-
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 |OT16| Unpresidented
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
Unless the GOP seriously educate him, he's going to antagonise the rest of the world, which will lead to things falling apart. There's some analysis of the Taiwan cock-up that says that if he were POTUS and not PEOTUS, it would be a full-scale diplomatic crisis, instead of something that could conceivably be recovered by Obama and his administration.
Can't wait for him to side with Japan over the Japanese war crimes in Nanjing, and really piss off China and the Far East.
Edit:
https://twitter.com/ehundman/status/804906264509710336
Eric Hundman (何諳銳
‏@ehundman
Was without service for much of the night so playing catch up, but a few thoughts on the Tsai-Trump call fallout so far: 1/x
Yes, this is a major break with precedent and violation of the status quo; no, media are not overplaying its potential impact. 2/x
Pretty clear to me this was not an intentional shakeup by Trump (maybe by an advisor tho), partly b/c of how he walked back on Twitter 3/x
On Twitter Trump gave Beijing a huge opening to further pressure Taiwan, which cuts against any possible intended effect of such a call 4/x
Many observers are reading Chinese foreign minister's response as downplaying the issue, but I think that is wishful thinking 5/x
He immediately blamed and belittled Taiwan, taking the opening Trump stupidly provided; 6/x
He also, in my reading, warned the US that Sino-US relations would not remain "healthy" if the US doesn't adhere to one-China principle 7/x
Notably, too, he didn't warn Trump personally; he couched his statement in broader US-China relations. 8/x
In other words, he didn't frame this as a limited-effect action by an ill-informed president-elect who needs educating. 9/x
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/louisiana-senate-runoff-democrats-232142
If there was ever a reason to take a long shot at a low turnout race, this would be it. Too bad the national party is going to stay home while the GOP is playing to win.
ErasureAcer
Banned
No shock Heidtkamp would want a spot in Trump's administration. Make lawn chairs great again! American flag on every one.
Appeal to status quo will always be unconvincing.
https://www.facebook.com/TheRealMikeRowe/videos/1349438011733005/Mike Rowe said:
Mike Rowe's snooty brand of conservatism never fails to jag me. Best part is the immediate retraction for citing fake news. Still can't believe people shared his TED talk a few years ago.
lyrick
Member
The guy obviously doesn't understand maximum Loan limits if he mistakenly thinks federal loans can cover $250K worth of tuition.
Veritigo_X
Member
I don't think she actually wants a spot in his administration. Not that I like her having talks with Trump, but her talking with him definitely helps her reelection chances in such a red state.
I'd much rather have her in that seat than an actual republican.
Sirpopopop
Member
It's impossible to have conversations. The "people in OT" have established that they do not see why they should care about form. There is a lack of willingness to try and see this issue from a side that doesn't care about throwing firebrands in the world.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
The situation is made worse by posters who don't get the reality of US Politics. They think their local politics overseas is a barometer for politics in other countries.
Community threads about contentious issues like politics have also indirectly made the problem worse.
Why go into OT and try to talk about politics, when people can't even agree what "far left" is?
SenorArdilla
Member
It gets cold in winter? Who would have thought?
hydragonwarrior
Member
C'mon man, that's par for the course. Just mention the record summer temperatures.
I hereby propose that "far left" means seizing the means of production and supporting social and/or civil rights issues that mainstream Democrats would not be comfortable immediately supporting.
So let it be written, so let it be done.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I propose that these terms have no definitive meaning, and are only useful as terms to discuss at all insofar as those involved in the conversation all agree to the defintions before the beginning of the conversation. If such an agreement cannot be found, people shall be banned from using such terms, lest we fall into the terrible trap of wasting our lives on essentially contested concepts.
No, but seriously, I do dislike all of these terms - far left, alt-right, neoliberal, centrist, moderate, whatever. People mean such a broad range of things whenever they use each one, and though I'm as guilty of it as others, I do try to steer away from using such imprecise terms and stick to labels that have more empirical grounding when I can.
If I do use them, I want to try and set out exactly what it is I mean by each one beforehand.
shinra-bansho
Member
I don't much care.
That wasn't an opening for discussion.
I don't know why you both thought in response to my saying not to do this... you both decided to complain again about other posters.
This thread is not here for you to vent about other parts of the forum.
It's official, there will be NO STATEWIDE RECOUNT in Pennsylvania. Stein has withdrawn her case because she can't pay the court fee:
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/12/03/green-party-drops-statewide-pennsylvania-recount/
http://abc27.com/2016/12/03/challenge-to-presidential-election-in-pennsylvania-is-over/
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/12/03/green-party-drops-statewide-pennsylvania-recount/
http://abc27.com/2016/12/03/challenge-to-presidential-election-in-pennsylvania-is-over/
Kickstarter scams have really hit the big time.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Yup, no amount of enthusiasm or turnout would get us Louisiana. I mean, they weren't far off from ending up with two republican candidates, just like CA had two democratic candidates.
soul creator
Member
I think the bolded is where we'd disagree. I mean, in a limited 2-party comparative "I will force you to pick one or the other" sense, the bolded is true. But based on the tons of non-voters that exist, I'd argue that there is a large segment of the population that disagrees that any party is "more naturally allied" to them.
Democrats over the past 40+ years have actively fought against any large-scale working class politics, which naturally causes less people (of all races) to vote overall (since the vast majority of people are working class). And since white working class voters don't get the benefits of civil rights programs, then for obvious reasons, there will be a big declining share of those voters. Some of those white people will switch to Republicans and vote for other issues (and racism and demagoguery is a good tool for this). But some people (largely white, but not limited to them) will vote Republican because "fuck it, why not", and a bunch of people (mostly white, but not limited to them) will stop voting at all. And Democrats over the past 40 years have responded to this by trying to shore up their base with a wealthier professional class instead, the segment of the population that doesn't really care so much about large-scale working class politics, but is reasonably liberal on social issues (but can still of course be quite racist themselves).
The few times Democrats actively campaign strongly on class/economic issues (and, well, run a candidate that actually seems somewhat credible), they do pretty well (Clinton 1992, Obama 2008). Though Clinton 1992 does lose a lot of points for his racial dogwhistles. The problem though is that their governing never really matches the highs of their campaign rhetoric. So Bill Clinton feels your pain and then passes NAFTA. Obama wants to bring hope and change, and then hires a bunch of Clinton and Wall Street people.
I know some people here are fine with those things, and even see those things as unavoidable choices, but for obvious reasons, a large amount of the population of all backgrounds is getting increasingly skeptical that their actual problems are taken seriously. Some of these will turn to people like Trump. Some will vote on other issues. Some may still vote Democratic, but hardly be enthusiastic about it. Some will just check out completely. The latter is who Democrats should be concerned about going forward. And the latter is a group that while it's mostly composed of white people, there's a hefty number of people of all backgrounds.
So I don't think it's quite as obvious to every voter that Democrats are automatically a "more naturally allied party". That thinking doesn't even always work on working class black folks for example, so why would we expect it to work on working class white people, who get even less from the Democratic Party?
I also think it's a mistake to assume that because Democrats win the majority of minorities who happen to vote, that it somehow means they have some grand mandate from minorities as a whole. It's a subtle difference, but something that people should be reminded of!
That's the thinking that continues to leave voters of all backgrounds apathetic. It's also the thinking that leads people to think that they'll win an election because of "demographic trends", and not because of actually putting out a strong message on issues that directly affects lives and then actively campaigning on it.
How do non-voters fit into this? I definitely don't deny that there was obviously a decline in white Democratic voters, and racial resentment played a big role in this. What I disagree with is that this is somehow destined to keep white people voting Republican forever, or that the only way possible to win them over (or win over non-voters) is to become super racist all of a sudden.
A lot of voters (mostly white, but not limited to them) just don't vote. That's what always gets forgotten in these discussions (and why I harp on it, heh). Though I guess one possible reason why it gets ignored is that people seem to have a low opinion of non-voters on GAF, so they get erased from the discussion until Colin Kaepernick or kame-senin (sp?) says something, lol.
