Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Kamala Harris as VP candidate

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • zlogdan
    replied
    Originally posted by Doc View Post
    The birther attacks have already started on her. And the misogyny. And Trump’s response
    to any strong woman (nasty). Seriously, get a new playbook. Even the red hat base is probably in need of new material to get whipped into a frenzy.
    I have a conservative friend who was extremely pissed off because I said I really liked her. He completely "Heresiologist"ed .

    Leave a comment:


  • zlogdan
    replied
    Hi

    In regard to your "friend' you said

    One runs a successful business and has a PHD in economics. I think he's much more qualified than Daniel to speak on economic matters and, suffice to say, he really disagrees with Daniel's views. I wish there was a smiley face that could convey the merest iota of the look he once gave me in response to me repeating one of Daniel's claims.
    And later to answer me you claimed:

    I really doubt my economics trained friend supports the PT. While he does not like Bolsonaro, he respects his economy guy, Guedes. Of course I don't know how he'd respond to your latest claims, but he's already mentioned how PT policies did not help when the global economic downturn hit. You, on the other hand, conveniently left out mention of that not so convenient for your argument fact.
    Please have more consistency over what you say. You said, your Ph.D. friend according to you disagreed of me that "PT" was really bad for Brazil, but now, well, you changed the perspective a little. It is extremely typical of you to base your more enlighted opinions in your "more advanced knowledged" you claim to have, "your more qualified friends", "your life as a working-class kid" and I enjoy your several levels of sarcasm and irony addressed to me.

    I remember that you once told me you were more qualified than Alan Moore to analyze the life and the works of Lovecraft. That is quite a bold statement for me. I may be guilty of many sins, but I hardly manifest such an ego.

    Your rebuttal has a premise that I still support Bolsonaro and yet I think I said I don't support him. I also said I made a mistake by trying to defend some of his actions and words especially in regard to gay and women. Let alone this fact, my point has been to explain in a very humble way why I did vote for him. What took me to the extreme of doing it. You, on the other hand, have already convicted me to the limbo typical far-left liberals place people they dislike. Some of them even suggest a "good bullet and a good grave" to them. I think I have mentioned to you Fernando Gabeira, a former liberal senator and journalist, and please read what he says about the whole Bolsonaro event.

    You imply that the fact Bolsonaro has been elected would mean that gays and black people would be harmed. Suffice to say, this danger only exists in the heads of the naive.

    You seem to have a really good issue with that Steve Bannon episode right? It does not matter I have apologized. I am human. I make mistakes. If that is not sufficient to appease your anger I am afraid I cannot cut off a finger of mine.

    I really recommend you to undergo therapy if you are not engaged in them already. I undergo and I admit I have problems. You on the other hand conveniently show immense unresolved issues but I cannot help you resolve them. Your last statement that exposes the fact you are not answering my posts anymore implies your complete lack of the open-mindedness you claim to have

    ps:
    Your quote from the CIA is hilarious: This is how Lula took people out of poverty.
    They changed the definition so that the middle-class now refers to people who make R$ 291,00 e R$ 1.019,00 per month. Fine, poverty does not exist anymore.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doc
    replied
    The birther attacks have already started on her. And the misogyny. And Trump’s response
    to any strong woman (nasty). Seriously, get a new playbook. Even the red hat base is probably in need of new material to get whipped into a frenzy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heresiologist
    replied
    You seem to think you know more Brazilians than the Brazilians I've talked to know. Also, not all of them have left Brazil. Some are, or were, here temporarily. You also seem to think the lot of us support the PT.

    I really doubt my economics trained friend supports the PT. While he does not like Bolsonaro, he respects his economy guy, Guedes. Of course I don't know how he'd respond to your latest claims, but he's already mentioned how PT policies did not help when the global economic downturn hit. You, on the other hand, conveniently left out mention of that not so convenient for your argument fact. Moving on, he's a thoughtful, respectful, person. He thinks before he speaks. You, on the other hand, have shown a willingness to blurt out that a thing is "fake news" and later admit you never bothered to spend the 30 seconds with google it would have taken to show you were wrong.

