• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Presidential Election 2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
QV said:
Victor Davis Hanson writing in the National Review writes:

VDH asks a question on just about every topic you can think of in this election. 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/11/vote-no-on-1984/

VDH is a military historian at Stanford University, I'm surprised more people on here don't follow his writings.

Maybe this is why:

Political views
Hanson is a conservative who voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 and 2004 elections.[17] He defended George W. Bush and his policies,[18] especially the Iraq War.[19] He vocally supported Bush's Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, describing him as "a rare sort of secretary of the caliber of George Marshall" and a "proud and honest-speaking visionary" whose "hard work and insight are bringing us ever closer to victory".[20]

Hanson is a supporter of Donald Trump, authoring a 2019 book The Case for Trump.[21] Trump praised the book.[21] In the book, Hanson defends Trump's insults and incendiary language as "uncouth authenticity", and praises Trump for "an uncanny ability to troll and create hysteria among his media and political critics."[21] According to Washington Post book critic Carlos Lozada, the book "focuses less on the case for Trump than on the case against everyone else," in particular attacking Hillary Clinton.[21] According to Lozada, Hanson indulges "in casual sexism, criticizing Clinton’s “shrill” voice and her “signature off-putting laugh,” and inexplicably suggesting that while “Trump’s bulk fueled a monstrous energy; Hillary’s girth sapped her strength.”"[21] Hanson praises the Trump administration for its "inspired" and "impressive" Cabinet members.[21] In the book, Hanson blamed Barack Obama for "deliberately [whipping up]" "much of the current division in the country", while ignoring Trump's birtherism or attacks on Muslims.[21] The book likens Trump to a hero of ancient literature, sacrificing himself for the greater good.[21] Hanson expressed support for Trump's proposed border wall on the Southern border, saying that walls around houses deter criminals.[21]

Neoconservative views
He has been described as a neoconservative by some commentators, for his views on the Iraq War,[22][23] and has stated, "I came to support neocon approaches first in the wars against the Taliban and Saddam, largely because I saw little alternative."[24] Hanson's 2002 volume An Autumn of War called for going to war "hard, long, without guilt, apology or respite until our enemies are no more."[25] In the context of the Iraq War, Hanson wrote, "In an era of the greatest affluence and security in the history of civilization, the real question before us remains whether the United States— indeed any Western democracy—still possesses the moral clarity to identify evil as evil, and then the uncontested will to marshal every available resource to fight and eradicate it."[26]

Race relations
In July 2013, then-Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech where he mentioned that as a black man the need to deliver "the Talk" to his son, instructing him how to interact with police as a young black man. In response to Holder's speech, Hanson wrote a column titled "Facing Facts about Race" where he offered up his own version of "the Talk", namely the need to inform his children to be careful of young black men when venturing into the inner city, who Hanson argued were statistically more likely to commit violent crimes than young men of other races, and that therefore it was understandable for the police to focus on them.[27][28] Ta-Nehisi Coates of The Atlantic described Hanson's column as "stupid advice": "in any other context we would automatically recognize this 'talk' as stupid advice. If I were to tell you that I only employ Asian-Americans to do my taxes because 'Asian-Americans do better on the Math SAT', you would not simply question my sensitivity, but my mental faculties. That is because you would understand that in making an individual decision, employing an ancestral class of millions is not very intelligent. Moreover, were I to tell you I wanted my son to marry a Jewish woman because 'Jews are really successful', you would understand that statement for the stupidity which it is ... There is no difference between my argument above and the notion that black boys should be avoided because they are overrepresented in the violent crime stats. But one of the effects of racism is its tendency to justify stupidity."[29]

