US Elections: Children of the Revolution

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Shryke said:

If you brother is a lefty and thinking of voting for Trump he ain't paying attention or is kinda dim on these matters. Trump's platform is right-wing in basically every way. His populism is pure race-baiting and authoritarianism.

Trump is not the quickest path to anything except corruption and terrible frightening policy. This is a guy who still harasses people who said his hands were tiny back in the 80s. You don't want that kind of person running anything. 

 Trump has said very lefty things about universal healthcare and increasing social security.  He has also said fascist things like deport everyone and torture terrorists. The guy is not describable in so many ways. 

[Altherion]

39 minutes ago, GrapefruitPerrier said:

 The money in politics is clearly making it worse, and the Citizens United case must be overturned.   The few are running things, at the expense of most: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/04/the-political-one-percent-of-the-one-percent-in-2014-mega-donors-fuel-rising-cost-of-elections/

Interestingly enough, even the legislators themselves aren't too fond of it given what it forces them to do:

Quote

Not too far from the Capitol Hill townhouses are the call centers that both Democrats and Republicans use to dial for dollars. Endlessly.

This is how Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, described it: “We sit at these desks with stacks of names in front of us and short bios and histories of giving . . . and we make calls to our faithful friends and ask them to give money or host a fundraiser.”

National Public Radio tried to get access to the call centers for a story on fundraising in 2012 but got no further than a description of them from members of Congress.

Former representative Dennis Cardoza, a California Democrat, compared his party’s call center to a sweatshop with thirty-inch-wide cubicles set up for the sole purpose of begging for money. He said the need for constant fundraising helped push him into retirement.

 

29 minutes ago, GrapefruitPerrier said:

Hillary certainly has negatives, but Trump has had a lie or misstatement nearly every five minute in his speeches.

Trump lies often and he lies brazenly. The media emphasizes this and states that if you fact-check Trump's statements, a greater percentage of them will be false than of Clinton's or those of his Republican competitors. This is true, but it misses a crucial point: Trump also says truths which few politicians will say. For example, that most of our politicians are bought and paid for, that free trade deals screwed over most Americans, that getting shot down while bombing a technologically inferior enemy does not make one a hero, etc. Furthermore, he says these things without having a competitor first demonstrate that the position is advantageous and he sticks to what he says even when the media criticizes him nearly unanimously.

People are used to politicians lying -- it's practically expected and isn't going to sink anyone at this point. Non-trivial truths and the willingness to stand by what one said are much more rare.

[Shryke]

44 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Probably wouldn't hurt, but highly unlikely to help either. It was a ridiculous video that is only entertaining to Trump fans and Hillary haters, so it's not really swaying opinion in his favour.

I read an interesting article in our paper today about the negatives of Hillary. A small lie rather irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, but apparently when she visited Nepal as Sec State(?) she said she was named after Sir Edmond Hillary. But when she was born, the world had no clue who Edmond Hillary was because he was merely a humble beekeeper with aspirations of mountaineering greatness. He climbed Everest 6 years later. Perhaps her parents just called her "girl" until some famous event happened which would determine her name. The other critique was about her lack of action when the democratically elected govt of Honduras was overthrown. I'd never hear about what happened in Honduras, but if what the article reported is accurate it's a pretty shitty part of her Sec State legacy and rather off-putting.

The Honduras thing is a load of bullshit being circulated by certain people trying to make hay of a complex issue by painting it as the bad old US beating up on poor little Honduras or something.  It completely ignores the nuances of the situation. Like, I think maybe alot of people forget when this happened, but the democratically elected president in question was trying to make an end run around the constitution to, most analysts believed, continue to rule despite term limits. Their supreme court even came down against him and so, I believe, did the legislature. Zelaya tried to ignore them and the whole thing became a huge clusterfuck from there with a military coup.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, Shryke said:

If you brother is a lefty and thinking of voting for Trump he ain't paying attention or is kinda dim on these matters. Trump's platform is right-wing in basically every way. His populism is pure race-baiting and authoritarianism.

Trump is not the quickest path to anything except corruption and terrible frightening policy. This is a guy who still harasses people who said his hands were tiny back in the 80s. You don't want that kind of person running anything.

