U.S. Politics: There's Identity Politics, On Many Sides

[Maithanet]

29 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I wonder what the odds are for her mounting a third run for President.

I doubt she'll run again, and if she does, she won't get much traction.  I was a Clinton supporter in 2016, and I'd vote for almost any Democrat over her in 2020.  I haven't spoken to anyone who wants to see her run again. 

[Kalbear]

31 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Democrats - forever fighting the last war.

Clinton's new book claims Sanders' candidacy created lasting damage, laid out path for Trump's "Crooked Hillary" attacks.

I wonder what the odds are for her mounting a third run for President.

Is anything that is said there untrue? This was one of the common worries during the primary - that the enmity of Sanders and Clinton and the way that Sanders attacked Clinton would make progressives tune out a bit later, and Trump used a ton of the same attacks Sanders did.

My personal view is that the biggest damage was making the whole electoral system seem suspect and rigged, which made a number of people disinclined to vote at all. 

[Mexal]

35 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Democrats - forever fighting the last war.

Clinton's new book claims Sanders' candidacy created lasting damage, laid out path for Trump's "Crooked Hillary" attacks.

I wonder what the odds are for her mounting a third run for President.

She's done and she knows it.

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I think the desire is still there though, and the Clinton name pulls a ton of weight. I doubt she'd win the nomination, but her involvement would suggest nothing good for Democratic chances to take back the Presidency, imo.

Desire maybe, but she's not going to run unless there's an actual path to victory.  There are plenty of Democrats eager to run against Trump in 2020 that don't have so much baggage or the stink of failure on them. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Lew Theobald said:

Maybe not.  Was anything Bernie said about Clinton untrue?

Yes? As the chapter points out, Sanders couldn't actually point to a single time where money could be shown to influence Clinton's decisions one bit. 

Just now, Lew Theobald said:

Well, it was certainly suspect.  Still is.  Question is, can they pull themselves together enough to field a viable candidate?

It likely doesn't matter. Clinton is a viable candidate, and was. So was Kerry, and so was Gore. The only way Democrats win is by getting hugely popular people or coming in after a disaster Republicans make (or sometimes both). The default in the US is Republican.

[Kalbear]

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

Yes, the whole part regarding Sanders' laying out the path for the Crooked Hillary attacks is a complete non-starter, because Republicans have been accusing her of corruption for decades.

The difference is that those were from partisan sources. When Sanders and other Democrat voices use it, it becomes the basic narrative. Clinton is pointing out there not that Republicans had that as an attack, but that it stuck more because Sanders supported it, and it stuck specifically with progressives.

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

The conflation of "some" of Sanders' supporters with the few so-called "Bernie Bros" who engaged in sexist rhetoric is, quite frankly, offensive to me as a Sanders-Clinton voter.

It was pretty horrible being on Twitter as a Clinton supporter. 

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

And it's the height of irony for her to complain about the actions of some random Sanders' supporters in 2016, when her campaign surrogates in 2008 ran a racially-tinged primary campaign against Obama, during what was, in actuality, a much more acrimonious primary race than the 2016 race.

I think that's an entirely fair criticism, though Clinton bent over backwards to support Obama after that.

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

I think there is a place for Clinton in the Democratic Party of the future, but that place is as someone well-versed in policy who can advise future candidates rather than as a persona consistently in the limelight.

I honestly don't any more. I think that the right has so much ammo invested in Clinton attacks that putting her into any kind of value on the party is setting up for guilt by association and ammunition. Mind you, the right will demonize everyone on the left regardless - but Clinton is her own special kind of atavistic hate. It's gross, unfair, and it sucks, but it is also there.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The difference is that those were from partisan sources. When Sanders and other Democrat voices use it, it becomes the basic narrative. Clinton is pointing out there not that Republicans had that as an attack, but that it stuck more because Sanders supported it, and it stuck specifically with progressives.

It was pretty horrible being on Twitter as a Clinton supporter. 

I think that's an entirely fair criticism, though Clinton bent over backwards to support Obama after that.

I honestly don't any more. I think that the right has so much ammo invested in Clinton attacks that putting her into any kind of value on the party is setting up for guilt by association and ammunition. Mind you, the right will demonize everyone on the left regardless - but Clinton is her own special kind of atavistic hate. It's gross, unfair, and it sucks, but it is also there.

