THE Political Thread (All Political Discussion Here)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 884, 885, 886, 887, 888  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Topic HOF This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Gatekeeper
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 11 Jan 2012
Posts: 5103
Location: Southland Native

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:15 pm    Post subject:

Brace yourselves. Lisa Simpson for president 2020.
_________________
Character
Manchester United | Greatest European Moments
Fabric of United - Our Belief
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:28 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
And by the way, social issues ARE economic issues -- if you're not a white male. Equal pay for equal work for women, ability to control your own reproductive choices affects ability to go to college, earn income, etc. The ability of LGTB people to legally marry affects their social security, insurance benefits, etc. -- all economic matters. Education and tuition -- all economic matters. The environment -- more floods, more extreme storms, more tornadoes, all cost billions of dollars to the economy -- all economic matters.


Eh. By that reasoning, economic issues are social issues, too. Employment, taxes, and even the budget deficit affect social matters. The distinction between the two sets of issues has its roots in the values (for want of a better word) that drive the debate. It isn't that there is some conceptual wall between them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24112
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:37 pm    Post subject:

LakerSanity wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
LakerSanity wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ocho wrote:
The first gut punch this week was Trump getting elected. The second was the way liberals and Democrats have chosen to react to it. I appreciate those who have been gracious and committed to real action. I wish the rest would focus their energies on being productive about this.


I have no problem with how liberals and Democrats have reacted. There may be a few idiots who chose to demonstrate their displeasure in inappropriate ways, but they are a minority and do not represent me as a liberal or a Democrat, nor the group at large. There have been plenty of productive responses to this outcome. Most of the people on the Left I know have already resolved to make an effort to be more involved and proactive to find ways to counter the damage. We are having in depth conversations with our kids, who will be part of the next group of voters, to inform them about what went wrong and to urge them to use their emotions and beliefs as motivation to make a difference the next time around.


I think Trump wanted people talking about him and his supporters rather than his policies. And I think that continuing to do so just feeds into what allowed him to win and will feed into what will allow him to enact horrible legislation while the we all remain distracted. Time to be smart. Focus your attack on his policies, not him.


I get your point, and it's a good one.

However, this isn't a situation of looking at a guy like either of the Bushes (or the Clintons/Obama if you're from that perspective) and thinking, I don't like what this man is doing and I don't respect the man. We are talking about a very miserable excuse for a man who intentionally brought out the worst in this country to serve himself. It'd be highly unwise to ignore that, and quite frankly that's not the message I want to send my kids.


No one is asking you to ignore that. Be angry, and steer that anger into something that will actually change minds and make sure this won't happen again. Thats gotta be somethibg different than attacking Trump himself, because constantly talking about how deplorable he and his supporters are may feel good, but it's also exactly what got us President Trump in the first place.


This part I don't agree with. I agree we all have to move on in terms of figuring out how to contribute to our communities, how to help change things before the next election, how to help those in need.

But normalizing a man who is a sexual predator, associates himself with white nationalist movement and demonstrates authoritarian impulses HAS TO BE CALLED OUT. This is no ordinary politician who happens to be of the other party. The man is a threat to our democracy. See Hitler, Mussolini and all other strong arm dictators who came to power while people pretended it wasn't happening. Pretending he isn't these things by staying silent is another way of condoning who he is, what he has said and what he has done. Staying silent in this circumstance is not an option for me.

I'll lay off the supporters who aren't violent or condoning violence. I'm just tired of people giving the, "I knew nothing!" defense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24112
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:41 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
And by the way, social issues ARE economic issues -- if you're not a white male. Equal pay for equal work for women, ability to control your own reproductive choices affects ability to go to college, earn income, etc. The ability of LGTB people to legally marry affects their social security, insurance benefits, etc. -- all economic matters. Education and tuition -- all economic matters. The environment -- more floods, more extreme storms, more tornadoes, all cost billions of dollars to the economy -- all economic matters.


Eh. By that reasoning, economic issues are social issues, too. Employment, taxes, and even the budget deficit affect social matters. The distinction between the two sets of issues has its roots in the values (for want of a better word) that drive the debate. It isn't that there is some conceptual wall between them.


That was directed toward a comment that working class people in rust belt voted on economic issues and the "liberals" were more concerned with their "cultural" or "social" issues. The implication being that voting based on pocket book issues was more legit, and concern for social issues is more like a liberal hobby. My point is that it's all equally legit when it impacts your life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:44 pm    Post subject:

LakerSanity wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
LakerSanity wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ocho wrote:
The first gut punch this week was Trump getting elected. The second was the way liberals and Democrats have chosen to react to it. I appreciate those who have been gracious and committed to real action. I wish the rest would focus their energies on being productive about this.


I have no problem with how liberals and Democrats have reacted. There may be a few idiots who chose to demonstrate their displeasure in inappropriate ways, but they are a minority and do not represent me as a liberal or a Democrat, nor the group at large. There have been plenty of productive responses to this outcome. Most of the people on the Left I know have already resolved to make an effort to be more involved and proactive to find ways to counter the damage. We are having in depth conversations with our kids, who will be part of the next group of voters, to inform them about what went wrong and to urge them to use their emotions and beliefs as motivation to make a difference the next time around.


I think Trump wanted people talking about him and his supporters rather than his policies. And I think that continuing to do so just feeds into what allowed him to win and will feed into what will allow him to enact horrible legislation while the we all remain distracted. Time to be smart. Focus your attack on his policies, not him.


I get your point, and it's a good one.

However, this isn't a situation of looking at a guy like either of the Bushes (or the Clintons/Obama if you're from that perspective) and thinking, I don't like what this man is doing and I don't respect the man. We are talking about a very miserable excuse for a man who intentionally brought out the worst in this country to serve himself. It'd be highly unwise to ignore that, and quite frankly that's not the message I want to send my kids.


No one is asking you to ignore that. Be angry, and steer that anger into something that will actually change minds and make sure this won't happen again. Thats gotta be somethibg different than attacking Trump himself, because constantly talking about how deplorable he and his supporters are may feel good, but it's also exactly what got us President Trump in the first place.


I don't believe one has to do one or the other. As I have said previously, I am highly aware of the wake up call I've been given and am intent on taking action to help ensure that President Trump is a one and done one. I've already discussed the problems I have with his initial decisions in regards to appointments made so far and the lack of leadership that has been demonstrated as a President Elect in failing to address the vile incidents inspired by his election.

Point being, I don't think simply addressing only the policies is the way to go. I don't see how you can discuss the POTUS without discussing the quality of leadership of the man forming those policies. He's already been elected. Dancing around the dirty-bits of his character isn't going accomplish, or harm, anything.

I think one can not only address the policy decisions that President Trump makes AND the qualities of the man himself, but that one SHOULD evaluate both. He's going to be the leader of our nation and one of the most powerful leaders in the world. I don't buy the idea that we should refrain from discussing the quality of the man in that position for fear of offending his supporters. I don't worry about them from here on out. They are a known entity. What bit us in the ass is not them, but the complacency and arrogance of the left. Discussing the qualities of the man that was elected due to that attitude is integral to snapping people out of it.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakerSanity
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:45 pm    Post subject:

^Re-directing one's focus away from him the person and toward his policies doesn't normalize his conduct, it just directs one's energy toward an argument more are willing to actually listen to rather than defend against as they become more personally entrenched. The main question I am asking is how yelling to the heavens in anger or speaking to the choir about how bad he is as a person will actually create any change? If Trump's election to President tells us anything, such an approach would seem to have the exact opposite effect of the desired one. The media and the Clinton campaign did a disservice. They told us Trump was bad, but didn't tell us why past calling him names. I don't want to repeat the same mistake twice. I really hope the DNC takes the direction I am advocating. Based on Warren's and Bernie's comments the last few days, I think they are.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service

Twitter: @DeleteThisPost
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:48 pm    Post subject:

DuncanIdaho wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
trmiv wrote:
Considerations for Trump's administration. I sure hope this is speculation and not people being considered. What a joke. It's a murders row of the worst politicians and people imaginable. "Drain the swamp" my ass.

www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/politics/donald-trump-administration.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur


The people whom he has already appointed to his transition team should scare the hell of people for what is in store - on BOTH sides.


We survived many of these people for 8 years in W's administration. We'll survive again.


You're not wrong. But the two steps back nature of it sucks. Especially when the stakes for many have become much higher.

I once survived a horrible car wreck that I shouldn't have. Doesn't mean I'm willing to do it again.


You're not wrong man, I totally agree. Seeing such a blowhard as John Bolton, one of the guys so instrumental in us invading Iraq in 2003 as a front-runner for Secretary of State makes me freaking sick.

It's too bad the Obama admin didn't charge him, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and that whole cabal with war crimes 8 years ago.


Would have been nice. But, it also would have denied us Obama's second term.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24112
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:51 pm    Post subject:

LS, this just happened a few days ago. People are still processing. Still angry. That's completely normal. People are in the very early stages of forming activist groups. We haven't gotten to the next step yet, but we will.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:52 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
And by the way, social issues ARE economic issues -- if you're not a white male. Equal pay for equal work for women, ability to control your own reproductive choices affects ability to go to college, earn income, etc. The ability of LGTB people to legally marry affects their social security, insurance benefits, etc. -- all economic matters. Education and tuition -- all economic matters. The environment -- more floods, more extreme storms, more tornadoes, all cost billions of dollars to the economy -- all economic matters.


Eh. By that reasoning, economic issues are social issues, too. Employment, taxes, and even the budget deficit affect social matters. The distinction between the two sets of issues has its roots in the values (for want of a better word) that drive the debate. It isn't that there is some conceptual wall between them.


That was directed toward a comment that working class people in rust belt voted on economic issues and the "liberals" were more concerned with their "cultural" or "social" issues. The implication being that voting based on pocket book issues was more legit, and concern for social issues is more like a liberal hobby. My point is that it's all equally legit when it impacts your life.


Thank you CL!
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakerSanity
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:56 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
LS, this just happened a few days ago. People are still processing. Still angry. That's completely normal. People are in the very early stages of forming activist groups. We haven't gotten to the next step yet, but we will.


That I can agree with and maybe I'm a bit impatient. As an attorney who lives the law and sees the law in effect every day, what could happen to the Surpreme Court is devastating to me just as much as what Trump says is devastating to others. The attorney in me goes straight to problem solving. I just already see policy being formed, appointments being made, and not sure we have the time to wait to allow people the time to just vent.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service

Twitter: @DeleteThisPost
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24112
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 7:01 pm    Post subject:

They have all 3 branches of government. Better pray no justices die in the next 4 years and hope Obama pulls off some kind of recess appointment of Garland before his term is out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SweetP
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 6054
Location: My own little piece of reality

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 7:03 pm    Post subject:

trmiv wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
trmiv wrote:
Considerations for Trump's administration. I sure hope this is speculation and not people being considered. What a joke. It's a murders row of the worst politicians and people imaginable. "Drain the swamp" my ass.

www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/politics/donald-trump-administration.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur


The people whom he has already appointed to his transition team should scare the hell of people for what is in store - on BOTH sides.


We survived many of these people for 8 years in W's administration. We'll survive again.


You're not wrong. But the two steps back nature of it sucks. Especially when the stakes for many have become much higher.

I once survived a horrible car wreck that I shouldn't have. Doesn't mean I'm willing to do it again.


You're not wrong man, I totally agree. Seeing such a blowhard as John Bolton, one of the guys so instrumental in us invading Iraq in 2003 as a front-runner for Secretary of State makes me freaking sick.

It's too bad the Obama admin didn't charge him, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and that whole cabal with war crimes 8 years ago.


Thats the thing. A lot of good people DIDN'T survive W's administration precisely because of people like John Bolton. And here we go again.


Yeah, people forget. I personally know two that didn't survive. Actually three if you count 9-11.
_________________
“There is always light if only we're brave enough to see it, if only we're brave enough to be it.” --Amanda Gorman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Freddie Buckets
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 9131

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 7:20 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
They have all 3 branches of government. Better pray no justices die in the next 4 years and hope Obama pulls off some kind of recess appointment of Garland before his term is out.


Is that possible? How would that work?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24112
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 7:26 pm    Post subject:

Freddie Buckets wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
They have all 3 branches of government. Better pray no justices die in the next 4 years and hope Obama pulls off some kind of recess appointment of Garland before his term is out.


Is that possible? How would that work?


I've seen a lot of speculation but no one knows if it would or could happen.

Here's a scotusblog post about it from earlier this year: link
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 7:36 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
That was directed toward a comment that working class people in rust belt voted on economic issues and the "liberals" were more concerned with their "cultural" or "social" issues. The implication being that voting based on pocket book issues was more legit, and concern for social issues is more like a liberal hobby. My point is that it's all equally legit when it impacts your life.


I found the post that you're referring to, and I agree with you. The idea that social issues are not important to voters in the rust belt seems dubious to me anyway. When we talk about abortion, gay rights, and the Supreme Court, we aren't just talking about something that is important to people in one particular region or one particular side of the political spectrum.

Having said that, the mainstream Democratic Party no longer speaks to the white, working class voters in the Midwest. (Yes, that is an over-generalization, but I'm painting with broad brush strokes.) The Dems need to learn from the Bernie Sanders experience. I don't mean Sanders personally. I think an old Jewish/atheist socialist from Vermont would have gotten chewed up in the general election. I know the polls say he would have beaten Trump, but I'm not sold. He never got placed in the bright spotlight of a general election campaign. He might have beaten Trump, but he might have been McGovern 2.0.

While I don't mean Sanders personally, I do mean his populist message. Sanders talked to people about the things that mattered to them in their lives. Sanders had a message of hope, much like Obama did in 2008. HRC did have a positive message, in all fairness, but it got buried by her mountains of baggage. Besides, her positive message was basically faith in the status quo.

In hindsight, the Dems should have seen this years ago. Every poll tells us that the public thinks that the country is heading in the wrong direction. So what did the Dems do? They served up a status quo, establishment candidate. Even then, they won the popular vote because the GOP served up Trump. Still, this election should have been a beat down.

HRC got the nomination because she played the game skillfully. She lined up establishment support. She lined up establishment money. The DNC was behind her, because she was one of them. Everyone just assumed that she was invincible. When Bernie Sanders (of all people) made her sweat, it was a warning that the establishment had misjudged the mood of the public. It was too late, though.

It's easy to say this with 20-20 hindsight. Heck, if HRC had gotten a few more votes in PA and MI, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Still, the bottom line is that this election should have been a beat down. Now the Democratic Party is weaker than it has been in modern times.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 7:43 pm    Post subject:

LakerSanity wrote:
^Re-directing one's focus away from him the person and toward his policies doesn't normalize his conduct, it just directs one's energy toward an argument more are willing to actually listen to rather than defend against as they become more personally entrenched.


(an aside: I know some people hate the breaking down of quotes because they find it to be a dick move for some reason. That is not my intent, I just want to address the individual points):

Trump's supporters are entrenched period. I know they like to chant "10 feet higher!", but they can't dig themselves in any further than they have. Again, the entrenched are no longer the issue. The complacent are. There is NO harm in reminding the complacent of integrity (or lack thereof) of the man who is now their leader. And again, doing so doesn't mean one has to ignore the policies.

Quote:
The main question I am asking is how yelling to the heavens in anger or speaking to the choir about how bad he is as a person will actually create any change? If Trump's election to President tells us anything, such an approach would seem to have the exact opposite effect of the desired one.


How does evaluating the qualities of your elected leader equate to "yelling to the heavens in anger"? One can calmly and rationally evaluate and discuss the man, and as I said, one should. How does NOT discussing the qualities off the President promote change? It eliminates one important avenue in impugning the administration and the source of the policies.

And besides, if there is one thing I am taking away from this election and what it has revealed is that I am not going to cower to the Trump supporters for fear of what they may do. That's is exactly what they want, and that is exactly what they think has worked for them - intimidation. That's why we are seeing the behavior we are seeing.

Not to mention that if we are going to give our opposition here their due, we must take them at their word that Trump supporters aren't all ignorant, stubborn fools and that there are intelligent reasonable people amongst them. So why not use the next four years to point out the flaws in hopes that those reasonable people in his base re-evaluate once they see his Presidency play out and are not locked in the battle of an election?

