Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I think we are seeing people focus on that demo because the Clinton campaign made the conscious decision not to go after them, which was clearly a mistake in retrospective.  There's no reason it has to be either or. The key is to try to convince this block of people that they have more in common with poor and middle class non whites than they do with millionaires and billionaires. Shouldn't be that hard because it's clearly true. I have a feeling four years of Trump might make it a lot easier, but who ever is in charge is going to have to actually try.

Edited by Juliajms
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

Bernie Sanders is saying that he will listen to Jeff Sessions and isn't confirming that he will vote against him. That says a whole lot about his character.

 

The biggest mistake that the Clinton campaign made was not focusing enough on Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, which are the cornerstone of Democratic electoral wins. Had more black voters shown up in all three of these states, Hillary Clinton would be President on January 20th. There's was not a whole lot that could be done to win over voters who bought into Trump pushing racial resentment. He brought out a lot of racist folks who generally do not vote. As long as the platform is economically fair, that's all that Democrats need to do. Once some of these Trump voters get their fill of him, they'll change their tune come 2020. The people that Democrats need to win back are the soft voters who bought into Trump being an outsider, yet voted Democratic further down ballot. It's a matter of microtargeting.

Edited by ReddFoxx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Hillary f-cked up by not focusing on ALL the states. She didn't even try here in GA, and we turned purple here and almost became blue had she attempted to try here. 

 

I think going forward, Democrats need to focus on ALL 50 states b/c they could win many of them back if they put forth the right candidates. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I have no problerm with the son-in-law.   Franklin had Eleanor, JFK had Bobby,  Bill had Hillary...the guy is said to be bright.  Yeah, he has business deals but he is said to be divesting.    Plus he is from NY and he is Jewish.  Enough with the southern christians already.   Finally someone in government who won't pretend he listens to country music on his way to church on sunday with a rifle in his pick up.   And he is not railing against the gays while adopting a wide stance somewhere.   This guy looks better then just about every elected republican.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

A NY Jew who was clearly ok with Trump using anti Semitic symbolism to wink and nod to the white supremacist because he knew his family would be safe. F*ck everyone else who attends synagogue or the JCC without the secret service and body guards. I have no doubt he's behind this idea of moving the US embassy to Jerusalem too.  Sure, that seems pro Israel, but it's not going to be doing anyone any favors if it sets off another Middle East war.

 

Still if it were just Kushner I wouldn't really object, but Trump's whole cabinet is filled with awful people. He's got a labor secretary who doesn't even think there should be a minimum wage! An attorney general who hates gays, and made a point of blocking black judges in Alabama. It's ludicrous. 

 

Anyway, good to see you around Q.

Please register in order to view this content

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

She certainly does, because that's what it's going to take to survive the next several years with Trump.  Americans need to be willing to ignore his and his minions' statements and speak for themselves.  Complacency just won't cut it anymore.  (If I didn't realize that during the election, when I didn't vote because I felt both candidates were equally odious, then I certainly realize that now.  No way would Hillary Clinton have subjected us to this kind of abuse.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Unfortunately, there will always be those who are traitors to their races.  There will always be individuals who will not stand with their brothers and sisters, because they are concerned more with self-preservation and survival.  Their actions might make it more challenging for the others to fight -- but believe me, when the others (in this case, the Jewish Americans) DO achieve their victory, the Jared Kushners of the world will go down with the rest of their enemies.

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You know what else is needed? The restoration of the VRA. It's interesting to me how everyone wants to talk about those poor white male voters but not one person of importance wants to mention the first major election since the VRA has been gutted. No talk about how millions of black and Latino voters across states got their names removed from voting rolls due to voter cross check just because their names sounded black or Latino. Or how those same states removed hundreds of polling places in minority areas. Anyone read the article about the Wisconsin AG and how she told someone they weren't putting a polling place close to Univ of Wisc in Green Bay because most students vote democratic? Oh many of these people were given provisional ballots in those states mentioned but guess what. Those ballots never get counted. I'm not suggesting those white voters get ignored and Hillarys campaign clearly made a tactical error, but this over emphasis on one demographic while ignoring the VRA gutting and its impact infuriates me. Again I wonder how white men would have felt if their names were randomly dropped from voting rolls and how would the press have covered that then? I think I know the answer to that. And not one word from that so called inspiration Bernie Sanders about any of this other than identity politics. Oh and don't forget he doesn't believe Sessions history on attacking black judges or discriminating against minorities is a disqualifier to being AG and who has no issue with gutting voting rights.

Edited by JaneAusten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree about the need for the restoration of the VRA @JaneAusten. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen under Trump's watch, IMO. I don't know why people don't want to acknowledge the role of gerrymandering and voter suppression. It's as if those concepts are somehow too complex to dissect therefore it gets diminished, if not completely ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well I'm happy to hear that gerrymandering is the issue Obama is going to focus on post presidency. I think people might pay attention. And Perez allegedly is going to focus on the VRA. Glad someone is worried about those things. I guess that leaves Bernie and his book tour free to appeal to this white men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I know that Eric H. Holder actually started the group and Obama is joining him. I've read that the group is currently developing its team, which is encouraging since it's well needed. I just assume that most of the work that this group does won't receive much media attention, which is fine, the objective is to make those changes whether it is done quietly or not.

Yes, I think I may have heard something to that effect about Perez, which, if true, is also good news. For now, it seems that he may be the frontrunner for Chairman of the DNC, so if this is a platform that is given priority, so much the better.

 

 

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

    • 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.
    • I don't think so, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was Dumas this whole time.
    • Tamara Tunie was serving up grand dame diva fierceness.
    • Nick told Victoria that he and Sharon had married in England.  Victoria was shocked.  Then she realized he was kidding.  He confirmed it was a joke and they're platonic. I don't even know what to say about that.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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