• 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 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why

Status
Not open for further replies.
He was attending the Hay Festival in Wales, which is one of the biggest book fairs in the world (I think the biggest until quite recently) to flog his book. He gave a speech, then a Q&A session with the audience, and then hung around a bit after that for a particular group - you'll have to forgive me for being detail vague about that part. I'm not a journalist, I'm a consultant (at the moment, pending career change). It might be published, I'm not sure - I'd imagine so?

I absolutely understand, please pardon my probing. In times like these, and with information like this, a little provenance goes a long way. What you've given is enough for me. I appreciate you humoring me.

I really wish I went to see him for his QA here in Maine when he was here. I'd have loved the opportunity like that. Thank you very much for asking about his intended role in future campaigns.
 
Crab what was the longer answer on Brexit, if you don't mind me sharing?

And I missed this but it looks like Rauner will sign the AVR bill for Illinois, obviously not too meaningful for statewide races (though if it helps kick out Rauner, great) but I think there's like three congressional districts we could conceivably flip.
 
And I missed this but it looks like Rauner will sign the AVR bill for Illinois, obviously not too meaningful for statewide races (though if it helps kick out Rauner, great) but I think there's like three congressional districts we could conceivably flip.

Can you tell me more about what this is and what it means?
 
Can you tell me more about what this is and what it means?
Automatic voter registration, so everyone is just automatically registered to vote in the state unless they opt out. Oregon just had their first election after implementing it (and were the first in the country to do so) and it improved their turnout with young adults and people of color by like fifteen percent.

Illinois's state legislature passed this but it was previously vetoed by the Republican governor Bruce Rauner, but he has since said he'll sign the bill now.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Crab what was the longer answer on Brexit, if you don't mind me sharing?

He understands the concerns about migrant labour being used by big business to undermine wages, and thinks that the guest worker visa in the US has been used to do something very similar. He also worries about the ability of corporations to exceed the national level, because it puts them out of the reach of where they can be held accountable. At the same time, it is important that the UK doesn't shirk its international duties to uphold the values of free speech and tolerance, or its military role in Europe. Global inequality is even more severe than national inequality, and the UK needs to be part of addressing that. He is glad that 2017 is not a 'Brexit election' (not sure how right he is about that one). He thinks that the EU also needs to do something about it, because at the moment the youth of Europe are jobless and turning to authoritarian parties.

I wasn't always convinced this was something he'd though much about before. I don't get the feeling Brexit is something that has occupied him much.
 

teiresias

Member
Again, it's easy to be popular when no one's hit you and when you're filling a gap created by the lack of a primary field.

And it's also easy to be popular when you're filling the same gap on the left as Trump filled on the right by basically telling people what they wanted to hear regardless of its basis in reality.
 
Automatic voter registration, so everyone is just automatically registered to vote in the state unless they opt out. Oregon just had their first election after implementing it (and were the first in the country to do so) and it improved their turnout with young adults and people of color by like fifteen percent.

Illinois's state legislature passed this but it was previously vetoed by the Republican governor Bruce Rauner, but he has since said he'll sign the bill now.

It passed the House and Senate unanimously (think the Senate has to pass the House version now). In any case, even if Rauner vetoed it would just get overridden but you are correct that he has said he'll sign it.
 

JP_

Banned
Right, but his point was that the gap narrowed. The black-white income gap trended down between 1945 and 1980, and then started expanding again after 1980 (no idea how accurate this is, it was the statistic he used, although this seems to corrborate the last part). The gap was being addressed better then than it was now; whatever we're doing now isn't effective.

EDIT: You can get the stats from the US Census bureau. Black-white inequality widened 1980-1992, narrowed 1992-2000, and then has expanded continually again since. Weirdly, Bill Clinton made an impact but Obama appears not to have done so.
Might have something to do with the 80s being the height of shrinking government (usually more progressive in hiring than private sector) and the southern strategy

Thanks. That is...not the answer I was looking for :/
This is something I think he is wrong about, at least in terms of what level of animosity exists between black voters and a large block of white voters.

