#and I think he mentioned something about white people being stupid and how maga needs more foreigners in order to thrive or whatever tf
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
tariah23 · 4 months ago
Text
Elon’s been banning accounts in mass for pointing out that he was in one of those Twitter spaces going in on republicans and calling them stupid and that they should be lucky to have him or whether on an alt account he uses to comment underneath his own posts and suck himself off-
5 notes · View notes
pass-the-bechdel · 7 years ago
Text
Supergirl s02e16 ‘Star Crossed (1)’
Tumblr media
Does it pass the Bechdel Test?
Yes, twice. Barely.
How many female characters (with names and lines) are there?
Five (41.66% of cast).
How many male characters (with names and lines) are there?
Seven.
Positive Content Rating:
Three? I guess.
General Episode Quality:
Nevermind, they’re back to stupid. So, so stupid.
MORE INFO (and potential spoilers) UNDER THE CUT:
Passing the Bechdel:
Kara passes with Rhea when they meet. They speak again later. There’s a lot of Mon-El involved both times, but they get there eventually.
Tumblr media
Female characters:
Kara Danvers.
Alex Danvers.
Lyra.
Rhea.
Maggie Sawyer.
Male characters:
Mon-El.
J’onn J’onzz.
Winn Schott.
Lar.
James Olsen.
Boris.
Mandrax.
OTHER NOTES:
“To make Daxom great again.” Oh, no.
Ok. That flashback. I have mentioned before, how disturbed I am to find that the original confrontation of Kara’s prejudices towards Daxom have since been shown as actual deserved disdain, and how Daxom being actually exactly as bad as she said (to a caricaturish level) undermines Kara’s supposed lesson as well as treating Krypton as holier-than-thou despite all the huge flaws in its culture that have been made so evident, creating this huge us-vs-them divide with a really clear ‘good side’ and ‘bad side’ and absolutely zero nuance, etc. The flashback to Mon-El’s departure from Daxom as it actually happened does no favours to any aspect of the narrative: Mon-El is shown as hesitant and concerned for the safety of others in defiance of the prevailing Daxomite attitude, because the show is too afraid of the audience backlash if they show him being truly callous instead of just passively allowing it, while at the same time the narrative gives no quarter for Daxom and its people as a whole despite their undeserved fates. We are supposed to see Mon-El’s guard and think him awful, but what do we expect any ‘good’ guard to do? Maybe not kill that one guy, but the rest, with the ignoring everyone else in order to focus on rescuing the person he’s pledged to protect? Even killing the Kryptonian makes sense (is not morally ok, but makes sense) in the context of being exactly the kind of targeted violence that happens in the real world when people are ‘othered’. The coding of the behaviour is so transparent it’s disgusting, and coupled with that not-even-veiled MAGA line just before? Daxom’s Republicans to Krypton’s Democrats is a pretty fucking gross parallel to draw. I am very disappointed in the show for all of this garbage.
Remember when I fucking flagged Lyra as using Winn for her own ends the second she stepped on screen? Fucking flagged it. 
This is a much better Hamilton joke right here than the one a few episodes ago, but that one a few episodes ago was still too much, and that steps on this, because, really? Two sizeable Hamilton gags with only a couple of episodes between them? You’re trying WAY too hard to be current, show. It’s embarrassing.
Uurrrgghhh, and now we’re doing the ‘oh actually Lyra had a good reason for being terrible!’ thing? This shit is so predictable and empty and I am so over it. Remember one episode ago when this show was momentarily good again?
Is Guardian fighting in a fucking glass factory or what? So many glass panes to be thrown through.
So, we pretending that Lyra’s lie and Mon-El’s lie are the same? Just ‘they lied’ is not a parallel, show. These are not comparable situations.
See, Mon-El says in his apology that ‘I was a spoiled, useless person, but I didn’t know’, and that’s a big part of what is making this whole storyline, all season long, so poor. The total lack of nuance in Daxom. The clear-cut morality of Kryptonians which, also, lacks the nuance of reality. If Mon-El was raised in that life, how much opportunity did he have for seeing the flaws in it and recognising them as such? We have no concept of his level of self-awareness, and refusing to allow people room to grow is not how you achieve progress. At the same time, Mon-El’s process of self-improvement on Earth has been so paint-by-numbers simple, it’s hard to take it seriously. If he’s found changing so easy, how entrenched were those ‘spoiled, useless’ teachings that made up his entire formative existence? Real people take years to overcome such things, not least because when it’s a commonplace feature of how you were raised, it’s hard to recognise that there’s even a problem, let alone dismantle the rationale in your own mind that has allowed you to be unthinkingly complicit. Expecting Mon-El to change like flipping a coin is unfair; blaming him for the circumstances of his birth is unfair; telling this story in the way that they have, with his self-awareness and capacity for immediate total overhaul not just of personality but of ideals apparently uninhibited and detailed with only the slightest of backslides? Utterly unrealistic. What should have been a long, hard journey of self-reflection, questioning, and honestly ugly behaviour has instead been casual comic relief and romantic faux pas, and that’s so insulting. I can’t support Mon-El as a character because I can’t support the ill-constructed narrative that made him; in basic terms, he doesn’t make enough sense. He’s too unrealistic to function.
Tumblr media
URGH. This is such a fucking mess I am annoyed at myself for even trying to untangle it. That kinda happens when you’re trying to over-simplify your storytelling to this extent: the break from reality is too intense, and you end up with a heap of confusion that your audience can’t figure out how to engage with on a meaningful level. In university, the single most important word I learned was ‘ethnocentricity’ - the belief that your own culture/background is inherently superior to all others. On the surface level, this is plain ol’ racism - and can be many other ‘isms as well, as cultural background shapes our perceptions of gender, sexuality, religion, etc. Looking deeper, we see ethnocentricity manifest when we assume that our social or moral codes are automatically the correct ones, without pausing to question where we got those codes from, and whether or not, actually, there might be better ways to do things. I actually debated this directly, back in 2016 when two Australian men were executed in Indonesia for drug smuggling, and the debate over the morality of the death penalty was rife throughout the country. I’m not going to get into that debate again here, but as an example of ethnocentricism, it was a case in which a lot of Australians flat refused to acknowledge the possibility that just because another country has different laws which conflict with our way of doing things, doesn’t necessarily mean that the people of that country are corrupt, lesser beings with an under-developed sense of morality which we need to step in and correct. Different ways of doing things can be shocking to our sensibilities at first blush, but we have to think about why they are that way and how the backdrop of that logic informs the constructs we see, before we pass high-and-mighty judgment over others. 
Supergirl’s Daxom narrative is a perfect example of ethnocentricism at work, with zero reflection: Kara is right, Mon-El is wrong, this cultural division is all-encompassing and without exception, the end. To be clear: I’m not suggesting that there’s a way to argue for, say, slavery being ok, but what there is is nuance to how people reach such a conclusion, and if we refuse to engage with the nuance we can’t engage with cultural learning, sharing, or understanding, and that’s how you end up with blank hostility instead of working towards more positive futures. Something being ‘obviously morally correct’ is (as evidenced through the entirety of human history) not enough to change systemic issues outright; if it were, the systemic issues wouldn’t have developed in the first place. Supergirl has run into trouble here because it’s trying to be topical, addressing the divisions in current US politics, but it also doesn’t want to actually have a nuanced conversation about the subject, and so instead we get heavy-handed black-and-white morality that only alienates the two sides instead of identifying common ground and building upon it to bridge the gap. Moreover, the show cripples its ability to explore these concepts in a better, more thorough way in the future, because it refuses to commit to the shades of grey in its situation and instead builds a two-camps concept in which any dithering or olive-branching between the two looks like ideological compromise and moral degradation instead of the complicated and painful process of learning that it represents in the real world. 
The truth is that as nice as it is to sit on your moral high horse feeling pure and special while everyone else scrabbles on the muddy ground, you can’t understand the people down below and you certainly can’t help them unless you’re willing to hop down and work through the mud as well, and what use is ideological purity if you’re the only one who benefits from it? That doesn’t mean that we should all start behaving in ways that conflict with our moral compass because, hey, some people are bigots, but it does mean recognising that we are all in a process of self-improvement and if you’re not at least open to the possibility that your way of doing things isn’t the best way, you can’t progress yourself, nor does treating others with condescension help bring them to your way of thinking or at least to a middle ground from which you can proceed together. That’s all a much messier and trickier prospect than what this show wants to deal with, and yet it’s exactly the story they’ve blundered into the middle of with the ridiculous notion that they’re gonna be able to clear-cut their way out. Mon-El’s process should involve a lot of questions: not ‘this thing is correct because obviously it is’ or ‘this thing is correct because Kara says so’, but rather ‘I’m being told that my way is wrong: why? Why is it wrong? Why was I taught that it was right? In what ways has my belief in the correctness of this thing influenced my perceptions of other things? Is it possible that this thing I believe actually is right, and Kara is wrong? Why should her perspective be infallible? What are the consequences of either possibility? Does that jive with the rest of my understanding of the world? What else is altered by this change? Are these alterations also correct?’ and so on, and so on, ad nauseum. Exhausting, repetitive, and complicated, yes, but that’s the reality (not least because he’s supposed to be a literal alien from another planet, but, whatever). At first, I thought it was stupid of them to introduce Mon-El without bothering to spend time on his integration into Earth culture outside of a handful of gimmicks; now I see that it’s much worse than that. I don’t expect this whole arc to end well; I only hope that it ends quickly.
7 notes · View notes
go-redgirl · 6 years ago
Video
The Five 8/2/19 | Breaking Fox News News August 2, 2019
_______________________________________________________
INDIVIDUALS/COMMENTS/POSTS:
Hannity Pinned by Hannity 18 hours ago FULL SHOW UPDATE : https://youtu.be/AgA6LPbesDE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Don Quijote 1st thing I check: Juan's NOT there!! 😂😂😂🎉🎊🎇🎆
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY
Johnny Lawrence 18 hours ago TRUMP 2020!!!! The train is moving full steam ahead 🚂🇺🇸MAGA🇺🇸
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY
Maurice Belanger 18 hours ago
NO  JUAN  WOW 😮👍❤️💕🇺🇾
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY
Ken Overman 17 hours ago There is no one on the Democratic side that can beat our President Donald J Trump
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Maxxwell Maxxwell 18 hours ago No Juan 👌🏻
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Grim Reaper  17 hours ago YES!! No Juan. It's a much better show without him.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Audrey Carroll Greg! PLEASE keep Capri and axe Juan🙏🏽
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Steven Johnson 17 hours ago Obama will not Help the next DNC Candidate. Democrats are what they have always been. Fools!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Pete Duncan 18 hours ago Trump has become everybody's Presedent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY ptsd and me 47 hensley 18 hours ago every election that i can remember  [i am 71 ] they are going to fix the inner city. in 4 years it will be the same.  stop the bs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY joe moreira 18 hours ago (edited) Shes a thousand times more tolerable then jaun when she talks about dems reality in dem is rear trump2020
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Tay Tollefsen Juan must go!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY
woodstock I am so proud of our people. NO Chant just like the president asked. We are gonna win. Sorry. You can't beat integrity, honesty, hard work and loyalty. Democrats have none of that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY freethinker 45 18 hours ago President Trump the Peoples President
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Lisa Noel 17 hours ago Ben. Carson will prayvfirst and then GET IT DONE .WE LOVE. TRUMPS FRIEND BEN CARSON.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY mr ady and mim yay 17 hours ago Had Cummings shared the 16 billion with his residents, an average household with 4 people would have received $100'000. That would help to pay off some debts and get people back on their feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Lawrence Foster Lawrence Foster 18 hours ago If YOU LOOK AT ANY DIVESTATED CITY HE SAID.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Kathy Sloan 17 hours ago First - Michelle is NOT the most admired 'woman' in the country.  More FAKE polls and FAKE news.  How about doing some investigating for a change like on the video I found. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Lee North 17 hours ago "If the Kingdom of God is within you then everywhere you go you outta leave a little bit of heaven behind" #spreadlove
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Joy Jarrelson 18 hours ago No classes Trump's got 2020 vision lmfao
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY toneman335 17 hours ago President Trump 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Made In USA 15 hours ago I live in southern California, and Trump is absolutely right. The Democrats have run our great state in to the ground. I hope he keeps up this theme so we can win back the House.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Heinzy 16 hours ago Sorry I'm not American but why is M. Obama admired? Just wondering, not being insulting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY mario pena mario pena Julian Castro .. was mayor of San Antonio texas.. LATINOS and Black neighborhoods are poorest.. westside and Eastside.. LATINO for trump.. 2020 . For the private sector.. from San Antonio texas
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Stephen Nguyen 16 hours ago Yeah, no stupid Juan. Thank you Fox
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Nirvana 99 17 hours ago No Juan Williams 🥂🍻
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Dennis Navarro 16 hours ago JUAN PLEASE STAY GONE. JUAN PLEASE STAY GONE. JUAN PLEASE STAY GONE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY rogeliogarcia07 16 hours ago I like LIZA BOOTHE,why the 5 don't invite her to the program ?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY willard fillmore 16 hours ago Obozo was the worst whatever of anyone who sat in our oval office.. He is a bold faced liar. He is a traitor and a big time pedophile..!! I would be very embarrassed to even mention his name..!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Richard Martin 17 hours ago Barak Obama single most significant achievement was the creation and election of Donald J trump, Obama’s failures and smugness put Donald trump the 45th president of the United States 🇺🇸 in the Oval Office
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Emma White 17 hours ago NO Juan, 👍, I'm watching the " Five ", this lady that took his place it's worth listening. Thanks FOX News from New York, I live in California a blue state, Where I have to keep my mind quiet.❤
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Sofa Joe 17 hours ago @emilycampanio... you went to go see Guns and Roses the other night, one of your favorite songs is Night Train?... I was in love with you before but now it's official.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Mary Annette 18 hours ago Sorry about that but my Mother never forgot her eight kids.  Tragic situation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY deathvalleyalex 17 hours ago Mr President   let's focus  on the sanctuary  of California  and the sanctuary  cities  like los angeles ,  San Francisco  ,Oakland   and all the other sanctuaries  the democrats  decided were more important than taking care of americans that are ill, hungry .  jobless or. Homeless
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Bad Bob 17 hours ago John Wayne had some really interesting music. He made a song called "The Hyphen". That song explained so much in understanding how to relate to an American and not an ethnic label!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Tim Schjei 17 hours ago Baltimore received 16 billion dollars in 2018. With 2 billion dollars they could have hired over 16,000 law enforcement individuals for two years, LA has 9000 sworn officers and should have 10,000 more. Where did the money go?
