rhinohide
-
Posts
3,362 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by rhinohide
-
-
3 hours ago, ReddFoxx said:
That message isn't getting through, because plenty of people vote against their best interests because of social issues and that isn't going to change. Believe it or not, there are poor people who vote Republican because they prioritize abortion over their own financial circumstances. Income inequality can be talked about all day, but no one really cares about that more than they do their own personal biases on social issues. You can't win by pretending that only straight, white men are the only people in this country.
I believe it. In fact I know it to be true that some people vote their special interest over their financial best interest. I do however disagree that the majority of people care more about social issues than their financial well being. I believe that's where Democrats have shot themselves in the foot.
2 hours ago, ReddFoxx said:What I should say is that you can't win as a Democrat using that logic.
Apparently Democrats can't win by any logic.
0 -
24 minutes ago, ReddFoxx said:
Sanders and a lot of his people have racial bias that they don't want to admit. They want to open up the party to white men who blame minorities and women for their problems, despite the fact that those men are not anywhere close to being liberal or progressive. Blacks, Hispanics and educated Whites are part of the future of the Democratic Party, yet some "progressives" want to ignore that. There are working class and rural whites that are part of the coalition, but they aren't the only path to winning the presidency.
You're right. But Bernie's fundamental message, boiled down, is if you make less than $350,000 a year, and you vote republican, you're voting against your own best financial interests. Bernie isn't really pushing LGBTQ rights. He's not pushing feminism or reproductive rights. He's not focused on Black Lives Matter, or justice reform. He's not dialed down on the environment, although his decades long campaign against against Monsanto is epic. He's pressing income inequality. That's his core message. And that's a core message that can and will appeal to a broad audience. And a broad appeal is what will win elections.
Beto O'Rourke has embraced that message. He's not accepting corporate donations or PAC funds in his TX Senate campaign vs Ted Cruz. It remains to be seen if he can overcome the extreme gerrymandering in the state.
0 -
11 hours ago, DRW50 said:
I'm not surprised Chris Cilizza wrote that. I imagine CNN hired him in large part for this purpose. He's very good at reminding us Democrats are losing.
With that said, I can believe the poll - I don't believe Democrats are in touch and I don't think they have been in a number of years. They are anti-Trump, which is certainly important, and I think they're trying their hardest to stave off some of his worst, but it's a mirage for the realities underneath.
Why in the world was that man with the quavering voice put on television as their spokesperson. I've heard he's a good politician or strategist - he's not good on television.
Ive been listening to a lot of podcasts. Honestly trying to avoid television news. My new favorite is PodSave America. Jon Favreau was a speech writer for President Obama. Dan Pfeiffer was a senior advisor to President Obama. Jon Lovett was a speech writer for both President Obama and HRC. Very entertaining. Highly recommend. Also one of the hosts, Jon Lovett has a Saturday podcast called Lovett or Leave It.
They were discussing this poll and begrudgingly agreed with the findings.
0 -
-
-
9 minutes ago, Vee said:
And insisting any claims of Russian involvement are "Cold War bigotry" and just an excuse for Clinton's loss.
I don't see Bernie approving of Russia's involvement in the election in any way. Try again.
20 minutes ago, JaneAusten said:That will happen as soon as Bernie supporters quit blaming his loss in the primary on rigging the system, the same "rigged" system by the way in which President Barack Obama, who actually ran a comprehensive campaign that touched ALL states not ignoring the southern states because they "don't matter', actually beat Hillary Clinton. No one will ever win a democratic primary by diminishing POC in the south as irrelevant and low information voters.
Do you deny that the DNC establishment preferred HRC? Do you deny that their preference showed every step of the way? I don't blame them. The RNC preferred Cruz or Rubio to Trump. Did everything to defeat him. And failed. The DNC succeeded in their mission. While the RNC failed. But ultimately the RNC's failure gave them complete and total ownership of our government.
0 -
3 hours ago, marceline said:
Yeah, it's hard to get excited about the filibuster because it won't change anything.
There's an argument that it will make things worse. They're going to exercise the "nuclear" option.
Gorsuch was conservative. But more center compared to Scalia. Confirming him would not have changed the composition of SCOTUS. NOT confirming him has changed the rules of law for the Senate. Which will live forever.
