American Politics the 2016 edition - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: May 23 2016 at 14:02

Raff wrote:

The T wrote:

JJLehto wrote:

Oops, like the media I jumped the gun LOL

(this is what you get for taking what you read as fact before things are over)

It seems the Freedom Party of Austria did not win, their candidate lost by .7%

That said, the result was pretty shocking still

Right-wing parties and Trump-alikes have been popping up from everywhere in recent years.

It would be quite embarrassing to be among the first countries to actually elect one of these Ouch

I don't think Trump is right-wing in the same way as the Austrian candidate is. Europe (much as it pains me to admit it) does far-right-wing populism much better than the US, which specialize in right-wing economic policies. Personally, I don't think Trump really believes in what he says: the trouble is, his followers do, and they're not going to go away, even if Hillary wins the election. Trump is dangerous because he has no clue of what the job entails, and he seems to be too much of a loose cannon when it comes to interacting with other people.

You've nailed it with another problem post-election: Trumpism (or whatever we want to call it) is here to stay, in the form of millions of angry racist white voters. Maybe if it really gets buried in the general election it will lose steam, but I'm not too sure about anything resembling a landslide anymore...

A Person

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760

Posted: May 23 2016 at 15:53

The T wrote:

lso because of the not-so-minuscule percentage of Bernie supporters who prefer to sit out of the election or (worse) actually vote for Trump Cry

I think the amount who would give a vote to Trump over someone like Stein are the minority, I'm not sure what many Sanders supporters will do in a few months though, it might be much different.

micky

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838

Posted: May 23 2016 at 17:40

damnit man... I called this a week ago... perhaps even longer ago than that..

if it was the message he really cared about, or had any real political smarts, he would have known his goose was cooked and wasn't beating Hillary...and gracefully dropped out in exchange for getting what he and his babes wanted in the Party platform and focusing on the real enemy. Trump and the GOP.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/bernie-sanders-loses-his-halo-213911

The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

Catcher10

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17874

Posted: May 23 2016 at 18:03

emigre80 wrote:

Catcher10 wrote:

I have always found politics so entertaining.....

I'm a Republican, not sure who I am voting for.....all I know is November is going to be fun and entertaining, as is each convention......Popcorn, dip/chips, soda and my sofa LOL

I've been staying away from posting on this thread - and this will be my last post on it - because of this kind of nonsense. Trump has posted a list of potential Supreme Court nominees - of course to calm the fears of those holdouts like Ryan that want him to demonstrate that he will do what he can to destroy the rights of women, minorities, the LBGTQ community, and whatever religious denominations Republicans decide to demonize. The list includes a fine set of Neanderthals who want to curtail reproductive rights, gender equality, gay rights and gun control. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-court-list-idUSKCN0YA2XV

I have a 24 year old daughter whose civil and reproductive rights will be trashed by a President Trump who sees women as trophies rather than people. She is among those who will be harmed by his agenda. I can see you don't care about her. I wonder how you will justify your cavalier attitude towards this election to any women that you do happen to care about.

It's a pity that my favorite type of music is mostly enjoyed by straight white men, at least some of whom will revel in the entertainment value of a Trump/Clinton election, while resting assured that their rights to financial and cultural superiority will remain unscathed in the event of a Republican win.

Enjoy your popcorn.

How in God's name do you come up with that opinion of what I posted....Who the F Angry

are to you assume I have no respect for women let alone those that I care about, which can only mean my wife, daughter, mother, sister so on.....

I will not post what I feel about you as I have no desire to be banned from this site as other than this political waste of a thread, the music portion of this site I still enjoy.

micky

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838

Posted: May 23 2016 at 18:05

ClemofNazareth wrote:

The problem Mick is the focus of the leading candidates and their parties are on the wrong things in this election. Both parties have lost touch with their base which is why we've seen such a strong gravitation toward the fringe, populist candidates both on the left and the right (Trump and Sanders).

I agree very strongly with that on the Republican side.. Trump is if anything a repudiation of the GOP establishment by their own core.

Not so much so on the Democratic side. The core Democratic is still centrist and moderate. I do think that is change as I've posted numerous times. The party is moving left but it hasn't moved to the fringe quite the extent the other side has but think a Trump win would accelearte that .. and even a Hillary win will not slow it down. I have thought. .sill think today that Hillary is the last likely gaps of the centrist Moderate Democratic establishement. The fact is Hillary will not push for much of what the Liberal wing wants to see pushed, but of course that does not mean change can not happen. We are not simply voting for President. We have a Senate in play. What could be a Senate with a powerful block of liberal senators led by the future face, and already current star of the party. She'll make Hillary's life hell I suspect LOL

.. to pursue some of those renovations...and that is a good thing.

This is a Maslow's pyramid problem, not a political one. I'm not sure we have time for baby steps, and unless we address the domestic and economic problems in our country, the politics won't matter. We have 48 million people living in poverty in this country, the highest number ever and the highest rate since the Kennedy administration. We have 12 million undocumented immigrants with no options where they came from and no path to any kind of secure future here. We have more than 2 million people behind bars, by far the highest rate of any nation. We have about 35 million people with no health insurance or access to affordable healthcare. And we have nearly a million people living on the streets, many of them with mental or addiction problems and little or no access to any help. At the same time we're spending more on our military than any country in the world and financing much of it with a debt that has tripled since the 2008 recession, yet by most measures we are no more (and probably less) safe than we were ten or twenty years ago.

Heart

agreed.. 110% with you Bob and the need to address those issues. It doesn't change the fact that a large percentage of the country could care less... even when amoung those.. are likely teh greatest percentage of below the poverty level, without insurance, and ...surprise surpise.. least educated. The problem this country has Bob IMO... and it isn't restricted solely to guns.. we have never lost our wild west individualist streak in this country. A great many think that if you are down .. all you should be able to do is pull yourself up by bootsraps and voila.. you'll find the American dream and success. Obvously it doesn't work like that. .if it really EVER did. The point is.. many americans don't think government has a place in helping people. People should help themselves. Only in times of extreme threat or tragedy does this country pull together.. other than that.. it is every man for himself. Thus we get back to baby steps.. you can't change 100's of years of a national mindset overnight.. you have to work on it.. room by room... wall by wall...

But the real problem is that we're suffocating our future. Our massive debt means the federal and state and local governments that used to build schools and libraries and parks with band shells and pools now focus their attention on casinos and lotteries for income while our schools cut programs and our infrastructure erodes. Among all those people living in poverty are 17 million children, yet the federal government has and continues to cut funding for programs like Headstart and many right-leaning states have refused to expand Medicaid on purely political grounds. The cost of higher education has risen nearly 600% in this country in the past 30 years, more than healthcare or gasoline or food. Wages for working class Americans have been largely stagnant since the late 1970s. And mega-corporations and millionaires hide trillions in offshore profits to avoid taxes while continuing to shift the middle class from the U.S. to Mexico, China and central Europe.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Trump supporter and I'm not an isolationist, but unless we focus our political will on fixing our infrastructure and on providing opportunities for our children and the growing number of poor and immigrants, we are headed toward adding our name to the list of nations around the world that were once great and vibrant powers but are now looking at their best days in the rear-view mirror and in their history books.

too funny. we just had a conversation similar the other day.. Raff me and my best friend. Yes.. it is happening Bob. I see it, Raff does, others do. This country is rotting from the inside out. But what can you do when the patient doesn't see the need for surgury.. you keep slap bandaids on it ... till the patient finally keels over or gets smart and sees the need for more invasive procedures to cure it.

Good historical note. We wouldn't be the first.. or the last I'm sure. I'm sure to Romans their empire looked strong and powerful right up till it fell apart around them.

We talk about social reform for minorities, immigrants, women and those marginalized for their sexual orientation (and I'll add those who are marginalized for their religion as well). But many of those groups are dis-proportionally represented among the poor, working poor and those with limited or no access to healthcare or to the kind of education they need to make a way out of that cycle. And this brings us back to Maslow. I'm not sure we have the luxury of taking the safe and gradual road to reform in this country because when you're hungry or sick or ostracized and have little hope, the subtle nuances of politics just don't seem to matter.

I agree.. I agree I agree. We don't have the luxury.. but short taking the ignorant short sighted half of this country that thinks that public bathroom usage and other silly social issues are more important than their own damn self preservation..out back and putting them against the wall motherf**ker LOL

... there isn't anything to be done but ..well.. what can be done.. with faced with such opposition... baby steps.

I do love the way you think Bob. I wish I was wrong.. perhaps too cynical.. but I don't believe I am. It is great to talk about what needs to be done. The problem is the talk has to be about what can be done when you half the country against even pragmatic common sense repairs.

Edited by micky - May 23 2016 at 18:09

The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869

Posted: May 23 2016 at 22:03

Very interesting Quora answer I came across.

https://www.quora.com/Between-Trump-and-Clinton-who-will-win-US-presidential-election

Written about the US election but could apply to the general breakdown of the neo liberal consensus and the simultaneous rise of populism.

JJLehto

Prog Reviewer

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550

Posted: May 24 2016 at 06:37

Actually pretty big news, Sanders has been allowed to choose 5 people of the 15 person committee that will craft the Democratic platform. This is certainly not normal/something they have to do and gives him a fairly good amount of input. Clinton gets to pick 6 and DWS 4. THIS is why he hasn't dropped out. We all knew, (the rational ones), his realistic hopes were over long ago, he stayed in to influence the party. Actual influence, words aren't enough. Now he actually has some input that can stick. Given his campaign was always about the movement, this is big step.

It's also smart for the Democratic Party.

I still would love to see Sanders given Sect of Labor if she wins, (which such an announcement ahead of time would go a looooong way in ensuring people vote Clinton) but I highly doubt that'll happen so this is a good step. Not only towards for the progressive movement, but for unity.

Edited by JJLehto - May 24 2016 at 07:32

JJLehto

Prog Reviewer

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550

Posted: May 24 2016 at 07:45

rogerthat wrote:

Very interesting Quora answer I came across.

https://www.quora.com/Between-Trump-and-Clinton-who-will-win-US-presidential-election

Written about the US election but could apply to the general breakdown of the neo liberal consensus and the simultaneous rise of populism.

Oh absolutely.

I made that one blog post noting how, as I called it, laissez faire/the Reagan revolution has created politically and economically this rise in both left and right wing populism, and that similar things are happening in the UK (Corbyn), Canada (Trudeau) Spain (Podemos) and most strikingly in Greece with both Syriza and Golden Dawn Dead

I was lazy though and missed the numerous other examples all over Europe. It's really quite fascinating how similar this feels to the 1930s in how widespread the rejection of major parties and global integration is, as well as xenophobic/anti muslim sentiment (though I've read via NF anti semitism has been on the rise as well in France). Neoliberalism is to blame for both the political and economic problems.

I was reading a book lately about a totally unrelated topic, but one line struck me, a very passing minor line, that said "The German middle class was wiped out" and thus the rise of Hitler/Fascism came. I don't know the state of the middle class in other countries, but when I think of the US, it really is a bit scary.

I still think Trump is a panderer, who knows what can be believed with him and I certainly don't trust him, but even if it's empty rhetoric he HAS tapped a conservative rejection of laissez-faire. I mean his platform is anti slashing the safety net, trade bill and open border. That is basically the anti Reagan LOL

I think it has scared the sh*t out of the Republican Party. Even though he continues to abandon his positions, and I think he was always a mainstreamer in outsider clothing. He's now meeting with Henry Kissinger of all people, and his Supreme Court list was picked out by the Heritage Foundation. I think he basically trolled the country. He's even now accepting big money donations LOL

Because despite his claim he'll spend "up to $1 billion" of his own money to self finance, he obviously has no want to do that with his precious fortune.

Edited by JJLehto - May 24 2016 at 07:52

emigre80

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 25 2015
Location: kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 2223

Posted: May 24 2016 at 07:56

I agree that this move by the DNC is not only sensible but also fair. Sanders won a lot of votes, and shutting him out of the Democratic platform would be stupid. Not that the DNC isn't stupid at times, but fortunately this wasn't one of those times. I have no enthusiasm for DWS and although I understand why she gets to pick 4, I would certainly prefer her to have no picks at all. I don't think she's been a good DNC chair and I don't think she has done the party any favors, particularly during this election season.

The only statement I'd take issue with is "his campaign should have some input, just like in 2008 where even though Clinton lost she was given a major position by Obama." Clinton was not "given" the position by Obama because she had done so well in the primaries. From all accounts I've read, Obama, once elected and realizing the enormity of the economic collapse facing the country, called Clinton and asked her to take SOS because he knew domestic issues were going to take all his time and he wanted the best person he could get - and one he trusted implicitly - for the SOS position. I believe he also had to work very hard to talk Clinton into it, not because she was carrying a grudge but because she wanted to go back to the Senate. I think it demeans Clinton to imply that the SOS was a reward for doing well in the primaries or supporting Obama during the general election. Perhaps I am reading too much into your wording, but that's how it sounds.

I could see Sec of Labor for Sanders. I wonder if he'd agree to it?

JJLehto

Prog Reviewer

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550

Posted: May 24 2016 at 08:13

emigre80 wrote:

I agree that this move by the DNC is not only sensible but also fair. Sanders won a lot of votes, and shutting him out of the Democratic platform would be stupid. Not that the DNC isn't stupid at times, but fortunately this wasn't one of those times. I have no enthusiasm for DWS and although I understand why she gets to pick 4, I would certainly prefer her to have no picks at all. I don't think she's been a good DNC chair and I don't think she has done the party any favors, particularly during this election season.

I could see Sec of Labor for Sanders. I wonder if he'd agree to it?

Yeah, I'd also prefer she has 0 but hey, 5 really is something especially given the chairperson can choose the entire thing if she'd like. This really is a pretty big step. Hey no one, (well maybe except die hard Clinton backers LOL

) likes DWS. She has done a terrible job, and this cycle has certainly been a disaster for her, and the Democratic Party image.

Oh, you could be right. I meant no belittling, and I could be totally wrong.

Let me clarify: I just know she's always wanted to PotUS. Even when she was elected Senator of NY in 2000 I recall hearing, (I lived right across the river LOL

) how this was just a waiting period before running for Prez, build her experience, $ etc and everyone really did assume she had it in 2008, so I just figured she wants to be PotUS and Obama being a team player and unifier wanted her on his team. I didn't mean it like "Oh you came in second, here's a reward" I sincerely meant that Obama wanted her on his team, and that come 2016 she would be the obvious candidate for Prez

You may be right of course, I'll check that out. Even if I'm dead wrong, the main point is valid that the progressive movement should have some input/not be ignored and it's only good for the party to do.

IF it was offered, I wanna say he'd accept? In his position I'd take it, to be able to push for his job programs, higher wages, especially now he has some input on the party platform. Also, he could continue to be a voice in the WH to keep people somewhat in check. Ya know, always pushing for more, they may want less and have to strike some compromise. He really is a realist.

But Robert Reich left the Clinton Administration out of frustration, and I do get why one would rather stay in Congress so who knows LOL

Edited by JJLehto - May 24 2016 at 08:24

emigre80

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 25 2015
Location: kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 2223

Posted: May 24 2016 at 08:42

^ I tend to be over-precise with my use of language, so "given" seemed like a red flag, but I do believe that Obama (having already won the Presidency) was way past the unifier stuff, he just needed a good SOS. I can't see you didn't mean to belittle her.

I'm a die-hard Clinton backer (Hillary, not as wild about Bill) and I don't like DWS. She has indeed done a terrible job.

I am not sure that Sanders would accept SOL, even to push his ideas. He seems as if he would be more comfortable back in the Senate, but this campaign has not exactly highlighted his realistic side so it may come back once he accepts that the nomination is gone.

I was thinking of Sanders as HRC's Robert Reich, so I see the comparison occurred to you as well.

emigre80

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 25 2015
Location: kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 2223

Posted: May 24 2016 at 08:44

"Because despite his claim he'll spend "up to $1 billion" of his own money to self finance, he obviously has no want to do that with his precious fortune."

I'd say the tax returns aren't being released because it would become clear his precious fortune is much less than everyone believes. I don't think he has $1 billion to spend.

JJLehto

Prog Reviewer

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550

Posted: May 24 2016 at 09:26

Ah, and I am very lax with my language when on the internet, (I tend to use it as a way to just gush my brain out) so apologies. Well, I do think Obama sincerely wanted to be a unifier, he strikes me as that type of person, it's the vibe I got and it's a reason I liked him. Granted, I thought he'd unify under a more progressive umbrella LOL

Yeah, I dislike Bill honestly. I was very disheartened to hear Hillary say he would lead the economic revitalization. As I rambled about earlier, I credit Bill for keeping the party alive in the wake of the Reagan wave, but now that we are turning against ideology I really want nothing to do with his economic policies and people. I can dig it up if anyone wants, but read an article a while back discussing the "Rubinites" all the Rob Rubin disciples that kind of own Democratic economics, and it's not a good thing. Remember Larry Summers had his bid for Fed Chairman killed not by Republicans (they will oppose anything Obama does) but liberals who hated him for his support of deregulation, and generally being anti labor/pro wall st

You could be right, as I thought about it Sanders may not take it. There is always an appeal to wanting to stay in Congress. One could say that is a way to better push policies, and his name recognition is certainly through the roof now so who knows if that would help him in Congress.

Oh Trump, god who knows! I figured he's hidden $ offshore/has shady things stuff that would look bad given his intensely pro America, populist rhetoric. It could be he's less rich than he claims, guy lies about everything else LOL

Maybe it's both.

Edited by JJLehto - May 24 2016 at 09:32

emigre80

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 25 2015
Location: kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 2223

Posted: May 24 2016 at 09:50

JJLehto wrote:

Oh Trump, god who knows! I figured he's hidden $ offshore/has shady things stuff that would look bad given his intensely pro America, populist rhetoric. It could be he's less rich than he claims, guy lies about everything else LOL

Maybe it's both.

I suspect it's both, plus paying low or no federal tax.

A friend of mine has theorized that the big reveal on Trump will be his ties to the mob, which heavily controlled many construction-related industries in NY back in the day. Maybe still, I don't know. I'm not sure that people that swallowed deporting all illegal immigrants and banning all Muslims from entering America would care about whether he worked hand-in-glove with the Mafia, but this election has been so odd that who knows.

Smurph

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 11 2012
Location: Columbus&NYC
Status: Offline
Points: 3167

Posted: May 24 2016 at 09:59

emigre80 wrote:

Maybe it's both.

I suspect it's both, plus paying low or no federal tax.

All I know... is that it's going to get mad dirty. They'll say Trump is a mobster connected a****le, Trump will say Bill Clinton hangs out Jeffrey Epstein, etc.

Any accusations of racism will just bounce off Trump because he will stay confident that he isn't and most of his supporters wouldn't care too much. He'll just compare the Clintons to the anti-heroes from House of Cards.

http://pseudosentai.bandcamp.com/

wtf

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: May 24 2016 at 10:16

Oh crap... let's Make America Great Again....

... (because the way people talk it'd seems we're worse off than Haiti)...

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: May 24 2016 at 10:20

JJLehto wrote:

Actually pretty big news, Sanders has been allowed to choose 5 people of the 15 person committee that will craft the Democratic platform. This is certainly not normal/something they have to do and gives him a fairly good amount of input. Clinton gets to pick 6 and DWS 4. THIS is why he hasn't dropped out. We all knew, (the rational ones), his realistic hopes were over long ago, he stayed in to influence the party. Actual influence, words aren't enough. Now he actually has some input that can stick. Given his campaign was always about the movement, this is big step.

It's also smart for the Democratic Party.

True. And it would also be smart of Sanders to start winding down the attack machine so as not to break this new and improved relation he has with the Party. Like it or not (I don't) the two idiotic parties we have are the only way to effect somewhat quick change (for now at least). He can influence the direction of the Democrats much more from within than without.

He's done extremely well, and unexpectedly, and while he's lost it wasn't insignificant...has won 21 states, 43% of the vote (and that's not including a few states) his campaign should have some input, just like in 2008 where even though Clinton lost she was given a major position by Obama. I'd say his has been a successful run, for someone who started like 42301 points below in the polls, to have been just a few hundred delegates away from being the nominee.

It would be fantastic and also maybe even ensure we don't end up Making America Great Again...

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869

Posted: May 24 2016 at 10:21

JJLehto wrote:

rogerthat wrote:

Very interesting Quora answer I came across.

https://www.quora.com/Between-Trump-and-Clinton-who-will-win-US-presidential-election

Written about the US election but could apply to the general breakdown of the neo liberal consensus and the simultaneous rise of populism.

Oh absolutely.

Because despite his claim he'll spend "up to $1 billion" of his own money to self finance, he obviously has no want to do that with his precious fortune.

Great point. I don't see Trump as being the new Hitler, by the way, in spite of all that he has said. Methinks he's just a sheep in wolf's clothing. Why I am concerned, even as an outsider, about the possibility of his becoming President is what after Trump. What after he proves to be a failure. The crushing of all that hope is what could ignite something really dangerous. And I am concerned about that because USA is so powerful. You don't want a real Hitler reincarnate to take charge of Star Wars as Reagan used to call it. Yes, I noticed that Kissinger part too. Now that he's getting close to it, Trump's already desperate to become President and behaving like a typical weak, needy politician. It's really too bad if USA has to settle for Hilary Clinton but I probably echo an opinion held in large parts of the outside world that that would still be a relief. Status quo will not help USA but the alternative is not Trump.

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: May 24 2016 at 10:22

emigre80 wrote:

Maybe it's both.

I suspect it's both, plus paying low or no federal tax.

I can almost with total certainty predict that, short of documents showing that Trump actually killed Jesus, nothing will make his hardcore voters change their minds. And many of the not so hardcore ones will not change their minds either.

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: May 24 2016 at 10:29

rogerthat wrote:

JJLehto wrote:

rogerthat wrote:

Very interesting Quora answer I came across.

https://www.quora.com/Between-Trump-and-Clinton-who-will-win-US-presidential-election

Written about the US election but could apply to the general breakdown of the neo liberal consensus and the simultaneous rise of populism.

Oh absolutely.

Because despite his claim he'll spend "up to $1 billion" of his own money to self finance, he obviously has no want to do that with his precious fortune.

The seeds are planted. Trump is not an ideologue. Hell, he may even be a less atrocious president than we imagine (doubt it but still...). Eventually though all that angry racist white electorate may find a proper ideologue and I'm not looking forward to that