    Another person really disliked Bolsonaro, but thought Vice President Mourao was an honourable man who'd keep Bolsonaro from doing anything too awful. Also, definitely did not support the PT.

    Yet another had voted conservative in the past, but went with PT because Bolsonaro was worse.

    None of them spoke venomously about their political opponents. None used our talks as opportunities to run down large groups of people. None hated the PT and blamed them for all the troubles. None showed the slightest hint of victim or persecution complex. None of them resembled the negative caricatures you trade in.

    I also know a number of teachers, from different communities, who've been disturbed, even a bit traumatized, by the desperation of parents in Brazil to keep their kids in Canada on student visas. A fear I've been told has only gotten worse since Bolsonaro took office. In most cases the fear was driven by the kid's sexual orientation and/or race.

    You call it bias, maybe it is, but it's learned from past experience engaging with your claims. You've sent me on too many snipe hunts about PT or PC or SJW outrages. I've had to drag sources for your claims out of you, only to find they literally did not support what you claimed.

    And there you are with the "at the end of the day" position of far right politics: it's all a conspiracy. Any source anybody finds on google that challenges your views is part of the conspiracy.

    Thanks for that, I didn't know the CIA (whose World Factbook entry for Brazil has for years said a PT program "lifted tens of millions out of poverty") was allied with the PT. Their tentacles are, indeed, spectacular.

    Now, back to Kamala Harris. I won't speak on this any further.
    Last edited by Heresiologist; 08-14-2020, 02:32 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • zlogdan
    replied
    Now that we came to judge qualifications let me say, I know many successful Brazilians, go figure that a rather illiterate nearly neanderthal guy like me has such fine acquaintances, but like Jack The Ripper and we are going in parts.

    1. Friend number one: he runs a hair Saloom with his wife. He said that initially, Lula had been good for the economy. But, after Lula's wonderful 8 years, he had to fire all his employees and they now work by themselves there but pay a percentage of their profits. He had to sell cars and properties.
    2. Friend number two: he has a degree in electrical engineering by USP ( the same place where this neanderthal guy here has studied ) and master of business in another institute. He was the main project manager of Delphi and was fired and spent 2 years unemployed and survived because he had a small business, which after the beloved government Dilma went bankrupt.
    3. Friend number three: Also a successful owner of a small business that produces audio equipment since 2003 and he has been adamantly critical of the PT administrations.
    4. Friend number four: He was in the automotive business and has a master's degree in production engineering and used to be the planet manager of the industry. He got fired and now runs the Brazilian biggest installation of production of electronic boards and goods.
    5. Friend number five: He is a bank manager of a national bank.

    I could go on of course but maybe you got the point. They all agree that PT administration has been disastrous. I can offer my experience as a neanderthal, or better saying an illiterate software engineer who has been working in the field for around 20 years and admits not to be exceptionally brilliant. Brazil has experienced a great boom in the field in the 90s and early 00s but due to the constant economical programs created by PT the field is extremely damaged.

    many software industries closed doors
    many have decreased business activities

    The average decrease in salaries is about 50%. So, today, a senior C++ programmer is offered around half what he would make back in the early 00s before the PT administration making to the power. The number of companies that closed doors is huge, as we say, lots of business closed but the "aluga-se" franchise has increased its activities.

    I can also tell you my personal experience as a worker, who pay taxes and have two kids that I struggled during PT times even more as before or after and much of the good things we experienced came from the previous governments which are social democrats although extremely corrupt but not as large as PT.

    I did more than I should as well because I think I experienced the PT years and unlike your friend, I did not leave Brazil although I had opportunities to leave. I still have not seen your friend resume, but the only businessmen still supporting PT have been the ones that were part of the scheme ( yes you are going to accuse me of doing a nasty accusation against your dear friend but read next please ) or the ones that live in another country or planet. If you run a research on the internet as suggested by H, you will find many sources debunking me but all of them are allied to PT.

