|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funny how "why Trump won" always lines up with the political and personal views, preferences, and prejudices of the person saying it. It's a lot like how whatever somebody says makes God angry lines up with whatever they personally don't like.
I'm guilty of this too, of course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As they say:
"Everyone who voted for Trump is not an overt racist, but every overt racist voted for Trump, and everyone who voted for Trump voted for an overt racist."
I also know some shockingly open bigots -- people who will say absolutely horrific things almost casually -- who voted for Hillary, so I guess you can't always trust what "they" say.
The third phrase in the saying is certainly true, however.
same here. It is important to keep in mind this isn't black and white but shades of depressing gray.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funny how "why Trump won" always lines up with the political and personal views, preferences, and prejudices of the person saying it. It's a lot like how whatever somebody says makes God angry lines up with whatever they personally don't like.
I'm guilty of this too, of course.
I am, too.
Also, I'm gonna side with the goblins on this one: Can the old notion of "party loyalty" please die an agonizing fiery death?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clinton played straight into those prejudices with both her statement that "Coal is dead" and her "Deplorables" speech.
Coal is dead
More than half of Trump's voters are bigots (again, by their own statements in polls)Sad state of affairs when telling the truth is a bad move politically.
...which makes 2016 having a higher number entirely meaningless.
More people voted in 2016 than in 2008. 2008 was a higher %
I don't think they are entirely meaningless. In fact, there's quite a lot of meaning to learn from these numbers.
But we should use the correct numbers, not alternative numbers.
Nope. Sorry, we're social primates. We're lucky we can ever get past the tribal loyalties.Funny how "why Trump won" always lines up with the political and personal views, preferences, and prejudices of the person saying it. It's a lot like how whatever somebody says makes God angry lines up with whatever they personally don't like.
I'm guilty of this too, of course.
I am, too.
Also, I'm gonna side with the goblins on this one: Can the old notion of "party loyalty" please die an agonizing fiery death?
The Yankees suck, rabble rabble, and all that.
Worth remembering that what Romney said wasn't actually true. It's standard Republican rhetoric, but not true. A significant percentage of the mythical 47% who don't pay (federal income) taxes are in demographics that skew highly Republican. Older retired White folks, for example.Again, we don't care about Trump's base. Trump's base is a screaming minority—albeit a powerful one within the GOP—that will never admit wrongdoing. A deplorable minority, you might say. A veritable basket.THis line of thinking is literally what lost Hillary the election.Incorrect. You're simplifying this again. Her saying it cost her, maybe, but if you honestly think we're going to persuade the diehard Trump supporters to vote against him, you're welcome to try. The real problem was Hillary Clinton saying it openly. It was true—just as what Romney said was true—but politically idiotic. Of course many Trump supporters are racist and sexist. Of course those people will never vote for anyone else. But to say it as a candidate is to attack the voters.
Seriously, guys, Trump has his base. Just accept that.
As you've no doubt seen, we're in a post-truthy society. Memes such s welfare queens, job-stealing immigrants have fastened on to the social conciousness like Hepatitis B.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really? That's a genuine surprise. I can't imagine what they see in her. Unless they're transphobes or something, I guess—TERFers gonna TERF, after all. Or very old party loyalty fanatics.
TERFs tend to ally with the far right. That's the only group they can get to support their policies.
Ever since Raymond worked with the Regan era Republican Congress to deny trans medical care.
Nope. Sorry, we're social primates. We're lucky we can ever get past the tribal loyalties.Funny how "why Trump won" always lines up with the political and personal views, preferences, and prejudices of the person saying it. It's a lot like how whatever somebody says makes God angry lines up with whatever they personally don't like.
I'm guilty of this too, of course.
I am, too.
Also, I'm gonna side with the goblins on this one: Can the old notion of "party loyalty" please die an agonizing fiery death?
This isn't even about tribalism. This is about clinging to a party that opposes 75% of what you believe in. It's very unpopular with young people, so I remain hopeful that it is on its way out.
TERFs tend to ally with the far right. That's the only group they can get to support their policies.
I honestly doubt that, just because the far right hates feminists so much. I could see temporary alliances, but true allegiance is a harder pill to swallow. It would be a remarkable testament to the TERF's true priorities, though.
