2016 Election Thread

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

What I find problematic is the assumption that gender and race don't actually have baring on how people make their way through life, and would necessarily be core to their experience and thus their qualification to serve a diverse group of people.  There's something very sensible in wanting a leader to have some experience with having to struggle over a stigma which they did not choose.  White men, especially middle-to-upper class white men, are out of touch with this experience; I suppose that's unfair, but it is a reality. 

Yeah, I didn't have the ability to really dive into that topic (I'm high af on Vicodin right now thanks to having my wisdom teeth removed) but it's intrinsically linked to voting for someone because they're black/female/whatever.

 

There's an entire set of life experiences that goes along with being of a certain race or gender that we don't experience as white men. We shouldn't discard those experiences based on race/gender and label it as "single-issue".

 

Look at Obama. He's basically Jackie Robinson. He never gets angry, he never loses his temper, he never acts out of impulse. I'd argue he doesn't do those things to a fault; he's had more reasons to be pissed off than any president of my lifetime, maybe ever.

 

And that's on our society for imposing those limitations on black men so they don't come across as "scary". Personally, I'd love to see Obama go completely ****ing unhinged in a speech just once before he leaves office. Show us that Jackie Robinson year 5-6 and vent that ****, man.

 

When we get to the point where a black man is president and doesn't have to alter his attitude to placate the masses, then we'll reach a milestone.

 

Sorry if I rambled. Seriously. High af.

[Bark's Lounge]

Yeah!

[Shane Wahl]

 

Yeah!

 

A million likes for this!

[Craig Arko]

Yeah!

Thanks for the gift, Bark. Here is one back I hope you like. It's a story of evolution.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-white-flight-of-derek-black/2016/10/15/ed5f906a-8f3b-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_stormfront-658am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

[ashbury]

Thanks for the gift, Bark. Here is one back I hope you like. It's a story of evolution.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-white-flight-of-derek-black/2016/10/15/ed5f906a-8f3b-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_stormfront-658am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Encouraging. All we have to do is get guys like him out of the echo chamber and eventually they'll listen to reason. We just need another ten million or so, of 800-student colleges like New, to place them in.

 

_{^{/ and yeah, for some who read but don't post here, I realize we have our own little left-of-center echo chamber going on here. Whatevs.}}

[ashbury]

Look at Obama. He's basically Jackie Robinson.

I've been meaning to write up something along that line, as well, for the reasons you outlined. I think I have some vicodin left over from a year ago, maybe I should give it a whirl.

 

I have relatively few heroes. Most people I look up to end up disappointing me. Jackie's a guy I probably should have named one of my kids after. Barack might be one I should lobby for as a grandchild's name.

[jimmer]

 

I've been meaning to write up something along that line, as well, for the reasons you outlined. I think I have some vicodin left over from a year ago, maybe I should give it a whirl.

 

I have relatively few heroes. Most people I look up to end up disappointing me. Jackie's a guy I probably should have named one of my kids after. Barack might be one I should lobby for as a grandchild's name.

President Obama is one of your heroes? You have that much respect for him? 

[Squirrel]

 

President Obama is one of your heroes? You have that much respect for him? 

You don't????

[jimmer]

 

You don't????

Do I respect him enough to call him one of my heroes? No.  Certainly someone can respect a person without saying they respect him enough to call him a hero and/or name family after him, right? 

 

I respect the office, and I respect the difficulties of the job itself, but I'm not sure he's done much to put him in the upper echelon of Presidents where I would call him a hero.  I'm not sure he's done much to even improve the country.  I'm not sure we're in a better place as a country now than before he took office.

[Craig Arko]

I suppose ultimately my heroes look like this:

 

 

And this:

 

 

But I think the Obama family has represented the country with distinction, and I would thank them for their service. And continue to hope there will be chances to thank them again in the future.

[biggentleben]

 

I'll just continue to vote for whomever is the better choice regardless of gender or race.  I won't even take gender or race into account.  I certainly won't say 'well, this one candidate is better, but the other candidate is almost as good and the gender or race I prefer so they will get my vote not the better candidate.'

 

IMO, it should always be about whomever is the best candidate.  Whomever would make the best President.

 

I will say while I won't vote for her BECAUSE she's a woman, I do believe that much like Jackie Robinson was the right person to break the color barrier because of his ability to handle the criticism that would be levied to him, I do believe Hillary will be able to handle the undue comments and criticism that being the first of a gender or a race to break ground will always endure. Once again, I'm not going to vote for any person SOLELY based on that reason, but I do think that it should come into consideration when considering a person that would the first of his/her race or gender to trail blaze an office, after you've examined the issues, of course.

