Chit-Chat: The Feels

[Yeah No]

31 minutes ago, partofme said:

I have no understanding or sympathy for where they’re coming from.  They’re either really ignorant or they’re lying and  “the economy “ is code for they voted for Trump because of racism because Republicans are always bad for the economy and their policies always hurt poor and working class people.  

A lot of it is ignorance, but again, it's also perception. Somehow the Republican party has sold people on the image that it's the party of less government spending, lower taxes, trade policies that benefit Americans etc., but the facts don't bear that out. They may lower some things up front for show but in the back room the money to pay for it is quietly getting added to the deficit or taken from other services and sources that in the big picture hurt the average middle and lower class American. I can't understand how people in the financial industry buy into it. I can understand the average person that really knows nothing about this but WTF with the ones that should know better? I think Democratic candidates should make a bigger deal out of this than they do.

[partofme]

4 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

A lot of it is ignorance, but again, it's also perception. Somehow the Republican party has sold people on the image that it's the party of less government spending, lower taxes, trade policies that benefit Americans etc., but the facts don't bear that out. They may lower some things up front for show but in the back room the money to pay for it is quietly getting added to the deficit or taken from other services and sources that in the big picture hurt the average middle and lower class American. I can't understand how people in the financial industry buy into it. I can understand the average person that really knows nothing about this but WTF with the ones that should know better? I think Democratic candidates should make a bigger deal out of this than they do.

For people in the financial industry it might actually make sense to vote Republican, because they do lower taxes on the top 1%.  But for everyone else, the middle and working class, Republicans raise your taxes.  

[Yeah No]

1 minute ago, partofme said:

For people in the financial industry it might actually make sense to vote Republican, because they do lower taxes on the top 1%.  But for everyone else, the middle and working class, Republicans raise your taxes.  

Interesting but I know a lot of people not in that top 1% that are "finance people" who are fiscal Republicans and vote on that basis. I used to work with a lot of them in the corporate world when I was an EA in finance departments. The "cube people" as they were called, making high 5 and low 6 figures if that. It's a real head scratcher for me. Some others have been tax preparers, and even my financial advisor, who is maybe upper middle class but not in the 1%. 

[LexieLily]

39 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

That's the part that disturbs me the most, too. If I'm going to criticize the Biden administration for anything it's that they didn't immediately clear house and kick out everyone involved in January 6th upon taking office, and pass a law ensuring that Trump could never legally run for any sort of political office ever again. That should've been their first order of business. Maybe if that had happened things would be very different now.  There is absolutely no justifiable reason Trump should've been allowed to run again, and the media should've hammered that home relentlessly instead of obsessing over Biden's age. 

That is one of the countless things I don't understand. There was no problem in arresting, indicting, charging the individual citizens that participated in 1/6 (the dude that sat in Pelosi's desk, the one that actually broke the window to enter the Capital, etc.) and so many people of them are in prison proper. Did they expect it to be like an episode of Law and Order where those people flipped on Trump and gave up evidence, or what?

[Anela]

AOC asked people on instagram: if they voted for both her, and Trump, why did they do that? A very small sample:

 

[Makai]

3 minutes ago, partofme said:

For people in the financial industry it might actually make sense to vote Republican, because they do lower taxes on the top 1%.  But for everyone else, the middle and working class, Republicans raise your taxes.  

Very true but the problem is that most people do not understand the implementation delay in policy changes. They do not know that we are still under Trump’s tax plan and still impacted by tariffs from Trump’s first term. And if someone does point it out they refuse to believe and still put the blame on Biden. 

Just like any benefits from the Chips and Science Act and Inflation Reduction Act, assuming Trump doesn’t repeal them, will be credited to Trump. 

13 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

Interesting but I know a lot of people not in that top 1% that are "finance people" who are fiscal Republicans and vote on that basis. I used to work with a lot of them in the corporate world when I was an EA in finance departments. The "cube people" as they were called, making high 5 and low 6 figures if that. It's a real head scratcher for me. Some others have been tax preparers, and even my financial advisor, who is maybe upper middle class but not in the 1%.

That’s because finance is one of the few areas that directly benefit from the wealth the one percent. 

[SoMuchTV]

2 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

My question is how exactly are they going to know who to deport?  Are they just going to round up brown people?  Are they going to ask people to report their neighbors or coworkers? Because we all know how reliable those people will be.  I truly believe that Trump and his worst supporters think they can get rid of millions of minorities.  Undocumented or not.  That is their true objective. To stop this country from becoming a minority majority population.

If you’re a podcast listener, check out the most recent This American Life. Act 1 (about 7 minutes in) lays out a possible scenario. 

(I can’t get the link to paste but it’s episode 846. I figure anyone who’s going to check it out already knows how to get podcasts.)

