Jump to content

U.S. Politics: A Request to Address the Cleft on the Left


Manhole Eunuchsbane

Recommended Posts

good fuckin' grief

Quote

The North Carolina House of Representatives approved legislation in a lopsided 67-48 vote Thursday that would shield drivers from civil liability if they collide with protesters.

Opponents say the legislation is unnecessary and may give drivers the false impression they can maliciously run over activists. One Democrat warned it would make the state the butt of jokes about being full of “dumb rednecks.”

But Republican proponents, who sent the measure to the state Senate by a veto-proof margin, say recent encounters between activists and drivers makes the reform both sensible and necessary.

Gee, running over protesters 'sensible and necessary'.   assholes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shryke said:

Why would it have an impact on subsequent candidates but not on Obama "The Disappointer in Chief" himself?

Because I see people as still feeling the belief, the inspiration from him in 2012. 4 more years etc. And I wouldn't describe him that way myself, I think he did his best under difficult circumstances, but what he did not do was deliver on the rhetoric that got him elected. Now it's certainly possible after a bit of time for someone to come along with a different angle and do it again, but as Ini said... He was also very skilled. No one else I've seen comes close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Because I see people as still feeling the belief, the inspiration from him in 2012. 4 more years etc. And I wouldn't describe him that way myself, I think he did his best under difficult circumstances, but what he did not do was deliver on the rhetoric that got him elected. Now it's certainly possible after a bit of time for someone to come along with a different angle and do it again, but as Ini said... He was also very skilled. No one else I've seen comes close.

It doesn't really make sense for someone to be so disappointed in a politician that they vote for them again but not the person running the election after them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shryke said:

Huh?

The Democrats have been consistently moving to the left since at least Clinton.

Well yeah, if you forget that Clinton moved his party to the right. I believe he was the first Democratic president to say that big government was a problem, taking a leaf straight out of Reagan's book and it is generally believed that he got elected because he was more of a "centrist" than a true democrat. Clinton also had no problem signing a number of laws that no true progressive could have supported.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sword of Doom said:

Here is a republican man, James Cobo, from Phoenix that linked an event for today at the Herberger Theater center in Phoenix for today's date. In it he was telling his republican friends to harass anti fascists / anti Trump protesters and find out their plans. He also said at the end of his post that someone could even run them over with a car. 

https://i.redditmedia.com/QWoTytgJ-83Du6ws3fWTjOPcg61wxz-EOyWEqJo7UsU.jpg?w=431&s=5ca6ab0ab606f89d264e36af96c40456

There is no reaching these people. There is no discourse to be had. There is no peace to be had with them. Turning the other cheek will not work, especially when they want to be violent towards those that they disagree with on every level, especially morally and ethically. 

Yeah, because back in the day the KKK were reasonable folk, just the odd lynching or whatnot. Anyone remember the Jallianwala Bagh Sunday Social? Back when folk knew how to behave in a decent fashion, and you pretty much knew from the start that all you risked turning the other cheek was embarrassment and maybe a fine.

Oh,  yeah, re: the last bit, I suppose the government/police being actually overtly on the racists' side might lead to a few more awkward moments, but nothing a good cup of tea wouldn't set right. Not like today. And it's not the least bit MONUMENTALLY FUCKING INSULTING to people who died for the distinction between non-violence and acceptance to keep conflating the two.

Something something Canadian?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

Because I see people as still feeling the belief, the inspiration from him in 2012. 4 more years etc. And I wouldn't describe him that way myself, I think he did his best under difficult circumstances, but what he did not do was deliver on the rhetoric that got him elected. Now it's certainly possible after a bit of time for someone to come along with a different angle and do it again, but as Ini said... He was also very skilled. No one else I've seen comes close.

I had high hopes. They were always pretty balanced by an awareness that political change isn't anything to hold your breath on, so I saw him as the possibility of change rather than being change itself. And I don't blame him for the stuff he couldn't get done, really. And he did actually move the ball on some important issues, and generally did away with that weird demonization of intellectualism that Dubya had wrought. 