Looking at this article, it seems like most major TERFs are liberal or liberal-leaning.
|
|
...which makes 2016 having a higher number entirely meaningless.
More people voted in 2016 than in 2008. 2008 was a higher %I don't think they are entirely meaningless. In fact, there's quite a lot of meaning to learn from these numbers.
But we should use the correct numbers, not alternative numbers.
Interesting.
The numbers I found earlier had only the two major party candidate counts... showing 2008 with more votes cast than 2016. However, digging further, when you factor in 3rd party candidates, 2016 WAS the higher vote total... by ~6 million. Which is tiny overall, but huge compared to normal 3rd party results.
Roughly 75% of that margin was Libertarian and 25% Green. If we assume that most of the Libertarians would normally have voted GOP and most of the Greens Dem (and that the oddballs on each side would cancel each other out) then the popular vote would have been pretty much tied.
This suggests that a large number of people who usually vote Dem couldn't stomach Clinton... and an even larger group of usual GOP voters refused to support Trump. Leaving the country with a roughly 50/50 split between conservatives and liberals... just as we had in the 2000 election.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In other words, they can wait until my priorities have been addressed. Not an attack on you specifically, it's what everyone is saying.
I'm suspicious of that approach, largely because the closest we've come those economic goals in this country was very much a white straight male only version and while that did lead to movements for the marginalized groups, the backlash to those steps is what led to losing all that economic progress - "They're taking your money from your hard work and giving it to them".
I'd put it slightly differently:
That's how a segment of the ruling class sold a segment of the working class into supporting scrapping some of that economic progress.
What led to the losing of all that economic progress was the collapse of the Postwar boom and the ruling class's response to that, namely, the neoliberal offensive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, white Archie Bunker-type working class bigots need little manipulation to get them to beat up black students in Boston in the seventies or vote against social spending taxation by plebiscite in California.
But the (bipartisan) deregulation craze of the seventies/eighties? The assault on the labor unions? This wasn't propelled by racist proles.
As a sidenote, David Brock is on NPR right now. For those of you who don't know, Mr. Brock's main claim to fame (aside from being born into massive wealth) has been serving as an especially vicious attack dog for the Clintons. He's served them against both Bernie Sanders and Anita Hill (he wrote a book vilifying both Hill's mental state and her "promiscuity"). Now he's trying to claim he's helped come up with the Democrats' new strategy. My dad knew him in college. He was a total a~&@@$*.
I don't really have any point to this post except, f&#% David Brock.
I believe I heard that this morning Kobold, and formed a similar, if less experiential, opinion to your father's.
This 'GOP capitalism' is likely what the student was referring to. Pelosi was likely talking about the older definition where capitalism protects and enriches both the employers and the workers.Fun video:
Pelosi: "Well, I thank you for your question. But I have to say, we're capitalist."
Found on the Facebook grapevine from comrades of his, the kid's a red.
We're popping up everywhere these days.
Honestly... while opposing sexism, racism, etc is a noble train of thought and important to every society, it doesn't win you elections.
You need to sell something. Something people can think about, taste, turn over in their heads, and debate. Something that attracts people, not merely not turn them away.
Say what you will about Trump, he did sell something. Drain the swamp! Make a wall! Get the jobs back! Make America great again! Yes, it's rhetorics, it's oafish, it's stupid... but he had a vision for his voters. What did Clinton want? Make all the little children fly? Sure, I live in Sweden, but I honestly don't know, and I know what Trump sold.
Obama sold a vision too. He won, despite the vision being sincerely vague. And I believe it boils down to this: Find what you want to sell people. The status is not... quo. America is NOT already great. (Seriously, a presidential candidate saying this needs to rethink their running. Yes, patriotism is important, but it is also saying "You don't need me!") If the democrats sell something, they will win easily.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
First off, TL:DR. Sorry if I repeat something.
I'm an independent, I don't consider myself of any party. I look at facts and numbers and the best idea wins when i'm voting. That being said, with the craziness that's been coming out of the republican party, I've found myself aligned with the democratic party much more often than not. It's frustrating as hell. The democratic party seems like they are terrified of actually winning and having to govern rather than losing and complaining about the republicans. I've never seen a group of people try so hard to shoot themselves in the foot. And I say that as a die-hard Detroit lions fan.