 

[Yeah No]

18 minutes ago, Makai said:

That’s because finance is one of the few areas that directly benefit from the wealth the one percent. 

Hah, I get it, but if my husband were to use that logic he'd vote Republican because his boss is an almost-billionaire. Or I would because I was employed in Finance departments, although that wouldn't have helped me in 2008 when I was laid off in the "great recession" with 200 other Finance dept. employees at my company!

I also wonder if some of that voting is aspirational. 

[Anela]

1 minute ago, Yeah No said:

Hah, I get it, but if my husband were to use that logic he'd vote Republican because his boss is an almost-billionaire. Or I would because I was employed in Finance departments, although that wouldn't have helped me in 2008 when I was laid off in the "great recession" with 200 other Finance dept. employees at my company!

I also wonder if some of that voting is aspirational. 

People think they will be that rich, when they will never have that much money in their lifetime.

[Dimity]

2 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

My question is how exactly are they going to know who to deport?

Latinos, Asians, well anyone who isn't white and of European extraction who voted for Trump should be asking themselves this question right now.  Because they all have targets on their back.

[PRgal]

42 minutes ago, Dimity said:

Latinos, Asians, well anyone who isn't white and of European extraction who voted for Trump should be asking themselves this question right now.  Because they all have targets on their back.

The above cultures are VERY patriarchal.  I think that's one of the reasons why.  They can't bring themselves to vote for a woman.  

[Is Everyone Gone]

16 minutes ago, PRgal said:

The above cultures are VERY patriarchal.  I think that's one of the reasons why.  They can't bring themselves to vote for a woman.  

Actually, Harris won the Asian vote.

But Asia is a huge continent. I've found East Asians (in general) more politically liberal than many South Asians.

[PRgal]

1 hour ago, Is Everyone Gone said:

Actually, Harris won the Asian vote.

But Asia is a huge continent. I've found East Asians (in general) more politically liberal than many South Asians.

The article also said that they're "shifting right," which to me, comes as no surprise.  With cultures that tend to be fairly rigid/rule-focused, the fast paced change that society is currently in might be too much for them to handle (imagine being Asian AND neurodivergent.  Wheewwww......This isn't really meant as a joke.  Because I AM said neurodivergent Asian.  Just personal experience, of course).  

[kittykat]

3 hours ago, Anela said:

AOC asked people on instagram: if they voted for both her, and Trump, why did they do that? A very small sample:

I just... cannot comprehend how the logic works here.  I can only imagine AOC is scratching her head at the she and Trump are the same comments. 

On the bright side, maybe this will give her momentum for the higher offices.  I do think she needs a winning Senate run before she goes all the way but maybe 2032.  I highly doubt they'll run another woman for 2028 and Pete is the heir apparent.

[SoMuchTV]

5 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

My question is how exactly are they going to know who to deport?  Are they just going to round up brown people?  Are they going to ask people to report their neighbors or coworkers? Because we all know how reliable those people will be.  I truly believe that Trump and his worst supporters think they can get rid of millions of minorities.  Undocumented or not.  That is their true objective. To stop this country from becoming a minority majority population.

 

3 hours ago, SoMuchTV said:

If you’re a podcast listener, check out the most recent This American Life. Act 1 (about 7 minutes in) lays out a possible scenario. 

(I can’t get the link to paste but it’s episode 846. I figure anyone who’s going to check it out already knows how to get podcasts.)

My pie-in-the-sky hope is that a trusted advisor (is that even a thing?) will put a bug in his ear about the potential effects of deporting millions of farm workers, domestics, construction workers, etc. and he’ll come up with the grand Trump American Rescue Deferred Deportation plan, wherein immigrants with a job that’s not being sought by citizens can continue to work legally in the country. Just don’t call it Guest Workers! And don’t dare mention a path to citizenship!

[Calvada]

Because of spotty cell service at my home, I still have a landline.  This means I get calls from pollsters all the time.  I ignore these calls, but I've gotten a couple in the last 24 hours and I think if I get another I'll answer it, only to ask why I should bother to respond since obviously their methodology is totally flawed, since the majority of the polls leading up to the election were WRONG.  Then I'll tell them to never call me again. 

I think too many voters are incapable of looking beyond the immediate future.  Part of that is the feeling of many, especially younger people, that the planet is doomed anyway, so why worry about the future or other people?  Live for now, live for me.  But this nihilistic viewpoint gives me hope for the midterms, because many voters might be ready for a new flavor of the month.  Of course this presumes we will still be having elections in the Second Reich. 

[Anela]

30 minutes ago, kittykat said:

I just... cannot comprehend how the logic works here.  I can only imagine AOC is scratching her head at the she and Trump are the same comments. 

On the bright side, maybe this will give her momentum for the higher offices.  I do think she needs a winning Senate run before she goes all the way but maybe 2032.  I highly doubt they'll run another woman for 2028 and Pete is the heir apparent.

I think it's that they're both New Yorkers (I know that NYC doesn't claim him, though), and that they're both straight-shooters. 

But I've just seen someone post what we've all been saying: they can't have two different sets of rules for the different parties. The democrats are held to high standards, and the republicans aren't expected to follow the law, to be kind, to do anything to help the rest of us. That needs to stop. 

AOC posted more responses in her stories, this afternoon. Responses to specific questions.

[peacheslatour]

10 minutes ago, Anela said:

I think it's that they're both New Yorkers (I know that NYC doesn't claim him, though), and that they're both straight-shooters. 

But I've just seen someone post what we've all been saying: they can't have two different sets of rules for the different parties. The democrats are held to high standards, and the republicans aren't expected to follow the law, to be kind, to do anything to help the rest of us. That needs to stop. 

AOC posted more responses in her stories, this afternoon. Responses to specific questions.

I agree with most of this but Trump is the furthest thing from a straight shooter.

[Makai]

4 hours ago, PRgal said:

The article also said that they're "shifting right," which to me, comes as no surprise.  With cultures that tend to be fairly rigid/rule-focused, the fast paced change that society is currently in might be too much for them to handle (imagine being Asian AND neurodivergent.  Wheewwww......This isn't really meant as a joke.  Because I AM said neurodivergent Asian.  Just personal experience, of course).  

So much is being made of the shift red across the board that I think it’s too early to draw any conclusions. Asians made up 4% of the vote in 2020 and that dropped to 3% this year. Hawaii, in particular, had the lowest voter turnout and the largest Asian population. Is the demo actually shifting red or did blue leaning voters just sit the election out? More data is needed. 

4 hours ago, kittykat said:

I just... cannot comprehend how the logic works here.  I can only imagine AOC is scratching her head at the she and Trump are the same comments. 

I’m not sure if it’s a factor, but there are rumblings online that something might be suspicious in the voting patterns. Musk’s potential involvement on the tech end, in particular, is sparking some conspiracy theories. I have no clue if there is anything to it, but AOC’s posts are being interpreted that way by many. 

Edited Tuesday at 06:08 AM by Makai

[bluegirl147]

18 minutes ago, Makai said:

So much is being made of the shift red across the board that I think it’s too early to draw any conclusions. Asians made up 4% of the vote in 2020 and that dropped to 3% this year. Hawaii, in particular, and the lowest voter turnout and the highest Asian population. Is the demo actually shifting red or did blue leaning voters just sit the election out? More data is needed. 

I’m not sure if it’s a factor, but there’s rumblings online that something might be suspicious in the voting patterns. Musk’s potential involvement on the tech end in particular is sparking some conspiracy theories. I have no clue if there is anything to it but AOC’s posts are being interpreted that way by many. 

I'm one of those people rumbling.  Musk is capable of anything.   I mean he was openly bribing voters in PA.  

[izabella]

I think the "shift" red is just showing that fewer Democrats voted this time over 2020.  Trump got about the same number of votes he got in 2020.  If fewer blue voters show up everywhere, it looks like there's more red voters, but they stayed the same.

[Makai]

59 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

I'm one of those people rumbling.  Musk is capable of anything.   I mean he was openly bribing voters in PA.  

Yeah. I have concerns. I have no problem believing Musk and Trump would cheat and pretty much every proven instance of voter fraud recently has been by Republicans. I’m sure it’s being looked into but there is no way Democratic leaders are going to publicly express that sentiment without rock solid evidence. Sadly, I could actually see that being a strategy for Trump and Musk to obscure any fraud. If Democrats raise suspicions they will look like hypocrites to many. 

Edited Tuesday at 04:04 AM by Makai

[Anela]

1 hour ago, peacheslatour said:

I agree with most of this but Trump is the furthest thing from a straight shooter.

Same. I know that he's a con man. That's what they were saying, though. 

37 minutes ago, izabella said:

I think the "shift" red is just showing that fewer Democrats voted this time over 2020.  Trump got about the same number of votes he got in 2020.  If fewer blue voters show up everywhere, it looks like there's more red voters, but they stayed the same.

She apparently lost by a very small margin, and I agree with you, too. He didn't win by a landslide. 

[Anela]

And now that's pissing me off again. I was calm, until I really thought about that. The same people who came out for the election in 2020, millions stayed home. It's so messed up.

[emma675]

5 minutes ago, Anela said:

She apparently lost by a very small margin, and I agree with you, too. He didn't win by a landslide

That breaks my heart all over again somehow.

