January 19, 2018, 08:49:11 PM

Author Topic: Politics and other ailments of the real world  (Read 126914 times)

Offline BeardKing

Re: Politics and other ailments of the real world
« Reply #2520 on: December 15, 2017, 03:15:26 PM »
There will be a fight in the courts re: net neutrality. Already, attorneys general in multiple states plan to sue the FCC. It's not over yet!

Offline Rostum

Re: Politics and other ailments of the real world
« Reply #2521 on: December 15, 2017, 09:43:51 PM »
Net neutrality will be lost at some point. When it happens I hope it leads to the Non USA creating its own nodes having America able to control 5/6 of the internet is folly at best and disastrous long term.

Re: Politics and other ailments of the real world
« Reply #2522 on: December 15, 2017, 10:37:39 PM »
I do think that the FCC repealing net neutrality legislation will lead to an increase in non-US communities growing to fill the void left by our millions of American Internet comrades who can't fork out enough to stay once the service providers start throttling stuff. We will miss you, 'Murican friends.

I wonder if bootleg Internet will become a thing.

Offline Eli_Freysson

Re: Politics and other ailments of the real world
« Reply #2523 on: December 15, 2017, 10:58:49 PM »
I wonder if bootleg Internet will become a thing.

Hmm. Internet as currency. There's a sci-fi idea.
I'll notify your next of kin... that you sucked!

Re: Politics and other ailments of the real world
« Reply #2524 on: December 15, 2017, 11:04:34 PM »
@Eli_Freysson  Lol exactly. It occurred to me, but sci-fi's not my writing jam unfortunately. If someone can crank out a book in time to turn back the tide of repeals, though, might be worth it.

Offline ultamentkiller

Re: Politics and other ailments of the real world
« Reply #2525 on: December 16, 2017, 11:34:24 PM »

In my opinion, progressives need to focus on reaching two groups of people - their Democratic base (in particular black voters, who were INSTRUMENTAL in the Alabama win) and people who *did not vote*. Remember, in the 2016 election, over 50% of Americans did not vote at all. These people, for whatever reasons, did not feel motivated to vote for a progressive agenda.
On behalf of those who didn't vote, I'll say this. voting in that last election felt like choosing whether you wanted to lose your right hand or your right foot. I should've at least voted for the other offices, but I wasn't well-informed at the time so I would've made a terrible choice. I plan to rectify that in 2018. I think it's important to understand why we didn't vote for Clinton though. Even without her emails, she has terrible, terrible vibes. Even from some voters I talked to who did vote for Clinton, they told me they felt a sense of unease. I don't know how the Democrats so blatantly ignored that, other than pushing her through because of elitism, something I thought they were against. She's not motivational at all. She couldn't even inspire people to vote for her simply to be the first woman president. It was a terrible choice, and the Democrats need to acknowledge that. It's not hard to find out why people didn't vote. From the outside, her whole campaign felt rigged. Debates on Saturday nights when a lot of the demographic for Democrat voters are out doing things. her former campaign manager in charge of the whole thing. It was awful.

I could easily have all of my facts wrong. I could easily be a small percentage of the people who didn't vote. But that's one perspective that Democrats must actually look into rather than shaking their heads in confusion.

Offline tebakutis

  • Falsely Puffed Up Rascal Pig and Writing Contest Regular
  • Writing Group
  • Master Namer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2147
  • Total likes: 1501
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • www.tebakutis.com
Re: Politics and other ailments of the real world
« Reply #2526 on: December 17, 2017, 02:32:27 AM »
I could easily have all of my facts wrong. I could easily be a small percentage of the people who didn't vote. But that's one perspective that Democrats must actually look into rather than shaking their heads in confusion.

I don't think you're wrong about Clinton not inspiring people to vote, and I think you're far from the only one. The right wing had almost 20 years of false allegations stacked up against her to discourage people, and Clinton lacked the inspirational spark of Obama. I always vote defensively in elections (knowing how bad Trump was, I would have voted for a potato over him) but many people don't, and won't get out and vote unless it seems worthwhile.

I also think a lot of non-voters assumed Clinton would just win without their help (buying into the "both sides are the same/election is rigged" narrative) and that even if Trump won, it wouldn't be as bad as everyone said, because I don't believe we've had a candidate as terrible as Trump in any of our lifetimes. Most pundits assumed Trump would lose, and were wrong, or that if he won he would not be absolutely terrible in every possible way, which he is, actually.

As sad as it is to admit, being a strong and qualified candidate is no longer enough to be elected president in American politics. You have to be a strong, qualified candidate AND be an incredible speaker with an inspiring message. Obama had arguably far less experience than Clinton, but his message and ability to inspire was incredibly powerful, which is an element Clinton lacked. She also didn't campaign where she needed to.

So, inspiring new voters may be the single bright spot of Trump's presidency. At last, there is proof that both sides *aren't* the same, and that voting really does matter. The turnout in Virginia and Alabama supports this, I hope.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2017, 02:34:19 AM by tebakutis »

Offline Skip

Re: Politics and other ailments of the real world
« Reply #2527 on: December 17, 2017, 03:35:16 AM »
Vote for me because I'm not as bad as the other guy, has been a theme in American politics for a long time. It is one of the unavoidable consequences of having a two-party system. The tendency is exacerbated by modern media and a pious preoccupation with scandal. I sometimes think we should forgive all personal faults and just look at how well the candidate actually delivers.

Or, in the immortal words of Simon Cameron, an honest politician is one who, when he is bought, stays bought.
Visit Altearth

Offline Bradley Darewood

  • aka Barley Redwood
  • Writing Group
  • Kingkiller
  • ****
  • Posts: 1479
  • Total likes: 835
  • Gender: Male
  • Zork. And it was all downhill from there.
    • View Profile
    • Bradley Darewood on Tumblr!
Re: Politics and other ailments of the real world
« Reply #2528 on: December 17, 2017, 05:11:02 AM »
I could easily have all of my facts wrong. I could easily be a small percentage of the people who didn't vote. But that's one perspective that Democrats must actually look into rather than shaking their heads in confusion.

I don't think you're wrong about Clinton not inspiring people to vote, and I think you're far from the only one. The right wing had almost 20 years of false allegations stacked up against her to discourage people, and Clinton lacked the inspirational spark of Obama. I always vote defensively in elections (knowing how bad Trump was, I would have voted for a potato over him) but many people don't, and won't get out and vote unless it seems worthwhile.

I also think a lot of non-voters assumed Clinton would just win without their help (buying into the "both sides are the same/election is rigged" narrative) and that even if Trump won, it wouldn't be as bad as everyone said, because I don't believe we've had a candidate as terrible as Trump in any of our lifetimes. Most pundits assumed Trump would lose, and were wrong, or that if he won he would not be absolutely terrible in every possible way, which he is, actually.

As sad as it is to admit, being a strong and qualified candidate is no longer enough to be elected president in American politics. You have to be a strong, qualified candidate AND be an incredible speaker with an inspiring message. Obama had arguably far less experience than Clinton, but his message and ability to inspire was incredibly powerful, which is an element Clinton lacked. She also didn't campaign where she needed to.

So, inspiring new voters may be the single bright spot of Trump's presidency. At last, there is proof that both sides *aren't* the same, and that voting really does matter. The turnout in Virginia and Alabama supports this, I hope.

@ultamentkiller -- I think the confusion among centrist Democrats is an act. The centrist Dems and the progressive Dems don't like each other and frankly we don't stand for the same thing by a long shot. What we do all share a confusion as to why anyone would vote for Trump. I still can't believe it.

Anyway, in terms of nonvoting, I think we need to throw some numbers at this instead of imagining silver bullets

1) If people who actually registered to vote had actually voted, Clinton would have won but..
* the race was very close
* the stay home rates were high for both Repubs and Dems (35% for Dems, 32% for Repubs and 33% for non-affiliated) this means there's a huuuuge amount of possible movement on both sides
* approval ratings for both candidates were extremely low on both sides, but a higher percentage of people who hated both candidates still voted for Trump

2) Before jumping on the black vote specifically based on Alabama it's important to note that demographics are different from state to state.  Vermont and Minnesota are super white.  Much of the deep south is white and black.  The southwest is Latino.  The latest migration wave is actually from Asia so those numbers are still growing.  Whites--especially poor whites-- still make up the majority of nonvoters.

That said, nonwhites and young people were waaaayyyy less motivated to vote than white people were. But Latinos and Asians stayed home in very large percentages.  (Dems often focus on black b/c they are 90% democratic while Latinos are only 66% but I think they should do an analysis that incorporates urban poverty and I think that that's a more important factor than race and targetting say "poor urban latinos" vs. just "latinos" they'll see those numbers change)





Young voters chose not to vote: Among white voters, voters 18-29 years old made up 30 percent of voters who did not participate in the November election. Among young Hispanic voters, that climbs to 43 percent. Among young black voters, it was an even higher 46 percent. So re: the black vote: Older black voters preferred Clinton (70%) but they all voted (older voters of all races consistently vote at higher rates). Younger black voters preferred Bernie to Clinton in the primary, but they didn't vote (young voters of all races consistently vote at lower rates).  So who is not voting and why withing minority communities involves other factors that span beyond their demographic.  If you just target "black voters" instead of "young black voters" you're not going to have as successful a GOTV campaign.

So the huge problem is that a simple survey that only asks "did you like the candidate?" doesn't get at some of the core reasons that people stayed home--  In part b/c journalists and academics are centrist elites who don't want  to hear that for all this "likeability" bullshit, they might need to change their *stances* to get the poor to believe you represent them.  Meaning the core problem may have been that young and urban poor progressives opposed Hillary's policies

I happen to know quite a few people who didn't vote, so let me mention some things besides her "likeability" that might have hurt her based upon why real people chose not to vote:

* The Primary was completely corrupt with voter suppression and the ridiculous "coin toss" thing in many states, so young people who were voting for the first time in their lives, getting out an registered in unheard of numbers for Bernie, felt disenfranchised because they were.  Then at the DNC Debbie Wasserman Schultz's corruption was made public.  There was NOTHING done to address this.  And people are actually surprised those voters didn't want to vote for Clinton after that?

* All of my Muslim friends were terrified of her.  She is a war hawk with ties to Israeli war hawks that inevitably would have had a terrible impact on the middle east.  Palestine is a hugely symbolic enormously destabilizing hot-button issue for people from all over the middle east. They didn't like Trump but they found her comparably terrifying.

* As soon as she got the DNC nomination (on the heels of the corruption expose) she immediately filled her team with the right-wing end of the party, dropping all of her progressive campaign promises from the primary to focus on playing chicken with the republicans to get centrist voters.  So it shouldn't be a surprise that the left end of her own base dropped off.  Those same right-wing centrists were robbing the DNC blind misspending funds on consultants and losing local races because of it.

* As for my personal opinion I think Hillary was a great candidate-- I found her work on healthcare in the 90s inspirational, she was in line to be the first female president, while she was busy being a young republican her husband had a great civil rights legacy that she could have built off of... but none of those things happened. The problem isn't just "her" positions but the positions of her supporters within the party. My expectations for politics are pretty low, and compared to everyone we've had before (excepting Carter) I really liked Hillary as a candidate, however I completely oppose the core beliefs on economic development and international policy held by him and  others like him.

