• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Snowman Prophet of Doom

Member
Cybit said:
I think you and I are pretty much on the same mind-set of this. I'm not generally a Michael Moore fan; but the bit in Bowling for Columbine about Fear being such a driving factor for US politics has always stuck with me. (The first really political thing I was ever involved with was school shootings and school safety post-Columbine). It's why I'm always saying "hold the eff up" before going down some path, because we're really bad at overreacting a) after the nick of time, Shakespeare style and b) in generally the worst way possible when it comes to domestic policies.

Aside: While back folks asked why I think Vox is fairly stupid when it comes to identity politics stuff?

It's stupid shit like this

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/17/11024092/clinton-albright-steinem

That article's premise is "young women (20-35 year olds) are too young to have experienced true sexism, so they don't appreciate Clinton".

I understand where the term Vox-splain comes from, now.
Click to expand...

Goddamn, what a condescending article. Vox is like the Neil DeGrasse-Tyson of politics.
 
D

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
Carson started a scholarship fund and served on some corporate boards, therefore he's qualified to be Commander in Chief.
 
R

RoKKeR

Member
Does anybody care if I throw up a quick and dirty Town Hall thread? Won't have any of the usual antics.

Edit: Beaten to it! Thanks rjinaz
 
B

brainchild

Banned
shinra-bansho said:
So, somewhat non-sequitur, and please note I have absolutely no interest in hearing any more bickering on any particular remarks in question, this is more a general discussion point.
But, on whether being of X identity group in itself is a "qualification," or should be important, my view is that it can and should be. But it also may not be of relevance at all.

To me, it's important that Sam Smith can win Grammys singing about boys or Ellen is beamed into living rooms daily talking about her wife, or any number of things that mere months, years, decades ago would be unimaginable. It will be important if and when one day someone can be a viable Presidential candidate, while being openly gay. In the same way, it seems perfectly valid to me that a woman may view Clinton being a woman as a qualification, a black person may view Barack Obama's race as a qualification. An Indian or black woman may view Kamala Harris's ethnicity and gender as being a qualification, if she one day runs. Alongside all the other considerations that consciously and subconsciously come into play in these decisions.

Having a shared identity can be important. It can be a qualification to have lived experiences that mirror your own and to have to live with the consequences alongside you of any policies adopted. It can be a qualification to be able to bring discussion of your issues and the underlying discrimination that still exists to the fore. The symbolism can be important to be able to show your child that there's nothing they can't aspire to, or really in the cases of some identity groups, to be able to show your child that who they are is okay with the world.

I think it's also perfectly fine if a person of X identity group thinks that identity is unimportant. Although, if that view stems from the idea that we live in a post-racial, post-gender, post-everything else society, I'd disagree with that premise. And I'd also disagree with telling someone that it should or shouldn't matter to them, because it does or doesn't matter to you.
Click to expand...

Given the broad context of your point, I couldn't agree more, and this is coming from someone who defended (and will still defend) Killer Mike's statements.

I absolutely believe that shared identity is important, and find it perfectly acceptable if people see that as a reason to vote for a candidate.

Often time, when I'm seen defending a very specific action or viewpoint, many people will automatically jump to the conclusion that I support the underlying ideologies that may have given rise to that viewpoint, and I suspect it's because it's not often that a person demonstrates their ability to compartmentalize both concepts, so that person will be seen as guilty by association. I really wish this wasn't the case, because it obfuscates clarity of intent and mischaracterizes a person.
 
S

Snowman Prophet of Doom

Member
shinra-bansho said:
So, somewhat non-sequitur, and please note I have absolutely no interest in hearing any more bickering on any particular remarks in question, this is more a general discussion point.
But, on whether being of X identity group in itself is a "qualification," or should be important, my view is that it can and should be. But it also may not be of relevance at all.

To me, it's important that Sam Smith can win Grammys singing about boys or Ellen is beamed into living rooms daily talking about her wife, or any number of things that mere months, years, decades ago would be unimaginable. It will be important if and when one day someone can be a viable Presidential candidate, while being openly gay. In the same way, it seems perfectly valid to me that a woman may view Clinton being a woman as a qualification, a black person may view Barack Obama's race as a qualification. An Indian or black woman may view Kamala Harris's ethnicity and gender as being a qualification, if she one day runs. Alongside all the other considerations that consciously and subconsciously come into play in these decisions.