My suggestions for a better democratic party in no particular order:
A. FOCUS! It seems like every single Dem has a pet cause and the party seems hell bent on trying to include everything all at once so as to make everyone happy. everyone is protesting something different, everyone thinks that their cause is the one that should be at the front of the line. I even agree with most of it, but here's the thing, if everyone's screaming something different i can't hear anyone clearly.
The party should have a laser like focus on just a few things. Building the middle class, getting people healthcare and improving law enforcement while still protecting people from an overzealous police state.
there's a bunch of reasons why people voted for trump, but i think the biggest is fear. People are scared right now. The world is changing quickly, the middle class is shrinking, most working class people are one bad accident or disease away from losing everything to bankruptcy. Crime is on the news every night and it feels like everything is going to hell (yes stats show crime is actually at the lowest rates in a couple decades, but the prevalent nationwide coverage of every large violent crime makes it feel much higher).
Asking people who are barely getting by to sacrifice for a stranger is hard. It's even harder when the person asking you to sacrifice for the greater good is someone who comes across as a patronizing "elitist" with the attitude of "you don't know how good you have it, you should be ashamed you aren't helping this guy who has less". The areas that went for trump in the election are hurting. Prices are going up, good jobs left, wages are stagnant and they can't afford to send their kids to college for a better opportunity. And they are being ignored by one party completely except when they are being mocked by celebs and comics. Is it really any wonder that they are willing to vote for the guy who says he'll fix it, even if his plans are bs? Grow the middle class, grow your base and make people feel secure and then they'll reach out to help those who were left behind. It's not the ideal plan, but it will work. slow and steady gains beats losing and nothing.
B.) Drop gun control as a major plank. It's a losing battle and it costs a ton of votes. Any law that infringes too much on the 2nd amendment will be struck down. And It's seriously not worth the fight at this time, we have bigger issues that need fixed first. about 36000 people die a years from guns, about 21000 of those are suicides. It's horrible but it's also something that gun restrictions would have little effect on, most suicides are done with legally obtained weapons and even if guns are banned it wouldn't stop the suicidal behavior, only change the mechanism that people use (my guess would be a sharp rise in single car "accidents" leading to death.) Of the 15000 remaining deaths a good number are accidents. The remaining aprox 10000 homicides are mostly deaths caused by criminals to other criminals. Gun control treats the symptom not the disease. universal health care including mental health would cut down the number of suicides and the number of killings done by mentally ill people (mass shootings etc) the deaths that are caused due to crime factors will drop as people's economic outcomes improve and they seek legal channels rather than criminal ones for a better life. To put this in perspective, The top two causes of death are cancer and heart disease. Both treatable and both causing about 600000 deaths a year. Focus on health care, save more lives and stop pissing off people who agree with you on the majority of issues and would vote for you but think gun control is the most important thing. Gun control ranked "very important" for 71% of the republican voters. Democrats are alienating those voters for a pet cause that they can't win and are letting millions of Americans pay the price as health care suffers.
C. Stop giving the republicans easy wins. I don't know WTH democrats are thinking by abandoning large areas of the country. Yeah I get that you probably won't win that city council position in rural georgia but you sure as hell should be fighting for it. Even if all you do is get 1 or 2 positions moved to the left that's a win. If you don't fight than what happens is another republican will challenge the incumbent and will try to win by going further right, further radicalizing the country. Even if that doesn't happen the incumbent knows that he's safe and can say and do things that people might disagree with, but since there's no one running against them they get away with it. Democrats have to make serious efforts for local and state government even in red states. it builds a bench of talent, it gets people thinking about your ideas and sometimes you'll win. On the state level the power of gerrymandering should be obvious from this past election. It won't get fixed if you don't fight for state positions and fight hard.