[tearknee]

And national figures also conceal regional variations.

[LexieLily]

In a surprise to absolutely no one, a Putin presidential aide made a statement to the effect of "to achieve success in the election, [Donald Trump] relied on certain forces to which he has corresponding obligations. As a responsible person he will be obligated to fulfill them."

Pardon me for laughing at anyone thinking Trump would be any sort of responsible person, but that might explain why Putin aired nude photos of Melania on Russian TV. It's a mob boss move, Trump, you like that, don't you?

[tearknee]

We still don't know what hold Putin has over Trump -- or who else he has holds over.

Putin is old-school KGB and also worked closely with the Stasi.

[Annber03]

9 hours ago, partofme said:

I have no understanding or sympathy for where they’re coming from.  They’re either really ignorant or they’re lying and  “the economy “ is code for they voted for Trump because of racism because Republicans are always bad for the economy and their policies always hurt poor and working class people.  

This. I kept hearing that "economic concerns" were the reason people voted for Trump in 2016 , too, and yet every Trump supporter that was ever interviewed, or every relative of mine that ever posted about Trump online, or whatever, could not go five mintues without immediately launching into some racist/xenophobic rant about "other people" getting stuff that they thought they weren't getting, or being happy because Trump was going to deal with "those people" that were supposedly causing all these problems

I said this in the most recent episode thread over in the "Last Week Tonight" forum, but I know economic anxiety firsthand. My family has always been lower class. We have been so poor that we've literally had to choose between things like food and rent, or food and heat. We racked up a ton of medical debt because of my dad's health problems (and this was pre-Obamacare, I might add, so we didn't even have the luxury of that to try and help cushion us some). We have lived in motels at times when I was younger because we couldn't afford an actual house or apartment. 

We're also white, and none of us have college degrees.*

And STILL nobody in my immediate family has ever once voted for Trump. We can all see his BS for what it is, and we've seen how his policies fucked people over. We've voted for the Democrats precisely because we know what it's like to suffer economically, and we don't want to vote for people and policies that will make others suffer the way we have. 

(We're also able to worry about economic woes while still caring about things like transgender rights (and LGBTQ+ rights in general and women's reproductive rights and immigrants' struggles and whatnot, too! Contrary to what some in this country seem to think, it is possible to care about more than one issue at a time! Shocking, I know!)

So yeah. Sorry. The "economic anxiety" excuse is just that to me, an excuse. People may well have legitimate concerns about their economic situation, but at some point they need to wake the hell up and take some responsibility for conttinuing to vote for a party that will fuck over people economically and refusing to support policies that actually would benefit them out of some incredibly misguded selfish and entitled mindset. 

Also, I wonder how big the Venn diagram is between the Trump supporters who've given Trump money for all his grifts and the Trump supporters who also worry about being able to put food on their table. 'Cause if you're happily handing over a ton of your money to a con man and then complaining about your economic situation, I REALLY have no sympathy for you. 

*Meanwhile, many of my relatives, who are Trump supporters, do have college degrees and are doing better than my family financially. They're not rich, but they're also not exactly struggling. 

Edited Tuesday at 06:24 AM by Annber03

[tearknee]

In general, the working-class [particularly white men without college degrees or even attendance before dropping out, once regarded as the "engine" of a hypothetical successful radical and socialist revolution] is becoming more populist or Trumpist while left leaning (leftism is distinct from, and not synonymous with, progressives as a whole) voters and activism are becoming more female, multicultural, affluent and university educated.

[Yeah No]

48 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

This. I kept hearing that "economic concerns" were the reason people voted for Trump in 2016 , too, and yet every Trump supporter that was ever interviewed, or every relative of mine that ever posted about Trump online, or whatever, could not go five mintues without immediately launching into some racist/xenophobic rant about "other people" getting stuff that they thought they weren't getting, or being happy because Trump was going to deal with "those people" that were supposedly causing all these problems

I said this in the most recent episode thread over in the "Last Week Tonight" forum, but I know economic anxiety firsthand. My family has always been lower class. We have been so poor that we've literally had to choose between things like food and rent, or food and heat. We racked up a ton of medical debt because of my dad's health problems (and this was pre-Obamacare, I might add, so we didn't even have the luxury of that to try and help cushion us some). We have lived in motels at times when I was younger because we couldn't afford an actual house or apartment. 

We're also white, and none of us have college degrees.*

And STILL nobody in my immediate family has ever once voted for Trump. We can all see his BS for what it is, and we've seen how his policies fucked people over. We've voted for the Democrats precisely because we know what it's like to suffer economically, and we don't want to vote for people and policies that will make others suffer the way we have. 