But I do blame him for not undoing things he ran against, like all the illegal prisons/torture camps, the 'private contracting' mercs, the police state intrusive surveillance and the drones etc. More than anything he affirmed the principal that no politician willingly gives up power. Like everyone else I'm sure he argued it was a necessary evil, that he would use it better than others, but that's an old song. Every President keeps w/e the guys before them acquired, even if they bitterly protested against said acquisition, and sadly Obama wasn't any different.

I miss him, I miss feeling the guy in charge was intelligent and calm and sane and actually cared about important things, but he carries enough of his own water in terms of the dissapointment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, posters here are missing an obvious point, which was highlighted under Bush II and Obama, then made explicit under Trump:

We no longer live in a representative republic.  Rather, we live in a sort of divided Oligarchy.  One does not attain high political office in this system without being beholden, one way or another, to the Oligarchs.  (Aka, the 1%).  Their views matter more than the rest of us combined. 

 

(when Obama was first elected, one of my chief concerns was just how much 'corporate' money got dumped into his campaign.  I predicted he'd either stand against the money men and likely fail, or become their puppet.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Again, posters here are missing an obvious point, which was highlighted under Bush II and Obama, then made explicit under Trump:

We no longer live in a representative republic.  Rather, we live in a sort of divided Oligarchy.  One does not attain high political office in this system without being beholden, one way or another, to the Oligarchs.  (Aka, the 1%).  Their views matter more than the rest of us combined. 

 

(when Obama was first elected, one of my chief concerns was just how much 'corporate' money got dumped into his campaign.  I predicted he'd either stand against the money men and likely fail, or become their puppet.)

And what happened was that Obama got gridlocked by the Republicans and special interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Well yeah, if you forget that Clinton moved his party to the right. I believe he was the first Democratic president to say that big government was a problem, taking a leaf straight out of Reagan's book and it is generally believed that he got elected because he was more of a "centrist" than a true democrat. Clinton also had no problem signing a number of laws that no true progressive could have supported.

Clinton didn't move the party to the right. He was the end product of movements within the party that had been happening since the debacle of 68. And that was only kinda about the left vs the centre of the party. It was more kinda pro and anti Vietnam and the party establishment were on the pro-side. It's ridiculous to think of these people as not "True Democrats". They were the ones running the party. After that the Democrats were getting slaughtered and there were various attempts to fix this. Clinton was the first one to figure out a way to do that and only, in many ways, because of Perot.

In general the idea that the Democrats were some hallowed lefty party back in the olden days is ridiculous. They were a different party back then and the demographics and politics of the US were different too. And any further back then Nixon and you aren't even in the same party system anymore and nothing really maps onto anything else (ie - the Democrats are the party of, in part, openly white supremacist southerners).

What is quite obvious though is that Obama ran to the left of Clinton and Gore and Kerry. And Obama 2012 ran to the left of Obama 2008. And Clinton ran to the left of Obama. And Obama and Clinton were certainly running well to the left of a guy like Humprey on many things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I had high hopes. They were always pretty balanced by an awareness that political change isn't anything to hold your breath on, so I saw him as the possibility of change rather than being change itself. And I don't blame him for the stuff he couldn't get done, really. And he did actually move the ball on some important issues, and generally did away with that weird demonization of intellectualism that Dubya had wrought. 

But I do blame him for not undoing things he ran against, like all the illegal prisons/torture camps, the 'private contracting' mercs, the police state intrusive surveillance and the drones etc. More than anything he affirmed the principal that no politician willingly gives up power. Like everyone else I'm sure he argued it was a necessary evil, that he would use it better than others, but that's an old song. Every President keeps w/e the guys before them acquired, even if they bitterly protested against said acquisition, and sadly Obama wasn't any different.

I miss him, I miss feeling the guy in charge was intelligent and calm and sane and actually cared about important things, but he carries enough of his own water in terms of the dissapointment. 

Any ceding of power by the President is not gonna happen. Congress is gonna have to do their fucking job and take it back.

And it's not just because they aren't willing to give up power. It's also because Congress won't do anything. A lot of the things Obama did via executive order were done that way because otherwise nothing was happening at all and he gave up on trying eventually.

But Congress doesn't want to. And can't anyway. It's a dysfunctional body filled with crazy fuckers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Again, posters here are missing an obvious point, which was highlighted under Bush II and Obama, then made explicit under Trump:

We no longer live in a representative republic.  Rather, we live in a sort of divided Oligarchy.  One does not attain high political office in this system without being beholden, one way or another, to the Oligarchs.  (Aka, the 1%).  Their views matter more than the rest of us combined. 

 

(when Obama was first elected, one of my chief concerns was just how much 'corporate' money got dumped into his campaign.  I predicted he'd either stand against the money men and likely fail, or become their puppet.)

It seems like a fair number of the 1% preferred Hillary Clinton. But perhaps only 1% of the 1% did and the other 99% of the 1% wanted a Republican back in the big house. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Again, posters here are missing an obvious point, which was highlighted under Bush II and Obama, then made explicit under Trump:

We no longer live in a representative republic.  Rather, we live in a sort of divided Oligarchy.  One does not attain high political office in this system without being beholden, one way or another, to the Oligarchs.  (Aka, the 1%).  Their views matter more than the rest of us combined. 

 

(when Obama was first elected, one of my chief concerns was just how much 'corporate' money got dumped into his campaign.  I predicted he'd either stand against the money men and likely fail, or become their puppet.)

I like the Bill Hicks joke that more or less highlights this angle.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Shryke said:

In general the idea that the Democrats were some hallowed lefty party back in the olden days is ridiculous. They were a different party back then and the demographics and politics of the US were different too. And any further back then Nixon and you aren't even in the same party system anymore and nothing really maps onto anything else (ie - the Democrats are the party of, in part, openly white supremacist southerners).

Demographics.  That be another critical issue getting swept under the rug, especially here.

First, as I pointed out before, a majority of the younger voters preferred a self-avowed socialist for president.  They are the future, and will eventually make that happen - though I suspect it will be far from a panacea.

 

Second, the people in the conservative movement tend to be OLD.  Really old. And they're dying.  I get to see this at  work.  The younger ones seem to be mostly military sorts or opportunists, out for power and money.  From a straight demographic standpoint, the current conservative/Tea Party movement doesn't have much of a future.  Before too much longer (2-3 presidential elections?) their numbers will decline to the point where even gerrymandering and voter suppression won't keep them in power. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Demographics.  That be another critical issue getting swept under the rug, especially here.

First, as I pointed out before, a majority of the younger voters preferred a self-avowed socialist for president.  They are the future, and will eventually make that happen - though I suspect it will be far from a panacea.

 

Second, the people in the conservative movement tend to be OLD.  Really old. And they're dying.  I get to see this at  work.  The younger ones seem to be mostly military sorts or opportunists, out for power and money.  From a straight demographic standpoint, the current conservative/Tea Party movement doesn't have much of a future.  Before too much longer (2-3 presidential elections?) their numbers will decline to the point where even gerrymandering and voter suppression won't keep them in power. 

 

I dunno the conservatives, particularly the religious ones, seem to be out-breeding the progressives. Seems the ethnic demographics the Democratic party can normally rely on that are still have plenty of children are among the minorities. But with the white folks the breeding is mostly all happening on the conservative side. Are the minorities that lean Democratic out-breeding the conservative white population? Maybe. But the way I see it you have to hope that lots of kids of conservatives have to really rebel against their upbringing to see that in the next few decades the youth vote will help the progressive cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shryke said:

Clinton didn't move the party to the right. He was the end product of movements within the party that had been happening since the debacle of 68. And that was only kinda about the left vs the centre of the party. It was more kinda pro and anti Vietnam and the party establishment were on the pro-side. It's ridiculous to think of these people as not "True Democrats". They were the ones running the party. After that the Democrats were getting slaughtered and there were various attempts to fix this. Clinton was the first one to figure out a way to do that and only, in many ways, because of Perot.

