Support NeoGAF

[Plinko]

Trump wants to put a 5% tariff on all imports by executive order.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/donald-trump-tariffs/index.html

Note: This would murder Iowa as Iowa exports all of the shit they make and imports everything they consume.

Note 2: Iowa swung to the GOP by 20 points (most of any state).

Suckers.

Oh wow. Every possible way to screw over the lower- and middle-class is going to be considered.

Eventually, republicans will actually step up and speak out against his policies. Give it time.

 

[royalan]

And while I am tipsy and in a mood...

I have never been so disgusted in The First Family. Barack AND Michelle. Everything they've been about these last few months is complacency. Defeatism.

Seriously, fuck "We go high."

FUCK HOPE

What is hope without works? What is Hope without hard work?

Think back to the Civil Rights Movement. Did the leaders of the movement, did MLK, did BLACK PEOPLE get what little equality we had by sitting back and hoping? By SUPPORTING the racists? By side-lining our own fight?

FUCK NO

We took that goddamn Hope and we forced it into every white space, used it to break every social norm, and shoved it into the face of every racist and those complicit with racism and forced them to confront their ugliness.

We sat in every white seat, drank from every white fountain, walked in every white park, stood on every white corner, sat at the front of the bus and REFUSED to be moved. We organized to be as DISRUPTIVE AS POSSIBLE SHORT OF TERRORISM. We were NOT gentle. We did NOT let people be comfortable.

Fuck peaceful transition of power.

Fuck supporting the president that literally does not care if we live or die. That would see us robbed of our equality. Robbed of our choices.

Fuck sitting on our asses "hoping" while we wait for our next savior.

I need the Obamas to sit down and shut all the way the fuck up if this is the best they got. It's hard enough out here in these streets as it is, keeping people motivated after this election. The last thing we need is the First Family encouraging people to give up...Oh, I mean "hope."

 

[Debirudog]

Eventually, republicans will actually step up and speak out against his policies. Give it time.

I don't believe this. They're going to nickle and dime and get away with their crimes.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

It's in bad taste, but depending on how much of a disaster Trump is, the MS governor's mansion could be on the table in 2019 (we intentionally pick the worst type of off-year for our election), as long as Jim Hood pulls the trigger and runs. He's exactly a JBE-style Dem, and the Delta gives any worthwhile Dem a good floor to start from.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

tell that to CrookedHillary, or Little Marco or Lyin Ted.


And actually I don't know what communications theory you're refering to, but the use of diminutive or desultory nicknames is HIGHLY effective.

I thought most folks on GAF thought that kind of rhetoric from Trump wasn't effective. Have people changed their mind since the election or do some of you think he won despite the nicknames (many had a ring of truth)?

 

[Poodlestrike]

Trump wants to put a 5% tariff on all imports by executive order.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/donald-trump-tariffs/index.html

Note: This would murder Iowa as Iowa exports all of the shit they make and imports everything they consume.

Note 2: Iowa swung to the GOP by 20 points (most of any state).

Suckers.

This is kind of the best outcome at this point, tbh. A direct action by the executive that leads to immediate economic hardship. No complicated policy process, nobody to hide behind. "Trump literally took money out of your pocket."

I mean, we're GOING to go through some damn rough times. This way, the blame can be best directed where it should be, Republicans.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Royalan going off, but I agree. My biggest desire for a Clinton presidency is that of all people in the entire country, I don't know that you could find someone else who knows the depths of Republican fuckery like her. No way does she personally find the modern GOP to be anything other than a hostile actor.

GOP will probably prevent him from doing that since they want to win Iowa in the next presidential election

They can't stop it. The deplorables would Cantor their asses in a heartbeat. It's why the filibuster is safe. For some of the really crazy shit, the GOP needs the Dems to use those rules to block it. "Well, we agreed with President Trump, but those liberals used a dirty rule to stop us!" plays a lot better than "that guy you elected is a real moron so we're going to take charge."

The illusion they have to maintain is that they actually fully support Trump while blocking almost everything he personally touches, given his penchant for fucking up literally everything he personally touches.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Guess which states (other than Washington and California) are hurt most by trade wars.

(Suckers)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/20/u...rt-a-trade-war-with-surprising-ease.html?_r=0

Trump can probably start trade wars by himself without Congressional approval, it's a little complicated and takes some time, but it can be done.

 

[Debirudog]

 

[kess]

Executive order, lol. This will please the people who thought Hillary didn't "do enough" in 30 years.

