U.S. Politics: 2016 Election Goes To Overtime

[Inigima]

Altherion, I gotta ask, and I'm completely serious. I get the objection to Symone Sanders' comment, but why on earth do you get so bent out of shape about stuff like Bernie appealing to minority voters? Most of what people term "identity politics" I just don't get the fuss about. Why is it bad to appeal to more than just white people?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 hours ago, Inigima said:

Altherion, I gotta ask, and I'm completely serious. I get the objection to Symone Sanders' comment, but why on earth do you get so bent out of shape about stuff like Bernie appealing to minority voters? Most of what people term "identity politics" I just don't get the fuss about. Why is it bad to appeal to more than just white people?

Inigimia,

I'm not Altherion but I think the difference is "appealing to more than just white people" (which is good) and implying that attempting to appeal to white people, at all, is somehow bad. 

I wouldn't use the word "scum" but that does seem to ramp up identity politics to a much higher level than has existed before.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Interesting article from the Jerusalem Post.

http://www.jpost.com/Blogs/A-Mid-East-Journal/A-Trump-Putin-axis-473548

Basically, it lists the potential positive outcomes from a Trump-Putin alliance. It certainly raises some logical points in my view.

And just to pre-empt the inevitable: No, I don't know the author's background (which I'm sure is about to be ripped apart by the rabid anti-Trump/anti-Putinists around here. And no, I don't know the general reputation of the Jerusalem Post either (which I'm also sure is about to undergo some shredding by our friendly forum locals).

With all of that out of the way, the columnist largely captures my take on how a Putin-Trump axis might work out for the Middle East. The most noteworthy point for me was that Putin will likely ditch Iran in a heartbeat if it means he gains Trump's friendship in return.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

A New York Times Op-Ed about the dangers of focuing primarily on "identity-liberalism".

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html?mc=aud_dev&mcid=fb-nytimes&mccr=NovMidMC&mcdt=2016-11&subid=NovMidMC&ad-keywords=AudDevGate&referer=http://m.facebook.com

From the op-ed:

But the fixation on diversity in our schools and in the press has produced a generation of liberals and progressives narcissistically unaware of conditions outside their self-defined groups, and indifferent to the task of reaching out to Americans in every walk of life. At a very young age our children are being encouraged to talk about their individual identities, even before they have them. By the time they reach college many assume that diversity discourse exhausts political discourse, and have shockingly little to say about such perennial questions as class, war, the economy and the common good. In large part this is because of high school history curriculums, which anachronistically project the identity politics of today back onto the past, creating a distorted picture of the major forces and individuals that shaped our country. (The achievements of women’s rights movements, for instance, were real and important, but you cannot understand them if you do not first understand the founding fathers’ achievement in establishing a system of government based on the guarantee of rights.)

When young people arrive at college they are encouraged to keep this focus on themselves by student groups, faculty members and also administrators whose full-time job is to deal with — and heighten the significance of — “diversity issues.” Fox News and other conservative media outlets make great sport of mocking the “campus craziness” that surrounds such issues, and more often than not they are right to. Which only plays into the hands of populist demagogues who want to delegitimize learning in the eyes of those who have never set foot on a campus. How to explain to the average voter the supposed moral urgency of giving college students the right to choose the designated gender pronouns to be used when addressing them? How not to laugh along with those voters at the story of a University of Michigan prankster who wrote in “His Majesty”?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FNR,

I thought Trump and Putin were already friends.  Why would Putin have to "ditch Iran" to gain Trump's friendship?  How would "dictching Iran" help Putin or Russia?

[The guy from the Vale]

Also, why on Earth is Iran a greater threat to peace and prosperity than Russia?

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

16 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Interesting article from the Jerusalem Post.

http://www.jpost.com/Blogs/A-Mid-East-Journal/A-Trump-Putin-axis-473548

Basically, it lists the potential positive outcomes from a Trump-Putin alliance. It certainly raises some logical points in my view.