Its not that I think black american and "the white working class" are nessecarily opposed, mind you, but I don't buy that racism is something deployed by the elites to turn the WWC against their black allies, intentionally or not. The racism can (and I argue is) perfectly capable of being internally driven

It's hard to tell if Sanders is talking about the underlying causes or merely the manifestation of it. It's pretty clear to me that almost all of it has its roots internally. The racist bias exists already in much of white America, but the racist animosity seems to be exacerbated by economic conditions. You see evidence of this in the popular sentiments about white america stagnating or declining while minorities seem to be doing better (not just economically, but also in terms of attention with social justice -- the perception that the media etc favor minorities over white people, white people are always the bad guys etc).

So to at least some extent I agree with Sanders that improved economy can alleviate some of the symptoms, but I don't think it does much to address the underlying disease. I think part of the challenge is that solving the economy is easier than solving racism, so it might feel like the easy way to take action. There's lots you can do to boost people's quality of life, but how do you retrain personal biases? We know some things seem to help, but they're usually something that requires their cooperation. How do you get through to people that don't want to change?
 
It passed the House and Senate unanimously (think the Senate has to pass the House version now). In any case, even if Rauner vetoed it would just get overridden but you are correct that he has said he'll sign it.
Oh, even better then! Surprised GOP would vote for this though since it helps the people they do the worst with.
 
I don't think it should be considered all that controversial to suggest Bernie's numbers are soft. He's never really been subjected to attacks from Republicans because their incentives were to praise him as a means of hurting Clinton. The attacks on him would essentially be "he's going to make your taxes go through the roof to give free stuff to those people."

That this would cause his numbers to go down is all but a certainty. The interesting (and unfortunately unanswerable) question is just how much.

It's not inconsistent to simultaneously think that Bernie has a lot of strengths and tapped into something real and that under more scrutiny he would be less popular.

It's really concerning to me that even with 4 months of L's and embarrassing self inflicted scandals he's still hovering around 40%. Imagine what will happen if he just keeps his mouth shut and lets Ryan/McConnel do their thing.

The flip side of that is that under current conditions the president "should" be popular. It's still early in his term, unemployment is low, he hasn't botched a response to a natural disaster, etc.
 
I don't think it should be considered all that controversial to suggest Bernie's numbers are soft. He's never really been subjected to attacks from Republicans because their incentives were to praise him as a means of hurting Clinton. The attacks on him would essentially be "he's going to make your taxes go through the roof to give free stuff to those people."

That this would cause his numbers to go down is all but a certainty. The interesting (and unfortunately unanswerable) question is just how much.

It's not inconsistent to simultaneously think that Bernie has a lot of strengths and tapped into something real and that under more scrutiny he would be less popular.

I don't even necessarily disagree that strongly with this (though I do think this downplays the extent of the attacks he's faced from Democrats), and it would be very foolish to attempt to extrapolate how Sanders might fare in a future primary or general based purely on his current favorability polling.

What I find frustrating is the hardline anti-Sanders camp professing absolute certainty, or close to it, that his numbers would crater in some hypothetical, unverifiable future scenario, and then using this as justification to dismiss his continued popularity as having any relevance to the party going forward. One can apply the same sort of rationale to dismiss Trump's polling, if you're so inclined.

And it's also easy to be popular when you're filling the same gap on the left as Trump filled on the right by basically telling people what they wanted to hear regardless of its basis in reality.

Not that this will convince you, but he consistently polls 10-15 points better than Trump did at his all-time peak favorability.
 
This twitter thread points out something fishy about the NYT article about small businesses approving of Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord.


3 months ago the same author wrote an article about small businesses supporting Trump. Both articles have the same image of the same man in the same green pullover. They both interview the same Trump supporters in the same town. So the story is that a small group of people who supported Trump 3 moths ago still support Trump.

How does the NYT let this shit happen? It's embarrassing and sad.
 

kirblar

Member
This twitter thread points out something fishy about the NYT article about small businesses approving of Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord.


3 months ago the same author wrote an article about small businesses supporting Trump. Both articles have the same image of the same man in the same green pullover. They both interview the same Trump supporters in the same town. So the story is that a small group of people who supported Trump 3 moths ago still support Trump.

How does the NYT let this shit happen? It's embarrassing and sad.
This totally deserves an OT thread, I meant to make it earlier and got busy.

"NYT: 3 months apart, The same exact Trump Supporters story appears."
 
This twitter thread points out something fishy about the NYT article about small businesses approving of Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord.


3 months ago the same author wrote an article about small businesses supporting Trump. Both articles have the same image of the same man in the same green pullover. They both interview the same Trump supporters in the same town. So the story is that a small group of people who supported Trump 3 moths ago still support Trump.

