[amphibian]

Alternative Goose, on 18 April 2018 - 01:59 PM, said:

I'm sitting and watching the James Comey's interview on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert:

http://youtu.be/o-nGPNn19vE

I don't think anything particularly surprising or even new comes forth during the interview but I think Comey is a striking character. I don't know what the future of a fired (disgraced?) FBI director looks like but considering how well he handles himself on TV, I could see somebody - Republican or Democrat - looking at him and looking at the next Presidential Election.

Comey seems like the Anti-Trump. Soft spoken, eloquent, humble, logical and - most importantly - a highly skilled bureaucrat.

Congrats, you've been swayed by one publicity tour into believing wonderful things about someone who probably doesn't deserve any of those things believed about him.

I would still be looking at you askance if you said the above about Robert Mueller, but saying it about Comey is ridiculous.

[Aptorian]

Gorefest, on 18 April 2018 - 02:08 PM, said:

Who has no qualms with going public with highly sensitive information within months after leaving his post. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure he's a nice guy and not in it for the money at all, but would you really want that mentality in a president or director of your secret services?

Refresh my memory. What sensitive information are you talking about?

amphibian, on 18 April 2018 - 02:54 PM, said:

The shitty thing is that slogans like "Drain the Swamp" worked with enough lower earnings people that they voted enough to supplement the higher earning people who wanted the candidate who had a track record of increased cronyism and corruption voted in. Minority groups mostly overwhelmingly voted against Trump. The rich and middle class white voters are who voted mostly for him with enough lower class white voters to get the win over Clinton.

The rich and the middle class white voters are still somewhat happy with Trump because they're getting their crumbs through the GOP Congress, which has mostly forced its agenda onto Trump. The GOP Congress has been far more successful at driving the budget than Trump has and it's made him angry at many intervals.

This stuff should have scared everyone before the election of Trump, but hating Clinton became more important than paying attention to this. I'm nearly in despair over this, especially when I see Nicodemus write his info wars nonsense and when I see Briar King worry about his medicine and social security benefits, which could be further and further restricted and potentially even cut in the next few years.

This stuff matters and hurts me, even though I'll still be ok no matter what.

I've commented on this before but just like there within the Trump movement is a narrative about Pizza's and Mexicans and The Deep State, within the left leaning side of internet commenters, there's this strange narrative that only two kinds of people voted for Trump - racist, homophobe, bigots and people so dumb that they were swayed by easily digestible sound bites like drain the swamp and build a wall, etc.

I think you over simplify the reason why Trump won. Everyone who voted Republican did not do so because they support Trump, nor because they disliked Hilary. There's a million different reasons for voting for Trump instead of Hilary. Everything from tradition, to ideology, to culture and personal financial interest.

The trump vote was as much an anti-establishment, anti-status quo vote as anything. It was a sign that nobody in American politics are trust worthy, so you might as well vote for the used car salesman who says funny things on TV.

If the left continue this fairy tale that the Democrats only lost because 40% of the country are dumb and greedy racists, you guys are doomed to lose the next election as well.

EDIT: Not that there isn't a truth to the srupidity/ignorance of voters but it's more complicated than that. It's a global phenomenon.

This post has been edited by Alternative Goose: 18 April 2018 - 03:29 PM

[QuickTidal]

Alternative Goose, on 18 April 2018 - 03:10 PM, said:

If the left continue this fairy tale that the Democrats only lost because 40% of the country are dumb racists, you guys are doomed to lose the next election as well.

Apt makes a decent point here. The narrative that an extreme liberal view paints is no better than the extreme right view when the stark widening gyre in your country is a part of the problem. The centre was destroyed, and everyone decamped into hyperbolic Left and Right camps.t

[Aptorian]

Trump Inc is moving in on that prime North Korea real estate. Trump makes the best deals. This is going to be yuge. Believe me.