0 -
6 hours ago, JaneAusten said:
No offense but how many times do we have to read how evil the Clintons are and how they destroyed the democratic party. Perhaps you caught me at a bad time as I listen yet again to Bernie Sanders a non democrat trash the party. Rather than show real leadership by standing along with those of our political leaders in congress, he spends days on trashing the democrats inviting the likes of real elitists like Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon to congratulate themselves on blowing up the country. I am all for reform and fresh blood, but spending endless hours trashing the party and not even acknowledging the grass roots efforts that have actually helped fuel a number of successes, even minor ones, infuriates me.
And now Sanders is being credited for introducing Medicare for all, a bill Rep Conyers from Michigan, a black man, has introduced into the house every year for the last how many years, is equally short sighted.
Sorry for going off, but some people like me are ready to move forward and keep getting dragged back by some of this. For what purpose.
I guess as long as Clinton supporters continue to blame Bernie supporters for her loss. I'm ready to move on as well. But I continue to hear how Bernie's campaign crippled HRC and caused her loss.
4 hours ago, marceline said:Sanders supporters love giving him credit for work done by others. That's why they love to say "Bernie's the only one out here fighting for us!" Fortunately I feel like more and more people are finally calling him out for the self-serving, treacherous [!@#$%^&*] he is.
No. We don't. But if something has been introduced multiple times and never gained traction, is it a poorer concept if an old white Jewish guy introduces it and it breathes?
0 -
-
7 hours ago, Wales2004 said:
I know that people may not like to question someone's faith but his complete contempt for the poor is so obvious that I can't see why anyone wouldn't at least ask him what being a devout Catholic means to him.
One could reasonably ask what it feels like to be Catholic and hear the Pope openly condemn your proposed policies.
0 -
"This proposed budget isn't extreme. Reagan's proposed budget in 1981 was extreme. This budget is short-sighted, cruel to the point of being sadistic, stupid to the point of pure philistinism, and shot through with the absolute and fundamentalist religious conviction that the only true functions of government are the ones that involve guns, and that the only true purpose of government is to serve the rich."
0 -
1 hour ago, ReddFoxx said:
Not that I'm saying that Snoop Dogg should have made a video of shooting Trump, but it was not as bad as Trump trying to incite someone to shoot Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail (he did it twice).
Of course Snoop shouldn't have. But the fact that the same people gasping in outrage over this never complained when President Obama was lynched in effigy many times just punctuates their unrivaled hypocrisy.
This was well well said and expresses my "feelings" although this wasn't my moment.
http://johnpavlovitz.com/2017/03/15/62-million-reasons-im-not-the-same-anymore/
0 -
It's a mistake to lump all Bernie supporters together. I think all politicians are corrupted. HRC's close association with Wall Street disturbed me tremendously. But as the Senator from New York it made sense. I also thought she was too hawkish and her support for the invasion of Iraq was troublesome to me.
Trump scared me enough that I voted for her anyway. I didn't agree with NAFTA and TPP either. Or the Iran nuclear deal. But I still supported President Obama.
now we have this, and I'm genuinely terrified.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a53848/trump-executive-order-reorganization/
0 -
-
7 hours ago, GregNYC said:
I related to my previous avatar, Stacy Dash. Like her, I voted for Obama in 2008, but voted for Trump in 2016. The last 8 years opened my eyes to how corrupt DNC is, just like how it did to Stacy Dash.
Politics, sad, corrupt. The EVIL Koch bros run the GOP. NOTHING TO BE PROUD OF.
owned by oil and gas and the tobacco industry before that. We think we're divided now? Wait until we don't have safe drinking water for everybody and folks like GregNYC have all the guns and ammunition. They're nucking fruts and they're armed.
It's kind of funny, only not. I have a dear friend who disregards climate science but she and her family are arming themselves to the teeth in case THE WALKING DEAD scenario actually comes to pass.
And at 60 years old, I just bought my first gun. I hate them. I really don't want to live in a world that is so crazy I need to fear my neighbors, but I've come to see that my orange filth supporting neighbors have guns and they're frocking insane. It doesn't make sense to let the mentally ill have all the guns.
0 -
I'm not clever enough to know whether the GOP is merely a study in hypocrisy or the prime example of irony. If I get this correctly, they just introduced a healthcare bill that eliminates coverage for mental Health services that affects millions of patients. That happened within a couple of weeks of The Orange Smear In America's Underpants rescinding President Obama's executive order denying the mentally ill from purchasing guns. Soooooooo. Don't treat the mentally ill. Protect their right to purchase AR 15s.