 

Clinton is explicitly running as "another Obama term" so take that as you will.

No, he knows exactly who Trump is. That's kind of his point. He believes that he may just be the sort of extreme demagogue that would potentially prompt revolt. I honestly don't think he'll go so far as to vote for him, but I was shocked that he would even entertain the notion. The whole thing is fairly pointless in any case, as this is California we are talking about.

 When he says "more of the same" I don't believe he's specifically talking about Obama, but moreso the system as a whole.

[Shryke]

7 minutes ago, GrapefruitPerrier said:

 Trump has said very lefty things about universal healthcare and increasing social security.  He has also said fascist things like deport everyone and torture terrorists. The guy is not describable in so many ways. 

Sure he is. He's a right-wing authoritarian. He's really quite simple. Nationalism, xenophobia, strongman cult of personality. This shit is neither new nor all that strange.

And no, he has not come out in favour of universal healthcare. He's all "Repeal Obamacare and replace it with something YUGE and better that I will have top people on any day now!"

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Shryke said:

The Honduras thing is a load of bullshit being circulated by certain people trying to make hay of a complex issue by painting it as the bad old US beating up on poor little Honduras or something.  It completely ignores the nuances of the situation. Like, I think maybe alot of people forget when this happened, but the democratically elected president in question was trying to make an end run around the constitution to, most analysts believed, continue to rule despite term limits. Their supreme court even came down against him and so, I believe, did the legislature. Zelaya tried to ignore them and the whole thing became a huge clusterfuck from there with a military coup.

 Exactly.  I do not think we can even imagine the number of complex issues the State Department is trying to manage at any particular point.  You can always find something we are doing wrong, or right.  

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Sure he is. He's a right-wing authoritarian. He's really quite simple. Nationalism, xenophobia, strongman cult of personality. This shit is neither new nor all that strange.

And no, he has not come out in favour of universal healthcare. He's all "Repeal Obamacare and replace it with something YUGE and better that I will have top people on any day now!"

True, It has been light on specifics and morphed from single payer to sales of insurance across state lines to "people shouldn't be dying in the streets."  So who really knows. 

[Shryke]

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

No, he knows exactly who Trump is. That's kind of his point. He believes that he may just be the sort of extreme demagogue that would potentially prompt revolt. I honestly don't think he'll go so far as to vote for him, but I was shocked that he would even entertain the notion. The whole thing is fairly pointless in any case, as this is California we are talking about.

 When he says "more of the same" I don't believe he's specifically talking about Obama, but moreso the system as a whole.

Ahh yes, accelerationism. The old bullshit where we pretend like making things worse will totally make things better eventually somehow.  mean, y'all did 8 years of GWB. How is that leftist utopia going now?

Ya always see this floating around when people are all "man, fuck the system" and imo little thought beyond that. Ya wanna know what happens when shit really gets so bad that it prompts revolt, take a look over at the middle-east.

[Shryke]

1 minute ago, GrapefruitPerrier said:

True, It has been light on specifics and morphed from single payer to sales of insurance across state lines to "people shouldn't be dying in the streets."  So who really knows. 

Everything he says is light on specifics cause everything he says is just a roundabout way of saying "I know your angry about X, I'm angry too! The fault is those people over there and I, your strong leader, will fix the issue by fixing the issue cause I'm a strong leader!".

[Guest]

Just now, Shryke said:

Everything he says is light on specifics cause everything he says is just a roundabout way of saying "I know your angry about X, I'm angry too! The fault is those people over there and I, your strong leader, will fix the issue by fixing the issue cause I'm a strong leader!".

 I think he is skipping debates because he was so awful when he had to answer with specifics at the last debate.

[Shryke]

12 minutes ago, GrapefruitPerrier said:

 I think he is skipping debates because he was so awful when he had to answer with specifics at the last debate.

Fox News put out a hit job on him for sure. But his supporters don't care about numbers so it didn't matter for the primaries.

Given his position he has nothing to gain from debates so why show up?

