|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: U.S. Presidential Election 2016
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Yes, this is a big moment. As big as the moment when Obama won the nomination. I am glad this day has come in my lifetime. When my mother was expecting me, her boss fired her for being pregnant; my daughter is a US Army major and can buy camo uniforms in maternity sizes. So my life has bracketed some huge changes.
It isn't over -- it's not the victory. God alone knows the sexists will be out in force just as the racists and birthers have had a field day the past eight years. But it is the end of the beginning.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
^^ Just to re-encapsulate my point above...
If a DEMOCRAT proposed direct meetings with KJU, his fellow Democrats would do a collective facepalm, the Republicans would scream that he was a traitor, and Ralph Nader would say it was a refrshing change from the usual confrontational foreign-policy.
Trump proposes direct meetings because he seems to think he's going to negotiate everything personally. Exactly what he would be negotiating - well, there's no real reason to think that he's given this any thought whatsoever, is there?
Yes, but when people complain about Trump's policies, the criticism isn't that they're not well thought-out(though that may be true), but that they're just so far outside the mainstream.
If Trump's comments on North Korea had just been the standard State Department boilerplate("Six-party talks blah blah blah, guarantee the security of our regional allies blah blah blah etc"), I don't think anyone would be saying "Wait a minute, has he really thought this through, or is he just repeating a bunch of quotes he heard on CNN?"
No, it's prety clear that that particular diss of Trump was because his suggested policy was so far out of what is now accepted as the mainstream, received opinion. When Trump came out with his two successive policies on Jerusalem(first saying he was neutral on its status, and then suggesting it was undisputable Israeli land), did you see anyone complaining that he probably doesn't know enough about Israel to comment? No, because both those positions are within the legitimate parameters of American policy debate.
And, for the record, Bruce Cumings, the leading left-wing academic historian writing about Korean affairs, also thinks that bilateral negotiations are the best way to go(he provides recent examples in UK-US history), and that the conribution of other regional actors is somewhat over-rated.
Democracy Now
[ 07. June 2016, 16:21: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
That was a fantastic speech by Hilary.
My Grandfather refused to teach my Mother to drive or facilitate her learning, but bought my two uncles their first cars. He did not stand in the way of her driving or buying her own car, which is something I suppose.
When my mother fell pregnant with me, she was required to resign from her job. When she wanted to go back to work, the Education Department tried to hire her as if she had no experience - back to the starting salary, no recognition of previous years of service. She took that to court through the union and the Department's policy was changed.
If she has to she can do anything.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Strategies for evangelicals who hate both Trump and Clinton.
I'm curious if there are enough evangelical voters who feel this way that it will make a difference.
Quite a lot in my anecdotal experience. In fact, this would be the vast majority of my evangelical friends.
I found it interesting/irksome-- but also quite familiar-- that the author felt the need to lay out the case against Trump, but then dismisses Clinton with a single sentence, "of course we can't vote for Clinton..." As if it were so self-evident there was no need to build a case for it as he had done for the more obviously unChristian choice. Aggravating, but again, not at all unfamiliar in my personal experience.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Meanwhile my son voted for the first time today, for a candidate he's enthused about who has him excited about politics and making a difference-- and who our party has already written off.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Meanwhile my son voted for the first time today, for a candidate he's enthused about who has him excited about politics and making a difference-- and who our party has already written off.
Our youngest and some of his friends were enthusiastically supporting that same candidate -- even caucused, and were delegates for the second round! They were willing to hold their nose and vote for the other candidate should the other one win. But many of them, our son said, have decided to write in a third party, or abstain. It's very sad, that the party couldn't figure out a way to keep these kids engaged and excited.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Yeah I think the DNC really blew it. I expect Clinton to be a hard campaigner-- and she's earned her place at the table in the hardest way. But the DNC coulda done a whole lot better in making sure the voices of ALL Democrats were heard. If they lose all these passionate idealistic millennials they're gonna have a very hard time in future
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Strategies for evangelicals who hate both Trump and Clinton.