You're conveniently forgetting that no one expected a Democrat to win in 1992, which is what allowed Clinton to get the nomination in the first place. And even Clinton had to pledge to expand health coverage and invest in education and infrastructure to appeal to Democratic base voters. Certainly, Clinton was the end product of movements within the Democratic Party, but the outcome was not as foregone as you make it out to be. Mondale had still won the nomination over Hart in 1984, and even Dukakis in 1988 still called himself a "proud liberal."

I guess it's over-simplifying a bit to say that "Clinton moved the party to the right" because it's always possible to see his victory as a consequence rather than a cause -it then becomes a chicken or egg thing. But whatever the words you want to use, the fact remains that Clinton's victory meant that the Democratic Party moved away from some of the principles it had been defending for over fifty years. The fact that it was probably going to happen with or without Clinton doesn't change that at all.

If it's the "true democrat" thing that bothers you, simply replace it by "new deal democrat."

1 hour ago, Shryke said:

In general the idea that the Democrats were some hallowed lefty party back in the olden days is ridiculous. They were a different party back then and the demographics and politics of the US were different too. And any further back then Nixon and you aren't even in the same party system anymore and nothing really maps onto anything else (ie - the Democrats are the party of, in part, openly white supremacist southerners).

Well of course, if you don't want to talk about what happened before Nixon it's going to be awfully difficult to argue that the Democrats were ever genuinely on the left. :rolleyes:

Though I guess you may be right to point out that the party system was very different back in the day. As Chomsky said, "Nixon would be considered a dangerous radical by today's standard."

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Cops gassing peaceful protesters and also fired rubber bullets at some as well in Phoenix AZ.




From a friend of mine who was there.

"Trump supporters were escorted out of the building through separate entrance, while peaceful protesters, which included my mom and my friends, were tear gassed and had rubber bullets shot at them by Phoenix PD. Racism and white supremacy might be sitting in the White House, but discrimination and excessive use of force are the tools with which they are carried out and has always been felt from those who are supposed to serve and protect us. The force used tonight came with no warning. It endangered many people and was reckless. There is something deeply wrong when police is militarized and develops a "warrior" mentality against its own people instead of a "deescalation" mentality. Who's side are you on City of Phoenix Police Department??"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

You're conveniently forgetting that no one expected a Democrat to win in 1992, which is what allowed Clinton to get the nomination in the first place. And even Clinton had to pledge to expand health coverage and invest in education and infrastructure to appeal to Democratic base voters. Certainly, Clinton was the end product of movements within the Democratic Party, but the outcome was not as foregone as you make it out to be. Mondale had still won the nomination over Hart in 1984, and even Dukakis in 1988 still called himself a "proud liberal."

I guess it's over-simplifying a bit to say that "Clinton moved the party to the right" because it's always possible to see his victory as a consequence rather than a cause -it then becomes a chicken or egg thing. But whatever the words you want to use, the fact remains that Clinton's victory meant that the Democratic Party moved away from some of the principles it had been defending for over fifty years. The fact that it was probably going to happen with or without Clinton doesn't change that at all.

If it's the "true democrat" thing that bothers you, simply replace it by "new deal democrat."

Well of course, if you don't want to talk about what happened before Nixon it's going to be awfully difficult to argue that the Democrats were ever genuinely on the left. :rolleyes:

Though I guess you may be right to point out that the party system was very different back in the day. As Chomsky said, "Nixon would be considered a dangerous radical by today's standard."

Ah, the true lefty Democrats: the Dixiecrats. But sure, a simple pointing out of actual history is worthy of an eyeroll. Yeah, alright.

And of course, by the time Clinton came around the New Deal Coalition had already collapsed due to civil rights issues. Like, decades before.

Cause the history of the Democratic party and it's politics is not near as simple as the picture you wanna paint here. The stuff I'm talking about here is what was going on during the time of the "New Deal Democrats".

Meanwhile the movement of the party over the last like 20 years is actually pretty straightforward.

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...