D. Split the party. Not really but I think that the party should adopt a 2 wing strategy for dealing with the current political climate in DC. Right now we have a president that cares about image and winning, has little to no ideological values that he truly believes in and who can be baited with either insults or praise. The democrats on the other hand have very little that they can do to stop the GOP if the GOP is united. Luckily the GOP doesn't like trump much either and they are a fractured party between the moderates and the far right. So here's what i would do if i was a congressional democrat. engineer a party "split" in to two wings. One wing would be the liberal populist wing. Sanders, Warren, Franken, Booker etc. This wing does nothing but oppose and bait trump. This will fire up the base, people are pissed right now and are mobilizing. But they'll need leaders to keep them fired up and to direct the movements in to things that can truly affect change. It's also a good place for building up some rising stars for future elections. This wing should be stacked with your potential candidates for the next election.
The second wing should be the congressmen in more purple districts. These are the deal makers and consensus builders. Trump can be played. He's a useful idiot. You have your progressive wing set the agenda by pushing him on the issues you want to tackle. Tweets, speeches, calling him out on news networks etc. He will, without fail, spout off something that will either piss people off or he'll make some claim about fixing it without thinking. Since he doesn't really believe in the republican platform you can use the moderate wing the swoop in and make a "deal". If you do it right you can get him to focus on the subjects you want, and then you can use the deal makers to give him a public "victory". Since he doesn't actually care about the content of the law you can get concessions by bring him the votes he needs for a quick win. You'd have to control the agenda to steer towards things that divide the republicans so the deal makers are needed, you then limit the damage by pulling the bills to the middle and you might get a couple of minor victories. If you oppose trump completely you lose if all the republicans are on board against you and i suspect that they way they get every republican on board is to move things further right. To keep that from happening the next two years the democrats agenda should be limiting the power of the far right and pulling things toward moderate policy, while still having enough outspoken critics of trump to keep his negatives high and build up peoples profiles for a national run.
A couple things where i think this could work:
Increase the earned income tax credit. Republicans like it as tax relief, democrats like it as it's extremely progressive in that it helps the lower income brackets far more than the higher income brackets.
The infrastructure bill.
Obamacare reform- the republicans are screwed on this one. They fought it so hard they need to do something but since the law was already mostly a republican idea they have nothing that they can replace it with. worse their base is demanding something be done right away. I'd start having the progressive wing agreeing that yes we do need to get rid of obamacare. we need to replace it with universal health care! keep up the pressure and then have the moderates swoop in with an offer of a public option "fix" for obamacare instead. If the pressure is high enough I think republications might take the deal instead of being painted in to a corner with no way out. it's have to be sold as letting the free market decide by letting companies compete with medicare etc.. and it's be a long shot but maybe.
Student loans- tax deductions for interest or some similar deal could probably be made.
I will just note that when gun limitations are enacted, suicides do go down. The "Most gun deaths are suicides, ergo gun control won't stop gun deaths" argument appears to be fallacious.
I agree that there aren't votes in anything more than background checks, though. America is broken. Gun control is turning into the Left's "We're gonna overturn Roe v. Wade"—an old fight long since lost that seems to do nothing these days but fire up the base.
I will just note that when gun limitations are enacted, suicides do go down. The "Most gun deaths are suicides, ergo gun control won't stop gun deaths" argument appears to be fallacious.
I agree that there aren't votes in anything more than background checks, though. America is broken. Gun control is turning into the Left's "We're gonna overturn Roe v. Wade"—an old fight long since lost that seems to do nothing these days but fire up the base.
Suicides do go down but it's a hard thing to measure how much. If you look at statistics in areas with lower gun ownership you see less suicides by firearm but you see more by other causes. You also see increases in things like single car auto accidents and accidental overdoses. Firearms make the act easier and more impulsive, and limiting guns would decrease some deaths but it also means that people use alternate methods which are often much harder to classify as they can be reported as accidents.
Either way the best and far far more effective solution is help and treatment.
Gun control is a simple thing to say. Once the guns are out there, though, it is probably not possible to get them away again. I agree that giving up that particular fight would probably be a net win for the democrats.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
This whole blame the liberals thing is straight outta the playbook of the 90's detractors of affirmative action.
"Those damn liberals keep bringing up race when talking about equality. You know, theyre the whole reason this country is divided. If only they could present their policies in a color-blind way (by sweeping race under the rug via mental gymnastics) they would garner more support!"
Go ahead and read Carmines and Sniderman's Reaching Beyond Race from 1997 (try not to internally scream while doing so) to see that this approach is really nothing new.
|
|
For those of you who don't know, Mr. Brock's main claim to fame (aside from being born into massive wealth) has been serving as an especially vicious attack dog for the Clintons. He's served them against both Bernie Sanders and Anita Hill (he wrote a book vilifying both Hill's mental state and her "promiscuity").
???
How did Brock's attacks on Hill have anything to do with the Clintons?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
TERFs tend to ally with the far right. That's the only group they can get to support their policies.I honestly doubt that, just because the far right hates feminists so much. I could see temporary alliances, but true allegiance is a harder pill to swallow. It would be a remarkable testament to the TERF's true priorities, though.
Looking at this article, it seems like most major TERFs are liberal or liberal-leaning.
They may profess to being liberal, much as they claim to be "gender critical", but their history and actions speak otherwise.
A few examples:
The legacy of TERF cooperation with Republicans in dismantling trans healthcare.
The strange alliance between TERFs and conservative Christians.
I won't take up any more space here about it, but suffice to say that TERFs have few allies in Liberal policies and many strange bedfellows among the right.
I won't take up any more space here about it, but suffice to say that TERFs have few allies in Liberal policies and many strange bedfellows among the right.
As the first paragraph of the second linked article points out, RF, TE or otherwise, have often made strange bedfellows on the right.
Ironically, my little bit of the commie internet has recently been rocked by what I call the "ZGNN Affair." "ZGNN" are the initials of a former comrade I recruited a couple of years ago (I used to refer to him on these boards as the "Commandant of the Scottish Republican Army" over an internet prank he committed in the wake of the Scottish independence referendum and was reported as fact by some Britishiznoid tabloid) whom we gave to Ex-Mrs. Comrade in the divorce. He ended up quitting over the Bernie Turn, and disappeared down the rabbit hole of Hoxhaist chatrooms and trolling Turkish nationalists online.
Anyway, ZGNN was a college kid (since graduated), was always squeamish about sexuality and professed to having a fear of bodily fluids. I suspect that he is asexual, which, from what I have picked up from identity politics, makes him queer. Regardless, he got into radical feminism hardcore, started attacking comrades on Facebook for watching pornography, went on anti-prostitution tirades, and, leading up to the ZGNN Affair, discovered Sheila Jeffreys and her anti-trans stuff.
I found it hard to take seriously; he was always jealous of anyone's sexual relationships and seemed to be in constant fear that his friends were going to throw him over for their romantic partners. For example, he used to make passive aggressive comments to me when I would go off to NYC to visit my fair La Principessa. Around the time his best friend from grade school got involved with a genderqueer student at UNH was when he started delving into TERF theory. (They are no longer friends; in fact, his boyhood chum has told me repeatedly that if he ever sees him, he's going to punch him in the face.)
Things escalated; I didn't even try to keep track of the details or timeline, but ZGNN posted a lot of memes mocking non-binary people for their alleged "petit bourgeois individualist special snowflakedom," mobilized his international internet troll army to "attack" people's FB pages, etc., etc. The crescendo came when some of the comrades started a campaign to unfriend him and started sharing screenshots of his private conversations (how they got them, I have no idea; mutual recriminations abounded of people hacking into each other's accounts) touting Sheila Jeffreys, etc., etc., that allegedly ended in threats of violence, but I never saw it.
Anyway, I felt kind of icky about the Facebook mob ganging up on the autistic kid who was scared of sex, but I have to admit they were in the right. Also, it kinda puts me in a bind because on the one hand we have the boyhood chum (since graduated and moved back to Lowell) showing up at our events occasionally and bringing his Khmer family members and friends; otoh, we have ZGNN showing up for stuff with his pot-smoking Iranian communist father and his even more mentally disabled younger brother. Only consolation I can find is that they are both weak nerds and any physical confrontation between them will probably be brief and not very damaging.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't see La principessa this year at the con, I hope she is alright.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think she was there, but I think the con was when we were fighting, so I can't be sure. She's alright now, though, thanks.
The story of that fight is interesting, and I shall relay it one day, but for now, suffice to say, it started with Fritz Leiber's "The Snow Women"
Interesting story about Bannon Hoping the Dem party can start to unite folks to stop the chaos.
