Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Please register in order to view this content

 

I cannot wait to toss this in the face of people I know who just LOVE Mike Pence and tout him as some good, Christian man. 

Please register in order to view this content

 

Once all this sh-t comes out, the entire election ought to be nullified and an instant, special election ought to occur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 45.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    6816

  • DRW50

    5988

  • DramatistDreamer

    5521

  • Khan

    3459

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

Are there people who love Mike Pence? I had a Republican friend in Indiana (A white woman who owns a restaurant in Indianapolis. We ran with the same crew in high school.) who DESPISED Pence. I don't know what he did but somehow he managed to even turn off parts of the Repub base. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No. Well I am sure there are some but Indiana - big no. My sister in law lives in southern Indiana and driving through Indiana last spring there were "Dump Pence" signs all over. I also have a very conservative friend who lives there who hated him.

 

Mitch Daniels former Governor was very popular but was non social issues. He was a traditional fiscal republican and had a lot of success in brining business into the state. My friend was a big supporter. Daniels endorsed Pence then of course Pence came in an was nothing like Daniels. He was the author of that disastrous legislation allowing discrimination by businesses to LGBT people based on religious freedom. And you know how popular that law was - it was rolled back. Indiana lost business as a result so of course residents hated him for it. He would have NEVER been re-elected. As a president I don't see him succeeding. He has the charisma of a rock.

 

I've been told the new governor is more in the mold of Daniels but really I have no clue now.

Edited by JaneAusten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

^ I think Bill Clinton was right and the party shouldn't have completely given up on the WWC.  If they can appeal to both the base and the WWC going forward they should.  That doesn't mean they should put the WWC at the center of everything or cater to them over others.  I would just say treat them like another part of a larger coalition, instead of choosing to concede that part of the electorate.

 

Maybe it's too late though. Maybe there is just this hopeless split and the economic elite have managed to divide us for the foreseeable future.  It's one the most frustrating aspects of politics to me. How can anyone who isn't filthy rich resent the poor of any race more than the ultra wealthy? I'll never understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's an issue of rhetoric. Hillary's platform was better for the white working class than Trump's, but it wasn't the substance that mattered. Most people didn't bother to look at the platforms, but judged by the rhetoric and Trump's angry, blaming tone resonating with a lot of people. Obama was the reverse of Trump, but he was still an outsider who could appeal to people with rhetoric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This to me this is the misnomer and you can tell me if I am all wet. I don't think they have given up they just haven't been top priority and I do think Clinton did address this(no one listened) in terms of re-education just plain education. We all have to first acknowledge that it's unlikely anyone is going to get a job out of high school to single handedly support an entire family. I was reading the website for Tom Prigg an ex vet who is going to run democratic in a gerrymandered red district in southwestern PA. Part of it former coal jobs, steel jobs which has been decimated. A good part of his message is education and that education is more trade and vocational(high schools don't have vocational education anymore). I'm not blaming the High Schools but many of the skills required are too advanced/complex to teach in high school. Skills required for the advanced mfg jobs that do exist and trade jobs. 

 

I think Clinton's plan did include education but the message never got communicated. I personally think until that is acknowledged it's an endless cycle of perhaps those same people drifting between democrats and republicans when those jobs don't materialize as they didn't with Reagan, Bush, Clinton(yes), Bush, and Obama.  Things like getting rid of TPP and NAFTA aren't going to solve the mftg jobs gone. Bill Clinton can talk about not giving up the WWC but what exactly did he do for them. Yes he connected to them, could talk to them, the economy was booming under his second term, but were those people any better off? I don't think so and it just got progressively worse.

Edited by JaneAusten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

^ I think one thing that hurt Hillary is that the working class want jobs period. I don't think she had it in her to tell the big lies about jobs that Trump did and people just aren't ready to hear the hard truth on that front yet. Like we've said in this thread many times, no one can bring back high paying coal and manufacturing jobs.

 

It's going to take good communicators like Bill Clinton and Obama to make people understand that we need to accept other ways to fight income inequality.  More refundable tax credits and shoring up the social safety net seem like the low hanging fruit to me, but getting people to accept that is the difficulty. One thing that the Republicans are right about is work brings dignity to a lot of people. It's where a large part of their self esteem and purpose comes from. Trump got a lot of mileage from convincing people he could bring that back. And sure, maybe all of those people were stupid for believing him, but I still feel bad for them.

 

As for Bill Clinton's record of helping the lower classes, I can't claim to be an expert.  I was just starting college when he was elected. I remember it as a time of optimism, but his policies I can name off hand did more harm then good. His attempts at welfare reform seemed to have hurt the truly poor, especially single mothers. I think he's actually apologized for some of his crime initiatives because they had such a destructive effect on minority communities. Hopefully, someone else on the board remembers the good he did. I'm sure it exists.

 

Oh, and the reason I said Hillary gave up on the WWC is because there were stories that came out right after the campaign about tensions between Bill Clinton and her campaign strategists over that.  We discussed it here at the time.  They told her that the WWC had gone over to the Republicans and were never coming back (which I refuse to believe) so she shouldn't waste her time, but Bill wanted to her to at least try. Who knows if it would have made any difference in that crazy election anyway?  I want to read that book that just came out about her campaign "Shattered". I'm sure it has more details about her strategy. It's all too fresh though. I'll have to wait a couple of years to read it.

 

Edited by Juliajms
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Oh yeah I agree with all of this. If you follow the liberal rednecks they basically said all of this. The handout aspect is something I believe many democrats just don't understand. And it's one big reason  the New Deal was successful. Maybe it didn't turn things around dramatically but Roosevelt and the program which put people to work gave them hope and dignity.  But we also have to acknowledge I think that the destruction of unions was probably the largest loss to working class people. And for the democrats their departure has also made it impossible to talk to those folks. I think that loss has been tremendous and people underestimate it. The article says democrats say talking to. to try and win those voters back is likely too hard. Maybe that's because the people who used to do a lot of this were the local union folks, people who worked side by side with them, etc.

 

Oh and I am not discounting Bill Clinton's words and I agree with it. But I am not sure Hillary was ever the person who could do that. Biden yeah I think so. And yes I guess Sanders possibly.  I honestly don't believe the WWC are gone. Why? Because those so called Reagan democrats no longer exist. And not any republican has any kind of solution to help them. The issue is communicating a plan and frankly the democrats have and still do now stink at it.

 

And I don't want to sound like I am discounting the mistakes in Clinton's campaign. There were many. And we all know if Trump lost, we would not be hearing about how he sucked as a candidate, etc we would still be hearing how close a race he made it. And in that case I'm not sure I would disagree with them because him winning or even losing a close race would have sent  the same message.

 

EDIT: Oh and after I wrote this I remember a point an article I read in WaPo after the election said. And it nailed it. Democrats can talk to the head, Republicans talk to the heart. It doesn't matter if the truth is twisted. Also keep the messaging simple and something that will resonate. Obama's message of hope and change, Sanders in some ways used the same approach(although not as charismatic) keeping his messaging fairly simple. Wall Street taxation, minimum wage, and fair trade(to me that's what his "bad trade deal" message translated to). It doesn't really matter if your policies will help these people if you can't communicate in a way to rally people enthusiastically to your side. (HRC).

Edited by JaneAusten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So Trump invited Duterte to the White House without clearing it with the State Department, huh? Two awful men unite.

 

Trump did not clear Duterte invitation with State Department: report

 

Well, here's a clue as to the timing of the meeting.

Edited by DramatistDreamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I can definitely see that airing the same week as The Love Boat colliding with an iceberg and sinking while crossing the North Atlantic on the Titanic anniversary with a “Who lives and dies?!” Promo next to Mr Belvedere being blackmailed over his wanted fugitive status back in the UK

      Please register in order to view this content

        Agree with you both. I am also going assume that while Hotel may had some big numbers the first 2 seasons the demographics weren’t great. Reason I say this is I distinctly remember my parents watching St Elsewhere and/or The Equalizer after Dynasty.    I still don’t get Hotel’s designation as a primetime soap opera either lol. ABC should have aired Paper Dolls in the 10/9 slot on Wednesdays in the fall of 1984 to give that show some more legs.    Obviously ABC was eyeing a double bill night in the same vein as Dallas & Falcon Crest and that might have worked better than leaving Paper Dolls to the wolves in an untested timeslot.
    • I tend to stay out of EP discussions, simply because I rarely know who EPs when. And they all have their good and bad sides. But how are we supposed to judge JFP on anything other than what we see? I didn't know she was a director or a music director. (and unlike say, Chris Goutman, I never saw her credited as anything other than an EP) Specifically in the matter of casting Crampton, she took credit for it (or at Crampton gave her credit for it, whatever) and it was arguably, one of the worst recasts of the '90's (and either as bad or worse than the actress she fired).  She lost two important actresses in '92 and still decided to kill Maureen.  She had a wildly uneven tenure at GL. It's no wonder she's polarizing. But it kind of proves a point--great soap is always a that rare combination of everything clicking at the same time. 
    • A degree does not make one an expert at their job, it just shows that you can follow directions from a technical standpoint.  It doesn't mean that they're creative. JFP was all about the look of a show without considering that technical beauty can only carry a show so far if there is nothing interesting to go along with it.  Equality means calling out flaws equally in both genders. 
    • NBC or P&G was even fool enough to take a full page ad for two consecutive weeks in TV Guide promoting this horrible storyline.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • JFP has had more defense for her decades of terrible producing than many male producers ever had.
    • It makes sense that she got a degree in directing. I've always said she should have been a director. I think she works better at the technical aspects of the show. I think her problem is the emotion/heart of a show.  She always guts the heart of the show she's on and she makes decisions that stop longtime viewers from watching a show. I don't think it's sexism to call that out especially as I've said similar things about Conboy. I've called out Rauch for much worse. 
    • "Aunt Blanche" first appears toward the end of this episode, about 57 minutes in.

      Please register in order to view this content

         
    • You're probably right. They may have just wanted edits of certain characters. Hopefully the rest is around.
    • Of course!

      Please register in order to view this content

      I'm wondering if there were bits cut from this footage, because to me it seems that may be the case. At 11:23, Laurie tells her psychiatrist that the bar phoned and told her Mark got into a fight and needs to be picked up. It starts to fade to the next scene, you hear some different music begin and get cut off between the static, and where you'd expect to see the aftermath of the fight, we cut back to a later scene of Laurie in bed worrying about what's happening. The credits at the end also show that more than Mark, Laurie and Dr. Northcote should have been in this episode. Another character, Brody, played by Ed Setrakian, is mentioned but not shown. If this is the case, perhaps the original fan who saved this episode has the additional scenes.
    • Anyway… It’s a shame that the video that depicted Leticia’s death was removed from YT.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy