|
Post by robeiae on Nov 18, 2016 9:55:01 GMT -5
People talk about bubbles with regard to the economy quite a bit: the housing bubble, the tech bubble, etc. The idea is that the there is huge growth in a market segment that eventually goes too far with the projected worth of things exceeding reasonable real worth. Then the bubble "pops" and values of homes or stocks come tumbling down. It seems to me that much of the Left--it's leadership and its scions in the media--are in such a bubble. Consider this piece by Eugene Robinson: www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/18/the_democrats_must_learn_from_the_gop_and_rebuild_132387.htmlThoughtful? Maybe. It purports to be an assessment of current political conditions; Robinson bemoans the the reality of full-bore Republican control of the Fed, most State houses and governorships, and the SCOTUS. Then he offers some general advice for the Dems going forward. But look at some of the assumptions: Dude, wake the f*** up. Trump outperformed Romney and McCain in minority votes. Not by much, it is true, but that reality probably cost Clinton Michigan at the very least. Those weren't Republican voters "coming together," they were Dem voters ABANDONING CLINTON. Because there's no getting around this: Clinton failed miserably, when it comes to garnering votes. She got millions fewer than Obama did in 2012 and in 2008. Many millions fewer. Yet, you're actually going to suggest that the Bushes are somehow to blame for her loss? Really? And this panegyric approach to Obama--which has been going on for over eight years--isn't helping either. In 1992 (yeah, my memory goes back that far), Bill Clinton was a "once-in-a-lifetime" political leader. And supposedly, Hillary Clinton was the most qualified person to ever run for elected office in the history of the world (if one listened to the panegyrists in the media like yourself, Mr. Robinson). True, Obama was the first African-American President (apologies to Bill). True, he is very, very smart. True, he ran excellent campaigns. But what exactly makes him a "unique political talent"? Is the economy booming? No. Is the world at peace? No. And let's face it, if he really was that special, that unique, he would have made the folks around him better (to use a sports analogy), and yet that didn't happen. The Dems suffered historic losses in the 2010 midterms (people have forgotten this, I think) and didn't fare much better in 2014. And he campaigned his ass off for Clinton for this election. How come she didn't win? Did all of the people who so fervently believed in him, who listened to him, decide as a group that they'd rather stay home and watch NetFlix? I would agree with the proposition that Obama has mostly been an effective President. But come on, get over yourself. He hasn't been the Second Coming. He was smacked down by the SCOTUS multiple times for overreaching, he's made a bunch of EOs that are going to disappear in short order, he reneged on multiple promises (from signing statements to lobbyists to Gitmo), his signature achievement--the ACA--is teetering, and he simply hasn't accomplished all that much with regard to international terrorism and related conflicts around the globe. Maybe, just maybe, the Dem Party needs to stop being a cult of personality. Pop.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Nov 18, 2016 10:28:07 GMT -5
A Fantasy Bubble is a nicely descriptive term for a collective of inflated egos. I want to be surprised, amazed or amused that the tale they're spinning is about Republicans swarming to the polls and overwhelming the Democrats great turnout, when the facts are obviously otherwise. Even given the echo chamber they're wrapping around themselves, the only possible explanations are willful ignorance or an appalling failure to understand basic arithmetic. I'd rather assume it's the new math than massive delusions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2016 10:46:00 GMT -5
Would you people stop posting stuff I agree with? My dear robo, you and I especially are long overdue for a steel cage match, but I cannot bring my claws and nails to a fight when when I concur with what you're saying.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Nov 18, 2016 11:35:35 GMT -5
Gah, lots to say here, don't know where to begin. warning, I woke up in a bad mood. Rant to follow.
1) This constant prattle for years about the GOP dying, dead, won't be in existence soon, self destructing, blah blah blah, even as recently as days and weeks ago. Yet the GOP keeps winning elections. And this was being said even as the GOP won more governorships and majority in congress over the last few years. Is the left blind? Clearly there are at the foundation of the GOP, values which transcend factions and which appeal to the electorate. bubble
2) Did he just say most big cities are PROSPERING? Are you f*****g kidding me? By what metric? When was the last time he visited an inner city school? Or ER? Or the parks where the homeless sleep? Or the unemployment offices? Or the jails? Or those street corners where perfectly healthy young men stand around and smoke and talk all day because they have nothing better to do? Or those who only live for their next opioid high? Or seen the bars on all the windows of the graffiti covered houses and buildings? I think he needs to reevaluate what prospering means for average folk. bubble
3) The focus of this "introspection" is never about what policies they can improve or change to better the country, or what failings their own candidates and office holders have. It's always about strategy to get more votes. Do they not see that a reason Trump won is that more people voted who felt the country needs a change than people who are satisfied with the status quo? MAJOR bubble
4) The Democrat leaders WANT the bubble. That's why the fear mongering. That's why the dog whistling. That's why the hysterical name calling. Make people afraid. Keep them blue. manufactured bubble
Rant over
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Nov 18, 2016 20:25:41 GMT -5
All right, chica, put yer dukes up!