As disgusted as I am, I'm completely unsurprised.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think she was there, but I think the con was when we were fighting, so I can't be sure. She's alright now, though, thanks.
The story of that fight is interesting, and I shall relay it one day, but for now, suffice to say, it started with Fritz Leiber's "The Snow Women"
Dammit. Now in really sad I didn't see her. I could have seduced her over to the snow side of the force.
I think she was there, but I think the con was when we were fighting, so I can't be sure. She's alright now, though, thanks.
The story of that fight is interesting, and I shall relay it one day, but for now, suffice to say, it started with Fritz Leiber's "The Snow Women"
Dammit. Now I'm really sad I didn't see her. I could have seduced her over to the snow side of the force.
Please. It's just the Democrats turn. In 2009, everyone was wringing their hands and asking about the future of the Republican party. In 2025, we'll probably be doing it again. Americans have short memories. They nearly always re-elect the incumbent (yes, that probably means eight years of Trump), and then swap over to the other party. It happened to Obama, and Bush before him, and Clinton before him. Assuming we still have elections in 2024, it'll likely happen again then, too.
And yes, I do mean if we still have elections. Voters are being gerrymandered and court-packed into irrelevance. Look at South Dakota. The ultimate realization of this trend toward totalitarianism will be to no longer bother with the pretense of voting.
Have a nice day. :P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please. It's just the Democrats turn. In 2009, everyone was wringing their hands and asking about the future of the Republican party. In 2025, we'll probably be doing it again. Americans have short memories. They nearly always re-elect the incumbent (yes, that probably means eight years of Trump), and then swap over to the other party. It happened to Obama, and Bush before him, and Clinton before him. Assuming we still have elections in 2024, it'll likely happen again then, too.
And yes, I do mean if we still have elections. Voters are being gerrymandered and court-packed into irrelevance. Look at South Dakota. The ultimate realization of this trend toward totalitarianism will be to no longer bother with the pretense of voting.
Have a nice day. :P
Having watched Trump do his best to invalidate both Obama and Clinton as candidates, I'm truly truly scared of what he will do to opposition candidates with the power of the presidency. Now I find out that Bannon, who's been given a seat on the NSC, subscribes to some sort of cyclical apocalyptic ideology? I'm honestly terrified of what the next four years could bring.
In the time since Trump won the election, but before he took office, I was spending a lot of time thinking about how world spanning empires don't last forever, but they can adapt. The British Empire, for instance doesn't exist anymore, but it's still the same Houses of Parliament and Monarchy in the UK, and, snide comments about Brexit aside, it's a functioning government. Since Trump actually took office, I'm thinking about how the Weimar Republic led to the Third Reich, and how that all ended.
I don't mean to overstate the case, or Godwin the thread, that's my honest opinion at the moment. I don't mean to start a flame war with you Bugley, but I think saying it's just the Democrats turn to be out of power underestimates the current situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clinton played straight into those prejudices with both her statement that "Coal is dead" and her "Deplorables" speech.Coal is dead
More than half of Trump's voters are bigots (again, by their own statements in polls)Sad state of affairs when telling the truth is a bad move politically.
The problem is that saying that Coal is Dead in Pennsylvania is like telling auto-workers in Detroit that the auto factories should be shut down, or telling Cubans in Florida that it's time to normalize relationships with Castro.
There's essentially no fact or logic that will change the fact that those points aren't going to be received well at those locations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please. It's just the Democrats turn. In 2009, everyone was wringing their hands and asking about the future of the Republican party. In 2025, we'll probably be doing it again. Americans have short memories. They nearly always re-elect the incumbent (yes, that probably means eight years of Trump), and then swap over to the other party. It happened to Obama, and Bush before him, and Clinton before him. Assuming we still have elections in 2024, it'll likely happen again then, too.
And yes, I do mean if we still have elections. Voters are being gerrymandered and court-packed into irrelevance. Look at South Dakota. The ultimate realization of this trend toward totalitarianism will be to no longer bother with the pretense of voting.
Have a nice day. :P
Having watched Trump do his best to invalidate both Obama and Clinton as candidates, I'm truly truly scared of what he will do to opposition candidates with the power of the presidency. Now I find out that Bannon, who's been given a seat on the NSC, subscribes to some sort of cyclical apocalyptic ideology? I'm honestly terrified of what the next four years could bring.