And just to pre-empt the inevitable: No, I don't know the author's background (which I'm sure is about to be ripped apart by the rabid anti-Trump/anti-Putinists around here. And no, I don't know the general reputation of the Jerusalem Post either (which I'm also sure is about to undergo some shredding by our friendly forum locals).

With all of that out of the way, the columnist largely captures my take on how a Putin-Trump axis might work out for the Middle East. The most noteworthy point for me was that Putin will likely ditch Iran in a heartbeat if it means he gains Trump's friendship in return.

Sure it might end up with more stability, but through appeasing dictators?

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

FNR,

I thought Trump and Putin were already friends.  Why would Putin have to "ditch Iran" to gain Trump's friendship?  How would "dictching Iran" help Putin or Russia?

Well I was phrasing it flippantly.

Basically, Trumps views Putin favourably, but he is a fierce critic of Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. Trump has basically vowed to scrap the deal and return to a hardline stance against Iran. Now, enter the Syrian theatre of war. Part of any presumed Trump-Putin alliance, will be an agreement on how to end the Syrian war - most likely by accepting Assad back in power and uniting against the Islamic hardliners in Syria.

However, Russia and Iran are of course allies in Syria. So at the very least, this overt alliance will have to be toned down. Iran of course would not mind this, if it ends up with their puppet Assad staying in power. But if you take this further, Russia might need to support some of Trump's moves to isolate Iran on the international stage - at the UN for example, if he wants to reimpose some of the former sanctions against Iran.

Putin will have to play this carefully if he is to get the most from his relationship with Trump. So in short, at least a superficial cooling of relations with Iran might be in store for Russia. Then again, this might not overly concern Putin, given that his alliance with Iran has always been a tentative one, given that they are in a way competitors for influence over the Middle East. So I'm sure Putin will manage it to get the best possible outcome for Russia.

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Sure it might end up with more stability, but through appeasing dictators?

The way I recall it, Syria under Assad was one of the most secular states in the Middle East. And one of the most tolerant of religious diversity. Not such a bad deal to make, I reckon.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

 

smells like a scam to me

[mormont]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

A New York Times Op-Ed about the dangers of focuing primarily on "identity-liberalism".

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html?mc=aud_dev&mcid=fb-nytimes&mccr=NovMidMC&mcdt=2016-11&subid=NovMidMC&ad-keywords=AudDevGate&referer=http://m.facebook.com

From the op-ed:

What a lot of blethering when he could just have cut to the chase and used the time-honoured cliche 'young folks today, they don't know anything'.

Young people today have 'shockingly little to say' about class and the economy? Wouldn't these be the same 'young people' that backed Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary?

Young people, in my experience, understand perfectly well that you can't separate questions of class, the economy and the public good from questions about equality, and calling the latter 'identity politics' doesn't change that.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

According to Vladi Vlad Putin "Russia's borders don't end anywhere".  Good to know Kodiak Island residents can look to Uncle Vald if they get irritated with their county government:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38099842

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

According to Vladi Vlad Putin "Russia's borders don't end anywhere".  Good to know Kodiak Island residents can look to Uncle Vald if they get irritated with their county government:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38099842

How long do you think Putin's "good relationship" with Trump will last if he makes Trump look weak on the world stage? Putin is smart enough to know this. He is not going to risk alienating his powerful new ally for the sake of conquering a few islands or some of those tiny, paranoid Baltic states.

[MerenthaClone]

6 hours ago, Altherion said:

No, run as a Democrat. With the strategy he used, he lost the minority votes by so much that explicitly rejecting identity politics and focusing exclusively on the economy (for everyone!) would probably have helped him.

He did focus on the economy for everyone, especially at the beginning.  Shockingly, when you have segments of the population who have been told "a rising tide lifts all boats" repeatedly but who haven't actually seen much benefit from that rising tide, you might get ignored by minority voters.  Especially when minority voters who are essentially complaining that the judicial system seems to summarily ignore (at best) or outright discriminate against the minority group, saying "trust in the system" is kind of fucked.  Its no wonder he didn't do well with minorities until later:  he essentially told them that everyone would be helped and that certain issues that were of direct, outsized interest to that minority group were less important than what he, Bernie Sanders, thought would help them.  