If he wants the credit, call it the Trump Tariff

 

[Abinash117]

I guess video games are going to be more expansive. I wonder how much GG will turn on him?

 

[Rebel Leader]

Executive order, lol. This will please the people who thought Hillary didn't "do enough" in 30 years.

If he wants the credit, call it the Trump Tariff

Trumped up tax

1. It sounds like he's rasing taxes

2. He is raising taxes

 

[FyreWulff]

Executive order, lol. This will please the people who thought Hillary didn't "do enough" in 30 years.

If he wants the credit, call it the Trump Tariff

gotta stay at two syllables. Trump Tax.

 

[Valhelm]

Bernie "Less focus on Identity Politics" Sanders and that doofus that tried to replace Nancy Pelosi beg to differ.

Sanders' platform was not remotely less socially progressive than Clinton's. The claim that his campaign opposed identity politics is bunk. Not only did Sanders match her on issues of gender inequality and racism, but he wanted to round out this usual Democratic social progressivism with specifically economic justice.

Because marginalized peoples disproportionately suffer in class society, a reduction of inequality would benefit marginalized peoples disproportionately. Historically, the most effective liberation movements have addressed economic concerns as well as immaterial forms of oppression.

 

[Kusagari]

Are the sane Republicans in the Senate really not going to freak out at this tariff?

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Are the sane Republicans in the Senate really not going to freak out at this tariff?

He wants to do it via executive action.

 

[Rebel Leader]

Are the sane Republicans in the Senate really not going to freak out at this tariff?

i thought we have a good amount that are against any tariff as they are pro trade

 

[Crocodile]

I'm reading up on what's going on in NC right now. How did these fuckers even get into power? Were the previous Democrats that awful or were Democratic voters asleep at the wheel?

Sanders' platform was not remotely less socially progressive than Clinton's. The claim that his campaign opposed identity politics is bunk. Not only did Sanders match her on issues of gender inequality and racism, but he wanted to round out this usual Democratic social progressivism with specifically economic justice.

Because marginalized peoples disproportionately suffer in class society, a reduction of inequality would benefit marginalized peoples disproportionately. Historically, the most effective liberation movements have addressed economic concerns as well as immaterial forms of oppression.

At the end of the day it was about messaging. The man couldn't talk to most minorities in a way that was particularly engaging and that hasn't changed post-election. It's just a flaw of his and a function of spending his entire political career in a super-white state. We've been through this before - you can talk all you want about how "a rising tide raises all ships" and you're right in that economic issues often disproportionately affect people of color. However, there have been too many examples in history where minorities have been screwed when you emphasize economics above all. We, as a collective, remember this shit. Economics and racism are intertwined but fixing the former won't fix the later (and in fact making economic progress is hard in part because of racism - see LBJ quote above).

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

North Carolina is part of the Confederacy.

These guys got into power after the Dems nominated a black man for president.

 

[royalan]

Sanders' platform was not remotely less socially progressive than Clinton's. The claim that his campaign opposed identity politics is bunk. Not only did Sanders match her on issues of gender inequality and racism, but he wanted to round out this usual Democratic social progressivism with specifically economic justice.

Because marginalized peoples disproportionately suffer in class society, a reduction of inequality would benefit marginalized peoples disproportionately. Historically, the most effective liberation movements have addressed economic concerns as well as immaterial forms of oppression.

Who said Bernie "opposed" it? He just don't give much of a fuck about it. Bernie Sanders didn't match Hillary Clinton's platform on racial equality until he got dragged kicking and screaming by Black Lives Matter TWICE. He couldn't answer a damn question about race issues at that MSNBC town hall without retreating to his stump. Bernie Sanders is an economic populist. Full stop.

Pure economic populism doesn't address all issues of race, which is part of the reason why minorities in the US rarely ever gravitate towards a purely economic message. We've been screwed by it before:

And this goes beyond Bernie Sanders. You're not paying attention if you don't think there's a movement to sideline identity politics attempting to rise on the left as a result of this election. Interesting article here.

 

[Tarydax]

And while I am tipsy and in a mood...

I have never been so disgusted in The First Family. Barack AND Michelle. Everything they've been about these last few months is complacency. Defeatism.

Seriously, fuck "We go high."

FUCK HOPE

What is hope without works? What is Hope without hard work?

Think back to the Civil Rights Movement. Did the leaders of the movement, did MLK, did BLACK PEOPLE get what little equality we had by sitting back and hoping? By SUPPORTING the racists? By side-lining our own fight?