1) The GOP isn't dead, no. I never thought they were, but I hoped some of their extreme rhetoric was going to be sidelined, because it wasn't working anymore, and they would become more center/moderate, which would be extremely appealing to me personally. No such luck, I guess. I do wonder what values of the GOP you think are appealing the electorate now? Also I don't understand "transcending factions" -- Trump's whole message was about factions. Hillary=bad; Trump=good. That was appealing to many of his voters.
2) Can't disagree, but when is the last the time the GOP gave a shit about inner cities? They want harsher crimes for drug use, they want to reduce welfare for "lazy" recipients, they want to reduce federal funding for education, food stamps, assistance. They want to repeal national healthcare, ffs. I agree that the Dems have fallen short, as has Obamacare, it is one of my harshest criticisms of them, but what is the GOP offering?
3) I don't disagree, but, pot, meet kettle.
4) The GOP has their own bubble and it's full of fear-mongering too. Scary Muslims and scary Mexicans and build a wall and rapists and drug dealers and terrorists, oh my! A yuuuge part of Trump's message played on fear and blame. As to dog-whistling, the GOP has their own guilded set of pipes. SJWs! Liberals! Taking away our freedom! Taking away our guns! Persecuting Christianity! It goes both ways. The GOP is not a victim and they're no different, they're just another player in the game.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Nov 19, 2016 3:12:52 GMT -5
celawson, ChristineThere's no need to fight, you two. You're both absolutely right. So do the math and put the blame where it belongs.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 19, 2016 14:27:07 GMT -5
1) The GOP isn't dead, no. I never thought they were, but I hoped some of their extreme rhetoric was going to be sidelined, because it wasn't working anymore, and they would become more center/moderate, which would be extremely appealing to me personally. No such luck, I guess. I do wonder what values of the GOP you think are appealing the electorate now? Also I don't understand "transcending factions" -- Trump's whole message was about factions. Hillary=bad; Trump=good. That was appealing to many of his voters. Hillary's campaign devolved into "Trump=bad, Hillary=good." For all the relative strengths and weaknesses of the candidates, they both ran awful campaigns that were light on substance and heavy on fear-mongering. Trump sold voters on MAGA and walls and scary Muslims. Hillary tried to sell voters on "OMG TRUMP IS A PUSSY-GRABBING RACIST HOW CAN YOU VOTE FOR THIS MONSTER?!" Those are both pretty shitty messages, frankly, but given the choice, people chose the guy who was actually promising to do things, however improbable, over the hectoring scold who was just trying to tell you how awful the other guy is and how you should feel bad if you vote for him. Honestly? They are offering a "fuck you" to the poor and the promise of less fucks given to the poor to the working and middle class. That sucks if you're poor, but it is pretty appealing to the working and middle class. This is a reality.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 19, 2016 15:00:37 GMT -5
Hillary's campaign devolved into "Trump=bad, Hillary=good." Yes. I remember people insisting--going into the race--that Clinton was so much better than the other Repub contenders, insofar as she would stay on policy all the time, and not fall into the trap these others did of descending (at least part of the way) to Trump's level of discourse. But she and her campaign didn't--and probably couldn't--do it. Her angles of criticism were mostly about Trump-the-person and largely policy-free by the end of the race.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Nov 19, 2016 15:07:46 GMT -5
If ya'll were thinking I was praising the Dem's campaign, please allow me to disabuse you of that notion.
They both sucked.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Nov 19, 2016 15:33:28 GMT -5
All right, chica, put yer dukes up! 1) The GOP isn't dead, no. I never thought they were, but I hoped some of their extreme rhetoric was going to be sidelined, because it wasn't working anymore, and they would become more center/moderate, which would be extremely appealing to me personally. No such luck, I guess. I do wonder what values of the GOP you think are appealing the electorate now? Also I don't understand "transcending factions" -- Trump's whole message was about factions. Hillary=bad; Trump=good. That was appealing to many of his voters. 2) Can't disagree, but when is the last the time the GOP gave a shit about inner cities? They want harsher crimes for drug use, they want to reduce welfare for "lazy" recipients, they want to reduce federal funding for education, food stamps, assistance. They want to repeal national healthcare, ffs. I agree that the Dems have fallen short, as has Obamacare, it is one of my harshest criticisms of them, but what is the GOP offering? 3) I don't disagree, but, pot, meet kettle. 4) The GOP has their own bubble and it's full of fear-mongering too. Scary Muslims and scary Mexicans and build a wall and rapists and drug dealers and terrorists, oh my! A yuuuge part of Trump's message played on fear and blame. As to dog-whistling, the GOP has their own guilded set of pipes. SJWs! Liberals! Taking away our freedom! Taking away our guns! Persecuting Christianity! It goes both ways. The GOP is not a victim and they're no different, they're just another player in the game. Oh wow, how did I not see this until a few minutes ago? Actually, I know why - still figuring out how to best navigate this site. I initially turned email notifications on for all sorts of things, and my poor Inbox. So then I turned them all off. Now I'm going to turn on only the 'if they quote me' email notification. That way I will respond more quickly to conversations and keep it flowing better. Sorry! I will be back to answer this, but I think I have to run my daughter to the store for a bit. Good points, Cristina - Mis punos son arriba!
