|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 15 2016 12:43 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 10:57 LegalLord wrote:
For all intents and purposes Hillary gave every indication that she had no intention of changing anything about her policy. I wanted to see her throw an olive branch in the progressives' direction in her VP choice - no dice, she chose someone who was literally a carbon copy of herself. I wanted to see her appeal to the people who were skeptical of her, especially from the base which should have easily voted for her, in the convention. Nope, just an endless stream of identity politics with a brief and evidently sidelined appearance by the progressive stars (Warren and Sanders). I also wanted to see her take responsibility for her own past mistakes and promise to make them better - this wasn't done in any meaningful way.
This was arrogance, pure and simple. The idea that the other choice is so impossibly unfeasible for people to vote for, that she could get away with anything she wanted in the process of getting her win. And while I can't say that I was one of the ones brave enough to send that "fuck you" to her attitude (I have my own living situation to worry about and the status quo doesn't hurt me as much as Trump might), I absolutely can't feel bad about seeing her get this completely and utterly deserved comeuppance. The hardcore Sanders leftists who voted for her probably feel the exact same way right now. She could have gone with sanders. It still is beyond me why they didn't pick sanders. Probably because he was not part of the party elite. He did have more then sufficient support from the democratic voter base and would probably have won the primary if he would have had support from the party,instead the party working against them. Sanders was perfect,but they come with caine. Can any democrat here give me a solid argument for not picking sanders as vp?
Not a solid argument; I'm sure I could make some plausible-sounding half-decent arguments, but nothing truly solid.
I think Sanders would've been reasonable as long as they can get along well enough. Makes for a stronger alliance that way.
I disagree with your claim that sanders would've won the primary if he had more party support. He's far-ish left, hillary is more center-left. Some people prefer the more centrist approach and feel bernie's goals are a bit out there (at least for america). I also don't think the party truly worked against him in a strong way.
|
On November 15 2016 12:38 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 12:23 Introvert wrote:On November 15 2016 12:21 farvacola wrote:
Paul Ryan wants to dismantle Medicare during Trump's first term.
lol, I'm sure that'll work out well. Trump more or less opposed entitlement reform during the primaries, it's not happening. are we sure that Trump is actually going to make decisions instead of just doing whatever GOP politicians tell him to do?
depends on the issue. I'm sure the finer points of tax or education policy he won't care as much about, but I could see him axing entitlement reform before it gets started.
|
On November 15 2016 12:59 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 12:43 pmh wrote:On November 15 2016 10:57 LegalLord wrote:
For all intents and purposes Hillary gave every indication that she had no intention of changing anything about her policy. I wanted to see her throw an olive branch in the progressives' direction in her VP choice - no dice, she chose someone who was literally a carbon copy of herself. I wanted to see her appeal to the people who were skeptical of her, especially from the base which should have easily voted for her, in the convention. Nope, just an endless stream of identity politics with a brief and evidently sidelined appearance by the progressive stars (Warren and Sanders). I also wanted to see her take responsibility for her own past mistakes and promise to make them better - this wasn't done in any meaningful way.
This was arrogance, pure and simple. The idea that the other choice is so impossibly unfeasible for people to vote for, that she could get away with anything she wanted in the process of getting her win. And while I can't say that I was one of the ones brave enough to send that "fuck you" to her attitude (I have my own living situation to worry about and the status quo doesn't hurt me as much as Trump might), I absolutely can't feel bad about seeing her get this completely and utterly deserved comeuppance. The hardcore Sanders leftists who voted for her probably feel the exact same way right now. She could have gone with sanders. It still is beyond me why they didn't pick sanders. Probably because he was not part of the party elite. He did have more then sufficient support from the democratic voter base and would probably have won the primary if he would have had support from the party,instead the party working against them. Sanders was perfect,but they come with caine. Can any democrat here give me a solid argument for not picking sanders as vp? Not a solid argument; I'm sure I could make some plausible-sounding half-decent arguments, but nothing truly solid. I think Sanders would've been reasonable as long as they can get along well enough. Makes for a stronger alliance that way. I disagree with your claim that sanders would've won the primary if he had more party support. He's far-ish left, hillary is more center-left. Some people prefer the more centrist approach and feel bernie's goals are a bit out there (at least for america). I also don't think the party truly worked against him in a strong way.
It's been mentioned ad nauseum, but they were supposed to be neutral, which at this point I think no one is still suggesting they were, as that is, they broke their own rules in favor of Hillary.
If one doesn't think they "worked against him in a strong way" (not sure what they would have had to do?) they certainly worked hard FOR Hillary (still against the rules). There's emails going way back including ways for her to manipulate the primary process for her advantage.
I can't remember how many people said this race was over before it started because Hillary started with a 400+ delegate lead before anyone voted, then they want to come back and tell us that the DNC favoritism had little to nothing to do with the result. If one wrote it in a story, no one would believe it.
|
I have no interest in actually reading the emails, but I did read several people spreading the rumor that Kaine was given VP in exchange for stepping down as head of the DNC to let DWS be chair to make it easier for Hillary to win the primary and that it was confirmed in the wikileaks emails.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 15 2016 13:12 Nevuk wrote:
I have no interest in actually reading the emails, but I did read several people spreading the rumor that Kaine was given VP in exchange for stepping down as head of the DNC to let DWS be chair to make it easier for Hillary to win the primary and that it was confirmed in the wikileaks emails.
Kinda sorta.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2986
http://www.snopes.com/tim-kaine-dnc-deal/
Basically one of those "consistent with the facts, but unproven" situations.
|
On November 15 2016 05:50 farvacola wrote:
Once it becomes clear that Trump will be unable to solve the problems of global inequality at the root of rural job loss and wage depression, it'll be interesting to see how the conversation changes.
Be optimistic farva! I watched his "First 100 Days" speech and felt hope spring, like lilacs out of the dead land. If only elections were held in April instead of November.
|
It's just garbage to say that the white nationalism underpinning the birther in chief succeeding the first black president is provoked by the "intolerant left".
|
On November 15 2016 12:27 xDaunt wrote:Due to being afflicted with sickness and an uncontrollable case of the shits, I haven't been to give this thread the attention that I wanted given the topic, But here's an article that better explains some of what I was trying to convey. Here are some excerpts: Show nested quote +At a certain level, how Trump won is so simple that most pundits—the same people who gave the president-elect no chance of winning—can’t see it. The Republican nominee got enough white votes—especially among the working class, particularly in the upper Mid-West—to offset huge Democratic advantages among minorities and white professionals. This was the Sailer Strategy, named after the insightful blogger who coined the notion back in 2000. Steve Sailer’s essential idea, that the GOP needed to max out the white vote to keep winning national elections in the face of changing demographics, was rejected by most Republicans as smacking of racism.
It cannot be stated too many times that the GOP establishment repeatedly rejected Sailerism. Indeed, leading Republicans often seemed to run in the other direction from its commonsense logic. The facts are clear: that Mitt Romney failed to get many votes from working-class whites in the very places where Trump just attracted them in droves caused the GOP to lose the White House in 2012.
Predictably, the vanquished GOP in November 2012 determined that they needed to get more Hispanics voting Republican. The stakes were clear within days of Romney’s defeat, as I observed at the time:
The GOP has a basic choice to make if it wants to survive as a national party: Get more Hispanics or get more whites. Doing the latter, especially reaching out to whites who are economically hurting, would require the party to conduct a painful self-examination as to why it favors the wealthy so consistently at the expense of average people. Doing the former will require glossy ads, more token brown faces at GOP events, and greater marketing en español yet no real introspection. Of course, the latter course might actually save the Republicans nationally, while the former course is a flight of fancy. Nevertheless, expect bulk purchases of “Yo soy Republican!” t-shirts and bumper-stickers to rise.
