Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Vader

The Next President

Recommended Posts

Uhhhhh I don't think the obstruction started with Obama. The 107th Congress was pretty strong precedence, with Democrats stalling a lot of appellate court nominees in committee even though Bush elevated a Clinton appointee as peace offering. It wasn't until Republicans regained a majority in the Senate with the 108th Congress that a lot of those blocked nominations went through. I wasn't paying attention before that and looking up the history is unwieldy on a phone, but in my memory this is a fight that Democrats started. Republicans are just escalating.

 

yeah the filibuster was starting to be used more often prior to obama, but it wasn't until the rule changed where you don't have to keep talking to maintain a filibuster (or remain germane to the topic) that things went to whole other level.  Something like half of the filibusters ever used in the history of the country have happened under Obama, which lead to the 2013 rule change where filibusters were disallowed for appointments.  It's gotten to the point where any bill going through the house that is even remotely contested gets filibustered, so a simple majority in the houses doesn't really matter anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit - Okay now it's being called a sweep for Clinton. Her strong suit - the south, where she and Bill are from and where the country's dumbest voters are* - is over with. The coasts are going to be a different story with a bigger delegate count at stake.

 

I'm sorry to respond to something so far back, but I need to take some umbrage with your comment about the South being where the country's "dumbest voters" are. Putting regional prejudice aside for a moment (which is obviously at work here), you have the fact that Democratic Party voters in the South are overwhelming African American, where Clinton has a large base of support and where Sanders has struggled to make inroads — even in the Northern states. Yes, African American voters are more favorable to Sanders outside the South, but they still have overwhelmingly supported Clinton (I think the number in Michigan was 70 Clinton 30 Sanders, which was his strongest showing).

 

I'm sure you are a nice person, but I keep seeing this nasty and condescending undercurrent among Sanders supporters, particularly on the internet, that has really ground me down over the course of this election and frankly soured me on him as a candidate (perhaps unfairly). I think Sanders is a man with enormous amount of integrity, but denigrating those who don't vote for him in a Trumpian fashion does his candidacy no favors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually meant to qualify it (with the asterisk) and forgot to. One of my posts afterward I got to it though.

 

Southern Democrats tend to embody some Republican / conservative views. I know for sure with black dems in the south (important note: my step-family is black and from there and I've met plenty of their extended family / friends from there) include religious bias into their political views, which impacts politics in a number of ways - one of the foremost being views on the LGBT community. Another way southern democrats embody right-wing views is fiscally, though not as strongly as the religious interference, as I like to call it.

 

I was mean about calling it where the "dumbest voters" are, and I only half take it back. A lot of Republican / conservative constituents are willfully ignorant and actively vote to harm themselves. And attempts to let them know about that or educate them are met with hostility from them. If they won't accept help, then they don't deserve my politeness beyond that.

 

There's a sad reality at play though where the south has a lot of legit education issues, especially when it comes to education on how the government functions (food for thought; I learned from an interview on the Daily Show like 10 years ago that only half the country has mandated education in highschool to teach students about their government - that is pathetically low). For that part, I apologize, because that isn't the fault of the people being affected by it. They don't know how government works, but they also don't learn skills like how to actually fact check things, or measure issues against one another or weigh evidence - so many life skills. The south needs a lot of help but it's currently under some sick control / brainwashing that will take a couple generations to fix when the tools to fix it can finally be strong-armed in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got this from one of the many internet-famous people I follow on Twitter. Sanders is still in it, especially when you look at the info in this form.

 

CdsrQ2XWEAIDptt.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a sad reality at play though where the south has a lot of legit education issues, especially when it comes to education on how the government functions (food for thought; I learned from an interview on the Daily Show like 10 years ago that only half the country has mandated education in highschool to teach students about their government - that is pathetically low). For that part, I apologize, because that isn't the fault of the people being affected by it. They don't know how government works, but they also don't learn skills like how to actually fact check things, or measure issues against one another or weigh evidence - so many life skills. The south needs a lot of help but it's currently under some sick control / brainwashing that will take a couple generations to fix when the tools to fix it can finally be strong-armed in there.

