Jump to content

US Politics: There's No Morning After Pill


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

If we take a broader, longer term view, then the time will come when people prefer living under a value system that they feel affinity to over living in a particular geographic area. So the end result will be moving to areas where your ideology is in the majority. A kind of natural "purging" of differences, out of personal choice.

The alternative is for minorities to become irrelevant the moment a slight majority can push their values into oblivion, leading to social discord, civil unrest and eventually violence. We see it all over the world.

Blethers. Ideological enclaves don't and won't exist, because ideologies are not discrete and separable in that way. People who agree on some issues do not agree on others.

Even if that were not true, your 'solution' would just shift the problem to inter- rather than intra-state discord. And, the major conceptual flaw, it requires all states to accept free and unlimited emigration and immigration: because if people are not free to move, then persecution in many states is the inevitable result. But if they are to be free to move, then you have to stop states from preventing them. Who enforces that, and how do you square it with freedom for the individual ideology-states?

Mind you, all of this is granting that the whole thing isn't just a coded way of talking about racial segregation, which it can very much be read as.

Most democratic states for most of their history have done a reasonably good job of accommodating different ideologies, recent times notwithstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

The crowds at the marches across the country are enormous. The Washington, DC organizers got a permit for 200,000, but crowd estimates are as high as 500,000 and the march to the White House has been cancelled because it's too big.

Boston expected 25,000 to show up and the crowd estimate is 125,000.

And 40,000 were expected in Denver, but CNN is reporting 100,000 have shown up and a local news station says it's closer to 200,000.  In Denver! :o 

Same story in every city everywhere across the US, and bigger than expected crowds in cities around the world.

 

 

Pittsburgh was expecting 5,000 and got 25,000. That might seem small, but DC is so close that a lot of people went there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, mormont said:

Blethers. Ideological enclaves don't and won't exist, because ideologies are not discrete and separable in that way. People who agree on some issues do not agree on others.

Even if that were not true, your 'solution' would just shift the problem to inter- rather than intra-state discord. And, the major conceptual flaw, it requires all states to accept free and unlimited emigration and immigration: because if people are not free to move, then persecution in many states is the inevitable result. But if they are to be free to move, then you have to stop states from preventing them. Who enforces that, and how do you square it with freedom for the individual ideology-states?

Mind you, all of this is granting that the whole thing isn't just a coded way of talking about racial segregation, which it can very much be read as.

Most democratic states for most of their history have done a reasonably good job of accommodating different ideologies, recent times notwithstanding.

But of course they do exist. The reigning value system in Saudi Arabia is very different from that in Austria, which is different from that in China. Imagine those three countries chucked into a blender, having to decide who rules them by democratic vote.

Same with Pakistan and India.

Your perspective is simply not long term enough. Your hope is that conservative America just eventually dies out, with their views on God, Guns and social conservatism. But if they don't then eventually their ideology will differ so radically from that of the average protester in these mass marches today, that they might as well be from different countries.

So they are in fact united by accident of geography, not by anything more sacred than that. So a hundred years from now, who is to say that they would not prefer to live in different countries.

Many Californians already threatened to secede after Trump's victory. Imagine if it was somehow achieved. The next question would then be, well, what about conservative Californians who prefer the values of Red States? If they had the means to move there, would they not be tempted to do so? And 20 years later, the voluntary migration would have changed the landscape in both the origin and destination states.

Anyway, this is broader thinking than just the issues of the day. I merely indicated that the divisions of the day represent a zero sum game, with winners and losers and no middle ground. And in a scenario like that, eventually, one has to consider alternatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mindwalker said:

My impression (as someone outside the US) is that it is meant as a mutual encouragement as well as a sign to Trump and the rest of the world.

I think I see what you mean -- it makes them feel better.

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

Will it get some politicians to take notice? Definitely. Will it give people the confidence to run at a local office? Probably.

Politicians will take notice, but they take much more notice of their constituents and, for the party in power, very few are represented in this march. Regarding people running for local office: is there some dire shortage of them? I would assume that every position which has real power is contested unless there's no plausible chance of winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The last thing the Dems need in their next candidate is a niche issue, identity politics focused candidate like Warren.

Uh, how is Warren an identity politics focused candidate? She's a populist who takes on income equality, and beloved by the Democratic base. Not that different than Bernies Sanders. Or do you have to have a penis to be a populist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Uh, how is Warren an identity politics focused candidate? She's a populist who takes on income equality, and beloved by the Democratic base. Not that different than Bernies Sanders. Or do you have to have a penis to be a populist?

Probably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

But of course they do exist. The reigning value system in Saudi Arabia is very different from that in Austria, which is different from that in China. Imagine those three countries chucked into a blender, having to decide who rules them by democratic vote.

Same with Pakistan and India.

Your perspective is simply not long term enough. Your hope is that conservative America just eventually dies out, with their views on God, Guns and social conservatism. But if they don't then eventually their ideology will differ so radically from that of the average protester in these mass marches today, that they might as well be from different countries.

So they are in fact united by accident of geography, not by anything more sacred than that. So a hundred years from now, who is to say that they would not prefer to live in different countries.

Many Californians already threatened to secede after Trump's victory. Imagine if it was somehow achieved. The next question would then be, well, what about conservative Californians who prefer the values of Red States? If they had the means to move there, would they not be tempted to do so? And 20 years later, the voluntary migration would have changed the landscape in both the origin and destination states.

Anyway, this is broader thinking than just the issues of the day. I merely indicated that the divisions of the day represent a zero sum game, with winners and losers and no middle ground. And in a scenario like that, eventually, one has to consider alternatives.

Segregation will just lead to more inter-state conflict even if within there is relative ideological commonality within states. And there will always be those who seek power and claim they are the ideal representation of their ideology. You cite India and Pakistan as if their separation has been a great outcome. The two countries remain in a cold war, sometimes heating up. They both became nuclear capable as a deterrent to each other. Pakistan is not exactly internally peaceful.

You are also citing countries that have historically developed on parallel, separate and somewhat divergent lines. That is not an example of the benefits of segregation. And in no case have they or do they have peaceful, free and harmonious histories or even contemporary statuses. They are examples of the variability of social evolution.

A greater sense of familiality, that we are all part of a global family, is the answer. More separation will lead to greater conflict, not less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Regarding people running for local office: is there some dire shortage of them? I would assume that every position which has real power is contested unless there's no plausible chance of winning.

Yes. Democrats are notorious for being shit at running in local elections and during mid terms. They're not exactly great at being a grass roots movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

Probably.

I don't think a penis is required but you do need to be a good campaigner.  You also need to have charisma and the ability to mobilize large blocks of voters. Warren possesses none of these skills.

If you are going to back an aging Democrat in 2020 I'd pick Biden all day over Warren. She really is a horrible campaigner and the only reason she has been elevated on the national stage is because the Huffington Post decided to push her. They sold this idea that she was the next big thing and most people bought it. They have no idea how big of a train wreck she was during her senate campaign. I'd be shocked if she ever made it out of the primaries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Politicians will take notice, but they take much more notice of their constituents and, for the party in power, very few are represented in this march. Regarding people running for local office: is there some dire shortage of them? I would assume that every position which has real power is contested unless there's no plausible chance of winning.

That's really not true. There are a lot of uncontested races (45% according to quick Google search), and even the ones you dismiss as not having "real power" are often the start of something greater. And school boards and city councils and such do have a fair amount of power at the local level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

But of course they do exist. The reigning value system in Saudi Arabia is very different from that in Austria, which is different from that in China. Imagine those three countries chucked into a blender, having to decide who rules them by democratic vote.

...

Fairly simple, you get something like say they Netherlands.

With a part of the population being religious authoritarians (eg), who get to live their own little lives in a bigger society.

The classical liberal democratic tradition, with all its flaws, is relatively good at sorting these things out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Police estimate about 60k in Atlanta.  I'm not really sure how many were projected to attend, but it was pouring rain and lightning at the start so I'm not surprised it wasn't more.  

As for the point of the marches, well the number one reason should be blindingly obvious- it's anti-Trump, anti-GOP, it's a response to the extremely bigoted policies that are being proposed.  It's also pro-women and all those identities that intersect with woman. Beyond that people will tend to have a lot of different responses.  I think a lot of people really wanted to feel a sense of togetherness and solidarity with others.  I know you Trumpsters here cheer on  the dark future you voted for, you're gleeful and hopeful it comes fast.  But the rest of us aren't. There's also the hope/intent that this is a great motivator.  Decent people obviously need to be running for office.  We need them in local offices and state offices.  We need them in congress.  From what I saw today, it was a great networking opportunity for those decent folks who are inclined towards serving public office. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

I don't think a penis is required but you do need to be a good campaigner.  You also need to have charisma and the ability to mobilize large blocks of voters. Warren possesses none of these skills.

If you are going to back an aging Democrat in 2020 I'd pick Biden all day over Warren. She really is a horrible campaigner and the only reason she has been elevated on the national stage is because the Huffington Post decided to push her. They sold this idea that she was the next big thing and most people bought it. They have no idea how big of a train wreck she was during her senate campaign. I'd be shocked if she ever made it out of the primaries. 
The question was if you think a penis is required to be a populist. You've altered it to good campaigner. 

 

 

You say a penis isn't required, but you call her niche issue, identity politics focused. Why, given the similarity to Sanders? It sounds pretty gender based. Her big issue is income equality, similar to Sanders. You could have just questioned her ability as a politician.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mexal said:

What's more powerful? A million+ people rallying in 7-10 US cities or twitter/media articles? We know people are seriously opposed but now we have a visual representation of that, one where you have a million or more people all marching/rallying to a common cause. It's not abstract anymore.

I think the point is to get people focused. This is the beginning, it gives people strength to push forward and know that they're not alone in their beliefs. Will it affect Trump? Nah since he's already telling people there was 1.5 million people at his inauguration and the crowds were so big it went all the way to the Washington Monument which is demonstratively false. Will it get some politicians to take notice? Definitely. Will it give people the confidence to run at a local office? Probably. I don't think today's rally accomplishes anything in terms of what Trump will do in the future but like the Tea Party in 2009, it could be the start of driving towards more local action. If that's the case, it's a huge success.

ETA: Seeing reports of 2.5 million people marching. Jesus.

It's also graphically visible to everyone and anyone who opposes this coup d'etat that they are not alone.  That no matter where a person lives there are others who feel the same way.  And recall these protests were not ONLY in the U.S., they were global.  There is power in numbers knowing they have numbers.  And just knowing that for some hours that the haters haven't got it ALL their own way.

The numbers actually are quite amazing, aren't they, of all these people who have gotten together all over the world to tell little hands that he's not liked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mexal said:

Yes. Democrats are notorious for being shit at running in local elections and during mid terms. They're not exactly great at being a grass roots movement.

I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

 

You say a penis isn't required, but you call her niche issue, identity politics focused. Why, given the similarity to Sanders? It sounds pretty gender based. Her big issue is income equality, similar to Sanders. You could have just questioned her ability as a politician.

 

 

 

I said nothing about gender. I happen to live in the state where she campaigned for senator and had a decent view of her campaigning skills. She is niche in the sense that she appeals to the core, urban democrats voters only and has no crossover appeal to voters the democrats will need to win over in the future. Bernie is quite different in that he has some ability to connect with rural voters and appeals to independents more than Warren ever could. He is also light years ahead of Warren in his campaigning ability. Don't forget that Warren is a Cambridge, MA based democrat. She could not be less appealing to the midwest swing voters that the Democrats will need to swing back to them in the next election.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Starkess said:

That's really not true. There are a lot of uncontested races (45% according to quick Google search), and even the ones you dismiss as not having "real power" are often the start of something greater. And school boards and city councils and such do have a fair amount of power at the local level.

I suppose the ones which aren't quite as powerful can still be important as proving grounds for younger candidates. One of the interesting things about this election is that the two nominees were 69 and 70 years old and the Democratic runner-up was 75.

However, the uncontested races are usually uncontested for a reason: it doesn't make sense to run as a Democrat in districts which Trump won by more than 20% or as a Republican in districts where he lost by more than 20%. This is basically gerrymandering in action and most people who run will lose.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

 

It sounds like the huge protester crowds succeeded in embarrassing Trump and it's getting to him.

Not gonna lie, that makes me all warm inside.  Though the problem, of course, is that he's now creating whatever news he wants and his supporters will believe him because they are living in their own post-truth reality.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...