On my phone, so can't address specific paragraphs separately.

Progressives were always going to be wary of Clinton, though, and Sanders' campaign didn't invent the corruption narrative, especially with regards to the DNC. There were rumblings about the DNC being in the bag for Clinton as far back as the release of the debate schedule in 2015, before Sanders was anything more than a joke candidate. I see your point, but I think the release of the hacked DNC emails added more fuel to that fire than anything else. More importantly, what's the point of Clinton opening up wounds that are trying to heal?

From what little I've seen of it, it's horrible being on Twitter anyway, which is why I don't have an account. But my point was not to say that no Bernie supporters were sexist, but rather that her statement seems to imply that the breadth of sexism among Bernie supporters was greater than it actually was.

Agreed that Clinton went to the mattresses for Obama after his primary win.

Also agreed that the right's quarter century campaign is just disgusting.

[Rippounet]

Just discovered that there is a game called "secret Hitler" and that they are releasing a new version with a "secret Trump."

The things you learn...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzeXfaM55MM

On a different note, would anyone know where to find all Trump's speeches? Not just the ones he made as president (those are generally found on whitehouse.gov ) but also his campaign speeches.

 

[OldGimletEye]

24 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

From what little I've seen of it, it's horrible being on Twitter anyway, which is why I don't have an account.

Is that the same thing as that Tweeter thing Rick Perry was talking about?
Always wanted to tell people they could follow me on tweeter. But, it sounds like a real bummer. So I guess I won't.

[Martell Spy]

Well, Trump is not only vicious, but a vicious coward, as his DACA delay shows. You don't get credit for flinching while picking on innocent people.

Jeff Sessions Spews Nativist Lies While Explaining Why Trump Is Killing DACA

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/09/05/sessions_daca_speech_was_full_of_nativist_lies.html

Trump’s Cowardly Dodge on DACA

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/trumps-cowardly-dodge-on-daca.html

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Is anything that is said there untrue? This was one of the common worries during the primary - that the enmity of Sanders and Clinton and the way that Sanders attacked Clinton would make progressives tune out a bit later, and Trump used a ton of the same attacks Sanders did.

While I agree she's right, there's no need for her to say it publicly. It does nothing to help.

Also, remember who was sounding the alarm that it was a serious problem for Sanders to stay in the race past the point where he had no path to victory? He should have dropped out in March.

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

She's done and she knows it.

On the Presidential, yes, but it wouldn't be shocking if she ran for the Mayor of New York City or Governor of the state. Wouldn't also be surprising if Chelsea ran for Congress. 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

On the Presidential, yes, but it wouldn't be shocking if she ran for the Mayor of New York City or Governor of the state. Wouldn't also be surprising if Chelsea ran for Congress. 

I would vote for her if she ran as Governor of my state. However, I would not vote for her for President again. I would vote for Sanders if he ran again. I voted for Clinton, but it didn't do me much good. May as well let my freak flag fly next time, unless there's some other more appealing candidate.

The new war on drugs
Not every state is responding to the opioid epidemic with just public health policies.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/5/16135848/drug-war-opioid-epidemic

 

[Rippounet]

31 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

I've played Secret Hitler.  It's a good game.  Closely related to Avalon (also a good game); which in turn was based on The Resistance (which I've never played). 

I've played Avalon and liked it a lot. I've tended to see it as a variation of Werewolves, but that's quite personal.

31 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

It could just as easily have been a Hillary sticker, though, because the whole theme of the game is that you have no idea which candidate is going to turn out to be Hitler if elected. 

It's my understanding that "Secret Hitler" can't be a liberal. Besides, I think in this type of game the fascists might guess who Hitler is after a couple of turns.

[The Anti-Targ]

6 hours ago, Zorral said:

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson said on his show earlier this month that “Google should be regulated like the public utility it is, to make sure it doesn’t further distort the free flow of information to the rest of us.” Former Trump aide and Breitbart executive chairman Steve Bannon has also argued that tech platforms should be regulated like utilities.

Wait a minute, isn't it the official Republican line that the internet is NOT a utility and therefore net neutrality rules can be axed? If the internet itself (i.e. companies that provide the data stream we all use) isn't a utility then how can businesses that operate via a non-utility be a utility?

It is an interesting topic the collision of free speech laws / rights and the rights of private businesses to decide what they want or don't want to be associated with their name. What did Contrapoints say? You have the right to say what you want, but you don't have the right to a megaphone. Given Facebook and Youtube are internet megaphones owned by private companies no one has any right to use those platform, People only get to use those platforms on the whims of the company. So long as the company's whims are lawful then you have no recourse other than to appeal to their greedy nature as corporations whose sole aim is to increase profits. If you can show that their profits are being harmed by keeping hate speech off their platforms, then they will allow hate speech on their platforms. If the hate market becomes large enough then companies will provide.

No one seems to have complained that youtube won't allow porn. But prohibiting porn on Youtube is no different in principle than prohibiting hate speech. And porn is almost as difficult to define at the margins as hate speech. But you know it when you see it.

[The Anti-Targ]

36 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

I would vote for her if she ran as Governor of my state. However, I would not vote for her for President again. I would vote for Sanders if he ran again. I voted for Clinton, but it didn't do me much good. May as well let my freak flag fly next time, unless there's some other more appealing candidate.

The new war on drugs
Not every state is responding to the opioid epidemic with just public health policies.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/5/16135848/drug-war-opioid-epidemic

 

I hope Chelsea doesn't make a run for president for at least 4 more Presidential election cycles. Or, as bad as it may sound, until both of her parents have peacefully passed away. I do wonder if taking a run at president from a Governor's mansion rather than from a senate seat is better for Democratic candidates. At least from a Governor's mansion you aren't open to the attack of being a Washington elite and Wall street shill (provided you're not the governor of NY).

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Democrats - forever fighting the last war.

Clinton's new book claims Sanders' candidacy created lasting damage, laid out path for Trump's "Crooked Hillary" attacks.

I wonder what the odds are for her mounting a third run for President.

YOU LOST TO DONALD FUCKING TRUMP! Any excuse you make at this point is your own. Just own it. For once.

 

/She can't even get this book release right. Had she cranked this out in say February or March she would've made a fortune.

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

YOU LOST TO DONALD FUCKING TRUMP! Any excuse you make at this point is your own. Just own it. For once.

/She can't even get this book release right. Had she cranked this out in say February or March she would've made a fortune.

Eh. Part of the election last year is how much is really against a Democratic candidate no matter who they are, at this point. Clinton especially. When you have literally another nation-state using espionage tactics against you, it's reasonable to say that there are things outside of your control. 

In addition to that, people have to get over the notion that candidate Trump is so horrific to a great many people. Or, for that matter, that any candidate that Republicans put forward can be considered so horrible that people won't vote for them. Ignoring this and assuming that there's anything resembling a fair fight here is going to fail, catastrophically so. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Eh. Part of the election last year is how much is really against a Democratic candidate no matter who they are, at this point. Clinton especially. When you have literally another nation-state using espionage tactics against you, it's reasonable to say that there are things outside of your control. 

In addition to that, people have to get over the notion that candidate Trump is so horrific to a great many people. Or, for that matter, that any candidate that Republicans put forward can be considered so horrible that people won't vote for them. Ignoring this and assuming that there's anything resembling a fair fight here is going to fail, catastrophically so. 

I'll give you the Russian bit. That would've been a hurdle for any Dem candidate for sure, but the finger pointing bothers me. It's just so er, Hillary?

[Kalbear]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I'll give you the Russian bit. That would've been a hurdle for any Dem candidate for sure, but the finger pointing bothers me. It's just so er, Hillary?

My understanding was that in the book she also takes a lot of personal blame. In that respect I will say that someone rationally discussing all the different factors in a nuanced, long-form system with a lot of facts and data and not being satisfying emotionally is very, very Hillary. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

My understanding was that in the book she also takes a lot of personal blame. In that respect I will say that someone rationally discussing all the different factors in a nuanced, long-form system with a lot of facts and data and not being satisfying emotionally is very, very Hillary. 

Well I can't say I've read it (or likely will) so I can't really speak to that. I would love to see some excerpts wherein she holds her own feet to the coals though.