FUCK NO

We took that goddamn Hope and we forced it into every white space, used it to break every social norm, and shoved it into the face of every racist and those complicit with racism and forced them to confront their ugliness.

We sat in every white seat, drank from every white fountain, walked in every white park, stood on every white corner, sat at the front of the bus and REFUSED to be moved. We organized to be as DISRUPTIVE AS POSSIBLE SHORT OF TERRORISM. We were NOT gentle. We did NOT let people be comfortable.

Fuck peaceful transition of power.

Fuck supporting the president that literally does not care if we live or die. That would see us robbed of our equality. Robbed of our choices.

Fuck sitting on our asses "hoping" while we wait for our next savior.

I need the Obamas to sit down and shut all the way the fuck up if this is the best they got. It's hard enough out here in these streets as it is, keeping people motivated after this election. The last thing we need is the First Family encouraging people to give up...Oh, I mean "hope."

To me, the worst part of all that is when they say stuff like "If Trump succeeds, we all succeed." It's one thing to ensure a peaceful transition of power, but hoping for Trump to succeed? Fuck, I never, ever thought Obama would go that far. It's not just stupid, it's incredibly dangerous. We already know what would happen if Trump were to get everything he campaigned on. He'd ban an entire religion, for starters. Trump is going to burn what he can and loot the rest. Fuck hoping for Trump to succeed.

Obama's supposed to be a smart guy, so he should know the difference between supporting a smooth transition and . . . doing whatever the hell he thinks he's doing with those comments. I can't even comprehend why he would say something like that.

 

[Retromelon]

Fuck sitting on our asses "hoping" while we wait for our next savior.

The people believed that the Hero of Time would again come to save them... But the hero did not appear. Faced by an onslaught of evil, the people could do nothing but appeal to the Gods. In their last hour, as doom drew nigh, they left their future in the hands of fate.

What became of that kingdom? None remain who know.

 

[mo60]

Royalan going off, but I agree. My biggest desire for a Clinton presidency is that of all people in the entire country, I don't know that you could find someone else who knows the depths of Republican fuckery like her. No way does she personally find the modern GOP to be anything other than a hostile actor.



They can't stop it. The deplorables would Cantor their asses in a heartbeat. It's why the filibuster is safe. For some of the really crazy shit, the GOP needs the Dems to use those rules to block it. "Well, we agreed with President Trump, but those liberals used a dirty rule to stop us!" plays a lot better than "that guy you elected is a real moron so we're going to take charge."

The illusion they have to maintain is that they actually fully support Trump while blocking almost everything he personally touches, given his penchant for fucking up literally everything he personally touches.

Good luck then because they could potentially say goodbye to winning Iowa in the next presidential election.

 

[mo60]

Guess which states (other than Washington and California) are hurt most by trade wars.

(Suckers)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/20/u...rt-a-trade-war-with-surprising-ease.html?_r=0

Trump can probably start trade wars by himself without Congressional approval, it's a little complicated and takes some time, but it can be done.

MI,NC and MA. Other parts of the rust belt besides MI would also be significantly affected by trade wars.

 

[Team Alucard]

Good luck then because they could potentially say goodbye to winning Iowa in the next presidential election.

Iowa is irrelevant. And I say this as an Iowan.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

Guess which states (other than Washington and California) are hurt most by trade wars.

(Suckers)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/20/u...rt-a-trade-war-with-surprising-ease.html?_r=0

Trump can probably start trade wars by himself without Congressional approval, it's a little complicated and takes some time, but it can be done.

How could he?

 

[Valhelm]

At the end of the day it was about messaging. The man couldn't talk to most minorities in a way that was particularly engaging and that hasn't changed post-election. It's just a flaw of his and a function of spending his entire political career in a super-white state. We've been through this before - you can talk all you want about how "a rising tide raises all ships" and you're right in that economic issues often disproportionately affect people of color. However, there have been too many examples in history where minorities have been screwed when you emphasize economics above all. We, as a collective, remember this shit. Economics and racism are intertwined but fixing the former won't fix the later (and in fact making economic progress is hard in part because of racism - see LBJ quote above).

We're talking policy, not campaign strategy. The occasional tone-deafness of Bernie Sanders says literally nothing about the efficacy of economic justice.

Economics is intrinsically tied to white supremacy and misogyny. You're 100% correct that a "purely economic" approach toward liberation is incomplete, but the "purely social" approach isn't better. Reforming or replacing capitalism without attention to racial inequality would allow some racial resentment to fester, while trying to address racial inequality without attention to capitalism (essentially, the current liberal proposal) still leaves the majority of black and brown people suffering under white oppression. It doesn't matter how many people of color become elected to important positions. If we don't address the economic concerns of these communities, they will remain powerless.

To dissemble white supremacy, black and brown people need the same access to capital as white people. Representation alone is not enough. Smashing glass ceilings will not liberate the vast majority of marginalized people from their oppression. Well-intentioned liberal politicians who try to level the playing field of race, while not addressing the harm of capitalism, are keeping black people poor. Poverty directly enables the oppressor.

It's important to recognize that the left is not arguing for an "economics-only" approach. Because different manifestations of oppression are so tightly correlated, we need to address them together. In addition to ensuring that all oppressed peoples are liberated, a well-rounded approach is more effective. Inequality leads to economic dependence and immobility on the oppressor, which leads to more oppression. This means that black people and women cannot be free unless they have greater access to capital. Social democracy and socialism are the best way to provide this access.

 

[Valhelm]

And this goes beyond Bernie Sanders. You're not paying attention if you don't think there's a movement to sideline identity politics attempting to rise on the left as a result of this election. Interesting article here.

That article corroborates my argument, Royalan. Addressing the economic basis for white supremacy is necessary to dismantle it.

Hillary Clinton made no effort to do this. Naming the flaws in Bernie's campaign won't change the inadequacy of her platform.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Obesity is probably the biggest threat facing America and it got negative attention in the last two years.

Then again, there aren't many good solutions to obesity. One is taxing sugar a lot more, but uhh, good luck with doing that and winning Florida...

 

[sphagnum]

To me, the worst part of all that is when they say stuff like "If Trump succeeds, we all succeed." It's one thing to ensure a peaceful transition of power, but hoping for Trump to succeed? Fuck, I never, ever thought Obama would go that far. It's not just stupid, it's incredibly dangerous. We already know what would happen if Trump were to get everything he campaigned on. He'd ban an entire religion, for starters. Trump is going to burn what he can and loot the rest. Fuck hoping for Trump to succeed.

Obama's supposed to be a smart guy, so he should know the difference between supporting a smooth transition and . . . doing whatever the hell he thinks he's doing with those comments. I can't even comprehend why he would say something like that.

Obama has always been like this. He's way too conciliatory to his enemies. When he started talking like this the day after the election it didn't surprise me one bit. He's probably constrained about how angry he can be in public because he's black, but I think deep in his core he's an optimist and expects history to work itself out. That's nonsense. There is no arc of history, no matter how much he wants to quote MLK; this is teleological religiosity. Man makes history and history makes man.

The Republican party in general needs to be treated like an enemy party, not competitive colleagues.

 

[royalan]

That article corroborates my argument, Royalan. Addressing the economic basis for white supremacy is necessary to dismantle it.

Hillary Clinton made no effort to do this. Naming the flaws in Bernie's campaign won't change the inadequacy of her platform.

Your initial point is flawed. Nobody, not even Hillary Clinton, argued for a purely social solution to race issues (it was the point of the rest of her infamous "Deplorables" speech that people like to ignore).

Bernie is absolutely an economic populist. He only talks about race issues unrelated to his economic stump when practically begged to. THAT was my point.

And you cannot dismantle white supremacy without addressing race. Race is kinda the point of white supremacy. There will NEVER be a level of economic prosperity that squelches racism so long as Republicans can build a winning platform on "Hey white people! Guess what??? As good as you're doing now, you'd be doing EVEN BETTER if it weren't for #ThosePeople."

 

[And_Gignac]

It's no accident. Both the American and Russian governments throughout the Cold War tried to make the word "socialism" inseparable from the Marxist-Leninist Soviet model, for opposite reasons. While the Americans pointed to the Soviet misery as the inevitable conclusion of any socialist experiment, the Soviet leadership tried to connect their system to the socialism described by Marx, despite glaring differences.



In America, there are very few "pure economic focused far leftists". That's largely an invention of center-left liberals who try to claim a monopoly on social progressivism.

I am part of plenty of communist groups here and there (mostly because of intelectual interest-curiosity not because I declare myself one with Marxism)

Never have I seen people NOT BEING sensible to social issues, with a focus, consideration and respect to identities. Let's not forget that the average worker ATM is probably an Asian female. Most millennial leftists are aware of this, at least. So this straw man from the center left comes off as ignorance and prejudice tbh.

Edit:

And yeah like spagnum says, Stalinbros are louder.

