General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 48

So it's a 50/50 delegate split in Kentucky. Honestly better than I thought that state would go.

 

What convinced you this was a good thing to post? Sanders lefties and neo-nazi alt-righters aren't that different?

 

i mean their tendencies to blindly and universally support their political figure, their sometimes downright ridiculous logic and avoidance of facts, and their frustrating tactics ranging from spamming Facebook to, apparently now, unnecessary violence. i say this as a general fan of and voter for bernie...

 

Yea, I don't remember reports of Obama supporters conducting such acts 8 years ago when up against Hillary (coming from another Bernie voter)

 

Democratic party sure knows how to obscure their own shittiness by creating these narratives that focus on the shittiness of those reacting to their shittiness.

 

Forgotten scandal: How the U.S. prevented U.N. action on Rwandan genocide, under Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright - Salon.com

Bill, with the steadfast support of Hillary, gutted welfare, implemented “tough-on-crime” policies that fueled racist mass incarceration, pushed through the destructive neoliberal NAFTA trade deal, signed laws that created a system of arbitrary mass detention and abuse for refugees and migrants, passed anti-LGBTQ legislation and oversaw the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia that effectively destroyed the nation based on lies.

THEN the article gets into the responsibility for genocide. This is the type of candidate that represents the party I'm being told I morally have to vote for. Fuck that.

 

Hey, Obama boys: Back off already! - Salon.com

 

Thanks, I'd figure there was something

 

I actually agree with you in large part concerning the proliferation of articles feeding the right-wing narrative that opposition to Trump is largely a result of hysteric media and the maliciously purposeful redefining of what offenders traditional notions of decency just to harp on him. However, I think it's more due to Trump's publicity power than it is legitimate activist outrage. If there is a finding that Trump was a sexist, racist dirtbag in the 1970s just as he is now, it should be reported on and added to the ongoing discussion. However, if it's framed as a revelation and allowed to gain viral steam under that misnomer, I think you're right to disapprove. That's allowing predatory journalists and outlets to shift the conversation away from substantive order for their own benefit.

Liberal outrage concerning Trump has always been overstated, though. It's easier for the casually politically attuned to spew out reactionary rhetoric instead of engaging in actual activism on the issues of employment rights, misogyny, police violence, environmental exploitation, government corruption, foreign for-profit slaughters, etc., the world would be much better off.

A bipartisan refusal to work with Trump would be fine by me. Four years of stagnation while more old, moronic voting demographics die off and partisanship support for the two major parties erodes? That sounds a lot better to me than enabling any modest progressive gains that are sure to be had only through the compromised allowance of considerable moves to the right on domestic and, especially, foreign issues. To be frank, I don't see much any long-term utility in "compromise" if Trump were to be president.

Care to give an example? Where exactly has support for Sanders been inconsistent with logic and/or voters' policy?

Come on. If you're going to compare Sanders supporters to Trump supporters, let's get some actual comparison.

The only thing I disapprove of as far as the organization of Sanders' support is the lack of vigilance in policing sexist comments towards Clinton. It almost exclusively seems to come from male supporters aged 35+ who I (hopefully) presume to be only casually politically engaged, but any usage of terms like "whore" (even if intended as asexual) and "****" need to be rigidly condemned considering the supporters' expressed possible re-affiliation with Jill Stein.

 

Every news article I see is followed by commenters sharing anti-Hillary memes and copy pastes, lunatic conspiracy theories about voter suppression, accusations that [x independent news agency/the DNC/any Hillary supporter] is in the pocket of corporations and Hillary's shadowy donors... Fuck, dude, they're nearly as bad as the general right is about her. Needless to say I'm no big fan of Hillary, but I'm that way for policy reasons, not a fawning obsession for a deified candidate who's essentially past the mathematic point of having any chance at the nom. Christ, there's a non-zero population that's already expressed explicit support for Trump should Bernie drop (most famous, I think, being Susan Sarandon). I don't think it's a stretch in the slightest to say there are common ideologies and blind spots between Trump fans and Bernie fans - again, I say this as someone who voted for Bernie and would still love to see his policies implemented and see him get the nom if it weren't so unlikely.

 

Well, taht's what the article was saying--that those dems are saying they're willing to work with him on liberal policies.

There's also no political capital for them to "give in" on those issues anymore like there was in the early 90's and early-mid 2000's.....The base is no longer in support of those things in the numbers they were back then. Remember, it wasn't just republicans and right leaning voters that wanted stuff like the crime bill, or DOMA, which was passed at a time when only 27% of people were saying gay marriages should be 'valid'.

Or, worse, a Trump victory would show the Democrats that they have to move a little further right on some of those issues to win elections. Which is exactly why a Trump victory would have possibly devastating effects on the country.

 

Sanders pushes Clinton for debate in California

I have been hoping to see a dem debate on Fox News. Hopefully Hillary accepts, but I wouldn't count on it since she almost wouldn't even do one in New York

 

Let me clarify: I think, if Trump wins, the situations in which democrats will compromise won't be the things you've enumerated. In all likelihood, what they're saying when they say they'll work with Trump is they'll compromise on his agenda. I believe this because this is the same sort of thing one heard during the previous administrations.