Quote:
The media and the Clinton campaign did a disservice. They told us Trump was bad, but didn't tell us why past calling him names.


Actually, I don't think that's entirely accurate. While the media certainly did a fair amount of pointing out Trump's flaws, they also hammered away at stupid (bleep) like the "Clinton emails" with much more frequency. Also, The Clinton campaign actually did stick to the "They go low, we go high" Michelle mantra. Clinton DID focus on policies and issues much more than attacking Trump the man. The name calling was pretty much Trump's whole "Crooked Hilary" schtick.

Quote:
I don't want to repeat the same mistake twice. I really hope the DNC takes the direction I am advocating. Based on Warren's and Bernie's comments the last few days, I think they are.


The Dems/Left have to employ a whole collection of strategies, both internally as far as re-inventing and refocusing themselves and externally. And I think it would be a mistake not to employ ALL of them.

Anyway, I am glad we are both impassioned and focused on going into these next four years with intent and purpose.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 7:48 pm    Post subject:

LakerSanity wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
LS, this just happened a few days ago. People are still processing. Still angry. That's completely normal. People are in the very early stages of forming activist groups. We haven't gotten to the next step yet, but we will.


That I can agree with and maybe I'm a bit impatient. As an attorney who lives the law and sees the law in effect every day, what could happen to the Surpreme Court is devastating to me just as much as what Trump says is devastating to others. The attorney in me goes straight to problem solving. I just already see policy being formed, appointments being made, and not sure we have the time to wait to allow people the time to just vent.


That is my biggest concern about the future of these next four years. As DuncanI pointed out, we have survived some of the potential appointments once before and can be corrected. What happens with the SCOTUS would resonate for generations.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38749

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 7:50 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
That was directed toward a comment that working class people in rust belt voted on economic issues and the "liberals" were more concerned with their "cultural" or "social" issues. The implication being that voting based on pocket book issues was more legit, and concern for social issues is more like a liberal hobby. My point is that it's all equally legit when it impacts your life.


I found the post that you're referring to, and I agree with you. The idea that social issues are not important to voters in the rust belt seems dubious to me anyway. When we talk about abortion, gay rights, and the Supreme Court, we aren't just talking about something that is important to people in one particular region or one particular side of the political spectrum.

Having said that, the mainstream Democratic Party no longer speaks to the white, working class voters in the Midwest. (Yes, that is an over-generalization, but I'm painting with broad brush strokes.) The Dems need to learn from the Bernie Sanders experience. I don't mean Sanders personally. I think an old Jewish/atheist socialist from Vermont would have gotten chewed up in the general election. I know the polls say he would have beaten Trump, but I'm not sold. He never got placed in the bright spotlight of a general election campaign. He might have beaten Trump, but he might have been McGovern 2.0.

While I don't mean Sanders personally, I do mean his populist message. Sanders talked to people about the things that mattered to them in their lives. Sanders had a message of hope, much like Obama did in 2008. HRC did have a positive message, in all fairness, but it got buried by her mountains of baggage. Besides, her positive message was basically faith in the status quo.

In hindsight, the Dems should have seen this years ago. Every poll tells us that the public thinks that the country is heading in the wrong direction. So what did the Dems do? They served up a status quo, establishment candidate. Even then, they won the popular vote because the GOP served up Trump. Still, this election should have been a beat down.

HRC got the nomination because she played the game skillfully. She lined up establishment support. She lined up establishment money. The DNC was behind her, because she was one of them. Everyone just assumed that she was invincible. When Bernie Sanders (of all people) made her sweat, it was a warning that the establishment had misjudged the mood of the public. It was too late, though.

It's easy to say this with 20-20 hindsight. Heck, if HRC had gotten a few more votes in PA and MI, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Still, the bottom line is that this election should have been a beat down. Now the Democratic Party is weaker than it has been in modern times.


An example is their over-reliance on courting Hollywood celebs for money and fundraisers. That works great for those 100k plate dinners but to the working class they see a huge disconnect from the general public. Not to mention, I'm sure Katy Perry and Beyonce produce great hit songs, I doubt many people would listen to them on public policy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17196
Location: In a no-ship

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 7:53 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
They have all 3 branches of government. Better pray no justices die in the next 4 years and hope Obama pulls off some kind of recess appointment of Garland before his term is out.