Not learning skills like that also seems like an educational issue, though...

also, I dunno if anyone else has this problem, but I can basically never see the images Henroid posts, just something like, in this instance, 'CdsrQ2XWEAIDptt.jpg' -- which is a link, and when I click on it leads to a loading wheel spinning infinitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I still find the notion that only reason someone wouldn't support Sanders is because they are uneducated kind of condescending? But I do appreciate the qualification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not learning skills like that also seems like an educational issue, though...

also, I dunno if anyone else has this problem, but I can basically never see the images Henroid posts, just something like, in this instance, 'CdsrQ2XWEAIDptt.jpg' -- which is a link, and when I click on it leads to a loading wheel spinning infinitely.

It's a twitter image link. I guess I can link the tweet here as a backup:https://twitter.com/Colleges4Bernie/status/710208939066068993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually meant to qualify it (with the asterisk) and forgot to. One of my posts afterward I got to it though.

 

Southern Democrats tend to embody some Republican / conservative views. I know for sure with black dems in the south (important note: my step-family is black and from there and I've met plenty of their extended family / friends from there) include religious bias into their political views, which impacts politics in a number of ways - one of the foremost being views on the LGBT community. Another way southern democrats embody right-wing views is fiscally, though not as strongly as the religious interference, as I like to call it.

 

I was mean about calling it where the "dumbest voters" are, and I only half take it back. A lot of Republican / conservative constituents are willfully ignorant and actively vote to harm themselves. And attempts to let them know about that or educate them are met with hostility from them. If they won't accept help, then they don't deserve my politeness beyond that.

 

There's a sad reality at play though where the south has a lot of legit education issues, especially when it comes to education on how the government functions (food for thought; I learned from an interview on the Daily Show like 10 years ago that only half the country has mandated education in highschool to teach students about their government - that is pathetically low). For that part, I apologize, because that isn't the fault of the people being affected by it. They don't know how government works, but they also don't learn skills like how to actually fact check things, or measure issues against one another or weigh evidence - so many life skills. The south needs a lot of help but it's currently under some sick control / brainwashing that will take a couple generations to fix when the tools to fix it can finally be strong-armed in there.

 

Look, I'm going to be polite and thoughtful about this: Get the fuck out. 

 

Here is the the thing, this is a bullshit, elitest form of idiocy that stems from a number of things, but is mostly driven by ideological nonsense. The idea that people voting against something that hurts them in some way makes them stupid is so beyond the pale I don't know where to start. Here's an idea: I'm a PhD student who will be pursuing an academic career. Even though it doesn't seem like it, voting for Bernie HURTS me economically (by a good amount). Why? Well, to boil it down, the government has subsidized education in such a way that schools are now much more heavily invested in bureaucratic management jobs than actual education, dramatically raising the cost of education (for both the students AND the tax payers). Free college for everyone we wouldn't create more full time tenured faculty positions (mostly adjunct or non-tenure jobs), but almost certainly would continue the scale of of bureaucratic middle management (to comply with government guidelines), hurting me, and it would also significantly raise taxes, also hurting me. Yet I am pro Bernie (well, honestly, I think he's the lesser of two evils and is completely impractical of a human being, but whatever, I've given up on presidents being actually moderate and thoughtful). So me voting for him is voting against my own interests. Is it because I'm uneducated? OF COURSE NOT.

 

The thing is, people vote because of their own personal self interests, in terms of jobs and the economy and the like, but also the religious, spiritual, philosophical and ideological precepts they hold dear, as well as a kind of gut-check, in which a person looks at the positions and history and rhetoric of a person, and decides if they feel that this person is the one who they think represents the country (in that particular voter's opinion). There are lots of dumb, uneducated people voting for silly, ridiculous reasons, and there are lots of intelligent, well educated people voting for silly, ridiculous reasons, and then there are all manner of other ones. 