(We're also able to worry about economic woes while still caring about things like transgender rights (and LGBTQ+ rights in general and women's reproductive rights and immigrants' struggles and whatnot, too! Contrary to what some in this country seem to think, it is possible to care about more than one issue at a time! Shocking, I know!)

So yeah. Sorry. The "economic anxiety" excuse is just that to me, an excuse. People may well have legitimate concerns about their economic situation, but at some point they need to wake the hell up and take some responsibility for conttinuing to vote for a party that will fuck over people economically and refusing to support policies that actually would benefit them out of some incredibly misguded selfish and entitled mindset. 

My parents came from poverty thanks to the Great Depression of almost 100 years ago. They were FDR Democrats. Back then the Democratic party was seen as the party of the average person and FDR was their hero. Neither of my parents had a college degree (my mother got one later in life) and we struggled when I was a kid so she had to go to work at a time when no one's mother worked unless she were single, even in lower middle class families. Despite their lack of money they did not have a "working class mentality". Both of them were by today's standards a rare combination of intellectual sophistication and down to earth street-smarts because of their lack of advantages. My father read The Daily News. My mother read The New York Times. They were the best of both worlds. They lived in the real world of struggle and yet despite their tight budget they never would have sold out to this garbage. They had principles and saw the bigger picture. They were not easily duped by charlatans. To the end of his life my father followed politics and almost lived through Trump's first term as president. He thought Trump was "a dangerous nut". He voted for Hillary. Then he died in April of 2020 of Covid. 

BTW, I was torn between applauding your post and sending you a hug emoji, so just know you have both from me!

[Yeah No]

5 hours ago, kittykat said:

I just... cannot comprehend how the logic works here.  I can only imagine AOC is scratching her head at the she and Trump are the same comments. 

This is just proof that so many voters now go based purely on surface appearances. They don't see beyond the 1 minute sound/video byte. They don't even know or care about the candidates' ideological differences. It's all perception. These are very uneducated people - It's not even that they didn't go to school because even if they did they didn't learn much if anything. And they're not using logic at all. They sound less reasonable than grade school kids. They might as well have been toddlers from the quality of their answers. It's shocking how many people are like that now. It's not just being uneducated but speaks to a lack of common sense, sophistication and critical thinking. We can blame the education system, social media, lack of family influence, whatever. But it's a bigger and bigger problem in our society.

[tearknee]

The college educated poli-social elite is very much an elite. The monied elite was never the only elite. The last thing a post-grad poli-social activist or advocate would be is an ordinary person, regardless of whether they grew up in a rural area or their mom was a boilermaker.

[Palimelon]

Musk's involvement should be worrying people more. As it is, billionaires and corporations, theirs and others, already have a worrying influence on the government and are benefiting way too much as it is. Between the billions in tax cuts and subsidies they are receiving, the contracts they have with governments is also something else they can leverage for influence and power. Two-thirds of the satellites circling the earth are owned by Musk. Amazon controls about one-third of cloud computing (the same amount as Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud combined). By some accounts, Hedge funds account for ownership of a quarter of all single-family homes in the US (chances are for many people, their landlord is actually a hedge fund company).

We have seen business in the US and around the world becoming run more and more as oligarchies and monopolies. They are the reason why we have low wages, high costs for housing and rent, and high costs for products. Modern capitalism, like modern politics, is broken, but when people point them out, enough propaganda is filtered to the public via the media (much of whom is owned by billionaires) to shout down critics of modern day capitalism as being Marxists/communists/socialists/lefties/etc and/or blame immigrants for the reasons why you can't afford a home and have low wages, never mind the fact that many of these companies are exploiting immigrants, legal or otherwise, by paying them an even lower wage to begin with.

They have us stuck in a trap. Any increase in costs to the companies via higher wages to their workers will be passed off in price hikes to the consumers (or rather, further price hikes to the consumers, as if things aren't already expensive enough), it won't change things that much. We might agree that people should be paid more, but we still want cheap stuff, and companies exploit that.

For many, it doesn't matter who is in charge, the left or the right, in the US or other parts of the developed world, the billionaires and corporations have their hooks in many governments and will keep influencing them to serve their interests, not the general public's. And yes, the democrats and other governments on the left have to appease their corporate donors just as much as the other side does. Thanks to dark money and other donation laws which have reduced transparency, you can't even fully keep track these days of who is donating what to who anymore. What's called corruption in the "less developed" world is called "lobbying" in the developed world, as if that somehow makes it less shady.

Yes, some leaders are at least willing to try and mitigate the cost and burden on the public (Trump's tariff ideas certainly won't be good for the public). But we live in an era (and have been for a while now) where corporations and billionaires are now able to control things on such a scale where they are almost the real governments, via their donations to politicians, their control of the media, and their control of housing, wages, and prices.

