Scott

You seem to be implying that by referring to a rape as a lapse of judgement I’m somehow downplaying the seriousness of rape. I’m not. You’re mistaken in that assessment. Also, let’s stop casually affirming that what happened with Kobe was so obviously and demonstrably a rape. That’s one of the key elements of this discussion. We aren’t privy to all of the facts. If you’d like to make your own determination about that case based on your emotions, then go for it. But I recognize my ignorance on the case and therefore will withhold judgement. Bottom line here is that tact is a thing, even if you want to pretend it’s not. There’s a time and a place to bring up someone’s rape allegation, and 4 minutes after his body was incinerated may not be the time. Especially when his legacy is not overwhelmingly that of a rapist, but is instead one of a hugely positive role model. It’s a shame that instead of celebrating Kobe’s positive cultural legacy we instead had to spend 2+ pages going back and forth about this.

I know what he was accused of. He also wasn’t convicted of anything. I am not saying he’s not guilty, but I also am not going to present myself as omniscient on this issue. I’m not in a position to listen to my gut and start making proclamations about someone’s guilt or innocence. A rape, among countless other descriptors, is a lapse of judgement. It can be many things at once. It can be a lapse of judgement and a FUCKING HORRIBLE NIGHTMARE TRAGEDY. One description doesn’t preclude the other. And I certainly do not think it’s okay to excuse one rape because some other celebrity committed many rapes. But when you look at Kobe specifically, the bulk of his life was defined by his positive impact on others. That’s what most people are responding to emotionally when they hear that he died. Thomas Jefferson kept slaves but that isn’t his primary legacy. Obama killed civilians with drones but that isn’t his primary legacy. Etc

1. Do we know definitively it was a “violent rape” or are you just being judge and jury because it fits your narrative? 2. Did I say it was “simply” a lapse of judgement, or are you just nitpicking semantics because you’ve been called out on this thread and are now reflexively digging your heels in?

Kobe and Cosby are very different people. We may never know exactly what happened with Kobe I’m Colorado, but even assuming the worst, it would be a terrible blip on what was otherwise a life that has served as inspiration and hope for literally millions of people. Kobe transcended basketball. He was seen as a driven, passionate, intelligent force for good. The work he did for communities, for charities, for people young and old is being felt right now as we see countless testimonies given from shaken, tearful individuals. None of this washes away a credible rape accusation. It doesn’t excuse it. But that incident was not what defined Kobe Bryant for most people. He moved beyond that moment and built a legacy of positivity and inspiration. It’s not wrong to mention the rape accusation, but it rubs salt in a fresh wound, especially when it’s mentioned literally minutes after he died. Cosby’s transgressions were big enough to transcend anything else he did in his career. That wasn’t the case with Kobe. Kobe likely did something terrible - but he lived the rest of his life in seeming defiance of that lapse of judgement. When most of us think of Kobe Bryant, we think of all the good he did. To immediately bring up the worst instance of his behavior makes an already shitty situation feel that much worse.

Buttigieg/Klobuchar I’ll “vote blue, no matter who” but these are my top two picks.

You’re so ruffled over this.

This he said she said high school gossip bullshit is definitely what America needs right now and is the obvious path to victory for Dems.

Do you live in or have close experience with anyone from the midwestern and rust belt battleground states that won trump the election? When I talk to people in these states, they guffaw at the mere mention of people like Bernie or AOC. It’s a gut level recoiling response. And it’s very different than their response to candidates like Mike Bloomberg or Pete buttigieg. The propaganda arm of the Republican Party will unfairly malign whomever is the eventual nominee, but they’ll have a harder time convincing the voting public that someone like Bloomberg is a hippy commie who wants to wreck their small business with ever-increasing taxes. I really, really hope you’re right - that we nominate a progressive candidate, and that this is the moment for America to receive and elect such a candidate. But I’m not betting on it.

You're not necessarily wrong, but that type of bullshit label doesn't stick as well to someone like Klobuchar or Biden. They'll massacre Bernie or Warren. "Our economy is riding higher than ever and we want to suddenly put a noose around our necks and jump off the ledge into Socialism!?!?"

Y'all are delusional if you think anyone even tangentially attached to the word Socialist is winning the presidency in America. I don't give a shit what the polls and all the hypothetical match-ups say. The closet Trump voter phenomenon is real. I don't trust any of those polls. We're fucked. Trump is gonna win. His dementia is the only thing that will defeat him.

I used to live and work on a Reservation. The tribal members all preferred to be called Indian.

This uber progressive sensitivity is great in theory, but in actuality there are a lot of transgender folks who do not make it easy for strangers in public to address them appropriately. I’ve treated patients who wear lipstick, a skirt, a low cut shirt revealing breast implants, and a fairly healthy beard. Not exactly sure how best to address them, especially if they haven’t explicitly spelled it out on their patient intake form. And I can be as sensitive and accommodating as possible, but it still doesn’t help individuals like this fit into our more traditionally understood cultural norms. The Rachel Dolezal case seems like an appropriate parallel for which I haven’t heard a great explanation yet. Why can a white woman be lambasted and shamed openly for wanting to assume the identity of a black woman, but if you criticize a biological male for wanting to assume the identity of a woman, you have to forfeit every good thing you’ve ever done or said in this world? And as far as JK Rowling, does defending an employee’s right to express her opinion about the transgender discussion automatically equal “putrid TRANSPHOBE!!!!”? Are we such reactionary extremists that anyone perceived to be even slightly on the other side of the aisle is automatically considered to be the worst member of that opinion group?