I'm curious if there are enough evangelical voters who feel this way that it will make a difference.
From this side of the pond I just have a really hard time with the idea that unless both a candidate's private life and all of their policy aims coincide exactly with one's own set of ticked boxes in these respects, it is a violation of one's conscience to vote for them.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I don't qualify as evangelical in the American sense, being a classical Lutheran (=evangelische), and nor do I see "conservativism" OR "liberalism" as lining up with Christianity very well. Which means that there is no party for me, and all my candidates are compromises, and this year is particularly nasty because I feel I'm being forced to choose between Vader and Voldemort. (Yeah, figure out who's who.)
So about the best I can do is to pick an independent with a halfway decent rep even though I know s/he is never going to win, and cast my vote as a purely symbolic gesture. Because I've heard enough and seen enough of both main party candidates to believe that I'd be doing evil to vote for either. And the evil is so complexly balanced this go-around that I can't decide on the lesser. Pick the megalomaniac who wants to deport half my family and demonizes huge swathes of my community? Or the sly customer who never gives a straight answer and is apparently careless enough to disregard ordinary security issues with email while actually serving in a position serving the nation? Sure, like I want either within a mile of the nuclear football. Heartless or careless? Choices, choices...
This totally sucks.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
A valid vote is never a wasted vote. Who you vote for will be noticed. Solace will be taken, if your candidate is not successful, and if the candidate is looking to seriously challenge the duopoly in the USA, they will know that they must be in for the long haul. Loss may follow loss, but if your numbers are going up, you have food for the journey.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I had a wise boss once who observed that in deciding who to pick for a job, all you had to do was to find a pin's difference between the short-listed candidates. of course you did have the option of not picking anyone if none of the candidates stood up to scrutiny, but all that meant was that you would have to do the same thing again, in the hope that someone better would turn up.
Lamb Chopped, if the choice in your mind is between a louse and a double louse, my advice is to vote for the louse, rather than not vote, or waste your vote on someone who cannot possibly win. You don't want the double-louse to win.
Here is what a double-louse looks and sounds like.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Latest Googled info for California shows Hillary leading by about 15 points with two thirds of the vote counted. Sanders will probably come back a bit in the late votes, but it looks like a double digit win for Hillary and, I guess, 250 delegates at least, out of the 475.
Latest info is that Bernie will lay off about half his staff this week and have talks with the President. The super delegates argument no longer flies. He's pulling out, will endorse Hillary.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yeah I think the DNC really blew it. I expect Clinton to be a hard campaigner-- and she's earned her place at the table in the hardest way. But the DNC coulda done a whole lot better in making sure the voices of ALL Democrats were heard. If they lose all these passionate idealistic millennials they're gonna have a very hard time in future
Well, with all due deference to youthful idealism, you mean that some of them are willing to increase the chances of Trump being elected (by abstaining)? Gasp, gulp. That's not idealism, that's something whose name is NSFW.
I find that all elections are like this really. In the EU referendum, the Remain speakers are gruesome, but then you look at the other lot, oh no.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Well, I teared up when our SBS News announced that Hilary was the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party.What a momentous achievement.
I won't get all Helen Reddy on you just yet, but I can hear the music. Congratulations Hilary and all women the world over.
And we all thank you!
{Does happy dance.}
Oh, and I'm on Hillary's mailing list. She said she wished her mom was still here to see this--her mom was born the day US women got the vote!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Bernie has definitely lost California by a substantial margin. The link at this time shows over 90% of precincts reporting in, Hillary with about 1.8 million votes to Sanders 1.4 million. CNN have called it, but basically the results already in make it a "no-brainer" now.
Forget about "a steep climb". His race is run; he can only be staying in to see what he can negotiate - and be cause he still has campaign funds to play with.
Hillary held out an olive branch in her speech; he'd be a fool to ignore it. I'd guess that Obama will reinforce that - and so will one or two key voices in his camp.
I don't want to see Bernie become a "sore loser". He's been good for the campaign. But it would be far better for him now to encourage Democrats to unite against Trump, set aside differences.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
I hope so Barnabas. The guy seems reasonable and responsible, and things are going normally in the Democrat camp. According to my schedule, it's time to do a deal.
What a great thing about Hillary's Mum! I saw Hill briefly on the news tonight making her speech. She looked relaxed and happy, and justifiably proud of her achievement. I smile just thinking about it.
Whatever else people say of her, including me I might add, she can handle pressure without making mistakes, and she does not quit. She has a CV that must be the envy of almost everyone who aspires to high political office, male or female. Nobody can say that she will not receive this nomination because of her merits.
Meantime, in the red corner, party elders debate whether their presumptive nominee can properly be called a racist.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, well done to the US for following a black president with a female nominee. It's all very sticky and hedged around with riders and qualifications and ifs and buts, but nonetheless, some achievement.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, with all due deference to youthful idealism, you mean that some of them are willing to increase the chances of Trump being elected (by abstaining)? Gasp, gulp. That's not idealism, that's something whose name is NSFW.
You need to listen to some of these kids. They're not being idealistic. They are trying to vote in what they consider their own self-interest. And they honestly feel like there's not a dime's worth of difference between what will happen TO THEM, whether Trump or Hillary wins. Hillary is, in their opinion, a hawkish hawk, a warmonger, so more of them and their friends will end up in pointless wars overseas. Just like they will with the bellicose and irrational Trump. Trump and Hillary both support the banksters on Wall Street, and so the country will continue to move towards a gig economy with no security, little opportunity, and no way to handle the crushing debt of an education -- and no way to support yourself without that education. Hillary and Trump are both likely to support policies that continue to speed global warming, which these kids feel is a real threat to their own futures.
Hillary needs to reach out to these kids in a big way. It might be too late, but they are young, and idealistic, and it's possible that (with help from Bernie and Elizabeth Warren) she can win them over.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Interesting points, Josephine. Following the parallels, Hillary is a racist and a misogynist?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yeah I think the DNC really blew it. I expect Clinton to be a hard campaigner-- and she's earned her place at the table in the hardest way. But the DNC coulda done a whole lot better in making sure the voices of ALL Democrats were heard. If they lose all these passionate idealistic millennials they're gonna have a very hard time in future
Well, with all due deference to youthful idealism, you mean that some of them are willing to increase the chances of Trump being elected (by abstaining)? Gasp, gulp. That's not idealism, that's something whose name is NSFW.
I'm not speculating on whether the passionately pro-Sanders millennials will switch to Hillary-- certainly one hopes so, for the sake of the country.
What I was addressing was really the damage to the brand. This was an opportunity for the DNC to really show these young, idealistic voters (not unlike my boomer generation back in the day) what democracy could be-- that your voice matters, that you can make a difference. Instead, they went out of their way to disenfranchise Sanders and continually present Clinton as the default choice. Again, I don't blame Hillary for this-- she is in a campaign, one she's earned, and has the right to play the game hard, as she's done for decades. But the DNC itself played their hand really really badly, only cementing the image of establishment enfranchised power that is all about maintaining the system rather than real change. Had they played nicely, Clinton most likely still would have won, but the millennials would have at least felt like they had a voice & a place at the table, and would have been more likely to get out and support Hillary in the general election-- as well as the Democratic party in general.
If the millennials stay home in November it will be a tragedy. Hopefully that won't happen. But either way this squandered opportunity is a real loss.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting points, Josephine. Following the parallels, Hillary is a racist and a misogynist?
IMHO Josephine is spot on.
No, Hillary is not a racist nor a misogynist. And she has a lot-- quite a lot-- going for her. I will happily vote for her, and not just as the "least bad option". But she is hardly a game changer, and has some real negatives from a progressive pov. The nation will be safe in her hands-- something I cannot say with the alternative-- but I don't know if we'll move forward as much as I'd like, as much as we could.
I agree that reaching out to Sanders & Warren will be key-- and I think all three (Clinton, Sanders & Warren) are mature enough to make that happen in a real way (much as Bill did when Obama got the nod 8 years ago). And not like the weird GOP show going on right now with everyone falling all over themselves to say "yeah, I know I said 2 months ago that Trump is a dangerous, racist loon, but he'll make a good president..." That's important, and I expect it will happen. Whether it will be enough to win back the millennials, we'll have to see...
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Good points, cliffdweller. You made me laugh with 'negative from a progressive point of view', as I can't remember a politician not like that. In the UK, people on the left have got used to looking at the Labour party, puking up quietly, and then voting for them, usually anyway. There are purists who don't.
I suppose in Europe one can argue that there are shades of neoliberalism, which one takes your fancy? Or, the EU is the temple of neoliberalism, but for some, it's not right wing enough.
But, yes, Bernie does look progressive.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
What will be interesting will be to see if the DNC can get behind Sanders & Warren as Senators, where they could have some real power and influence if the DNC will back them up. Then we might really see something interesting-- and significant-- happen. The reality is, there's as much or more power there in the Senate than in the executive branch, so empowering Sanders & Warren in those roles could be the more strategic way to accomplish a truly progressive agenda.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
One must keep in mind that it is June. From today to November is aeons. The aphorism is that a day is a lifetime in politics. Yes, the primary process was divisive; sure there are sore feelings. This is always the case, in June. What is really important is how everything's looking along about November 3rd.
It is notionally possible that Trump will pivot on a dime, pull off the vulgar acrylic hairpiece, and become a Reagan, a Lincoln, a Roosevelt -- a man who can pull the voters in behind him. And with sufficient genetic engineering you could get a Tamworth to sprout goose wings. Even if this were to happen, there's all the past video footage, all the former transcripts. Each and every single one will be on view in the next four months, I promise you.
No. It's done. Congratulations, Hillary! You've earned it! And see that Bill works on his chocolate chip cookie recipe.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting points, Josephine. Following the parallels, Hillary is a racist and a misogynist?
No, they don't think she's a racist and a misogynist. The kids that I'm hearing are young, but they're not stupid. They just think that she is so supportive of and beholden to the banksters and the military-industrial complex that nothing will change under her. And they think the system has to change, if they're going to have a shot at a stable adult life.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting points, Josephine. Following the parallels, Hillary is a racist and a misogynist?
No, they don't think she's a racist and a misogynist. The kids that I'm hearing are young, but they're not stupid. They just think that she is so supportive of and beholden to the banksters and the military-industrial complex that nothing will change under her. And they think the system has to change, if they're going to have a shot at a stable adult life.
Well, that's fair enough, in fact, it's grand. I wonder if 8 years under Trump (possibly), might alter their views a smidgeon?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting points, Josephine. Following the parallels, Hillary is a racist and a misogynist?
No, they don't think she's a racist and a misogynist. The kids that I'm hearing are young, but they're not stupid. They just think that she is so supportive of and beholden to the banksters and the military-industrial complex that nothing will change under her. And they think the system has to change, if they're going to have a shot at a stable adult life.
Well, that's fair enough, in fact, it's grand. I wonder if 8 years under Trump (possibly), might alter their views a smidgeon?
Agreed! I have quite a few fb friends who respond to comments like those about them being too similar and "May as well have Trump" by noticing that the people who say things like that always seems to have a lot of privilege.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, it's possible that poor people, black people, Latino, and so on, don't see them as equivalent, since they may fear that Trump will come down on them like a ton of fucking bricks. Of course, Hillary might also, true.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I have quite a few fb friends who respond to comments like those about them being too similar and "May as well have Trump" by noticing that the people who say things like that always seems to have a lot of privilege.
