The Politics Thread

[DramatistDreamer]

At the risk of undercutting the entire discussion, I have to be honest--I'm indifferent to the plight of both of these women, especially when I dig into the statistics that almost 5,000 people died in Puerto Rico due to neglect by the U.S. in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria (I almost wrote Katrina) and from what I'm reading and hearing from friends in Latin America, drug trafficking has gone up in the last year after decreasing steadily over the last several years (the U.S. has basically absented itself from action in helping secure key ports, including those connected to Miami/S. Florida). That's not even including the opioid crisis.

 

I don't use, nor do I believe in using the word in question but honestly, if this was a woman who was completely marginalized I would certainly care but I can't claim any outrage over someone who just got multiple Chinese trademarks and continues to feather her nest at the public's expense, while others struggle to survive. 

This might sound coarse but I don't really care what either of these women's plights are--they are capable of fending for themselves.

 

And then there's this.

 

Edited June 1, 2018 by DramatistDreamer

[Juliajms]

What happens when we take SNAP away from drug offenders. No surprise they end up back in prison.  Watching our society get worse by the day is so disheartening.

 

https://theintercept.com/2018/06/01/food-stamps-drug-conviction-snap-welfare/

That's the real issue to me.  I could GAF about Ivanka.  We saw what she did in Israel. We saw that picture she posted of herself with her baby when other mothers were seeing their children ripped away via her father's policies.  Only an evil, selfish person could do that. Anyone who still thinks she is in any way interested in being a moderating force is kidding themselves.

[marceline]

Sam Bee was the first person to call out her fellow white women for voting for Trump so she's going to have to work pretty hard to lose my support. I find it interesting how Bee like Michelle Wolf after the WHCD seem to draw fire when rightly calling out their fellow white women for being complicit. I feel like there's a whole "race traitor" element to this coupled with a smackdown by the patriarchy but since I'm not in the demo I can't quite wrap my head around it.

 

I keep thinking of the Blackish episode dealing with the election where Dre discovers that his white woman coworker voted for Trump and he said that he was surprised that she would betray the sisterhood. She responded, "White women aren't sisters. We hate each other." When you look at it through that lens, a lot of what happened in 2016 and beyond makes more sense.

 

 

 

I consider the response to Puerto Rico one of the saddest, lowest things I have ever witnessed in my life. It's heartbreaking.

 

I keep thinking about the people on the left who swung from Bernie to Trump ostensibly because they wanted to "shake things up" and/or "burn it all down." Puerto Rico is the result of that kind of thinking. Suffering, death, and a generation lost because of instability and displacement. (See also: Katrina)

 

FYI, I'm hoping to visit Puerto Rico when Lin-Manuel Miranda brings "Hamilton" to the island, if not before.

Edited June 1, 2018 by marceline

[Juliajms]

Is it really being complicit when you are fully on board? Republican women aren't just complicit at this point, imo. That's letting them off too easily.  They have completely opposing values to the other half of our sex and race and they are fighting hard for those values.  That's one of the reasons there really isn't a sisterhood of white women and never will be.

 

We may be oppressed, but not in the same way that black women are. I'm taking about right now, never mind historically.The people who oppress white women are in large part members of our family and people that we have to make families with. It's a different dynamic. It's not as harsh as when society as a whole is trying to break you down, so we don't have to band together within the group. We band into cliques within the larger group. 

 

Like I told Khan awhile back, to say something like "white women hate each other" is almost meaningless.  I doubt that I'm unique in the fact that I rarely (before Trump) ever thought of myself as a white woman. That's what privilege is. When I see another white woman I don't think there's a member of my group. I think there's another person. She's basically another stranger to me.  It's like when I was in an all women's college and a visiting professor said "I hardly ever thought about the fact that I'm a man until I got here." What he meant was that in his day to day interactions he never had to think about being a man until he was so outnumbered. When I see another white woman I certainly do not think I've automatically found a "sister" although over the years I have found some.

 

As I've gotten older I feel a certain sisterhood with all women, but I never expect it to be returned.  I go to a female doctor, lawyer and dentist. I would not vote for anything that harms women as a whole, even if it benefited me personally.

 

As for Samantha Bee, I'm not sure this is about white women being upset that she "betrayed" one of our own. For white women on the left Ivanka isn't one of our own. 

[DRW50]

 

I'd say a lot of it is the way it was done. Wolf chose to talk about eye makeup, compare Sanders to a gym coach (often stereotyped as ugly) and compare Sanders to a character on the Handmaid's Tale who is styled in a way that draws ugly comments about her appearance. The response is to say, "No one talked about her appearance, only conservatives brought up her appearance," but framing the jabs against Sanders that way is opening up a debate about appearance. Wolf made another comment outside of the show where she jabbed that Sanders "finally gets to go to prom" which is in the same vein - and is another jab that has been used against many women for years.

 

Bee and Wolf used misogynistic framing choices that are used against all women, even as we were simultaneously meant to believe that it was no big deal because it was only about one woman and had nothing to do with misogyny or sexism.

 

When the left makes the debate about how ugly someone is, or about incest, or about how great it is to call women c***s, then it makes them feel good, but it doesn't really do much else. 

Edited June 2, 2018 by DRW50

[DramatistDreamer]

 

Wow, that sounds like that could be an extraordinary trip! 

TBH, that would be so hard for me to do.  My family (both sides) hails from the Caribbean and has experienced the devastation of a hurricane in the past.  I grew up with Puerto Ricans, have friends who are originally from Puerto Rico, many of their families still live on the island. 

 

I do imagine that LMM will bring some much needed focus and hopefully some much needed joy to PR. 

[marceline]

 

My college roommate was from Puerto Rico. I fell in love with her stories about her time on the island. I wasn't sure about visiting because I was afraid of engaging in disaster tourism but upon further research I learned that they want every tourist they can get.

[Roman]

very briefly....I think Melania has taken Baron and left Trump and DC for good. 

[DramatistDreamer]

 

Wuttt?

Please register in order to view this content

[marceline]

Instead of asking where's Melania, people should be asking where's Barron. Wherever he is, she will be nearby. 

 

I don't like her but she loves her child.

Edited June 3, 2018 by marceline

[Vee]

I think Roman may be right.

[Khan]

 

Agree.

 

Remember all those "Free Melania" jokes?  IJS.

[DramatistDreamer]

This is what I've been trying to say to people who are shocked at the separation of migrant children from their parents at the border-- America has a long and recent history of ripping children away from their parents.  In some groups, this practice was allowed to continue into the late 1970s. 

This is not distant history!

 

The Long History of Child-Snatching

 

 

 

 

[DRW50]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html

 

As many expected the Supreme Court sided with the Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

 

The ruling was narrower than I thought it would be (probably why it got 7-2 instead of 5-4), which will open up even more anti-gay laws and legal challenges, but maybe means Kennedy doesn't want to go too far.

 

Of course Kennedy could be retiring this term, or the next one, and whoever Trump chooses to replace him will not be likely to hesitate at gay hate.

 

Just another reason I hope Democrats win the Senate, unlikely as it is, and start blocking as many nominees as they can until 2021.

[DramatistDreamer]