US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4131

On June 26 2016 09:47 IgnE wrote:


You know I know that you are just repeating the "post-factual" thing from that viral FT comment, but anyone that emphasizes "facts" is missing both why so many voted for Brexit and why so many support Trump. Lamenting the deconstruction of the fact is to assert an objective position that is the form of disguise for a thoroughly subjective position: "I decide what the 'facts' are and whether they are relevant or not. I decide the epistemic grounds of debate. And in doing so have constructed an ethical system that cannot broach disgreement, because the 'facts' are on my side."

Brexit and Trump supporters are in many ways voting for propositions that they know will hurt their short-term neoclassically-defined economic interests in return for some semblance of psychosocial control over their lives. The politicization, and hence, weaponization of facts in ideological wars has produced a somewhat justified reaction against the "facticity" of facts handed down from on high (i.e. the social elites).

It is about the ability to control the presuppositions or coordinates that define individuals' and communities' symbolic orders. People are sick and tired of being completely powerless to find satisfying jobs, as work, healthcare, welfare, and material security in general is increasingly difficult to control for the majority of the population. The "growth" of the last 5 years is not being felt by the masses who are instead subjected to increasingly precarious employment and subsistence. That's why you have regions that ostensibly "benefit" most from remaining in the EU voting against. And people who think facts are apolitical or who decry the workingman's disdain for "facts" are blinded by a hegemonic ideology that effectively hides the politics at play, making it literally impossible to get a handle on the underlying struggle here.

Edit: this also applies to sandernistas and its one of the reasons that many people on this board, including one who will remain nameless, have been heaping endless scorn on the sandernistas while attributing their position to youthful idiocy, ignorance, or living in an "echo chamber". such people miss the point.

A newspaper correspondent observing Abraham Lincoln's second inauguration in March 1865 — delivered to a crowd "as far as the eye could reach" — noted that the president laid his right hand on a Bible and, facing Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon Chase, swore to preserve, protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.

"Then," the reporter noted, "solemnly repeating 'So help me God!' he bent forward and reverently kissed the Book."

It was the first documented eyewitness account of a U.S. president asking for God's assistance at his inauguration. While the oath of office is laid out in the Constitution, it includes no reference to God. The founders barred any religious requirement for the office.

The words "so help me God" have nevertheless become the standard conclusion of the oath. U.S. presidents have long understood that their fellow citizens want them to show some humility and demonstrate a faith in God as they perform their duties. Most have felt the need to attend church on occasion, talk of prayer and seek the counsel of ministers, if only for the sake of appearances.

"In the United States, religion serves as a proxy for morality," says Randall Balmer, a historian of religion at Dartmouth College. "What we as voters want to know is that our presidential candidates have some sort of moral center or moral compass, and we really don't know how to ask the question other than to say, 'Are you religious?' "

This expectation of presidential religiosity, however, is being tested with the candidacy of thrice-married Donald Trump, who mangles his references to the Bible, says he doesn't often need forgiveness and when asked what he thought about Jesus, managed only to say he respected him "in terms of bravery and in terms of courage."

In the modern era, Balmer says, "I think he would be the first president who really makes no credible claims to religiosity." By contrast, Hillary Clinton refers regularly to her devout Methodist upbringing and talks of her rootedness in the social gospel associated with the liberal wing of that church.

For a Republican especially, Trump's lack of religious credentials is significant. Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 was boosted by his alliance with a newly formed Christian group calling itself the Moral Majority, and Republican candidates since then have gone out of their way to court Christian support. The evangelical vote remains important enough that Donald Trump felt the need to meet with conservative Christian leaders last week in New York.

On June 26 2016 13:44 Introvert wrote:


Because her opponent was Bernie effing Sanders.

On June 26 2016 20:19 Rebs wrote:


You are somewhat over analyzing this. Bottom line is that alot of leave campaign claims were lies, alot of Trumps claims are also lies.

Lets look at one of the major claims


Euro Tax money going to NHS fund ? No not really and it was never going to be possible. Kinda like building a wall.

Yes you can blame that on those elites who have left the working man out in the cold, but the working mans situation will not be alleviated in the slightest and the the psychosocial control is an illusion at best. That psychosocial control is simply latent xenophobia being given legitimicay.

Its obvious there are issues, but misdirecting that anger is also pretty stupid. So at the end of the day facts matter and its not like elites hand down every little fact. Facts are facts whehter they are handed down by elites or offered by the dude running the halal guys cart.

On June 27 2016 01:28 Mohdoo wrote:
The thing that I think has been most fascinating about this election is how obsessed with hierarchy it feels the GOP has become. Tons of extremely respectable, good republicans are leaving the GOP because they say it no longer represents them and that Trump is shit. But since Trump is the nominee, it's like suddenly these people are garbage and should rot. I see so many people celebrate George Will leaving the party and I can't help but wonder what the hell is going on. How are people seeing this as a good thing?

Don’t break out the bong just yet, but Congress is quietly chipping away at the federal ban on marijuana. It’s not happening with a sweeping national law, but through modest provisions slipped into spending bills in recent weeks.

For example: Bills funding the Veterans Affairs Department have a line that lifts a prohibition on medical marijuana. The Senate Appropriations Committee has adopted provisions barring the federal government from interfering on pot enforcement where medical marijuana is already legal. And there’s movement in both chambers to make sure banks don’t get penalized for handling money from legal pot businesses.

None of these will bring overnight change on the federal level. But each little measure shows that Congress, following the lead of the states, is moving in the general direction of legalization, advocates say.

“We can kind of look at this as the end of prohibition, or at least the beginning of the end of prohibition,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat who backed his state’s 2014 ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana and is helping lead efforts to soften federal restrictions.

Attitudes around the country and on Capitol Hill have changed so quickly that even advocates of rolling back pot restrictions have been surprised. It was only a few years ago that even the most modest reform proposals were rejected in the House and Senate, said Michael Collins, deputy director of the Drug Policy Alliance. Now? “We just win all the time,” he said, sounding not unlike a certain presidential candidate.

On June 26 2016 14:56 silynxer wrote:

I agree with your main thrust but I am not so sure the bolded part is true (see the reactions after Brexit on the Leave side).

On June 27 2016 02:09 NukeD wrote:
I think Trump has no intention of building a wall and it was just an election gimmick.

On June 27 2016 02:30 zlefin wrote:
I'm sure Trump will try building a wall if elected; stupid though it be.

On June 27 2016 02:49 Plansix wrote:
The wall is extremely stupid since most illegal immigrates come over the border legal and just overstay their visas. Its like building a levy outside of your house when its flooding due to a rising water table.