British-born American journalist Andrew Sullivan called Hanson's column "spectacularly stupid", writing: "Treating random strangers as inherently dangerous because of their age, gender and skin color is a choice to champion fear over reason, a decision to embrace easy racism over any attempt to overcome it".[30] American journalist Arthur Stern called "Facing Facts About Race" an "inflammatory" column based upon crime statistics that Hanson never cited, writing: "His presentation of this controversial opinion as undeniable fact without exhaustive statistical proof is undeniably racist."[31] Anglo-American journalist Kelefa Sanneh, in response to "Facing Facts About Race", wrote "It's strange, then, to read Hanson writing as if the fear of violent crime were mainly a "white or Asian" problem, about which African-Americans might be uninformed, or unconcerned—as if African-American parents weren't already giving their children more detailed and nuanced versions of Hanson's "sermon," sharing his earnest and absurd hope that the right words might keep trouble at bay."[32] Hanson, in response to Sanneh's essay, accused him of a "McCarthyite character assassination" and "infantile, if not racialist, logic".[33]

Obama criticism
Hanson was a critic of President Barack Obama.[34] Hanson criticized the Obama administration for engaging in "appeasement" of Iran,[35] and "appeasement" of Russia. Hanson blamed Obama for the outbreak of the war in Ukraine in 2014.[36][37][38][39] Hanson has argued Obama failed to maintain a credible threat of deterrence, and put the world on the precipice of another war comparable to the Second World War.[40]

:cheers:
 
I've heard recently, when in a discussion, if someone refers to a Wikipedia entry it usually means they don't have much of an argument. Interestingly, even Wikipedia doesn't feel too confident about it's own data.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time.
Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source

The irony is delicious.
 
Why would we blow up a nine-justice Supreme Court after 151 years, or a 233-year Electoral College, or a 170-year Senate filibuster, or a 60-year 50-state Union? 

"Because we can."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/tripideas/whitehouse-warns-republicans-against-because-we-can-tactics/vp-BB1a3XAi

QV said:
I've heard recently, when in a discussion, if someone refers to a Wikipedia entry it usually means they don't have much of an argument.

Here are the receipts,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Davis_Hanson#References

 
FJAG said:
Maybe this is why:

:cheers:

I was going to take a different tack, but the end result would have been much the same opinion of Dr. Hanson.  In reply to QV, I would question whether it is Hanson's academic credentials or interest in military history that would be the attraction factor for members here?  I am aware of many well educated, well credentialed and articulate individuals with interest in military affairs who are dicks.  A cursory review of Dr. Hanson's writing would seem to put him in the same category as most of the other commentators to the publications to which he usually contributes.  I was going to ask QV if Hanson had ever made any full-throated public objection to any of Trump's actions.  These days, that is usually my litmus test if one is an impartial (honest) observer to the political echo chamber south of the border.  But as one should never ask a question to which he doesn't already know the answer, this was about the only thing closest that I found.  https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-classicist-who-sees-donald-trump-as-a-tragic-hero  Hanson describes himself as a "classicist"; my take is that he is a classic dick.


 
Blackadder1916 said:
I was going to take a different tack, but the end result would have been much the same opinion of Dr. Hanson.  In reply to QV, I would question whether it is Hanson's academic credentials or interest in military history that would be the attraction factor for members here?  I am aware of many well educated, well credentialed and articulate individuals with interest in military affairs who are dicks. A cursory review of Dr. Hanson's writing would seem to put him in the same category as most of the other commentators to the publications to which he usually contributes.  I was going to ask QV if Hanson had ever made any full-throated public objection to any of Trump's actions.  These days, that is usually my litmus test if one is an impartial (honest) observer to the political echo chamber south of the border.  But as one should never ask a question to which he doesn't already know the answer, this was about the only thing closest that I found.  https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-classicist-who-sees-donald-trump-as-a-tragic-hero  Hanson describes himself as a "classicist"; my take is that he is a classic dick.

Not sure why it would need to be one or the other, and not both.  Hanson criticizes Trump plenty and you'd see that if you read his material.  In fact NRO has plenty of Trump criticism as a whole.  And "tragic-hero" is not necessarily a flattering title. 

And there you go, as with most on the progressive left or in the "never trump" column when you lack reasons you resort to name calling. 
 
Hanson is a scholar (classicist), a conservative, and a Trump supporter.  Like Christopher Hitchens had, Hanson has a good memory for retaining information about current events as they become past events; Hanson is less of a polemicist than Hitchens was, but a typical Hanson column is a shopping list of reminders that the alternatives to status quo involve people who also have been tested and found wanting.  If you can't stand having the hypocrisies and mistakes of the left and centre-left itemized, don't read Hanson - he is right-biased.

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, Wikipedia Is Badly Biased.  Most people realized sometime during the Bush administration that Wikipedia was unreliable on controversial subjects.  Those reliant on Wikipedia for political information are SOL.
 
Brad Sallows said:
Those reliant on Wikipedia for political information are SOL.

Which is why I check references,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Davis_Hanson#References
 
Brad Sallows said:
Hanson is a scholar (classicist), a conservative, and a Trump supporter.  Like Christopher Hitchens had, Hanson has a good memory for retaining information about current events as they become past events; Hanson is less of a polemicist than Hitchens was, but a typical Hanson column is a shopping list of reminders that the alternatives to status quo involve people who also have been tested and found wanting.  If you can't stand having the hypocrisies and mistakes of the left and centre-left itemized, don't read Hanson - he is right-biased.

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, Wikipedia Is Badly Biased.  Most people realized sometime during the Bush administration that Wikipedia was unreliable on controversial subjects.  Those reliant on Wikipedia for political information are SOL.

Christopher Hitchens would have had a very colourful and interesting take on the last few years.  I've listened to most of the debates he participated in.  Pity he passed so young.
 
Since we're talking about VDH - he's published many books.  They started in discussing classical Greek warfare and veered into politics after 9/11.  His books on ancient Greek warfare (some of which are on my shelves) are fairly good but suffer from a tendency to oversimplify history into "black and white" columns of Western shock and Eastern skirmishing ways of warfare.  Other authors have done a good job of taking this simplistic view to task.

His political books (some of which are on my shelves) are interesting, but suffer from a tendency to oversimplify current events into "black and white" columns of Western civilization and non-Western/marxist barbarism.  Some of his weirder books try and link Greek Generals that nobody has heard of to Patton to try and demonstrate an 3000-year unbroken Western fight for liberty and freedom.

You can see the trend here.

Personally, I've put him in the same space as Ralph Peters - the ranting guy who writes something every so often that expounds on the same points as previous works by the author and warns of impending doom...doom has been coming for a long time now....
 
Hamish Seggie said:
I can hardly wait for this tire fire to be over.  :facepalm:

You may have to wait awhile yet. I suspect there will be tires burning regardless of who wins.  ;D
 
If anyone has an interest in seeing some of the differences between American elections and Canadian elections, this video is very well done and pretty much sums it up.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g1awwAgU_t8

 
QV said:
I've heard recently, when in a discussion, if someone refers to a Wikipedia entry it usually means they don't have much of an argument. Interestingly, even Wikipedia doesn't feel too confident about it's own data.

The irony is delicious.

You probably heard that from the same people that Trump always cites as his sources.

But to set your mind at ease, in this case I cited Wikipedia because I thought that they had enough of an argument and because I really didn't want to waste any more time on the matter.

:cheers:
 
Remius said:
If anyone has an interest in seeing some of the differences between American elections and Canadian elections, this video is very well done and pretty much sums it up.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g1awwAgU_t8

:rofl:

Not wrong though, it seems.
 
reveng said:
You may have to wait awhile yet. I suspect there will be tires burning regardless of who wins.  ;D

Tire fires last a long time and I suspect that this one will as well - all the way to 2024, where they will add more tires.
 
Watching the Trump rally in MI. The video compilation they put together on Biden is gold!
 
Sadly I don't think you have to work to hard to make the two candidates look bad they do that themselves. But in Bidens case I do believe he's suffering some mental degradation. Its a sad truth that there is not much about the human body that gets better as you get older. I still think that Biden will break 300 but I wouldnt put any money on it
 
Well lets just hope for a peaceful and decisive outcome,.....however it falls.  I wish politicians  knew they work for the people, not the party.
 
100 million votes already cast.

Regardless of how it all turns out, that part of the democratic process can be hailed as a success.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top