Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
What exactly does it mean to "fight the post-9/11 fascist hegemony"?
As for wars: They're still going to happen no matter what the US does.
As for poverty in the United States: Difficult to do unless he makes a huge investment in infrastructure renewal (which he has occasionally suggested he'd do), which would solve it in the short term, and then also bring new economic activities that can last long-term to places that have lost such activities (e.g. places that used to be big in coal mining). Note that doing things like mining more coal is, at best, a short-term solution (assuming it works at all), because (1) resources like this can run out, and (2) they're heavily dependent on being competitive in markets, unless you subsidize the fuck out of it.
As for earning back respect on the world stage: The US has actually enjoyed pretty good respect during the Obama presidency. There are some countries that don't like the US, but largely that's not changed much -- it's still the usual suspects like Russia and Iran, largely. Does the US have perfect relations with the world? No, but at least the US (at least before yesterday) hasn't been the world's laughingstock that it was under George W. Bush. The US also improved relations with Cuba and Myanmar and Iran during Obama's time in office, and it helped build an agreement on managing climate change, though to be fair, relations with the Philippines and Turkey have soured recently.
If Trump follows the model that he's offered so far on the campaign trail -- which amounts to being the "tough guy" who pisses everyone off -- then the most "respect" he'll get is basically the opinion the rest of the world gives to people like Duterte and Kim Jong Un, which is that people will stay out of his way when they think he's strong, but will just run roughshod over him when they think he's weak. That approach just turns everything into a dog-eat-dog world where everyone defaults to being suspicious of everyone else, as opposed to a cooperative world.
There's a slight chance he could do something different, to be fair. He could have the potential to generate "Nixon in China" moments where he does reach across to people you wouldn't expect and build better relations with them on various issues. However, this seems unlikely to happen except with Russia, and for him it wouldn't be a "Nixon in China" thing either because he doesn't have the bona fides of being anti-Russia -- he'd just continue to be suspected of secretly being in cahoots with Putin's allies, if not actively under investigation for it.
Exactly. That's things like coal mining and oil drilling in some places and manufacturing in others. It's possible to make these things work short-term by pumping massive subsidies into them and protecting them with huge import tariffs, but these are short-term solutions at best.
In the case of energy resources, it's better to move on and switch to working on newer energy tech. And in the case of manufacturing, it's actually better to improve conditions in those "third world countries" that currently makes all of our cheap stuff, so as to make it so that companies can't just run away and pay other people less to make stuff.
Edit: forum doesn't embed quotes properly.
The Dem establishment is to blame for not emphasizing a fifty-state strategy and generally putting more emphasis on long-term voter engagement beyond political activities. Clinton herself also ran a relatively uncharismatic campaign that amounted to saying "I've done good things in the past and am well prepared, choose me please" when the national mood was "this whole situation is shit!!11".
There are probably a number of smaller effects, though, that each might have changed a handful of minds, leading to death by a thousand cuts in a way.
But the underlying effect I feel stems from that disengagement with the political and policymaking system. It's a long-term problem and in a way has been around for a while now. Even back in 2004, the first time I voted, I remember encouraging people to vote for Kerry because he's the better candidate and got a variety of generally apathetic responses. This sense of lack of engagement is a problem that results in just the most dedicated partisans staying in and further discouraging people from taking responsibility for our political decisions as a society.
I don't know how to solve this problem, though, aside from a long-term effort talking to people about how policymaking does affect our lives in small and large ways and saying that we as a democratic society are tasked with the responsibility of managing our own governance.
Well, the numbers are what they are, but of course, you're right to challenge the assumption that Stein voters would necessarily voted for Clinton. Similarly, though, you'd have to run an entire hypothetical campaign season with Sanders if you were to make a proper comparison, complete with a change in the campaign strategies on both sides. Clearly these are practically impossible to even imagine, let alone run, so these are things we can argue about endlessly.
For what it's worth, I personally voted for Sanders. I remember seeing comparison polls at the time, some of which did indeed show Sanders doing better against a Republican nominee, but...considering how badly polls have done in predicting the outcome yesterday, we would be wise to take even those with some grains of salt. Furthermore, that was a much different point in time.
Can't really say it's either right or wrong. But I totally understand your frustration, especially in light of how Sanders was certainly able to light up disengaged voters in a way that Clinton had a lot of trouble doing, while we can also see that Clinton had some trouble turning out black voters in the record numbers by which they supported Obama. In retrospect, he may have been a better candidate because of this, though let's also not forget that he wasn't a perfect candidate either and we don't know how his faults may have affected the course of the campaign and the consequent results.
And honestly this is where I get mad at the whole liberal/conservative or left/right ideological divide. Labels like these -- as well as "socialist", "communist", and many others -- simply serve to force people into opinion pigeonholes when, frankly speaking, a lot of low-engagement voters are interested in how a candidate might affect them. Preference or "allergy" to a certain ideological identification may affect them emotionally, but there's definitely an interplay between the practical and emotional, in a way that we haven't sorted out well -- and specifically, it's important to recognize the difference between ideological rigidity and distrust. Specifically, I think that a number of rural voters and others who are typically considered "conservative" may be more receptive than we'd expect to ideas usually deemed "socialist". Of course, it helps if those ideas aren't labeled as "socialist", but sometimes that assumption doesn't apply, especially when the status quo itself is being challenged...