How does the NYT let this shit happen? It's embarrassing and sad.

Sounds like a lazy journalist trying to fill some kind of quota.
 
I'll just leave this comment I posted on a WaPo article last month when they felt compelled to visit Trump supporters in Bumfuckville:

I'll never understand the press's fascination with these people. Not a week passes without some report from Nowhere, Idaho, or Flyover, Florida, attempting to probe Trump voters' psyches. These reports never offer any new insights and invariably reach the same conclusion: these simple-minded people love their simple-minded president and will never betray him. How many small towns must these journalists visit to tell us the same thing?

We also needn't speculate further about their motivations for electing him. These articles portray Trump's voters as victims of globalization, hapless creatures devastated by the new economy. The writers painstakingly describe the rural desperation and post-industrial angst. Their factories left. They can't kick the opioid habit. They worry about losing healthcare. Never mind that they voted AGAINST the candidate who promised to fix or at least assuage those problems. No, they deserve our sympathy and understanding. The newspapers peddle this story ad nauseam.

But, as always, their own words convey their real feelings and intentions. This article describes the locals' reminiscing about "the way things used to be." Combine such statements with the studies conducted post-election, and you get the real picture - namely, that racists and bigots relished the opportunity to elect someone who represented them. They resent minorities for existing, and they doubly resent the Democratic Party for helping minorities. To them progress represents not societal advancement but an attack on them and their social status. They thus voted for a candidate who vowed, implicitly and explicitly, to maintain white supremacy. No logic will reach them, no Tweet will embarrass them, no Democratic candidate will sway them with commitments to higher wages and healthcare. They'll vote for their "team" (white, Christian, Republican) every time and to their detriment if they can somehow hurt minorities. They won't change.

Kirblar, you've mentioned journalism being an overwhelmingly white industry before. Is that linked to what you're saying now? Have these white journalists bought into the myth of the basically good, salt-of-the-earth small-town folk and thus refuse to acknowledge their racism?
 

kirblar

Member
I'll just leave this comment I posted on a WaPo article last month when they felt compelled to visit Trump supporters in Bumfuckville:

Kirblar, you've mentioned journalism being an overwhelmingly white industry before. Is that linked to what you're saying now? Have these white journalists bought into the myth of the basically good, salt-of-the-earth small-town folk and thus refuse to acknowledge their racism?
You can credit @jbouie for that observation, but yes, that's absolutely a big part of what's going on. Once you notice it you can't unsee the pattern.
 

teiresias

Member
Not that this will convince you, but he consistently polls 10-15 points better than Trump did at his all-time peak favorability.

Didn't help him become President. The numbers also do nothing but indicate how many people in this country want to be lied to with easy-to-digest fixes for the country's woes.
 

royalan

Member
I'll just leave this comment I posted on a WaPo article last month when they felt compelled to visit Trump supporters in Bumfuckville:



Kirblar, you've mentioned journalism being an overwhelmingly white industry before. Is that linked to what you're saying now? Have these white journalists bought into the myth of the basically good, salt-of-the-earth small-town folk and thus refuse to acknowledge their racism?

Whew, you better come through with that comment.
 
My favorite thing about the "Let's talk to coal mining women in Wyoming about Trump leaving the Paris Agreement" CNN article was that they were all like "yeah, that's bad, don't do that."
 

Mizerman

Member
I'll just leave this comment I posted on a WaPo article last month when they felt compelled to visit Trump supporters in Bumfuckville:



Kirblar, you've mentioned journalism being an overwhelmingly white industry before. Is that linked to what you're saying now? Have these white journalists bought into the myth of the basically good, salt-of-the-earth small-town folk and thus refuse to acknowledge their racism?

Heh. Nice post.
 
Why is Sanders in Cambridge?

Anyway, Bernie Sanders is a character. You may or may not like this character. I don't think that's necessarily charisma.
In the same way Donald Trump is a character. But I don't think he'd necessarily be considered charismatic.

O'Malley may as well actually be an unidentified man.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Why is Sanders in Cambridge?

Anyway, Bernie Sanders is a character. You may or may not like this character. I don't think that's necessarily charisma.
In the same way Donald Trump is a character. But I don't think he'd necessarily be considered charismatic.

O'Malley may as well actually be an unidentified man.

Gotta sell books.
Remember, books are OK, but Speeches are not.
 