 

[Valhelm]

Your initial point is flawed. Nobody, not even Hillary Clinton, argued for a purely social solution to race issues (it was the point of the rest of her infamous "Deplorables" speech that people like to ignore).

Bernie is absolutely an economic populist. He only talks about race issues unrelated to his economic stump when practically begged to. THAT was my point.

And you cannot dismantle white supremacy without addressing race. Race is kinda the point of white supremacy. There will NEVER be a level of economic prosperity that squelches racism so long as Republicans can build a winning platform on "Hey white people! Guess what??? As good as you're doing now, you'd be doing EVEN BETTER if it weren't for #ThosePeople."

Royalan, nobody is saying we should not address race. That's totally contrary to what I've been saying in this thread and in every Poligaf thread. There's not a single prominent left-wing advocate who thinks we need to pay less attention to race.

You can talk about Bernie Sanders all you want, but Hillary Clinton forcibly removed Black Lives Matter representatives from her events and refused to use the phrase "black lives matter" when prompted. And that's just optics. Her policy solutions to promote racial justice were weak, less comprehensive and less ambitious than those of Bernie Sanders. But the primary ended more than six months ago. We shouldn't be arguing about Clinton versus Sanders anymore.

Instead, the Democratic party needs to accept that a "purely social" focus, whatever that's supposed to mean, is not enough. Allowing some black people to join the exploiting class does not end racism, because the vast majority of black people will remain under the thumb of white America. Inequality in race and in class both need to be tackled together if either is to be defeated.

 

[sphagnum]

Part of the problem is that dudebro USSR stans are very loud on social media.

There's tons of intersectional socialists across Twitter and Tumblr but for some reason they don't get the same attention unless trolls want to make fun of them for being trans or whatever they want to tear down on a given day.

 

[Kevitivity]

So he's not picking people for cabinet positions because they fit the position but because they fit some requirement he has set for that position like how a candidate for the position walked around a room.Wow.



The GOP is probably screwed in New Mexico in 2018 because of the governor election in that year if they repeal the ACA and replace it with nothing before then.

Democrats will keep losing as long as this is their tactic.

 

[royalan]

Instead, the Democratic party needs to accept that a "purely social" focus, whatever that's supposed to mean, is not enough. Allowing some black people to join the exploiting class does not end racism, because the vast majority of black people will remain under the thumb of white America. Inequality in race and in class both need to be tackled together if either is to be defeated.

I'm not litigating the primaries. I'm quite blatantly attacking Bernie Sanders' brand of populism. He's still a relevant political figure in the Democratic party (despite being an Independent) who is trying to influence its direction moving forward. He's fair game.

And you betray your intention when you type things like what I highlighted in bold. If you want me to concede that Bernie Sanders is not merely an economic populist, you need to admit that it is a mischaracterization to say that the Democratic party has had a "purely social focus." A "purely social" focus these days seems to imply talking about minority issues at all. In truth, Hillary Clinton and the Democrats were the only politicians this election pushing policies that would have helped not just minorities, but the working class in general. Who the hell knows what Republicans were talking about other than Obamacare and Hillary's emails.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Iowa is irrelevant. And I say this as an Iowan.

t can't hurt to have its senate seats and combined with Arizona that's a Michigan, right?

Iowa's economy is really good right? Does it have the same sort of exodus of young professionals as its other Midwestern sisters?

 

[Crocodile]

It's not a matter of addressing "only social issues" or addressing "only economic issues". That's not something the Democratic party has ever done anyway as much as some like to pretend otherwise. It's a matter of priorities (I also felt some of his plans didn't have enough meat on their bones to be practical, he had some blindspots or knowledge gaps, and I just disagreed with a few policy positions but I think his obvious priorities was the biggest turn off). It was and still is very clear what Sanders priorities are. He wasn't adept as bridging the gap and communicating he cared about both equally (and to be clear because some always take this the wrong way - I'm not saying he didn't care about social issues at all, he obviously does). The fact that some/many in the "Sanders wing" also share those priorities combined with all the "hot takes" I've read following the election that basically rail against "identity politics" (as if all politics wasn't ID politics) from all sides of the political spectrum has me concerned.

To me, as a Black man, the nebulous "Wall Street" is not who I consider enemy #1 in my life (even though I agree with the need for appropriate regulation and progressive taxation and etc.). If people like me are denied opportunities for education, housing, employment, etc. because of my race, that's going to have a big impact on my economic status. If your message always pivots back to economics first, its going to be a turn off to people of color and that's exactly what happened.

