Jump to content
Lykos

US politics - When the Barr's so low.

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, DMC said:

Really?  Hillary represents elite corruption?  Not, ya know, that entire party that has been all about elite corruption since Nixon to Reagan to Bushes to..whatever we got now?  I wonder what'd you think about this "class struggle" if Sanders ever got a chance to lead - considering all his politically expedient votes.  Not to mention where was Sanders' outrage when Hillary was representing this elite corruption?  Never really heard him emphasize that before he ran for president, right - nor Warren?  Hm.

Seems to me a lot of this has to do with where you want the Democratic party to go ideologically, rather than a principled stance on "elite corruption."

No offense, DMC, but...my issues with the elite, and my desire for where I want the party to go are clearly the same thing. Either way, I understand that people feel the way you do, but it just doesn't mesh with reality. The democratic voters are not a bunch of misogynists or sexists in hiding.  This article gets into it a bit. I don't agree with it whole heartedly, but it's an attempt at looking at the nuance of the accusatory nature of not just the Dems, but the entire country.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/19/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-bernie-sanders-endorsement

 

Edited by Simon Steele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

Is Sanders well above Warren on that list, or are they more or less interchangeable for you?

 

 

I'd be happier voting for Sanders but if Warren gets the nom, I'd be happier voting for her than I've been for any other Dem candidate in my lifetime.  She's definitely left of Obama, Gore, Kerry.  I also think Sanders would do a better job of dragging out support for congressional Dems in red States than pretty much anyone else.

Big picture wise though that entire list is pretty much the same to me in there it's better than Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Daniel Newhouse said:

The water table in the plains states is drying up!  That's what I am talking about.  An aquifer is an underground river.  

At what point is the depth sacreligious?

The Cunuroi hold the Deep to be the holiest of the holy.

Edited by larrytheimp
Oirunas 2020!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

Either way, I understand that people feel the way you do, but it just doesn't mesh with reality.

LOL!  No offense Simon, but holding Bernie Sanders up as the beacon of class struggle and fight against the elite establishment empirically does not mesh with reality.  At all.  In some bizarro world where he becomes president, he will compromise with the elite establishment in a way that is indiscernible to virtually any other Democratic politician.  How do I know that?  Because he's been doing it for 30 years.  The difference between Sanders and Hillary Clinton has a whole hell of a lot more to do with the latter's comparative success than it does any impregnable principles on the former's part.

ETA:

Oh, and on the HRC gender thing:

Quote

The democratic voters are not a bunch of misogynists or sexists in hiding.

Yeah, no one said they were.  Women politicians can be disadvantaged by voters' perceptions and preconceived notions without those voters being any type of pejorative such as "sexist" or "misogynist."  It's the same reason we refer to respondents' racial bias as "racial resentment" rather than racism - because a lot of people that rank high on the resentment scale are plainly not racist in any overt or even subconscious level.  It's incredibly vapid and obtuse to pose this as a dichotomy between "voters are fighting against elite corruption" and "voters are misogynist."

Edited by DMC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, DMC said:

LOL!  No offense Simon, but holding Bernie Sanders up as the beacon of class struggle and fight against the elite establishment empirically does not mesh with reality.  At all.  In some bizarro world where he becomes president, he will compromise with the elite establishment in a way that is indiscernible to virtually any other Democratic politician.  How do I know that?  Because he's been doing it for 30 years.  The difference between Sanders and Hillary Clinton has a whole hell of a lot more to do with the latter's comparative success than it does any impregnable principles on the former's part.

ETA:

Oh, and on the HRC gender thing:

Yeah, no one said they were.  Women politicians can be disadvantaged by voters' perceptions and preconceived notions without those voters being any type of pejorative such as "sexist" or "misogynist."  It's the same reason we refer to respondents' racial bias as "racial resentment" rather than racism - because a lot of people that rank high on the resentment scale are plainly not racist in any overt or even subconscious level.  It's incredibly vapid and obtuse to pose this as a dichotomy between "voters are fighting against elite corruption" and "voters are misogynist."

But this was the whole point, wasn't it? That Clinton's loss comes from misogyny? 