[worry]

QuickTidal, on 18 April 2018 - 03:35 PM, said:

Alternative Goose, on 18 April 2018 - 03:10 PM, said:

If the left continue this fairy tale that the Democrats only lost because 40% of the country are dumb racists, you guys are doomed to lose the next election as well.

Apt makes a decent point here. The narrative that an extreme liberal view paints is no better than the extreme right view when the stark widening gyre in your country is a part of the problem. The centre was destroyed, and everyone decamped into hyperbolic Left and Right camps.t

This isn't remotely true, and it seems to conflate the Democratic establishment & "moderate liberals" with the actual left. To be clear, Hillary Clinton represents the "left" about as much as Mario Cuomo does, which is to say, not at all. She's a middle of the road, capitalism actually works when people aren't such meanies, war is actually great if you blow up the right people, getting paid to give speeches to the people who are killing us all is just good business sense, type of politician. Nobody on the left puts any of that in the + column, nor do they think racism is the "only" factor in why she lost. There isn't a leftist alive who doesn't think HRC was a uniquely unqualified foil for Donald Trump, and screwed up what should have been a slam dunk. But HRC still barely lost, and it's not ridiculous to believe that racism and sexism were enough to mean the difference, even if they aren't the whole story.

And it is an accurate conclusion that America elected a racist in part because of, and not despite, his racism...time and again studies show that racial resentment births economic anxiety, not the other way around...but the perception that the acknowledgement of that fact by anyone on the left (as opposed to a handful of loud moderates and the political consultant industry) is the same as preoccupation with it, is off base. Maybe it's what you're getting outside the U.S., but here we're seeing a popular progressive groundswell that is still nascent in the mainstream but has already seen multiple successful teacher strikes, forcing Paul Ryan out of the House, and making weak ass Dems like Cuomo nervous as hell. It's not perfect -- for instance, Doug Jones beating Roy Moore was a very good thing, but Doug Jones the legislator isn't exactly anyone to write home about -- but this idea that it's the only thing in the left's arsenal is Trump's racism is the fairy tale. It's not even the thing status quo establishment Dem hacks are focusing on -- that would be Russia.

Anyway, if anything, it's the Republican-lite "center" that has failed us so badly. It's what allows a policy-free monster like Trump to court votes from degenerates and win, because the Center doesn't offer any actual policy goals, just a nagging "we concede the GOP's point, but they're taking it too far" world view that inspires nobody.

This post has been edited by worry: 18 April 2018 - 08:38 PM

[amphibian]

I think Apt is also confusing my view of the election that only racists and dumb people voted for Trump.

I state that the main bloc that voted for Trump is the middle and upper class white people of all genders. But enough dumb people voted for him that he was able to squeak out a win. The middle and upper class has a variety of reasons within their individual package of reasons.

Within most packages of those specific people was racism, knowledge that Trump would enrich people like them, and a desire to see the government crumble because they would be well situated no matter what happened and it would likely profit them by making certain groups of people physically and economically crater.

It's a very dour view of America, but honestly this is what the country is.

I also am somewhat grim on Nixon pushing Cuomo left in meaningful ways because he's a master of setting up shell committees to "look into" issues like corruption or bail bonds or drug abuse. On the flip side, I'm donating to her because I want her to actually win by pushing Cuomo left more and more. I wish she wins. But I am doubtful she can do it due to Cuomo's connections to unions in NYC that fell into his lap from his father. The IDCs being shoved back into the DC is good tho and Nixon helped that happen.

[worry]

Yah I hear all that. I say this stuff is nascent because America is a behemoth, and not all of it moves at once, or at the same speed, or even necessarily in the same direction. And I don't think victories are guaranteed. I just wanted to contrast the apparent outside perception -- this vision of huffy Dems vs. GOP partisanship, like two feuding sitcom roommates on opposite sides pulling a curtain down the middle of their bedroom -- with the more nuanced reality of real groundswell, practical, problem-solving left politics vs moneyed interests (in either major party).