#1 priority of government is the safety of its citizens.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Ralph Geigner 16 hours ago OBAMAS  Regime ! Many in the Military felt him and his regime was weak leadership !  EXAMPLE ! Look at Putin's expressions, actions during interviews !    We had funding $ issues for repair parts and equipment overall !  We had Pay $ issues during his regime !  There was many issues at the VA's !   NEVER RATS !   Go ARMY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY John Kidd 16 hours ago Love the deranged Dems. Waiting for Michelle and Hillary to declare before the deadline. Now that would be a cat fight.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Oceans 17 hours ago This President is completely transparent and everyday he is making huge strides in bringing America back to greatness. He knows he has a relatively short time, 4 years, to undo past disasters and give Americans something they can be proud of for generations to come. Your energy is beyond amazing  out at the crack of dawn and working hard until the midnight hour and beyond. AND not taking a penny for your work. 
How many people can say that. You are what America has needed for many years and I continue to be amazed at the monumental changes taking place in the Country you love. Read more
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY James Woodman James Woodman 15 hours ago Dems are the party of Globalist and anti American
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Gene Lonnon 18 hours ago Bagalia starting chant for Hillary, only hope for Dims, playing out exactly as I called it 2 years ago.  Can you say brokered convention?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY MCccc7 Cortes 17 hours ago Obama's Legacy First Year: hiked up prices on candy & soda,  Increased prices on automobile plates.( They had to have security at DMV, cause ppl were flipping out) You had to buy or get a free unit to watch Hump back Tv., We now have to use Curly light bulbs, Cash for Clunkers. Obama phones.  Good going Obama great Legacy! Lmao! Read more
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY phantom 7 cross rose 15 hours ago damn, I have to say it,  the 2 conservative babes are hot as most conservative babes are, by contrast, dem women exude hatred, very off putting, but the conservative babes make my sticker peck up😇
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Jim McCarley 17 hours ago I think President Trump hates wort hogs! Ever notice you never see him with one! I never saw an article where he invited a wort hog to the oval office! You recon he ever invited a wort hog to his mansion for lunch! Oh my! I just realized "for lunch"! He hates wort hogs! He hates wort hogs!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Tietje Weaver 16 hours ago Beta males, yeah, we don't want to follow them lol
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Timeless 16 hours ago
OMG! Brian is no longer a book end, but part of The Five Squad? Fox is improving and Brian looks so relaxed 😎 now. Free!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Rebecca Perez 17 hours ago
No this is not human behavior Greg... Children are suppose to be the most important person in someone's life... No... No... No... Lock him up...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY
Arioch IV
17 hours ago
Can we replace Juan with this woman?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY
Tim Schjei 17 hours ago Both the Republicans and the Democrats have been wimps since after Ronald Reagan and prior to Donald Trump.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Dave Sandlin 15 hours ago This Kevin guy is sure on some powerful crack.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY JVONROCK 16 hours ago Seattle’s wayward  citizens same as those all over the west coast.   Perverted leaders still haven’t a clue. But disease has a way of cleaning.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY nobodybutme1000 16 hours ago Emily looks hot...as usual.  Seems she's looking super fit too
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Ron Fall 16 hours ago Terrible analagy GREG!!!!!  When you have kids then you can TALK!!!!!!! No defense of this guy no matter what.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY
Tom Brown 14 hours ago Can someone please tell me what the hell Michelle Oboma can do.  The only thing I remember her doing is ruining school lunches and trying to ban bacon. And lieing about how wonderful Berry was.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY
Andyzerg 11 hours ago Emily Compagno monologue 7:53 SPLOOSH!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Hose Kim 9 hours ago Is Juan completely gone?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Penni Bingaman 12 hours ago If a woman would forget her child in the car, it wouldn't matter. She's be prosecuted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Steven Johnson 17 hours ago Thoughtful opinions by all on the "Hot Car Case".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Trudi Jones 17 hours ago Juan good, but I miss Jesse
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY
Jethro Payson 17 hours ago Being poor is not a crime.  Making money off of it, lying, and letting criminals fester is different.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY
Neide Durant 17 hours ago Get rid of Juan , it was a very pleasant five today !
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY
gaspar ortega 17 hours ago Kevin you are dreaming
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY tkell31 14 hours ago Haha, the chunky democrat pretending that Pocahontas helps warren.  She knows it's a killer.  Hits right at her character or more accurately her lack of character.  And yeah, +1 for no Juan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Ronnie Bishop 10 hours ago Trump will help the inner city’s if they will have enough sense to vote for him.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY RayLo RayLo 17 hours ago Hot car kids case: (19:00) You DON'T forget your kids!!! I don't care what may happen to distract you!!! You DON'T forget your precious babies in the back seat!!! Did he not recover in the 8 hours he was working that he realized  'My God, I forgot the kids'???!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Annette Scott 59 minutes ago (edited) Liz warren milked the school system of thousands because the schools she attended as a student believed her. Dont forget this. This raises school costs on all of us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Downunder Thunder 11 hours ago Talk about depresive talk about Obama. Talk about racial hatred talk about Obama. Lost their jobs lost their homes if your a rapper you feel these bones. Oh we miss you Obama like a rat in trap so glad he is gone will never look back!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Kelly Sebzda 17 hours ago Most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard trump doesn’t care about the inner city at all
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Bea Payne 14 hours ago Trump is doing a great job keep it up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY John Lee 17 hours ago Nobody ever intends to kill their child?
Is Emily a lawyer or a hood ornament?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Dan Henry 14 hours ago Glad Juan is not there
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY R- Sunday 16 hours ago Did Trump throw out DEPLORABLE?!?!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY MrJorjohn 13 hours ago it is a tragedy that he lost his own based on his mistake. Justice has been served by he. Himself. far worse than any criminal proceeding. Throw salt on his wounds forever.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY James Smith 17 hours ago Something is going on.  I can not watch    Other news.  I am able to see you and I never choose     Watch out America something is going on already.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Tim White 15 hours ago
Love this woman that is the Dem representative......defends her party, but not so rigid that she avoids the facts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Julie Carveth 14 hours ago Every one Obama campaigned for lost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY unmolested mind 7 hours ago (edited) Fella killed his kids. kids are way to noisy to forget a car is a very small area
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Steven Johnson 17 hours ago Where can I go to get a full episode of the five?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY George Sanders 18 hours ago Obama did nothing in 8 years origami did but giveaway America to Europe in everybody else I thought I did nothing Obama is Antichrist helper that darn Antichrist is here and he had three major helpers, is one of them got it yet wake up in the name of God
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Sally Goozee No Juan, yay!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Rayvon Hickman 15 hours ago 😂😂😂what a joke fox news
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY gaspar ortega 17 hours ago Trump 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY
Lili Tincher 15 hours ago Thy feel sorry for the stupid man that left his two children for their lungs to explode from the heat in the car, after forgetting to drop them off at daycare and taking them to work and forgetting them in the car?  How about feeling sorry for the children that suffered a horrible death!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY rogeliogarcia07 16 hours ago DEMS BUNCH WIMPS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Lisa Noel 17 hours ago The Democrats don't apparently care about old diseases that we. Irradiated along time ago . Lockjaw for stepping on rusting nails. Yellow fever Bubonic Plague. That could take out millions. Of people . A very dangerous disease.  Many others that are coming back because of illegal aliens and. Dirty cities. Clean up the dumps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Craig Johnson 17 hours ago
lose the coffe cup. Stop supporting child grooming!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Steven Looney 17 hours ago
Fox News when Obama is elected - "It's been 3 years, he can't use George Bush as an excuse on the deficit anymore." Fox News on Trump - "These problems were there for years before he was elected." No, no bias here to see at all, move along.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Lisa Noel 17 hours ago
I WOULD RATHER HAVE BEN CARSON AS PRESIDENT THAN. MRS. CONNECTED TO PRESIDENT OBAMAS  CORRUPTION. NEVER VOTE FOR MICHELLE SHE IS TOO CONNECTED TO MOVIE STARS. DEMOCRATICALLY CORRUPT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY
David Garber 17 hours ago Bad news all the way. Poor kids. Dad screwed up. Bad bad news.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY
Timothy Walters 17 hours ago This hot car topic , they say to put something in the back seat with your child , something you wont forget , like a phone or your purse . I can't believe it . INSANE ! You wont forget your phone but you can forget your child , or TWO of them ! This is mind numbing !
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY
William Gleaton 18 hours ago When I was a kid in Philadelphia  in 1961 and on my mom was my only parent their fore we were poor and lived in the projects off Ridge Ave. I was surrounded by black children and their families, all that time I never experienced any kind of racist remarks or did I ever feel differently NO! . I guess my point is as children the world is amazing, full of wonder and we don't know hate, we don't know about meanness, or racism we have to be taught those things. Let's be more childlike in our hearts (what do ya say) can't hurt. ✌️ Read more
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY fern senchisen 8 hours ago
So Obama created a bunch of democratic politicians the even he cant support? Thanks Obama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY tkell31 14 hours ago Come on, they have to attack obammy because he's too tied to Trump.  You can't attack Trump on immigration without attacking Odumbo, you cant attack Trump on inner cities without going after the cult of odumbo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Larry L No Juan equals good show
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY MrJorjohn
13 hours ago i think democrats only vote because it is their duty to elect a democrat. they have no idea who they are voting for because the do no research and they care nothing for politics.. they make decisions for you the other Americans. The enlightened Americans. Illegal aliens are being let in because they know about as much as democratic voters so they also vote democratic.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Pam S 16 hours ago Oh please, Obama was not more moderate to the left, he was the stepping stone to the far left, Hillary would have been the final nail in the coffin  We would have lost this great nation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY View reply fern senchisen When Democrats and Republicans hear from the people nothing happens. Trump has no choice but to act for the people even when no one supports him. He will do what helps Americans even if he has to walk into a wasp nest.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY John Kidd No appointment of Trump's will escape sleazy attacks by the Dumb Dems. Now that he's removed Ratcliffe from the DNI nomination, they think they've won. Haha, how does Trey Gowdy suit them or Jason Chaffetz, both of them would be the Dems worst nightmare. Be careful what you wish for. As usual, in opposing everything Trump does, the Dems have shot themselves  in the balls again.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY
Prissy Lovejoy Why do so many tv shows and videos show Trumps hair as bright red or “orange” when in actuality it’s almost completely white now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Adrian Johnson The hot car dad is a military veteran, no? I not a parent but if so, am I being unreasonable to have slightly higher expectations of him?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY max man half of the five
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY DominusLuna Shouldn't Caputo be on Mslsd or something
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Chris Mc Not full show
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Mortimer Brewster The saddest comment was about the father who left his kids in the car and they died. The middle guy (forget his name) said leave something in the backseat that you can't go without so you have to go back there and then you'll see the kids. What is so sad is that a phone or backpack would be considered my important than the children. It's tragic and I don't think the guy should go to prison (he will be forever punishing himself) but people need to put more priority on their kids than a phone. Also, learn how to drive. I wouldn't be able to forget the kids because I use my rear view mirror all the time -- I see the backseat and someone driving properly would see the backseat and the car seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Steve Hev THE GREAT DIVIDER  umm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY mike Lane love it
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY ScootinNPootin ForUHemmroids 18 hours ago
It's funny how now NYC is begging  for the powers that be back them and want the citizens at large to also back them   I always have BUT, now when Officers across the US allow thugs to beat down an elderly woman, I draw the line.  If we have to fin for ourselves so do they.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY
Linda T
16 hours ago Go Trump Go!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY DAT DAT 15 hours ago M.Obama happened upon fame and fortune just by marital association to the elected 44th.  Other than that, she's not qualified to be in the political field...let's get real people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Zoukie Zouk 14 hours ago Cant stump the TRUMP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY apache pete 16 hours ago Hey Juan , just cos your Not here ... doesn't mean we miss you .. WE DON'T .. and by the way that Lumpy whale in the white dress smells of Democrap. .. just Another Swamp creature lover.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Jimmy Yeakel 17 hours ago I'm having a hard time with the "forgetting" kids in the car opinions. So, if I can prove no intent and my kids died because I forgot about them for 8 hours while I'm at work, no charges but........If I lock the kids in the car for a couple minutes to grab my dry cleaning and they don't die or suffer any physical trauma, I should be charged ?
 I'm not saying locking the kids in the car with the motor and AC running is acceptable, I'm simply saying why charge the case that caused no harm and not charge the case that resulted in death ? Essentially, your charging some one for what "might" have happened and not charging someone for something (death) that actually happened. 
Do the terms "gross negligence" and "extreme carelessness" ring a bell ? Intent was the same issue brought up Jim Comey (after rewording "gross negligence" which is chargeable with "extreme carelessness" which is not) while refusing to charge Hillary Clinton. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY willard fillmore 16 hours ago
TRUMP 20/20..!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Crystl Fire 14 hours ago If president obama would have given all 350 million citizens in this country one million dollars, just think how great he would have left this country. INSTEAD he spend ELEVEN TRILLION dollars and got nothing for it, he would only have had to spend $350 million and got free college and free healthcare for all!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY woodstock 17 hours ago that is because there is no democrat strategy. it is just a bunch of virtue signaling driven by corporate leftists on the coasts. they want to try to remake america in the face of google, apple, the NYT etc. the problem is all the hypocrisy among them. it isn't going to happen. I believe in democrat proposals more than the people espousing them do. that is why i will vote trump. I know the difference between virtue signaling and sincerity. I will take sincerity every time and I will be voting trump for that reason.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY
willard fillmore 16 hours ago (edited) Wow..!! What a heartbreaking story. I pray for him and his family..!! Just having to live with such a grief driven mistake. Is going to be his life sentence.. He will suffer enough..God Bless..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY The LoftCast 18 hours ago How can someone forget their children are in the car? I m sorry guys but ones children should be the most important thing on any parents mind so I disagree with what you say. It's gross negligence and the guy should face jail?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY
Tim Carter
16 hours ago I disagree with all of them. When you have children, you are responsible for their lives. Even if it was an accident, as they say, it warrants at least a manslaughter charge.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Glockbeard 17 hours ago Rumor is Tyrus body slammed Juan into Oblivion
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY MrFetusPretzel 18 hours ago "Put something in the back of the car that you can't leave there"......like your kids?smh
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Crystl Fire 14 hours ago Harris can beat Trump and Michael obama can beat Trump...ROFL...LOL...LMAO...are you out of your simple mind. NO ONE CAN STAND that boyfriend of obama (michael) NO ONE!! Are these jokes living on another planet??  They must be living on uranus!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY CHRISTOPHER BOWEN 14 hours ago If I accidentally kill you am I exonerated? I didn't notice you were in front of my car.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Bolt Hayday 17 hours ago
I’m sorry but there is just too many parents killing their kids using a car. All ya gotta do is cry 😭 and say I forgot! Those were NOT newborns. And they weren’t 1st born. Forget the kids but don’t forget your sunglasses 🕶 don’t forget your phone 📱. Anyway an alarm should go off if the seatbelt is still plugged in the back and the vehicle is off. Or the windows roll immediately down. So simple car companies. But omg be sure we have the latest update to make ya comfortable driving!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Suzanne Arsenault 17 hours ago There must be some Republican cities that are deplorable?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Andy Greaves 17 hours ago Trump supporters are "stable geniuses!' LOL red-neck hicks!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY ivy kkb 17 hours ago Trump...r u talking about yourself??? WHERE the fund goes....???