Having a shared identity can be important. It can be a qualification to have lived experiences that mirror your own and to have to live with the consequences alongside you of any policies adopted. It can be a qualification to be able to bring discussion of your issues and the underlying discrimination that still exists to the fore. The symbolism can be important to be able to show your child that there's nothing they can't aspire to, or really in the cases of some identity groups, to be able to show your child that who they are is okay with the world.

I think it's also perfectly fine if a person of X identity group thinks that identity is unimportant. Although, if that view stems from the idea that we live in a post-racial, post-gender, post-everything else society, I'd disagree with that premise. And I'd also disagree with telling someone that it should or shouldn't matter to them, because it does or doesn't matter to you.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for anybody else, but my issue was not, specifically, with the idea that some women might be invigorated to finally be able to vote for a fellow woman, nor even with the idea that a woman candidate might try to use her womanhood to engage fellow women politically. My problem, and the thing that made Killer Mike's line make perfect sense to me, is that Hillary doesn't engage her identity in any kind of deep, personal way, preferring instead to just kind of pepper it into stump speeches and debate answers like a spice. The thing that made Obama's candidacy so stunning is that I don't remember him ever openly arguing that electing him the first black president was something people should actively strive for. He couldn't, really, because race is far more taboo to talk about, especially in '08, than sex. Still, seeing the groundswell of support for the idea of voting for the man being a transformative political act was powerful. Now, if Hillary wants to go the route of engaging with the marginalized piece of her identity more directly, that's totally fair, but I must again point to the example of Obama, who was always extremely wise and tactful in how he addressed his race - specific, thoughtful, personal, sincere, and simple. Hillary has never been "real" about her sex and its impact on her life like that. She has a strong record on fighting for women's rights, but so do many politicians. The disconnect that spurred Jane Elliott to say the line that resonate with Killer Mike enough to repeat is that she's never really drawn a strong, tangible connection between her advocacy for women's issues and her lived experience as a woman. The "she's like my abuela" stuff, the "Being a woman is anti-establishment" stuff, the tone-deaf BS from Steinem and Albright, all just kind of turn her into this generic, abstract representation of womanhood, which comes across, however sincere she is or isn't on the inside, like cynical political posturing. This is a subset of her larger failure to craft a compelling message for her campaign, which itself is a subset of her larger problem of being a pretty bad, lazy campaigner, seemingly stuck on the notion that she is entitled to the office and that her sheer notoriety will propel her there. It's an arrogance that lost her the nomination in '08, and has lost her so much ground in '16, and what I think gets to people is that she seemingly has rolled the genuinely important historical milestone of electing the first woman president into that more general sense of personal entitlement that turns many people, especially younger people not as ideologically nor emotionally committed to the system as-is, off of her.
 
TheLaughingStock

TheLaughingStock

Member
Yoda said:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...oats-breaking-up-big-banks-to-avert-melt-down

Has this been posted? I can believe I'm hearing this from him.
Click to expand...

I posted earlier. Hopefully, more conservatives come around rhetorically from the Bush admin and we can frame the issue differently while bringing Dems on board who are mostly just followers. Even the conservative godfather Reagan and Bush 1 had an ounce of decency to take this sort of threat and wave of crime seriously.
 
