American Politics the 2016 edition

BaldJean wrote: mark also that it is by far not only the "nice liberal ones" that have failed these people. I sincerely doubt anyone would coin George W. Bush a "nice liberal", but he has failed these people just the same

I said the metropolitan liberal establishment, not liberal in terms of political factions. There is a difference, and Bush was as establishment as you can get, supported, as he was, by big corporations and the like.

Also, by the way, I didn't equate uneducated with stupid. Indeed, the anti establishment waves coming over the working class indigenous populations is, if anything, an entirely rational and sensible thrust against how they are being treated.

I don't think there is an answer...   it is likely the greatest political scam ever conceived.  You read it here first

The GOP somehow convinced people that is was more important to be concerned about what other people were doing in their own personal lives ..people you don't even know ..what they were doing to their bodies.. who they  were sleeping with or even marrying than they are about their own financial well being.. or even that of their children.

brilliant man... got to give it to them. And you thought those who gave us Willie Horton were brilliant.. it was only the opening move of the triumph of politics of fear over the politics of self preservation 

Remember that the European meaning of "liberal" is not the same as it is here in the US. Here it is more or less synonymous with progressive, while in Europe it stands more for "free-market supporter".

As to the reason why white low-wage earners vote GOP, I think it was John Steinbeck who said something about American poor seeing themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires - which  brings me back to the whole lot of bunk called the American dream, and this country's self-destructive worship of wealth and success.

BaldJean wrote: lazland wrote: BaldJean wrote: mark also that it is by far not only the "nice liberal ones" that have failed these people. I sincerely doubt anyone would coin George W. Bush a "nice liberal", but he has failed these people just the same I said the metropolitan liberal establishment, not liberal in terms of political factions. There is a difference, and Bush was as establishment as you can get, supported, as he was, by big corporations and the like. Also, by the way, I didn't equate uneducated with stupid. Indeed, the anti establishment waves coming over the working class indigenous populations is, if anything, an entirely rational and sensible thrust against how they are being treated. you said "For these people, nice liberal governments have been an utter disaster", and I would not call the Bush government that. no-one who releases anything like the patriot act (which should better be called "unpatriot act" since it is against everything the USA is supposed to stand for; it reminds me of the McCarthy era) can be called liberal, in whatever sense of the word

Jean, I will make one more attempt to explain myself. You are referring to Bush, correctly, as a Conservative politician. Clinton, by contrast, was a Liberal politician. Note the capital letters. They describe their factional politics.

What unites them? They are both part of the metropolitan liberal establishment. It was that I meant by nice liberal governments. I used the lower case very deliberately, and I believe that most people who have even a passing interest in societal politics will understand the very distinct difference between the lower and upper case. For example, although both would try to persuade the populace that they were, in their Liberal and Conservative politics, "radical", and changed society indubitably for the better, they were not, and did not. Neither changed the overall consensus of big business and rich, powerful, elites governing and shaping us one jot. Why? Well, because they were both a product of said establishment, as is, of course, Hilary. In this country, swap Clinton and Bush for Blair and Cameron/Osbourne.

Would Trump be any better? Nope. Trump is a chancer who sees his chance to tap into that zeitgeist. Worse, he appears to be a genuine demogogue. However, the masses who appear to be flocking to his standard represent a very real, and growing, disenchantment with the established order. One day, that movement will win power in a mature democracy, and then we will see politics become rather interesting again.

Raff wrote: Remember that the European meaning of "liberal" is not the same as it is here in the US. Here it is more or less synonymous with progressive, while in Europe it stands more for "free-market supporter". As to the reason why white low-wage earners vote GOP, I think it was John Steinbeck who said something about American poor seeing themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires - which  brings me back to the whole lot of bunk called the American dream, and this country's self-destructive worship of wealth and success.

Well, in Germany we have the FDP, "Freie Demokratische Partei". "Free (or Liberal. though in German "liberal" is not the immediate association with "Frei") Democratic Party", our liberals) that stands for both meanings of the word "liberal".

lazland wrote: What is worse than a loony such as Trump in power? Simple, the continuation in power of a global liberal elite massively out of touch with the hopes and fears of ordinary people. Unless we find a middle, and new, way of governing, we are all in for very difficult times.

lazland wrote: What is worse than a loony such as Trump in power?

A theocrat.

next i will make a thread about Norwegian politics :D

micky wrote: Atavachron wrote: micky wrote: Atavachron wrote: ^ But since Hillary will probably be president, it'll be even worse for the GOP if the Senate forces a delay.  Then they get a Clinton appointee and they look bad. She'd walk the dog against against of those knuckleheads the GOP can't decide between... but question is.  Does she get past Sanders for the nomination. If not... does an old white male northeaster liberal win a general election?... Yes she does and no he doesn't. bumping this over David. I do think it will be tight.. as I noted earlier.. I think enough will realize that elecatability does matter. The vacancy in the Supreme Court... a swing vacancy at that.. plus the rather... extreme nature of the GOP 3 make this a 'must win' election. While Hillary is by FAR the most experienced and capable of actually being a good President (hell it isn't even close) she does have a big problem with unlikeableness and IMO that will keep the Democratic nomination process from being a done deal/coronation tour.. the notion that Sanders won't win against the GOP unless they descend to even further than plausible levels of stupidity and nominates a complete lunatic like Cruz as its candidate.. he won't win. Now as far as the GOP side.  It really does look like Trump doesn't it.  Bush is out but it does look like Rubio and Cruz are in it for the long haul and that will split the Anti-Trump/ideologically pure votes from the far right.  So it sure looks like we are heading we are heading for a Trump-Clinton matchup. I think the moderates will decide this.. of course the far right will vote against Clinton even if it doesn't think Trump cares about what they care about.. and liberals on the left even though they don't think Hillary liberal enough and a slave to big money will NEVER stomach having another Bush in the white house. Someone completely unsuited for the job. So it will up to the moderates.. and I do believe down deep in my heart.. and in my mind that when they enter the voting booth they will realize.. if they hadn't previously that Trump simply is not suitable for the job.  What has he done to make people think he would be a good President.. running a business ... just like the GOP to think that leading a country is akin to running a business.  Not anything like it. between the two of them.  Hillary wins, not particulary big, nor particularly tight. The south and midwest will go GOP as they always have.. always will. Hillary takes the big blue states and the rapidly emerging blue swing states like Colorado, Virginia, and North Carolina. Tight.. very tight popular vote. Not particularly close in the electoral college.  That is what poli sci people have seen .. the math really does favor the democratic side in close matchups. It should be a lot of fun .. and will be to see Trump and Clinton go toe to toe. Oh I do have a thing for Hillary.. always have.. but damn.. that woman is tougher than most men I know. I wouldn't want to meet her in a dark alley... unless was wearing leather and carrying a whip

Oh I wouldn't want to cross her.   She'll kill you.   Makes Trump look like Mr. Rogers ... or like a little girl.

And yeah presumably Rubio is the most electable, but that's because he's the most intelligent and that usually doesn't count.   Frankly I'm surprised Cruz has gotten so far, he's like an evangelist.   Gimme a break.





Edited by Atavachron - February 21 2016 at 17:33

Raff wrote: Remember that the European meaning of "liberal" is not the same as it is here in the US. Here it is more or less synonymous with progressive, while in Europe it stands more for "free-market supporter". As to the reason why white low-wage earners vote GOP, I think it was John Steinbeck who said something about American poor seeing themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires - which  brings me back to the whole lot of bunk called the American dream, and this country's self-destructive worship of wealth and success.

I've always thought that the American Dream was a way rich people trick poor people into making them richer.