You're describing what actually happened and saying he should have done it more.  He (imo, accidentally) started attracting quite a lot of casually racist support in part because of his refusal to state that minority issues specifically would be an interest to him.  In the US, that's often (rightly, thanks to our historical use of it) attributed to be a sign that the candidate isn't planning on addressing any of the issues that are of interest to the minority community and sometimes a sign that they'll be actively imposing barriers to entry.  At best, it shows a refusal to engage with the reasons that minorities aren't benefiting from or engaging with the system.  That's pretty shitty and I'm not surprised that minority voters weren't exactly thrilled with Sanders, or Sanders' supporters.  

[James Arryn]

45 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

And just to pre-empt the inevitable: No, I don't know the author's background (which I'm sure is about to be ripped apart by the rabid anti-Trump/anti-Putinists around here. 

Well, at least you are starting off with an open mind, unlike the 'rabid' folk you...anticipate.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

23 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

How long do you think Putin's "good relationship" with Trump will last if he makes Trump look weak on the world stage? Putin is smart enough to know this. He is not going to risk alienating his powerful new ally for the sake of conquering a few islands or some of those tiny, paranoid Baltic states.

Then why say the shit he says, and worse, doesn't the shit he does?

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

30 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

How long do you think Putin's "good relationship" with Trump will last if he makes Trump look weak on the world stage? Putin is smart enough to know this. He is not going to risk alienating his powerful new ally for the sake of conquering a few islands or some of those tiny, paranoid Baltic states.

He needs those tiny parnoid Baltic states though.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

30 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

He needs those tiny parnoid Baltic states though.

Is it paranoia when Russia kidnaps Baltic officials?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/07/russia-parades-detained-estonian-police-officer?0p19G=c

 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well I was phrasing it flippantly.

Basically, Trumps views Putin favourably, but he is a fierce critic of Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. Trump has basically vowed to scrap the deal and return to a hardline stance against Iran. Now, enter the Syrian theatre of war. Part of any presumed Trump-Putin alliance, will be an agreement on how to end the Syrian war - most likely by accepting Assad back in power and uniting against the Islamic hardliners in Syria.

However, Russia and Iran are of course allies in Syria. So at the very least, this overt alliance will have to be toned down. Iran of course would not mind this, if it ends up with their puppet Assad staying in power. But if you take this further, Russia might need to support some of Trump's moves to isolate Iran on the international stage - at the UN for example, if he wants to reimpose some of the former sanctions against Iran.

Putin will have to play this carefully if he is to get the most from his relationship with Trump. So in short, at least a superficial cooling of relations with Iran might be in store for Russia. Then again, this might not overly concern Putin, given that his alliance with Iran has always been a tentative one, given that they are in a way competitors for influence over the Middle East. So I'm sure Putin will manage it to get the best possible outcome for Russia.

I'm really skeptical any of this going to happen. I don't think Russia truly wants Iran to have nukes. That said, it seems the Russians do have an interest in selling arms and nuclear reactors to Iran and plus it seems that have investments in Iran's oil and gas projects.

And Trump can bleat about Obama's nuclear deal all he wants. But, really what options does he have? None that I can tell.

[TrackerNeil]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

A New York Times Op-Ed about the dangers of focuing primarily on "identity-liberalism".

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html?mc=aud_dev&mcid=fb-nytimes&mccr=NovMidMC&mcdt=2016-11&subid=NovMidMC&ad-keywords=AudDevGate&referer=http://m.facebook.com

I find it astounding how quickly and thoroughly elite opinion turns when faced with electoral loss. Lilla implies that liberals have somehow lost touch with and alienated some silent majority of Americans, and that the 2016 election somehow proves that. This of course flies in the face of reality; Hillary Clinton got way more votes than Trump, which would seem to indicate that the majority, silent or not, was on her side. And to suggest that Americans were significantly moved by the discussion of preferred gender pronouns is just absurd. I get that Lilla is trying to construct a narrative to explain what happened this year, but it would be nice if that narrative was not just internally consistent but had some points of contact with the real world.