B

brainchild

Banned
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
I can't speak for anybody else, but my issue was not, specifically, with the idea that some women might be invigorated to finally be able to vote for a fellow woman, nor even with the idea that a woman candidate might try to use her womanhood to engage fellow women politically. My problem, and the thing that made Killer Mike's line make perfect sense to me, is that Hillary doesn't engage her identity in any kind of deep, personal way, preferring instead to just kind of pepper it into stump speeches and debate answers like a spice. The thing that made Obama's candidacy so stunning is that I don't remember him ever openly arguing that electing him the first black president was something people should actively strive for. He couldn't, really, because race is far more taboo to talk about, especially in '08, than sex. Still, seeing the groundswell of support for the idea of voting for the man being a transformative political act was powerful. Now, if Hillary wants to go the route of engaging with the marginalized piece of her identity more directly, that's totally fair, but I must again point to the example of Obama, who was always extremely wise and tactful in how he addressed his race - specific, thoughtful, personal, sincere, and simple. Hillary has never been "real" about her sex and its impact on her life like that. She has a strong record on fighting for women's rights, but so do many politicians. The disconnect that spurred Jane Elliott to say the line that resonate with Killer Mike enough to repeat is that she's never really drawn a strong, tangible connection between her advocacy for women's issues and her lived experience as a woman. The "she's like my abuela" stuff, the "Being a woman is anti-establishment" stuff, the tone-deaf BS from Steinem and Albright, all just kind of turn her into this generic, abstract representation of womanhood, which comes across, however sincere she is or isn't on the inside, like cynical political posturing. This is a subset of her larger failure to craft a compelling message for her campaign, which itself is a subset of her larger problem of being a pretty bad, lazy campaigner, seemingly stuck on the notion that she is entitled to the office and that her sheer notoriety will propel her there. It's an arrogance that lost her the nomination in '08, and has lost her so much ground in '16, and what I think gets to people is that she seemingly has rolled the genuinely important historical milestone of electing the first woman president into that more general sense of entitlement that turns many people, especially younger people not as ideologically nor emotionally committed to the system as-is, off of her.
Click to expand...

I agree with nearly everything that you said, but I'd also say that you could make the same points about everything that comes out of her mouth. She's a cold and calculating politician and a very intelligent one at that, but it's really hard to relate to her on a more human, personal level. I've always felt this way about Hillary.
 
H

Hilbert

Deep into his 30th decade
I think I am going to caucus for the democrats in Washington state. This in on March 26th. I have never done this before. What do people think, will this primary be over by then, or will this still be worth doing? This is actually kind of an effort, need to find a babysitter and stuff.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Hilbert said:
I think I am going to caucus for the democrats in Washington state. This in on March 26th. I have never done this before. What do people think, will this primary be over by then, or will this still be worth doing? This is actually kind of an effort, need to find a babysitter and stuff.
Click to expand...

Well, regardless of if the race is over or not, I would encourage you to participate. It's always good to be involved if you can. I hate that caucuses are such a hassle for people, though.

Also, define "over." I mean, if the trend continues, there's little chance Bernie would be able to make a substantial delegate comeback if the current polls are correct. It depends on how well he does that day. Neither candidate will have enough delegates to force the other one out at that point. Neither will have enough delegates to secure the nomination yet.
 
D

dramatis

Member
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
I can't speak for anybody else, but my issue was not, specifically, with the idea that some women might be invigorated to finally be able to vote for a fellow woman, nor even with the idea that a woman candidate might try to use her womanhood to engage fellow women politically. My problem, and the thing that made Killer Mike's line make perfect sense to me, is that Hillary doesn't engage her identity in any kind of deep, personal way, preferring instead to just kind of pepper it into stump speeches and debate answers like a spice. The thing that made Obama's candidacy so stunning is that I don't remember him ever openly arguing that electing him the first black president was something people should actively strive for. He couldn't, really, because race is far more taboo to talk about, especially in '08, than sex. Still, seeing the groundswell of support for the idea of voting for the man being a transformative political act was powerful. Now, if Hillary wants to go the route of engaging with the marginalized piece of her identity more directly, that's totally fair, but I must again point to the example of Obama, who was always extremely wise and tactful in how he addressed his race - specific, thoughtful, personal, sincere, and simple. Hillary has never been "real" about her sex and its impact on her life like that. She has a strong record on fighting for women's rights, but so do many politicians. The disconnect that spurred Jane Elliott to say the line that resonate with Killer Mike enough to repeat is that she's never really drawn a strong, tangible connection between her advocacy for women's issues and her lived experience as a woman. The "she's like my abuela" stuff, the "Being a woman is anti-establishment" stuff, the tone-deaf BS from Steinem and Albright, all just kind of turn her into this generic, abstract representation of womanhood, which comes across, however sincere she is or isn't on the inside, like cynical political posturing. This is a subset of her larger failure to craft a compelling message for her campaign, which itself is a subset of her larger problem of being a pretty bad, lazy campaigner, seemingly stuck on the notion that she is entitled to the office and that her sheer notoriety will propel her there. It's an arrogance that lost her the nomination in '08, and has lost her so much ground in '16, and what I think gets to people is that she seemingly has rolled the genuinely important historical milestone of electing the first woman president into that more general sense of personal entitlement that turns many people, especially younger people not as ideologically nor emotionally committed to the system as-is, off of her.
Click to expand...

