US Politics Thread

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,517
Reactions
14,658
Points
113
Kind of petered out when a few high profile Dems came into the picture though didn't it?
Actually, a high-profile Dem, (Sen. Al Franken, formerly of SNL,) was one of the first to go. I take @Federberg's point that MeToo was a consequence of the Trump election. You may remember the massive Women's March the day after Trump's inauguration. A lot of women were incensed that a man could be so blatant in his disregard for women and still get elected to the highest office. It led, as Federberg said, to the election of a record number of women in the midterms.
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,517
Reactions
14,658
Points
113

So much warning of Democrats not to paint Republicans all with the same brush, but it's fine if he wants to paint Dems with one. There are plenty of us that think some of it goes way too far. It just doesn't make us want to eat the dog shit, or otherwise throw the baby out with the bathwater.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kieran

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,542
Reactions
5,607
Points
113
So much warning of Democrats not to paint Republicans all with the same brush, but it's fine if he wants to paint Dems with one. There are plenty of us that think some of it goes way too far. It just doesn't make us want to eat the dog shit, or otherwise throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I think he does it from a position of love though. He's on your side after all. He cares less about what Republicans do
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,517
Reactions
14,658
Points
113
I think he does it from a position of love though. He's on your side after all. He cares less about what Republicans do
Well, TBH, it wasn't only aimed at Bill Maher. I thought it might resonate with a couple of folks around here, too. :)
 

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,542
Reactions
5,607
Points
113
Well, TBH, it wasn't only aimed at Bill Maher. I thought it might resonate with a couple of folks around here, too. :)
Lol! Ok noted. If I'm included in that, all I can say is that I'm just passing on the experience on this side of the water. Both of our countries have mildly conservative sensibilities, it's important that those on the left recognise this. There are limits to which leftward policies will be tolerated. I just feel that young politicians like AOC need to appreciate the fact that districts like hers are not at the cutting edge of what wins elections. I find her impressive, and I think if she's smart she can help move the country towards her view point, but if she deludes herself into thinking that her ease of re-electability grants her more gravitas then it's a huge mistake. A party has to pay close attention to the districts that are in play and what moves the voters there. This is what makes Pelosi such a smart politician. She doesn't kid herself about what's possible politically. AOC and her ilk need to learn to take what they can, and respect those fighting on the frontlines. I don't understand why it's so hard to understand that. I will say this though, I agree with her that Dems need to campaign smarter. The biggest lesson I've gleaned from this election so far was in Georgia. Years of work doing voter registration has made that state firmly purple. I see possibilities for states like North Carolina, Texas and Florida. But the test will be if Dems do the hard work over the next 18 months on the ground. I might be wrong but I get the distinct impression that Dems down tools in between cycles just when the real work needs to begin
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,517
Reactions
14,658
Points
113
Lol! Ok noted. If I'm included in that, all I can say is that I'm just passing on the experience on this side of the water. Both of our countries have mildly conservative sensibilities, it's important that those on the left recognise this. There are limits to which leftward policies will be tolerated. I just feel that young politicians like AOC need to appreciate the fact that districts like hers are not at the cutting edge of what wins elections. I find her impressive, and I think if she's smart she can help move the country towards her view point, but if she deludes herself into thinking that her ease of re-electability grants her more gravitas then it's a huge mistake. A party has to pay close attention to the districts that are in play and what moves the voters there. This is what makes Pelosi such a smart politician. She doesn't kid herself about what's possible politically. AOC and her ilk need to learn to take what they can, and respect those fighting on the frontlines. I don't understand why it's so hard to understand that. I will say this though, I agree with her that Dems need to campaign smarter. The biggest lesson I've gleaned from this election so far was in Georgia. Years of work doing voter registration has made that state firmly purple. I see possibilities for states like North Carolina, Texas and Florida. But the test will be if Dems do the hard work over the next 18 months on the ground. I might be wrong but I get the distinct impression that Dems down tools in between cycles just when the real work needs to begin
Nah, not so much you, really. Oh course, Cali, though, as he loves to tar every Dem and even vaguely liberal person around here with every notion that has ever passed through a single Democrat's brain.

You are not wrong that both of our countries tend to the conservative side and big changes don't sit well with everyone. I know what you're saying about folks like AOC and Sanders, but at the same time I agree that there is a place for the rabble-rousing farther edges of a party. Do remember that AOC is in Congress to represent the wishes of her district, too. And you're not completely wrong about the Party not necessarily tending to areas that need attention and growth when not in extremis. Stacy Abrams was putting in the hard yards in GA for years, even when she got little support from the party, because they didn't see the point, I guess. Well, that woman practically carried in GA single-handedly. (The recount may change the results, but the point has been made.)