Her centrist supporters were really, in my mind, the number one reason she lost. They did everything in their power to alienate the progressive part of the party. She went out of her way not to run a negative campaign--and did a great job!-- but her supporters undid all of that and probably even made it the most negative primary ever, continuing with their negativity towards Bernie supporters after they won the primary and blaming them for Trumps win even before it happened as sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. I have one rabid centrist in my fb friends list and he's *still* posting rage and derision about anything and everything Bernie Sanders does, with this friends commenting dismissively about his dumb supporters who haven't seen the light. There was a reporter that asked why Bernie was even running and standing in the way of a female president, charging that he and anyone that supported him only did so, not because they cared about his platform but because they were sexist. I saw that motif over and over.  Young progressives (with clearly outlined plans for the economy and education) were told they didn't know what they wanted. Then after she won there was nothing but vitriol and derision for nonvoters, making it even worse, not better. Her supporters made me almost not want to vote despite me liking her as a candidate.  I know a lot of younger voters who threw up their hands after the whole affair and decided to give up on politics as even having the possibility of being meaningful. So there's that.

Anyway, while it can be interesting to speculate I hoped to offer some concrete data to the nonvoting discussion. Also, my personal opinion is that if the centrists want more progressives to show up at the polls, they may have to actually concede some of their stranglehold on policy and offer something. In my opinion this is about power, not just perception. (also-- this might be a tangent-- it's about ideology. I'll put this in a spoiler.
Spoiler for Hiden:
Trump's policies and actions are without question more extreme than his predecessors-- this isn't just because Trump is extreme as an individual, it's because of decades of ideological indoctrination by the Republican party and funded by the wealthy. Since the shift from city to rural by the Repub party in the last century, the rural parts of the country have been fed increasingly batshit logic which the repeats itself with each generation in even more extreme forms. Centrist dems are also paid for by urban wealthy elite interests, but they have been less successful in coopting the urban poor because their base is more diverse. Still they are ideologically distinct from people like Bernie Sanders and his supporters, with a completely different set of beliefs about how the world works on the most fundamental levels.  Ideologies continue on their own and replicate-- creating a huge problem to overcome that goes far beyond the individual being elected
)
I hope that was helpful.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2017, 05:35:19 AM by Bradley Darewood »

Offline tebakutis

  • Falsely Puffed Up Rascal Pig and Writing Contest Regular
  • Writing Group
  • Master Namer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2147
  • Total likes: 1501
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • www.tebakutis.com
Re: Politics and other ailments of the real world
« Reply #2529 on: December 17, 2017, 07:57:14 AM »
I think the confusion among centrist Democrats is an act. The centrist Dems and the progressive Dems don't like each other and frankly we don't stand for the same thing by a long shot. What we do all share a confusion as to why anyone would vote for Trump. I still can't believe it.

Wow. Do people really believe this? Why?

Every Dem I know (progressive or "centrist" ... which is really still progressive) supports tax cuts for the middle class and poor, taxing corporations and the extremely wealthy at higher levels than we do now, electing progressive supreme court and federal court judges, making healthcare available for poor folks (the difference is how fast each group thinks it can be done, and how to do it) and ensuring women continue to have the right to control their own bodies. Where did the idea come from that Clinton was against any of that? Where did the idea come from that "centrist" Dems (I still don't understand that title, honestly) are against any of that? Literally WTF? :0

And I guess, more importantly, how can we correct that confusion? If there are really people out there who think there are progressives who disagree with ANYTHING I've listed above, regardless of who they supported in 2016, I think they need to take another look at where they got that information.

* The Primary was completely corrupt with voter suppression and the ridiculous "coin toss" thing in many states, so young people who were voting for the first time in their lives, getting out an registered in unheard of numbers for Bernie, felt disenfranchised because they were.  Then at the DNC Debbie Wasserman Schultz's corruption was made public.  There was NOTHING done to address this.  And people are actually surprised those voters didn't want to vote for Clinton after that?

I think you're fallen victim to some misinformation here. The primary was not rigged against Bernie Sanders, and there's been a number of news reports since disproving that notion (I'll try to dig some up when I get time). You can certainly argue that Sanders would have been a better candidate, but not that Clinton "stole" the nomination. That claim has been disproven, though the right certainly wielded it to split progressives in 2016.