0 -
10 hours ago, DramatistDreamer said:
https://mobile.twitter.com/cavalorn/status/654934442549620736
I do feel sorry for her. In a way it's like blaming a homeless person for not knowing how to balance a checkbook. For whatever reason she's never engaged. Suddenly she's confronted with a singular issue that motivated her to engage for the first time. You never know what you don't know.
But im insanely gratified that she's suffering the consequences of her decision. Accountability is really big for conservatives. It's good they have to suffer as well.
0 -
4 hours ago, marceline said:
Hillary would've moved heaven and earth to get us closer to single payer. The GOP would be doing what they did to Obama but she would've tried her damndest. She was working on health care reform back when Obama was smoking weed in college. The ignorant fraud we have in the White House now claims that no one knew health care could be so complicated. Except one person knew better than anybody.
As would Bernie.
But you are so right. HRC was at the forefront long before anyone else was committed to reforming healthcare.
0 -
36 minutes ago, DRW50 said:
Is that based on gerrymandering?
It doesn't seem so. It's based on actual counties. Keeping in mind that densely populated counties show up the same as sparsely populated ones.
The article was mostly about how polarized voting has become. The more interesting graph was about how that's shifted over time.
"More than 61 percent of voters cast ballots in counties that gave either Clinton or Trump at least 60 percent of the major-party vote last November. That’s up from 50 percent of voters who lived in such counties in 2012 and 39 percent in 1992 — an accelerating trend that confirms that America’s political fabric, geographically, is tearing apart."
0 -
This scares me so much. I've about decided that the GOP promotes climate change less to benefit carbon fuel producers and more in hope rising sea levels will wipe out the remaining Democratic strongholds.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/purple-america-has-all-but-disappeared/?ex_cid=story-twitter
0 -
2 hours ago, JaneAusten said:
I think it's a bit disingenuous pushing aside voter suppression. It's no coincidence minority voting was down this election, the first major election since the court gutted the Voting Rights act. Simply because things happened before doesn't make even more blatant suppression acceptable. Interstate cross check which deleted millions of minorities from voter roles, voter ID law requirements, were all legislation that came after the decision by the supreme court to gut VRA and 18 states already had legislation ready to go to take advantage of that once the ruling came through. And it's not just the south. Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio were all part of that. Thousands of voters in the Milwaukee area were unable to vote because they didn't have the proper ID, one a 90 year old black woman who lived there for 50 years and was born at home so no birth certificate accessible who voted in every election up to that point. Wisconsin was ordered by a federal judge these people had to be given ID's within a 6 day time frame so they could vote, but not all the DMV's in Wisconsin followed this. What happened? Nothing. The state got away with disenfranchising those voters, mostly minority.
And I appreciate you sharing your experience. And I think some of us recognize these things. We've been hearing about the rural white voters for months now. Sadly nothing that this administration will do will help any of them unless poisoning streams with coal debris, cutting student free lunches, school voucher programs, will be considered beneficial to these communities.
Gerrymandering is an issue. It was when the dems were doing it and is still wrong and has been going on since the country was founded to varying degrees. The motives behind the dems doing it during Jim Crow are exactly the same as the motives today. And when the VRA happened, the Southern dems realigned themselves with the GOP ie; the southern strategy.
Not disingenuous in the least. Entirely candid. I wasn't pushing voter suppression aside as you characterized it.
0 -
12 hours ago, JaneAusten said:
1)But can we not pretend how much this election was about those poor white working class men. It's been done to death and WE ALL KNOW by reading the hundreds of articles about them. And not one about how Blacks and Latinos(including worklng class members) had their names removed from voter rolls, millions by the way, about how it's harder to get an id to vote in those states Clinton lost in in the upper Midwest, how they eliminated polling places in minority areas to discourage minorities from voting, early voting cut back, but what did we hear. How minority Voting, black and latino, was down this year. Not one word about why other than saying they weren't excited about Clinton. Really?
2)And on a side note, not picking on you, but why is URBAN now treated as a 4 letter word. It's like people who live in urban areas are not "Real Americans". People have been flocking out of those rural areas to urban areas for years now why? JOBS.