And I'm not sure who can save us from all of that at this point. Capitalism in and of itself isn't bad, but we are at the point where the system is only benefiting a select few and the majority is barely scraping by.

 

Edited Tuesday at 11:12 AM by Palimelon

[Enigma X]

6 hours ago, Annber03 said:

This. I kept hearing that "economic concerns" were the reason people voted for Trump in 2016 , too, and yet every Trump supporter that was ever interviewed, or every relative of mine that ever posted about Trump online, or whatever, could not go five mintues without immediately launching into some racist/xenophobic rant about "other people" getting stuff that they thought they weren't getting, or being happy because Trump was going to deal with "those people" that were supposedly causing all these problems

 

I am going to be honest with you. People analyzing why he won and making scapegoats out of the marginalized are making me angrier than his win. The reason why he won is clear even if people want to say “the economy.” It is because people are racists and misogynists.  So many folks are trying to beat those charges right now, and it would be nice if people called them on their bull.

[tearknee]

Trying to shame people into "falling into line" doesn't work.

Again, most people think by emotion, not intellect. 

Ordinary average people do not use or understand terms such as "the Other" or "xenophobia" or "check your privilege".

I am a progressive but not a leftist. Progressive change is achieved via the broad movement coalition of progressivism and not the narrow sect of leftism.

(I can picture Trump 2.0.'s Secretary of the Treasury's proposed main conduit to "those Limeys"):
 

Edited Tuesday at 12:46 PM by tearknee

[Palimelon]

Quote

Ordinary average people do not use or understand terms such as "the Other" or "xenophobia" or "check your privilege".

It's a shame how society has to suffer because of some people's ignorance.

Quote

I am a progressive but not a leftist.

One can be both. It doesn't always have to a simple binary choice.

If anything I feel the whole progressive versus leftist debate seems to be a way for more conservative liberals to distance themselves from a more liberal movement without calling themselves centrists. Also, leftists can cover a broad range of views and ideals.

Edited Tuesday at 01:04 PM by Palimelon

[Spartan Girl]

My therapy session yesterday helped, or at least gave me an idea of how to redirect my anger and find joy in the little things whenever things seem hopeless.

Coincidentally, I was listening to Broadway XM and a song came up from a musical I up till now never heard of called Floyd Collins. It’s the true story of a guy that got stuck in a cave shaft. It…doesn’t end well. (They made a MUSICAL about this?!) it’s actually going to be on Broadway next year. And reading about that, two different feelings came to mind: at least I’m not stuck in that cave…yet right now, it feels like we are.

[PRgal]

37 minutes ago, Enigma X said:

I am going to be honest with you. People analyzing why he won and making scapegoats out of the marginalized are making me angrier than his win. The reason why he won is clear even if people want to say “the economy.” It is because people are racists and misogynists.  So many folks are trying to beat those charges right now, and it would be nice if people called them on their bull.

I disagree.  We need to understand WHY people feel this way.  Is it because they feel left out of the conversation?  If we want true equity and diversity, we need to let them speak as well.  Everyone has a voice.  You might say that White, Protestant males have always had a voice, but that’s only a minority of these guys.  The guys who did and still do have this kind of privilege tend to be well-educated and wealthy.  You can’t tell some random small town 35 year old who barely finished high school and is working in a job that could be at risk of being eliminated by new technology that he’s “privileged.”  He doesn’t feel that way.  I can see that and I’m supposedly “marginalized” due to my ethnicity and gender (this whole idea makes me laugh).  

[Yeah No]

24 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

It's a shame how society has to suffer because of some people's ignorance.

One can be both. It doesn't always have to a simple binary choice.

If anything the whole progressive versus leftist debate seems to be a way for more conservative liberals to distance themselves from a more liberal movement without calling themselves centrists or being left-of-center. Also, leftists can cover a broad range of views and ideals.

Is anyone that consistent? I can vary in my positions from center-right all the way to progressive depending on the issue. I resist being labeled that way. The more Democrats try to distance themselves from each other this way, the more they play into the division and party destruction the conservatives would love to see from us and drive centrists away from the Democratic party to identify as Independent or even Republican. The Republican party has united itself under MAGA even though many within the Republican party are not MAGA. But they're not splitting hairs with each other and destroying themselves over it as long as their candidate wins.

My biggest problem with the present extremism and polarization in politics is that I often feel that unless I walk lockstep with the most liberal, leftist point of view I'm looked at suspiciously by some like I'm not really a true Democrat. I have been voting Democratic since 1976 and until relatively recently I NEVER felt this way. We need to become more tolerant of the shades of gray within the party and not expect everyone to feel the same way about every single issue and if they don't measure up to the most liberal/leftist ideology, demonize them as traitors.