So, I'd be careful about sharing that theory. So far as I know, it's been debunked.

Actually, scratch the above - I hadn't read the latest. The theory WAS debunked, then sort of confirmed again, then debunked, and sort of confirmed again. Good grief. Regardless, there was some tomfoolery going on, no question. Clinton still got the most votes, but there was certainly stuff slanted in her direction.

This seems to be a balanced summary of the claims/counter-claims. The claim that the Clinton "stole" the election is false (she got more votes, hands down) but the DNC did heavily slant thing in her favor, and you could argue that was part of the reason she got more votes (though I still think she comes out ahead regardless).

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/561976645/clinton-campaign-had-additional-signed-agreement-with-dnc-in-2015


So yeah, I think we both agree that Clinton (in how she ran the campaign) and the DNC (in how they ran the primary) screwed up 2016. And sadly, that was enough to convince people not to come out and vote, and thus we got Trump.

* All of my Muslim friends were terrified of her.  She is a war hawk with ties to Israeli war hawks that inevitably would have had a terrible impact on the middle east.  Palestine is a hugely symbolic enormously destabilizing hot-button issue for people from all over the middle east. They didn't like Trump but they found her comparably terrifying.

That's just wild, isn't it? It just goes to show you how good a job the Republicans did with all the wild accusations they threw at Clinton. I mean ... do the Muslims you talk to really think Clinton would have passed his "Muslim" ban three times? Do they really think Clinton would have moved the US embassy to Jerusalem in hopes of literally starting another war in the region? Did they really think Trump would be *better* for Muslims, and were just mistaken?

And I guess, most importantly, how do they feel now? Do they still think Trump was a better choice than Clinton? Because if so ... that's terrifying. I don't know how a candidate could do more to harm them than Trump. How do we get them to vote against him in 2020?
« Last Edit: December 17, 2017, 08:11:12 AM by tebakutis »

Offline Nora

  • Dropped in from another planet avec son sourire provocateur - et Hades and Writing Contest Regular
  • Writing Group
  • Dragonrider
  • ***
  • Posts: 4214
  • Total likes: 3336
  • Gender: Female
  • The Explorer
    • View Profile
Re: Politics and other ailments of the real world
« Reply #2530 on: December 17, 2017, 09:53:24 AM »
The politics thread is definitely an "American politics" thread. As far as I'm concerned, I never understood why everyone was rooting for Bernie Sanders, the Internet had the hits for him, and suddenly forced him down for Clinton who came out of nowhere and had the charm of a boiled potato. To this day I wonder if Bernie would have won...
"She will need coffee soon, or molecular degeneration will set in. Her French phrasing will take over even more strongly, and soon she will dissolve into a puddle of alienation and Kierkegaardian despair."  ~ Jmack

Wishy washy lyricism and maudlin unrequited love are my specialty - so said Lady_Ty

Offline Peat

Re: Politics and other ailments of the real world
« Reply #2531 on: December 17, 2017, 10:25:40 AM »
Anyway, while it can be interesting to speculate I hoped to offer some concrete data to the nonvoting discussion. Also, my personal opinion is that if the centrists want more progressives to show up at the polls, they may have to actually concede some of their stranglehold on policy and offer something. In my opinion this is about power, not just perception.

I don't think there's a large political party on earth where the dominant wing of the party doesn't ask why the other wing doesn't get on board for the big win and the other wing responds that maybe if they could write some of the rules, maybe they would. I've just watched it lurch from one wing of the Labour party to the other here in Britain and its basically the same complaints.

The left seems more prone to it than the right too. Whether that's due to political pragmatism being more valued on the right, or the greater diversity of the coalition on the left, or a rebellion against neoliberalism, or something else, I couldn't say, but the left seems far more likely to lose elections on this, at least at the moment.

I wish they wouldn't while at the same time being part of the problem. I'm also pretty sure that concessions would be met with "That wasn't real, give us something real".