You and I can go in circles around Sanders or Warren's devotion to class struggle, but they are the best we have at the moment. And I'll take them. Any of the squad, down the line, may be great, but until then, I'll take the best options. I have often told friends that I am left of Bernie. This is no secret. There is no purity test. He aligns closest to the issues of capital that are crippling Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, nah said:

Y'all ever feel like there might be some parallels regarding the way Hillary Clinton triggers people and the way some of us reacted to Sarah Palin back in the day?

I'm sorry, but that is a really terrible comparison. Palin quickly exposed her-self as a know-nothing, and  ridiculously proud of it. It's like the direct opposite of HRC. If by triggered you mean voters were concerned about an incompetent gaining access to the nuke codes, then yes, that happened. Because McCain dying in office was a live possibility.

Edited by Martell Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Well at least this thread is about done with.

 

Current Dem nominee preferences:

1. Sanders

2. Warren

3.  Castro

4.  Booker

5.  Harris

6.  O'Rourke

7.  Klobuchar

8.  Biden

9. Anybody but Trump

Mine would probably go:

1. Warren

.

.

.

2. Booker

3. Castro

4. Harris

5 Sanders (I want the country to go in a more leftist direction, but I think Sanders will inevitably fuck it up if he were actually given the reins, so despite the fact that I was rooting for him during the 2016 primary he's way down my list now.)

6. ... Buttigieg, I guess? I'm pretty meh towards the guy and have refused to consider him throughout, so it feels weird that he's even up this high.

7. Biden, although I hate thinking it would come to that.

8. O'Rourke, who I think is a fuck up and would be absolute poison to Democrats with some of his proposals.

9. Klobuchar and the various do nothing so-called moderates.

Would not even consider except as an alternative to Trump, and even then I'll be feeling sick casting a vote for them: Yang, Gabbard.

Not impressed by a dumbass techbro with the "generosity" to let people live on 12K a year and thinks the federal workforce needs to be drastically trimmed. (Although he's had one or two humanizing moments on the campaign, like a time I heard him get sincerely choked up talking about shooting victims the age of his own kids.)

Gabbard's tendency towards isolation might have appealed to me about 10 years ago, but we've since seen the retreating from the world isn't viable and leaving that hole means it gets filled by types even less savory than the US is right now, see China, Russia, and company. I have no reason to want to see a DINO who goes and whines on Fox News and Breitbart about how evulz democrats are every time things don't go her way, there are plenty of Republicans already doing that schtick. Also, I fight against cult members who have a history of discrimination, who refuse to participate in Democracy by doing things like, say, showing up to a debate with an opponent for their seat in the House, and who cozy up authoritarians that want to make minority religions second class citizens (at best) in their own country. I don't make them my fucking choice for president.

Will not even consider as an alternative to Trump: Williamson. I don't think the reasons need to be explained, even though she's had occasionally moments of basic insight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

I'm sorry, but that is a really terrible comparison. Palin quickly exposed her-self as a know-nothing, and  ridiculously proud of it. It's like the direct opposite of HRC. If by triggered you mean voters were concerned about an incompetent gaining access to the nuke codes, then yes, that happened. Because McCain dying in office was a live possibility.

Jesus how quickly did you jump on that? I swear I edited it out like five seconds after I posted it because I knew I was going to be misunderstood. Like, you saw I wrote some parallels, right? Are you really gonna sit there and tell me there was nothing misogynistic in the way people went after Palin's intelligence, her looks, her family, etc. in comparison with the treatment other Republicans of near identical policy stances and character have gotten?

Edited by nah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, nah said:

Jesus how quickly did you jump on that? I swear I edited it out like five seconds after I posted it because I knew I was going to be misunderstood. Like, you saw I wrote some parallels, right? Are you really gonna sit there and tell me there was nothing misogynistic in the way people went after Palin's intelligence, her looks, her family, etc. in comparison with the treatment other Republicans of near identical policy stances and character have gotten?

No, I'm not going to make such a wide claim. It's impossible to parse if the people attacking Palin's intelligence in particular were acting on gender bias precisely because she actually said stupid things and on camera! The HRC and Palin case comparison still don't fit the same mold very easy. Unless you are simply claiming that every woman who enters the upper levels of politics will face some kind of sexist blow-back. 

In addition to the difference in intelligence, HRC is a pretty unique case. She was subjected to decades of the right wing attack machine. They hated her for not acting like a demure First Lady. They hated her because Bill Clinton kept winning elections in a time Democrats were supposed to be losing. 