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Nov 19, 2016 18:34:52 GMT -5
All right, chica, put yer dukes up! 1) The GOP isn't dead, no. I never thought they were, but I hoped some of their extreme rhetoric was going to be sidelined, because it wasn't working anymore, and they would become more center/moderate, which would be extremely appealing to me personally. No such luck, I guess. I do wonder what values of the GOP you think are appealing the electorate now? Also I don't understand "transcending factions" -- Trump's whole message was about factions. Hillary=bad; Trump=good. That was appealing to many of his voters. OK, values of the GOP -- I think as a certain very vocal portion of the country veers further and further left (For Pete's sake, people were excited about a socialist running for POTUS!), and anti-American sentiment is heard more and more often from that same very vocal leftist portion (i.e. we're one of the most racist countries in the world, kneeling during the national anthem, less respect for our history, who do we think we are trying to be the world's police, college students wanting to ban our flag because it stands for imperialism and colonialism, the left thinking most all of the right are deplorables, etc.), the rest of us start to feel more strongly about our love for the ideals upon which this country was built, our Constitution, the ability of the U.S. to do good in the world and provide stability, free market, the rule of law, smaller government (right now esp in health care and regulations of businesses), a strong military, controlled borders. By transcending factions I meant the factions within the GOP. Obviously there wasn't too much infighting to prevent Republicans from winning many offices this election, including the highest in the land.
2) Can't disagree, but when is the last the time the GOP gave a shit about inner cities? I think the GOP has some approaches that might work better than the Democrats ideas which have been NOT working for decades. It certainly looks like the BLM/anti-police movement has resulted in more murders and crimes in certain cities like Ferguson and Chicago. And who is hurt more by that? They want harsher crimes for drug use (might not actually result in what they want, but what they want is to decrease/eliminate the drug trade and drug use), they want to reduce welfare for "lazy" recipients (the belief is that welfare handouts incentivize not working as well as not marrying - it's the fish versus fishing pole, and the end game is more people working, contributing, self-sufficient, and 2 parent households), they want to reduce federal funding for educationo (when has throwing more money at public schools ever resulted in better education? They want vouchers and the free market/competition to improve schools, and more accountability for teachers who are too protected by unions, more efficiency in how schools/districts are run), food stamps, assistance see above welfare comment. They want to repeal national healthcare (and change to a BETTER MORE EFFICIENT, LESS COSTLY system that doesn't grow government), ffs. I agree that the Dems have fallen short, as has Obamacare, it is one of my harshest criticisms of them, but what is the GOP offering? (something that incorporates free market/competition and smaller governmental control - we shall see)3) I don't disagree, but, pot, meet kettle. (I actually think Trump had the audacity to introduce some new ideas, or at least ideas that others didn't have the gumption to introduce
See Michael Moore: 4) The GOP has their own bubble and it's full of fear-mongering too. Scary Muslims (Muslims who are terrorists or who support Sharia law are scary, not all Muslims) and scary Mexicans (illegal aliens who are gang members and drug lords ARE scary!) and build a wall (I still don't get what is so bad about building that danged wall ) and rapists and drug dealers and terrorists, oh my! A yuuuge part of Trump's message played on fear and blame. As to dog-whistling, the GOP has their own guilded set of pipes. SJWs! Liberals! Taking away our freedom! Taking away our guns! Persecuting Christianity! It goes both ways. Yes it does. The GOP is not a victim and they're no different (I think in many ways they are very different, and that's the point of this divisiveness) , they're just another player in the game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2016 19:04:54 GMT -5
Well, for one, there's the cost/benefit analysis. Estimates vary, but no doubt it would be hugely expensive (see, e.g., www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/26/how-trump-plans-build-wall-along-us-mexico-border/), and it's a joke to think Trump could make Mexico pay for it. Don't we have better, more important things to do with our tax dollars? And for what? From what I've read, the vast majority of the aliens coming in aren't criminals. They're working low-level, ill-paying jobs most Americans don't even want, only to escape a still worse situation at home and maybe make a better life. And as far as "so they can come in LEGALLY!" Pfft. We aren't letting many people in legally these days, at least compared to the days when all of my not-too-distant ancestors came over in steerage with very little money, education or English at