And also to say that "centrism will save us" is (generally) wrongheaded imo...and it's part of what got us here in the first place. It's not a position from which progressive policy forms nor inspiration springs. That's why centrists always play catch-up with the public on social issues, and concede nearly ever economic or military issue to the right without a fight, arguing instead matters of degree. "Sure we'll cut taxes -- cutting taxes is great, right? -- just not that much! And let's keep the civilian casualties down in the hundreds, not the thousands please." There's no principle.

amphibian, on 19 April 2018 - 12:36 AM, said:

It's a very dour view of America, but honestly this is what the country is.

I can't really argue with it at all, either. Only to say that, change doesn't come on its own, so you do what you can when you can. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Not saying any of that like you don't already know it.

[amphibian]

Last year, I walked door to door for a few days to get a local leftist candidate elected. I donated too.

So far this year, money has been tighter, but I do intend to give some. I was asked myself to run for state assembly in a short special election, which would have taken raising about 20k (doable), but my significant other would have hated the social process of running (she told me this) and my job was still too new to risk. I do see younger people organizing unions, pushing local government left, and being better people than their parents. But I'm really worried that the fucking over has already set in too deep to reverse.

The William Gibson quote about the future already being here, but not evenly distributed is so accurate.

This country needs to lurch far to the left from its current center before it collapses and hundreds of thousands die before they should naturally.

[QuickTidal]

worry, on 18 April 2018 - 08:34 PM, said:

This isn't remotely true, and it seems to conflate the Democratic establishment & "moderate liberals" with the actual left. To be clear, Hillary Clinton represents the "left" about as much as Mario Cuomo does, which is to say, not at all. She's a middle of the road, capitalism actually works when people aren't such meanies, war is actually great if you blow up the right people, getting paid to give speeches to the people who are killing us all is just good business sense, type of politician.

And there it is. One of the reasons the democrats are in such dire straits (and therefore your country). You've just divided your side into factions/tribes of belief systems instead of putting aside a decidedly ideological stance, and uniting under the umbrella with all the other people on the left who (likely) don't align exactly with your beliefs as to what makes someone left or liberal. This schism in your own party is the very reason why things are bad. Finding a politician who aligns with you entirely on even HALF your beliefs would be hard, and that exponentiates when you put into play making or not making things happen in your government.

worry, on 18 April 2018 - 08:34 PM, said:

Nobody on the left puts any of that in the + column, nor do they think racism is the "only" factor in why she lost.

Citation needed.

worry, on 18 April 2018 - 08:34 PM, said:

There isn't a leftist alive who doesn't think HRC was a uniquely unqualified foil for Donald Trump, and screwed up what should have been a slam dunk.

Citation needed. Is there a Rotten Tomatoes site for a "score" you can quote me on what every leftist alive thinks and feels about HRC?

worry, on 18 April 2018 - 08:34 PM, said:

But HRC still barely lost, and it's not ridiculous to believe that racism and sexism were enough to mean the difference, even if they aren't the whole story.

It's also not ridiculous to believe it was other reasons. Unless you have a source that can showcase these factoids are accurate?

worry, on 18 April 2018 - 08:34 PM, said:

And it is an accurate conclusion that America elected a racist in part because of, and not despite, his racism...time and again studies show that racial resentment births economic anxiety, not the other way around...but the perception that the acknowledgement of that fact by anyone on the left (as opposed to a handful of loud moderates and the political consultant industry) is the same as preoccupation with it, is off base.

Is it? You have a source for this insider info? I'm not trying to be a jerk here...I'm seriously trying to qualify how your statements jive with those you seem to be broadly speaking about as if you have stats.

worry, on 18 April 2018 - 08:34 PM, said:

Maybe it's what you're getting outside the U.S.

Depends where you look I guess.

worry, on 18 April 2018 - 08:34 PM, said:

Anyway, if anything, it's the Republican-lite "center" that has failed us so badly.

Is it? How do you know this?

worry, on 18 April 2018 - 08:34 PM, said:

It's what allows a policy-free monster like Trump to court votes from degenerates and win, because the Center doesn't offer any actual policy goals, just a nagging "we concede the GOP's point, but they're taking it too far" world view that inspires nobody.

Again this is a schism in your party, and I doubt it's going away, so I'm not sure what you will do to deal with it.

EDIT: I hope none of this comes off as overly jerky, as that's not my intention. As an outsider looking in over the years from north of you, I can't help but notice things. If I'm way off base, I'll accept that...but I think there was enough interest in your reply to ask my questions and seek sources. We studied your branched governmental system in high school (US History) classes and it was always shown to be this superior system for democracy with its "checks and balances"...but quite frankly looking at the state it's in now, it's hard to see that.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 19 April 2018 - 02:01 PM

[Silencer]

QuickTidal, on 19 April 2018 - 01:56 PM, said:

worry, on 18 April 2018 - 08:34 PM, said:

Anyway, if anything, it's the Republican-lite "center" that has failed us so badly.

Is it? How do you know this?

I'll let worry address the rest as I'm less knowledgeable about those subjects, but I do think that this point, at least, is *very* well documented. The lack of meaningful opposition to trickle-down economics*, and what has been largely a passive, words-only position of resistance from the Democrats is what saw nothing but lip-service paid to the idea of fixing the systems that allowed the GFC to happen, or indeed to remove those responsible from positions of power (note the Obama administration keeping on many key positions who had failed to fulfill their role as regulators in the Bush admin, and hiring Goldman Sachs executives into financial advisory positions within the administration, despite said people playing a direct hand in causing, and benefiting from, the GFC). The Democrats have, fairly demonstrably, been dragged ever further to the right-of-center (thus, at least in part, why the American political spectrum is offset so much compared to the rest of the world - HRC is a decidedly right-of-center candidate in NZ, Australia, most of Europe, and afaik, Canada as well, by policy and action). Effectively the party has been toothless, and this has resulted from a myriad of factors, including of course factionalism, a focus on social signalling over action, and the unfortunate fact that a lot of the powerhouse individuals in the party benefit from the exact same policies and practices as their counterparts in the GOP do, amongst others. Gerrymandering doesn't help either, of course, making Democratic majorities less powerful even in the event they can be achieved, but by and large the so-called "left" of American politics does look like it has failed those whose views it claims to represent.

*and for example, a direct cause of the GFC - the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that was signed into law under Bill Clinton and passed with bipartisan support: https://en.wikipedia...80%93Bliley_Act - and this is just the most obvious and well-known piece of legislation that exemplifies the trend of Democrats voting for conservative legislation and policies due to the fact that they now trend center-right. The US has undergone MASSIVE deregulation since the 80s and it has ruined their financial and political system. Gerrymandering, corporate donations/personhood, political SuperPACS, people appointed to regulatory positions who philosophically do not believe in regulation (looking at you, Alan Greenspan), etc. It's a miracle the country took until 2008 to fall over economically, honestly.

[QuickTidal]

Silencer, on 19 April 2018 - 02:27 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 19 April 2018 - 01:56 PM, said:

worry, on 18 April 2018 - 08:34 PM, said:

Anyway, if anything, it's the Republican-lite "center" that has failed us so badly.

Is it? How do you know this?

I'll let worry address the rest as I'm less knowledgeable about those subjects, but I do think that this point, at least, is *very* well documented. The lack of meaningful opposition to trickle-down economics*, and what has been largely a passive, words-only position of resistance from the Democrats is what saw nothing but lip-service paid to the idea of fixing the systems that allowed the GFC to happen, or indeed to remove those responsible from positions of power (note the Obama administration keeping on many key positions who had failed to fulfill their role as regulators in the Bush admin, and hiring Goldman Sachs executives into financial advisory positions within the administration, despite said people playing a direct hand in causing, and benefiting from, the GFC). The Democrats have, fairly demonstrably, been dragged ever further to the right-of-center (thus, at least in part, why the American political spectrum is offset so much compared to the rest of the world - HRC is a decidedly right-of-center candidate in NZ, Australia, most of Europe, and afaik, Canada as well, by policy and action). Effectively the party has been toothless, and this has resulted from a myriad of factors, including of course factionalism, a focus on social signalling over action, and the unfortunate fact that a lot of the powerhouse individuals in the party benefit from the exact same policies and practices as their counterparts in the GOP do, amongst others. Gerrymandering doesn't help either, of course, making Democratic majorities less powerful even in the event they can be achieved, but by and large the so-called "left" of American politics does look like it has failed those whose views it claims to represent.

*and for example, a direct cause of the GFC - the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that was signed into law under Bill Clinton and passed with bipartisan support: https://en.wikipedia...80%93Bliley_Act - and this is just the most obvious and well-known piece of legislation that exemplifies the trend of Democrats voting for conservative legislation and policies due to the fact that they now trend center-right. The US has undergone MASSIVE deregulation since the 80s and it has ruined their financial and political system. Gerrymandering, corporate donations/personhood, political SuperPACS, people appointed to regulatory positions who philosophically do not believe in regulation (looking at you, Alan Greenspan), etc. It's a miracle the country took until 2008 to fall over economically, honestly.

Ah, well that makes sense. Fair enough.

[EmperorMagus]

I'm just going to jump in here with a point about the value of 'centrism' and 'moderation'.

There are some cases where taking the moderate, central road is absolutely, without a doubt, morally and ethically wrong. You can't take the center road in relation to slavery - it is morally wrong, it should be absolutely banned, and no policies that allow it should ever be considered (including the American 13th amendment, which allows enslaving criminals); you can't take the center road in relation to colonialism (the center road being neo-colonialism, where you don't occupy countries but just own everything there); you can't take the center road when dealing with democratic institutions and traditions - as in allowing gerrymandering in any form, as in allowing the voters to be disenfranchised by policies such as voter ID laws, as in allowing corporate money in politics.

Political parties can be wrong, ideas can be BS (whether because they are based off incorrect assumptions or because they use incorrect reasoning), people's positions can be absolutely indefensible when considering logic and facts. If you are talking about the pros and cons of guaranteeing healthcare as a basic right, anyone who argues that public healthcare is practically or morally untenable is flat out wrong; similarly, there is no reason to adjust your beliefs into more centrist ones just because you're on one side of the healthcare debate and the other side are libertarians who believe public healthcare violates their personal freedoms.

I consider myself to be on the radical left on most subjects, and when I see people/politicians urge moderation online, in print, or on TV I just want to start arguing with them that NO, moderation isn't the answer to every topic of discussion. Sometime ideas that seem extreme at the time are the far superior compared to the moderate ones.

Just look at the writings of Thomas Paine (as in Common Sense, Rights of Man), which were considered extremely radical at the time, and consider for yourself whether his ideas were supreme to the 'moderate' thinking of the period or not.

[worry]

I was gonna be a bit snarky, QT, but then I saw your friendly edit and decided...to still be snarky, but only moderately so!

Something to the tune of "Yikes, I must have missed all the citations accompanying your assertions!"

Anyway, maybe this will clarify something about the left vs. "liberal" thing. These aren't schisms in the party so much as dictionary definition differences along the political spectrum. Leftists have some different policy interests than left-leaning moderates (ie liberals), who have different interests than centrists (which in practice in the US = right-leaning moderates), who have different interests than conservatives (which in practice in the US = fascists and proto-fascists). We have two major parties, and one of them happens to be a much bigger tent than the other one, and I don't think of internal debates are particularly unhealthy. That establishment Dems want to paint this as poisonous to, rather than the point of, democracy is a matter of power and corruption, not policy.