[biggentleben]

To continue on my point, I was actually considering the Jackie Robinson/Obama consideration as well when I made the comparison as well. Was Jackie Robinson the best player of color at the time he broke the color line? No. Was Obama the most qualified candidate of color? Is Hillary the most qualified candidate of gender? I'd say no on all these, but I think in each case, you have someone who could handle the issues with derogatory statements and behavior just because of their gender or race and not their actual performance at their job with grace and levity. Obama has shown that in his presidency to me.

[ashbury]

President Obama is one of your heroes? You have that much respect for him? 

I hedged a little but stated it clearly enough. Asking again makes you sound incredulous.

 

Among various things, I admire his grace under pressure. The well-known situation of the 2011 Press Corps Dinner, where the order had been given to go after Bin Laden, and he's killing in a different way with comedy, is such an example. Republicans in 2008 expressed frustration that people seemed to be voting for Obama because he was "cool"; little did we know just how cool he could be when the chips were down.

 

Posts that have shown up elsewhere in the thread contain other reasons. I hadn't really thought about it in these terms until this came up in the thread, so consider it an evolving position.

 

Ironically, the heroism I see and would aspire to has little to do with agreement or disagreement with his political positions and policies, or even achievements in the usual sense. Getting Bin Laden isn't the point, in what we all saw at that Dinner.

[Bark's Lounge]

Obama is by far the most likable president of my 41 years alive on this planet. His election caused a chain reaction that brought the vermin out of the cracks and holes of our society. Rational thinking people didn't want that, the majority of the country wanted to move on from George W. - It brought us the Tea Party and other unsavories.

 

I believe Obama did the best he could to bridge the gap, he attacked things as a moderate, which turned off his constituency, but the GOP and their fracture, because of there Tea Party wing put a stick in the bicycle spokes of progress.

 

I don't like the term "Alt Right". I think it is better defined by the terms "White Nationalists", "Hate Mongers" or "Racists".

 

I have great admiration for Obama, sure he made some mistakes, everyone who has held that position has. I sure will miss him.

 

I am usually a pessimist, but I hope that the era we live in has exposed that underbelly of hate that has been lurking around for many decades. Now that we see it in high definition, we need to crush it, dispose of it, and wipe our hands clean of it. At all costs.

[biggentleben]

 

I am usually a pessimist, but I hope that the era we live in has exposed that underbelly of hate that has been lurking around for many decades. Now that we see it in high definition, we need to crush it, dispose of it, and wipe our hands clean of it. At all costs.

 

I tend to believe that modern technology has helped to expose those members of the underbelly as well. I had someone follow me on Twitter with an avatar where the person was proudly wearing a shirt declaring that she was a "Deplorable". I immediately put her on mute. She can read my tweets, but I don't need to hear what she has to say.

 

Also, it is sad to see how many whack job loony tune racist/bigot/generally hateful athletes there are...

[Bark's Lounge]

 

I tend to believe that modern technology has helped to expose those members of the underbelly as well. I had someone follow me on Twitter with an avatar where the person was proudly wearing a shirt declaring that she was a "Deplorable". I immediately put her on mute. She can read my tweets, but I don't need to hear what she has to say.

 

Also, it is sad to see how many whack job loony tune racist/bigot/generally hateful athletes there are...

Yeah, it is disgusting Ben. But I am sure glad me, you and many, many other people are in this thing together. We may have somewhat different beliefs, but we are fighting the same enemy. This is why I have faith in this country. I really believe we will make it the decent place it should be and we will move on from this glitch in our history.

[jimmer]

I'm watching John Oliver, cause he's awesome, and he just got done saying that for the time period of Oct 7-13, 2016, Mrs. Clinton's unfavorable rating is at 55%, but Trump's is at 65%.

[Shane Wahl]

 

I'm watching John Oliver, cause he's awesome, and he just got done saying that for the time period of Oct 7-13, 2016, Mrs. Clinton's unfavorable rating is at 55%, but Trump's is at 65%.

 

A real baseline is that 45/35 Clinton/Trump non-unfavorability. The move from some of those unfavorable-raters with push pretty evenly to 50/40 or so. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I don't like the term "Alt Right".

