The Politics Thread

[Vee]

And again, Assange was behind both.

[marceline]

France was smarter than we were.

 

 

[NothinButAttitude]

 

This is why I feel like we need our elections shortened. The fact that our election is so drawn out for so much to happen within it plays a pivotal role. 

 

I gotta commend the French media b/c they were on the shenanigans too. 

[DRW50]

 

Apparently they actually take their elections seriously. Our media sees them as a reality show and as great fun. Even now you can tell they get high on Trump and see this all as great fun. They are scum.

[NothinButAttitude]

 

And this is why Trump can easily push his fake news narrative b/c they are scum who feed off of him. I do commend our few (and I mean few) media outlets that call him out on his sh-t & think this is serious. 

[dragonflies]

I love her shade LMAO

 

 

[DramatistDreamer]

"France may have 99 problems (racism/marginalization in the banliues, for instance) but voting for fascism ain't one".

-- JayZ maybe right now.

[dragonflies]

 

 

 

[Wales2004]

I am glad that those from the U.S. far-right involved in the online attempt to damage Macron failed.

 

Paul Ryan was smirking comfortably on ABC where he knew he could ramble on without answering George Stephanopoulos on that farce being just a tax cut for the wealthy. I would have shut him down the moment he didn't say "yes" or "no." He let him go on about Obamacare this and that because the answer to most questions about his healthcare plan is always something negative about the AHCA. The only "positive" thing he can say is that they kept their promise. I guess the devil must be really happy about that.

 

Dianne Feinstein said something about thirteen white men and while I believe that their should be a diverse group of people involved (as in people who represent or are cognizant of different situations), there has to be a better way to get this point across. I think one of the problems is the assumption that everyone in any labeled group is all on the same page. Just, for instance, sticking women on a panel does not mean that issues affecting certain women will be addressed. All women (no matter the race or other background factors) do not have the same problems and may be oblivious to certain things or flat out don't care if they are not personally affected.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Wales2004
corrected typo

[marceline]

 

That's an intelligent and nuanced approach. That's not what Feinstein is doing. She's putting out a simple talking point and IMO it's a good one. #13WhiteMen

[Wales2004]

It might work for some people but it doesn't work for me and that's fine because we're not all going to agree on anything.

 

I don't really care whether it's 13 white men or black men or any men, as long as they are trying for everyone--especially for those who need it most, but they obviously aren't.  And the women in their outer circle don't seem to be any better than they are.

 

I would like to see a diverse group of true advocates for the people and not just diversity for the sake of diversity.

 

I am not up on the political terminology of these days and I'm probably better off remaining simple minded but in an attempt to learn what identity politics is, I came across this:

 

http://www.salon.com/2017/05/07/stop-blaming-identity-politics-with-liberals-like-these-who-needs-the-right-wing/#comments

 

I understand that some people may strongly believe that figuring out why people voted the way they did will help in future elections but while some may have been driven by hate, others had different reasons and probably not the kind that can be useful.

 

Politicians willfully divide people because it's more advantageous to have everyone in blocs. Harmony would wreck everything.

 

I still don't get the whole need to focus on the wwc, but that's because I don't understand what anyone took from them that wasn't take from the working class in general. Why would I want to be a member of a party that implies that the wwc are supposed to have greater advantages than any other people in the working class, which is really what focusing on them because they've been abandoned (in favor of what I don't know), sounds like? This kind of thing makes party polarity a necessity.

 

Maybe I'm having a non-partisan meltdown.

[JaneAusten]

So it seems the turnout in the French election was down which some felt was a concern for Macron. Doesn't seems like it mattered. Still their "low" vote of 66% is still miraculous compared to our terrible turnouts. Macron actually beat Le Pen 3% higher than what he was polled at.

[DRW50]

This piece about the debate between Macron and Le Pen and how much of a backlash there was against Le Pen, with media outlets calling her a liar, just reminded me of how far behind we now are, because if this had been the US, it would have been all kinds of "both sides" type comment and no media criticism of her whatsoever. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/world/europe/france-debate-marine-le-pen-emmanuel-macron.html

[DramatistDreamer]

 

The French certainly don't have voter suppression to contend with as happens here.

 

[Cat]

 

As a French voter, the lower turnout was noticeable in the second round. First-round lines to vote were I was (London, where almost 1 million French people live) were PACKED. The 25% that didn't go actually REFUSED to go, to send a message of some kind to the political class. That message seems to be taken into account by Macron in his speech last night where he acknowledged differing and polarised viewpoints. France has some acute economic and social problems, and of course the terrorism threat, but I feel like people voted for Macron because they were tired of the pettiness, spite and violent language of the campaign. They were tired of the partisanship. Maybe that is why he scored higher than estimated.

 

Now turning to US politics... is there any way to resist/block this awful, misogynist, discriminatory AHCA?! 

Please register in order to view this content