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

    6818

  • DRW50

    5991

  • DramatistDreamer

    5521

  • Khan

    3465

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Just started the May 27 episode and first thing I see is that Willow got an ugly haircut since hte last time i watched
    • I'm pretty sure he was. But point taken. GL really had a thing for masked and costumed balls/parties in the '80's. Everyone looks fabulous, but those poor costume designers.
    • Still here ^^ Come on Prime Video, it's due to bring it back!
    • Got through the eighth season, and it was... painful. 

      Please register in order to view this content

    • I agree 100% with both you and Mitch64.  Soaps have been going further and further off-course since 1981. TPTB just don't have a fundamental understanding of what makes soap fans so loyal. I'd love to be on a writing team with both of you.  Maybe we could put together a real soap opera, and show people what its all about...  
    • They weren't in town, but Fletcher worked at the paper (and we saw anniversary Journal headlines for the 50th, although I don't remember if Roger was one of them), and I'd think Alex would have at least heard of him due to the damage he did to Spaulding only a few years before her return to the fold. I know I have to remember it's not real life, of course.
    • YES. The videos being uploaded to Spauldingfield are almost to the point where Alan is reintroduced. They're already talking about the guy he pretends to be, and yes, he returns at a masked ball. In fact, that masked ball is almost beat for beat the same as the masked ball where Alex was introduced! Get a new schtick. Before the Kobe era, that's pretty much what they did. Characters would just show up. Maybe other characters would talk about them for a while--the Chamberlains, Tony, Maureen, Andy, Kelly, Carrie--but then they would just appear. When Hope came back, she simply knocked on Bert's door and said something like, "Hi, Grandma, I'm home again." No particular fanfare. Sometimes it would be a bit dramatic--Jennifer and Morgan were introduced when Mike accidentally crashed into their car, for instance, and Alan and Elizabeth were introduced through Jackie's flashbacks when she was remembering giving up Phillip for adoption. Nola was involved in the Roger return. Roger's return in 1980 was very dramatic, but in a way that made total sense. He was trying to kidnap a child, so dressing up as a clown did not seem crazy. The mask bit was not only silly, it didn't even make sense. Alex never knew him, so there was no reason for him to be masked in front of her. Yeah, she knew OF him, but there's that phenomenon called cognetive dissonance. If you see someone outside of an expected situation, you probably won't recognize them, especially if you never met them in person and think they're dead. I bet a CIA spook like Roger would be familiar with that concept. And he didn't have to be skulking around SF for months. Again, I will cut Long a little slack--it was not her idea to bring back Roger, she was told to do it. She never wrote for the character. It was something that was not planned. They originally went to Zaslow to offer him the role of Alan. He, of course, turned them down because that was a ridiculous idea, but then he suggested coming back as Roger. At such short notice, it's not strange his return was not handled well.
    • Eh...but neither had been in town. Know the name Roger Thorpe? Sure. But Alex would have gone crazy trying to memorize all of Alan's co-conspirators/lovers/wives and Fletch didn't even know Roger/Adam was on the island, IIRC. But who knew or should've known each other is always a little dicey when people come back to town. 
    • I wouldn't call Tomas' cuts a modern cut. They appear to be a slim/extreme slim cut⏤cut slimmer down the sides, with a higher armhole, which pulls up/out, depending on the fit of the person's body. Again, I feel like Ms Featherstone is buying to fit the wrong parts of the body; instead of buying to fit their widest parts (shoulders), she's buying things to fit their middle/waist (which is the easiest to ultimately fix without a complete re-cut), and it shows in the finished product. And the only reason it irks me is because I worked in suit sales for nearly ten years, and I notice these things immediately. The fashion(s) on this soap are miles ahead of three of the four others (I like the fashions from Y&R), but the tailoring is a choice, especially where the men are concerned.
    • There probably would have been a good chance they knew of him, especially with his ties to Spaulding and his being involved in so much scandal (meaning there would be plenty of photos and articles around they both would have seen), but I agree the mask was silly, clearly just a TV moment.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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