I don't know a ton about Keith Ellison but if he wins the DNC chair position, I think he will be in a good position to bridge this gap. What little I've seen and heard from him makes me feel he has a good chance of doing what Sanders failed to do in this regard. Hell if someone like Ellison had run in the primary, assuming there aren't any skeletons in his closet I'm not aware, he might have had a better shot than Sanders himself did. Maybe he would have had too many knowledge gaps though - like I don't know much about his FP positions.

 

[Team Alucard]

t can't hurt to have its senate seats and combined with Arizona that's a Michigan, right?

Local incumbents never lose in Iowa. Ernst will be a Senator for the next 40 years.

Iowa's economy is really good right? Does it have the same sort of exodus of young professionals as its other Midwestern sisters?

One of the worst states in the country in terms of bleeding young people. We haven't had significant population growth in decades. Over half of all UofIowa and ISU grads leave the state.

There is no major metro area to anchor people. No one is going to move to Des Moines or the Quad Cities over Minneapolis or Chicago.

 

[sphagnum]

I don't know a ton about Keith Ellison but if he wins the DNC chair position, I think he will be in a good position to bridge this gap. What little I've seen and heard from him makes me feel he has a good chance of doing what Sanders failed to do in this regard. Hell if someone like Ellison had run in the primary, assuming there aren't any skeletons in his closet I'm not aware, he might have had a better shot than Sanders himself did. Maybe he would have had too many knowledge gaps though - like I don't know much about his FP positions.

Ellison is Muslim, he'd never have a shot.

What Bernie consistently fails to to is connect capitalism to "social issues" at least in a way that hits home.for the audience. Part of the reason we constantly have this split going on is because nobody is talking about how capitalists utilize racism and sexism as tools to maintain their power. The dots need to be connected or else we will keep talking past each other.

 

[royalan]

To me, as a Black man, the nebulous "Wall Street" is not who I consider enemy #1 in my life (even though I agree with the need for appropriate regulation and progressive taxation and etc.). If people like me are denied opportunities for education, housing, employment, etc. because of my race, that's going to have a big impact on my economic status. If your message always pivots back to economics first, its going to be a turn off to people of color and that's exactly what happened.

You better preach that word. This reflects pretty much how I feel.

 

[Valhelm]

I'm not litigating the primaries. I'm quite blatantly attacking Bernie Sanders' brand of populism. He's still a relevant political figure in the Democratic party (despite being an Independent) who is trying to influence its direction moving forward. He's fair game.

And you betray your intention when you type things like what I highlighted in bold. If you want me to concede that Bernie Sanders is not merely an economic populist, you need to admit that it is a mischaracterization to say that the Democratic party has had a "purely social focus." A "purely social" focus these days seems to imply talking about minority issues at all. In truth, Hillary Clinton and the Democrats were the only politicians this election pushing policies that would have helped not just minorities, but the working class in general. Who the hell knows what Republicans were talking about other than Obamacare and Hillary's emails.

Republican policies are so abhorrent and backward that there's no need to even bring them up in this context. Obviously Clinton was a better candidate than Trump, but that's hardly an exaltation of her policies. She wasn't willing to offer substantive solutions to the problems faced by her constituency, which lowered turnout and contributed to Trump's victory.

Sanders' platform was more well-rounded than Clinton's. While he was certainly worse at connecting with black voters, his platform of racial justice was more comprehensive and more progressive. Much like Clinton in the general, he was sunk because optics proved more important than policy. In addition to being somewhat better on racial issues, Sanders was substantially more progressive in economic policy. This really isn't up for debate; he was the first major candidate in decades to provide anything close to a critique of capitalism. Clinton was lacking in her economic policy, because her small-scale reforms weren't enough to combat the gaping wealth inequality in our country.

I am part of plenty of communist groups here and there. Never have I seen people NOT BEING sensible to social issues, with a focus, consideration and respect to identities. Let's not forget that the average worker ATM is probably an Asian female. Most millennial leftists are aware of this, at least. So this straw man from the center left comes off as ignorance and prejudice tbh.

Exactly. The "Berniebro" narrative isn't just offensive and false, it's actively hampering liberation.

The imaginary conflict between economic justice and racial justice is a liberal myth that prevents either from being achieved.

 

[Dominican Power]

Who said Bernie "opposed" it? He just don't give much of a fuck about it. Bernie Sanders didn't match Hillary Clinton's platform on racial equality until he got dragged kicking and screaming by Black Lives Matter TWICE. He couldn't answer a damn question about race issues at that MSNBC town hall without retreating to his stump. Bernie Sanders is an economic populist. Full stop.