Teggy

Member
Democrat who was challenging Steve King

DBbrfuxUAAA6Ogh
 

Fox318

Member
Why is Sanders in Cambridge?

Anyway, Bernie Sanders is a character. You may or may not like this character. I don't think that's necessarily charisma.
In the same way Donald Trump is a character. But I don't think he'd necessarily be considered charismatic.

O'Malley may as well actually be an unidentified man.
OMalley run down 5th avenue naked with some m40s and nobody would notice.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
So how long before Trump pulls the US out of the UN?

I give it one Iraq-like situation where he wants the UN's support for some conflict, they don't give him, and he threatens to withdraw the US from the UN "no more payments to the UN, we give them the most and get nothing in return and they put the security of our country at risk!".
 

Fox318

Member
So how long before Trump pulls the US out of the UN?

I give it one Iraq-like situation where he wants the UN's support for some conflict, they don't give him, and he threatens to withdraw the US from the UN "no more payments to the UN, we give them the most and get nothing in return and they put the security of our country at risk!".
It's next on the block.

He is making decisions based on the blowjob he gets from the people at Fox and Friends.

And when you have convinced 40 percent of the public that mainstream media is trying to get black transgender Muslims to rape their white women you don't really need to worry about consequences. It's politics by feel. Yeah we would all love if European nations matched the military commitment the US puts in but that's unrealistic and it's also what gets us a seat at every table.
 

Fox318

Member
He's popular with people in the right places. Hence the EC win.
Bingo.

I've been to so many communities that would thrive if government took a more active role to solve issues but vote the same candidate in simply because of cultural reasons.

Things like people convinced that democrats will take away their guns and their ability to hunt or make a mostly Christian community into atheists.

Or that Democrats don't care about your community because their isn't enough electoral votes for them to care.

It's a cycle that's only made worse by g gerrymandering
 
He's popular with people in the right places. Hence the EC win.

OK, so, was Obama popular when he left office because he knows how to lie to people with easy answers?

Was Hillary popular as of, say, 2013 because she knows how to lie to people with easy answers?

Does this reasoning ever apply when politicians you actually like are polling well?
 
Obama was adept at campaigning with poetry and governing with prose. Because governing is meant to be fundamentally different. He certainly talked up easier answers in his first election, tempered by the reality that he might have to follow through.

Trump campaigned with the equivalent of dirty limericks and governs with the same. Because they didn't think they would win and had no idea what to do when Americans were dumb enough to elect them.
 
Bingo.

I've been to so many communities that would thrive if government took a more active role to solve issues but vote the same candidate in simply because of cultural reasons.

Things like people convinced that democrats will take away their guns and their ability to hunt or make a mostly Christian community into atheists.

Or that Democrats don't care about your community because their isn't enough electoral votes for them to care.

It's a cycle that's only made worse by g gerrymandering
From FDR's inaugural address:
The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow men.

Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live. Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation asks for action, and action now.

Do not seduce us poor countrymen to abandon our values for your wealth. Jesus taught us better.
 

royalan

Member
Why is Sanders in Cambridge?

Anyway, Bernie Sanders is a character. You may or may not like this character. I don't think that's necessarily charisma.
In the same way Donald Trump is a character. But I don't think he'd necessarily be considered charismatic.

O'Malley may as well actually be an unidentified man.

I'm not the biggest fan of the man's politics, but I think O'Malley would go far if he leaned into his natural charms a little more.

O'Malley combines this older, fuckable type of handsome with a natural dopiness. If I were on his team, I'd tell him to lean into that a little more.
 
I'm not the biggest fan of the man's politics, but I think O'Malley would go far if he leaned into his natural charms a little more.

O'Malley combines this older, fuckable type of handsome with a natural dopiness. If I were on his team, I'd tell him to lean into that a little more.

As someone who has met him in person, the man needs to move to Georgia, stay there for few years, and then run for office.
 
Democrat who was challenging Steve King

wow

Why is Sanders in Cambridge?

Anyway, Bernie Sanders is a character. You may or may not like this character. I don't think that's necessarily charisma.
In the same way Donald Trump is a character. But I don't think he'd necessarily be considered charismatic.

O'Malley may as well actually be an unidentified man.

Gotta sell books.
Remember, books are OK, but Speeches are not.

He's outreach for the democrats.

Plus books
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom