Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

 

Many on the right with big money use their money to build up and invest their causes. Those on the left often seem more likely to give token amounts of money to causes of the day, while their policies and views are in many ways antithetical to a true progressive view. Jeff Bezos being the latest example.

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

    3458

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

I admire your optimism. Trump has said and done things that would destroyed previous presidents politically, but he still has his base and conservative political machine behind him. They are in the process of destroying social programs, and deregulating everything that was created by the New Deal, the Great Society and Obama era regulations and will either privatize it or hand it over to religious organizations. The gerrymandering, the disenfranchising voters, The Senate rubbing stamping Trump's federal judges, and the SCOTUS is a heart attack or a stroke or away from being a conservative dominated court for a generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What choice do we have. Sit back and let them gut it for eternity?  This country was run by the oligarchy and backroom deals before Teddy Roosevelt came in and busted it up. We then went through years of deregulation and conservatism until FDR came along. We have the New Deal programs primarily because so many Americans supported FDR doubling the size of the Supreme Court because they were so conservative, so they started ruling in his favor. Yes I agree with everything you said. But I still believe most people in this country are somewhere in the middle and beg for compromise and effective leadership. And I am optimistic that people, particularly women, have woken up. Time will tell I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think it depends on how you define that.  I would say that if you compare the US to most industrialized western societies we are a deeply conservative country.  That doesn't mean there are more Republicans in our country.

 

All you have to do is look at how hard it is to maintain any kind of social safety net to see how deeply our puritanical roots go. A lot of people still believe that if you don't work you shouldn't eat. Even Bill Clinton went in for catastrophic welfare reform. 

 

When was the last time an admitted atheist was elected to office? The people who are elected are largely trying to codify their religious beliefs. Then you have our schools, where some kids are still being taught Creation. It's insane.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think this is a center-right country and that far right religious and financial figures have been skillful in using the media and the GOP to slowly but surely move the needle further and further to the right. I also think that many on the left are more likely to give up or turn against each other, while many in the middle don't care. That means the right get what they want. I noticed again after Democrats voted to end the shutdown that liberal websites were pushing "Democrats don't care about us" articles. And they will depress turnout, as they always do. That's much less common with the right, where they will still show up and vote even if deep down they know the person doesn't go along with their best interest. 

 

It's also much easier to motivate some based on hate and fear than it is on ideals and hopes. 

 

What the Republicans do is run based on making sure you hate the right people. That is your existence. Even if you lose everything, as long as the people you hate have also lost everything, then you're doing fine. 

 

Democrats still don't know what to run on or who to be. They don't have the heart to just let everything be burned down and do their best to sabotage Trump. And even if they did, it wouldn't work out for them the way it did for the GOP, because the media wouldn't let it anyway. The media, for all their anti-Trump huffing and puffing, is still dewy-eyed for the GOP, and struggle to hide it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

They've really been so successful with this, it's sad.  The whole "alternate facts" concept was been very useful for them along with Fox brainwashing.  I've always seen them as having influence on the nutty fringes, but I'm starting to see that was wishful thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There is a great documentary by Ana Duvernay "13th" on the 13th amendment. Much of what was shown were things I knew but not to the extent presented. The divisive strategy has been in place since Nixon and his southern strategy along with his law and order mantra, pitting not only African Americans but the "hippies" in the anti war movement as those responsible the lack of order in this country against everyone else.  It's been working in various variations since.

 

And Bill Clinton won in 92 partially by continuing this "Law and Order" premise. The Crime Bill was devastating and we suffered the largest increase in the prison population under his presidency than under Reagan, Bush, or Obama. That was something I didn't know. It makes me sadly laugh at how anyone considered him some kind of savior for minorities. Heck even Newt Gingrich was in the film contributing and being honest about how the "others" have been scapegoated by the political establishment over the years for leverage.

Edited by JaneAusten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Coincidentally, I'm reading "The New Jim Crow" by Michelle Alexander right now.  It's terrible to realize how far the injustices go. Not that I ever doubted they existed, but the pervasiveness is absolutely shameful.

 

As for Bill Clinton, I wonder if he really understood the consequences his crime bill or his welfare reform bill.  Do you know if he's spoken on these issues much recently? I know Hillary apologized for the super predator remarks.

Edited by Juliajms
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.




  • Recent Posts

    • It's such a delicious set of circumstances that I'm actually a little surprised that I can't think of ones that exactly match. I've just got a couple of close but no cigars (the reveal wasn't public, like when Alexis told Dominique at her and Garrett's engagement party that Garrett lied about being married; or the revealer didn't come up with the idea of the party). Maybe I need to think some more about it.
    • Not too shabby, making her mark in only six episodes. There's a project for the soap historians -- characters with the least episodes/most impact.
    • Which could make sense , except that we have seen Mariah function for years w/o any real residue pain from her upbringing. Josh decides to randomly make it a thing, when a good writer might foreshadow that for months. It's not like he's just arrived at the show. He's been there for years . Everything seems to be thought out only a few weeks ahead. It's like Phyllis all freaky from being kidnapped when she has done a million other things that didn't seem to bother her at all.
    • Unrelated, sort of, but he looks absolutely nothing like Amanda Setton or Dominic Zamprogna so it's kind of hilarious they decided to make Gio their kid.  It's very clear this was not the original origin story for Gio when they cast him. He is a very handsome guy though. 
    • I tend to agree, although going back to OLTL, Frank has so often cast guys who are meant to be attractive yet come across as cold and dead, I'm surprised he managed to get one who has a bit of a pulse.
    • For all I care, the boy can parade around in a g-string.  It won't make this show suck any less.
    • AMC was about a decade later so things may have changed by then, although maybe they never approached her anyway. She joined Santa Barbara in 1985, when they didn't seem interested in bringing back Hope. SB ended in late 1992, so JFP could have asked her back, but I doubt she did. For as much as JFP clearly had some use for Rick Hearst given that she hired him on GH and kept him around as often as she could, I don't think she ever used Alan-Michael well. I can't see Elvera as Delia, but she could have worked well as Faith - she had a glimpse of a strong personality alongside warmth, which only one Faith ever managed (Catherine Hicks).
    • IIRC, FC reruns aired for awhile on Lifetime, way before the network became the Women in Peril Channel, lol.
    • PAM!! YES!!! You have jogged my memory. She worked at Cedars. She's mentioned in a write-up of Tim's history in the show. It says she was a nurse, but I seem to remember she was a secretary at Cedars, working for either Ed or Sarah. (It's almost 50 years ago, so I definitely could be wrong). I'm certain she was an unwed mother. I recall reading an interview with the actress, Maureen Silliman (I looked it up, that's her correct name, LOL). She started on the show just before the Dobsons started writing it. She was shocked to get a script that said her character had been pregnant since she hit town. I remember a scene where she told Tim she was going to leave SF for a better job for her daughter's sake (really, I think she was upset he was serious about Rita). I don't remember them getting married and leaving town, but according to "Who's Who in Springfield" that's how the characters were written out. Mattson did All My Children for several years, so she might have been persuadable. Here's an interesting factoid I recently learned on these message boards: Elvera Roussel was in the running to play Delia on RH when the show first hit the air. How wild is it that Mattson played Delia for a while? (Though from what I saw of her performance, she was miscast). It's hard to know if Roussel would have been a good Delia. You'd think she would have been better suited to playing Faith Coleridge, but who knows? She didn't get to show a whole lot of range as Hope.
    • If I were to do an EON reboot, I think I would start at the beginning, with Mike Karr leaving the police force in order to begin a new career as an attorney, and dealing with his wife, Sara's, crooked family.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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