Trump adopted the Sailer Strategy—whether he knew it I have no idea—and won handsomely. It would be wrong to impute huge numbers of down-market whites voting for Trump simply to racism, as many on the left predictably are doing. Quite a few Trump voters in swing states like Pennsylvania and Ohio turn out to have voted for Obama—twice. They wanted change, Obama didn’t deliver, so they gave Trump a chance to be the change-agent in Washington they have long sought. The roots of their dissatisfaction are social and economic more than racial, and bien-pensant efforts to portray their legitimate grievances as “hate” reflect the worst of post-modern progressive intolerance.
All the same, it cannot be denied that ethno-racial concerns played a role here—and that it was the Democrats who opened that can of worms. Since the beginning of the century, liberals have been crowing about the “emerging Democratic majority” being delivered by changing demographics, heavily fueled by immigration (legal or not). President Obama’s reelection four years ago seemed to conclusively prove that the “new” America—morally superior to the old, white-dominated one—had arrived, and the Republicans were on life support, waiting for GOP voters to go the way of the dinosaur. As one of Obama’s media acolytes hailed the 2012 victory:
President Barack Obama did not just win reelection tonight. His victory signaled the irreversible triumph of a new, 21st-century America: multiracial, multi-ethnic, global in outlook and moving beyond centuries of racial, sexual, marital and religious tradition.
This was more of the Marxistoid “right side of History” blather that Team Obama has indulged in for the last eight years—and it was utterly wrong. To the surprise of no one who understands human nature, many whites didn’t appreciate being told that they had to die off for “progress” to be achieved. They didn’t like being derided by their betters as “bitter clingers” with their guns and Bibles, and they especially didn’t like being termed “deplorables” unworthy of compassion or consideration. In the last days of Hillary’s doomed campaign, its contempt for a huge chunk of the American population had become so blatant that one of her top celebrity surrogates publicly hailed the “extinction” of straight white men as a step in the right direction.
Trump is no political genius. He made an appeal to working-class whites, who correctly felt that the Democrats viewed them with undisguised contempt and didn’t want their vote. The “emerging Democratic majority” thesis included the need to get some of those whites, a legacy Democratic voting bloc, to win national elections; under Obama, his party decided they didn’t need them at all, which was a terrible, almost incomprehensible mistake. It shouldn’t be necessary to point out that running against working-class whites—at almost 40 percent of the electorate, the biggest voting bloc in America—is the definition of political insanity.
Yet progressives somehow managed not to see the nose right on their face. Hence President Trump. What commentators term “identity politics” has now become normative, thanks to the Democrats indulging in it, and Trump is now aping them. It would be more correct to term this what it actually is: nationalism. Ethno-racial nationalism is an enormously potent political force; wise politicians know this and employ it cautiously. Nationalism arouses genuine passion and is a political motivator like no other, which it explains why a majority of white women voted for Trump, to the bitter consternation of outraged feminists.
....
In recent decades, Washington has advocated that Black, Hispanic and Asian nationalisms are “good” (Americans of Middle Eastern descent may soon be added to the good list) while White Nationalism is “bad.” However, average whites—meaning those not indoctrinated in critical race theory in college—will never see it that way. The problem with pushing identity politics among minorities as a political weapon is that the majority eventually realizes they have an identity too. As I explained back in early 2015, before Donald Trump entered the presidential race, “However verboten discussion of White Nationalism is at present among polite Americans, it is unavoidable that this will become an issue in the future, with potentially explosive consequences.”
....
There’s not much for Republicans to crow about, however, despite their enormous political windfall. Trump won precisely because he ignored or repudiated most longstanding “conservative” policies. Working-class whites have little interest in privatizing Social Security or open borders or engaging in endless losing wars in the Middle East. The GOP has changed, only their leaders seem not to have noticed. The Republicans are now the White party, de facto, whether they want to be or not. American politics will never be the same, and 2016 looks like a landmark election in the manner of 1980, 1932, or 1860, each of which transformed the United States. Buckle up, it looks to be a bumpy ride ahead in the emerging era of competing American ethno-nationalisms. Source. The whole article is worth a read.
Good article. I'd almost forgotten he deserves credit for dismantling not one but two political dynasties.
He's very much right on the macro-point that whites were told they need to die off for younger, more morally sophisticated millennials and new 1st/2nd gen immigrants to take over. Cis straight men, particularly the religious were derided by her supporters to some extent. That dampens the sympathy to minority and LGBTQ struggles if the "champions of the oppressed" can't extend their tolerance to the subconsciously-racist whites. Taken together, political marginalization and moral scolds mean Trump can get away with misogynistic comments and irreverent immigrant speech. The body politic was already weary before the scandals broke.
That plays into the double standard on incorrect nationalism. It's fine and dandy to use your identity as an American of Hispanic Extent to seize on your culture, to color your views on immigration, and to vote as a bloc. But older families of western European immigrants have problematic cultures on topics of religion, assimilation, traditional sex roles, in-group favoritism, and gun culture. The group identity was largely subdued behind individualism and colorblind attitudes, as well as conservatism and republicanism. Now some of that has eroded from decades of identity group politics that say voting in your narrow tribal interest in populist fashion is the new moral act.
I don't like where the realignment is ultimately going, which is away from the conservative virtues and towards more entitlement program debt and less sane trade policy. The errors in policy will eventually reveal themselves. America will be poorer and even less united than it is now. Our friends and allies will suffer too. If Trump does a good enough job on courts, taxes, immigration, and the bureaucracy, (and its unlikely) that day might not come for some time. Very prescient example from that Claremont review "Flight 93 Election" ... you play the odds not that you like the odds, but you know there isn't another choice.
|
On November 15 2016 12:43 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 10:57 LegalLord wrote:
For all intents and purposes Hillary gave every indication that she had no intention of changing anything about her policy. I wanted to see her throw an olive branch in the progressives' direction in her VP choice - no dice, she chose someone who was literally a carbon copy of herself. I wanted to see her appeal to the people who were skeptical of her, especially from the base which should have easily voted for her, in the convention. Nope, just an endless stream of identity politics with a brief and evidently sidelined appearance by the progressive stars (Warren and Sanders). I also wanted to see her take responsibility for her own past mistakes and promise to make them better - this wasn't done in any meaningful way.
This was arrogance, pure and simple. The idea that the other choice is so impossibly unfeasible for people to vote for, that she could get away with anything she wanted in the process of getting her win. And while I can't say that I was one of the ones brave enough to send that "fuck you" to her attitude (I have my own living situation to worry about and the status quo doesn't hurt me as much as Trump might), I absolutely can't feel bad about seeing her get this completely and utterly deserved comeuppance. The hardcore Sanders leftists who voted for her probably feel the exact same way right now. She could have gone with sanders. It still is beyond me why they didn't pick sanders. Probably because he was not part of the party elite. He did have more then sufficient support from the democratic voter base and would probably have won the primary if he would have had support from the party,instead the party working against them. Sanders was perfect,but they come with caine. Can any democrat here give me a solid argument for not picking sanders as vp?
Sure. Here are a few examples: he spent the most of the primary from February onward directly attacking Hillary and the DNC, meaning that attack ads pitting HRC's VP pick against her would have been writing themselves if Sanders had been chosen. In addition, given their policy differences and the high publicity the contest between him and HRC received, he would have had to explain why HRC's positions are better than his own, something he was not very good at doing as a surrogate. He has tons of skeletons that the GOP would have used against the ticket (see Eichenwald's article and this old post of mine, for example). The kind of funding mechanisms he advocated for his proposals, and his self-characterization as a socialist, would play poorly with many voters (including those in the rust belt some people are claiming would have flocked to him instead of Trump). He would not have directly helped deliver a swing state (like Kaine with Virginia), being from Vermont. He's absolutely terrible at defending his preferred policies when pressed on them in interviews, and a poor communicator in general when he's not giving his stump speech or diagnosing a problem. He's generally ignorant on plenty of issues, in particular when it comes to international politics (not as much as Trump, obviously), and doesn't seem prepared at all to become president in case something happened to HRC. He's not someone HRC seems to have a lot of chemistry with, and it seems like he wouldn't be a good fit to work closely with her as her vice-president.