The reality seems to be that a candidate is needed who can reach both wings naturally (or the centre and most of the floating voters). Which is pretty difficult when both wings are more concentrated on their differences than their similarities. (Oddly enough, the wing out of power tends to look most at the differences, and the wing in power most at the similarities...). I hesitate at mapping British politics onto American politics, but I saw a line a while back that said Labour was a coalition of the progressive urban Middle classes and Working classes, and it could only achieve power when the interests of both aligned. Feels like that's a theory that has some legs when it comes to the Democrats.



In any case, I mainly came here to say I think people are being a bit hard on the Democrats.

Yes, barely scraping a victory against a suspected sex offender is not really anything to crow about, but at the same time, any Democrat victory in Alabama is.

Yes, they have no plan for healing America's rifts or winning over hard Trump supporters, but I think healing a country's political differences is beyond the power of a political party. Their job is to win political power and then wield it to the best use, and they don't need hard Trump supporters for that.

And yes, probably many of them are somewhat corrupt, but if all they want is to be corrupt and its easier in the Republicans, then why aren't they Republicans?

I agree there should be a sense of caution should be exercised before declaring this a great revival. A lot of caution. But not sucking any more than they already did should be celebrated as well. Wins are wins.

And it increasingly feels to me like politics is a bunch of self-fulfilled prophecies of defeat. That and telling the biggest lies. We may not be up for the lies, but lets at least not start contributing to our own failure.

Offline Bradley Darewood

  • aka Barley Redwood
  • Writing Group
  • Kingkiller
  • ****
  • Posts: 1479
  • Total likes: 835
  • Gender: Male
  • Zork. And it was all downhill from there.
    • View Profile
    • Bradley Darewood on Tumblr!
Re: Politics and other ailments of the real world
« Reply #2532 on: December 17, 2017, 02:01:13 PM »
* All of my Muslim friends were terrified of her.  She is a war hawk with ties to Israeli war hawks that inevitably would have had a terrible impact on the middle east.  Palestine is a hugely symbolic enormously destabilizing hot-button issue for people from all over the middle east. They didn't like Trump but they found her comparably terrifying.

That's just wild, isn't it? It just goes to show you how good a job the Republicans did with all the wild accusations they threw at Clinton. I mean ... do the Muslims you talk to really think Clinton would have passed his "Muslim" ban three times? Do they really think Clinton would have moved the US embassy to Jerusalem in hopes of literally starting another war in the region? Did they really think Trump would be *better* for Muslims, and were just mistaken?

And I guess, most importantly, how do they feel now? Do they still think Trump was a better choice than Clinton? Because if so ... that's terrifying. I don't know how a candidate could do more to harm them than Trump. How do we get them to vote against him in 2020?

So @tebakutis that was basically my argument to my friends during the election when I was encouraging them to vote for Clinton-- no, she's not great, but at least going to put you all in a concentration camp like Trump probably will.  Most of them didn't vote despite my urgings. I also (unsuccessfully) tried to urge my nonMuslim friends against their protest nonvoting.  So don't get me wrong I know the post sounds like I am 100% with the nonvoters but I actively tried to get people (in my circle at least) to vote. I think I appeared to them like a part of the establishment acting like they should vote for someone who doesn't represent them and the response was more or less "slow your roll honkey." 

I really don't think you can blame the republicans on this one.  The outlook did not look good for her and the middle east, and a lot of the analysis was coming from people who legitimately knew what they were talking about.  Yes, Trump is 10 orders of magnitude worse. Today the response is more mixed than I would have expected. About half of them stand by their decision not to vote for Clinton.  Still if were looking at this as a pollster, I'm not sure what she could have done to get that .08% muslim vote and keep a lot of her campaign finances in order, so I'm not saying "she should have done things differently" so much as conveying what Muslim nonvoters tell me.