 

As soon as you start breaking down x voters are uneducated or foolish or stupid, you give in to classist, racist, sexist, whatever streams of bullshit because you're position is the "superior" one (because you have it) and anyone who disagrees with you must be some sort of a subordinate class of human being in some way, shape or form. There are indeed many problems with the south, as there are with the north. The idea, however, that people are voting for who they feel best represents the country because some sort of an intellectual, moral, or educational deficit, however, is how fucktards justify some pretty horrible bullshit.

 

I'm sure you, personally, are a wonderful, kind, caring and considerate person, and your justifications for your statement aren't ENTIRELY wrong, but your position is a huge, huge problem. This is the kind of problem that frustrates me and keeps me out of most political conversations (other intelligent, interesting, kind and considerate people saying stupid shit and me not wanting to ruin friendships), but I figured I'm new enough here that I might as well shove my foot in my mouth with a hyperbolic rant in order to encourage moderate language and the treating of people as worthy of respect even when they vote for different people than we currently are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure you are a nice person, but I keep seeing this nasty and condescending undercurrent among Sanders supporters, particularly on the internet, that has really ground me down over the course of this election and frankly soured me on him as a candidate (perhaps unfairly). I think Sanders is a man with enormous amount of integrity, but denigrating those who don't vote for him in a Trumpian fashion does his candidacy no favors.

 

Honestly, the entire Democratic primary is filled with condescension. The number of Clinton supporters who have told me that Sanders doesn't have achievable positions, his supporters don't understand how government works, they just want to be part of a "revolution," they just like him because he's white or male, and/or they're going to ruin things for the one "viable" candidate the Democrats have is absolutely mind-boggling, especially considering how little I talk about politics in my daily life. I have literally had passing acquaintances hear that I support Sanders, nothing more, and start lecturing me about how I'm a naive idiot. It's incredibly toxic, all around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who depend on assistance programs who vote to destroy those assistance programs are an example of what I mean about people voting against themselves. They do so being mislead by whatever politician sold them on the idea that it's for their own good somehow. The motivator is misleading rhetoric or promises. John Oliver talked about one of the angles of this in an episode of his show (I forget which one), focused on people being sold the idea that they may some day magically be one of the wealthy so they must support destroying the estate tax (one of the things in place to prevent the crushing of the economy and furthering the income gap).

 

People well-off financially willing to vote for people or on policies that increase their tax share is not the same thing by a long shot. The motivator there is way different than what I'm talking about and thus is not part of what I'm talking about.

 

Religious motivators for politics will never be okay for me in the USA because our Constitution mandates the absence of religion in government. Any law made to enforce a religious belief is not okay. Laws allowing for religious belief are different, but enforcement? Nope. Never okay. My step-sister isn't outright hateful, but shuns homosexuals or people of different religions. It motivates her voting practice and that disappoints the hell out of me. In her eyes, we are a "Christian Nation." And we are literally not so as mandated by the founders.

 

As for Gormongous' post, I wanna bounce off it and give an example of the Democratic primary being full of condescension. Specifically religious bias. Something I became aware of in the Nevada primary was the DNC doing nothing to assist Jewish voters in participating. The caucus fell on shabbat, the day of rest. Boiling it down super simply, as my roomies (practicing Jewish folks mind you) explained it, they aren't permitted to do anything unless it is an emergency. The DNC was in a position to either change the day or allow for absentee participation. And they don't. And probably didn't because they likely felt that Jewish voters would side for Bernie Sanders - a Jewish candidate. There was an effort to notify the DNC of this and it was ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thing before bed. There's two ways to be critical of candidates running.

 

The first is being critical of things they do or say. Like factually.

 

The second is being critical based on supposition. The what-ifs, the "will it work"s, etc.

 

I'm critical of Hillary Clinton in both ways. When I bring up programs and policies she's worked for in her past, or allegiances she's declared or still maintains, or stupid shit she's said, I'm being critical on factual things. When I talk about her being a political Trojan horse that's baiting Democratic / liberal voters, that's supposition. I will gladly refer to it as that because hey, there's a chance she'll prove me wrong. But I don't trust her enough to give her the chance. So I do what I can to point her history out and ask people why they would think she's suddenly going to be different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not learning skills like that also seems like an educational issue, though...

also, I dunno if anyone else has this problem, but I can basically never see the images Henroid posts, just something like, in this instance, 'CdsrQ2XWEAIDptt.jpg' -- which is a link, and when I click on it leads to a loading wheel spinning infinitely.