brainchild said:
I agree with nearly everything that you said, but I'd also say that you could make the same points about everything that comes out of her mouth. She's a cold and calculating politician and a very intelligent one at that, but it's really hard to relate to her on a more human, personal level. I've always felt this way about Hillary.
Click to expand...
Who are you guys to be determining how 'real' a woman's experience in being a 'real' woman is?

What a load of shit
 
S

soul creator

Member
can't believe there's a news article in 2016 discussing Willie D and his opinion on a political matter. This goddamn election.

My mind is truly playing tricks on me
 
H

Hilbert

Deep into his 30th decade
adam387 said:
Well, regardless of if the race is over or not, I would encourage you to participate. It's always good to be involved if you can. I hate that caucuses are such a hassle for people, though.

Also, define "over." I mean, if the trend continues, there's little chance Bernie would be able to make a substantial delegate comeback if the current polls are correct. It depends on how well he does that day. Neither candidate will have enough delegates to force the other one out at that point. Neither will have enough delegates to secure the nomination yet.
Click to expand...

As long as neither have conceded at that point I guess I wouldn't consider it over. I have always wanted to do this but the process seems so confusing that I never really took the time to do it. I am kind of excited about getting involved.
 
H

Holmes

Member
Kyosaiga said:
Well, Sanders might as well throw in the towel.
Click to expand...
No. But if Clinton is ahead by 100-150 pledged delegates - and this isn't even counting the supers which will balloon hear lead to about 500+ - the media narrative changes automatically to how Sanders is losing badly. Maine, and probably Kansas and Nebraska will give him a lifeline (but will be drowned out by Louisiana, Michigan and Mississippi), and then if March 15th is another bad night for him, he starts to get treated by the media as a losing candidate with little hope. His team now has to answer to the media about how they're going to turn it around with so little time left? How do you overcome Clinton's 500-600+ delegate lead? She's already more than halfway there. And the fact that for the next month, the states only start to trickle in a few at a time (which, admittedly, some should be good states for Sanders, but they won't give him a "comeback kid" narrative) , and the next big day is April 19 (New York) and 26 (some New England and Northeastern states) which will probably be a wash on both sides... it doesn't look good for Ol' Bern.
 
Y

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
Holmes said:
No. But if Clinton is ahead by 100-150 pledged delegates - and this isn't even counting the supers which will balloon hear lead to about 500+ - the media narrative changes automatically to how Sanders is losing badly. Maine, and probably Kansas and Nebraska will give him a lifeline (but will be drowned out by Louisiana, Michigan and Mississippi), and then if March 15th is another bad night for him, he starts to get treated by the media as a losing candidate with little hope. His team now has to answer to the media about how they're going to turn it around with so little time left? How do you overcome Clinton's 500-600+ delegate lead? She's already more than halfway there. And the fact that for the next month, the states only start to trickle in a few at a time (which, admittedly, some should be good states for Sanders, but they won't give him a "comeback kid" narrative) , and the next big day is April 19 (New York) and 26 (some New England and Northeastern states) which will probably be a wash on both sides... it doesn't look good for Ol' Bern.
Click to expand...

No it won't. Morning Joe will still be about how Hillary sucks and is failing and Bernie can still win.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Holmes said:
No. But if Clinton is ahead by 100-150 pledged delegates - and this isn't even counting the supers which will balloon hear lead to about 500+ - the media narrative changes automatically to how Sanders is losing badly. Maine, and probably Kansas and Nebraska will give him a lifeline (but will be drowned out by Louisiana, Michigan and Mississippi), and then if March 15th is another bad night for him, he starts to get treated by the media as a losing candidate with little hope. His team now has to answer to the media about how they're going to turn it around with so little time left? How do you overcome Clinton's 500-600+ delegate lead? She's already more than halfway there. And the fact that for the next month, the states only start to trickle in a few at a time (which, admittedly, some should be good states for Sanders, but they won't give him a "comeback kid" narrative) , and the next big day is April 19 (New York) and 26 (some New England and Northeastern states) which will probably be a wash on both sides... it doesn't look good for Ol' Bern.
Click to expand...

