed to and asked for clarification of, and then his response. Your assignment (simple, remember) is to rewrite it in a coherent manner. Be bold. Give it a try.

0 Replies

Liberal Identity Politics

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know