The Politics Thread

[JaneAusten]

Northern Virginia is definitely more progressive. I don't even think you can consider it a swing state any longer. Northern Virginia has a lot of young professionals/college educated folks due to the economic growth in that area. Not much different than an area like Charlotte.

 

 

I don't give Moore one bit of credit. He's one of those negative leftists who allow the white male media to influence his perspective and now he has the gall to say it was him and his call to action that has helped sway people towards Clinton. He can STFU and take a seat. I am so fricking tired of people discounting the votes of women of all colors, blacks, latinos, Asians, muslims, jews, and yes even college educated white males who know better. This year especially has completely turned me off to the entire MSM. He pulled the same bullshit in 2012 running all over telling people Romney was winning and took credit for getting people energized to vote for Obama.

Edited October 22, 2016 by JaneAusten

[DramatistDreamer]

Thanks, @JaneAusten . I knew there was a progressive part of VA that had become more Democratic leaning over the last several years.

 

You know, I really haven't paid much attention to Moore since Fahrenheit 9/11, TBH. I knew that he was a Sanders supporter but I haven't followed him so I am not truly aware of any of his comments although I have come to understand through social media that he annoyed a lot of Dems. Since I haven't seen the documentary, I can't tell whether he is pivoting out of professional expediency or whether his pivot is truly through some type of new understanding.  

Although I do believe that people are allowed to change their minds and perceptions, you're right, it matters little what he thinks of Clinton at this point and if he's known for these types of 'political pivots', he gets even less of my time and consideration. I guess I really haven't given him much thought since I realize that I can't remember whether or not I have watched his last couple of documentaries. Oh well.

[DramatistDreamer]

 

 

 

 

If you don't laugh, you cry, right? 

[dragonflies]

DEAD AND BURIED

[marceline]

One thing Bernie's campaign really opened my eyes to was the toxic strain of white and male privilege running through the left. The horrible gendered attacks on Clinton. The harassment of John Lewis. The Susan Sarandons and their blithe willingness to throw our most vulnerable under the bus just because Bernie lost. It's funny to see some of those people criticize Trump for claiming the process is rigged when Sanders did the same damn thing.

[MissLlanviewPA]

Eh, MIchael Moore warned people awhile ago about the kind of power Trump might have in this election, to keep Dems from being TOO confident, pointing out how voters like ones in his home state of Michigan, for example, felt hurt enough by the economy to possibly still vote for Trump in droves.

...Of course, like I said, that was back in July. If he's still saying something like that now, after everything that has come out about him this month, then yeah, I'm going to side eye him a little more. (Even though obviously many Trumpsters/Trumpettes out there  have only dug their heels in. Sigh.)

But the stats of women coming out to vote early warms my heart, for sure. I feel so good about that.  

Edited October 22, 2016 by MissLlanviewPA

[JaneAusten]

A great column in the NYT about how Trump has not discourage women but has helped re-incite the feminist movement and how his actions have called out to women across this country.  I truly believe this election is going to be the rise up call from women and we are the group who will help Clinton win in a landslide. If you don't believe the impact this is having on women, talk to some of your neighbors or colleagues. My mothers retirement community has a Hillary Clinton for President coalition and these are people over 65. And it's the majority of the residents.  And that doesn't mean everyone is a Trump supporter but the record turnout by women will not be due to wanting to vote for him, trust me. 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/opinion/thank-you-donald-trump.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

 

[Juliajms]

I don't agree. Trump is saying there is mass voter fraud and the election is being stolen from him. Bernie was saying the process by which people are chosen as the nominee is rigged. Two totally different issues, imo. The type of rigging that Bernie is talking about is backroom politics, something most people hold their nose and accept as part of the political machine. It seems pretty self evident that back room deals are made to decide who gets the most party support.  It's unfortunate, but it doesn't completely undermine the notion of democracy. What Trump is talking about makes us sound like a banana republic and it's incredibly dangerous.  Bernie never denied that HRC won by a legitimate vote of the people.

[Vee]

I think that strain was out there as early as '08-09. Not just because of the Hillary or Bust crew, which did briefly exist, but more importantly in the online left which had been so energized during the Bush years. When Obama came out of relative nowhere - as, it must be said, a younger black man - a bunch of online white, largely older leftists became extremely incensed that this guy was not doing what they said.

 

They were aggrieved enough that the Democratic leadership did not fulfill their Internet fantasies of Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc. being hauled out of the capitol in leg irons headed for the Hague, but when you added a relative newcomer to the mix, and a black man, it made for a toxic combination of intense entitlement, curdled idealism, and vaguely defined racism. And it continued for several years - even now, in some online pockets - where the dedicated Internet left came down on Obama almost immediately for being a 'shill' who didn't destroy the banks, arrest Bush and institute the public option with a magic wand.