I would like to call out something at Antipusher said a page or two back about the "Defund the Police" idea. This didn't come from the Democratic Party at all. It was a radical notion that appeared on placards during the BLM demonstrations. Even I had no idea what they were on about. The problem is, most people don't even know what that means, and embracing the notion before doing the work to explain it more clearly is one of those things that Dems do that frightens people away, pisses them off, and serves only to push people away from the party. Anyway, yes, there is hard work to be done. We've won back the WH, but not by much. The Democratic Party needs to find a better, more coherent voice for its message, and it needs to keep working on keeping the people it has recently won over...and bringing back many that it has lost.
 
Last edited:

the AntiPusher

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
16,985
Reactions
7,077
Points
113
The reporter is providing FACTS but just like Kieran and the other pro Trumpers it doesn't matter. The reporter should have been firm and straight to the point, "Are you upset that Trump loss because now you feel that your white privilege/entitlement is being threaten." We all know that answer. All Trump supporters may not feel the same way but the majority of them do. This is the American we live in and Trump only gave a voice to those who felt their voices were silent.
 

Kieran

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
16,880
Reactions
7,083
Points
113
So much warning of Democrats not to paint Republicans all with the same brush, but it's fine if he wants to paint Dems with one. There are plenty of us that think some of it goes way too far. It just doesn't make us want to eat the dog shit, or otherwise throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Absolutely agree with this. One thing that surprised me was that there were people on the right saying Biden was a socialist, as if they'd never met the bloke. He's far from being a socialist, and he might have a lot to recommend him in helping to cure divisiveness between the two parties, given his experience and contacts. But it's true, we tend to see, in the worst excesses of partisan politics, that one side will judge the other wholly on what it sees as its worst and most extreme elements, and so nowadays, rather than thinking of politics as being issue-based - and taking each issue on its merits might see the most well-meaning person find themselves in the company of people from either wing, depending on where their conscience leads them - we tend now to see politics has become fossilized into divisions based upon highly malleable terms, such as "conservative", "liberal", "left", "right", etc.

None of these terms are fit for purpose today, in my opinion, and they only create barriers between people, rather than inspiring people to be open about their ideas, and collaborative in their efforts...
 

Kieran

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
16,880
Reactions
7,083
Points
113
The reporter is providing FACTS but just like Kieran and the other pro Trumpers it doesn't matter. The reporter should have been firm and straight to the point, "Are you upset that Trump loss because now you feel that your white privilege/entitlement is being threaten." We all know that answer. All Trump supporters may not feel the same way but the majority of them do. This is the American we live in and Trump only gave a voice to those who felt their voices were silent.
As Ronald Reagan once said, "there you go again." People who disagree with you are obviously racist, and now I'm suddenly a Trumpist (and presumably, therefore, also a racist). You have a religious mindset when it comes to politics, you see no grey areas, you're an idealist, and this is your misfortune. It's like talking to Cali about his 40% - you're his mirror image when it comes to the 72m. You have one idea of people in your head and you won't budge, you won't listen, no matter what anyone says.

You'll continue to believe that any political disagreement with you equals a moral failing on the part of the other - and so you'll continue to be outraged when people commit the "sacrilege" of disliking your beloved Democrats candidates...
 

Kieran

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
16,880
Reactions
7,083
Points
113
I read an extract of Barack Obama's autobiography - A Promised Land - over my tea and toast this morning, it's serialised in The Sunday Times, and I think it might be one of those great books about or by former presidents and their terms in office. I grew up reading Arthur Schlesinger's accounts of the Kennedy's, and found them fairly compelling, and have always been drawn to trying to understand the mindsets of great leaders, people who have risen to unimaginable heights of power.

Obama is maybe the only US president who couldn't afford even the slightest blemish in his personal life to be made public, given the history that was invested in him. Imagine if he had the character faults, peccadillos and allegations hanging over him that were routine for 42, and 45. But imagine if he had only one thousandth of their faults. He carried a burden they'd never have known. Obama is a man who personifies dignity in office, and while I'm not overly familiar with his domestic achievements, and I didn't rate him too highly on the international stage, I always admired the man, and his family. They had so much negative scrutiny that their behaviour and class was their best advertisement.

Interesting beginning to the extract:

“And how are you holding up?” Valerie asked me.

I stopped at the top of the stairs to search my jacket pockets for some notes I needed for the meeting we were about to attend. “I’m good,” I said.

“You sure?” Her eyes narrowed as she searched my face like a doctor examining a patient for symptoms. I found what I was looking for and started walking again.

“Yeah, I’m sure,” I said. “Why? Do I seem different to you?”

Valerie [Jarrett, one of Obama’s senior advisers] shook her head. “No,” she said. “You seem exactly the same. That’s what I don’t understand.”

It wasn’t the first time Valerie had commented on how little the presidency had changed me. I understood that she meant it as a compliment — her way of expressing relief that I hadn’t gotten too full of myself, lost my sense of humour, or turned into a bitter, angry jerk. But as war and the economic crisis dragged on and our political problems began to mount, she started worrying that maybe I was acting a little too calm, that I was just bottling up all the stress.

She wasn’t the only one. Friends started sending notes of encouragement, sombre and heartfelt, as if they’d just learned that I had a serious illness. Marty Nesbitt and Eric Whitaker discussed flying in to hang out and watch a ball game — a “boys’ night”, they said, just to take my mind off things. Mama Kaye, arriving for a visit, expressed genuine surprise at how well I looked in person.

It seems he had a rare virtue in politics, and life: "I’d discovered about myself during the campaign, obstacles and struggles rarely shook me to the core."

Interestingly too, given a discussion we had above about how the media operates and tries to drive a narrative, he says:

What I hadn’t fully appreciated, though, at least not until I scanned a few news broadcasts, was how the images producers used in stories about my administration had shifted of late. Back when we were riding high, toward the end of the campaign and the start of my presidency, most news footage showed me active and smiling, shaking hands or speaking in front of dramatic backdrops, my gestures and facial expressions exuding energy and command. Now that most of the stories were negative, a different version of me appeared: older-looking, walking alone along the colonnade or across the South Lawn to Marine One, my shoulders slumped, my eyes downcast, my face weary and creased with the burdens of the office.

The media, as we know, will report news while also giving it their own slant in the headlines, in the photographs etc. In fact, he says, "life as I was experiencing it didn’t feel nearly so dire."

I think this will be an interesting book for anyone interested in politics. One segment stuck out in particular for me, when he discusses performers coming to the White House:

Every genre was represented: Motown and Broadway show tunes; classic blues and a Fiesta Latina; gospel and hip-hop; country, jazz, and classical. The musicians typically rehearsed the day before they were scheduled to appear, and if I happened to be upstairs in the residence as they were running through their set, I could hear the sounds of drums and bass and electric guitar reverberating through the Treaty Room floor. Sometimes I’d sneak down the back stairs of the residence and slip into the East Room, standing in the rear so as not to attract attention, and just watch the artists at work: a duet figuring out their harmonies, a headliner tweaking an arrangement with the house band. I’d marvel at everyone’s mastery of their instruments, the generosity they showed toward one another as they blended mind, body, and spirit, and I’d feel a pang of envy at the pure, unambiguous joy of their endeavours, such a contrast to the political path I had chosen.

This is poignant, but also it made me think of Pericles and Marcus Aurelio and and all the great and powerful leaders throughout history, who might be likewise so cultured, they might also sneak a peak at the players of their time rehearsing, and feed a similar hunger they felt. It's a timeless scene, and one that gives another view of him, among so many of them, actually, in this short extract...
 
  • Like
Reactions: kskate2 and tented

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,517
Reactions
14,658
Points
113
Absolutely agree with this. One thing that surprised me was that there were people on the right saying Biden was a socialist, as if they'd never met the bloke. He's far from being a socialist, and he might have a lot to recommend him in helping to cure divisiveness between the two parties, given his experience and contacts. But it's true, we tend to see, in the worst excesses of partisan politics, that one side will judge the other wholly on what it sees as its worst and most extreme elements, and so nowadays, rather than thinking of politics as being issue-based - and taking each issue on its merits might see the most well-meaning person find themselves in the company of people from either wing, depending on where their conscience leads them - we tend now to see politics has become fossilized into divisions based upon highly malleable terms, such as "conservative", "liberal", "left", "right", etc.

None of these terms are fit for purpose today, in my opinion, and they only create barriers between people, rather than inspiring people to be open about their ideas, and collaborative in their efforts...
Trump had a tactic that was based on squaring off against Sanders, and when the nominee was Biden, he just went with it, anyway, and played on fears of "liberals" he'd been ginning up for ages, (and to be fair, so have loads of Republicans for even longer...i.e. "Democrats will raise your taxes!") And it still worked on some people. However, there are plenty of reasonable people of good faith and well-aware of their politics and the issues who vote for a more conservative government for their own reasons. I recently (just before the election,) had a very heart-felt email from an old friend who felt compelled to state her case to me, based on FaceBook. I've always known her to be more conservative than I am, and I love her dearly. I respect her choices. So this is where I disagree that the problem is with the terms "liberal", "conservative", "left" or "right." In and of themselves, they're fairly neutral and descriptive, if perhaps overly broad. What has happened in the US is that they have become imbued with other, much more destructive, divisive notions. "Right" or "Conservative" comes to mean, to many things like: Trumper, hillbilly, uneducated, religious zealot, racist, or people who vote against their own self-interest. "Left" or "Liberal" can mean things like: Elitist, someone who looks down their nose at me, Socialist!, PC stupid in the extreme, anti-religious baby killers.

We didn't used to be these people. We used to have a lot more respect for the differing views of others. If we can now remember that, while there are politicians and pundits that we may not like or respect, we can still love and respect our friends and relatives, and the "other side" at-large, we might get farther down the road to civilized discussion again. Too idealistic? I hope not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kieran

Kieran

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
16,880
Reactions
7,083
Points
113
Trump had a tactic that was based on squaring off against Sanders, and when the nominee was Biden, he just went with it, anyway, and played on fears of "liberals" he'd been ginning up for ages, (and to be fair, so have loads of Republicans for even longer...i.e. "Democrats will raise your taxes!") And it still worked on some people. However, there are plenty of reasonable people of good faith and well-aware of their politics and the issues who vote for a more conservative government for their own reasons. I recently (just before the election,) had a very heart-felt email from an old friend who felt compelled to state her case to me, based on FaceBook. I've always known her to be more conservative than I am, and I love her dearly. I respect her choices. So this is where I disagree that the problem is with the terms "liberal", "conservative", "left" or "right." In and of themselves, they're fairly neutral and descriptive, if perhaps overly broad. What has happened in the US is that they have become imbued with other, much more destructive, divisive notions. "Right" or "Conservative" comes to mean, to many things like: Trumper, hillbilly, uneducated, religious zealot, racist, or people who vote against their own self-interest. "Left" or "Liberal" can mean things like: Elitist, someone who looks down their nose at me, Socialist!, PC stupid in the extreme, anti-religious baby killers.

We didn't used to be these people. We used to have a lot more respect for the differing views of others. If we can now remember that, while there are politicians and pundits that we may not like or respect, we can still love and respect our friends and relatives, and the "other side" at-large, we might get farther down the road to civilized discussion again. Too idealistic? I hope not.

I don’t think it’s too idealistic, and it’s well said. Among my friends, I would be considered to be on the left on some issues, and more traditional with other issues. So I have friends who describe themselves knowledgeably as socialist and they’re my dearest friends, beautiful educated people who don’t embrace the extremes, but likewise I have many friends from the so-called right who are equally sharp and genuine in their beliefs. Both believe - by the way - that their political values will benefit society. None of them hold beliefs which contain prejudice against any minorities or gende.

The good thing is, we can talk. My best friend of all is a very liberal Catholic who has the most generous view of anybody. You see, I think people reach the dangerous extremes of a belief because they’re psychologically in need of extremes. They’re not thinking rationally on each issue. They’re trying to furiously plug a feeling of inadequacy. And this can get in the way of peaceful discussion and fruitful collaboration, because whether people like it or not, many countries in the west are hardening in their divisions but it is actually possible to sit down with somebody who is your polar opposite ideologically and have a good time, feel common purpose and learn something from each other.

As you rightly say, “we used to have a lot more respect for people of differing views.”

It brings me around to a related topic which we discuss elsewhere, which is the influence of social media, where - according to the experts - we’re being hacked by the algorithms, and dragged into a race to the bottom, being fed outrage and disharmony, misinformation, etc. And so the stats say that in America, what the tribes think the other tribe believe can be wrong by more than thirty percent. In other words, the echo chambers are resounding too loudly and we’re not leaving ourselves open to listening to the other side?

I don’t know the extent of the problem but I wonder if it’s a factor?
 

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,542
Reactions
5,607
Points
113
sounds like he's starting to accept that his time is done?

 

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,542
Reactions
5,607
Points
113
I hear Biden's lead is in excess of 5 million now with 79 million to his tally..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moxie

tented

Administrator
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
21,611
Reactions
10,381
Points
113
Location
Pittsburgh, PA

2E4C7084-A170-49D7-B963-D559E2A092FC.gif
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Federberg
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
mrzz World Affairs 2449
T World Affairs 13
britbox World Affairs 82
britbox World Affairs 1004
britbox World Affairs 46