 

Maybe you're like me and your work (or wherever you're posting from) blocks Twitter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Below is an article I linked on my facebook a while back that articulates why an intelligent person on the Left might support Hillary Clinton.

 

Look, I'm not saying you are wrong to not trust Clinton. I fully accept why many people would rather support Sanders. Just please acknowledge that those who see things differently aren't dum dums, that's all. It's really not doing you, your cause, or anyone else any favors.

 

https://medium.com/@garrettmeyer/why-i-put-some-ice-on-that-bern-a7741114e812#.5wbnk293q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Below is an article I linked on my facebook a while back that articulates why an intelligent person on the Left might support Hillary Clinton.

 

Look, I'm not saying you are wrong to not trust Clinton. I fully accept why many people would rather support Sanders. Just please acknowledge that those who see things differently aren't dum dums, that's all. It's really not doing you, your cause, or anyone else any favors.

 

https://medium.com/@garrettmeyer/why-i-put-some-ice-on-that-bern-a7741114e812#.5wbnk293q

 

My issue with that piece is that the author freely switches between descriptions of "lifelong advocate" and "flexible realist" when it suits him. I would have a lot more patience for many Clinton supporters if they'd just make the latter argument by itself, that Clinton actually has shown a great deal of talent at tailoring her positions to the popular trends over the past couple decades and that that's an underappreciated aptitude for politicians to have, but I keep hearing that, deep down at the very core of her being and regardless of her words or actions, she's been a lifelong ally for universal healthcare, LGBTQIA, people of color, and whatever else and that those are the true colors that'll show in office, in the same political climate that drove Obama hard to the center. The writer calls himself a cynic, but I think there's a solid seam of naive optimism in the bedrock of their thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue with that piece is that the author freely switches between descriptions of "lifelong advocate" and "flexible realist" when it suits him. I would have a lot more patience for many Clinton supporters if they'd just make the latter argument by itself, that Clinton actually has shown a great deal of talent at tailoring her positions to the popular trends over the past couple decades and that that's an underappreciated aptitude for politicians to have, but I keep hearing that, deep down at the very core of her being and regardless of her words or actions, she's been a lifelong ally for universal healthcare, LGBTQIA, people of color, and whatever else and that those are the true colors that'll show in office, in the same political climate that drove Obama hard to the center. The writer calls himself a cynic, but I think there's a solid seam of naive optimism in the bedrock of their thinking.

So much these, either she has always believed in these things and did what was popular instead of what she believed was right or she has changed her mind/moved to where popular opinion is now, which is fine just don't pretend you believed it all along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue with that piece is that the author freely switches between descriptions of "lifelong advocate" and "flexible realist" when it suits him.

 

I guess I would argue that in positions of political leadership, advocacy must always be tempered by flexibility and realism. As an elected official its your job to represent the interests that put you there, and in Clinton's case that will certainly include interests like unions, members of the LGBT community, women's rights advocates, etc

 

It will also include some corporate interests and some folks you don't like. This is inevitable in a politician, because a coalition of electors will almost always include some groups that you as a constituent don't believe have your best interests in mind. The question is more of the politician's telos rather than any individual action. To say Clinton isn't an advocate for things like early childhood education, healthcare access, etc, you need to ignore a large part of her resume.

 

This isn't to say she has always acted in the interest of those aims, but I think there is an intelligent argument to make that more often than not, she has. 

Again, if the compromises she's made seem icky to you, I'm not banning you from supporting Sanders. I'm simply saying that there is an intelligent argument to be made from the Left for Clinton, that's all. I'm not calling anyone dumb for supporting Sanders, and I guess I'm just asking that Sanders supporters extend Clinton supporters the same courtesy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you try to please everyone in politics you get nowhere, just like in social situations.

