EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 9172
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 08 2017 07:22 LegalLord wrote: It abused some voter data to try to frame Hillary Clinton losing to Donald Trump, and any number of things along the way, as racism. Seems like something that would be good for preaching to the converted, and the reactions to the piece suggest that is the case. Considering that many on the liberal side of politics still thought Obama the sign of post racism America right up until the election, it's not preaching to the converted. The fact that Clinton was the nominee everyone was more than happy to ignore her contributions to mass incarceration of black men is proof positive of that. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 08 2017 07:26 kollin wrote: @xDaunt this is picking on a very small part of your post, but why does rejecting nationalism entail rejecting our common values? I dont see how an understanding that nationalism rejects the sort of collective rationality that we need as a species to even just survive at this point leads to a rejection of all the other values that constitute liberal democracy. Like I said, nationalism is the affirmative expression of who we are. It is the shield for our values. If we dispense with expressions of nationalism -- if we drop that which shields our values -- then we make our values more vulnerable to outside and competing influences. EDIT: There's an element of ceremony here that matters. Think about it this way: why do gay people have gay pride parades? Why do we go through the trouble of Black History Month? It's kinda like that. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On November 08 2017 07:22 LegalLord wrote: It abused some voter data to try to frame Hillary Clinton losing to Donald Trump, and any number of things along the way, as racism. Seems like something that would be good for preaching to the converted, and the reactions to the piece suggest that is the case. In what sense did he 'abuse' the data? The issue is more that he dared attack the sacred entity that is the middle-class and their chauvinism, instead of going to pretend again that every Trump voter has no agency or is somehow impoverished. Which is untrue without any 'data abuse'. Trump was not backed by the economic precariat, but the upper to lower white middle class. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 08 2017 07:59 Mohdoo wrote: Twitter now supports 280 character tweets. Trump tweets just got twice as juicy. From what I can tell, it was put into beta for some users beginning two months ago, and it still hasn't been rolled out for all users. One source says it will be active by tonight for everyone. My twitter account still is restricted to 140 as of this post. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On November 08 2017 07:45 xDaunt wrote: Like I said, nationalism is the affirmative expression of who we are. It is the shield for our values. If we dispense with expressions of nationalism -- if we drop that which shields our values -- then we make our values more vulnerable to outside and competing influences. EDIT: There's an element of ceremony here that matters. Think about it this way: why do gay people have gay pride parades? Why do we go through the trouble of Black History Month? It's kinda like that. I think there is a good side to nationalism, and one you've correctly identified - the instinct to protect your friends and family, and to defend the values you believe in. I just think that the bad side of nationalism is almost always an inevitable result of adopting nationalism as a mindset. This side is the one that sees international relations as a zero-sum game, and we've seen the results of that during the 20th century. While it seems moral and rational for citizens of a country to define and protect their common interests, it too easily slips into trying to damage others interests, which is wrong. The main problem of this is that this form of nationalism seems to be a natural response to the current nature of internationalist trade which supersedes national government. It almost seems that an inconsistent triad between international trade, democracy, and national democratic structures exists. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 08 2017 07:12 Nyxisto wrote: It's a good piece for the reason alone that it spells out the simple fact that race was the strongest predictor in the election, instead of repeating the "misunderstood poor Trump voter" ad nauseam I don't think it spelled out the fact that race was the strongest predictor. It makes a case that whiteness is Trump's ideology, and white supremacy was key to his support. Several paragraphs now it pays homage to your point. Then it's back to the white coalition (lol) and economic demographics. It really sounds like it will need to be brought up at intervals because race politics is a shortcut to ending uncomfortable topics for political debate. Trump vs Clinton was about more than race, which should have been obvious from the skin color of both major party nominees. | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42778 Posts
On November 08 2017 08:15 Danglars wrote: Trump vs Clinton was about more than race, which should have been obvious from the skin color of both major party nominees. You're not wrong, in as much as sexism also played its part. Trump's core demographic of the insecure white male isn't just insecure about brown folks, the vagina people also make him nervous. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
Eliminating state and local tax deductions will create a more level playing field: GOP senator ... New York, California and other high-tax states would be hard hit by the removal of the deduction, a fact seized upon by Democrats to bolster their argument that Trump's plan is a gift to the wealthiest Americans and the corporate sector. www.cnbc.com Are they going after munis (I don't think they are)? If they aren't going after munis the argument for eliminating the deduction isn't that solid, and Dems are making a valid point. | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