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY JOSE BURGOS 17 hours ago JUAN AND M WALLACE SHEP SMITH WHY THIS GUY'S KEEP FOX IN. BUSINESS THE OTHER TRUMP SIDE 👎 TAKING ABOUT TRUMP FRIENDS A CHILD MOLESTER AND NOW HE DONT KNOW HIS COCAINE PARTY FRIEND
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY underdog ishere 18 hours ago Republican Tim Scott  of South Carolina   you never see him backing Trump.  You all watch people he will be running for President one Day 8 =12= 16 years down the road but could be after Trump Leaves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY
David Pursel, Snake Hunter 18 hours ago C’mon, this has gotta be a bogus account. You can’t do any better than 480p? Are you serious?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY Karen D'Asero 13 hours ago Bummer, no Jesse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY
Diana is a Democrat it shows in all her response.  She’s An Anti-Trump person.
0 notes
ramrodd · 6 years ago
Video
youtube
The History Lecture No One Slept Through (Acts 7:1-53) | TMBH Acts #28
J’accuse!
COMMENTARY:
Metaphorically, you put your MAGA hat on at approximately 7:50, when you come up for air and declare that you love history and begin pushing the Pro-Life Evangelical party line with a little analysis by anachronism, a reference to the manufactured issue of greetings around the end of the solar year and a delicate march through America's racist battles without ever mentioning white folks as the stiff-necked demographic who continue to sustain their embrace of white supremacy and prerogatives of social domination based on the 19th century racial theories that justified chattel slavery, but then, that was the basis of the Christian academy your folks sent you to avoid any danger of you getting cooties from being in a classroom with colored kids.
My assumption is that your target audience is basically the 15 year old white Christian baseball camp market with a bunch of rowdy boys like Nick Sandman. Anybody who would go out of his way to provide a medieval illustration of King Saul taking a shit has barely escaped that culture, himself, and hopes to recreate it in his own classroom as the cool, with-it, it's not a sermon just some serious Salvation Gospel indoctrination with a patina of street cred. The point you make about the schism between Jewish orthodoxy and Jewish resurrection ministry is exactly the same as the schism between the Pro-Life Evangelical business model and who you would characterize as the heresy of the liberal Christian left of the Liberation Gospel with whom I associate myself. That's why you need to put on your MAGA hat in solidarity with Nick Sandman.
Now, you really know your shit. I learn something new with every video, but when you start talking about communism and godless communism and the virtues of capitalism, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. That's number 1. I began studying the Soviets in 1955 when my dad was stationed at USAEUR as Comptroller and the Hungarian Revolution was going on a no farther than a day's drive by the Autobahn. That was a little scirmish America started as part of the grand strategy emerging from George Kennan's Long Telegram. But it is an instance when we fucked with the domestic politics of a sovereign nation to advance our own ambitions. Personally, I believe history has determined that we were on the side of angels, although a bunch of people got run over by tanks pretty much the same way the armored cars loyal to the constitutional authority in Venezula ran into those crowds. When assholes like Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson talk about the need to dismantle the administrative state, this is how it happens. This is the existential reality of violent revolution and/or authoritarian suppression, take your pick. This is what was going on in Budapest I was 8 years old and a day by tank away from the godless commie cocksuckers in the tanks Moscow sent to crush democracy. I identified with the guys with the Molotov coctails bullfighting the tanks.
So, I have been studying Marxism my entire self-conscious life, having a working relationship with the Holy Spirit being a dimension of the self-conscious life, or, as one of those old Greeks, probably Plato, said, "The Un-Examined life is not worth living". There is no doubt in my mind that Socrates, Plato and Aristotle had a working relationship with the Holy Spirit just like me. There is also no doubt in my mind that Socrates had the same relationshship with Yaweh, Queen of Battle, as Jesus and Cornelius: Socrates was a combat veteran and his whole way of dealing with PTSD was to lay a trap for the same coalition of orthodoxy that St. Stephen addresses and the political coalition Bill Barr represents. You know, the MAGA hat crowd. People that are supporting your ministry and Tucker Carlson's turtorial on white privilege (I don't think Tucker went to a Christian Academy, the legacy of the "Massive Resistance" of your daddy's political orientation: they were probably too déclassé for his whiteboy elitist pretentions). But, given all that, I am not a Marxist scholar: I studied it in the way the mongoose studies the cobra: to strike to kill.
In terms of Maxism, capitalism, and the economics of the Green New Deal, you guys are clueless, everybody. If people like Ray Dalio and Jamie Dimon actually understood how economics actually works, we would have been to Mars by now. It's that simple, If you want to get to Mars, AOC has the blue prints for the Green New Deal Star Gate.
The shit you're selling is the Harvard Business School version of the American economy when buggy whips were still a sound investment.
I've been engaged with the Kremlin since 1975 in what has become the Sovereign Democracy agenda Putin and any given POTUS inherited from the Nixon-Breznev Detente by way of Gorbachev and Yeltsin. In 1975, the only way you could do business with the Soviet Union was through the Kremlin. In 1986, Donald Duck Ass, aka POTUS, became engaged in the Sovereign Democracy agenda and has never put a deal together because of his lie, cheat and steal "Art of the Deal" business model. That's why he won't make a deal with either Chairman Kim or President Xi until he keeps his promise he made to Chairman Kim to get a GI haircut like Elvis and to implement the Green New Deal. Kim is ready to give away the ranch in a regional partnership with President Moon of the Republic of China and the Belt and Road Initiative of President Xi. The only difference between the Belt and Road Initative and the Green New deal is Democratic Socialism and that's one thing that is missing from Duck Ass Don's lie, cheat and steal "Art of the Deal" business model. The last time a Soviet Marxist made a deal with someone with a similar business model as Donald Duck Ass, it was Stalin with Hitler and the hard core commies have never let it happen again.
The chances are, you don't have a clue what I am talking about, Don't never you mind: neither did Valerie Jarrett when I tried to explain how stupid Obama's version of the Tory Socialism and class warfare of the Reaganomics bullshit you are selling and the macro-economic populism of the White House.
The thing that you and virtually every American of any political, religious or lifestyle persuasion don't understand is that, while Putin did correctly observe that Marxism is a fairy tale, it is a very intellectually rigorous fairy tale. Marx was immersed in the dialectical forensics of Martin Luther, growing up, as was Hegel, and Marx's Dialectical Materialism is as formidable as the 99 Thesis, intellectually. It just doesn't work as a social construct.
That's why Putin, Kim and Xi understand the importance of the Democratic Socialism of the Green New Deal is the missing ingredient of the Harvard Business Model: they have a working model of Democratic Socialism right in the region with the President Moon's Republic of Korea, especially because of K-MAG, the US Army's point of technology transfer for constitutional capitalism virtually a component of the ROK Army.
But I don't want to teach you economics: I want you to repent of your evil Evangelical orthodoxy and get right with God. Start by putting on a MAGA hat in all the videos you make from now on like a leper, moving through the streets calling out “Unclean! Unclean!”.
Now, if I was equipped with the 17 years of serious Bible studies like you and I wanted to introduce the Bible as literature instead of history, I would stay with the J'accuse of St. Stephen and point out the rebuke of Nathan regarding Bathseba and the rejection of Nazareth of Jesus in Luke 4:14 – 28. What happens to Stephen is what could have happened to either Nathan or Jesus and why it doesn't happen to either Nathan and Jesus falls perfectly into your talent for dramatic explication. And you can point out that Émile Zola was the Atticus Finch of the Dreyfus Affair. You love making obscure historic allusions and this will reinforce your point.
You know your shit but you don't know the difference between your good shit and your bummer shit. You are a MAGA hat guy: if you believe in that shit and the idea that there were really good people on both sides in Charlottesville, well, say it loud and say it proud. Don't hide your MAGA lamp beneath a solar panel for a sex toy.
0 notes
tessatechaitea · 8 years ago
Text
New Super-man #5
MAGA!
Don't worry! Global warming from air pollution isn't a problem! Everything will be okay when seeing a blue sky is a rare occurrence. This was the sky every day in Eastern China and Hong Kong. And this was from 1997.
The comic book shows The Bund at night where you can see stars. When they erupt out of their submarine to discuss books with the people, The People's Book Club of Ultimate Freedom even comment on how "mesmerizing" the stars are. Ha! As if. The People's Book Club of Ultimate Freedom have stolen Starro from the Ministry of Self-Reliance (I know, I know. So ironic that they'd have Starro!) and they're planning on using it against the communist regime who won't let them read The Cave of Time in its original English. All they get is the Chinese Translation with the Government Approved Endings! Kenan has just walked in on his father wearing his Flying Dragon Father costume and now he has questions up the proverbial wazoo. Is the wazoo actually proverbial? Do things have to have been mentioned in The Book of Proverbs to be proverbial? What is a proverb anyway? Like a combination verb and pronoun? Flying Dragon Father tells his origin story to his son because he wants Kenan to fight for the correct side. The correct side is obviously the one against China's governmental interests. Those fucking Communists are evil. Not because they're Communists, of course. Capitalists are fucking evil too! The common factor there is the part where the people who come to power by whatever means one comes to power in whatever economic or political system exists in the country they were raised tend to be ambitious, selfish, greedy assholes. The kind of people who would rule well don't crave the kinds of power, status, and money that comes with ruling. So they never wind up in power. Go figure, right?! Flying Dragon Father met Kenan's mother in the early college incarnation of The People's Book Club of Ultimate Freedom. They have their Harry Met Sally relationship that eventually leads to Kenan.
I wish she'd become the Leather Liberty Goddess.
Flying Dragon Father reveals the big shock twist: the Ministry of Self-Reliance killed Kenan's mother! Okay, so it wasn't as shocking as you might have thought by my calling it a big shock twist and using an exclamation point. But if you're familiar with my blog then you know exclamation points mean nothing! It's like I'm a rich kid just burning money if money were exclamation points and they made people wealthy. Now Kenan has a decision to make. Does he continue to fight for the Ministry of Self-Reliance or become a mole for the People's Book Club of Ultimate Freedom? Or does he go his own way and forge his own path which will probably lead to Laney Lan's bedroom and some kinky ass roleplay. Kenan chooses to go off with his father to help the People's Book Club of Ultimate Freedom. Bat-man and Wonder-Woman also head to The Bund to try to stop the Book Club. Also joining the fray? The Great Ten! You might remember one of them, August General in Iron. If you remember any of the other nine, you get a cookie. But not my cookie.
Even Book Clubs of Ultimate Freedom have to deal with power-mad narcissists who insist on ruining everything by thinking the end justifies the means.
Uncle Human Firecracker actually says, "Whatever it takes for the greater good." See? Total dickmonster. Mmm, dickmonster. Both Kenan and Flying Dragon Father aren't too happy about Uncle Human Firecracker's methods and decide it might be time to stop him. Isn't this always the way with book clubs? They always fall apart due to infighting.
I just realized why I like Kenan so much. He's a total Huck Finn.
I like to assume that I can say something like "he's a total Huck Finn" and people will completely understand what I mean. While I believe the literary canon really needs to be expanded to include more voices of non-white males, I still think it's usefulness in writing shorthand to others is beyond compare. The literary canon should never shrink, it should just grow bigger and bigger. Sure it's more work for those who want to understand everything anybody ever writes. But fuck is it useful. I'm not religious but you'd better believe I've read The Bible because without that foundation, you're not fully accessing a majority of Western Literature. If the Ultimate Literary Canon of Freedom is expanded enough, people will be expected to also know The Koran and the Bhagavad Gita and, um, the other ones that are probably important to people who didn't grow up with a white, Western education. Uncle Human Firecracker somehow does something to remove Kenan's powers. He probably had some of those miniature red suns in his glove. Kenan almost drowns but Flying Dragon Father rescues him and takes him to the Ministry of Self-Reliance to be healed. So people's loyalties are becoming a bit fuzzy due to other loyalties. Meanwhile, Uncle Human Firecracker shoves a bunch of Starro-captured motherfuckers onto a plane. He's going to fly it into Beijing and the seat of Communist power so that he can mind-control them all into becoming a democracy. Sounds about right. But! On the plane is Lixin, the fat kid whose lunch money Kenan used to steal! He's not supposed to be there but his parents own the airline and he's trying to make a Youtube video or something in the cockpit. I guess he's going to have to be the hero on the hijacked plane! Always bet on fat! Super-man doesn't get his powers back even with a blast of yellow sun radiation. It looks like he lost his powers when he felt his dad was disappointed in him. So his powers fluctuate based on his esteem? That's actually a good thing for Kenan! Mostly, he's as cocky and arrogant as I am.
Heh heh. Compliance devices.
Super-man and Flying Dragon Father rush off to stop the plane. I guess Kenan's powers will come back now that he knows his father is proud of him. I hope Lixin becomes his pal! Does Lixin mean "Jimmy Olsen" in Chinese? What Did We Learn? Being confident is where real power comes from! You know that's true because it's what all the Men's Rights Advocates say! I think they're basic rule is to be confident even when you know you're a disgusting piece of shit that no woman in their right mind would ever touch. The worst part about this advice is that it's right. Being confident is attractive! The problem is faking confidence simply to get laid. If you need to get laid and you want confidence, pay a sex worker (preferably in someplace where it's legal because it should all be legal and by participating in places where it isn't legal, you're just encouraging illegal sex work which endangers women). They'll tell you how big your cock is and how good you are at the penetrations! Even if you blow your load too early, they won't act disappointed and upset and become bitter and resentful that you're not seeing to their needs. Although thinking you're good at sex when you're not might be harmful to your relationships in the long run. But at least getting laid might keep you from going on the Internet and getting involved with these MRA jerks. The Ranking! +1! This comic book is the best! Or close to the best! Don't challenge me! What I say here doesn't have to match up with what's over there on the sidebar in the Rankings. Especially if you're reading this on Blogger since I never fucking update the list on that site.