 

The bulk of the party has come to love the Obamas, but there's still not that much daylight between a certain element of the far left and the far right. There are still outrage pundits out there like Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald who never grew up or grew out of the Bush years, and consider any liberal or progressive politician who does not meet their impossible ideological standards to be the worse enemy than Donald Trump, and consider America to be a dystopic hell to be perpetually shamed for not catching up with their strain of thought quickly enough. Greenwald was all but drummed out of serious discussions in the later Bush years because he proved impossible for anyone to get along with, but he had a comeback by leaning on the quasi-racist far left element and Snowden over the last five years. And this year you have angry loons like Michael Tracey from Vice slowly metamorphosizing from an aggrieved Berniebro to almost a Trump surrogate on Twitter day after day. Every piece of bad news about Trump is met with a retort about Hillary and the oligarchy.

Edited October 22, 2016 by Vee

[JaneAusten]

I don't discount what Bernie said but frankly he also acted as if he were entitled to that support which was a bit hypocritical considering he only became a democrat to run for president. If his ideals were so pristine, why not run as an independent, which is what he is. My biggest issue with Sanders was how he discounted huge segments of the democratic base. He called blacks low information voters and really did nothing to appeal to many of the core constituencies of the party, pandering to the white leftist idealists. I'm not discounting his appeal or movement, it's important, and he and his supporters should be proud they got the platform changed.  But there are some who will never be placated. And it's those same people who only come out to vote once every 4 years and do absolutely nothing to help or support candidates in midterms when it matters just as much. And then complain when Obama couldn't do what they wanted.

Yes he said that in July, then said in August Trump was intentionally trying to lose, and in Sept he changed his tune again saying democrats were letting him get ahead. First of all Trump was NEVER ahead. And it was Clinton's first debate performance that solidified her lead. Second self defeating IMO is not a call for action. And for someone who is so concerned about Michigan, he hasn't lifted a finger to help residents from his hometown of Flint has he? He's the worst type of democrat, only active and involved when what he thinks he says matters. I would love to know why he also disappears in between presidential elections. We never hear from him during midterms either.

[JaneAusten]

Oh another "love piece" from the AP on Clinton, ensuring that once she's elected she will still be attacked by the press and media who allegedly she has in her pocket

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/for-clinton-struggle-to-change-public-perception-persists/ar-AAjg9T3?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

 

[Juliajms]

I'm not disagreeing with the bulk of what you've said here. All I'm saying is I think questioning the fairness and nature of the party system is a world apart from someone saying that they will win the vote, but the election will be stolen from them. Honest people can disagree about the fairness of the party system. Claiming that the actual election is a rigged event without the slightest evidence (in fact all evidence is to the contrary) is a whole other matter. 

 

One thing this election has done is made me realize maybe the establishment isn't always so bad. Do I think having power concentrated in the hands of the few is great, nope. But when that broke down on the Republican side we got a Trump. I shudder to think what would have happened if he had been just a bit more savvy.

Edited October 22, 2016 by Juliajms

[DRW50]

I read a lengthy screed from Taibbi about how terrible it was because Trump had ruined the chance of moving away from the two-party system and that this would have happened without him. It's a fantasy - a fantasy I would laugh at if it weren't people who should know better pushing this on young people who don't. If Trump hadn't been in this election, it would have been Hillary vs someone like Rubio, that would have been very close. Third party candidates would have had no chance, whether it be Johnson or Stein (both incompetent - in her case dangerous too), or if their Saint Bernie had run third party, that would have just given Rubio the keys to the White House.

 

There is never any good time for a third party. Even countries that have active third parties have seen their foundations and strengths steadily eroded in large part because of this (the Lib Dems teaming up with the Tories in the UK and helping grease the wheels for a full Tory takeover; the Le Pens pushing France further and further to the right; the current push further to the right in Germany, etc.). Third parties benefit conservatives. They don't benefit liberals or liberal ideas. 

 

I'm tired of middle-aged fantasies being given so much weight and slapped around with a fresh coat of paint just in time to do damage. One of the few good things about Trump is that there was no time for any of this false equivalence once he blew up post-primary. 

[JaneAusten]

I don't disagree with you but there are times when the outlier wins. Obama was not a true outlier but he certainly wasn't the party's preferred pick in 2008 and he won.  Had a version of Sanders come along who had more widespread cross appeal who knows how the election would have turned out. As for Trump, his nomination was the result of years of GOP obstruction which even now they don't get. But I do agree with you that there is a huge difference between the party vehemently backing one candidate versus outright rigging. I do think had the GOP gotten behind Kasich, a governor with a fairly decent success record(not that I like him at all) he  could have been easily successful despite Trump.

[dragonflies]