 

I do think his whole "Pay me CNN or I won't come to the debate" thing from a few months back kinda illustrates exactly what Trump would be like in office though and it's not pretty.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Ahh yes, accelerationism. The old bullshit where we pretend like making things worse will totally make things better eventually somehow.  mean, y'all did 8 years of GWB. How is that leftist utopia going now?

Ya always see this floating around when people are all "man, fuck the system" and imo little thought beyond that. Ya wanna know what happens when shit really gets so bad that it prompts revolt, take a look over at the middle-east.

Yeah, I tend to agree. It's funny in that the community he lives in (Sebastopol, Ca) is extremely liberal and artsy and seems to have a fairly prevalent hippie population, and it always strikes me as being predominantly white. Like to the point that it's practically impossible to ignore. My mother has retired to this town, and my brother lives down the street from her, and is basically looking after her in her old age. We visit once every month or so (I live about an hour and a half away) and I'm always struck by the combination of relative affluence (real estate is quite expensive up that way) and racial insulation, with what seems to be a fairly predominant liberal point of view. Interesting little town. I suppose you could say they have managed to create their own little leftist utopia. I don't think it's as inclusionary as they'd like to think it is, though. 

[Paladin of Ice]

41 minutes ago, GrapefruitPerrier said:

 Trump has said very lefty things about universal healthcare and increasing social security.  He has also said fascist things like deport everyone and torture terrorists. The guy is not describable in so many ways. 

Trump will say any and everything on every side of every issue. He'll be for universal healthcare, then he's against government health care, and a private insurance mandate to buy.

On taxes he talks about taxing Wall St., then he copies Jeb's tax plan to lower taxes on the super rich, while telling the working poor that they make too much money. Dude doesn't care about issues or policies, and will flip-flop on virtually any of them from one day to another.

But because he talks bad about Muslims and Mexicans, all his supporters think he's a truth telling political outsider just like that guy from whatever bad and facile movie they've watched lately, and can do no wrong. And somehow he can change every stance on all these issues and supposedly he's telling it like it is and it's all the media's fault.

[Myshkin]

9 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Ahh yes, accelerationism. The old bullshit where we pretend like making things worse will totally make things better eventually somehow.  mean, y'all did 8 years of GWB. How is that leftist utopia going now?

Ya always see this floating around when people are all "man, fuck the system" and imo little thought beyond that. Ya wanna know what happens when shit really gets so bad that it prompts revolt, take a look over at the middle-east.

Indeed. This burn it down attitude is ridiculous, and comes from a place of privilege. Specifically the privilege of being a straight, white man who personally won't lose much under a Trump presidency. Little thought is given to how four (or eight) years of Trump will directly affect women, people of color, immigrants, Muslims, or the LGBTQ community. Actual people will actually suffer under a Trump presidency. If you think voting for Trump in order to accelerate a half baked revolutionary ideal is a good idea, well then you're probably not one the people who will have to pay the price for it.

[ThinkerX]

I said it in the last thread:

With Trump, his truthfulness matters far, far less than his delivery/showmanship/salesmanship.  He knows what buttons to push to get a crowd to agree with him, or at least consider his views. 

He is the sort that could sell ice to an eskimo.

I also suspect he is far more intelligent than the buffoonish persona attached to him.  Consider: he outmaneuvered *EVERY* candidate the Republicans had to become the front runner. 

This is a warning not to underestimate Trump - something many of the posters in this thread seem determined to do.

And to be clear, I am not a Trump supporter.  The thought of voting for him did cross my mind, but that is because my state will 'go red' regardless of the candidate, even if its Trump. 

Further, I suspect that congress would begin laying the groundwork for impeaching Trump within weeks of his taking office.  Same for Hillary, given republican hatred and her server issues.  Therefor, their vice president picks may be of supreme importance.

 

 

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

 

I also suspect he is far more intelligent than the buffoonish persona attached to him.  Consider: he outmaneuvered *EVERY* candidate the Republicans had to become the front runner. 

 

 That's a bit like giving props to Dick Dastardly for winning the Wacky Races.

[Shryke]

Anyway, while we are talking about Trump, this was a good piece from Slate:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/03/how_donald_trump_happened_racism_against_barack_obama.html

Quote

 

Race plays a part in each of these analyses, but its role has not yet been central enough to our understanding of Trump’s rise. Not only does he lead a movement of almost exclusively disaffected whites, but he wins his strongest support in states and counties with the greatest amounts of racial polarization. Among white voters, higher levels of racial resentment have been shown to be associated with greater support for Trump.