I love the term alt right, as it levies a blow directly at the base of the modern conservative movement, which is rife with contradiction and, if not pure racist, "mostly leaning pretty racist yeah" policy.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It seems like this group has grown in recent years, but I think it's more likely those described here are just louder. Social evolution has gone full throttle recently and hopefully this is just those that are being left behind seeing the inevitable writing on the wall and throwing everything they have at our advances and simply praying that their way of life can continue.

I think this is very true but not for those reasons.

 

There has always been a small, sometimes vocal, portion of America that is racially intolerant. But, as I argued with someone on my Facebook wall recently, we shouldn't use that small group to explain what is happening today. The comparison he made was of David Duke and Trump. Yes, many of the same people who supported Duke now support Trump but I don't believe the percentage of racially hostile Americans has risen since Duke had his 15 minutes back in the early 90s.

 

What has changed are the circumstances.

 

David Duke didn't gain traction for a myriad of reasons but, in my opinion, the biggest reason he remained a fringe element is because most Americans were doing okay for themselves in the late 80s and early 90s. Content people don't look to blame other people for their problems because their problems aren't significant enough to expend the kind of energy required to show the kind of despair and fear we're seeing from the Trump camp today.

 

But you know who does search out the Other and blame them for their problems? Desperate people who feel alienated by the system, people who looked upon their fathers raising them in a stable, though meager, environment but cannot do the same for their own children. People who don't only struggle themselves, but also see everyone else around them struggling in all the same ways. I believe the rise in religious fundamentalism is tied to this as well, as people tend to turn to God in increasing numbers as their outlook turns more bleak by the day.

 

That's the key takeaway from Trump; not that there are racists in America because there have always been racists in America and, for the most part, those racists have been on a steady downward trajectory in relation to the American populace since this country was founded.

 

Trump is desperation, an easy answer to a complex problem. That problem involves globalization, a dwindling manufacturing base, and increasing economic disparity between urban and rural populations. All that other **** - the racism, the pure hatred of the opposition, the challenging of fundamental tenets of Americanism - are corollary to the big problem that people are unhappy, that they feel they have no prospects for a better life, that everything they knew as children is crumbling around their feet. Basically, that their way of life (the economic way of life, not the social) is dying. So they lash out at people whom they feel have caused this to happen: immigrants, Obama, Muslims, Democrats, Muslim Obama, and Obama, mostly. Trump makes them feel hope. Yes, it's for entirely the wrong ****ing reasons but it fills them with hope, that someone actually cares about them (though it's quite apparent Trump cares about no one other than himself).

 

So, we can either blame Trump or we can view Trump as a vessel for a problem that has been stewing in America for decades, a problem that will not go away on November 9th.

 

As I've spent the summer and fall reading more about the white underclass, I've come to the conclusion that both sides are guilty of some pretty ****ty things that have allowed this to happen. Democrats strive for black equality yet routinely **** on rural white America because they're hopeless idiots who don't know what's good for them. Conservatives have nurtured the ideal that rural white America is the One True America and lay blame at the destruction of America upon the feet of inner city blacks, immigrants, and white liberal elites.

 

But the common denominator here is poverty. Neither side has made a legitimate attempt to shore up that single unifying trait of both sides.

[nicksaviking]

 

But the common denominator here is poverty. Neither side has made a legitimate attempt to shore up that single unifying trait of both sides.

 

I get it, and I read the article posted here a few pages back, but the people suffering can't also pretend that there isn't at least a certain degree of stubbornness on their part as well. Hopefully a rural way of life can be preserved, but there is a reason why every futuristic show depicts large urban environments, that likely is going to be part of social evolution. But putting that aside, they somehow refuse to recognize that Donald Trump and his ilk are the reason their small towns are dying.

 

His brand of ultra-capitalism is why stores, businesses and factories move out of rural areas. It wasn't all that long ago that these businesses had community involvement. Making a profit was essential, but MAXIMIZING profit was not the ultimate goal. Now the local agronomy company has gone public and has to kowtow to shareholders, not the community and that means packing up shop and moving to a more centralized location to keep costs down. Now the local supermarket realizes they can close the location in the town of 200 and move 30 miles away to a larger metro area knowing their market base will be bigger because those 200 people will still have to come get their groceries, even if it's 30 miles away.