On November 08 2017 08:17 KwarK wrote: You're not wrong, in as much as sexism also played its part. Trump's core demographic of the insecure white male isn't just insecure about brown folks, the vagina people also make him nervous. Come on. Race and gender didn't win election for Trump. He's an awful person but let's not go with generic labels. I'm sure there is a better reason than that. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On November 08 2017 08:15 Danglars wrote: I don't think it spelled out the fact that race was the strongest predictor. It makes a case that whiteness is Trump's ideology, and white supremacy was key to his support. Several paragraphs now it pays homage to your point. Then it's back to the white coalition (lol) and economic demographics. It really sounds like it will need to be brought up at intervals because race politics is a shortcut to ending uncomfortable topics for political debate. Trump vs Clinton was about more than race, which should have been obvious from the skin color of both major party nominees. Of course it wasn't just the only reason, no issue as complex as this has only one reason almost by definition, but it was the predominant factor through pretty much all demographics. You don't have to agree with all the arguments and other things Coates goes over in that piece, but that much everybody ought to take away from it. And it would be wrong to make it only a right-wing issue (although it nowadays predominantly is one). The radical egalitarianism of the left which has reduced every issue to one between the "elites" and the common man and makes it impossible to actually criticise anybody else has contributed to it too. But this is a long term issue. You can always easily blame the poor or the rich, but if you're starting to genuinely criticise the middle-class you're in for a lot of fun. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 08 2017 08:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote: www.cnbc.com Are they going after munis (I don't think they are)? If they aren't going after munis the argument for eliminating the deduction isn't that solid, and Dems are making a valid point. I'm for the end of states/munis with no state income tax subsidizing high-tax states (and cities within) like CA/NY. If you want higher services and costly public amenities, pay for them yourself ... don't shuffle it out of the federal revenue to help people not feel the burden of their own vote. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 08 2017 08:22 Nyxisto wrote: Of course it wasn't just the only reason, no issue as complex as this has only one reason almost by definition, but it was the predominant factor through pretty much all demographics. You don't have to agree with all the arguments and other things Coates goes over in that piece, but that much everybody ought to take away from it. And it would be wrong to make it only a right-wing issue (although it nowadays predominantly is one). The radical egalitarianism of the left which has reduced every issue to one between the "elites" and the common man and makes it impossible to actually criticise anybody else has contributed to it too. I'm okay talking about various demographics and how they voted. The problem comes when you try to contrast demographic disparities and making a political point on "misunderstood poor Trump voter." His piece certainly didn't spell it out as a predictor ... it hardly mentioned it. It was all about Trump's ideology and voter's white supremacy / guilt of the white race. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
On November 08 2017 08:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote: www.cnbc.com Are they going after munis (I don't think they are)? If they aren't going after munis the argument for eliminating the deduction isn't that solid, and Dems are making a valid point. Republicans in Washington wouldn't even know how to start going about fixing bond problems  | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 08 2017 08:24 Danglars wrote: I'm for the end of states/munis with no state income tax subsidizing high-tax states (and cities within) like CA/NY. If you want higher services and costly public amenities, pay for them yourself ... don't shuffle it out of the federal revenue to help people not feel the burden of their own vote. I'm on board if they tax muni's too. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On November 08 2017 08:09 Danglars wrote: From what I can tell, it was put into beta for some users beginning two months ago, and it still hasn't been rolled out for all users. One source says it will be active by tonight for everyone. My twitter account still is restricted to 140 as of this post. I'm legit concerned this is a national security issue. Trump feeling like he has to fill every tweet could lead to some even more disruptive tweets which spew more crap than we are used to. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42778 Posts
On November 08 2017 08:21 sc-darkness wrote: Come on. Race and gender didn't win election for Trump. He's an awful person but let's not go with generic labels. I'm sure there is a better reason than that. No, it really did. Ever since the civil rights movement and the emergence of gender equality movements in the public and professional spheres there has been an increasing backlash of white male resentment against the perceived attack on their privileged placed within society. Trump is the standard bearer of white male privilege, a man who never had to work a day in his life to succeed and who, despite a mountain of evidence of his lack of qualification, is still given preference over more qualified minorities. He's the symbol of the "good old days", a colossal "fuck you" to anyone not a white man. Sure, you might not be able to sexually harass your female employees the way you used to be able to, but you can elect someone who openly brags about sexual assault to the presidency. It's all about identity politics. Trump is the symbol of the largest and most disaffected identity group in America. And yes, race and gender did. There's no denying that. Michigan was won by just 13,000 votes. New Hampshire by less than 3,000. If even half of one percent of voters voted the way they did due to sexism, that's enough. The margins were super, super tight. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 08 2017 08:21 sc-darkness wrote: Come on. Race and gender didn't win election for Trump. He's an awful person but let's not go with generic labels. I'm sure there is a better reason than that. It didn't hurt him at all. His racisally charged rhetoric would have destroyed a any other candidate. | ||
| ||