To your second and third point, I think that is an indictment of the electoral realm. Is it valid to tether your party to a group's oppression because it gets you re-elected?

 

Yes, but they said those same sort of things about policies they knew were popular, or at the very least liked somewhat, among their base, which is moderate voters and dems in their states. But those types of policies--like banning Muslims, or building a wall (which actually was a politically split issue, roughly 50/50 until Trump took it up en force lol, now dems and dem leaners are waaaay against it)--aren't clear winners for the Democratic Party if they "work with Trump" on them. If they're acting on the interests of the party, it's pretty hard to argue that issues that are split 50/50 will benefit the party if they go against their base's wishes. It is pretty easy to argue that for something like DOMA in 1996 though, when only 27% of the country thought gay marriages were valid.

It's not an indictment of "the electoral realm", it's an indictment of America in general and how right wing we are, especially in comparison to other countries. But there's not any political system that's going to eliminate the political mood of the country from the equation as it pertains to crafting policy. As sad as that is.

 

When have democrats cared about their base? The phenomena of Trump and Sanders speak to this crisis, insofar as both represent the response to the terminal decline of representation by their respective parties. Parties have effectively become detached from their bases, which is reflected in studies that show where American opinions are and the policy outcomes. Policy, regardless of party, has reflected the interests of the ruling class and the structurally oppressive inequalities that underpin them. So, where you see a party committed to liberalism for the sake of their base, I see the chasm between where they are and what their base wants. In this context, the ease with which they can compromise on a whole host of terrible policies becomes apparent.

And that's it on this topic.


Edit: it is an indictment of parties that are willing to put marginalized groups in jeopardy for electoral success. You act as though there weren't people who were on the right side of this. Ignorance isn't an excuse, nor is backwardness. If one implicitly says your well-being is subject to polling, not only are they suspect, but the system that perpetuates that is put into question.

But, whatever. I'll just copy and paste things from like two pages ago when we argued about it before. Ha.

 

because to you anything that isn't a full-blown socialist revolution is republican trash.

 

Nope. You're wrong.

 

I think a lot of those studies look at overall support for different policies vs. policy outcomes, not JUST at the base support. That being said, it's not a hard and fast rule that the base will get what it wants in terms of how their reps vote. Sometimes a powerful lobbying force will overpower the will of the base (see: NRA and gun control measures like background checks, though I'm sur republicans know their voters don't feel that strongly about it), but by and large if the first order of business is to get re-elected, and if the base really, REALLY doesn't like something, then you're not gonna go along with it.

But again I point to the idea that Dems losing elections might give way for the rise of a left wing party doesn't seem rooted in any evidence considering the past. MAYBE Trump is crazy enough to make it happen, but his being President for 4 years with control of both houses is terrifying enough to make me not want to take the risk on such a slim chance.

Haha I know. As tiring and old as the arguments are, I still enjoy your perspective. Til next time!

 

Can I throw out a hypothetical? So say it ends up Trump v. Clinton and voter turnout is SUPER low. Does HRC's legacy become she won because no one cared? Does it give Congressional Rs the upper hand for the foreseeable future?

Stay with me here. If no traditional Rs turn out because well, Trump, and they can't vote for Hillary they stay home. Likely very few in that category that hate her so much they'd vote for someone like Trump. Liberals stay home because she's too conservative/establishment and the youth vote stays home. She wins with decent margins but overall low turn out.

Congressional Rs can place the blame squarely on the Trump types and say she "stole" the election. Now, your only hope if you are antiHRC and/or a Republican is to unite and help elect Congressional Rs to stop her.

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist but is there something I'm missing out of that scenario?

 

I don't think history will view this election as the "election where no one cared" if turnout is low. Quite the opposite, I am confident that history will view this election as the election where the electorate found their soul, and refused to succumb to the false choice that the baby boomer generation hung their hat on.

But I am an optimist.

 

I don't know if it applies but lots of republicans were so into the party that they were willing to support Ted Cruz after saying that if someone murdered him during a session of Congress no would care

 

You should not compare anyone even close to the left with the kind of people that support Trump. We are talking about literal white supremacists. Don't tread lightly here. This is incredibly incindiary.

 

the fact that this is incredibly incendiary kinda supports my point that there can be found unreasonable, violent dogmatism in certain Sanders supporters...

 

There wasn't any "violence" in Nevada. And what happened wasn't about Sanders. Sanders will not win the nomination with pledged delegates, and everyone knows that, including his Nevada delegates. Just another reminder they're waiting to smash the insurgent left at any given opportunity.

 

I would say chair throwing (at least as alleged), the state chair needing security to use the restroom, and an influx of death threats constitute violent behavior.

The crowd was literally chanting "Bernie or bust." it's facetious to say this isn't about Bernie.