 

Giving corporations tax breaks for outsourcing jobs out of America isn't a "compromise." Saying that black people must be "brought to heel" isn't a compromise. Just to list a couple flaws there. I'm not sure the word "compromise" is the one you're looking for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religious motivators for politics will never be okay for me in the USA because our Constitution mandates the absence of religion in government. Any law made to enforce a religious belief is not okay. Laws allowing for religious belief are different, but enforcement? Nope. Never okay. My step-sister isn't outright hateful, but shuns homosexuals or people of different religions. It motivates her voting practice and that disappoints the hell out of me. In her eyes, we are a "Christian Nation." And we are literally not so as mandated by the founders.

 

I went to a church in Oklahoma (sorry if that means I'm not educated enough for you!) that allowed openly homosexual and transgendered.  It was the location where the PFLAG chapter in my community met.  It has participated in and hosted LGBTQ activism including pushing for change within the United Methodist Church as a whole.  They've been a very progressive force in my community.  And you're going to tell me that these people shouldn't allow their religious values to motivate their politics?  Do you think it was wrong for the civil rights movement to have been organized through black churches? 

 

I don't know if you are unaware or just don't care how condescending you seem.  In this thread, you've argued that red state democrats (especially black ones) are less educated and less thoughtful.  Do you even understand how that sounds?  I can't even comprehend it.  It's the worst case of subtle racism and not so subtle elitism parading as progressivism I've seen in a long time.  I'm sure you're a good person, but I feel like you've attacked myself and a lot of people I know and love in some very ignorant ways.

 

Oh well, I'll  probably just have to stay away from this thread because it is so toxic.  A rarity on this board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, can we lock this thread please?

 

I don't think it's necessary to lock this thread. If a couple of posts by one person made a thread irretrievable, then the Feminism and Social Justice threads would be locked ten or twenty times over. Hell, even the WiiU thread would be locked under those circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(I'm also against locking this thread. I think this is something we can calmly work out amongst ourselves)
 

If you try to please everyone in politics you get nowhere, just like in social situations.

 

Giving corporations tax breaks for outsourcing jobs out of America isn't a "compromise." Saying that black people must be "brought to heel" isn't a compromise. Just to list a couple flaws there. I'm not sure the word "compromise" is the one you're looking for.

 

I agree that it is a difficult balance, but it is one a leader of any type must find. you're not going to get anywhere unless you are able to please (or at least placate) groups that are able to make up a governing majority. Welcome to democracy.

 

As for corporate tax breaks, I'm not sure the specific policy you are referring to, but chances are I am less economically protectionist than you. I tend to think unimpeded trade with other nations is usually a net positive for both american workers and the world at large, provided of course that environmental and worker's rights concerns are addressed in trade treaties.

 

As for the "brought to heel comment" Clinton made about "super predators" back in the 90s, yeah that really wasn't cool. I'll also point out that we were in the midst of a rising levels of violent crime during that time and this was something that was alarming to many americans, including many Black americans. Still, many of the anti-crime measures ended up unfairly targeting communities of color and in that light her comments come across as particularly egregious.

 

I will also note that she has apologized for the way she spoke at that time, and has also put forward a more comprehensive plan for criminal justice reform than Sanders has up to this point. Again, maybe you don't believe that she'll follow through, and I'm not saying that you need to. I'm simply saying, again, that it is reasonable for intelligent people to support Clinton on the merits, something I will note that you still have failed to acknowledge, even as I have acknowledged the ability for intelligent people to support Sanders.

What's at issue here for me is whether you can support your candidate of choice without being insulting and condescending to everyone who disagrees with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it seems like a lot of people are being personally hurt by this thread. Anyone else think it should be locked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that always gets me with Hillary is people say she often signs of growth... except then she'll turn around and blatantly lie about things she said in the past or things someone else said. When called out on this, she deflects, rather than admitting she was wrong. She comes off as someone who only says what she has to say to please the greatest amount of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it seems like a lot of people are being personally hurt by this thread. Anyone else think it should be locked?

It wouldn't be a bad idea, but this election cycle seems to be just bringing out the worst in everyone -- especially Sanders supporters with the conspiracy theory level "the media is against us!" bull and generally appalling elitism -- so maybe it would be better to leave a spot for containment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×