I’ve never seen gaslighting to this degree. Republicans are really something else.

Are YOU seriously asking this? If I thought a politician would give me $2M in 30 years I wouldn’t save at nearly the rate I am currently. I’d save enough to cover emergencies and whatnot in the intervening years, but no way would I save at my current rate. And of course our society changes. The citizenry has to decide how best to change it. And I’m a No vote on massive forgiveness for student loans. Sorry you got duped on the promise of higher education or picked a low-earning career track. I don’t think the rest of the tax payers need to selectively bail out these individuals. I’d rather stimulate the economy through other means. But I absolutely believe in making big changes to the way in which the loans are granted, as well as the runaway costs of education. As others have asked, why not forgive all mortgage debt? I feel it would have the same positive effects as outlined by SM.

I'm with Dodger on this one. I can't tell if several of you are simply responding to your own personal history with him, rather than the actual points he's making, or if this board has really truly jumped off the liberal deep end. This is a bad comparison. It's not that we never had the cure for the student debt problem. The US Government always could have backed up a dump truck full of cash on borrowers, at any point in history - the question is whether or not this is the most expedient use of federal funds. Freeing up disposable income will always lead to economic stimulation. "It'll boost the economy!" is a weak argument. And I think most people here are fine with a cash infusion or a tax relief of some sort from the government. But could we do it to benefit the lower and middle classes broadly, rather than specifically targeting those who took out shitty loans? It's not a matter of misery loving company, or being competitive with your neighbor. Dropping a billion dollars in my account wouldn't hurt you, and I'd damn sure stimulate the economy, but I don't think that's the best plan for everyone. I think there are better tweaks that can be made to the system, that will benefit a larger base of people, rather than picking winners and losers by selectively rewarding irresponsible borrowing behavior. Also, zooming out a bit, I think it sets a bad precedent. What foundational aspects of our society will we just wipe away with a magic wand in a few years? Should I even be saving for retirement, or will an increasingly progressive political candidate just drop a couple million dollars from God-knows-where in everyone's bank account in 30 years? This is pretty gross. Someone is "petty" if they were responsible enough to avoid crippling debt and are now working a tedious factory job? Seeing them upset when the federal government pulls a deus ex machina and waives away all the debt they structured their entire lives to avoid... would be delicious??

Biden looks awful.

Anyone moved by that bullshit was never going to be open to warren or Bernie. But highlights from that same interview will be shared elsewhere, and will be seen by people who can be influenced. Do you know how media works?

There's really not a downside. Be the adult, make Tucker look like a petty partisan moron, humanize yourself, completely ignore his questions, and present your platform directly from yourself and not contorted by Fox morons.

All of the Dem candidates should! Put your message in front of that huge audience that would otherwise never hear it or only hear it through the Fox propaganda machine.

Bloomberg. I agree with Judge Judy.

I think one problem is that Democrats are so diverse. It’s hard to fan the fire of a voting base when everyone is so different. Personally, I’m a liberal because of environmental issues. Others are liberal because of gender and race equality issues. These two groups may struggle to hear the same rallying call. That’s why I like moderates. They are likely to appeal, at least mildly, to all groups of liberals, while turning away very few. If you nominate a person whose platform is “yay Antifa,” you’re not going to earn the votes of those hunters I mentioned earlier. Also, the more radical the nominee, the easier it is for Sean Hannity to create a boogeyman that will draw out conservative voters.

I don’t disagree with you in principle, but it’s hard to negotiate anything if we lose to trump again. Is it better for President AOC to get no Republican senate support and accomplish almost nothing, or for President Klobuchar to pass some legislation that democrats like but don’t love? Is gridlock better than compromise? I’m sure opinions differ.

Electing Biden or Klobuchar gives us center-right outcomes? Also, I don’t think the furthest left candidate necessarily beats Donald trump. I think a more moderate candidate could. And I’d much rather have center-left OR center-right than whatever dumpster fire abortion trump is. Better to beat trump with a moderate than lose elections while patting ourselves on the back for being ideologically “pure.”

I think we should stop assuming that “better things” automatically means “farthest-left policies.” I believe Klobuchar was making this point last night. I’d prefer Bernie to trump, by a million miles, but Bernie doesn’t exactly reflect my own views and beliefs as a voter. I’d rather support someone who assumes a center-left position. I can’t imagine how hollow you’d have to be to lean left, dislike trump, and not vote for someone like Klobuchar simply because they aren’t in lockstep with every one of your personal populist viewpoints. I think there’s a real risk that someone perceived as scandalized (Biden, now, I think) or wildly leftist (Bernie, AOC, etc) will keep people home on Election Day. I know this board doesn’t believe that moderates are the answer, and we need to fight extreme with extreme, but I strongly disagree. Here’s a good example. Hunters, fishermen, and outdoorsmen of all stripes should overwhelmingly vote democrat, as this is the party most committed to protecting public land access, wildlife habitat, conservation, etc. But so many in this group are repelled by “hell yeah we’re coming for your guns” Beto, as well as “here are my pronouns” Kamala. A large voting bloc is lost because we have to see how far left we can push ourselves. Take a moderate approach and suddenly all those rural, blue collar hunters see a lot of sensible reasons for considering a candidate like Klobuchar instead of trump. Tom Nichols summed up my feelings very nicely in his recent article about the LGBTQ town hall. edit: here’s that article https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/3947332002

Warren’s answer there regarding billionaires, in response to Beto, is the best answer I’ve heard in any debate in recent years. She absolutely crushed it.