1 note · View note
rtawngs20815 · 8 years ago
Text
Hey, Here Are Some People Who Really, Really Should Not Run For President
March 2017 is probably far too early to start considering the next presidential election, and who the Democrats might send into the breach to take on Donald Trump (assuming he runs for re-election, of course). That said, there’s already an awful lot of rumor and sigh in the news transom about people having sudden-onset political stirrings, including those setting their sights on a 2020 presidential run.
Some of them are the last vestiges of the Clinton network, still high on that old Third Way supply, banking on the belief that the country isn’t yet done with late-1990s nostalgia. But a new group of would-be candidates is on the rise ― extravagantly wealthy wannabes stirred both by the Clinton-era Democratic Party embrace of meritocratic elites and the success of Trump’s outsider run. And if they all have something in common, it’s that they are all the worst possible people for the Democrats to run for office, if you consider the lessons of the 2016 election.
What were those lessons? Well, for one thing, 2016 was the year that the Democratic Party’s obsessions with the professional class finally caught up with it. Amid roaring calls for solutions to widely felt economic inequities, Hillary Clinton ran a campaign largely based on social niceties and boardroom diversification, with some incremental crumbs thrown the way of middle- and working-class strivers.
None of it added up to a compelling enough case against the GOP’s con-man class-traitor to win the election. (And tellingly, some taken-for-granted Democratic strongholds fell to Trump at the exact moment Democrats needed them most.) But if there’s one thing both political parties share, it’s that they are slow to learn their lessons. The fear that the Democrats might stay the course, despite Clinton’s failings, suffused the atmosphere in the recent Democratic National Committee election ― and those who wanted a decisive change are still not sure they’re getting one with the election of former Obama Labor Secretary Tom Perez. That some of the Clinton family’s most dedicated hangers-on feel like they are the person to run for office in the Trump era likely won’t soothe their ravaged souls, either.
And then there are the unfortunate side effects of Trump’s win itself, which has apparently touched off a whole new round of thinking as to whether it would be a good idea to examine this moment in history ― in which a brash billionaire-celebrity outsider has ascended to the highest political office in the world ― and consider whether the time is right to have more brash billionaire-celebrity outsiders try to run for president.
That every single day of the Trump presidency has been a scintillating demonstration of the Peter Principle seems to not deter anybody. Instead, the event of a complete and utter billionaire buffoon with no political experience has suggested to a slew of other buffoons that, hey, why not me?
A century or two of yawning inequality has left us with no shortage of such buffoons. Hundreds of these folks have ascended to the dizzying heights of our American oligarchy ― or were born there ― and now gaze downward, gripped with the firm conviction that they should run all that they see below. “Stay in your lane,” once the byword of America’s true and most successful innovators, is advice too easily chucked aside by today’s captains of industry. And so, “meritocracy” has become something of a dirty word.
Nowadays, those who have found success in one area are just as likely not to think that their success is translatable to other endeavors. When this turns out not to be the case, comical hijinks ensue. Perhaps the apotheosis of this rich-people folly came when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg thought it would be a good idea to appoint his friend, Hearst executive Cathleen Black, to the position of New York City schools chancellor ― despite the fact that her relevant experience could best be summed up as “not any.”
It was a huge disaster, but did anyone learn a damn thing from this experience? (Hmmm, let me check: Oh, yeah, Betsy DeVos is the U.S. secretary of education. So, no, nobody did.)
Still it’s one thing for Republicans to consider running the play ― they’ve obviously managed to make it work, at least in the narrow electoral sense. And their billionaire was no obscure figure. Entering the election with 100-percent name identification, and a years-long run in American living rooms as a fictional, all-knowing business leader, gave Trump legs up that your random billionaire lacks.
Replicating either side of the last presidential election is a losing move for Democrats. But it’s a very tempting one: It’s a notion that allows the easy-breezy fantasy that a massive party overhaul isn’t necessary, and that all of their problems can be ameliorated by either billionaires with quick fixes and cash on-hand, or Clinton 2016-redux candidates with better data and marketing.
With that in mind, here are a bunch of people whose political ambitions should be extinguished with all deliberate haste.
Bob Iger: Who, pray tell, is Bob Iger? Well, for a while, he was a member of Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum, a collection of CEO heavyweights who were going to help Trump #MAGA, for which Iger was well suited as the chief executive of Walt Disney. SInce then, it’s been reported that he is mulling making a run for the White House in 2020. Hmmm, maybe he hasn’t thought through this whole politics thing? Apparently not, considering that his inspiration to maybe run for president stems from the fact that he says “a lot of people ― a lot ― have urged me to seek political office.” I mean, maybe set your sights a little lower, first time out?
J.B. Pritzker: Having endeavored mightily to paint the past two Republican presidential nominees as out-of-touch wealthy elites ― and having failed to distinguish their own last presidential nominee as something different ― are Democrats stupid enough to make an about-face and run their own billionaire?No, J.B. Pritzker wouldn’t make it out of Iowa without a negative vote total. But even though he’s recently been sniffing around the possibility of running in the Illinois gubernatorial election, that hasn’t stopped him from floating to friends that he’s considering making a run for the White House as well ― or so we’re told by one recipient of such a flatulent flotation. Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt Hotel fortune, had designs on being commerce secretary under Hillary Clinton, just as his sister Penny Pritzker was under Obama. Just stop.
Sheryl Sandberg: According to some election-year rumors, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg was in the running to serve as Hillary Clinton’s treasury secretary. Since then, she’s been rumored to be considering a White House run, amid occasional denials. At the same time, she has recently been more open to Trump’s overtures. She was one of those Silicon Valley leaders who met with Trump prior to the inauguration. As Slate’s Helaine Owen notes, Sandberg made no public mention of the Women’s March that took place afterwards, a curious move for the “Lean In” maven ― at least until you consider the fact that “Lean In” is a disingenuous brand-washing scheme, and that Sandberg is especially unwilling to criticize her C-suite peers for crimes against women in the workforce.
Howard Schultz: The Starbucks CEO has said “never say never” to a presidential run. Indeed, Schultz would be the fever-dream candidate of the No Labels set: his political “brand,” insofar that he has one, is essentially based around his core belief that everyone in politics should be a lot nicer to each other. This worldview most famously manifested itself in the short-lived March 2015 “Race Together” campaign, in which Schultz ― after having mostly eliminated manual espresso machines in Starbucks stores ― tasked baristas with bridging America’s racial divide. If you want a president who believes that all of America’s problems can be solved by constantly throwing corporate culture at them, he’s your guy.
Mark Zuckerberg: Hey, let’s see: Do we really want the founder and CEO of Facebook ― a business that depends on learning as much about your private life as possible, more and more every single day, always probing and collecting, never ceasing in its sleepless drive to know everything about you, better than you could possibly know yourself, until the very idea of “privacy” becomes an obsolete concept and individual autonomy is subordinated to a set of bloodless algorithms and advertisers are straight-up living inside your dreams ― to be our president? I dunno, man. As Big Brother might say, that sounds doubleplusungood!
Chelsea Clinton: Anyone else notice how after the election, Chelsea Clinton has been slowly creeping into our lives? There’s been this gradual ramping up of Total Chelsea Clinton Awareness, and along with it, the gradual ramping up of yet another Clinton’s political career ― even though, up until now, Chelsea Clinton has essentially been nothing more than a lodestar for other people’s money to find their way into Clinton bank accounts. (I read here that she was paid $600,000 to do journalism? Holy cats, how long did it take Jimmy Breslin to make $600,000?) Anyway, she’s been tweeting lately ― tweets that feel a little too clever, but not enough to be thought of as “edgy” ― the sort of social media output that makes you want to look for hidden wires. Hillary Clinton got a lot of stick ― unfairly so ― for lacking authenticity, but her daughter’s recent re-emergence feels like a ghost in the shell being willed into existence by a team of P.R. firms. We don’t suspect we have to fear a run in 2020 from Chelsea. But let’s please add every year in the future, ever, to that safe space.
Terry McAuliffe: The biggest beneficiary of the Clinton family to not have actual Clinton family DNA (probably, anyway!), McAuliffe revived his political career by winning the 2013 gubernatorial election in Virginia. It was close. Too close, considering he was running against a throwback Christian conservative ideologue in the form of Ken Cuccinelli. During the 2016 campaign, McAuliffe distinguished himself by telling reporters at the Democratic National Convention that Hillary Clinton was definitely going to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal after the election. The TPP, if you recall, was the thing convention-goers booed and jeered more lustily than Donald Trump. McAuliffe and his spin-team later tried to walk this back, saying that it was just McAuliffe who supported the TPP, which ― is still not good? Anyway, he is basically kooky, has a lot of funny-money connections, and suffers from the fact that Virginia has a one-term term limit for governor, leaving him with an itch that has to be scratched, probably with a huge pile of donor money that could be put to any number of more productive purposes.
Andrew Cuomo: The Clintons and Cuomos have never been particularly warm to each other, but the two political dynasties, eternally orbiting one another, have managed to seamlessly apply the transactional-slash-triangulating political style they share in common to their interpersonal relationships. Now, as rumors mount that Cuomo is considering a White House bid, he’s welcoming former Clinton campaign staff into his fold, where they’ll likely discover similarities to their natural habitat. Liberals have, in recent months, thrilled to Cuomo’s stance on fracking and his defense of immigrants, but they’re setting themselves up for huge disappointments. Cuomo, who is astonishingly petty and mean-minded, has done more to dampen the fortunes of New York’s Democratic Party than New York Republicans have. And he’s corrupt as all get-out to boot ― his most notable accomplishment as governor was to shut down the Moreland Commission anti-corruption inquiry as soon as the probe starting sniffing around targets with ties to the governor ― and getting away with it.
That, right there, is a murderer’s row of the exact wrong candidates for the Democratic Party, who’d be better advised to begin the hard work of rebuilding their party’s foundations and restoring a deep bench of new policymakers with fresh ideas. This is not the moment to try to lock arms with a gaggle of dilettante 1-percenters, promising to do what Trump pulled off. And it’s certainly not the time to try to revive the fortunes of their political cousins ― the broken remnants of the Clinton machine.
Drown these candidacies in the bathtub, right now.
Ryan Grim contributed.
~~~~~
Jason Linkins edits “Eat The Press” for The Huffington Post and co-hosts the HuffPost Politics podcast “So, That Happened.” Subscribe here, and listen to the latest episode below.  
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
from DIYS http://ift.tt/2mTj4As
0 notes
repwincoml4a0a5 · 8 years ago
Text
Hey, Here Are Some People Who Really, Really Should Not Run For President
March 2017 is probably far too early to start considering the next presidential election, and who the Democrats might send into the breach to take on Donald Trump (assuming he runs for re-election, of course). That said, there’s already an awful lot of rumor and sigh in the news transom about people having sudden-onset political stirrings, including those setting their sights on a 2020 presidential run.
Some of them are the last vestiges of the Clinton network, still high on that old Third Way supply, banking on the belief that the country isn’t yet done with late-1990s nostalgia. But a new group of would-be candidates is on the rise ― extravagantly wealthy wannabes stirred both by the Clinton-era Democratic Party embrace of meritocratic elites and the success of Trump’s outsider run. And if they all have something in common, it’s that they are all the worst possible people for the Democrats to run for office, if you consider the lessons of the 2016 election.
What were those lessons? Well, for one thing, 2016 was the year that the Democratic Party’s obsessions with the professional class finally caught up with it. Amid roaring calls for solutions to widely felt economic inequities, Hillary Clinton ran a campaign largely based on social niceties and boardroom diversification, with some incremental crumbs thrown the way of middle- and working-class strivers.
None of it added up to a compelling enough case against the GOP’s con-man class-traitor to win the election. (And tellingly, some taken-for-granted Democratic strongholds fell to Trump at the exact moment Democrats needed them most.) But if there’s one thing both political parties share, it’s that they are slow to learn their lessons. The fear that the Democrats might stay the course, despite Clinton’s failings, suffused the atmosphere in the recent Democratic National Committee election ― and those who wanted a decisive change are still not sure they’re getting one with the election of former Obama Labor Secretary Tom Perez. That some of the Clinton family’s most dedicated hangers-on feel like they are the person to run for office in the Trump era likely won’t soothe their ravaged souls, either.
And then there are the unfortunate side effects of Trump’s win itself, which has apparently touched off a whole new round of thinking as to whether it would be a good idea to examine this moment in history ― in which a brash billionaire-celebrity outsider has ascended to the highest political office in the world ― and consider whether the time is right to have more brash billionaire-celebrity outsiders try to run for president.
That every single day of the Trump presidency has been a scintillating demonstration of the Peter Principle seems to not deter anybody. Instead, the event of a complete and utter billionaire buffoon with no political experience has suggested to a slew of other buffoons that, hey, why not me?
A century or two of yawning inequality has left us with no shortage of such buffoons. Hundreds of these folks have ascended to the dizzying heights of our American oligarchy ― or were born there ― and now gaze downward, gripped with the firm conviction that they should run all that they see below. “Stay in your lane,” once the byword of America’s true and most successful innovators, is advice too easily chucked aside by today’s captains of industry. And so, “meritocracy” has become something of a dirty word.
Nowadays, those who have found success in one area are just as likely not to think that their success is translatable to other endeavors. When this turns out not to be the case, comical hijinks ensue. Perhaps the apotheosis of this rich-people folly came when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg thought it would be a good idea to appoint his friend, Hearst executive Cathleen Black, to the position of New York City schools chancellor ― despite the fact that her relevant experience could best be summed up as “not any.”
It was a huge disaster, but did anyone learn a damn thing from this experience? (Hmmm, let me check: Oh, yeah, Betsy DeVos is the U.S. secretary of education. So, no, nobody did.)
Still it’s one thing for Republicans to consider running the play ― they’ve obviously managed to make it work, at least in the narrow electoral sense. And their billionaire was no obscure figure. Entering the election with 100-percent name identification, and a years-long run in American living rooms as a fictional, all-knowing business leader, gave Trump legs up that your random billionaire lacks.
Replicating either side of the last presidential election is a losing move for Democrats. But it’s a very tempting one: It’s a notion that allows the easy-breezy fantasy that a massive party overhaul isn’t necessary, and that all of their problems can be ameliorated by either billionaires with quick fixes and cash on-hand, or Clinton 2016-redux candidates with better data and marketing.