All the stuff about HRC being a corrupt elite really came in later years, especially around the 2016 election. She had already been called a femi-Nazi by the right wing for decades by then.

Edited by Martell Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what little it might be worth at this point, what made me distrust Hillary initially was the 'secret corporate speeches for cash' fiasco - which told me, straight off, that regardless of her other claims she was going to be a 'Wall Street Shill' first and foremost.  That *might* have been acceptable, had she displayed any true sympathy with the 'working class' and had not the 'email scandal' gained traction. Once the formal investigation got rolling, my view, then and now, is that she should have quit in favor of Sanders.

The comments sections of the political articles showed great enthusiasm for Trump, and almost as much for Sanders.  There was almost no love for Hillary though, even among her supporters.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

No, I'm not going to make such a wide claim. It's impossible to parse if the people attacking Palin's intelligence in particular were acting on gender bias precisely because she actually said stupid things and on camera! The HRC and Palin case comparison still don't fit the same mold very easy. Unless you are simply claiming that every woman who enters the upper levels of politics will face some kind of sexist blow-back. 

If you don't see the difference in the way people reacted to her than in the way they've reacted to others before and since, idk what to tell you. She wasn't dumber than Bush, she's not anymore evil than Cruz, and I really kind of think McCain being old was just an excuse for people who like to think of themselves as enlightened to shit on a woman they didn't like. And hey, I can admit it, I was a part of that mob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Eh, I dunno about the rest, but she was dumber than Bush.

You sexist. I mean, you even have dick in your name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbh I don't think any of them are really that dumb. Even Trump, what a lot of people take for stupidity I think is really just a combination of nastiness, bigotry, and incompetence in his current position. Like, he's a brilliant con-artist. So was Palin when you look at how successful the Tea Party were in imitating various aspects of her style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Palin likely was considered for that nomination as a token woman - I'm remember my grandmother being upset that "a bunch of old men sat around a table and said 'how about that broad from Alaska?'"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump Refers to Defense Secretary Esper as “Esperanto” in Rambling Tweet About Syria

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/trump-refers-defense-secretary-esper-esperanto-tweet-syria.html

Quote

President Donald Trump took to Twitter Sunday to once again defend his decision to pull U.S.
troops out of northeastern Syria. But in the process, he may have revealed that his Defense secretary hasn’t made much of an impression on him since he was named to the post in June. In the tweet, Trump quoted “Mark Esperanto, Secretary of Defense, ‘The ceasefire is holding up very nicely. There are some minor skirmishes that have ended quickly. New areas being resettled with the Kurds’.” The name of the Defense secretary is Mark Esper. “USA soldiers are not in combat or ceasefire zones. We have secured the Oil. Bringing soldiers home!” Trump added. Around two hours later, that tweet had been deleted and the president posted another one with the correct spelling of Esper’s name.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

But this was the whole point, wasn't it? That Clinton's loss comes from misogyny?

No, that was definitely not the point.  The point is Hillary is especially, almost uniquely hated and that definitely has something to do with her gender.  You're the one who's reducing it to this binary argument.

3 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

You and I can go in circles around Sanders or Warren's devotion to class struggle, but they are the best we have at the moment.

Fair enough, can't argue with that.  My issue is with you juxtaposing the two wings of the party in overly combative terms, as if the schism is between the pinnacle of elite establishment - as well as corruption - and revolutionaries.  It's really not.

1 hour ago, nah said:

Are you really gonna sit there and tell me there was nothing misogynistic in the way people went after Palin's intelligence, her looks, her family, etc. in comparison with the treatment other Republicans of near identical policy stances and character have gotten?

Yeah there definitely was.  And with her family and depicting them as hicks.  But, they made it really, really easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how does Mick Mulvaney still have a job?  A screwup like Thursday's is enough for a CoS to resign in shame.  Now he's done it twice within 72 hours?  Is this like a suicide-by-cop thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, DMC said:

So how does Mick Mulvaney still have a job?  A screwup like Thursday's is enough for a CoS to resign in shame.  Now he's done it twice within 72 hours?  Is this like a suicide-by-cop thing?

Well, They Say 1) it would look very very very bad right now to fire him because quid pro quo reasons; & 2) he likes the guy personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×