Pure economic populism doesn't address all issues of race, which is part of the reason why minorities in the US rarely ever gravitate towards a purely economic message. We've been screwed by it before:



And this goes beyond Bernie Sanders. You're not paying attention if you don't think there's a movement to sideline identity politics attempting to rise on the left as a result of this election. Interesting article here.

But the biggest purveyors of identity politics are white people. That's what Trump ran a campaign on.

 

[Valhelm]

To me, as a Black man, the nebulous "Wall Street" is not who I consider enemy #1 in my life (even though I agree with the need for appropriate regulation and progressive taxation and etc.). If people like me are denied opportunities for education, housing, employment, etc. because of my race, that's going to have a big impact on my economic status. If your message always pivots back to economics first, its going to be a turn off to people of color and that's exactly what happened.

I agree. Sanders' "socialism" was so half-assed that he wasn't willing to talk about the ways in which capitalism in general, rather than just a few greedy bankers, is directly harming Americans.

A campaign that criticized capitalism at large is better-equipped to explain how white supremacy is dependent on capitalism, but I'm not sure if something so radical would fly in our current political climate.

 

[Debirudog]

Republican policies are so abhorrent and backward that there's no need to even bring them up in this context. Obviously Clinton was a better candidate than Trump, but that's hardly an exaltation of her policies. She wasn't willing to offer substantive solutions to the problems faced by her constituency, which lowered turnout and contributed to Trump's victory.

Sanders' platform was more well-rounded than Clinton's. While he was certainly worse at connecting with black voters, his platform of racial justice was more comprehensive and more progressive. Much like Clinton in the general, he was sunk because optics proved more important than policy. In addition to being somewhat better on racial issues, Sanders was substantially more progressive in economic policy. This really isn't up for debate; he was the first major candidate in decades to provide anything close to a critique of capitalism. Clinton was lacking in her economic policy, because her small-scale reforms weren't enough to combat the gaping wealth inequality in our country.




Exactly. The "Berniebro" narrative isn't just offensive and false, it's actively hampering liberation.

The imaginary conflict between economic justice and racial justice is a liberal myth that prevents either from being achieved.

LOL at this idea that Bernie Sanders is better on racial justice than fucking Hillary Clinton who investigated racial injustice at an early age. Should I even have to mention the countless moments she was more willing to talk about race than Bernie?

 

[royalan]

his platform of racial justice was more comprehensive and more progressive.

You're really failing at proving a point here by constantly linking to a page on his website that did not exist until he was dragged by Black Lives Matter TWICE.

His campaign made that page in direct response to BLM storming his stage and demanding he add a racial justice platform if he wanted to court their vote! And the platform he released (that you constantly link to) was as boilerplate as you can get.

Meanwhile, Hillary had a platform that not just existed on her site, but existed in her campaign strategy. You saw it all throughout her campaign. She campaigned CONSTANTLY in black spaces (and not just during the Southern primaries). This is inarguable. Do we want to talk about her overwhelming endorsements from the black community? Her work with the Mothers of the Movement? Her work in Flint? Her results in the South? Her constant calling out of white privilege? Her alt-right speech? I really don't know why you want to continue down this path. I'm arguing Bernie's populism being a losing path for Democrats going forward. You're the one who keeps bringing up Hillary.

 

[Hillary Clinton]

One reporter at the Washington Post finally cracks under the existential crisis of journalism.

 

[Valhelm]

You're really failing at proving a point here by constantly linking to a page on his website that did not exist until he was dragged by Black Lives Matter TWICE.

His campaign made that page in direct response to BLM storming his stage and demanding he add a racial justice platform if he wanted to court their vote! And the platform he released (that you constantly link to) was as boilerplate as you can get.

Meanwhile, Hillary had a platform that not just existed on her site, but existed in her campaign strategy. You saw it all throughout her campaign. She campaigned CONSTANTLY in black spaces (and not just during the Southern primaries). This is inarguable. Do we want to talk about her overwhelming endorsements from the black community? Her work with the Mothers of the Movement? Her work in Flint? Her results in the South? Her constant calling out of white privilege? Her alt-right speech? I really don't know why you want to continue down this path. I'm arguing Bernie's populism being a losing path for Democrats going forward. You're the one who keeps bringing up Hillary.

These arguments about Sanders or Clinton aren't worthwhile. They were both very flawed candidates. Sanders couldn't cinch the nomination and Clinton lost the general.