I can understand the criticism of drone strikes, but...gutting the EPA? I don't get how that's a criticism of Clinton. Unless I'm reading this wrong and this is a criticism of the entire selection of candidates.
A Kansas Democrat gives his perspective:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/11/9/1594721/-Hello-America-From-Kansas-You-re-Like-Us-Now-Let-s-Talk-About-What-s-Next
And, not explicitly political, but some reflection:
Hillary Clinton's sorta-semi-unofficial second slogan was "I'm With Her". In a way, that was the "wrong" thing to say. I noticed a line that cropped up in conversation, amongst my fellow progressives, about US politics in the aftermath of this election:
That's what it should have been. "I'm With Her" has a bit of an undertone of expressing a partisan alignment in some sort of contest. Yes, that's what the election is, but it's also not a contest in the typical sense of taking territory or simply winning things by doing things harder than anyone else. It's also an attempt to convince people to become part of an electoral coalition -- doubly so for Clinton's case where her campaign's official slogan was "Stronger Together" and emphasized unity.
Well, mistakes were made, and time machines haven't been invented yet. Sometimes the world is just imperfect.
But in the meantime, here's the tagline for the anime series ViVid Strike!:
Perhaps this line -- which closely resembles Isaiah 41:10 from the Bible ("Do not be afraid; I am with you") -- should have been the slogan, to go with a theme of unity. And -- as much as I don't like stereotypes -- it would have worked well to show off a more "motherly" and personable side of her, as a caring guardian with a steady hand in a time of turmoil.
But in addition to liking Medicare, being a socialist also implies aiming towards a bloody revolution to create a brutal dictatorship of the proletariat under an almighty vanguard, as well as hatred towards the United States itself (and imperialism, but only sometimes). Not the sort of things the electorate tends to like, even if it includes Medicare.
He should've called himself something else since apparently that wasn't part of his government plan.
I heard it's true.
So, I've been wondering for a while. All in all, in your own words USers, why would you say about half the country voted for Trump? (I guess Glenn already answered.)
Edit:
I know there's a pro-Bashar-al-Assad (Turkish) troper that sometimes goes to visit the Arab Spring thread. I might be miseremembering but I think there was also a pro-Kims in the North Korea thread.
I've been hanging out on MyAnimeList's forum recently and I see far more out-of-the-blue flaming of SJWs/feminists/"feminazis" than I do of actual SJWs/feminists/"feminazis". Like, someone starts complaining about a series, and as you might know, yuri is not exactly uncommon in anime, so the person says that they liked the yuri pairing despite not liking the series. About 9 posts in, someone else quotes the OP to blame "feminists" for...I'm not sure what, actually.
I mean, that's like, "dude, how the hell does this have anything to do with complaining about feminists?"
Also in CA-44, another two-Dems runoff: Hermosa Beach City Councilwoman Nanette Barragán defeated State Sen. Isadore Hall 51-49 after Hall finished 40-22. Apparently Barragán is better on environmental issues, and Hall's non-support for an effort to put health warning labels on sodas got him at loggerheads with a local gym owner.
As for a couple of major two-party races:
Arizona's Maricopa County has rejected the infamous Sheriff Joe Arpaio (R), who lost to Paul Penzone (D) by a 55-45 margin.
And Kelly Ayotte has conceded to Maggie Hassan in New Hampshire, producing Team Blue's second US Senate pickup. It's 52-48 for the Republicans assuming the Louisiana seat stays red (but then again, after what just happened, we're all hesitant to make firm predictions...).
First is the ACA, which Ryan and McConnell want repealed. Second is the Supreme Court, for obvious reasons (and it won't be his only appointment either). Third is climate change, because Trump will revoke all of Obama's executive orders on that front (plus the worker protection ones). Finally, the Iran Deal will be revoked, which will produce a hardline Iranian President in the May 2017 election, and likely accelerate tensions before leading to war.
Thanks for that, America. You handed the world over to a fascist strongman who now has a Nixon style enemies list.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/9/13579800/net-neutrality-donald-trump-election-open-internet
In my experience, curently on the 'net you don't see much clearly defined SJWism/anti-SJWism without being in some heavily slanted place that will take whatever opportunities available to advance the 'cause'.
Easy, that it's just a continuation of imperialism as part of late stage capitalism's process of expansion.
The nice thing about socialism is that it's extremely simple.
Unpopular incumbent Dem, well-known Repub lieutenant gov, and maybe lingering feelings from the Dem primary. VT has had Repub govs in recent history -- Jim Douglas.
Sanders as POTUS nominee may have saved that one through coattails.
Now I know why I felt a little cringey when Clinton came onto the stage during the convention alongside a video showing a simulated shattering of glass revealing a picture of her.
It felt arrogant rather than humble.
And no one can out-arrogant Trump anyway.