All of which is to say that we’ve been missing the most important catalyst in Trump’s rise. What caused this fire to burn out of control? The answer, I think, is Barack Obama.

There have been some conservative writers who have tried to hang Trump’s success on the current president, pointing to his putatively extreme positions. But in most respects, Obama is a conventional politician—well within the center-left of the Democratic Party. Or at least, he’s governed in that mode, with an agenda that sits safely in the mainstream. Laws like the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Affordable Care Act weren’t impositions from the far left; they were built out of proposals from the right and left, passed by a majority of Congress that was elected to pursue solutions on health care and the economy. Barack Obama is many things, but conservative rhetoric aside, he’s no radical.

We can’t say the same for Obama as a political symbol, however. In a nation shaped and defined by a rigid racial hierarchy, his election was very much a radical event, in which a man from one of the nation’s lowest castes ascended to the summit of its political landscape. And he did so with heavy support from minorities: Asian Americans and Latinos were an important part of Obama’s coalition, and black Americans turned out at their highest numbers ever in 2008.

For liberal observers, this heralded a new, rising electorate, and—in theory—a durable majority. “The future in American politics belongs to the party that can win a more racially diverse, better educated, more metropolitan electorate,” wrote Harold Meyerson in the Washington Post after the 2008 election. “It belongs to Barack Obama’s Democrats.”

For millions of white Americans who weren’t attuned to growing diversity and cosmopolitanism, however, Obama was a shock, a figure who appeared out of nowhere to dominate the country’s political life. And with talk of an “emerging Democratic majority,” he presaged a time when their votes—which had elected George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan—would no longer matter. More than simply “change,” Obama’s election felt like an inversion. When coupled with the broad decline in incomes and living standards caused by the Great Recession, it seemed to signal the end of a hierarchy that had always placed white Americans at the top, delivering status even when it couldn’t give material benefits.

 

It seemed worth linking if for no other reason then the way it tears into alot of the silly "Trump is getting support cause he sticks up for the working man" crap you see floating around some places. Like in this thread from a few people.

[Shryke]

13 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

I said it in the last thread:

With Trump, his truthfulness matters far, far less than his delivery/showmanship/salesmanship.  He knows what buttons to push to get a crowd to agree with him, or at least consider his views. 

He is the sort that could sell ice to an eskimo.

I also suspect he is far more intelligent than the buffoonish persona attached to him.  Consider: he outmaneuvered *EVERY* candidate the Republicans had to become the front runner. 

This is a warning not to underestimate Trump - something many of the posters in this thread seem determined to do.

And to be clear, I am not a Trump supporter.  The thought of voting for him did cross my mind, but that is because my state will 'go red' regardless of the candidate, even if its Trump. 

Further, I suspect that congress would begin laying the groundwork for impeaching Trump within weeks of his taking office.  Same for Hillary, given republican hatred and her server issues.  Therefor, their vice president picks may be of supreme importance.

He didn't outmaneuver them via intelligence. He outmaneuvered them because they are shitty candidates and cause he doesn't try to dog-whistle to the base but just outright says "Fuck mexicans!".

He's not a bad salesman but he's not that smart and he's a thin-skinned liar and buffoon who's fortune mainly comes from starting rich.

[Jaxom 1974]

2 hours ago, Shryke said:

Everything he says is light on specifics cause everything he says is just a roundabout way of saying "I know your angry about X, I'm angry too! The fault is those people over there and I, your strong leader, will fix the issue by fixing the issue cause I'm a strong leader!".

Yet, according to one friend of mine, Trump is merely misunderstood and the things he says are distorted by the media. I'd share that fact checking posted above with him, but he'd likely shrug it off...there's no getting through to some people...

[ThinkerX]

1 minute ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Yet, according to one friend of mine, Trump is merely misunderstood and the things he says are distorted by the media. I'd share that fact checking posted above with him, but he'd likely shrug it off...there's no getting through to some people...

Salesmanship.