Edited Tuesday at 01:24 PM by Yeah No
typo

[Palimelon]

Quote

We need to become more tolerant of the shades of gray within the party and not expect everyone to feel the same way about every single issue and if they don't measure up to the most liberal ideology, demonize them as traitors.

One can argue that goes both ways. It never helped to have the Pelosis of the Democratic party demonize the members of the Squad, and ignoring their views and opinions, as an example.

[Yeah No]

2 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

One can argue that goes both ways. It never helped to have the Pelosis of the Democratic party demonize the members of the Squad, and ignoring their views and opinions, as an example.

Of course it goes both ways but if the main problem comes from losing people who identify as center or center-right, we have to start by making them feel more included and welcome. I do see some of the criticism from the right calling the Democratic party hypocritical for calling itself the party of equity and inclusion when it allows this kind of stuff to go on.

8 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

One can argue that goes both ways. It never helped to have the Pelosis of the Democratic party demonize the members of the Squad, and ignoring their views and opinions, as an example.

I really can't speak about the squad, but if it was perceived that they wanted to set the agenda for the entire party, I can understand Pelosi's resistance for them because they are too far left to represent the entire party. Pelosi was trying to represent everyone not just them.

[Palimelon]

That is all fine, but if the center keeps moving further and further to the right, which it arguably has been shifting that way, you end up losing either way.

Quote

I can understand Pelosi's resistance for them because they are too far left to represent the entire party. Pelosi was trying to represent everyone not just them.

I'd say it was more her trying to protect corporate donor interests more than anything.

[Yeah No]

Just now, Palimelon said:

That is all fine, but if the center keeps moving further and further to the right, which it arguably has been shifting that way, you end up losing either way.

I don't believe it has moved right. I don't believe that most of the people that voted for Obama have suddenly become racists or more conservative. Although compared to the way the party is going Obama seems relatively middle of the road these days. From my POV I think the party has gone left. I don't believe that Democrats in general have gone right. My politics and points of view have actually become MORE progressive over the years and yet I feel like I'm practically being labeled a "conservative Democrat" these days.

[Palimelon]

It has moved right in many ways. Not in terms of social justice, but in terms of foreign policy, the economy, etc.

Being a Democrat or liberal isn't just related to issues like abortion, racism, queer issues, etc. The Democratic party as a whole, especially many of it's leaders, are more hawkish now that they were 40 years ago, just as one example. The supporting of banks and close ties to institutions like Goldman Sachs (was Harris thinking her quoting them lauding her economic policies was a good idea, even if they ended up backtracking on that? The same greedy thugs who helped get us into the 2007/8 financial disaster from which we are still arguably feeling the effects of? I mean, it isn't as bad as celebrating being endorsed by Dick Cheney but it did make quite a few side-eye her), etc.

Clinton and Obama helped the party move more and more to the center on many issues. Like I said, it's great that women can have abortions, queer people can marry the partner of their choice, people can't be fired from their job based on their race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc. But there are issues beyond the social ones that need to be factored in as well.

 

[bluegirl147]

1 hour ago, Enigma X said:

I am going to be honest with you. People analyzing why he won and making scapegoats out of the marginalized are making me angrier than his win. The reason why he won is clear even if people want to say “the economy.” It is because people are racists and misogynists.  So many folks are trying to beat those charges right now, and it would be nice if people called them on their bull.

All of this.  We have been hearing it since 2016. It was the economic anxiety white blue collar workers were feeling.  They always singled out white people.  There were no black blue collar workers feeling economic anxiety?    We live in a time when calling out someone for being a racist gets you condemned but being a racist is OK.

50 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

t's a shame how society has to suffer because of some people's ignoranc

I feel like I'm a broken record but I really think social media is to blame for this.  Before social media people's ignorance, and racism, wasn't put on display and it certainly wasn't validated unless you were around like minded people. But with social media once people started getting likes and shares for their memes  showing President Obama hanging from a noose they felt like their feelings were A OK. And then Trump came along and here we are.

14 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

I don't believe it has moved right.

The reason the center left seems farther right is because there is a bigger gap between them and the left.  I used to think I was farther left of center but I found that not to be true anymore.  The problem is we agree more than we disagree but some aren't willing to compromise.

[tearknee]

Embracing the left (and AOC is likely to become more moderate as she becomes more ambitious and discovers that, unlike the leftists, she quite likes being in government) is the road to a Fritz Mondale result even in our year.

deriding non-elite voters, being condescending towards them and calling them "white trash" or collapsing them all into "Limbaugh"/"Faux News"/"MAGA" -- well, it means that when it turns out that you actually need their support for something involving their votes, it's not forthcoming.