You keep complaining about populism, but what does that word mean to you? If we take a step back, don't we both agree that politicians need to address all forms of inequality and oppression to create a better America?

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

I've actually been thinking about the idea of identity politics and political polarization some. PoC here can stop me now if I'm totally missing the mark, and I in no way want to stop advocating for civil rights and racial justice. This isn't about avoiding speaking up about minority rights or putting them at the back of the queue forever.

I wonder if part of the problem of identity politics (and what leads to modern polarization) is that it's formed political party identification into a sort of lifestyle choice, where your chosen party probably says a lot about where you live, what you do, etc. This is kind of touching on what Obama's 2004 DNC speech talks about when he says that there aren't red state or blue state because Americans have common values and culture that we share across the political divide, but he's not really correct in that because, especially since he gave that speech, being in a red or blue area, especially in a post-Big Sort era says a lot about your own lifestyle choices. Republicans talk about urban liberal elites as a pejorative that is dumb but this election was the cities against everyone else.

The best performing Democrat relative to his state's tilt was a guy whose most noteworthy campaign decision was an ad where he did a cool gun trick to show that he wasn't that different from them. Especially given how Republican Missouri is he didn't run as a Blue Dog type, his campaign website talked about supporting BLM, fighting systemic racism and ending police abuse, he ran on environmental issues and the minimum wage and healthcare and in the very ad he showed off his gun skills he talked about wanting background checks. He lost in a big wave election but he came far closer than he should have and I think a big part of it is that he signaled that he was a normal Missourian and understood what their lives were like instead of being some distant wonk.

I'm not sure exactly what drives this, I think it started with Gingrich (or maybe Nixon but I think that's more just pure racism) but I was a toddler for the years I was alive in the 90's so idk a whole lot about that. I definitely think Republicans want to push this because their policies are generally unpopular but I think the nerdy technocrats that the Democrats get to represent them are also a part of it. While I can and will indict anyone who chose to vote for Trump, Hillary only campaigning in cities and flying home every night to sleep in her bed does sort of only distance herself from people who can see that as a gesture that she's better than them.

Please stop me if I'm totally off base here, it's just something I've been thinking about the past couple days.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I've actually been thinking about the idea of identity politics and political polarization some. PoC here can stop me now if I'm totally missing the mark, and I in no way want to stop advocating for civil rights and racial justice. This isn't about avoiding speaking up about minority rights or putting them at the back of the queue forever.

I wonder if part of the problem of identity politics (and what leads to modern polarization) is that it's formed political party identification into a sort of lifestyle choice, where your chosen party probably says a lot about where you live, what you do, etc. This is kind of touching on what Obama's 2004 DNC speech talks about when he says that there aren't red state or blue state because Americans have common values and culture that we share across the political divide, but he's not really correct in that because, especially since he gave that speech, being in a red or blue area, especially in a post-Big Sort era says a lot about your own lifestyle choices. Republicans talk about urban liberal elites as a pejorative that is dumb but this election was the cities against everyone else.

The best performing Democrat relative to his state's tilt was a guy whose most noteworthy campaign decision was an ad where he did a cool gun trick to show that he wasn't that different from them. Especially given how Republican Missouri is he didn't run as a Blue Dog type, his campaign website talked about supporting BLM, fighting systemic racism and ending police abuse, he ran on environmental issues and the minimum wage and healthcare and in the very ad he showed off his gun skills he talked about wanting background checks. He lost in a big wave election but he came far closer than he should have and I think a big part of it is that he signaled that he was a normal Missourian and understood what their lives were like instead of being some distant wonk.

I'm not sure exactly what drives this, I think it started with Gingrich (or maybe Nixon but I think that's more just pure racism) but I was a toddler for the years I was alive in the 90's so idk a whole lot about that. I definitely think Republicans want to push this because their policies are generally unpopular but I think the nerdy technocrats that the Democrats get to represent them are also a part of it. While I can and will indict anyone who chose to vote for Trump, Hillary only campaigning in cities and flying home every night to sleep in her bed does sort of only distance herself from people who can see that as a gesture that she's better than them.

Please stop me if I'm totally off base here, it's just something I've been thinking about the past couple days.

#Nomorenoncharismaticnerdsrunningforpresident2020

Al Gore and Hillary Clinton are smart and would have been good presidents, but they were... obviously nerds.

They were bad followups to presidents who were smart but also cool.

This is partially why Jason Kander did well, he didn't seem like an out of touch nerd.