Actually, I have quite a few first-gen college students in my classes who are minorities, including some dream act kids, who are also saying there's not much difference. I'm quite sure they won't vote for Trump-- some will vote for Hillary as "least bad", some will vote for a 3rd party candidate, some will stay home (some are undocumented so don't have an option). But the narrative that Clinton is an establishment candidate who isn't offering any real change is not just coming from the privileged. In fact, I'm hearing it far more from those on the margins who feel like there's no one speaking for them. Again, the heavy-handed moves from the DNC in the last few months didn't help that impression.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
The feeling of alienation among the poor is real. I am sure Hillary is smart enough to address it. She has the time, and some really good podiums coming up: the convention, for instance.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I have quite a few fb friends who respond to comments like those about them being too similar and "May as well have Trump" by noticing that the people who say things like that always seems to have a lot of privilege.
Actually, I have quite a few first-gen college students in my classes who are minorities, including some dream act kids, who are also saying there's not much difference. I'm quite sure they won't vote for Trump-- some will vote for Hillary as "least bad", some will vote for a 3rd party candidate, some will stay home (some are undocumented so don't have an option). But the narrative that Clinton is an establishment candidate who isn't offering any real change is not just coming from the privileged. In fact, I'm hearing it far more from those on the margins who feel like there's no one speaking for them. Again, the heavy-handed moves from the DNC in the last few months didn't help that impression.
This seems very familiar to me, as people here don't vote Labour in the hope of real change. Ha! But I think quite a lot vote defensively, hoping that they won't vandalize stuff like the NHS quite as much. It's not heroic, of course.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
There has been an enormous failing in the US educational system if many of the idealistic young cannot spot a pin's difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
Or maybe they just want to man the barricades to bring the revolution in? Anger is a very powerful emotion. Kind of reminds me of "Do you hear the people sing" from "Les Miserables". But the situation of the idealistic young in the US and "les miserables" in 19th century France is hardly the same.
But I am a bit bothered. What you are describing, plus some of the social media twittering, sounds suspiciously like the thought processes of a claque on the left. With about as damaged a capability for critical thought as the claque on the right. A descent into tribalism.
I guess the anger will burn out, and they will in the main vote for the perceived Hillary-louse, rather than the perceived Trump-double-louse. Is there any real doubt that Trump is lousier than Hillary?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There has been an enormous failing in the US educational system if many of the idealistic young cannot spot a pin's difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
Or maybe they just want to man the barricades to bring the revolution in? Anger is a very powerful emotion. Kind of reminds me of "Do you hear the people sing" from "Les Miserables". But the situation of the idealistic young in the US and "les miserables" in 19th century France is hardly the same.
But I am a bit bothered. What you are describing, plus some of the social media twittering, sounds suspiciously like the thought processes of a claque on the left. With about as damaged a capability for critical thought as the claque on the right. A descent into tribalism.
I guess the anger will burn out, and they will in the main vote for the perceived Hillary-louse, rather than the perceived Trump-double-louse. Is there any real doubt that Trump is lousier than Hillary?
I think "lack of critical thought" is an overstatement. It's really just youthful idealism-- which is a gift we shouldn't toss away. It's not that they don't recognize that Clinton is a better option than Trump, it's that they are frustrated that they don't have any other options, and that the system seemed rigged from the very beginning. Again, I can't fault Clinton here as much as the DNC itself. And again, they are smart enough not to vote for Trump. That's not going to happen. It's what they will do instead that is up for grabs.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It often happens on the left, maybe always. The cry goes up, compromise is treason to our principles. OK, but now what do you do?
However, I guess there is a point where one just can't take any more nonsense from the centrists, such as Blair, who are as warlike and neoliberal as the right-wing. I don't know if Hillary is like Blair really.
I was trying to think of a quote from Lenin, but perhaps the best one is, 'what is to be done?' But did he have the solution, with his contempt for the pro-capitalist left and liberals?
The logic points to revolution, but that is a step too far, for most people.