Anyway, while it can be interesting to speculate I hoped to offer some concrete data to the nonvoting discussion. Also, my personal opinion is that if the centrists want more progressives to show up at the polls, they may have to actually concede some of their stranglehold on policy and offer something. In my opinion this is about power, not just perception.

I don't think there's a large political party on earth where the dominant wing of the party doesn't ask why the other wing doesn't get on board for the big win and the other wing responds that maybe if they could write some of the rules, maybe they would. I've just watched it lurch from one wing of the Labour party to the other here in Britain and its basically the same complaints.

The reality seems to be that a candidate is needed who can reach both wings naturally (or the centre and most of the floating voters). Which is pretty difficult when both wings are more concentrated on their differences than their similarities. (Oddly enough, the wing out of power tends to look most at the differences, and the wing in power most at the similarities...). I hesitate at mapping British politics onto American politics, but I saw a line a while back that said Labour was a coalition of the progressive urban Middle classes and Working classes, and it could only achieve power when the interests of both aligned. Feels like that's a theory that has some legs when it comes to the Democrats.

...

In any case, I mainly came here to say I think people are being a bit hard on the Democrats.
....

And yes, probably many of them are somewhat corrupt, but if all they want is to be corrupt and its easier in the Republicans, then why aren't they Republicans?

Great points @Peat ! I think you're right, what we're seeing with the dems is a common problem between progressives elements in countries all over the world and the parties that "represent" them while... not doing so. And yeah of course as you mention the wing in power is going to emphasize similarities and be like "why can't we all get along?" while happily ignoring the answer to that question.

So why aren't centrist politicians just republicans? Well the long answer goes to subtle differences in ideologies, but the short answer is that they are often representing neoliberal interests in gerrymandered zones where a republican can't win (but there are also plenty of cases where a Repub could have won and the candidate simply didn't have a network w/in the Rep party infrastructure. Corporate interests generally fund both sides of competitive elections).  In CA state politics they're called "moderate Dems". They still want to gut environmental protections, block civil rights protections and ensure corporate unaccountability.  The difference between the repubs and these Moderate Dems is basically that the language they use to do it, and the fact that their district would never vote Repub esp in a national election.

The centrist Dems and the progressive Dems don't like each other and frankly we don't stand for the same thing by a long shot. What we do all share a confusion as to why anyone would vote for Trump. I still can't believe it.

Wow. Do people really believe this? Why?

Every Dem I know (progressive or "centrist" ... which is really still progressive) supports tax cuts for the middle class and poor, taxing corporations and the extremely wealthy at higher levels than we do now, electing progressive supreme court and federal court judges, making healthcare available for poor folks (the difference is how fast each group thinks it can be done, and how to do it) and ensuring women continue to have the right to control their own bodies. Where did the idea come from that Clinton was against any of that? Where did the idea come from that "centrist" Dems (I still don't understand that title, honestly) are against any of that? Literally WTF? :0

And I guess, more importantly, how can we correct that confusion? If there are really people out there who think there are progressives who disagree with ANYTHING I've listed above, regardless of who they supported in 2016, I think they need to take another look at where they got that information.

Teb-- this division goes back waaaaayyyyy before the election.  I can't speak for everyone but I can say for myself that while I agree with your points, I am completely opposed to the vast majority of the centrist agenda.  The central tenets of the economic orthodoxy that has driven this country since the 1980s is shared by both Dems and Repubs at the national level and has gone completely unchallenged until Bernie Sanders.

--Differences on international trade, development and human rights seem remote but they hit home when we see all the jobs, environmental protections, and labor rights lost to trade agreements. When Clinton only barely came out in opposition to Dakota Access Pipeline.

--While I liked Hillary's plan in the 90s, Obamacare is largely awful. I wanted to be an MD growing up, spent 3 years working in emergency medicine during undergrad and watched my grandparents get killed by the healthcare system in this country so I get overly emotional on this one--I'm going to hold back my tirade (it's a topic I'm well versed on and I could fill 10 posts on this) and just say I'm extremely opposed to the centrist approach to health care, including much of Obamacare.