I think Silencer's post on toothless Dems is good -- I'm not sure there is anyone more emblematic of centrism than the Clintons anyway, and Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump. And EM's post on what Centrist Orthodoxy really means is pretty close to my own POV.

In terms of citing the role racism had to play in the election, here's a few sources: https://www.thenatio...ump-racism-did/ & (half a year later) https://www.vox.com/...c-anxiety-study

I can't cite sources on every leftist alive, obviously, and you don't have to trick me into admitting I was making a generalization. But for example, Bernie Sanders is America's most prominent leftist politician. Frankly, he's one of the only ones on the national stage. And he routinely polls as the most popular politician in the United States, btw, across the board. (One example, but there are tons you can look up: http://observer.com/...-least-popular/). I'll turn this one around a little bit on you (in a friendly way!): are there any prominent leftist voices, from Bernie to Liz Warren to, I dunno, Noam Chomsky who are blaming Clinton's loss solely on American racism?

Anyway, on average Dems in special elections (and there have been dozens and dozens since Nov 2016) have seen a median shift of +16 points: https://fivethirtyei...c-wave-in-2018/ which is pretty good. They seem to be on track to take the House, if not the Senate, which is also good news. Part of it is a natural reaction to GOP policy in action -- it hurts people, and the amnesia wears off. But another part of it is progressive, primary-from-the-left candidates getting people energized, which doesn't mean they're gonna beat incumbents, but it does force incumbents to go left, and frankly speaking: left policy is popular. This is a few years old, but it has tons of citations and is also pre-Trump, so I'd consider it pretty relevant still: http://www.truth-out...-afraid-of-them

[HoosierDaddy]

Damnit worry, I thought we had another bot.

[Nicodimas]

Local politics ! Pysched to see the teachers in AZ walking out...
https://www.azcentra...osal/531028002/


I went to Duceys speeches and one of the things he really campaigned on was education reform. Lots of promises for certain.

I glance over at all the neighboring states and we should have really legalized weed and through that at education . I think Colorado is back to back +15% on their education budgets.

On the flip side if they do walk out.. wth do parents do with their kids ? Gonna Be interesting and hope they do it

( note : We spend like the least, or 49th and education is better than all the neighboring states in terms of “testing” and have 5 of top 10 high schools in the country. Our teachers rock and deserve better! Only 51 cents of each dollar makes it to the classroom.. which is really low.. In comparison)

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 20 April 2018 - 07:03 AM

[Aptorian]

Can you explain that number? You spend 49% of your tax dollars on education (which doesn't sound right) or are you saying 49% of the money for education is spent on administration, buildings, etc.?

[EmperorMagus]

Alternative Goose, on 20 April 2018 - 08:36 AM, said:

Can you explain that number? You spend 49% of your tax dollars on education (which doesn't sound right) or are you saying 49% of the money for education is spent on administration, buildings, etc.?

He means AZ is 49th out of 51 (I think?) American states in terms of the amount of money they spend on education.

[Aptorian]

I was referring to the 51 cents on the dollar quote. I am not down with that whole budget slang.

[QuickTidal]

Oh look, Rudy fucking Giuliani has joined Trump as a lawyer....probably in the umpteenth veiled attempt to shut down the Mueller probe.

[HoosierDaddy]

Alternative Goose, on 20 April 2018 - 08:36 AM, said:

Can you explain that number? You spend 49% of your tax dollars on education (which doesn't sound right) or are you saying 49% of the money for education is spent on administration, buildings, etc.?

Alternative Goose, on 20 April 2018 - 12:34 PM, said:

I was referring to the 51 cents on the dollar quote. I am not down with that whole budget slang.

49th in education spending out of 50.

51% of money allocated to education goes to schools, classrooms, and educators. Rest is overhead, administration, testing, etc.