[ 08. June 2016, 14:21: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's interesting to see this going on in the US, as I'm used to it in a European context, that is, the struggle between the reformist left, the further left left, and the centrists, or centre-right, who masquerade as left. In general, they have all been swallowed up by neoliberalism, see Blair, and the further left left are impotent. I suppose there is a parallel between Bernie and Corbyn.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Strategies for evangelicals who hate both Trump and Clinton.
I'm curious if there are enough evangelical voters who feel this way that it will make a difference.
Quite a lot in my anecdotal experience. In fact, this would be the vast majority of my evangelical friends.
I found it interesting/irksome-- but also quite familiar-- that the author felt the need to lay out the case against Trump, but then dismisses Clinton with a single sentence, "of course we can't vote for Clinton..." As if it were so self-evident there was no need to build a case for it as he had done for the more obviously unChristian choice.
It's part and parcel with the author's refreshingly frank definition of American evangelicalism and it's interests.
quote:
As we see it, a failure to protect the most vulnerable lives and our freedom of religion in a pluralist society is a direct threat to the foundations of that society.
In other words, American evangelicalism is defined as being anti-abortion and anti-gay. Whatever your standing with the various points of the Bebbington quadrilateral or other theological definitions, you won't be accepted as an "evangelical" in the U.S. unless you meet those two points. At any rate, because the Democrats generally and Hillary Clinton specifically are in favor of equal rights for homosexuals (a.k.a. "restricting freedom of religion") and opposed to criminalizing abortion (a.k.a. "failure to protect the most vulnerable lives"), given this perspective it is "so self-evident there was no need to build a case" against her candidacy for American evangelicals, as Alan Noble understands the term.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, with all due deference to youthful idealism, you mean that some of them are willing to increase the chances of Trump being elected (by abstaining)? Gasp, gulp. That's not idealism, that's something whose name is NSFW.
You need to listen to some of these kids. They're not being idealistic. They are trying to vote in what they consider their own self-interest. And they honestly feel like there's not a dime's worth of difference between what will happen TO THEM, whether Trump or Hillary wins.
So, fairly affluent and self-absorbed kids who will have the wherewithal to travel to a friendlier jurisdiction if abortion is outlawed, or who will never have to work for the minimum wage so they don't care what it is, or who won't feel the effects of resurgent racism? You're right, that doesn't sound particularly idealistic.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Hillary and Trump are both likely to support policies that continue to speed global warming, which these kids feel is a real threat to their own futures.
[citation needed]. Especially given the attack ads we're certain to be treated to of Hillary Clinton saying "we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business", contrasted with Donald Trump's outright climate change denialism.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
The accusation of "rigging" doesn't seem to me to have any real basis in fact. Compared say to the cynical gerrymandering of the House of Representative districts (in favour of the GOP), the Democratic primary processes look pretty straightforward to me.
I "get" the arguments re superdelegates, both ways. But Hillary is now certain to get more pledged delegates than Bernie in any case. She's also received a lot more votes than Bernie. How has she not won?
To quote Bernie, "I can do arithmetic". Maintaining the "rigging" allegations looks pretty silly.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
However, I guess there is a point where one just can't take any more nonsense from the centrists, such as Blair, who are as warlike and neoliberal as the right-wing. I don't know if Hillary is like Blair really.
AFAICT Hilary is slightly to the right of Blair (as was her husband on social matters), it's less evident as the Overton window in the US is further to the right than it is over here.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The accusation of "rigging" doesn't seem to me to have any real basis in fact. Compared say to the cynical gerrymandering of the House of Representative districts (in favour of the GOP), the Democratic primary processes look pretty straightforward to me.
I "get" the arguments re superdelegates, both ways. But Hillary is now certain to get more pledged delegates than Bernie in any case. She's also received a lot more votes than Bernie. How has she not won?
To quote Bernie, "I can do arithmetic". Maintaining the "rigging" allegations looks pretty silly.
Agreed. But to the idealistic young, the excessive influence of superdelegates feels rigged. For those of us voting in California, the preemptive announcement of Clinton as the
de facto nominee days before our polls opened felt like rigging. Scuffles over email lists, etc.