With that in mind, here are a bunch of people whose political ambitions should be extinguished with all deliberate haste.
Bob Iger: Who, pray tell, is Bob Iger? Well, for a while, he was a member of Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum, a collection of CEO heavyweights who were going to help Trump #MAGA, for which Iger was well suited as the chief executive of Walt Disney. SInce then, it’s been reported that he is mulling making a run for the White House in 2020. Hmmm, maybe he hasn’t thought through this whole politics thing? Apparently not, considering that his inspiration to maybe run for president stems from the fact that he says “a lot of people ― a lot ― have urged me to seek political office.” I mean, maybe set your sights a little lower, first time out?
J.B. Pritzker: Having endeavored mightily to paint the past two Republican presidential nominees as out-of-touch wealthy elites ― and having failed to distinguish their own last presidential nominee as something different ― are Democrats stupid enough to make an about-face and run their own billionaire?No, J.B. Pritzker wouldn’t make it out of Iowa without a negative vote total. But even though he’s recently been sniffing around the possibility of running in the Illinois gubernatorial election, that hasn’t stopped him from floating to friends that he’s considering making a run for the White House as well ― or so we’re told by one recipient of such a flatulent flotation. Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt Hotel fortune, had designs on being commerce secretary under Hillary Clinton, just as his sister Penny Pritzker was under Obama. Just stop.
Sheryl Sandberg: According to some election-year rumors, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg was in the running to serve as Hillary Clinton’s treasury secretary. Since then, she’s been rumored to be considering a White House run, amid occasional denials. At the same time, she has recently been more open to Trump’s overtures. She was one of those Silicon Valley leaders who met with Trump prior to the inauguration. As Slate’s Helaine Owen notes, Sandberg made no public mention of the Women’s March that took place afterwards, a curious move for the “Lean In” maven ― at least until you consider the fact that “Lean In” is a disingenuous brand-washing scheme, and that Sandberg is especially unwilling to criticize her C-suite peers for crimes against women in the workforce.
Howard Schultz: The Starbucks CEO has said “never say never” to a presidential run. Indeed, Schultz would be the fever-dream candidate of the No Labels set: his political “brand,” insofar that he has one, is essentially based around his core belief that everyone in politics should be a lot nicer to each other. This worldview most famously manifested itself in the short-lived March 2015 “Race Together” campaign, in which Schultz ― after having mostly eliminated manual espresso machines in Starbucks stores ― tasked baristas with bridging America’s racial divide. If you want a president who believes that all of America’s problems can be solved by constantly throwing corporate culture at them, he’s your guy.
Mark Zuckerberg: Hey, let’s see: Do we really want the founder and CEO of Facebook ― a business that depends on learning as much about your private life as possible, more and more every single day, always probing and collecting, never ceasing in its sleepless drive to know everything about you, better than you could possibly know yourself, until the very idea of “privacy” becomes an obsolete concept and individual autonomy is subordinated to a set of bloodless algorithms and advertisers are straight-up living inside your dreams ― to be our president? I dunno, man. As Big Brother might say, that sounds doubleplusungood!
Chelsea Clinton: Anyone else notice how after the election, Chelsea Clinton has been slowly creeping into our lives? There’s been this gradual ramping up of Total Chelsea Clinton Awareness, and along with it, the gradual ramping up of yet another Clinton’s political career ― even though, up until now, Chelsea Clinton has essentially been nothing more than a lodestar for other people’s money to find their way into Clinton bank accounts. (I read here that she was paid $600,000 to do journalism? Holy cats, how long did it take Jimmy Breslin to make $600,000?) Anyway, she’s been tweeting lately ― tweets that feel a little too clever, but not enough to be thought of as “edgy” ― the sort of social media output that makes you want to look for hidden wires. Hillary Clinton got a lot of stick ― unfairly so ― for lacking authenticity, but her daughter’s recent re-emergence feels like a ghost in the shell being willed into existence by a team of P.R. firms. We don’t suspect we have to fear a run in 2020 from Chelsea. But let’s please add every year in the future, ever, to that safe space.
Terry McAuliffe: The biggest beneficiary of the Clinton family to not have actual Clinton family DNA (probably, anyway!), McAuliffe revived his political career by winning the 2013 gubernatorial election in Virginia. It was close. Too close, considering he was running against a throwback Christian conservative ideologue in the form of Ken Cuccinelli. During the 2016 campaign, McAuliffe distinguished himself by telling reporters at the Democratic National Convention that Hillary Clinton was definitely going to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal after the election. The TPP, if you recall, was the thing convention-goers booed and jeered more lustily than Donald Trump. McAuliffe and his spin-team later tried to walk this back, saying that it was just McAuliffe who supported the TPP, which ― is still not good? Anyway, he is basically kooky, has a lot of funny-money connections, and suffers from the fact that Virginia has a one-term term limit for governor, leaving him with an itch that has to be scratched, probably with a huge pile of donor money that could be put to any number of more productive purposes.
Andrew Cuomo: The Clintons and Cuomos have never been particularly warm to each other, but the two political dynasties, eternally orbiting one another, have managed to seamlessly apply the transactional-slash-triangulating political style they share in common to their interpersonal relationships. Now, as rumors mount that Cuomo is considering a White House bid, he’s welcoming former Clinton campaign staff into his fold, where they’ll likely discover similarities to their natural habitat. Liberals have, in recent months, thrilled to Cuomo’s stance on fracking and his defense of immigrants, but they’re setting themselves up for huge disappointments. Cuomo, who is astonishingly petty and mean-minded, has done more to dampen the fortunes of New York’s Democratic Party than New York Republicans have. And he’s corrupt as all get-out to boot ― his most notable accomplishment as governor was to shut down the Moreland Commission anti-corruption inquiry as soon as the probe starting sniffing around targets with ties to the governor ― and getting away with it.
That, right there, is a murderer’s row of the exact wrong candidates for the Democratic Party, who’d be better advised to begin the hard work of rebuilding their party’s foundations and restoring a deep bench of new policymakers with fresh ideas. This is not the moment to try to lock arms with a gaggle of dilettante 1-percenters, promising to do what Trump pulled off. And it’s certainly not the time to try to revive the fortunes of their political cousins ― the broken remnants of the Clinton machine.
Drown these candidacies in the bathtub, right now.
Ryan Grim contributed.
~~~~~
Jason Linkins edits “Eat The Press” for The Huffington Post and co-hosts the HuffPost Politics podcast “So, That Happened.” Subscribe here, and listen to the latest episode below.  
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
from DIYS http://ift.tt/2mTj4As
0 notes
grgedoors02142 · 8 years ago
Text
Hey, Here Are Some People Who Really, Really Should Not Run For President
March 2017 is probably far too early to start considering the next presidential election, and who the Democrats might send into the breach to take on Donald Trump (assuming he runs for re-election, of course). That said, there’s already an awful lot of rumor and sigh in the news transom about people having sudden-onset political stirrings, including those setting their sights on a 2020 presidential run.
Some of them are the last vestiges of the Clinton network, still high on that old Third Way supply, banking on the belief that the country isn’t yet done with late-1990s nostalgia. But a new group of would-be candidates is on the rise ― extravagantly wealthy wannabes stirred both by the Clinton-era Democratic Party embrace of meritocratic elites and the success of Trump’s outsider run. And if they all have something in common, it’s that they are all the worst possible people for the Democrats to run for office, if you consider the lessons of the 2016 election.
What were those lessons? Well, for one thing, 2016 was the year that the Democratic Party’s obsessions with the professional class finally caught up with it. Amid roaring calls for solutions to widely felt economic inequities, Hillary Clinton ran a campaign largely based on social niceties and boardroom diversification, with some incremental crumbs thrown the way of middle- and working-class strivers.
None of it added up to a compelling enough case against the GOP’s con-man class-traitor to win the election. (And tellingly, some taken-for-granted Democratic strongholds fell to Trump at the exact moment Democrats needed them most.) But if there’s one thing both political parties share, it’s that they are slow to learn their lessons. The fear that the Democrats might stay the course, despite Clinton’s failings, suffused the atmosphere in the recent Democratic National Committee election ― and those who wanted a decisive change are still not sure they’re getting one with the election of former Obama Labor Secretary Tom Perez. That some of the Clinton family’s most dedicated hangers-on feel like they are the person to run for office in the Trump era likely won’t soothe their ravaged souls, either.
And then there are the unfortunate side effects of Trump’s win itself, which has apparently touched off a whole new round of thinking as to whether it would be a good idea to examine this moment in history ― in which a brash billionaire-celebrity outsider has ascended to the highest political office in the world ― and consider whether the time is right to have more brash billionaire-celebrity outsiders try to run for president.
That every single day of the Trump presidency has been a scintillating demonstration of the Peter Principle seems to not deter anybody. Instead, the event of a complete and utter billionaire buffoon with no political experience has suggested to a slew of other buffoons that, hey, why not me?
A century or two of yawning inequality has left us with no shortage of such buffoons. Hundreds of these folks have ascended to the dizzying heights of our American oligarchy ― or were born there ― and now gaze downward, gripped with the firm conviction that they should run all that they see below. “Stay in your lane,” once the byword of America’s true and most successful innovators, is advice too easily chucked aside by today’s captains of industry. And so, “meritocracy” has become something of a dirty word.
Nowadays, those who have found success in one area are just as likely not to think that their success is translatable to other endeavors. When this turns out not to be the case, comical hijinks ensue. Perhaps the apotheosis of this rich-people folly came when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg thought it would be a good idea to appoint his friend, Hearst executive Cathleen Black, to the position of New York City schools chancellor ― despite the fact that her relevant experience could best be summed up as “not any.”
It was a huge disaster, but did anyone learn a damn thing from this experience? (Hmmm, let me check: Oh, yeah, Betsy DeVos is the U.S. secretary of education. So, no, nobody did.)
Still it’s one thing for Republicans to consider running the play ― they’ve obviously managed to make it work, at least in the narrow electoral sense. And their billionaire was no obscure figure. Entering the election with 100-percent name identification, and a years-long run in American living rooms as a fictional, all-knowing business leader, gave Trump legs up that your random billionaire lacks.
Replicating either side of the last presidential election is a losing move for Democrats. But it’s a very tempting one: It’s a notion that allows the easy-breezy fantasy that a massive party overhaul isn’t necessary, and that all of their problems can be ameliorated by either billionaires with quick fixes and cash on-hand, or Clinton 2016-redux candidates with better data and marketing.
With that in mind, here are a bunch of people whose political ambitions should be extinguished with all deliberate haste.
Bob Iger: Who, pray tell, is Bob Iger? Well, for a while, he was a member of Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum, a collection of CEO heavyweights who were going to help Trump #MAGA, for which Iger was well suited as the chief executive of Walt Disney. SInce then, it’s been reported that he is mulling making a run for the White House in 2020. Hmmm, maybe he hasn’t thought through this whole politics thing? Apparently not, considering that his inspiration to maybe run for president stems from the fact that he says “a lot of people ― a lot ― have urged me to seek political office.” I mean, maybe set your sights a little lower, first time out?
J.B. Pritzker: Having endeavored mightily to paint the past two Republican presidential nominees as out-of-touch wealthy elites ― and having failed to distinguish their own last presidential nominee as something different ― are Democrats stupid enough to make an about-face and run their own billionaire?No, J.B. Pritzker wouldn’t make it out of Iowa without a negative vote total. But even though he’s recently been sniffing around the possibility of running in the Illinois gubernatorial election, that hasn’t stopped him from floating to friends that he’s considering making a run for the White House as well ― or so we’re told by one recipient of such a flatulent flotation. Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt Hotel fortune, had designs on being commerce secretary under Hillary Clinton, just as his sister Penny Pritzker was under Obama. Just stop.
Sheryl Sandberg: According to some election-year rumors, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg was in the running to serve as Hillary Clinton’s treasury secretary. Since then, she’s been rumored to be considering a White House run, amid occasional denials. At the same time, she has recently been more open to Trump’s overtures. She was one of those Silicon Valley leaders who met with Trump prior to the inauguration. As Slate’s Helaine Owen notes, Sandberg made no public mention of the Women’s March that took place afterwards, a curious move for the “Lean In” maven ― at least until you consider the fact that “Lean In” is a disingenuous brand-washing scheme, and that Sandberg is especially unwilling to criticize her C-suite peers for crimes against women in the workforce.
Howard Schultz: The Starbucks CEO has said “never say never” to a presidential run. Indeed, Schultz would be the fever-dream candidate of the No Labels set: his political “brand,” insofar that he has one, is essentially based around his core belief that everyone in politics should be a lot nicer to each other. This worldview most famously manifested itself in the short-lived March 2015 “Race Together” campaign, in which Schultz ― after having mostly eliminated manual espresso machines in Starbucks stores ― tasked baristas with bridging America’s racial divide. If you want a president who believes that all of America’s problems can be solved by constantly throwing corporate culture at them, he’s your guy.
Mark Zuckerberg: Hey, let’s see: Do we really want the founder and CEO of Facebook ― a business that depends on learning as much about your private life as possible, more and more every single day, always probing and collecting, never ceasing in its sleepless drive to know everything about you, better than you could possibly know yourself, until the very idea of “privacy” becomes an obsolete concept and individual autonomy is subordinated to a set of bloodless algorithms and advertisers are straight-up living inside your dreams ― to be our president? I dunno, man. As Big Brother might say, that sounds doubleplusungood!
Chelsea Clinton: Anyone else notice how after the election, Chelsea Clinton has been slowly creeping into our lives? There’s been this gradual ramping up of Total Chelsea Clinton Awareness, and along with it, the gradual ramping up of yet another Clinton’s political career ― even though, up until now, Chelsea Clinton has essentially been nothing more than a lodestar for other people’s money to find their way into Clinton bank accounts. (I read here that she was paid $600,000 to do journalism? Holy cats, how long did it take Jimmy Breslin to make $600,000?) Anyway, she’s been tweeting lately ― tweets that feel a little too clever, but not enough to be thought of as “edgy” ― the sort of social media output that makes you want to look for hidden wires. Hillary Clinton got a lot of stick ― unfairly so ― for lacking authenticity, but her daughter’s recent re-emergence feels like a ghost in the shell being willed into existence by a team of P.R. firms. We don’t suspect we have to fear a run in 2020 from Chelsea. But let’s please add every year in the future, ever, to that safe space.
Terry McAuliffe: The biggest beneficiary of the Clinton family to not have actual Clinton family DNA (probably, anyway!), McAuliffe revived his political career by winning the 2013 gubernatorial election in Virginia. It was close. Too close, considering he was running against a throwback Christian conservative ideologue in the form of Ken Cuccinelli. During the 2016 campaign, McAuliffe distinguished himself by telling reporters at the Democratic National Convention that Hillary Clinton was definitely going to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal after the election. The TPP, if you recall, was the thing convention-goers booed and jeered more lustily than Donald Trump. McAuliffe and his spin-team later tried to walk this back, saying that it was just McAuliffe who supported the TPP, which ― is still not good? Anyway, he is basically kooky, has a lot of funny-money connections, and suffers from the fact that Virginia has a one-term term limit for governor, leaving him with an itch that has to be scratched, probably with a huge pile of donor money that could be put to any number of more productive purposes.
Andrew Cuomo: The Clintons and Cuomos have never been particularly warm to each other, but the two political dynasties, eternally orbiting one another, have managed to seamlessly apply the transactional-slash-triangulating political style they share in common to their interpersonal relationships. Now, as rumors mount that Cuomo is considering a White House bid, he’s welcoming former Clinton campaign staff into his fold, where they’ll likely discover similarities to their natural habitat. Liberals have, in recent months, thrilled to Cuomo’s stance on fracking and his defense of immigrants, but they’re setting themselves up for huge disappointments. Cuomo, who is astonishingly petty and mean-minded, has done more to dampen the fortunes of New York’s Democratic Party than New York Republicans have. And he’s corrupt as all get-out to boot ― his most notable accomplishment as governor was to shut down the Moreland Commission anti-corruption inquiry as soon as the probe starting sniffing around targets with ties to the governor ― and getting away with it.
That, right there, is a murderer’s row of the exact wrong candidates for the Democratic Party, who’d be better advised to begin the hard work of rebuilding their party’s foundations and restoring a deep bench of new policymakers with fresh ideas. This is not the moment to try to lock arms with a gaggle of dilettante 1-percenters, promising to do what Trump pulled off. And it’s certainly not the time to try to revive the fortunes of their political cousins ― the broken remnants of the Clinton machine.
Drown these candidacies in the bathtub, right now.
Ryan Grim contributed.
~~~~~
Jason Linkins edits “Eat The Press” for The Huffington Post and co-hosts the HuffPost Politics podcast “So, That Happened.” Subscribe here, and listen to the latest episode below.  
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
from DIYS http://ift.tt/2mTj4As
0 notes
stormdoors78476 · 8 years ago
Text
Hey, Here Are Some People Who Really, Really Should Not Run For President
March 2017 is probably far too early to start considering the next presidential election, and who the Democrats might send into the breach to take on Donald Trump (assuming he runs for re-election, of course). That said, there’s already an awful lot of rumor and sigh in the news transom about people having sudden-onset political stirrings, including those setting their sights on a 2020 presidential run.
Some of them are the last vestiges of the Clinton network, still high on that old Third Way supply, banking on the belief that the country isn’t yet done with late-1990s nostalgia. But a new group of would-be candidates is on the rise ― extravagantly wealthy wannabes stirred both by the Clinton-era Democratic Party embrace of meritocratic elites and the success of Trump’s outsider run. And if they all have something in common, it’s that they are all the worst possible people for the Democrats to run for office, if you consider the lessons of the 2016 election.
What were those lessons? Well, for one thing, 2016 was the year that the Democratic Party’s obsessions with the professional class finally caught up with it. Amid roaring calls for solutions to widely felt economic inequities, Hillary Clinton ran a campaign largely based on social niceties and boardroom diversification, with some incremental crumbs thrown the way of middle- and working-class strivers.
None of it added up to a compelling enough case against the GOP’s con-man class-traitor to win the election. (And tellingly, some taken-for-granted Democratic strongholds fell to Trump at the exact moment Democrats needed them most.) But if there’s one thing both political parties share, it’s that they are slow to learn their lessons. The fear that the Democrats might stay the course, despite Clinton’s failings, suffused the atmosphere in the recent Democratic National Committee election ― and those who wanted a decisive change are still not sure they’re getting one with the election of former Obama Labor Secretary Tom Perez. That some of the Clinton family’s most dedicated hangers-on feel like they are the person to run for office in the Trump era likely won’t soothe their ravaged souls, either.
And then there are the unfortunate side effects of Trump’s win itself, which has apparently touched off a whole new round of thinking as to whether it would be a good idea to examine this moment in history ― in which a brash billionaire-celebrity outsider has ascended to the highest political office in the world ― and consider whether the time is right to have more brash billionaire-celebrity outsiders try to run for president.
That every single day of the Trump presidency has been a scintillating demonstration of the Peter Principle seems to not deter anybody. Instead, the event of a complete and utter billionaire buffoon with no political experience has suggested to a slew of other buffoons that, hey, why not me?
A century or two of yawning inequality has left us with no shortage of such buffoons. Hundreds of these folks have ascended to the dizzying heights of our American oligarchy ― or were born there ― and now gaze downward, gripped with the firm conviction that they should run all that they see below. “Stay in your lane,” once the byword of America’s true and most successful innovators, is advice too easily chucked aside by today’s captains of industry. And so, “meritocracy” has become something of a dirty word.
Nowadays, those who have found success in one area are just as likely not to think that their success is translatable to other endeavors. When this turns out not to be the case, comical hijinks ensue. Perhaps the apotheosis of this rich-people folly came when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg thought it would be a good idea to appoint his friend, Hearst executive Cathleen Black, to the position of New York City schools chancellor ― despite the fact that her relevant experience could best be summed up as “not any.”
It was a huge disaster, but did anyone learn a damn thing from this experience? (Hmmm, let me check: Oh, yeah, Betsy DeVos is the U.S. secretary of education. So, no, nobody did.)
Still it’s one thing for Republicans to consider running the play ― they’ve obviously managed to make it work, at least in the narrow electoral sense. And their billionaire was no obscure figure. Entering the election with 100-percent name identification, and a years-long run in American living rooms as a fictional, all-knowing business leader, gave Trump legs up that your random billionaire lacks.
Replicating either side of the last presidential election is a losing move for Democrats. But it’s a very tempting one: It’s a notion that allows the easy-breezy fantasy that a massive party overhaul isn’t necessary, and that all of their problems can be ameliorated by either billionaires with quick fixes and cash on-hand, or Clinton 2016-redux candidates with better data and marketing.
With that in mind, here are a bunch of people whose political ambitions should be extinguished with all deliberate haste.
Bob Iger: Who, pray tell, is Bob Iger? Well, for a while, he was a member of Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum, a collection of CEO heavyweights who were going to help Trump #MAGA, for which Iger was well suited as the chief executive of Walt Disney. SInce then, it’s been reported that he is mulling making a run for the White House in 2020. Hmmm, maybe he hasn’t thought through this whole politics thing? Apparently not, considering that his inspiration to maybe run for president stems from the fact that he says “a lot of people ― a lot ― have urged me to seek political office.” I mean, maybe set your sights a little lower, first time out?
J.B. Pritzker: Having endeavored mightily to paint the past two Republican presidential nominees as out-of-touch wealthy elites ― and having failed to distinguish their own last presidential nominee as something different ― are Democrats stupid enough to make an about-face and run their own billionaire?No, J.B. Pritzker wouldn’t make it out of Iowa without a negative vote total. But even though he’s recently been sniffing around the possibility of running in the Illinois gubernatorial election, that hasn’t stopped him from floating to friends that he’s considering making a run for the White House as well ― or so we’re told by one recipient of such a flatulent flotation. Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt Hotel fortune, had designs on being commerce secretary under Hillary Clinton, just as his sister Penny Pritzker was under Obama. Just stop.
Sheryl Sandberg: According to some election-year rumors, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg was in the running to serve as Hillary Clinton’s treasury secretary. Since then, she’s been rumored to be considering a White House run, amid occasional denials. At the same time, she has recently been more open to Trump’s overtures. She was one of those Silicon Valley leaders who met with Trump prior to the inauguration. As Slate’s Helaine Owen notes, Sandberg made no public mention of the Women’s March that took place afterwards, a curious move for the “Lean In” maven ― at least until you consider the fact that “Lean In” is a disingenuous brand-washing scheme, and that Sandberg is especially unwilling to criticize her C-suite peers for crimes against women in the workforce.
Howard Schultz: The Starbucks CEO has said “never say never” to a presidential run. Indeed, Schultz would be the fever-dream candidate of the No Labels set: his political “brand,” insofar that he has one, is essentially based around his core belief that everyone in politics should be a lot nicer to each other. This worldview most famously manifested itself in the short-lived March 2015 “Race Together” campaign, in which Schultz ― after having mostly eliminated manual espresso machines in Starbucks stores ― tasked baristas with bridging America’s racial divide. If you want a president who believes that all of America’s problems can be solved by constantly throwing corporate culture at them, he’s your guy.
Mark Zuckerberg: Hey, let’s see: Do we really want the founder and CEO of Facebook ― a business that depends on learning as much about your private life as possible, more and more every single day, always probing and collecting, never ceasing in its sleepless drive to know everything about you, better than you could possibly know yourself, until the very idea of “privacy” becomes an obsolete concept and individual autonomy is subordinated to a set of bloodless algorithms and advertisers are straight-up living inside your dreams ― to be our president? I dunno, man. As Big Brother might say, that sounds doubleplusungood!
Chelsea Clinton: Anyone else notice how after the election, Chelsea Clinton has been slowly creeping into our lives? There’s been this gradual ramping up of Total Chelsea Clinton Awareness, and along with it, the gradual ramping up of yet another Clinton’s political career ― even though, up until now, Chelsea Clinton has essentially been nothing more than a lodestar for other people’s money to find their way into Clinton bank accounts. (I read here that she was paid $600,000 to do journalism? Holy cats, how long did it take Jimmy Breslin to make $600,000?) Anyway, she’s been tweeting lately ― tweets that feel a little too clever, but not enough to be thought of as “edgy” ― the sort of social media output that makes you want to look for hidden wires. Hillary Clinton got a lot of stick ― unfairly so ― for lacking authenticity, but her daughter’s recent re-emergence feels like a ghost in the shell being willed into existence by a team of P.R. firms. We don’t suspect we have to fear a run in 2020 from Chelsea. But let’s please add every year in the future, ever, to that safe space.
Terry McAuliffe: The biggest beneficiary of the Clinton family to not have actual Clinton family DNA (probably, anyway!), McAuliffe revived his political career by winning the 2013 gubernatorial election in Virginia. It was close. Too close, considering he was running against a throwback Christian conservative ideologue in the form of Ken Cuccinelli. During the 2016 campaign, McAuliffe distinguished himself by telling reporters at the Democratic National Convention that Hillary Clinton was definitely going to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal after the election. The TPP, if you recall, was the thing convention-goers booed and jeered more lustily than Donald Trump. McAuliffe and his spin-team later tried to walk this back, saying that it was just McAuliffe who supported the TPP, which ― is still not good? Anyway, he is basically kooky, has a lot of funny-money connections, and suffers from the fact that Virginia has a one-term term limit for governor, leaving him with an itch that has to be scratched, probably with a huge pile of donor money that could be put to any number of more productive purposes.
Andrew Cuomo: The Clintons and Cuomos have never been particularly warm to each other, but the two political dynasties, eternally orbiting one another, have managed to seamlessly apply the transactional-slash-triangulating political style they share in common to their interpersonal relationships. Now, as rumors mount that Cuomo is considering a White House bid, he’s welcoming former Clinton campaign staff into his fold, where they’ll likely discover similarities to their natural habitat. Liberals have, in recent months, thrilled to Cuomo’s stance on fracking and his defense of immigrants, but they’re setting themselves up for huge disappointments. Cuomo, who is astonishingly petty and mean-minded, has done more to dampen the fortunes of New York’s Democratic Party than New York Republicans have. And he’s corrupt as all get-out to boot ― his most notable accomplishment as governor was to shut down the Moreland Commission anti-corruption inquiry as soon as the probe starting sniffing around targets with ties to the governor ― and getting away with it.
That, right there, is a murderer’s row of the exact wrong candidates for the Democratic Party, who’d be better advised to begin the hard work of rebuilding their party’s foundations and restoring a deep bench of new policymakers with fresh ideas. This is not the moment to try to lock arms with a gaggle of dilettante 1-percenters, promising to do what Trump pulled off. And it’s certainly not the time to try to revive the fortunes of their political cousins ― the broken remnants of the Clinton machine.
Drown these candidacies in the bathtub, right now.
Ryan Grim contributed.
~~~~~
Jason Linkins edits “Eat The Press” for The Huffington Post and co-hosts the HuffPost Politics podcast “So, That Happened.” Subscribe here, and listen to the latest episode below.  
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
from DIYS http://ift.tt/2mTj4As
0 notes
porchenclose10019 · 8 years ago
Text
Hey, Here Are Some People Who Really, Really Should Not Run For President
March 2017 is probably far too early to start considering the next presidential election, and who the Democrats might send into the breach to take on Donald Trump (assuming he runs for re-election, of course). That said, there’s already an awful lot of rumor and sigh in the news transom about people having sudden-onset political stirrings, including those setting their sights on a 2020 presidential run.
Some of them are the last vestiges of the Clinton network, still high on that old Third Way supply, banking on the belief that the country isn’t yet done with late-1990s nostalgia. But a new group of would-be candidates is on the rise ― extravagantly wealthy wannabes stirred both by the Clinton-era Democratic Party embrace of meritocratic elites and the success of Trump’s outsider run. And if they all have something in common, it’s that they are all the worst possible people for the Democrats to run for office, if you consider the lessons of the 2016 election.
What were those lessons? Well, for one thing, 2016 was the year that the Democratic Party’s obsessions with the professional class finally caught up with it. Amid roaring calls for solutions to widely felt economic inequities, Hillary Clinton ran a campaign largely based on social niceties and boardroom diversification, with some incremental crumbs thrown the way of middle- and working-class strivers.
None of it added up to a compelling enough case against the GOP’s con-man class-traitor to win the election. (And tellingly, some taken-for-granted Democratic strongholds fell to Trump at the exact moment Democrats needed them most.) But if there’s one thing both political parties share, it’s that they are slow to learn their lessons. The fear that the Democrats might stay the course, despite Clinton’s failings, suffused the atmosphere in the recent Democratic National Committee election ― and those who wanted a decisive change are still not sure they’re getting one with the election of former Obama Labor Secretary Tom Perez. That some of the Clinton family’s most dedicated hangers-on feel like they are the person to run for office in the Trump era likely won’t soothe their ravaged souls, either.
And then there are the unfortunate side effects of Trump’s win itself, which has apparently touched off a whole new round of thinking as to whether it would be a good idea to examine this moment in history ― in which a brash billionaire-celebrity outsider has ascended to the highest political office in the world ― and consider whether the time is right to have more brash billionaire-celebrity outsiders try to run for president.
That every single day of the Trump presidency has been a scintillating demonstration of the Peter Principle seems to not deter anybody. Instead, the event of a complete and utter billionaire buffoon with no political experience has suggested to a slew of other buffoons that, hey, why not me?
A century or two of yawning inequality has left us with no shortage of such buffoons. Hundreds of these folks have ascended to the dizzying heights of our American oligarchy ― or were born there ― and now gaze downward, gripped with the firm conviction that they should run all that they see below. “Stay in your lane,” once the byword of America’s true and most successful innovators, is advice too easily chucked aside by today’s captains of industry. And so, “meritocracy” has become something of a dirty word.
Nowadays, those who have found success in one area are just as likely not to think that their success is translatable to other endeavors. When this turns out not to be the case, comical hijinks ensue. Perhaps the apotheosis of this rich-people folly came when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg thought it would be a good idea to appoint his friend, Hearst executive Cathleen Black, to the position of New York City schools chancellor ― despite the fact that her relevant experience could best be summed up as “not any.”
It was a huge disaster, but did anyone learn a damn thing from this experience? (Hmmm, let me check: Oh, yeah, Betsy DeVos is the U.S. secretary of education. So, no, nobody did.)
Still it’s one thing for Republicans to consider running the play ― they’ve obviously managed to make it work, at least in the narrow electoral sense. And their billionaire was no obscure figure. Entering the election with 100-percent name identification, and a years-long run in American living rooms as a fictional, all-knowing business leader, gave Trump legs up that your random billionaire lacks.
Replicating either side of the last presidential election is a losing move for Democrats. But it’s a very tempting one: It’s a notion that allows the easy-breezy fantasy that a massive party overhaul isn’t necessary, and that all of their problems can be ameliorated by either billionaires with quick fixes and cash on-hand, or Clinton 2016-redux candidates with better data and marketing.
With that in mind, here are a bunch of people whose political ambitions should be extinguished with all deliberate haste.
Bob Iger: Who, pray tell, is Bob Iger? Well, for a while, he was a member of Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum, a collection of CEO heavyweights who were going to help Trump #MAGA, for which Iger was well suited as the chief executive of Walt Disney. SInce then, it’s been reported that he is mulling making a run for the White House in 2020. Hmmm, maybe he hasn’t thought through this whole politics thing? Apparently not, considering that his inspiration to maybe run for president stems from the fact that he says “a lot of people ― a lot ― have urged me to seek political office.” I mean, maybe set your sights a little lower, first time out?
J.B. Pritzker: Having endeavored mightily to paint the past two Republican presidential nominees as out-of-touch wealthy elites ― and having failed to distinguish their own last presidential nominee as something different ― are Democrats stupid enough to make an about-face and run their own billionaire?No, J.B. Pritzker wouldn’t make it out of Iowa without a negative vote total. But even though he’s recently been sniffing around the possibility of running in the Illinois gubernatorial election, that hasn’t stopped him from floating to friends that he’s considering making a run for the White House as well ― or so we’re told by one recipient of such a flatulent flotation. Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt Hotel fortune, had designs on being commerce secretary under Hillary Clinton, just as his sister Penny Pritzker was under Obama. Just stop.
Sheryl Sandberg: According to some election-year rumors, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg was in the running to serve as Hillary Clinton’s treasury secretary. Since then, she’s been rumored to be considering a White House run, amid occasional denials. At the same time, she has recently been more open to Trump’s overtures. She was one of those Silicon Valley leaders who met with Trump prior to the inauguration. As Slate’s Helaine Owen notes, Sandberg made no public mention of the Women’s March that took place afterwards, a curious move for the “Lean In” maven ― at least until you consider the fact that “Lean In” is a disingenuous brand-washing scheme, and that Sandberg is especially unwilling to criticize her C-suite peers for crimes against women in the workforce.
Howard Schultz: The Starbucks CEO has said “never say never” to a presidential run. Indeed, Schultz would be the fever-dream candidate of the No Labels set: his political “brand,” insofar that he has one, is essentially based around his core belief that everyone in politics should be a lot nicer to each other. This worldview most famously manifested itself in the short-lived March 2015 “Race Together” campaign, in which Schultz ― after having mostly eliminated manual espresso machines in Starbucks stores ― tasked baristas with bridging America’s racial divide. If you want a president who believes that all of America’s problems can be solved by constantly throwing corporate culture at them, he’s your guy.
Mark Zuckerberg: Hey, let’s see: Do we really want the founder and CEO of Facebook ― a business that depends on learning as much about your private life as possible, more and more every single day, always probing and collecting, never ceasing in its sleepless drive to know everything about you, better than you could possibly know yourself, until the very idea of “privacy” becomes an obsolete concept and individual autonomy is subordinated to a set of bloodless algorithms and advertisers are straight-up living inside your dreams ― to be our president? I dunno, man. As Big Brother might say, that sounds doubleplusungood!
Chelsea Clinton: Anyone else notice how after the election, Chelsea Clinton has been slowly creeping into our lives? There’s been this gradual ramping up of Total Chelsea Clinton Awareness, and along with it, the gradual ramping up of yet another Clinton’s political career ― even though, up until now, Chelsea Clinton has essentially been nothing more than a lodestar for other people’s money to find their way into Clinton bank accounts. (I read here that she was paid $600,000 to do journalism? Holy cats, how long did it take Jimmy Breslin to make $600,000?) Anyway, she’s been tweeting lately ― tweets that feel a little too clever, but not enough to be thought of as “edgy” ― the sort of social media output that makes you want to look for hidden wires. Hillary Clinton got a lot of stick ― unfairly so ― for lacking authenticity, but her daughter’s recent re-emergence feels like a ghost in the shell being willed into existence by a team of P.R. firms. We don’t suspect we have to fear a run in 2020 from Chelsea. But let’s please add every year in the future, ever, to that safe space.
Terry McAuliffe: The biggest beneficiary of the Clinton family to not have actual Clinton family DNA (probably, anyway!), McAuliffe revived his political career by winning the 2013 gubernatorial election in Virginia. It was close. Too close, considering he was running against a throwback Christian conservative ideologue in the form of Ken Cuccinelli. During the 2016 campaign, McAuliffe distinguished himself by telling reporters at the Democratic National Convention that Hillary Clinton was definitely going to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal after the election. The TPP, if you recall, was the thing convention-goers booed and jeered more lustily than Donald Trump. McAuliffe and his spin-team later tried to walk this back, saying that it was just McAuliffe who supported the TPP, which ― is still not good? Anyway, he is basically kooky, has a lot of funny-money connections, and suffers from the fact that Virginia has a one-term term limit for governor, leaving him with an itch that has to be scratched, probably with a huge pile of donor money that could be put to any number of more productive purposes.
Andrew Cuomo: The Clintons and Cuomos have never been particularly warm to each other, but the two political dynasties, eternally orbiting one another, have managed to seamlessly apply the transactional-slash-triangulating political style they share in common to their interpersonal relationships. Now, as rumors mount that Cuomo is considering a White House bid, he’s welcoming former Clinton campaign staff into his fold, where they’ll likely discover similarities to their natural habitat. Liberals have, in recent months, thrilled to Cuomo’s stance on fracking and his defense of immigrants, but they’re setting themselves up for huge disappointments. Cuomo, who is astonishingly petty and mean-minded, has done more to dampen the fortunes of New York’s Democratic Party than New York Republicans have. And he’s corrupt as all get-out to boot ― his most notable accomplishment as governor was to shut down the Moreland Commission anti-corruption inquiry as soon as the probe starting sniffing around targets with ties to the governor ― and getting away with it.
That, right there, is a murderer’s row of the exact wrong candidates for the Democratic Party, who’d be better advised to begin the hard work of rebuilding their party’s foundations and restoring a deep bench of new policymakers with fresh ideas. This is not the moment to try to lock arms with a gaggle of dilettante 1-percenters, promising to do what Trump pulled off. And it’s certainly not the time to try to revive the fortunes of their political cousins ― the broken remnants of the Clinton machine.
Drown these candidacies in the bathtub, right now.
Ryan Grim contributed.
~~~~~
Jason Linkins edits “Eat The Press” for The Huffington Post and co-hosts the HuffPost Politics podcast “So, That Happened.” Subscribe here, and listen to the latest episode below.  
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
from DIYS http://ift.tt/2mTj4As
0 notes
chpatdoorsl3z0a1 · 8 years ago
Text
Hey, Here Are Some People Who Really, Really Should Not Run For President
March 2017 is probably far too early to start considering the next presidential election, and who the Democrats might send into the breach to take on Donald Trump (assuming he runs for re-election, of course). That said, there’s already an awful lot of rumor and sigh in the news transom about people having sudden-onset political stirrings, including those setting their sights on a 2020 presidential run.
Some of them are the last vestiges of the Clinton network, still high on that old Third Way supply, banking on the belief that the country isn’t yet done with late-1990s nostalgia. But a new group of would-be candidates is on the rise ― extravagantly wealthy wannabes stirred both by the Clinton-era Democratic Party embrace of meritocratic elites and the success of Trump’s outsider run. And if they all have something in common, it’s that they are all the worst possible people for the Democrats to run for office, if you consider the lessons of the 2016 election.
What were those lessons? Well, for one thing, 2016 was the year that the Democratic Party’s obsessions with the professional class finally caught up with it. Amid roaring calls for solutions to widely felt economic inequities, Hillary Clinton ran a campaign largely based on social niceties and boardroom diversification, with some incremental crumbs thrown the way of middle- and working-class strivers.
None of it added up to a compelling enough case against the GOP’s con-man class-traitor to win the election. (And tellingly, some taken-for-granted Democratic strongholds fell to Trump at the exact moment Democrats needed them most.) But if there’s one thing both political parties share, it’s that they are slow to learn their lessons. The fear that the Democrats might stay the course, despite Clinton’s failings, suffused the atmosphere in the recent Democratic National Committee election ― and those who wanted a decisive change are still not sure they’re getting one with the election of former Obama Labor Secretary Tom Perez. That some of the Clinton family’s most dedicated hangers-on feel like they are the person to run for office in the Trump era likely won’t soothe their ravaged souls, either.
And then there are the unfortunate side effects of Trump’s win itself, which has apparently touched off a whole new round of thinking as to whether it would be a good idea to examine this moment in history ― in which a brash billionaire-celebrity outsider has ascended to the highest political office in the world ― and consider whether the time is right to have more brash billionaire-celebrity outsiders try to run for president.
That every single day of the Trump presidency has been a scintillating demonstration of the Peter Principle seems to not deter anybody. Instead, the event of a complete and utter billionaire buffoon with no political experience has suggested to a slew of other buffoons that, hey, why not me?
A century or two of yawning inequality has left us with no shortage of such buffoons. Hundreds of these folks have ascended to the dizzying heights of our American oligarchy ― or were born there ― and now gaze downward, gripped with the firm conviction that they should run all that they see below. “Stay in your lane,” once the byword of America’s true and most successful innovators, is advice too easily chucked aside by today’s captains of industry. And so, “meritocracy” has become something of a dirty word.
Nowadays, those who have found success in one area are just as likely not to think that their success is translatable to other endeavors. When this turns out not to be the case, comical hijinks ensue. Perhaps the apotheosis of this rich-people folly came when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg thought it would be a good idea to appoint his friend, Hearst executive Cathleen Black, to the position of New York City schools chancellor ― despite the fact that her relevant experience could best be summed up as “not any.”
It was a huge disaster, but did anyone learn a damn thing from this experience? (Hmmm, let me check: Oh, yeah, Betsy DeVos is the U.S. secretary of education. So, no, nobody did.)
Still it’s one thing for Republicans to consider running the play ― they’ve obviously managed to make it work, at least in the narrow electoral sense. And their billionaire was no obscure figure. Entering the election with 100-percent name identification, and a years-long run in American living rooms as a fictional, all-knowing business leader, gave Trump legs up that your random billionaire lacks.
Replicating either side of the last presidential election is a losing move for Democrats. But it’s a very tempting one: It’s a notion that allows the easy-breezy fantasy that a massive party overhaul isn’t necessary, and that all of their problems can be ameliorated by either billionaires with quick fixes and cash on-hand, or Clinton 2016-redux candidates with better data and marketing.
With that in mind, here are a bunch of people whose political ambitions should be extinguished with all deliberate haste.
Bob Iger: Who, pray tell, is Bob Iger? Well, for a while, he was a member of Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum, a collection of CEO heavyweights who were going to help Trump #MAGA, for which Iger was well suited as the chief executive of Walt Disney. SInce then, it’s been reported that he is mulling making a run for the White House in 2020. Hmmm, maybe he hasn’t thought through this whole politics thing? Apparently not, considering that his inspiration to maybe run for president stems from the fact that he says “a lot of people ― a lot ― have urged me to seek political office.” I mean, maybe set your sights a little lower, first time out?
J.B. Pritzker: Having endeavored mightily to paint the past two Republican presidential nominees as out-of-touch wealthy elites ― and having failed to distinguish their own last presidential nominee as something different ― are Democrats stupid enough to make an about-face and run their own billionaire?No, J.B. Pritzker wouldn’t make it out of Iowa without a negative vote total. But even though he’s recently been sniffing around the possibility of running in the Illinois gubernatorial election, that hasn’t stopped him from floating to friends that he’s considering making a run for the White House as well ― or so we’re told by one recipient of such a flatulent flotation. Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt Hotel fortune, had designs on being commerce secretary under Hillary Clinton, just as his sister Penny Pritzker was under Obama. Just stop.
Sheryl Sandberg: According to some election-year rumors, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg was in the running to serve as Hillary Clinton’s treasury secretary. Since then, she’s been rumored to be considering a White House run, amid occasional denials. At the same time, she has recently been more open to Trump’s overtures. She was one of those Silicon Valley leaders who met with Trump prior to the inauguration. As Slate’s Helaine Owen notes, Sandberg made no public mention of the Women’s March that took place afterwards, a curious move for the “Lean In” maven ― at least until you consider the fact that “Lean In” is a disingenuous brand-washing scheme, and that Sandberg is especially unwilling to criticize her C-suite peers for crimes against women in the workforce.
Howard Schultz: The Starbucks CEO has said “never say never” to a presidential run. Indeed, Schultz would be the fever-dream candidate of the No Labels set: his political “brand,” insofar that he has one, is essentially based around his core belief that everyone in politics should be a lot nicer to each other. This worldview most famously manifested itself in the short-lived March 2015 “Race Together” campaign, in which Schultz ― after having mostly eliminated manual espresso machines in Starbucks stores ― tasked baristas with bridging America’s racial divide. If you want a president who believes that all of America’s problems can be solved by constantly throwing corporate culture at them, he’s your guy.