[Wiendish Fitch]

I've unsubscribed to Seth Meyers and Stephen Colbert on my YouTube account. I don't even want jokey reminders.

[Enigma X]

As far as Obama and race: 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm

This article is long but here is my interpretation (encourage reading for your own though): 

The article discusses a study by political scientists Tyler Reny, Loren Collingwood, and Ali Valenzuela, which suggests that many voters who supported Obama in 2012 but switched to Trump in 2016 were driven primarily by racial hostility and xenophobia, rather than economic anxiety. According to the study, white voters with racially conservative or anti-immigrant attitudes were more likely to switch to Trump. By contrast, economic conditions showed little correlation with the decision to switch votes.

The study found three major points to support this view:

Racial Conservatism and Anti-Immigrant Sentiments: Obama-Trump switchers were characterized by higher scores on tests measuring hostility toward racial minorities and immigration, rather than indicators of economic hardship.

Insignificance of Class and Economic Factors: Economic factors like income or local economic dislocation showed weak or no relationship to vote-switching patterns, undercutting the notion that economic stress led people to abandon Obama for Trump.

Escalation of Racial Tensions During Obama’s Second Term: Events like the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement and public debates over police violence became increasingly polarizing, and Obama's presidency itself became a focal point for racial issues.

The authors argue that Trump’s rhetoric, which emphasized anti-immigrant and racially divisive themes, may have intensified racial divides. This research suggests that racial resentment rather than economic anxiety was a significant factor in Obama's former voters turning to Trump, illustrating how underlying racial issues influenced voter behavior in the 2016 election

Edited Tuesday at 02:24 PM by Enigma X

[Eri]

40 minutes ago, Enigma X said:

As far as Obama and race: 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm

This article is long but here is my interpretation (encourage reading for your own though): 

The article discusses a study by political scientists Tyler Reny, Loren Collingwood, and Ali Valenzuela, which suggests that many voters who supported Obama in 2012 but switched to Trump in 2016 were driven primarily by racial hostility and xenophobia, rather than economic anxiety. According to the study, white voters with racially conservative or anti-immigrant attitudes were more likely to switch to Trump. By contrast, economic conditions showed little correlation with the decision to switch votes.

The study found three major points to support this view:

Racial Conservatism and Anti-Immigrant Sentiments: Obama-Trump switchers were characterized by higher scores on tests measuring hostility toward racial minorities and immigration, rather than indicators of economic hardship.

Insignificance of Class and Economic Factors: Economic factors like income or local economic dislocation showed weak or no relationship to vote-switching patterns, undercutting the notion that economic stress led people to abandon Obama for Trump.

Escalation of Racial Tensions During Obama’s Second Term: Events like the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement and public debates over police violence became increasingly polarizing, and Obama's presidency itself became a focal point for racial issues.

The authors argue that Trump’s rhetoric, which emphasized anti-immigrant and racially divisive themes, may have intensified racial divides. This research suggests that racial resentment rather than economic anxiety was a significant factor in Obama's former voters turning to Trump, illustrating how underlying racial issues influenced voter behavior in the 2016 election

I agree with this - the first time Obama won, the Republicans freaked out and they changed tactics by funneling money into local and state races to get Republican candidates in power; that's why you see a majority of state legislatures under Republican control and it's largely been that way ever since for the last 15 yrs.

 

8 hours ago, Annber03 said:

So yeah. Sorry. The "economic anxiety" excuse is just that to me, an excuse. People may well have legitimate concerns about their economic situation, but at some point they need to wake the hell up and take some responsibility for conttinuing to vote for a party that will fuck over people economically and refusing to support policies that actually would benefit them out of some incredibly misguded selfish and entitled mindset. 

Yes, thank you, I'm going to use Missouri (overwhelmingly conservative) as an example, so any natives please correct me if I'm wrong. 

They voted for President, for Senate, for most of their House seats, for Governor. They gave Republicans a majority in both chambers of their state legislature...(no surprises there)

However you look at their ballot measures for enshrining protections for abortion rights, an increase to to minimum wage and paid sick leave PASSING, even voting against new funding sources for law enforcement lol Even Trump was quoted as saying that a six week abortion ban in Florida was too short. So by extension, you could say that zero weeks in Missouri (with no exceptions for rape or incest) is probably not even something that he would agree with.

Across the board, I'm seeing states who have endorsed progressive measures like abortion access and an increased minimum wage in ballot initiatives in their states so the question stands why do they keep electing people who are against the very type of policies they want? A classic case of "what do you mean I can't have everything I want?!" 

It proves to me that people voted based on 'popularity' rather than on actual policy, they wanted Trump because he's a hateful person but "the economy" is the socially acceptable answer.

Edited Tuesday at 02:54 PM by Eri