I'm not saying a HRC - Sanders ticket would have fared much worse than the HRC - Kaine ticket did, but there were plenty of legitimate reasons not to choose him.
|
On November 15 2016 13:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 13:12 Nevuk wrote:
I have no interest in actually reading the emails, but I did read several people spreading the rumor that Kaine was given VP in exchange for stepping down as head of the DNC to let DWS be chair to make it easier for Hillary to win the primary and that it was confirmed in the wikileaks emails. Kinda sorta. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2986http://www.snopes.com/tim-kaine-dnc-deal/Basically one of those "consistent with the facts, but unproven" situations.
Except it's not consistent with the facts, given that we know that plenty of other people were considered for the VP slot. There is zero actual evidence supporting that rumor.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I followed the Twitter war on the above linked twit from Sir Trump-Putin Bombshell and I thought it was hilarious. Spoiled due to my general aversion to twits being used as sources.
+ Show Spoiler +
lol
Edit: and he keeps spamming this new article like he hit upon yet another bombshell. Dude has something of an ego problem methinks. I really would like to see less of his delusional rants because they're all the same.
|
I don't know why so many people are complaining about the Trump protests. IMO it would be EXTREMELY troubling to see nobody protesting at all after a campaign like Trump's.
|
Concerning that observer article above, I don't actually think that the identity politics right now is political in origin at all. It's a general reaction to multiracial society and the modern economy and media, the Dems really didn't explicitly fire minority voters up to resort to identity politics. If they had their turnout would probably have been bigger.
The Trump movement is an international one and segregation as strong as it is in America does not exist in many European countries, yet the populist movements are just as powerful. The historical civil rights movement seems like a better example of a clash of ethnic cultures, but I don't think this is what's happening. It's more like a general revolt against 'neoliberalism'. Just look at Poland. There's not even any minorities in the country to potentially revolt against.
|
On November 15 2016 13:25 Doodsmack wrote:
It's just garbage to say that the white nationalism underpinning the birther in chief succeeding the first black president is provoked by the "intolerant left".
The white nationalism is just racist opportunistic B.S. that found someone not quite overtly racist enough to disgust the entire nation.
The thing that actually propelled Trump to the presidency is the antipathy that the Left showed toward rural white America and their economic problems.
|
On November 15 2016 12:27 xDaunt wrote:
Due to being afflicted with sickness and an uncontrollable case of the shits, I haven't been to give this thread the attention that I wanted given the topic, But here's an article that better explains some of what I was trying to convey. Here are some excerpts:
See, you would sound much more reasonable and not so hyper-partisan if you would post stuff that didn't spout B.S. about "black/hispanic/asian nationalism" (I don't even think that writer understands what "nationalism" means in that context) and didn't grossly strawman the Obama administration.
I mean yea, it hits the nail on the head with how insulted and marginalized working class whites have felt, but it's sandwiched in so much inflammatory crap that it can't be taken seriously.
As a side note, are any of the conservative posters here willing to own up to how incredibly hypocritical it is for the Right to call for all of us to "respect the president" or "respect the office" after how Obama was treated for 8 years?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 15 2016 14:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:
I mean yea, it hits the nail on the head with how insulted and marginalized working class whites have felt, but it's sandwiched in so much inflammatory crap that it can't be taken seriously.
You know, unfortunately the two issues are so closely tied together that it's hard to differentiate them even though there are two different problems at play. The disaffected people could do a better job of differentiating themselves from the "racists" etc. but the same could be said for BLM protesters who don't do a good job of distancing themselves from the domestic terrorist elements of their movement.
|
On November 15 2016 14:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 12:27 xDaunt wrote:
Due to being afflicted with sickness and an uncontrollable case of the shits, I haven't been to give this thread the attention that I wanted given the topic, But here's an article that better explains some of what I was trying to convey. Here are some excerpts:
See, you would sound much more reasonable and not so hyper-partisan if you would post stuff that didn't spout B.S. about "black/hispanic/asian nationalism" (I don't even think that writer understands what "nationalism" means in that context) and didn't grossly strawman the Obama administration. I mean yea, it hits the nail on the head with how insulted and marginalized working class whites have felt, but it's sandwiched in so much inflammatory crap that it can't be taken seriously. As a side note, are any of the conservative posters here willing to own up to how incredibly hypocritical it is for the Right to call for all of us to "respect the president" or "respect the office" after how Obama was treated for 8 years?
Naw Its just the way the game works. When one side wins they have to don the mask of the establishment while the side that loses gets to play the opposition. Its the same story from every other presidency from either side.
|
On November 15 2016 14:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 12:27 xDaunt wrote:
Due to being afflicted with sickness and an uncontrollable case of the shits, I haven't been to give this thread the attention that I wanted given the topic, But here's an article that better explains some of what I was trying to convey. Here are some excerpts:
See, you would sound much more reasonable and not so hyper-partisan if you would post stuff that didn't spout B.S. about "black/hispanic/asian nationalism" (I don't even think that writer understands what "nationalism" means in that context) and didn't grossly strawman the Obama administration. I mean yea, it hits the nail on the head with how insulted and marginalized working class whites have felt, but it's sandwiched in so much inflammatory crap that it can't be taken seriously. As a side note, are any of the conservative posters here willing to own up to how incredibly hypocritical it is for the Right to call for all of us to "respect the president" or "respect the office" after how Obama was treated for 8 years?
Speaking of partisanship, everyone should get a chuckle out of imagining the religious, arm shaming, "speak English", folks arguing with the overzealous SJW's bodyshaming Melania, and insulting her intelligence/ability to speak English.
|
Well, my media bubble has been burst. I should have known, I guess. I still see comments about Trump & racism in this thread and so I'm going to say this:
Back in 2008 I travelled through most of the states that turned red during this election. If I understand correctly, those are the same states and people who voted for Obama. From this alone I feel I have to conclude that they're not racist. But, while I was down there, I noticed why they refer to it as the Rust Belt. Those people there have been struggling, and they think Trump will help them. The approval ratings of congress are so low that those people would have voted for almost any outsider that made enough of a riot. Trump was that outsider. He showed up and talked to them.
People don't stand in the voting booth and wax philosophically "Oh, this guy is kinda sexist and says some racists things". Their vote is their only way to make them heard in Washington, and they vote for their own economic survival. Trump showed up in all of those states (holding a record amount of rallies), and told people he would drain the swamp, keep their health care insurance cost low, made sure they'd have jobs. Even people who have jobs will vote on someone who promises jobs. Clinton, meanwhile, was iconic of the same Washington establishment that hasn't helped them or looked after them in 20-30 years but had this generalized message of casual progress when people wanted significant change.
To label all of this as just racism is nothing short of disrespectful. Just as disrespectful as you think Trump is (and you should think he is very disrespectful). I say this as someone who despises Trump and his character. I don't think the Trump phenomenon within the minds of those people in the Rust Belt who voted for him is racism at all, nor built on it. The media probably just turned it into that because none of them wanted a Trump presidency to begin with.
|
On November 15 2016 17:44 a_flayer wrote:
To label all of this as just racism is nothing short of disrespectful. Just as disrespectful as you think Trump is (and you should think he is very disrespectful). I say this as someone who despises Trump and his character. I don't think the Trump phenomenon within the minds of those people in the Rust Belt who voted for him is racism at all, nor built on it. The media probably just turned it into that because none of them wanted a Trump presidency to begin with.
We all agree it's not only racism but saying it isn't at all, wtf?! This kind of tolerant mindset towards extremism is very dangerous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