Mark Zuckerberg: Hey, let’s see: Do we really want the founder and CEO of Facebook ― a business that depends on learning as much about your private life as possible, more and more every single day, always probing and collecting, never ceasing in its sleepless drive to know everything about you, better than you could possibly know yourself, until the very idea of “privacy” becomes an obsolete concept and individual autonomy is subordinated to a set of bloodless algorithms and advertisers are straight-up living inside your dreams ― to be our president? I dunno, man. As Big Brother might say, that sounds doubleplusungood!
Chelsea Clinton: Anyone else notice how after the election, Chelsea Clinton has been slowly creeping into our lives? There’s been this gradual ramping up of Total Chelsea Clinton Awareness, and along with it, the gradual ramping up of yet another Clinton’s political career ― even though, up until now, Chelsea Clinton has essentially been nothing more than a lodestar for other people’s money to find their way into Clinton bank accounts. (I read here that she was paid $600,000 to do journalism? Holy cats, how long did it take Jimmy Breslin to make $600,000?) Anyway, she’s been tweeting lately ― tweets that feel a little too clever, but not enough to be thought of as “edgy” ― the sort of social media output that makes you want to look for hidden wires. Hillary Clinton got a lot of stick ― unfairly so ― for lacking authenticity, but her daughter’s recent re-emergence feels like a ghost in the shell being willed into existence by a team of P.R. firms. We don’t suspect we have to fear a run in 2020 from Chelsea. But let’s please add every year in the future, ever, to that safe space.
Terry McAuliffe: The biggest beneficiary of the Clinton family to not have actual Clinton family DNA (probably, anyway!), McAuliffe revived his political career by winning the 2013 gubernatorial election in Virginia. It was close. Too close, considering he was running against a throwback Christian conservative ideologue in the form of Ken Cuccinelli. During the 2016 campaign, McAuliffe distinguished himself by telling reporters at the Democratic National Convention that Hillary Clinton was definitely going to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal after the election. The TPP, if you recall, was the thing convention-goers booed and jeered more lustily than Donald Trump. McAuliffe and his spin-team later tried to walk this back, saying that it was just McAuliffe who supported the TPP, which ― is still not good? Anyway, he is basically kooky, has a lot of funny-money connections, and suffers from the fact that Virginia has a one-term term limit for governor, leaving him with an itch that has to be scratched, probably with a huge pile of donor money that could be put to any number of more productive purposes.
Andrew Cuomo: The Clintons and Cuomos have never been particularly warm to each other, but the two political dynasties, eternally orbiting one another, have managed to seamlessly apply the transactional-slash-triangulating political style they share in common to their interpersonal relationships. Now, as rumors mount that Cuomo is considering a White House bid, he’s welcoming former Clinton campaign staff into his fold, where they’ll likely discover similarities to their natural habitat. Liberals have, in recent months, thrilled to Cuomo’s stance on fracking and his defense of immigrants, but they’re setting themselves up for huge disappointments. Cuomo, who is astonishingly petty and mean-minded, has done more to dampen the fortunes of New York’s Democratic Party than New York Republicans have. And he’s corrupt as all get-out to boot ― his most notable accomplishment as governor was to shut down the Moreland Commission anti-corruption inquiry as soon as the probe starting sniffing around targets with ties to the governor ― and getting away with it.
That, right there, is a murderer’s row of the exact wrong candidates for the Democratic Party, who’d be better advised to begin the hard work of rebuilding their party’s foundations and restoring a deep bench of new policymakers with fresh ideas. This is not the moment to try to lock arms with a gaggle of dilettante 1-percenters, promising to do what Trump pulled off. And it’s certainly not the time to try to revive the fortunes of their political cousins ― the broken remnants of the Clinton machine.
Drown these candidacies in the bathtub, right now.
Ryan Grim contributed.
~~~~~
Jason Linkins edits “Eat The Press” for The Huffington Post and co-hosts the HuffPost Politics podcast “So, That Happened.” Subscribe here, and listen to the latest episode below.  
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
from DIYS http://ift.tt/2mTj4As
0 notes
repwinpril9y0a1 · 8 years ago
Text
Hey, Here Are Some People Who Really, Really Should Not Run For President
March 2017 is probably far too early to start considering the next presidential election, and who the Democrats might send into the breach to take on Donald Trump (assuming he runs for re-election, of course). That said, there’s already an awful lot of rumor and sigh in the news transom about people having sudden-onset political stirrings, including those setting their sights on a 2020 presidential run.
Some of them are the last vestiges of the Clinton network, still high on that old Third Way supply, banking on the belief that the country isn’t yet done with late-1990s nostalgia. But a new group of would-be candidates is on the rise ― extravagantly wealthy wannabes stirred both by the Clinton-era Democratic Party embrace of meritocratic elites and the success of Trump’s outsider run. And if they all have something in common, it’s that they are all the worst possible people for the Democrats to run for office, if you consider the lessons of the 2016 election.
What were those lessons? Well, for one thing, 2016 was the year that the Democratic Party’s obsessions with the professional class finally caught up with it. Amid roaring calls for solutions to widely felt economic inequities, Hillary Clinton ran a campaign largely based on social niceties and boardroom diversification, with some incremental crumbs thrown the way of middle- and working-class strivers.
None of it added up to a compelling enough case against the GOP’s con-man class-traitor to win the election. (And tellingly, some taken-for-granted Democratic strongholds fell to Trump at the exact moment Democrats needed them most.) But if there’s one thing both political parties share, it’s that they are slow to learn their lessons. The fear that the Democrats might stay the course, despite Clinton’s failings, suffused the atmosphere in the recent Democratic National Committee election ― and those who wanted a decisive change are still not sure they’re getting one with the election of former Obama Labor Secretary Tom Perez. That some of the Clinton family’s most dedicated hangers-on feel like they are the person to run for office in the Trump era likely won’t soothe their ravaged souls, either.
And then there are the unfortunate side effects of Trump’s win itself, which has apparently touched off a whole new round of thinking as to whether it would be a good idea to examine this moment in history ― in which a brash billionaire-celebrity outsider has ascended to the highest political office in the world ― and consider whether the time is right to have more brash billionaire-celebrity outsiders try to run for president.
That every single day of the Trump presidency has been a scintillating demonstration of the Peter Principle seems to not deter anybody. Instead, the event of a complete and utter billionaire buffoon with no political experience has suggested to a slew of other buffoons that, hey, why not me?
A century or two of yawning inequality has left us with no shortage of such buffoons. Hundreds of these folks have ascended to the dizzying heights of our American oligarchy ― or were born there ― and now gaze downward, gripped with the firm conviction that they should run all that they see below. “Stay in your lane,” once the byword of America’s true and most successful innovators, is advice too easily chucked aside by today’s captains of industry. And so, “meritocracy” has become something of a dirty word.
Nowadays, those who have found success in one area are just as likely not to think that their success is translatable to other endeavors. When this turns out not to be the case, comical hijinks ensue. Perhaps the apotheosis of this rich-people folly came when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg thought it would be a good idea to appoint his friend, Hearst executive Cathleen Black, to the position of New York City schools chancellor ― despite the fact that her relevant experience could best be summed up as “not any.”
It was a huge disaster, but did anyone learn a damn thing from this experience? (Hmmm, let me check: Oh, yeah, Betsy DeVos is the U.S. secretary of education. So, no, nobody did.)
Still it’s one thing for Republicans to consider running the play ― they’ve obviously managed to make it work, at least in the narrow electoral sense. And their billionaire was no obscure figure. Entering the election with 100-percent name identification, and a years-long run in American living rooms as a fictional, all-knowing business leader, gave Trump legs up that your random billionaire lacks.
Replicating either side of the last presidential election is a losing move for Democrats. But it’s a very tempting one: It’s a notion that allows the easy-breezy fantasy that a massive party overhaul isn’t necessary, and that all of their problems can be ameliorated by either billionaires with quick fixes and cash on-hand, or Clinton 2016-redux candidates with better data and marketing.
With that in mind, here are a bunch of people whose political ambitions should be extinguished with all deliberate haste.
Bob Iger: Who, pray tell, is Bob Iger? Well, for a while, he was a member of Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum, a collection of CEO heavyweights who were going to help Trump #MAGA, for which Iger was well suited as the chief executive of Walt Disney. SInce then, it’s been reported that he is mulling making a run for the White House in 2020. Hmmm, maybe he hasn’t thought through this whole politics thing? Apparently not, considering that his inspiration to maybe run for president stems from the fact that he says “a lot of people ― a lot ― have urged me to seek political office.” I mean, maybe set your sights a little lower, first time out?
J.B. Pritzker: Having endeavored mightily to paint the past two Republican presidential nominees as out-of-touch wealthy elites ― and having failed to distinguish their own last presidential nominee as something different ― are Democrats stupid enough to make an about-face and run their own billionaire?No, J.B. Pritzker wouldn’t make it out of Iowa without a negative vote total. But even though he’s recently been sniffing around the possibility of running in the Illinois gubernatorial election, that hasn’t stopped him from floating to friends that he’s considering making a run for the White House as well ― or so we’re told by one recipient of such a flatulent flotation. Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt Hotel fortune, had designs on being commerce secretary under Hillary Clinton, just as his sister Penny Pritzker was under Obama. Just stop.
Sheryl Sandberg: According to some election-year rumors, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg was in the running to serve as Hillary Clinton’s treasury secretary. Since then, she’s been rumored to be considering a White House run, amid occasional denials. At the same time, she has recently been more open to Trump’s overtures. She was one of those Silicon Valley leaders who met with Trump prior to the inauguration. As Slate’s Helaine Owen notes, Sandberg made no public mention of the Women’s March that took place afterwards, a curious move for the “Lean In” maven ― at least until you consider the fact that “Lean In” is a disingenuous brand-washing scheme, and that Sandberg is especially unwilling to criticize her C-suite peers for crimes against women in the workforce.
Howard Schultz: The Starbucks CEO has said “never say never” to a presidential run. Indeed, Schultz would be the fever-dream candidate of the No Labels set: his political “brand,” insofar that he has one, is essentially based around his core belief that everyone in politics should be a lot nicer to each other. This worldview most famously manifested itself in the short-lived March 2015 “Race Together” campaign, in which Schultz ― after having mostly eliminated manual espresso machines in Starbucks stores ― tasked baristas with bridging America’s racial divide. If you want a president who believes that all of America’s problems can be solved by constantly throwing corporate culture at them, he’s your guy.
Mark Zuckerberg: Hey, let’s see: Do we really want the founder and CEO of Facebook ― a business that depends on learning as much about your private life as possible, more and more every single day, always probing and collecting, never ceasing in its sleepless drive to know everything about you, better than you could possibly know yourself, until the very idea of “privacy” becomes an obsolete concept and individual autonomy is subordinated to a set of bloodless algorithms and advertisers are straight-up living inside your dreams ― to be our president? I dunno, man. As Big Brother might say, that sounds doubleplusungood!
Chelsea Clinton: Anyone else notice how after the election, Chelsea Clinton has been slowly creeping into our lives? There’s been this gradual ramping up of Total Chelsea Clinton Awareness, and along with it, the gradual ramping up of yet another Clinton’s political career ― even though, up until now, Chelsea Clinton has essentially been nothing more than a lodestar for other people’s money to find their way into Clinton bank accounts. (I read here that she was paid $600,000 to do journalism? Holy cats, how long did it take Jimmy Breslin to make $600,000?) Anyway, she’s been tweeting lately ― tweets that feel a little too clever, but not enough to be thought of as “edgy” ― the sort of social media output that makes you want to look for hidden wires. Hillary Clinton got a lot of stick ― unfairly so ― for lacking authenticity, but her daughter’s recent re-emergence feels like a ghost in the shell being willed into existence by a team of P.R. firms. We don’t suspect we have to fear a run in 2020 from Chelsea. But let’s please add every year in the future, ever, to that safe space.
Terry McAuliffe: The biggest beneficiary of the Clinton family to not have actual Clinton family DNA (probably, anyway!), McAuliffe revived his political career by winning the 2013 gubernatorial election in Virginia. It was close. Too close, considering he was running against a throwback Christian conservative ideologue in the form of Ken Cuccinelli. During the 2016 campaign, McAuliffe distinguished himself by telling reporters at the Democratic National Convention that Hillary Clinton was definitely going to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal after the election. The TPP, if you recall, was the thing convention-goers booed and jeered more lustily than Donald Trump. McAuliffe and his spin-team later tried to walk this back, saying that it was just McAuliffe who supported the TPP, which ― is still not good? Anyway, he is basically kooky, has a lot of funny-money connections, and suffers from the fact that Virginia has a one-term term limit for governor, leaving him with an itch that has to be scratched, probably with a huge pile of donor money that could be put to any number of more productive purposes.
Andrew Cuomo: The Clintons and Cuomos have never been particularly warm to each other, but the two political dynasties, eternally orbiting one another, have managed to seamlessly apply the transactional-slash-triangulating political style they share in common to their interpersonal relationships. Now, as rumors mount that Cuomo is considering a White House bid, he’s welcoming former Clinton campaign staff into his fold, where they’ll likely discover similarities to their natural habitat. Liberals have, in recent months, thrilled to Cuomo’s stance on fracking and his defense of immigrants, but they’re setting themselves up for huge disappointments. Cuomo, who is astonishingly petty and mean-minded, has done more to dampen the fortunes of New York’s Democratic Party than New York Republicans have. And he’s corrupt as all get-out to boot ― his most notable accomplishment as governor was to shut down the Moreland Commission anti-corruption inquiry as soon as the probe starting sniffing around targets with ties to the governor ― and getting away with it.
That, right there, is a murderer’s row of the exact wrong candidates for the Democratic Party, who’d be better advised to begin the hard work of rebuilding their party’s foundations and restoring a deep bench of new policymakers with fresh ideas. This is not the moment to try to lock arms with a gaggle of dilettante 1-percenters, promising to do what Trump pulled off. And it’s certainly not the time to try to revive the fortunes of their political cousins ― the broken remnants of the Clinton machine.
Drown these candidacies in the bathtub, right now.
Ryan Grim contributed.
~~~~~
Jason Linkins edits “Eat The Press” for The Huffington Post and co-hosts the HuffPost Politics podcast “So, That Happened.” Subscribe here, and listen to the latest episode below.  
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
from DIYS http://ift.tt/2mTj4As
0 notes