In the time since Trump won the election, but before he took office, I was spending a lot of time thinking about how world spanning empires don't last forever, but they can adapt. The British Empire, for instance doesn't exist anymore, but it's still the same Houses of Parliament and Monarchy in the UK, and, snide comments about Brexit aside, it's a functioning government. Since Trump actually took office, I'm thinking about how the Weimar Republic led to the Third Reich, and how that all ended.
I don't mean to overstate the case, or Godwin the thread, that's my honest opinion at the moment. I don't mean to start a flame war with you Bugley, but I think saying it's just the Democrats turn to be out of power underestimates the current situation.
We are nowhere near the same situation as the Weimar Republic.. we aren't paying crippling war reparations, we aren't toting wheelbarrows of currency to buy loaves of bread, and our economy isn't doing that badly.
We are in for some bad years of progress reversal, but where no where near the point where we are willing to countenance death camps.
Death camps? Of course not, but what about just, y'know, concentration camps, say, somewhere outside the legal jurisdiction of US law, maybe someplace we've leased from a communist government. 'Cause Comrade Obama did his level best to shut Guantanamo Bay, but during the campaign Trump was much more of the opinion, "Close Gitmo? Hell no, fill it back up!!!11!"
I don't believe there's a one to one correspondence between Hitler's rise to power and Trump's election, I just think saying, "Meh, the pendulum will swing back eventually," is naive. Bannon has a political agenda. Trump hasn't displayed the political ability to make me think he's remotely capable of dealing with the responsibilities of his office. That's not a good mix.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that saying that Coal is Dead in Pennsylvania is like telling auto-workers in Detroit that the auto factories should be shut down, or telling Cubans in Florida that it's time to normalize relationships with Castro.
There's essentially no fact or logic that will change the fact that those points aren't going to be received well at those locations.
And yet... it remains the truth.
Clinton could have lied to the coal workers. She knows how. Republicans have been doing it for decades and Trump went with the standard playbook there... 'we will remove environmental protections and bureaucratic regulations and *poof* the coal jobs will come back'.
It is unbelievable that people in coal country still believe this nonsense and well past time they grow up and learn to live in the really real world. If the only way to win elections is to tell people lies they want to hear and pursue 'solutions' which will not work then our country will be joining coal power in the graveyard. Clinton offered coal workers real hope with the possibility of job retraining towards wind and solar power. Instead they chose to continue embracing the GOP lies which have been slowly strangling their communities for decades.
BTW: Most younger Cubans in Florida now support normalizing relations with Cuba. Only the older generations cling to a policy which failed for more than fifty years. A refreshing example of a community which IS starting to make reality based decisions.
As for auto-workers... they should probably be warned that their days are numbered. Autonomous vehicles will greatly reduce the number of new cars needed each year... and correspondingly the number of auto workers needed. Ergo, auto factory communities should be looking to transition to new options over the next half century or so.
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not my party right or wrong. Its just that the republicans are so far from right on pretty much anything that i cannot envision a future where i'd have to side with them with my vote.
They're the party of fiscal responsibility.. that vastly increase the deficit when they're in office with tax breaks for the rich and wars they put on the credit card.
They're the party of personal responsibility... for the auto mechanic who didn't save enough to get cancer. If you treated the stock market like black jack roulette you're too big to fail! Here's a bailout.
They're the party of smaller government!... unless you're an oil company, in which case our military will glady go to war for you.
They're the party of lower taxes... for po boxes in delaware. Corporate taxes get lower. Taxes on work stay the same. To make up the difference, they cut funding to the states. Which have to raise your taxes, because all the money thats made is in a po box in delaware.
They're the party of less obtrusive government!.. unless it's your sex life in which case they will be intrusive enough to technically be a part of it.
They're the party keeping the government from overreaching their authority.. unless you're black. in which case forget the fourth ammendement we're going to throw random people up against the wall and search them.
They're the party of truth! Except for science. That's all hogwash. Seriously, republicans have a problem with realities well known liberal bias.
I mean.. seriously. What am i supposed to be voting for here? I mean, yeah, it would be nice to have a serious alternative to democrats to force them to change or lose my vote but thats not going to happen.