1). But voter suppression isn't new. The strategy was most egregious during Jim Crow and was openly pursued under Reagan. Yet it continued and was allowed to gather steam primarily through state governments even under Clinton and Obama and the Supreme Court is a co-conspirator. Gerrymandering districts is an equally troublesome reality, but southern Democrats were doing that long before the GOP embraced the tactic and unfortunately the Supreme Court rarely appears to rule against the states. Complaining about it (and the Electoral College) is the same as Bernie supporters complaining about super delegates IMO.
2). I don't feel picked on. Urban was a poor choice of words. I meant it simply to identify highly populated metropolitan areas, but the word urban has developed racial connotations. That's not at all how I intended it or thought of it. And I don't think it's a dirty word for most people. But it's become very clear to me that the concerns for most city dwellers are very different than for large swatches of lesser populated geography. And it's not entirely about jobs. It's about social issues as well. The hub(s) of most small towns and rural areas are the churches and the schools. Moving here was a culture shock and changed what "diversity" means to me. While people here are almost entirely white, they cross all kinds of socio-economic boundaries. The primary school my children attended was more than 70% free or reduced lunch. My daughter's best friend and her college roommate is a young man who is gay. Their other roommate also grew up with them. Her family are "bible-thumpers" and her dad is a bona-fide survivalist with a full arsenal in his basement who openly discusses how he's preparing for whatever constitutional or environmental crisis will inevitably befall. There's one family that basically has a compound on their own mountain where three generations live and have lived for a century. That's pretty diverse. And if I lived in Dallas I wouldn't know many (any?) people like these and I would have a very different view of them. Just like my neighbors don't know many minorities, my friends from the city don't socialize with farmers, or bus drivers or volunteer firefighters etc.
0 -
11 hours ago, ReddFoxx said:
At this point the overall political climate is going to do a lot of work for the Democrats and that is how it played out under Bush. Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 because Bush's approvals were low. Lots of those Trump voters are going to be voting Democratic in 2018 after they have learned their lesson the hard way and they won't be supporting him again in 2020. Politics is about 40% cause and effect, so pretty much all Democrats have to do is be prepared to take advantage of the coming wave in 2018.
I hope you are right, but it's a gamble to count on that. Unfortunately, I live in a county that voted for the orange filth 4-1. What I hear (wholly unscientific survey) are Republicans doubling down.
0 -
11 hours ago, marceline said:
I disagree. Bernie supporters don't want to shift the part because they don't care about the party. They care about Bernie. The Dems are a coalition. Neither Bernie nor his supporters are care about that. That's why they've fallen back on the call to get away from "identity politics." Little by little they would've thrown every constituency under the bus because that's what they did during his campaign. Putting the party in the hands of people who won't vote unless they get their balls tickled would've been a disaster. I mean look at how they're acting. Ellison is second in command and they're acting like he got a bucket of pig's blood dumped on him at prom. These are people who couldn't even be bothered to learn the rules for open vs. closed primaries and then when they did they claimed "rigging."
More people chose Hillary. Millions more chose her during the primary and millions more chose her during the general.
Well as a Bernie supporter, I can only speak for me. You're right to an extent. I don't care about the party in it's current configuration. I disagree that it's a coalition. It's more like a cadre. And that's why I remain an independent. As for the rest of your observations about Bernie supporters, I don't feel particularly wounded or disillusioned that the Democrats are going about business as usual even though they got their asses soundly kicked. The party needs to change. With or without Bernie supporters. Again speaking only for myself, I don't care so much that Bernie was defeated as I do that the Democratic Party refuses to acknowledge its failure. The party loyal blame everyone but the party leadership. That the party could not, or did not, field a candidate that could defeat the orange smear in America's underpants is on the party. Not Sanders. And that lack of awareness and ownership spells difficulty for the party moving forward IMO.
And as far as the millions who choseHillary, it wasn't lost on me that the concentration of her supporters was in urban areas. I drove 11 hours this past summer from West Virginia to Omaha Nebraska, and did not cross one county/district that was carried by Clinton. It's becoming very alt Hunger Games as I've said before. The Democrats can complain that those voters are racist, ignorant and voting against their own best interest, but that's mainly self pacifying. They will still need to find a way to get more of those votes.
0
The Politics Thread
in Off Topic Lounge
Posted
Some of you might be interested. Deray McKesson will be hosting a new podcast called Podsave The People. Just FYI.