Obama will not be able to make a recess appointment. The Supreme Court has ruled 9-0 against him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24112
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 8:05 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
That was directed toward a comment that working class people in rust belt voted on economic issues and the "liberals" were more concerned with their "cultural" or "social" issues. The implication being that voting based on pocket book issues was more legit, and concern for social issues is more like a liberal hobby. My point is that it's all equally legit when it impacts your life.


I found the post that you're referring to, and I agree with you. The idea that social issues are not important to voters in the rust belt seems dubious to me anyway. When we talk about abortion, gay rights, and the Supreme Court, we aren't just talking about something that is important to people in one particular region or one particular side of the political spectrum.

Having said that, the mainstream Democratic Party no longer speaks to the white, working class voters in the Midwest. (Yes, that is an over-generalization, but I'm painting with broad brush strokes.) The Dems need to learn from the Bernie Sanders experience. I don't mean Sanders personally. I think an old Jewish/atheist socialist from Vermont would have gotten chewed up in the general election. I know the polls say he would have beaten Trump, but I'm not sold. He never got placed in the bright spotlight of a general election campaign. He might have beaten Trump, but he might have been McGovern 2.0.

While I don't mean Sanders personally, I do mean his populist message. Sanders talked to people about the things that mattered to them in their lives. Sanders had a message of hope, much like Obama did in 2008. HRC did have a positive message, in all fairness, but it got buried by her mountains of baggage. Besides, her positive message was basically faith in the status quo.

In hindsight, the Dems should have seen this years ago. Every poll tells us that the public thinks that the country is heading in the wrong direction. So what did the Dems do? They served up a status quo, establishment candidate. Even then, they won the popular vote because the GOP served up Trump. Still, this election should have been a beat down.

HRC got the nomination because she played the game skillfully. She lined up establishment support. She lined up establishment money. The DNC was behind her, because she was one of them. Everyone just assumed that she was invincible. When Bernie Sanders (of all people) made her sweat, it was a warning that the establishment had misjudged the mood of the public. It was too late, though.

It's easy to say this with 20-20 hindsight. Heck, if HRC had gotten a few more votes in PA and MI, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Still, the bottom line is that this election should have been a beat down. Now the Democratic Party is weaker than it has been in modern times.


Apparently Bill Clinton wanted to go to these areas and campaign for votes and the campaign blew off his advice. I do think HRC had actual polices that could have helped these very people but the press wanted to focus on emails, faux-controversy, Trump-the-ratings-boom and almost nothing about policy. Hillary gave policy speeches but no one covered them, they were too busy giving free 24/7 media to Trump.

You can say it should have been a beat down, but Trump's celebrity and shtick worked from the beginning of GOP primaries all the way to the end. She won all the debates. The exit polling showed even the people who voted for Trump gave her higher ratings for temperament, ability to handle the job, etc. And yet...

And then there is the Comey thing -- the first letter drove her numbers down. Then when things stabilized, the second letter galvanized Trump supporters.

When all is said and done she will have about 2 million more votes than Trump and the most of any candidate in history not named Barack Obama.

For a multitude of reasons (and yes, gender is one of then), it just didn't happen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 8:11 pm    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
That was directed toward a comment that working class people in rust belt voted on economic issues and the "liberals" were more concerned with their "cultural" or "social" issues. The implication being that voting based on pocket book issues was more legit, and concern for social issues is more like a liberal hobby. My point is that it's all equally legit when it impacts your life.


I found the post that you're referring to, and I agree with you. The idea that social issues are not important to voters in the rust belt seems dubious to me anyway. When we talk about abortion, gay rights, and the Supreme Court, we aren't just talking about something that is important to people in one particular region or one particular side of the political spectrum.

Having said that, the mainstream Democratic Party no longer speaks to the white, working class voters in the Midwest. (Yes, that is an over-generalization, but I'm painting with broad brush strokes.) The Dems need to learn from the Bernie Sanders experience. I don't mean Sanders personally. I think an old Jewish/atheist socialist from Vermont would have gotten chewed up in the general election. I know the polls say he would have beaten Trump, but I'm not sold. He never got placed in the bright spotlight of a general election campaign. He might have beaten Trump, but he might have been McGovern 2.0.

While I don't mean Sanders personally, I do mean his populist message. Sanders talked to people about the things that mattered to them in their lives. Sanders had a message of hope, much like Obama did in 2008. HRC did have a positive message, in all fairness, but it got buried by her mountains of baggage. Besides, her positive message was basically faith in the status quo.

In hindsight, the Dems should have seen this years ago. Every poll tells us that the public thinks that the country is heading in the wrong direction. So what did the Dems do? They served up a status quo, establishment candidate. Even then, they won the popular vote because the GOP served up Trump. Still, this election should have been a beat down.

HRC got the nomination because she played the game skillfully. She lined up establishment support. She lined up establishment money. The DNC was behind her, because she was one of them. Everyone just assumed that she was invincible. When Bernie Sanders (of all people) made her sweat, it was a warning that the establishment had misjudged the mood of the public. It was too late, though.

It's easy to say this with 20-20 hindsight. Heck, if HRC had gotten a few more votes in PA and MI, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Still, the bottom line is that this election should have been a beat down. Now the Democratic Party is weaker than it has been in modern times.


An example is their over-reliance on courting Hollywood celebs for money and fundraisers. That works great for those 100k plate dinners but to the working class they see a huge disconnect from the general public. Not to mention, I'm sure Katy Perry and Beyonce produce great hit songs, I doubt many people would listen to them on public policy.


Which ties in to what I was saying previously about the arrogance and entitlement of the DNC. Now that we are out of the pace and the frenzy of the election cycle and can reflect, it's obvious that the Party's biggest challenges going forward are purely internal. We gotta fix the DNC before we fix anything.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Shaolin's Finest
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 08 Jan 2009
Posts: 1430

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 8:33 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
When you vote for a candidate who openly courts white nationalists, KKK, began his campaign insulting Mexicans, Muslims and women, went on to be revealed as a serial sex offender, and then you choose to vote for that person anyway, you are in essence CONDONING those behaviors and telling your children those behaviors are acceptable. You can't vote for the racist/bigot/misogynist, watch as those attitudes create violence, then say, "Oh well, I'm not a racist I only voted for him." No. You helped create the outcome. You can't vote for a racist then divorce yourself from racism.

And by the way, social issues ARE economic issues -- if you're not a white male. Equal pay for equal work for women, ability to control your own reproductive choices affects ability to go to college, earn income, etc. The ability of LGTB people to legally marry affects their social security, insurance benefits, etc. -- all economic matters. Education and tuition -- all economic matters. The environment -- more floods, more extreme storms, more tornadoes, all cost billions of dollars to the economy -- all economic matters.

Forgive me if I'm interpreting this wrong, but the basic gist of what you are saying is that anyone who voted for Trump is a racist and sexist?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
akk7
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Oct 2005
Posts: 3013

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 8:42 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
That was directed toward a comment that working class people in rust belt voted on economic issues and the "liberals" were more concerned with their "cultural" or "social" issues. The implication being that voting based on pocket book issues was more legit, and concern for social issues is more like a liberal hobby. My point is that it's all equally legit when it impacts your life.


I found the post that you're referring to, and I agree with you. The idea that social issues are not important to voters in the rust belt seems dubious to me anyway. When we talk about abortion, gay rights, and the Supreme Court, we aren't just talking about something that is important to people in one particular region or one particular side of the political spectrum.

Having said that, the mainstream Democratic Party no longer speaks to the white, working class voters in the Midwest. (Yes, that is an over-generalization, but I'm painting with broad brush strokes.) The Dems need to learn from the Bernie Sanders experience. I don't mean Sanders personally. I think an old Jewish/atheist socialist from Vermont would have gotten chewed up in the general election. I know the polls say he would have beaten Trump, but I'm not sold. He never got placed in the bright spotlight of a general election campaign. He might have beaten Trump, but he might have been McGovern 2.0.

While I don't mean Sanders personally, I do mean his populist message. Sanders talked to people about the things that mattered to them in their lives. Sanders had a message of hope, much like Obama did in 2008. HRC did have a positive message, in all fairness, but it got buried by her mountains of baggage. Besides, her positive message was basically faith in the status quo.

In hindsight, the Dems should have seen this years ago. Every poll tells us that the public thinks that the country is heading in the wrong direction. So what did the Dems do? They served up a status quo, establishment candidate. Even then, they won the popular vote because the GOP served up Trump. Still, this election should have been a beat down.

HRC got the nomination because she played the game skillfully. She lined up establishment support. She lined up establishment money. The DNC was behind her, because she was one of them. Everyone just assumed that she was invincible. When Bernie Sanders (of all people) made her sweat, it was a warning that the establishment had misjudged the mood of the public. It was too late, though.

It's easy to say this with 20-20 hindsight. Heck, if HRC had gotten a few more votes in PA and MI, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Still, the bottom line is that this election should have been a beat down. Now the Democratic Party is weaker than it has been in modern times.


Apparently Bill Clinton wanted to go to these areas and campaign for votes and the campaign blew off his advice. I do think HRC had actual polices that could have helped these very people but the press wanted to focus on emails, faux-controversy, Trump-the-ratings-boom and almost nothing about policy. Hillary gave policy speeches but no one covered them, they were too busy giving free 24/7 media to Trump.

You can say it should have been a beat down, but Trump's celebrity and shtick worked from the beginning of GOP primaries all the way to the end. She won all the debates. The exit polling showed even the people who voted for Trump gave her higher ratings for temperament, ability to handle the job, etc. And yet...

And then there is the Comey thing -- the first letter drove her numbers down. Then when things stabilized, the second letter galvanized Trump supporters.

When all is said and done she will have about 2 million more votes than Trump and the most of any candidate in history not named Barack Obama.

For a multitude of reasons (and yes, gender is one of then), it just didn't happen.


Did it ever come out (probably not, she won't ever say it) why she set up a private server?

What are the explanations for doing so anyway?

That killed her and made her seem very untrustworthy.

In my mind, even if she turned out to be a mediocre president, her being the first woman president alone would've been hope and an inspiration. It's very corny/cliche, but a lot of people would be inspired by that. So I was rooting for her, because I myself wanted to see it happen. While, the person about to take office, doesn't inspire anything positive. Of course that's from my point of view, because many people would say Trump does inspire them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakesGnrLake
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Apr 2011
Posts: 1292

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 8:44 pm    Post subject:

Exit polls didn't mean much this election. People who were voting for Trump weren't going to tell anyone because they'd be branded as racist or whatever. At my work one of my coworkers is a legal immigrant from Africa and said he voted for Trump because he represented the America that he wanted to come too. I think if you've watched his speeches in full and conferences instead of what CNN or Washington Post puts up on his Twitter, his polives aren't as crazy as most people say. Especially immigration wise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 8:50 pm    Post subject:

Shaolin's Finest wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
When you vote for a candidate who openly courts white nationalists, KKK, began his campaign insulting Mexicans, Muslims and women, went on to be revealed as a serial sex offender, and then you choose to vote for that person anyway, you are in essence CONDONING those behaviors and telling your children those behaviors are acceptable. You can't vote for the racist/bigot/misogynist, watch as those attitudes create violence, then say, "Oh well, I'm not a racist I only voted for him." No. You helped create the outcome. You can't vote for a racist then divorce yourself from racism.

And by the way, social issues ARE economic issues -- if you're not a white male. Equal pay for equal work for women, ability to control your own reproductive choices affects ability to go to college, earn income, etc. The ability of LGTB people to legally marry affects their social security, insurance benefits, etc. -- all economic matters. Education and tuition -- all economic matters. The environment -- more floods, more extreme storms, more tornadoes, all cost billions of dollars to the economy -- all economic matters.

Forgive me if I'm interpreting this wrong, but the basic gist of what you are saying is that anyone who voted for Trump is a racist and sexist?


Not speak for CL, but to me, the point is not that all Trump voters are racist, but by voting for a man who very vocally fed those feelings, voters have knowingly and actively participated in creating an environment where such racism has been legitimized.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Topic HOF All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 884, 885, 886, 887, 888  Next
Page 885 of 888
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB