Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

 

I agree about Cruz. I'm not sure if I suggested he would have won - I didn't mean to.

 

Trump was the ultimate card because so many loathed him yet he was a fresh voice to many. So you may be right about her beating the others. I tend to think the media and the general mood of the country would have gone in the favor of media darling Marco or one of the other puppets if they'd stuck around. Cruz and Jeb Bush are the two I'd say were most beatable. 

 

I think Hillary ran a much better campaign than she'll get credit for. She should have won. I just wonder now if she had way too much baggage to ever truly have a chance. 

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

There is also a segment of the American public that (mistakenly) equates money with virtue.  I saw this in the NYC mayoral race when Bloomberg was running. People somehow assumed that by virtue (there's that word again) of being a billionaire, Bloomberg could elevate all of NYC's fortunes, and he did for some- they're called the 1%, who moved to NYC in droves. Unfortunately, the homeless population exploded during his three terms and after one half-explored "remedy" the Bloomberg administration ceded that problem to his successor (who still struggles with it).

 

Things only really improved for the wealthy as many left NYC because they could no longer afford it. When people demanded to know why Bloomberg seemingly spent so much time courting the tourists and the billionaires- Bloomberg's response "Why wouldn't NYC want more billionaires? Billionaires make it better for everyone".  Tone-deaf, of course, and it illustrated that a billionaire, even a successful one does not necessarily make an empathetic mayor or the most knowledgeable on how to run a city and the myriad of services that it must provide for its people. NYC learned from that time and elected not to vote for the billionaire in 2016 but many segments of America have yet to learn that lesson. It may come soon and it may just end up being a very tough lesson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think Trump and Christie had done enough to humiliate Rubio in the primaries to bury him. The Latino vote would also not have come out for him, IMO. If it had been Rubio Trump would have already finished him in the eyes of the public. And he definitely could not have handled a real debate - the Republican farces proved that.

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think Carl is right on about a lot of the problems with Democrats. My problem is that, just as you say, there has to be a middle ground between reaching out and reconnecting to the white working-class (however distasteful I presently find reaching out to that segment of apathetic Trump voters or non-voters) versus catering to them and largely abandoning our progressive social values.

 

I say 'social' because I think the far left and a lot of the Sanders contingent are all too eager to re-focus entirely on the white working class and economic issues, and call social issues, racial issues, diversity issues merely a 'distraction' just as Sanders did during the primaries. I think it makes the predominantly white, often-aging far left far more comfortable to be in the driver's seat on those issues and simply name-dropping Bernie, Howard Dean, etc. (not that I have anything against Dean, but he is in the mold: white and loud) vs. engaging with a more racially and sexually diverse progressive movement in the age of Obama and post-Obama, which is part of why many of them never trusted him and resented him IMO - because he usurped their power base, their message, their easy throne. It's the same meltdown we've seen with many progressive vanguard commentators from the Bush years, from Glenn Greenwald on down, when the angry white leftist on the Internet reigned supreme. Their attitude towards Obama, since 2008, has too often been 'who does he think he is?' IMO, Barack Obama was as much an agent of racial panic and resentment for the far left as he was for the right and the undecideds.


There is a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party but it's not just about bridging the working class gap, it's about reconciling our ideology with the predominantly white, straight, male elements of the party who do not want to let go of being not only morally 'right' but in full control. And that begins with the Sanders diehards, and there is a racial and otherwise discriminatory element. It was the same in my mother's day when she was an activist - in the '60s the men always took the megaphone.

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I think that's also true. I think many of these types, like that idiot Jill Stein, are also probably somewhat fine with Trump winning, deep down, because they may feel they won't be affected and they think the world will be purified and their time to shine will come. 

 

I do think something in Bernie Sanders (not so much his supporters and campaign people) connected, maybe not with the average voter, but in a way that the working class can't connect to the establishment of the party. I'm sorry none of that was ever properly harnessed. He did try, and I think he genuinely wanted Hillary to win, but the damage was done from the ugly primary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I don't think he would have worked as VP, but I wish there had been some way he and Hillary could have effectively worked together. It just isn't likely though. I think looking back the biggest missed opportunity was just not offering another vision. The media would have ignored it for Trump and scandal anyway, but I still wish there had been more. Like the VP debate, when they had Tim Kaine focus only on Trump. Kaine wasn't the most natural speaker or personality but there was a lot about him that could have connected if it hadn't had to be all about Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I think Trump may just find that it will be harder to undo something things than he may have thought. Meanwhile, he'll be on the hook to the Russians, who no doubt have intel on him as they hacked the RNC records but opted not to use any information. The Russians need only have a third party embarrass Trump on the world stage and he becomes a national liability.

 

 

I think you'll like NHK. Google NHK English, it'll come up. I swear, I saw a 30 minute documentary about hairdressing and barbering in Japan and thoroughly enjoyed it for reasons I cannot explain! The hairdressers and barbers were so meticulous in their work and the barbershop was so upscale, those hair tools were sparkling!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think there was a vision - the media and a lot of the public just consistently ignored it, as a lot of it was the longtime party platform (which isn't all bad or outdated). And I do think there were mistakes made. They were wrong not to do what both Bil Clinton and Obama suggested, which was go back into the Rust Belt as opposed to assuming certain Democratic strongholds would hold. Many did not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

A disquieting thought, but...true.

 

 

Also true.  Which is why I feel so...conflicted over Carl and Vee's brilliantly drawn arguments.  Because I DO agree that they are a lost cause, incapable of growth or compromise; and I fear that reaching out to them (and not correcting or outright rejecting them) will only result in reinforcing their false ideas and keeping this country as divisive as ever....

 

And yet, Carl and Vee are right: the Democratic party can't regain any footing if they don't at least try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The key is that not all Trump voters are created equal. Some are diehard bigots and/or lock-step right-wingers. Some are evangelicals who held their noses. Many are just apathetic, disaffected white people with no particular affiliation who were quietly racist, anxious about a changing social and racial America, vaguely dissatisfied with life and thought 'why not try the TV guy? (Plus he's a white guy and not a woman)'.

 

Trump is a desperate attempt to reinforce a lot of people's comfortable views of an America that is fading. Eight years of a black guy plus rapidly changing social issues and now a woman made a huge segment of our old culture face an existential crisis. Trump was a last, petulant gasp for baby boomer-era white supremacy. But he is the last. And his coalition is not a coalition at all, it's just a bunch of disparate voters plus the Republican/Tea Party bigot base, all of whom can and will turn on him in a flash for a million reasons.

 

I don't like any of these people right now; I actively detest many of them. But the ones who are apathetic, disaffected, party-less, passively racist or at least deeply uncomfortable with their place in a changing America - many of them can be peeled off from Trump, reconnected with, brought into the fold and told it's not gonna be so bad. And some of them will have to be. I just don't know if I'll be the one able to do that.

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

In a way, it's like that episode of "Designing Women" where Mary Jo and Charlene had a falling-out, because Charlene decided she needed to stay home and spend more time with Olivia, and Mary Jo, being a divorced mother of two with no financial or other help from her ex-husband (her choice), felt threatened by her best friend's choice.  As Mary Jo said at the episode's climax (and yes, I'm paraphrasing): the "traditional moms" will always accuse the working moms of being selfish yuppies, and the working moms will always accuse the stay-at-home moms of being lazy, but that instead of turning on each other, the stay-at-home moms and the working moms need to stop blaming each other and ban together.

 

And I can't believe I've just cited an episode of "Designing Women" in order to make a point.

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Actually, Pamela Norris, who wrote "Working Mother," was right.  I'm just a guy in his late thirties who lives at home with his mom and watches bad sitcoms.

 

Trust me: there will come a time when I will use an episode of "Mama's Family" to explain a complex moral issue facing this country, and you will rue the day you joined this board.

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

    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Surely we (and Billy Flynn) are not going to be saddled with a character named Aristotle Dumas? This isn't 1970's Edge of Night.
    • What annoys me a little bit about the "day players" is they sound a bit too "Brooklyn-ish" sometimes.  Obviously, the show was taped in New York City, and the actors are all New York actors, but Monticello is supposed to be located in Illinois or Ohio.  Occasionally, they grab actors and actresses for small roles who have VERY distinct New York accents, which contrasts sharply with the main cast, none of whom have noticeable accents (except for our dashing European gigolo, Eliot Dorn, of course).  The heavy Brooklyn accent works fine if the character is a bookie, or the owner of a pawn shop, or a guy who's selling stolen guns on the street corner.  But when it's a steadily recurring character -- such as the first Mrs. Goodman, who worked for Miles and Nicole -- it's pretty jarring to me sometimes.  And you'll see it often -- such as an "under-five" character who witnesses a car accident, or a character who witnesses a shooting, or the occasional desk clerk, or waiter.  
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • I'm screaming at those clips and gifs.  THIS IS PURE GOLD.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • That's always been my thought. I can't imagine that the show would play up the unseen AD so far in advance without them casting a *star*. After today's episode, I wonder if he'll somehow be connected with Diane. It was strange that Diane mentioned her very distant family today. I can't recall Diane ever talking about her backstory. Maybe he's her much younger brother?  It's also possible he's connected to Diane during her time in LA. Sally's already said she crossed paths with him. OC, I think Dumas is Mariah's mistake.... As a side note, it was good to see some mixing it up - Adam with Clare/Kyle and Sharon with Tessa.
    • Here's the place to share some memorable criticism. You don't have to agree with it, of course (that's often where the fun starts). Like I mentioned to @DRW50, Sally Field was a favorite punching bag in the late '80s and early '90s.   Punchline (the 1988 movie where she and Tom Hanks are stand ups): "It's impossible to tell the difference between Miss Field's routines that are supposed to be awful, and the awful ones that are supposed to be funny." -- Vincent Canby, New York Times. "It's not merely that Field is miscast; she's miscast in a role that leaves no other resource available to her except her lovability. And (David) Seltzer's script forces her to peddle it shamelessly." -- Hal Hinson, Washington Post. "As a woman who can't tell a joke, Sally Field is certainly convincing. ... Field has become an unendurable performer ... She seems to be begging the audience not to punch her. Which, of course, is the worst kind of bullying from an actor. ... She's certainly nothing like the great housewife-comedian Roseanne Barr, who is a tough, uninhibited performer. Sally Field's pandering kind of 'heart' couldn't be further from the spirit of comedy." -- David Denby, New York   Steel Magnolias: The leading ladies: Dolly Parton: "She is one of the sunniest and most natural of actresses," Roger Ebert wrote. Imagining that she probably saw Truvy as an against-type role, Hinson concluded it's still well within her wheelhouse. "She's just wearing fewer rhinestones." Sally Field: "Field, as always, is a lead ball in the middle of the movie," according to Denby . M'Lynn giving her kidney to Shelby brought out David's bitchy side. "I can think of a lot more Sally Field organs that could be sacrificed." Shirley MacLaine: "(She) attacks her part with the ferociousness of a pit bull," Hinson wrote. "The performance is so manic that you think she must be taking off-camera slugs of Jolt." (I agree. If there was anyone playing to the cheap seats in this movie, it's Shirley.) Olympia Dukakis: "Excruciating, sitting on her southern accent as if each obvious sarcasm was dazzlingly witty," Denby wrote. Daryl Hannah: "Miss Hannah's performance is difficult to judge," according to Canby, which seems to suggest he took a genuine "if you can't say something nice ..." approach. Julia Roberts: "(She acts) with the kind of mega-intensity the camera cannot always absorb," Canby wrote. That comment is so fascinating in light of the nearly 40 years Julia has spent as a Movie Star. She is big. It's the audience who had to play catch up. And on that drag-ish note ... The movie itself: "You feel as if you have been airlifted onto some horrible planet of female impersonators," Hinson wrote. Canby: "Is one supposed to laugh at these women, or with them? It's difficult to tell." Every review I read acknowledged the less than naturalistic dialogue in ways both complimentary (Ebert loved the way the women talked) and cutting (Harling wrote too much exposition, repeating himself like a teenager telling a story, Denby wrote). Harling wrote with sincerity and passion, Canby acknowledged, but it's still a work of "bitchiness and greeting card truisms." The ending was less likely to inspire feeling good as it was feeling relieved, according to Denby. "(It's) as if a group of overbearing, self-absorbed, but impeccable mediocre people at last exit from the house."
    • I tend to have two minds about Tawny (Kathy Najimy) fainting during Soapdish's big reveal. You're the costume designer, if anything, you should have known the whole time. I guess it's an application of what TV Tropes calls the "Rule of Funny." Every time I watch Delirious, I always want the genuine romance in John and Mariel's reunion at the deli counter to last longer. Film critics had their knives out for Sally in this period. I'll start a separate thread on the movies page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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