The New American Politics thread

[2Stonedbirds]

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/2...aks_searchable

Julian Assange: "So, for example, the disastrous, absolutely disastrous intervention in Libya, the destruction of the Gaddafi government, which led to the occupation of ISIS of large segments of that country, weapons flows going over to Syria, being pushed by Hillary Clinton, into jihadists within Syria, including ISIS, that’s there in those emails."

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Here is a bit of interesting news: the Houston Chronicle, which has historically been pretty dependable in endorsing GOP candidates, today endorsed Clinton, describing Trump as "a danger to the Republic."

Newspaper endorsements don't (I don't think anyway) "matter" in the sense of moving the needle all that much, but I do think this is interesting. Trump's jumping of the shark with Khizr Khan may have given some moderate conservatives in the chattering class a bit of much-needed cover to jump ship.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politi...ent/index.html

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Lets disabuse ourselves of the motivations of Trump voters. The regressive left stuff is a sideshow of a deeper politics of the left that has little or nothing to do with the motivations of Trump voters. Those voters are reacting to much more base changes in race and identity politics. Stuff that we thought we moved on from in the 90s. But we haven't.

Street Pharmacist correctly identified at least some of the motivation behind Trump supporters - they're losers in declining communities who bitterly resent being ridiculed for their lack of sophistication, while being called privileged because they share the racial and gender makeup of the men who run wall street.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I will continue to call out any Drumpf supporter as a traitor to American values.
...
It's time to hold Drumpf supporters accountable for what they are supporting. Perhaps if we say it enough, they'll understand that it's not just rhetoric, it's accurately describing his position.

You're welcome to this adamantine view, but earlier you said that impractical ideologues were inherently a bunch of idiots. Now you're saying that regardless of your motivations, if you have any sympathy for Trump, you shall be declared anathema, and excommunicated from the Cali Panthers Fan notion of what "America" means. This is obviously divisive, but also impractical. According to polling, at least a third of the country support Trump.

New Era, if you want to talk about why the left loses, or why the GOP has united behind a guy who isn't really a Republican, this is a good place to start. There's this weird complete 180 that seems to have happened where the GOP has abandoned its purity politics about "good conservative principles" for anything goes, while the left is just becoming more strictly dogmatic. If you side with the other guys, according to Cali, you're not just wrong, or misguided, or focused on the wrong issues at the expense of more important problems. No, if you're on the other side, you're a traitor to your country.

Sound a bit like the RNC circa 2004?

[2Stonedbirds]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-clin...ons-1469997195

'Hillary Clinton touts her tenure as secretary of state as a time of hardheaded realism and “commercial diplomacy” that advanced American national and commercial interests. But her handling of a major technology transfer initiative at the heart of Washington’s effort to “reset” relations with Russia raises serious questions about her record. Far from enhancing American national interests, Mrs. Clinton’s efforts in this area may have substantially undermined U.S. national security.'

'Amid all the sloshing of Russia rubles and American dollars, however, the state-of-the-art technological research coming out of Skolkovo raised alarms among U.S. military experts and federal law-enforcement officials. Research conducted in 2012 on Skolkovo by the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Program at Fort Leavenworth declared that the purpose of Skolkovo was to serve as a “vehicle for world-wide technology transfer to Russia in the areas of information technology, biomedicine, energy, satellite and space technology, and nuclear technology.”'

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presid...n-govt-fund-2/

'Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta sat on the board of a small energy company alongside Russian officials that received $35 million from a Putin-connected Russian government fund, a relationship Podesta failed to fully disclose on his federal financial disclosures as required by law.'

'In 2014, the FBI issued what it called “an extraordinary warning” to several technology companies involved with Skolkovo. “The [Skolkovo] foundation may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research development facilities and dual-use technologies with military and commercial application,” warned Lucia Ziobro, the assistant special agent at the FBI’s Boston office. She added: “The FBI believes the true motives of the Russian partners, who are often funded by the government, is to gain access to classified, sensitive, and emerging technology from the companies.”'

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Street Pharmacist correctly identified at least some of the motivation behind Trump supporters - they are losers in declining communities who bitterly resent being ridiculed for their lack of sophistication, while being called privileged because they share the racial and gender makeup of the men who run wall street.

I understand what you're saying but I think the problem is bigger than that, and is generational. I live in a community that is predominantly older and white, but they are not uneducated or poor. These are all retired folks who made buckets of money in industry and can afford two or more homes in two or more states. All of these people are Trump supporters, and have been from almost the beginning. His racism plays right into their upbringing, and they respect him for his comments. These are people that should know better because of their experiences over the years, but they embrace the attitudes they are were raised with. Even the guys who served in Vietnam, who lived and died with brothers in arms who were black and Asian, still maintain these views. They are all really nice people, until you mention politics or race. They they turn into different people. It is baffling to observe. I pray their offspring is different, but from my interactions with some of their kids, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is where the nuance acatully matters. (Not to derail this again). But to blankety state the majority of his supporters are biggies is dangerous and drives votes to him. You could be voting for trump because of his trade stance, his tax breaks for the wealthy, because you don't trust Hillary. None of that is rational either but it doesn't mean you are a big it by supporting.

I realalize you said majority, not all but paintbrushing supporters the same way leads to the sports team problem.

And the other point would be that most conservatives are offended by trumps remarks and it's clear the house republicans are Worried about it costing them votes. So using this as an issue to call supporters bigoted does not really add up.

Majority is the right word I think. Maybe like 52-53%, but that works out to about 20% of all Americans with his poll numbers consistently in the high 30s. I'd say that sounds about right for % of Americans who are bigots, and Trump obviously has between 99 and 100% of that voting block. He can change positions, fake positions, or make up positions on tons of things and not lose significant support, but if he dumps the Wall and the Muslim ban he's probably into the 20s. So whether its majority or not, it's his most crucial voting block.

Tax breaks don't mean much to expanding his base, and he already has probably 95% of the anti-Hillary vote (33% of his supporters think she has ties to Lucifer so....). Trade, well, everyone knows that's something he'll do nothing with seeing as his party vehemently supports trade. Which is his major problem, he can't go anywhere with just those blocks. This Khan mess he's made just shows he can't expand anywhere and risks alienating even more blocks he can afford to lose.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

To be clear, you think 20% of the American population are bigots? 60 million people?

[Senator Clay Davis]

There's a lot of forms of bigotry to be considered, it's not just racism. And not 20% of all Americans, 20% of eligible voters. Can't really count kids after all. So that's closer to 30 million people.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

There's actually quite a few good articles on who some of the Trump supporters are.

Rightly or wrongly, there's a large number of uneducated whites that have gotten poorer over the years and the Republican party's constant failures have been stinging insults to the only thing they have left: respect.

Think of it this way: these people feel like they get discriminated by those in the left as dumb hillbillies. It's ok to discriminate because they are not any kind of minority and feel left out and angry. They've become poorer. They talk like Trump and feel he's finally hitting back against the "elites".

I think someone does need to address this. The factory closures aren't because of politicians. Coal didn't die because of politicians. Immigrants aren't stealing their jobs. However, their need is real and their frustrations aren't being heard. They're in the middle of crippling addiction issues, disintegrating families and disappearing opportunities. It's lauded to talk about the problems in the ghetto's (not that it's helped), but it feels to them like it's ok to forget about the hillbillies in the trailer court. It would behoove Clinton to get behind that and destroy Trump's calls for blaming government, immigrants and media for all their problems

Part of the issue is that at least in my experience, with plenty of people in my area coming from old dying coal mining towns, is that they do blame the government for the failure of the coal industry. They can't grasp that energy is changing, that there are better, cheaper, cleaner ways to get the energy that we need, ways that aren't horribly harmful to the men and women who are on the front lines of getting said energy.

They can't grasp that energy has to move away from coal, for not only environmental but also economic reasons. Coal isn't an economically sound way to create energy anymore. These people need the education initiatives that the democratic party pushes--pushing for STEM education, education to push clean energy forward, etc.

But they keep complaining that the EPA is killing coal, refusing to see that the world is moving past that.

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I'm with you there. Democrats have the monopoly on honest politicians and I'm not being facetious. There's still far too few. I used to be behind Clinton too, but just too much dishonesty. Not the conspiratorial kind, just plain old lying. Like drop the "there was no classified information on those emails" when the FBI has already testified under oath that there was.

Why can't she just give the likely answer "I made a serious error. I didn't realize there was classified information in those emails. I certainly will not make that mistake again"?

On a logarithmic scale Trump is orders of magnitude worse, but it still shouldn't just be acceptable. You have a candidate who's done amazing things for veterans, kids, mothers and countless charitable endeavours. Just be human ffs and admit mistakes. Maybe it's her handlers, maybe her, I don't know. But it's tiresome

Clinton is far from alone among politicians with grey-area "honesty." And she's actually often one of the more truthful politicians. Politifact has factchecked her plenty of times and she's far, far more honest than Trump.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-fact-checked/

She's one of the most fact-checked politicians, but she generally errs on the honest side of the scale.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

To be clear, you think 20% of the American population are bigots? 60 million people?

Spend a little time in rural parts of the country and you'll see that this number isn't terribly far-fetched. They might not be KKK members but there's some pretty solid racism that still exists in large swaths of this country.

You don't even have to go rural, really, recall the awful texts that had been sent by members of the SFPD:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/26/us/rac...olice-officer/

That 60 million Americans are at least subtly racist/sexist/xenophobic, etc isn't surprising if you actually talk to people.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

That's one guy. I don't believe for a moment that there are that many people like him in that country. Obviously there's no way to know. But that seems highly unlikely to me.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Trump appears to be unable to extricate himself from the Khizr Khan issue. I have to think this petulant display on his part is very costly...

I honestly don't think his condition (be it sociopathic or narcissistic) would allow him to when the smart thing would have been to do nothing and let it blow over.
Now, it's a story, because he made it a story.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's one guy. I don't believe for a moment that there are that many people like him in that country. Obviously there's no way to know. But that seems highly unlikely to me.

There are lots. These are otherwise normal looking and rational people too. People you would never associate with bigoted beliefs. This stuff runs deep in this country. I didn't believe it either until I moved here.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's one guy. I don't believe for a moment that there are that many people like him in that country. Obviously there's no way to know. But that seems highly unlikely to me.

If anything that number is low. One doesn't need to be out in a white hood to be bigoted/prejudiced/however else you want to split hairs. Do you imagine the US as some sort of happy hearted utopia?

Just look at policy, look at who has been getting elected, look at what tactics work to get tv viewers and win elections. Fox news literally perfected dog whistle sensationalism and whether you'd like to admit it or not their viewership is at best implicit in prejudice and at worst harbours that in their heart.

This is a country that's barely 150 years removed from owning people. Those feelings don't just go away.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

To be clear, you think 20% of the American population are bigots? 60 million people?

That number is probably a little low. I would aim higher. That is based on my experience of living in or visiting 43 of 50 states and witnessing the race issue first hand.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's one guy. I don't believe for a moment that there are that many people like him in that country. Obviously there's no way to know. But that seems highly unlikely to me.

I got a pretty big thwack of republican family members that are.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

If anything that number is low. One doesn't need to be out in a white hood to be bigoted/prejudiced/however else you want to split hairs. Do you imagine the US as some sort of happy hearted utopia?

Just look at policy, look at who has been getting elected, look at what tactics work to get tv viewers and win elections. Fox news literally perfected dog whistle sensationalism and whether you'd like to admit it or not their viewership is at best implicit in prejudice and at worst harbours that in their heart.

This is a country that's barely 150 years removed from owning people. Those feelings don't just go away.

Beyond that, you still have plenty of people who were alive during the Civil Rights movement. My parents were school age when desegregation was happening. My parents are in their 60s.

The Civil Rights movement was happening while my parents and grandparents were alive, and I'm 32. This wasn't hundreds of years ago. It wasn't that long ago that states were fighting for their right to keep black students out of white schools.
http://www.tolerance.org/magazine/nu...integration-us


It took until the year 2000 for Alabama to actually pass a law legalizing interracial marriage.
http://www.salon.com/2001/03/08/sollors/


In 2011 a church in Kentucky tried to refuse membership to an interracial couple.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1121582.html


And that's just black-white racism, that doesn't include racism against Native Americans, Asians, those of Mid-Eastern descent, gays, lesbians, trans people, etc, etc.

60 million Americans being in some way bigoted is probably a low estimate.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Part of the issue is that at least in my experience, with plenty of people in my area coming from old dying coal mining towns, is that they do blame the government for the failure of the coal industry. They can't grasp that energy is changing, that there are better, cheaper, cleaner ways to get the energy that we need, ways that aren't horribly harmful to the men and women who are on the front lines of getting said energy.

They can't grasp that energy has to move away from coal, for not only environmental but also economic reasons. Coal isn't an economically sound way to create energy anymore. These people need the education initiatives that the democratic party pushes--pushing for STEM education, education to push clean energy forward, etc.

But they keep complaining that the EPA is killing coal, refusing to see that the world is moving past that.

First and foremost they need gainful employment. Then the complaining stops. The issue is if STEM education will work quickly enough to stop the complaining (it wont) and if clean energy initiatives will provide economic opportunities to those who need it. I doubt they will be able to fill the void left from a coal industry that is bleeding jobs. The mining and logging industry lost over 130,000 jobs in 2015. The complaining isn't because people are a bunch of simpletons, but rather they cant pay the bills.

Coal, for all its warts, is still very much a viable, cheap and reliable means of producing energy.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

First and foremost they need gainful employment. Then the complaining stops. The issue is if STEM education will work quickly enough to stop the complaining (it wont) and if clean energy initiatives will provide economic opportunities to those who need it. I doubt they will be able to fill the void left from a coal industry that is bleeding jobs. The mining and logging industry lost over 130,000 jobs in 2015. The complaining isn't because people are a bunch of simpletons, but rather they cant pay the bills.

Coal, for all its warts, is still very much a viable, cheap and reliable means of producing energy.

But you need a means of transitioning away from coal/logging, etc. These are industries that simply aren't sustainable over the long term if we're to leave any kind of livable environment for 100+ years down the road. And that's where education comes in, so that these people have children who get a solid education that gets them employment going forward, not for tomorrow, but for the next 40 years. It's not simple, but we can't go back to 100 years ago when Pittsburgh was covered in smog and smoke from steel mills and all of WVA was coal mines. That's not sustainable, period.

The biggest issue is that these are initiatives that should have started 20+ years ago, but they didn't, and now we're hitting a breaking point.

Also: Trump and the GOP aren't going to fix the coal industry dying, the logging industry dying, the steel industry dying. They're industries whose best times were in the past, and we need to transition away from them.

[Street Pharmacist]

[QUOTE=wittynickname;5856290]Part of the issue is that at least in my experience, with plenty of people in my area coming from old dying coal mining towns, is that they do blame the government for the failure of the coal industry. They can't grasp that energy is changing, that there are better, cheaper, cleaner ways to get the energy that we need, ways that aren't horribly harmful to the men and women who are on the front lines of getting said energy.

They can't grasp that energy has to move away from coal, for not only environmental but also economic reasons. Coal isn't an economically sound way to create energy anymore. These people need the education initiatives that the democratic party pushes--pushing for STEM education, education to push clean energy forward, etc.

But they keep complaining that the EPA is killing coal, refusing to see that the world is moving past that.
[/QUOTE ]

See I have a problem with this take too. It's this kind of approach that is pushing them further from the truth. I know you don't mean it like this, but to them, this is "those hillbillies aren't smart enough to understand it". The bigger problem is the people playing off their fears and feeding them the lies they want to hear. Anyone can understand climate change. It's not by coincidence that coal and oil country lead the world in denying it's existence. People upset with factory closures want a scapegoat. They've heard the economics of it. They can understand it. They just don't need to when a demagogue tells them it's the Mexicans. That feels much better because then we can build a wall and get the factories back!

They don't need liberals teaching them, they need to stop hearing easy answers from politicians and corporate special interest groups (energy firms funding climate denying, etc).

Clinton is far from alone among politicians with grey-area "honesty." And she's actually often one of the more truthful politicians. Politifact has factchecked her plenty of times and she's far, far more honest than Trump.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-fact-checked/

She's one of the most fact-checked politicians, but she generally errs on the honest side of the scale.

Isn't that a problem though? Not that this is a new problem, but I wasn't saying (nor was anyone here I think) to vote Trump. That would be orders of magnitude worse. But seriously, why can't a politician simply offer a genuine mea culpa?

Spend a little time in rural parts of the country and you'll see that this number isn't terribly far-fetched. They might not be KKK members but there's some pretty solid racism that still exists in large swaths of this country.

You don't even have to go rural, really, recall the awful texts that had been sent by members of the SFPD:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/26/us/rac...olice-officer/

That 60 million Americans are at least subtly racist/sexist/xenophobic, etc isn't surprising if you actually talk to people.

I think that's part of it for sure. The bigger part though is simply mental gymnastics and rhetoric. When you hate the other team that much, and you use Buster's version of "well if you remove all context a wall isn't racist", then I suppose you probably don't believe Donald is racist. You can't believe that because your team needs to win. Just look at all the "Trump isn't racist" blogs around. If these people are bigots they would attempt ask the mental gymnastics required to arrive at that position