If she wins NV its going to be a rough few weeks for him.
 
B

brainchild

Banned
dramatis said:
Who are you guys to be determining how 'real' a woman's experience in being a 'real' woman is?

What a load of shit
Click to expand...

If you actually bothered to look at my point, the whole problem stems from her coming across as inauthentic in general. Obviously not in her biology, but in how she connects with people, which naturally extends to every facet of herself, including her womanhood. Everyone, male or female, has the right to an opinion on perception.

So there is a load of shit, it just happens to be leaking from your post.
 
O

OrangeGrayBlue

Member
brainchild said:
I agree with nearly everything that you said, but I'd also say that you could make the same points about everything that comes out of her mouth. She's a cold and calculating politician and a very intelligent one at that, but it's really hard to relate to her on a more human, personal level. I've always felt this way about Hillary.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't necessarily say cold and calculating, but she's not above saying things for political expediency. Racial issues are extremely important to me, but it's hard for me to get excited about what Hillary said in Harlem. She claimed that ending racial equality will be the "mission" of her presidency.

Does anyone here, Hillary supporter or not, really believe that? I believe it's a tactful thing to say in Harlem 10 days ahead of the South Carolina primary (don't get me wrong, Bernie has employed similar convenience lately), but I do not in any iota of my being believe that Hillary will reiterate that statement after the democratic convention, or maybe even after Super Tuesday. If racial issues are still the main thrust of her campaign after March 1st, I would change my vote to her. That would show, to me, that she really means it when she says it will be the mission of her presidency.

As of now, I think she's trying to win South Carolina (and Georgia) and then move on.

She said "all lives matter" last year. No one with a sincere interest in these issues would ever make the mistake of saying that. It's not something you should have to be corrected on. It throws her sincerity on the topic entirely into question. There's a difference, to me, between being able to understand an issue in detail and having genuine concern for it. I don't see Hillary's genuine concern. It's one thing to learn the problems and iterate the liberal stance on them. O'Malley was especially bad at this. It's another to show any sort of real commitment to ameliorating them. I have no faith in her following up on this promise of making racial justice the mission of her presidency.
 
B

brainchild

Banned
shinra-bansho said:
I'm not entirely sure I understand what it would entail to be "real" about being a woman operating in a largely male power sphere.
Click to expand...


Hell, you can even drop the whole 'real woman' category as a whole. I'd be perfectly fine with 'real person', which is the broader point that I was making. Nevertheless, she never comes across as one.
 
S

shinra-bansho

Member
"Inauthenticity" is in itself a product of gender norms, although this will probably lead to a larger digression. There's literature on these double-binds. A man is strong, a woman is cold. A man is passionate, a woman is hysterical. So you modulate how you appear as a necessity. More cautious. Balancing act. Liked but not competent, competent but not liked. Ginger Rogers.

Also, you should all be able to make points without it degrading into stupidity.

----

On the topic of polligaf, based on the PPP numbers she should be ahead by about 130 or so pledged delegates depending on how the unpolled Minnesota and Colorado swing. That sort of lead would solidify current Super Delegates and bring on board more. So, it probably would basically be over.
 
U

ugaboga232

Member
It seems republicans are raising the same concerns about the nation (for the most part) as clinton and sanders but still give the same crappy solutions. At least its a move forward?
 
H

Holmes

Member
shinra-bansho said:
On the topic of polligaf, based on the PPP numbers she should be ahead by about 130 or so pledged delegates depending on how the unpolled Minnesota and Colorado swing. That sort of lead would solidify current Super Delegates and bring on board more. So, it probably would basically be over.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think probably after Super Tuesday or March 15th, we'll see more superdelegate movement towards Clinton (probably pushed by the party to wrap it up). The media and everyone will probably start talking about Hillary vs. Trump in the general.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5
235
42K
OverHeat replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
59K
DGrayson replied
GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2022 Edition
3 4 5 6 7
333
76K
zephiross replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
Top Bottom