Death camps? Of course not, but what about just, y'know, concentration camps, say, somewhere outside the legal jurisdiction of US law, maybe someplace we've leased from a communist government. 'Cause Comrade Obama did his level best to shut Guantanamo Bay, but during the campaign Trump was much more of the opinion, "Close Gitmo? Hell no, fill it back up!!!11!"
I don't believe there's a one to one correspondence between Hitler's rise to power and Trump's election, I just think saying, "Meh, the pendulum will swing back eventually," is naive. Bannon has a political agenda. Trump hasn't displayed the political ability to make me think he's remotely capable of dealing with the responsibilities of his office. That's not a good mix.
I don't like Trump or his puppetmaster Bannon, and I genuinely think the US is going to be in a worst place in 4 years, but I don't think its going to be Third Reich level of worst. I think we are more likely to see dissolution of the republic before that, and even I think the latter is unlikely.
We got 4 years...lets not break the hyperbole meter in the first couple of months.
The problem is that saying that Coal is Dead in Pennsylvania is like telling auto-workers in Detroit that the auto factories should be shut down, or telling Cubans in Florida that it's time to normalize relationships with Castro.
There's essentially no fact or logic that will change the fact that those points aren't going to be received well at those locations.
And yet... it remains the truth.
Clinton could have lied to the coal workers. She knows how. Republicans have been doing it for decades and Trump went with the standard playbook there... 'we will remove environmental protections and bureaucratic regulations and *poof* the coal jobs will come back'.
It is unbelievable that people in coal country still believe this nonsense and well past time they grow up and learn to live in the really real world. If the only way to win elections is to tell people lies they want to hear and pursue 'solutions' which will not work then our country will be joining coal power in the graveyard. Clinton offered coal workers real hope with the possibility of job retraining towards wind and solar power. Instead they chose to continue embracing the GOP lies which have been slowly strangling their communities for decades.
BTW: Most younger Cubans in Florida now support normalizing relations with Cuba. Only the older generations cling to a policy which failed for more than fifty years. A refreshing example of a community which IS starting to make reality based decisions.
As for auto-workers... they should probably be warned that their days are numbered. Autonomous vehicles will greatly reduce the number of new cars needed each year... and correspondingly the number of auto workers needed. Ergo, auto factory communities should be looking to transition to new options over the next half century or so.
The thing is job retraining is something they are not interested in. They want there way of life back. Straight out telling them "Sorry your communities are going to get worse and the jobs you and your ancestors have done for generations are gone" is a pretty surefire way to alienate the people you are speaking to. Graphs and hard logic always loses out to emotional appeals, especially on complex issues that people are not knowledgeable about. I have seen some strain of this kind of thinking in all walks of life, so it's not like its epidemic only amongst coal miners and auto workers.
Figuring out how to speak to these folks while providing realistic options that don't gut other democratic planks is the #1 challenge dems need to face if they are going to regain ground in states they have lost.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
BNW, don't forget that they are also the party of 'moral responsibility'... that elected Donald Trump.
Oh, and the party of 'religious tolerance'... so long as you are a Christian... who agrees with them.
The 'pro life' party... except for all those executions and the gun violence.
Et cetera. Everything they stand for... they really don't.
I mean.. seriously. What am i supposed to be voting for here? I mean, yeah, it would be nice to have a serious alternative to democrats to force them to change or lose my vote but thats not going to happen.
Well if your vote was all that was needed, then yeah, the Dems wouldn't need to change. But since they want to win more offices (I assume, though after this year I don't know if how safe of an assumption that is) they'll need more than just your vote. Unless Trump's failures are able to turn away loyal party-line Republican voters, that'll mean that the Democrats have to woo them somehow by changing what they're currently doing.
A good focus on the economy is rarely a bad idea - especially if they can come up with good ways to address the way that automation is replacing a lot of the work people used to do. The simple truth is that new industries do not inherently create new jobs in great numbers - there are plenty of places in the world where unemployment is painfully high, and it's certainly not for a lack of desire to work. Figure this out - a way to try and genuinely improve the lives of people all over the country, urban and rural alike - and you might have something worth listening to.