It certainly didn't help! Though I actually think that people are being "incredibly, incredibly generous" in assuming that the slide is primarily due to white nationalism and/or racial resentment. Usually those analyses don't take into account non-voters, and they also seem to assume that the "free market economics" of the past 40 years was just some normal thing that has little effect on voting behavior, which is why I find the "white people were just really racist, so they stopped voting Democrat" argument less compelling.
I mean, I'm not saying that those white people weren't racist for other reasons, but just that it wasn't as dominating of a factor in the political divide over the past 40 years (or that Democrats were powerless to stop)
And of course, it's not like the wealthy white people who do often vote Democratic don't have "racial resentment" of their own...
I'm saying that the Democratic Party as a national organization weakly addresses the problems of anyone in the working class. Black/white/latino or otherwise. That's why there's still so much inequality, low wages, poverty, increased education and healthcare costs, etc, and why we're still talking about the same issues that have been plaguing the country for 40+ years. Democrats can of course still get votes from minorities because they're not complete assholes on civil rights issues (though they're not always exactly trailblazers there either), and they sometimes talk a good game on economic issues (without backing it up when they actually govern) but they can't just assume that "demographics" will win them everything.
And of course, as you might expect, I think a much stronger working class politics and wealth redistribution (which would disproportionately benefit non-white, non-male people) that is merged with a strong civil rights platform is a better pathway for this going forward.
Sure, it strikes some people that way. It also is a talking point often specifically cultivated by those with influence, to paint any sort of stronger policy on class as somehow opposed to racial interests or just "harking back to the good ol' days". When Clinton said "breaking up the big banks won't end racism", and a bunch of surrogates and pundits started pushing that talking point, they didn't say it out of a genuine concern for antiracism (which is often economic in nature!), they said it because they needed to fight off a challenger on their left flank, and painting universal social programs as racist was a good way to win.
Breaking up the big banks won't end racism (as if Clinton's policies would have, lol) but it would likely keep more black people from being foreclosed on, for example. Paid Leave won't end sexism, but it would keep more women from being economically harmed as much. And though Clinton was pretty strong on that issue for example, she couldn't really use that against a Sanders since he also supported the same thing, and was much stronger in other areas.
So as a general rule, I'd caution against assuming that "omg class only leftism" is some actual major thing that exists and is "turning people off" in great numbers. What's far more common is people with power and influence using that to scare people away from social programs that would benefit the people they claim to care about.
Special shoutout to Jim Clyburn attacking tuition-free public college because it would hurt private HBCU's when 1) the obvious solution is to just add those HBCUs to the program and 2) most black people don't even attend private HBCU's in the first place.
That's the kind of thing that makes me skeptical that people in power attacking universal social programs is due to some genuine concern for the disenfranchised.
For obvious reasons, the two are quite often intertwined. If I'm broke and struggling, a "richer life" would quite directly lead to a better one as well.
We did see how it fared, to some extent. It did pretty well all things considered, and got more popular and well known as time progressed, though obviously not enough to win in that specific primary. But there's definitely a base to build on.
Black Lives Matter already talks about similar ideas. I would argue most organizations on the left already incorporate similar ideas. Feminism certainly fits with those ideas. And of course, immigration is directly tied to economics as well.
And for the record, Black and latino voters are still primarily concerned with economic issues.
White people are still a majority of the country. If Democrats want to win at some point (and win large enough majorities to make major changes), they have to appeal to them somehow.
And the working class doesn't "all vote Democratic". Out of the subset of people who actually vote, the working class votes Democratic.
As I mentioned, the working class, regardless of race, gets little from Democrats or Republicans. Minorities at least get some semblance of acknowledgement from Democrats, so there's a higher percentage there. But there's also a quite sizable group that actually just doesn't vote at all.
Almost by definition, if the only thing the two parties offer is largely similar economic philosophies, but one is better on civil rights (which largely doesn't apply to say, white straight males, for obvious reasons), then the current voter makeup is obvious. What I disagree with is the idea that this is somehow irreversible, and that it's somehow impossible to get a broader working-class movement going because white people are too racist, or that white people will always in 100% of situations pick racism over economic self-interest.
I think where I and a lot of others primarily disagree is that some people look at typical modern Democratic policies and think "yeah, this is good enough, why aren't people jumping for joy for this platform? Oh, must be racial resentment" and leaving it at that. And if we're just looking at 2016 specifically, the supposed progressive economic platform was focused on very little in the national campaign, tried to win over rich "moderate" Republicans, and was also trying to be sold by a scandal-ridden rich career politician with a history of actively opposing working class policies. Needless to say, working class people of all backgrounds were skeptical. Some of those bought into the white nationalism and voted for Trump. Some people who didn't buy into the white nationalism just said "fuck it, why not" and voted for Trump. What's more pertinent is that a lot of those just didn't vote at all. And these are people of all backgrounds, not just whites. So much for "naturally allied party".
And I'd actually agree that there's a little too much talk about "white working class". Though it can be used as a jumping off point to talk about all working class issues, since they often have pretty similar root causes. But I think that's a problem largely with corporate media and horserace coverage oversimplifying things when they don't need to.
I'm all about realizing the working class is more than just white people. But for me, realizing that makes me even more committed to stronger, universal social programs, not less.
Enjoy your Saturday everyone!
That's fine with me. It's time people got past the denial stage and moved into acceptance. Trump's not going away and it's better Democrats focus on fighting back instead of hedging their bets on some random fluke saving them the election.
jack_package_200
Banned
As expected, it was a big scam all along and people should know better than to give money to Jill Stein.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Sirpopopop
Member
Looks like Jill Stein has money for 2020.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Mine was a lot of super angry people who I never saw volunteer or anything yelling about how terrible the county fucked up, including one woman who started her spiel off with "I didn't vote in this election", which made me super fucking angry. The ideas for improvement from people who actually work with the party were pretty good, but it was kind of unfocused and suggestions ranged from "We need better messaging on social security and Medicare" to "there's this bridge being build on my street that will increase traffic and I want us to stop that and make it a walking-only bridge".
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
You need a special type of patience for local politics like that, Parks and Rec was a bit too on the nose.
In some ways it's good that people showed up, but fucking infuriating when you find out they did not vote.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I moved cities literally a week after the election and just couldn't stomach going in. I should check out the local party now that I'm in Chicago
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
My roommate's first thought when I told him about it was "it sounds like Parks and Rec".
It's just especially infuriating because our awesome, super popular (or so I thought) state senator who has dedicated his entire time to getting the medicaid expansion for Idaho lost by 300 vote. It still hurts to have lost that race.
It's just especially infuriating because our awesome, super popular (or so I thought) state senator who has dedicated his entire time to getting the medicaid expansion for Idaho lost by 300 vote. It still hurts to have lost that race.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...aign-drops-her-recount-effort-in-pennsylvania
How is she scamming if she's still spending the money on recounts?
shinra-bansho
Member
It's a binary system. So, your disagreement noted, it is the more naturally allied party of the two. It is by no means perfect. In the same regard, it has not, as you note yourself, been a perfect ally on a host of issues - yet they still get the votes of other groups.
You say that Bill Clinton "loses points for his racial dogwhistles." When it's quite readily visible that this is a net positive with this voting group; racial resentment is a motivator. Southern white working class democratic vote has been declining for about as long as the GOP adopted their Southern strategy and the Democratic Party became the de facto party of the AA vote. Attributing their embrace of the GOP, which ascribes even more to these policies that you say are driving the WWC away from the Democratic Party, does not follow.
I was actually referring to the General, when I said we'll see how it fares. Yes, we saw what happened in a Primary when an old white, self-professed, but not actually socialist from a homogenous white state talked largely about income inequality with a few bones thrown to minorities - he lost the primary due to minority voters. While the old white lady with her laundry list tilted towards the minority community - won, while turning off all the young college set; largely white, but roughly split with AAs below 25.
If someone can adequately combine them, more power to them. There's just little confidence that someone can and will.
In the general, if this mythical candidate actually actively says things like Black Lives Matter, or if they happen to be a woman and actually talk about it; I don't expect it to go down well. Just as it didn't go down well in this election. Because, to her credit - Clinton was a candidate that most unabashedly talked about minority and women's issues. To her credit, and to her electoral detriment.
Essentially, your proposition seems to boil down to the hidden white voter, who really wants your leftist/socialist policy platform and/or concurrently lack the racial resentment that fuels disdain for social programs. With little actual basis to this premise. And I really just don't see that much use in imagining a counterfactual voting bloc that just happens to fit perfectly with one's preferred policy plank.
The hidden white vote came out this election. One of the candidates did manage to get white less educated voters to come out this election, and they didn't come out to vote for a socialist platform.
You also seem to be interpreting a disagreement with this notion, with a disagreement on all policy prescription, on social programs, on minimum wages, on a goal of universal healthcare and so on. When I really don't think that's the case. The disagreement depending on the person and the issue may be on how far to go; for some issues for sure given not everyone happens to consider themself a socialist. But more often it's about how far to go when.
I literally hit my head against the wall for like five straight minutes the first time I heard that. I've honestly been getting more and more worried lately, not that I wasn't worried before mind you.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
-- After not being able to reasonably stay up with these threads for 12 months -- like 20 pages per day shit -- we're back down to 1-2? Great.
-- OFC Trump parades Romney around like a little bitch and then:
-- oh, oh jesus:
and who is Dana Rohrbacher?
-- OFC Trump parades Romney around like a little bitch and then:
-- oh, oh jesus:
Kellyanne Conway
@KellyannePolls
Honoring the ultimate hero at the Mercer "Heroes and Villians" party on Long Island. Crowd thrilled w/ surprise!
7:55pm · 3 Dec 2016 · Twitter for iPhone
and who is Dana Rohrbacher?
Dana Rohrbacher?!?! Are you fucking kidding me? Trump is literally picking a bigger stooge than him for State? How did he even find out about Rohrbacher? I assume he got the name straight from Putin.
Here's an excerpt from an article on him Politico ran last year.
Trump literally found a bigger schmuck and Russian puppet than he is.
Here's an excerpt from an article on him Politico ran last year.
Roughly 20 years later, the California Republican still goes a little gooey over Russia’s strongman president. Rohrabacher, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia and emerging threats, has navigated a remarkable arc from self-professed “ ultimate cold warrior” to friend of the new, and increasingly grumpy, Russian bear. More than anyone in Congress, he has become a reliable defender of the Russian point of view, whether it has to do with NATO expansion (“not thoughtful in creating a better relationship with our former enemy”, the inadvisability of economic sanctions (“instead of doing it that way, we should be making an all-out effort to create dialogue”
Trump literally found a bigger schmuck and Russian puppet than he is.
metalslimer
Member
Holy fucking shit, please don't be true. Save us Mitt
I know I've routinely called congressional Republicans chickenshit cowards -- and will continue to do so -- but most of those guys are not down with Putin the way Trump is. I can't imagine they'll rubberstamp guys like Rohrbacher.
If Romney is out, hopefully Corker or even Petraeus are still in the running.
If Romney is out, hopefully Corker or even Petraeus are still in the running.
neurosisxeno
Member
-______________-
CoffeeJanitor
Member
I'm going with the strategy of ignoring all transition news unrelated to final announcements on each position
The rest is reality TV
The rest is reality TV
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
(you all know this is literally 3 days after Paul Manafort was brought back into the fold, right?)
(watch for a distraction tweet in the next 15 hours)
(watch for a distraction tweet in the next 15 hours)
That explains where Trump got the name at least.
metalslimer
Member
Somehow I forgot Manafort showed back up.
TheLaughingStock
Member
The Golden Age of Capitalism around the world years ago has been relegated to a "good ol' days" label now? C'mon...
- Status