All of which pales compared to the shenanigans of Rove and his minions on the other side. And, again, is nothing to fault Clinton for-- she is allowed to fight hard for a win, she's earned it. But I think it was a stupid misstep by the DNC that will hurt our appeal to millennials.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I didn't know AP was a DNC patsy. I guess that's news to both of them.
I said earlier that I didn't think the AP action was helpful, but under US laws and constitution they were free to do. In terms of comparative turnout, it could also have hurt Hillary as well as Bernie. I haven't seen the polls feedback yet to know that, one way or the other.
Perhaps the deeper issue is of trust? Or youthful impatience? This tendency to jump to cynical conclusions may be understandable, I suppose, but it is possible to check whether the suspicions have any justification in fact. What's wrong with encouraging millennials to do that? At least that's fair.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Agreed. But to the idealistic young, the excessive influence of superdelegates feels rigged. For those of us voting in California, the preemptive announcement of Clinton as the de facto nominee days before our polls opened felt like rigging. Scuffles over email lists, etc.
All of which pales compared to the shenanigans of Rove and his minions on the other side. And, again, is nothing to fault Clinton for-- she is allowed to fight hard for a win, she's earned it. But I think it was a stupid misstep by the DNC that will hurt our appeal to millennials.
As noted earlier, that declaration was actually made by the Associated Press, an entity over which the DNC has no control. Clinton's tweeted response seems pretty pitch perfect.
quote:
We’re flattered, @AP, but we've got primaries to win. CA, MT, NM, ND, NJ, SD, vote tomorrow!
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
I should point out for those wanting to vote for a Republican for president but who can't stand Donald Trump, the Libertarian party has nominated former Republican governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson for president and former Republican governor of Massachusetts William Weld for vice president. It is literally an alternative Republican ticket.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Presumably, if you're anti-abortion and anti-gay, you're going to vote Trump, whether or not you're evangelical, or Christian?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Presumably, if you're anti-abortion and anti-gay, you're going to vote Trump, whether or not you're evangelical, or Christian?
No.
There are quite a few of us pro-life evangelicals who can see the inherent inconsistencies between every aspect of Trump's rhetoric and any passing resemblance to anything even vaguely Christian. As well as quite a few of us who have seen thru the GOP smoke & mirrors to recognize the raw stats that show that abortion declines when you give women real choices-- access to contraception, health care, child care, and the other resources needed to choose life-- rather than just misogynistic blather and legislative threats.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
This came out in March but is still relevant,
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Eh? Cliffdweller, you're not really saying you're anti-gay, are you? I said, 'and' not 'or'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
that declaration was actually made by the Associated Press, an entity over which the DNC has no control. Clinton's tweeted response seems pretty pitch perfect.
quote:
We’re flattered, @AP, but we've got primaries to win. CA, MT, NM, ND, NJ, SD, vote tomorrow!
Agh, yes, my mistake.
Agreed re Clinton's response. Again, I've no quibble with her, and will happily vote for her.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Eh? Cliffdweller, you're not really saying you're anti-gay, are you? I said, 'and' not 'or'.
Not for me to say, but I hope not. But beyond myself personally, there are many of my fellow evangelicals who are at not really "gay affirming" (e.g. who would oppose same-sex marriage) but still would recognize that Trump crosses an unholy line-- both in his rhetoric about gays, but also his rhetoric about, well, everyone who isn't a rich white male with improbably day-glo hair and teeny tiny feet to compensate for.
[ 08. June 2016, 15:56: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Presumably, if you're anti-abortion and anti-gay, you're going to vote Trump, whether or not you're evangelical, or Christian?
You'd think so, but apparently it's problematic for folks like Alan Noble (the author of the Vox article cited by Josephine). The objections all seem to boil down to the idea that Trump cannot be trusted to deliver on his promises. Given that Team R has been playing this game for decades (vote for an abortion ban, actually get an upper-income tax cut!) I can only surmise it's because Trump is just a lot more brazen about it than past Republican politicians.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
