|
Economically, it's a much bleaker world to get by in now. Yes, there's less institutional and casual racism and homophobia, but economic inequality has destroyed the prospects for many young people. It's a totally different economy. There's way more poverty and much less chance of climbing out of it.
When Hillary began her campaign, they wouldn't refer to economic inequality. Obama was out there campaigning for her saying things are great, that there are just a few pockets of misery that remain. The popularity of Bernie's message and later the election of Trump forced them to wake up. But the question is how could they have been so out of touch. Biden's comments prove he is still woefully out of touch. I don't like it. However, I would still vote for him. One of the ways we can begin to emerge from this death of neoliberalism is by strengthening unions, and I trust Biden to do that. He's not my first pick, and there are mainstream Dems I wouldn't vote for, but I would still cast a ballot for Biden against Trump. |
... being that the electoral college has the final *vote* in every presidential election: my vote does not always guarantee my voice was the most popular.
Ks- p.s.: the Electrical College is set by gerrymandered districts who suppress voter turnout. |
Quote:
Why do you find Booker more problematic than Biden? |
Quote:
I am the daughter, granddaughter, and niece of public school teachers. I have taught at a charter school and i do homeschool support daily as part of my job. School choice ain't it, chief. |
Ks, I know the selection of electors is political, but don't they just follow the voting at state level, meaning if the popular vote in the entire state goes to a candidate, then all electors, regardless of party, vote for that candidate? I know a couple of states split them. Maine?
I know it's not legally required, and I kind of wish they hadn't done it the last time, but . . . . Quote:
|
Quote:
BTW, unless you really insist, I am happily done with this aspect of the thread. Thank you. |
Quote:
And the vote against allowing US citizens to buy Canadian drugs. People die because drugs are so expensive. He is loved by Silicon Valley and Wall Street. That's the kind of candidate he is. No improvement on Clinton. |
Quote:
All i said was that Biden is a dumbass for saying the 60s were harder than now. I did not say that anyone's politics popped out of a seashell. I could say that today's gay teens don't know real struggle because they weren't there with me watching the government kill my friends. But i don't say that because it does not matter that it might be true, as it is not in any way productive. Say you're a 16-year-old lesbian getting bullied my grown adults on facebook bc your school elected you prom king. Would it help you for me to say "oh cry me a river, at least you don't have AIDS?" |
You insist. OK :
Actually, it would be useful to say "Wow, you got elected prom king. Congratulations! But please do remember, hard as it is, a lot of people probably worked hard and suffered a great deal to get us to this point. Being prom king would have been unthinkable then." |
i think all our experience is relevant and we can learn things from each other-we need to stick together and be supportive of all views-that's what we have going for us is our diversity, intelligence and ability to compromise.
|
I think it's important for people to remember the past, but not so they are grateful or even inspired. The fact is that the past contains possibilities that seem closed off to us now.
Republicans prior to Reagan weren't, for the most part, rabid deregulators. So many things we feel are almost impossible goals now were accepted from the end of the war through the seventies. I wish people knew that. I don't care if today's activists appreciate what previous folk did, even the terrible loss of life. I would just like it if they had a sense of the world before Reagan when corporate greed had not corrupted most aspects of life. People label as socialist policies that Nixon supported. We are lying to kids about their future prospects. We don't have the jobs anymore to support most people as middle class workers unless we really tax the rich, create a high minimum wage, and do unprecedented things to make housing affordable. That looks like, and is, socislist. Before we exported jobs and gutted viable businesses to sell them for parts, before our economy was based on finance and services for the rich, it was possible to be a working person and own a house. You could send your kids to college, take vacations, afford health care. We won't be going back to that without also returning to pre-Reagan tax rates. We will never go back to that without changes that seem extremely radical to most Americans. But no Republican of even the Reagan era could have foreseen how fast and deep the decline of the working and middle classes would be. |
Quote:
This remark of Biden's really makes the point about that, though. Because all of the struggles he pointed to, with the exception of the draft, were minority struggles. It was totally possible for the average white person to almost completely ignore them. I know because my parents appear to have experienced the 60s exactly as if they were still in the 50s, although they did remark that we were lucky to be attending already-integrated schools and not living through the process of getting them there, like they did. Today's economic struggle has started hurting the majority, and in 2016 it was easy to point to this as the reason there were suddenly so many whiteboy Marxists, who then began to make a case for why we should tolerate pro-lifers, risk the supreme court with write-in votes, etc. But if it's a choice between whiteboy Marxists claiming identity politics are a distraction, or a bourgeois cishet white man pointing to civil rights gains as a way to dismiss what we're doing to our young people? I might switch my morning dogwalking podcast from Rachel Maddow to Chapo Traphouse |
Quote:
A black kid died bc he couldn't buy insulin. The important thing here is that he wasn't lynched, though, in Biden's world. |
Just picking up on part of your post, dark_crystal. I think as you point out, there is privilege on both sides, the third party voters and, as you called them in a long ago post (I think) Democrats who are Republicans except for social justice issues.
I don't think Bernie is either-or. And while some of his followers may be up to no good -- the Beto baiting -- it's obviously possible to care about both inequality and social justice. Rachel Maddow was horrible during the election. She completely misrepresented Bernie's politics and mocked his supporters. I am so tired of her. I am looking forward to Mueller's actual report though, in part so she can stop obsessing. We know the SOB is guilty of obstruction. It will be a blessing to get that out there. |
Quote:
I did listen to Chapo Traphouse today. The hosts are very cool and hip and edgy and ironic. They were having a really good time joking about "accusations of a coordinated attack on Beto" with Liz Breunig, during which they ironically and edgily attacked Beto. I think this was the 12/23 episode. I think Beto had a big day yesterday, though? With his anti-The Wall video that got millions of views in five seconds or something? The Wall is some super low-hanging fruit, post-midterms, and i wish liberals and progressives would ignore it. It would be too easy for BOTH sides to make immigration the focus of 2020, which would be as big of a so-called distraction as social justice. It's urgent to stop the detentions and restore the asylum process, create paths to citizenship, protect DREAMers, etc, Many of my friends and family are not citizens, so these are issues that we can get motivated about: the WH has floated the idea of revoking green cards from non-citizens that use social services-- if my mother-in-law gets deported i will have to go with her. But i don't think immigration affects the majority in the way that healthcare, employment, wages, and education do-- and a Democratic vs a Republican victory on immigration is not going to change their daily lives. Letting Republicans trick us into making immigration the battleground is going to lower the stakes of the whole election. Most people's opinions about it are compassion- or ideology-based. It's all theoretical to most people. The only people really passionate about it are the immigrants themselves, their families, plus five zillion racists. If those are the groups driving turnout, Trump wins. |
I recall Rachel pretty much shaking with anger talking about Bernie supporters. I recall her saying in a really snarky way that they didn't understand the TPP. One time she was criticizing Bernie for some inconsistency as she saw it, and one of her own wonks fact checked her. I think she showed her ass re Bernie.
I haven't seen the Beto video. I think that Bernie's message re jobs, taxing the rich, Medicare for all, free college, and fighting corporate corruption of politics is the way to go. Clearly, depending on social justice issues alone didn't work. But Bernie is solid on those as well, IMO. Any candidate the Democrats field is likely to be. |
That is clear-eyed realpolitik. Thank you.
Figure out how to get there. Strategy is often not the strongest attribute of the Left as they get pushed further and further out into the weeds by the Right. You'd think this was obvious to the Left and to the Democrats, but it seems not. How hard can it be to figure that out? If you keep pounding out your point and stop being distracted, ppl will tune out all that other crap. Find your own Kelly Anne Conway ... just as skilled but not as morally corrupt. I know that it's not as sweet to win through "impure means" ( and there are plenty of ethical/moral arguments about that ) but sometimes, "winning is all" and start from there. |
oops, I was replying to dark-crystal's post.
|
Quote:
Quote:
The democrats can set literally any agenda they choose. Making it about jobs, taxing the rich, Medicare for all, free college, and fighting corporate corruption, and refusing to talk about anything else would be easy and effective. It will be the GOP who run on social issues. Even their economic platform usually has hate somewhere at the heart of it, via cutting taxes by punishing freeloaders, etc. Also they have to keep the religious right and the 2a people, and you need hate for gays and "thugs" to do that. We can ignore it all, because their candidate is weak. He can't run on his record and his agenda holds no surprises. Every democrat is already on the record about all of it. Nobody needs to respond to him in any way. This is what was disappointing about Warren's DNA test. |
Want to elect a winning Democratic President?
Find a good-looking white guy with a good-looking wife and a few good-looking kids. Write all his speeches for him.Tell him to keep his mouth shut at all other times and his hands down his own pants. Shove your hand up his ass and make his mouth move when necessary. Fact is, none of the "presentables" are as smart and worthy as the "uglies ". So just go for a Ken doll and find a few ugly folks with progressive ideas to stand behind the curtain and do some telepathy and ventriloquism. "Camelot" was the beginning of the Hollywood aspiration presidency...the handsome president leading his handsome people who all knew that under that mantle was a really good-guy who only wanted the best for them...and he made them feel proud cause he "looked good" on stage.. Has anyone considered drafting George Clooney recently? He sure looks good. That's likely good for 40% of the vote right there, even before his running shoes touch the starter-blocks. ( He can adopt some cute kids later.) |
Free College is a nice idea but unless we get a Democrat in the White House, win 61 seats in the Senate and sweep the House, not very likely..and forget Medicare for all..our country isn't ready for that much social change yet. Besides, Medicare is almost broke, Social Security without fixes will be in deep trouble by the mid 2020's. And we are looking at a 23-25 trillion dollar deficit in 2021. I'm not saying these things won't ever be possible but probably not in my lifetime or for those over 30. I wish these things were already in place but society (as a whole) isn't ready. Currently we have too much debt, baby boomer political power will have to be neutralized and societal norms have to change drastically before these things can be a possibility :tea:
|
Quote:
|
We just had a tax cut that could have paid for these things. We've thrown away enough to pay for these things twenty times over in war and tax breaks. It's not at all out of the range of the possible. Polls show the majority of Americans support Medicare for all. It could happen by 2021. That was the whole point of a post I made previously about how people have forgotten how many progressive policies were considered mainstream forty years ago.
The point is the money, and we have it if we'd stop letting the rich out of paying their fair share. We wouldn't be in this position if mainstream Dems had not handed our wealth over to banks and exported our jobs to benefit corporations. The world is NOT the one mainstream Dems describe where we are doomed to poverty because of the irresistible workings of a global economy. Re having a puppet, we've had those. Reagan and W. It doesn't tend to work out well. People love Bernie, and he is not handsome. In spite of our having elected Trump, most of us do take our government and electoral process seriously. While our political process and politicians may seem a joke to some, we are not alone. The world is struggling with these issues. I'd rather be facing something like Brexit than have Trump as President, but honestly, Trump will be gone in two years, and they're going to have a hell of a time undoing Brexit. And while there are many dumb and apathetic Americans, we are not unique in these qualities. I have to say that as disturbing as it has been to see all of the racism post Trump (I am white. I was in denial.), we don't hold a candle to France, for example. Even Scandinavian countries don't have a clue how to live in a multi-cultural society. Their non-native speakers drop out of high school in numbers that make us look great. I read an article about Eastern Europe the other day, and they are sick of getting blamed for the rise of populism in Europe, but not long before that I saw a video of an orthodox priest justifying segregation. Not a right wing fanatic, just an ordinary guy to whom it seemed obvious that people would not want to mix with folk from other races . The U.S. has a long and bloody history of racism, but we've actually learned a lot. |
Quote:
|
Elizabeth Warren is gonna run in case anyone was in doubt.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/31/pol...www.cnn.com%2F |
Quote:
|
Elizabeth Warren:
Early kindling in the fire for a male Dem winning candidate. Hope she isn't deluded and gave informed consent. She might want to have a chat with Kim Campbell, our 19th Prime Minister...and that BBQ wasn't even turned on yet...not to mention that they didn't even use tongs to pull her out of the dying coals. I'm not sure where she is now. |
Quote:
Where in the hell was she 2 years ago when we could of used her?! |
Quote:
|
Elizabeth Warren drinks beer, gives 2020 thoughts in Instagram livestream: By Gregg Re, Fox News
In a seemingly spontaneous livestream posted on Instagram that channeled similar social-media efforts by former Texas Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke and incoming New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren cracked open a beer on-camera and took some questions from her followers on New Year's Eve. Charles Hurt on Warren's Lack of 'Authenticity': 'Only to Trump's Advantage' Fox News contributor and Washington Times opinion editor Charles Hurt said Democratic presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren's lack of "authenticity" will only help President Trump heading into the 2020 election. LOL Fox News is extra salty today. Do we think Warren has an authenticity problem? When i saw the livestream my thought was that i hope she does a lot more, and i realized this was bc i am looking forward to getting to know her, and that i don't really have a sense of her personality except a vague impression of a less wooden Hillary. She always seems very sincere and concerned when i see or hear her on TV, etc., though |
She seems kinda awkward to me. Hillary could be genuine, but she schooled herself not to improvise or veer from the party line. You could see her thinking sometimes during pauses. Then she'd take a deep breath and resume the same ole script.
I don't care that Warren is kinda Minnie Mouse in her demeanor. The people who vote for movie star smarminess or parental figures are probably going to vote Biden. I don't know. There's so much misogyny out there that I am not looking forward to another woman candidate. Hillary Clinton was an asshole and deserved much of the animosity directed towards her. But not all of it. Not looking forward to the screaming and bile that will come from the right. I'd far prefer Warren to Biden, but she's still not a true progressive. It doesn't matter. Only Bernie is, of the candidates I know, and while I think he could beat Trump, I have little hope of him getting through the primaries even without super delegates. |
I could totally live with Sherrod Brown.
|
Quote:
Two years ago if Warren would of ran, I would of volunteered or gave her campaign $$, BUT now, if Harris runs, I'd back Harris! |
Quote:
THREAD: After seeing this tweet from Politico, I decided to search for tweets by several mainstream news orgs and see how they use the terms “likeable,” “unlikable,” and “likability” when applied to men vs. women. The results are...stark. Any woman who runs, it's going to be "of course a woman can be president, just not that particular woman." Along with a heaping helping of "you shouldn't vote for a demographic but for the best candidate." For 232 years all candidates were from a single demographic, which means exactly zero of them can now be remembered as "the best candidate." "Its not fair to dismiss people's achievements in the past just because they were white males." Actually it is because the means by which they were out into position to have the opportunity to achieve anything were unfair. Is any election from before 1920 even still legitimate? |
|
I think dark_crystal's post raises some important things that are persistent in current day American society: 1) sexism, 2) privilege and access to power, and 3) the voting and electoral system by which presidential candidates are measured as having 'won' any executorial seat of power.
And the article by The Guardian, found by Martina (her latest post): One of the persistent ideas I found in this particular article seems to pair nicely with the prevailing sexist tide of how sexism prevails within American Society. Per the article, Clinton won the popular vote by a large margin, yet wasn't chosen as President, due to what? Can it be said that her loss was due to unlikability? I don't think it can solely be said that unlikability was the determining factor. I think the reason Clinton couldn't secure the Presidency was related to the implementation of the super vote, the Electoral vote. I could be entirely wrong about that, but it just seems like what needs to be addressed is the voting system and use of the super delegate seat of determinant power utilized in the Electoral vote system. Now that the House of Representatives (USHOR) is seated with an majority of Democrats, I wonder if the USHOR will make it a priority to address and rectify voting issues, which seem to persist in too many states of the Union. On a personal note: Things I think about in choosing who I want to vote for in any election process seem to share a set of criteria I look for in any person who seeks an executorial seat of power. What I look for is things the person has done. For example, their track record pertaining to: 1) current and future US social policy, 2) labor, 3) economy, 4) who they partnered with to get things accomplished (past, present or future), 5) will they uphold past case law ruled in favor of Women's rights, LGTBQ rights, and Race (ie, racism, homophobia, sexism, etc) because in my mind, it's about social equity. Social equity issues and how do we collaborate to provide the best possible way to co-exist. These types of things are of importance to me when deciding who gets my proverbial vote of approval. |
Quote:
The electorate has awakened and begun to care again. We just need to assure that they vote the path of freedom instead of towards the right or "alt-right" to a more Nationalistic and Populist form of government which would lead to a more xenophobic, racist, and homophobic insular society. If the rural "silent majority" gives us another reactionary blindside, we are really in trouble. I hope this "blue wave" is sustained. We can be celebratory and elated, but looking out the back to Check Six is a prudent move given the 2016 shock. |
Quote:
|
I want to put the Bernie thread to rest.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...rs-stein-trump To me, he joined the race to siphon votes from Hillary, and then to pocket tons of campaign contributions. He's been up the Russian's ass since the 70's. |
It's late tonight but I think WheatToast's question is important: "Why Bernie?"
I admit I fell for his platform, back in 2016, and I thought he'd make a good president. But then WheatToast posted that article from VOX about Stein and Sanders also having Russian influence in their campaigns (?). That is the first time I've read about it and that article was published back in February of 2018 -- nearly a year ago. In some ways, now, I often wonder if I didn't set the bar high enough, you know? I don't know that I could get behind a Bernie Sander's nomination again. Sure, he's got a track record that shows what he has accomplished in the US Senate, but does it make him the right person for the most important job in the world? In the past, I am embarrassed to admit that I had to like a person, in order to feel comfortable to vote for them. But this past election made me see that it's not about the person as much as it is about their platform, their ability to lead and their ability to carry out a vision, a vison that people of every stripe and flavor can get behind and support. Which hopefully brings us to a better place in life, right? I know dark_crystal posted about how overwhelming it was to see Beto-nirvana over the course of last year, but as appealing to others as Beto seems, I don't know if he's got what it takes to fill the bill as an US President. I don't know much about Beto O'Rourke, though, so I found d_c's point of view intriguing and very interesting take on O'Rourke. I'm with Martina though, when it comes down to Warren or Biden. I'd choose Warren over Biden, as well. I appreciate this thread and reading everyone's point of view and things that come to mind. It helps me to put things in perspective about the upcoming 20/20 election. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:44 PM. |
ButchFemmePlanet.com
All information copyright of BFP 2018