their disposal, got jobs, built a life, and sent their kids to college. Compare that to a very well-educated friend of mine who had to wait nine damn years to become a citizen. She had a great job sponsoring her. She had a U.S. law degree and a PhD in biology. Speaks not only English fluently, but several other languages. On what planet should she have to wait so long and work so hard to come here and become a citizen? Another acquaintance of mine married a German guy. They would have preferred to stay here for a number of reasons, but it was so much more difficult to make it legal for him to stay here than doing the reverse, she now lives in Germany. (If it were up to me? I'd let in a lot more legal immigrants.) For another, there's this: ETA: I am always happy to have an opportunity to post that video. One of Reagan's great moments for sure, and IMO among the greatest speeches by any American president. Anyway, I'm fond of it. And I'm not fond of walls.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 19, 2016 19:22:37 GMT -5
Donald Trump's inherent wrongness doesn't excuse people on the left for their silliness in trying to blame someone OTHER THAN THEMSELVES for Clinton's loss, nor does it excuse the Obama fanboyism that characterizes so much of their analysis.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2016 19:23:27 GMT -5
Donald Trump's inherent wrongness doesn't excuse people on the left for their silliness in trying to blame someone OTHER THAN THEMSELVES for Clinton's loss, nor does it excuse the Obama fanboyism that characterizes so much of their analysis. Damn it. Forced to agree with Rob again.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Nov 19, 2016 19:51:39 GMT -5
(This was in reponse to c.e.'s post, which I tried to quote but it was a mess with the text so I gave up, sorry!)
Sanders was a "socialist" in the same way that social security and Medicare programs are "socialist". Socialism isn't the dirty word Repubs make it out to be. I think we need to judge each idea on its merits: should the government take over this function, or shouldn't they? Why or why not? As opposed to OMG SOCIALISM. We are a society, and we need to make decisions about what's best left to the market and what we as a society through our representatives should ensure. I happen to have decided that health care is one of these things, only because the market fucked it up. Mileage will vary.
A strong military is socialistic, for example, because we can't all defend ourselves against outside forces. It makes sense that the government takes care of this function. Why isn't anyone arguing for the free market to take over this function? Or the rule of law? Or a thousand other things the government does that no one complains about? I think a lot of times the idea that the free market is working is really: it's working for me.
And then there's the idea that welfare is just handout, and we need teach people to fish instead of give them fish. Well, okay. First of all, what are the GOP programs to teach people to fish? And second of all, what are the GOPs plans for putting fish in the fucking pond? Because there aren't any. It's so easy to criticize feeding people cuz they could totes feed themselves if they just had some incentive and liberals are just handing out fish to get votes. I despise that rhetoric from the right, it shows zero understanding of what life is actually like for some people, and how difficult it is to make systemic changes, but no one seems to realize at least they are eating. Complete disconnect. People don't aspire to be on welfare. People have lost hope.
As far as anti-American sentiment, I don't know what to tell you. People have been burning flags and kneeling or not kneeling in protest since the dawn of time. People are expressing their grievances and it doesn't bother me, personally. I'm not nationalistic. I love the USA, sure, but I love the human race more. I respect freedom more.
The responses to (2) are for the most part just typical Republican responses with no substance. And no, it hasn't been "decades," it's been 8 years of Obama, and before that it was Bush for 8 years. Bush had an opportunity to address all of these issues, same as Obama. I guess it's not that simple. The Dem solution isn't magic and the Rep solution isn't magic. My personal opinion is that the Dem approach seems to be more focused on these issues, success or failure notwithstanding, because of that whole "socialist" thingy. I'd be glad to be proven wrong over the next 4 years if Trump can make some improvements with... whatever it is he is currently purporting will fix it all. (Seriously, I'll even eat my hat. Well, I'll buy a hat, and then I'll eat it.)
Trump hasn't, as of yet, introduced any new ideas. He's introduced sound bites, that's all. As far as what he told Detroit workers, we shall see, indeed.
As far as Muslims and Mexicans being scary, the vast majority of them aren't terrorists or rapists or drug dealers. The VAST majority. That's the problem with connecting Muslims to terrorism and Mexicans to rape/drugs. That's where the fear-mongering of the GOP turns my stomach.
ETA: re: Cassandra's video... I remember him saying that from childhood, and I have thought about it ever since Trump wanted to build one.
|
|