    That said, I still don't understand your huge bias towards me as I said yes "Bolsonaro" is not a good option, not a good president, but PT is a far worse evil. The only people that defend PT are PT supporters who are fanatics who abhor debating and base their arguments in their love. You now constantly use the experience to disregard one's opinions but in regard to PT, they are all facts. It is ok if you want to be left, I see no trouble at all at this but PT is corrupt and I would never stay close to endorsee convicted criminals not even if their claims are to foment a revolution. And you are just like doing that, You sacrifice friendships, you disregard opinions.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heresiologist
    replied
    I know a number of Brazilians.

    One runs a successful business and has a PHD in economics. I think he's much more qualified than Daniel to speak on economic matters and, suffice to say, he really disagrees with Daniel's views. I wish there was a smiley face that could convey the merest iota of the look he once gave me in response to me repeating one of Daniel's claims. The responses to Daniel's views, from the others, only get worse from there.

    Suffice to say, I think I've done more than due diligence on following up on Daniel's claims and my conclusion is 5, maybe 10, minutes on Google will provide you with credible sources presenting more realistic, less rabidly partisan, views.

    And, no, Daniel, you can't smear these people or sources as "left." Excepting that none of them are in, or near, the fascist curious camp, they're all over the map.

    Leave a comment:


  • zlogdan
    replied
    Originally posted by Doc View Post

    I read an article on Bolsonaro the other day. I knew he was scary, but I didn't realize how scary.
    LOL, when I meant N I mean as a variable, not the N evil thing. To be frankly honest, I voted for him. Long story. The alternative would have been voting for Lula and PT, which is a largely corrupt party, although they pose as altruistic saviors. I am what they call here a middle-class typical guy, and we are around 50 million or more.

    PT just said: the middle class is the bourgeoise, we hate them. Let's end them.
    Let's just throw the poorest against them, let us call them rich.

    So PT changed the definition of middle-class, thus we have become the rich elite so our voices should not be heard. Ok, things were just the same.
    For a while, the economy stayed in place because there was still money in the jar from bribing and public money. Lula traveled the world, PT leaders became all rich.
    Criminality just went to an unbearable level at the same time we have seen large scandals of corruption. Industries and companies went bankrupt.
    PT elects Dilma, and if we tell that she is incompetent, we are "ists": elitist, racists, misogynists, sexists, and,homophobes.
    We are the devious white man elite although I have African ancestry from my grandfather's part.

    I went to college. I have a degree from a good university. My parents are retired, college teachers. They are as evil as I, PT says. It does not matter that my grandparents were not college teachers and had to work hard to have my parents to study.

    Lula, stays as the sacred cow, he waves his arms and water pours over the desert. So says PT. In truth, he had been receiving bribery and being well acquainted with bank owners.
    And we are still here, middle-class evil monsters, losing our jobs, and being accused of all kinds of villainy.

    Dilma was, thank God, impeached in 2016 but not before we spent billions with a world cup and an Olympics game.

    PT is enamored of Cuba and Venezuela. They plan to make Brazil a similar "paradise".

    So, there is this guy, who says what he thinks and proposes a rupture. He is apparently honest. I am extremely fed up with the left, and the very thought of socialism. I start following a friend who is a conservative and at first all things he says seem extremely logical. But I keep my socialist heart intact.

    The multiverse is shut down. I join an Orson Scott Card forum and I meet a group of liberals and it does not matter what you say if you don't agree, you are the devious white rich guy.
    Trump is elected, and I was extremely scared because he is crazy, but these liberal people start doing all sorts of violence against who voted for Trump. They are extremely angry.

    Ok, a few months later, we start getting information that the US is doing fine but all we see on TV is the Trump vilifying.

    Hey, there is his new guy called Bolsonaro, he seems nice although he seems homophobe. Ok, at least he is honest. PT hates him.

    So I am blindfolded by fear and start seeing that Bolsonaro is not a homophobe, he is a nice guy. He is the only hope.

    Thus, I lost friends, family members stopped talking to me. My brother's wife stops talking to me. Lula is put in jail.

    Well, time is relentless. All are in ruins, shattered by a bad government, coronavirus and as Herisiologist says, more of the same old shit running Brazil over the centuries just with different flavors.

    I would not call Bolsonaro a nazi. He is crazy, however. Not completely as honest as he said.

    We are back siking slowly.

    Could you forgive me? Well, I forgave myself for having been a PT support for years and I certainly forgave everybody still supporting Lula and saying he is honest like shit. I don't buy that.




    Leave a comment:


  • Doc
    replied
    Originally posted by zlogdan View Post
    I am not sure if I dislike the two-party thing because in Brazil we have the N party-thing and growing every day. But we are not an example of course.
    I read an article on Bolsonaro the other day. I knew he was scary, but I didn't realize how scary.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doc
    replied
    Originally posted by Heresiologist View Post

    A scarier thought is the notion that, like 2016's election was HRC's to lose, it's looking like 2020 is Biden's to lose.
    No kidding. As someone who is unquestionably anti-Trump (because I am a real human), one of my greatest fears is apathy or complacency around November.


    Originally posted by Heresiologist View Post
    As for parliamentary deadlock, yes, it can happen but we're not there yet. Additionally, some of our most enduring, and nation defining, legislation has come from so called minority governments which, since they don't have the numbers to simply impose their agenda, have to sit down at the table with others and hammer out a consensus. Among other things, it's thought the resulting legislation is robust because the politicians who came up with it represent a much wider proportion of the population. For myself, it also sounds like the very definition of a politician's job and much closer to the notion of democracy in action. The "I got 40% of the popular vote, which represents maybe 60% of the eligible electorate, therefore I've got a mandate and am now CEO of the country" bullshit has got to go.

    But small steps. I'm glad you're working to get rid of that lawless lawman.


    P.S. Later note: I totally forget about coalition governments.
    And parliamentary government has never deadlocked like congressional gridlock. The "governing" model really seems to be based on acknowledging that there are only two deeply entrenched sides, so let's posture and make the courts govern by default. Control of the Senate seems much more about picking judges than passing legislation.

    And we supposedly have coalitions, but they all are represented by parties, so their interests always get subsumed by parties. What to rural evangelicals have in common with Wall Street financiers? That is a stupid (and enduring) coalition, resting under one banner...

    And a prime minister (with all apologies to Madison and Jefferson) usually seems to make more sense for democracy than a president.

    Leave a comment:


  • zlogdan
    replied
    I am not sure if I dislike the two-party thing because in Brazil we have the N party-thing and growing every day. But we are not an example of course.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heresiologist
    replied
    I think Biden is clever to make his right hand the person who gutted him and left him bleeding out on the debating stage floor, while Harris is making the right move since the guy she shanked managed to rise, completely bloodless, and walk to victory. Maybe she reckons the dead man only needs to walk so far. It would be awesome if the dead man harbours the same thought.

    More seriously (but not much more so), Kamala Harris is clearly much more than the human news blip HRC chose.

    A scarier thought is the notion that, like 2016's election was HRC's to lose, it's looking like 2020 is Biden's to lose.

    Originally posted by EverKing View Post
    ... I have serious issue with the Two Party system and even talked some about small solutions to help reduce the power of the Big Two but it seems no one wants to consider it ...
    Everking, I'm fairly happy to live in a country that effectively has 3 federal level parties to choose from. It's complicated, though. Only two of those parties have ever formed the government. My "third" party is me lumping two lesser parties together because it's incredibly unlikely either of them will win. They do play a non-trivial role, however, and people vote for them and don't have to feel they've thrown their vote away. Personally, I believe Canada is way too big and diverse for any one party to do much more than pretend they represent the general good while serving a much smaller constituency.