--There are just some fundamentally different ways in which centrists and progressives view the world, and what they want is just totally different.  Centrists might be confused about why progressives don't want to support them, but progressives aren't confused.  It's not a conspiracy, it's a valid disagreement on issues that matter to us. I may be more willing to vote for centrists than my younger progressive friends are, but I agree with where they're coming from 90% of the time.

This seems to be a balanced summary of the claims/counter-claims. The claim that the Clinton "stole" the election is false (she got more votes, hands down) but the DNC did heavily slant thing in her favor, and you could argue that was part of the reason she got more votes (though I still think she comes out ahead regardless).

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/561976645/clinton-campaign-had-additional-signed-agreement-with-dnc-in-2015


So yeah, I think we both agree that Clinton (in how she ran the campaign) and the DNC (in how they ran the primary) screwed up 2016. And sadly, that was enough to convince people not to come out and vote, and thus we got Trump.

I would put NPR staunchly in the "wealthy elite liberal" camp and wouldn't say they are unbiased when it comes to Clinton.  They had a turn to the right during the Obama years and they went from doing biopics on Winona LeDuke to now doing puff pieces on Starbucks starting the conversation on race or how wonderful international trade agreements are. On a regular basis I have to actually turn the radio off b/c I find them utterly repugnant in the same way I find FOX news repugnant.

Here's what I can say: I saw voter repression first hand in Arizona. It happened.

As for the campaign itself... I really blame the people outside of her campaign that were trying to get her to win at all costs-- in the way the disenfranchised Bernie supporters but beyond that: in their vitriolic anti-Bernie messaging in their support for Clinton, and in the way they disregarded and stomped on the very substantive issues that Bernie supporters were trying to bring to the table. That's why people weren't convinced to vote.  Obviously no one on here has done those things, but I saw it in spades during (and after) the primary.

The politics thread is definitely an "American politics" thread. As far as I'm concerned, I never understood why everyone was rooting for Bernie Sanders, the Internet had the hits for him, and suddenly forced him down for Clinton who came out of nowhere and had the charm of a boiled potato. To this day I wonder if Bernie would have won...

At the beginning of the primary I thought Clinton would hands down be a more viable candidate against Trump.  Then Bernie raised more money from the grassroots than any candidate in history.  By the end of the primary (esp. considering the corruption scandal) it seemed clear to me that Bernie had the power to mobilize an enormous quantity of nonvoters Clinton had no access to, meanwhile the centrist Repubs she was courting simply didn't vote for her.  In retrospect I firmly believe Bernie would have won the election.

Sorry about the Americaness. Ok, I'm going to get back to my true love: playing Skyrim in comfy sweatpants while eating ice cream.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2017, 02:07:57 PM by Bradley Darewood »

Offline ScarletBea

  • Positive Invisible Fighter - and bringer of Cake. 2nd in Command of the Writing Contest
  • Writing Group
  • Big Wee Hag
  • ******
  • Posts: 8658
  • Total likes: 5054
  • Gender: Female
  • Geeky Reading Introvert
    • View Profile
    • LibraryThing profile
Re: Politics and other ailments of the real world
« Reply #2533 on: December 17, 2017, 05:28:53 PM »
@Bradley Darewood just come and Mary me if it goes too crazy. Get you a French/EU passport  ;)
I still haven't seen @Bradley Darewood 's response to the marriage proposal ;D
At home in the Fantasy Faction forum!
"It's time we steered by the stars, not by the lights of each passing ship" (general O.N. Bradley)

Offline Eli_Freysson

Re: Politics and other ailments of the real world
« Reply #2534 on: December 17, 2017, 06:51:16 PM »
You folks could always move to Akureyri.

Almost no crime, small enough to be quiet and big enough to offer every service, and a lovely geothermal swimming pool. Sure, the climate kind of sucks, but you can't have everything.
I'll notify your next of kin... that you sucked!