 

I get that Democrats haven't stopped this, but it is the Republican supporters that are causing and endorsing it. I think too many of these people think being fiscally conservative is going to save their communities when they don't realize being fiscally conservative is why these businesses are moving away. It's less cost effective to remain open in these areas; it probably always was, and probably always will be, so stop supporting politicians that encourage policies that push businesses to maximize their profits.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Finishing this article now and it's really good:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-white-flight-of-derek-black/2016/10/15/ed5f906a-8f3b-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html

[nicksaviking]

 

Finishing this article now and it's really good:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-white-flight-of-derek-black/2016/10/15/ed5f906a-8f3b-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html

 

That was a rough read. It's got to be tough to distance one's beliefs from their parents when that's all that you know about life, that's not usually a cord you want to cut.

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

Clinton up to 87.7% on FiveThirtyEight. It appears she's stabilizing at a point higher than any other of the campaign.

[TheLeviathan]

 

But the common denominator here is poverty. Neither side has made a legitimate attempt to shore up that single unifying trait of both sides.

 

That's just it, Dems don't care about the largely rural parts of America because they have given up on them as voters.  That's why the largely Dem-driven recovery has been so urban focused.  Obamacare also hit these folks the hardest.

 

And the right keeps selling the bogus idea that 1% are going to start creating jobs in po-dunk rural towns.  

 

This problem isn't going away.

[biggentleben]

 

That's just it, Dems don't care about the largely rural parts of America because they have given up on them as voters.  That's why the largely Dem-driven recovery has been so urban focused.  Obamacare also hit these folks the hardest.

 

And the right keeps selling the bogus idea that 1% are going to start creating jobs in po-dunk rural towns.  

 

This problem isn't going away.

 

You see policies from both sides killing rural communities. ACA really hurt farm families because the income looked so drastic, yet there was no way to put in the inputs that a farm requires in a way that made sense, so a farmer/rancher attempting to get a sponsored plan would be paying at the very top end of the balance. That's a negative angle on Democrats for rural communities.

 

Democrats attack land and wealth transfer as a way that wealth is not able to re-generate and simply stays in the top levels. The policies put forth end up making it near-impossible for a family to pass a family farm down to children due to the massive taxes on farm land that would be passed on. It becomes much, much more financially viable to completely sell off the family farm and split the inheritance of what is made from that rather than deal with those taxes on having the land and equipment passed down in will. Essentially, the laws make it better for a family to sell off the family farm (more and more often to a corporate farming interest) rather than pass it on.

 

Of course, on the other end, Republicans consistently introduce legislation that devalue the very products of the American farm, attempt to levy major tariffs with the biggest trade partners of agricultural exports, and then attempt to also give major discounts to business that want to leave their small ponds for larger oceans with significant incentive programs for companies that move from areas without significant access to air and interstate travel (frequently an issue in rural communities) to places that can move their products better for them. Multiple local businesses have moved to Sioux Falls for that exact reason.

 

Never mind the joke that is the annual "farm" bill, typically serving about 0.5% of the nation's family farms and being primarily drawn up to serve corporate farms with tremendous lobbying powers in DC.

 

Needless to say, it's not hard to see why the rural community would feel disenfranchised. 

[TheLeviathan]

Oh absolutely, my father (an actual small family farmer) and I have had the same conversations.  

 

The ACA was great for the impoverished and most in need.  But for many in the middle class it's been a horrible burden.  In the last five years my coverage has been slashed and my expenses increased by about 4 times what it was.  

 

I don't want it repealed, but I need the left to recognize it's far from a good thing at this point.  It was a hard fought step in the right direction, but it's squeezing a lot of us.  And the left has long overlooked agriculture and rural economics, it's part of why they don't have their vote.  Liberals are quite adept at coming off as dismissive and snooty when it comes to blue collar, working labor.  (The kind that doesn't have some overpriced corporation calling itself a union that is)

[Mike Sixel]

Well, your costs were going up at the same rate (as a whole, can't say for you for sure)......and your coverage was dropping....ACA can't fix that. Only price fixing can.....not insurance prices, but care, coverage, drugs, etc.....

[TheLeviathan]

 

Well, your costs were going up at the same rate (as a whole, can't say for you for sure)......and your coverage was dropping....ACA can't fix that. Only price fixing can.....not insurance prices, but care, coverage, drugs, etc.....

 

I'm a teacher, so I have an elite medical plan.  I got hosed by the way the ACA upped expenses on those sorts of plans.

 

It was also one of the few financial perks and it's been effectively neutralized.  Which really sucks.

[kydoty]

Well so much for giving the people their voice. John McCain said today that he will make sure all SCOTUS nominees will be blocked for the entirety of Hillary's presidency.