    As for parliamentary deadlock, yes, it can happen but we're not there yet. Additionally, some of our most enduring, and nation defining, legislation has come from so called minority governments which, since they don't have the numbers to simply impose their agenda, have to sit down at the table with others and hammer out a consensus. Among other things, it's thought the resulting legislation is robust because the politicians who came up with it represent a much wider proportion of the population. For myself, it also sounds like the very definition of a politician's job and much closer to the notion of democracy in action. The "I got 40% of the popular vote, which represents maybe 60% of the eligible electorate, therefore I've got a mandate and am now CEO of the country" bullshit has got to go.

    But small steps. I'm glad you're working to get rid of that lawless lawman.

    P.S. Later note: I totally forget about coalition governments.
    Last edited by Heresiologist; 08-12-2020, 03:33 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • EverKing
    replied
    Originally posted by Doc View Post
    EverKing I’m writing in the Poodle and Rock ticket on my ballot!
    Har! Happy to inspire you!
    Originally posted by Doc View Post
    Seriously, though, I agree that the election is a referendum on Trump. I also agree that the two party system is increasingly giving us the choice to vote for the lesser of two evils. At least in the case of Trump, I feel like I am certainly voting against evil. Literally.
    Indeed. Even as a rural American, I cannot understand what it is about him that people want to support. While I can understand the distaste for the DNC platform that alone is not enough to make Trump appear attractive in any way. The man is...well, human in fact but apparently not in practice.
    Originally posted by Doc View Post
    Just as importantly, I agree that no candidates are ever going to be candidates that reflect my ideal choices for governing. That is problematic enough. More problematic is that governance seems to be less important than just winning elections to hold some version of power and entrench ideologies. Party is becoming way too important. But maybe we’re getting the candidates we deserve...
    I have serious issue with the Two Party system and even talked some about small solutions to help reduce the power of the Big Two but it seems no one wants to consider it. Whether from indoctrination (one way or the other), ignorance (willful or otherwise), or indifference it seems that many people have bought into the rhetoric and poorly applied partisan theory which enables--even encourages--further entrenchment of the Two Party System. One of the most surprising arguments, in my opinion, is actually provided by those educated in political theory and history; that of the idea of the necessity of Parties to produce a quorum in the Government. This argument really only stands in Parliamentary systems where the Party/Faction creates a government of their control and selects their own Head of Government. In the US Constitutional system the Head of Government, as Chief Executive, is held separate from the factions of Legislature and should also, therefore, be independent of said factions--although the Constitution makes no explicit prohibition of Executive partisanship. Ultimately, the way the system exists now only encourages the factions to look after their own interests and further entrench their power through manipulation of the electoral processes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doc
    replied
    Originally posted by Rothgo View Post
    Not being from the USA and so not greatly informed or invested, my thought was that almost all candidates for the post were likely than Biden himself, so a win whatever!
    He certainly isn’t the most compelling candidate, and I agree that most of his potential choices for VP were. He’s slightly better than EverKing’s poodle. 😉

    Leave a comment:


  • Doc
    replied
    EverKing I’m writing in the Poodle and Rock ticket on my ballot!

    Seriously, though, I agree that the election is a referendum on Trump. I also agree that the two party system is increasingly giving us the choice to vote for the lesser of two evils. At least in the case of Trump, I feel like I am certainly voting against evil. Literally.

    Just as importantly, I agree that no candidates are ever going to be candidates that reflect my ideal choices for governing. That is problematic enough. More problematic is that governance seems to be less important than just winning elections to hold some version of power and entrench ideologies. Party is becoming way too important. But maybe we’re getting the candidates we deserve...

    Leave a comment:


  • Rothgo
    replied
    Not being from the USA and so not greatly informed or invested, my thought was that almost all candidates for the post were likely than Biden himself, so a win whatever!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X