OT: Anonymous NYT op-ed

[zk]

[quote=flu]

If you were in this situation and had a choice between letting your family starve or supporting and adminstration that promises to make you whole by taking away benefits from someone else, most of us would do the exact same thing.

[/quote]
Well, the key word here is “promises.” Only if I believed those promises would I vote for such an administration. Although I think “fell for” would describe it better in this case. And I don’t think nearly as many people would fall for what trump is saying if he didn’t have a massive propaganda operation behind him.
[quote=flu]
The democratic party ,I am afraid, had not offered a compelling alternative yet to these swing voters
[/quote]

The democratic party hasn’t offered anything “compelling” to anyone in decades. I guess “hope and change” was mildly interesting, but it was quite vague and not really all that grand. Hillary, as brilliant and tough as she is, had pretty much zero vision. Part of the problem is that people want a great and compelling vision from their candidates when, in reality, any great and compelling vision is most likely a bunch of bs. So a candidate (or a party) has to choose between 1) selling a grand, compelling, bullshit vision or 2) plotting a course that will keep our country and our economy and our society on a steadily upward path. The democrats choose to sell the latter, and it just doesn’t sell.

[zk]

[quote=flu]Look at this way.

In elections there are 3 groups of people…

There are the people that are solid right that will always vote Republican, no matter what.

There are the people that are solid blue that will always vote democrat no matter what.

Neither of them will really decide the outcome of an election.

The only votes that really matter are the swing votes that could go either way….

[/quote]

Actually, there’s another group. The people who don’t usually vote. And millions of those people are energized by their disgust with trump and with the republicans who enable him.

[Coronita]

[quote=zk][quote=flu]

If you were in this situation and had a choice between letting your family starve or supporting and adminstration that promises to make you whole by taking away benefits from someone else, most of us would do the exact same thing.

[/quote]
Well, the key word here is “promises.” Only if I believed those promises would I vote for such an administration. Although I think “fell for” would describe it better in this case. And I don’t think nearly as many people would fall for what trump is saying if he didn’t have a massive propaganda operation behind him.
[quote=flu]
The democratic party ,I am afraid, had not offered a compelling alternative yet to these swing voters
[/quote]

The democratic party hasn’t offered anything “compelling” to anyone in decades. I guess “hope and change” was mildly interesting, but it was quite vague and not really all that grand. Hillary, as brilliant and tough as she is, had pretty much zero vision. Part of the problem is that people want a great and compelling vision from their candidates when, in reality, any great and compelling vision is most likely a bunch of bs. So a candidate (or a party) has to choose between 1) selling a grand, compelling, bullshit vision or 2) plotting a course that will keep our country and our economy and our society on a steadily upward path. The democrats choose to sell the latter, and it just doesn’t sell.[/quote]

“promises”… If you were suggesting a lot of desperate Americans were conned into a vision put on by this administration… Yes,I agree with you….. I think for a lot of us on piggs, for example, we probably can tell the difference that those tax cuts really benefit corporations more than individuals and especially for any of us in high tax states causes more damage than good, albeit it’s more annoying that financially impacting people that are affected by this….

But the way I look at it, these were the same people that bought into “hope and change” and when change didn’t happen , probably abandoned the democrat. Hillary didn’t have much to bring to the table for these folks. Bernie Sanders would have been better. There would be no way in hell I would have voted for Bernie (my socialist alarm bells were going off) but at least he brought to the table very interesting ideas that was aimed at helping people and his vision was much more aligned to the greater good than either Hillary or Trump. I didn’t quite follow what exactly happened, but my personal opinion was that I think the DNC sold out Bernie to try to get the first woman elected, but that’s my personal opinion.

Anyway, you and I both understand the compelling economic vision of the party is b.s., but that’s what sells votes. These people, they don’t have a lot going for them, so hope is all they got.
I really don’t think most of them.care about the plight of DACA or even migrant children, or if they do they care it’s only on the surface or with lip servicr, If push comes to shove, and their economic situation is on the line, they won’t care. I mean we’ve seen this before on a much larger scale in history…in Germany with Hitler, with millions of Jews persecuted, and no I don’t think we are that much better these days, maybe a bit better but not much.

When a large mass of people get left behind, weird things happen. that mass islooking for someone else to blame and even of the truth is there, they don’t want to believe it. Prior to that, the blame fell on “rich people , 1%” …Now it’s China, immigrants, illegals, etc. The democrat party failed in that it really should have taken this playbook of protective tarriff and played it. Now, regardless of how effective or not, people have the perception that Donald trump is trying to do “something” when no one else did….he gets credit for that, despite everything else wrong with his administration.and every blatant lie Sarah says between her teeth, and despite the extent of russian collusion… that’s how desperate people are….

And we won’t see any of the tarriff repercussions for some time, not before the midterms at least. Trump isn’t dumb when it comes to these games. There are two outcomes. Trump is pulling on the tarriff onto China right now basically on chinda entire export to the US. The timing is calculated….If China concedes by itself and gives concessions (which imho won’t happen) trump gets credit , stock market goes on a Rocket ship, and everyone is happy before the midterms.

If China resists (which I think it will), we will get some relatiation that might sink the stock markets in the short term….then some time in October , Trump throws China a large bone, an agreement is made, the markets take off again, and everyone is happy again before November.

Forget about what’s actually in the contents of the trade agreement, most people whont bother to try to understand it … just like the US-Mexico agreement that is suppose to replace Nafta… people will fall for it.

This is why i question the blue wave beyond already heavily blue states. What happens in CA and NY doesn’t really matter in the same way that briansd’s vote doesn’t really matter. it’s going to be a consistent blue regardless. hence useless vote…what matters are all the unsure votes or votes that can cross party lines…ironically people like me.

I’d say states like Michigan would be an indicator, given their heavy dependency on manufacturing…

[Coronita]

[quote=zk][quote=flu]Look at this way.

In elections there are 3 groups of people…

There are the people that are solid right that will always vote Republican, no matter what.

There are the people that are solid blue that will always vote democrat no matter what.

Neither of them will really decide the outcome of an election.

The only votes that really matter are the swing votes that could go either way….

[/quote]

Actually, there’s another group. The people who don’t usually vote. And millions of those people are energized by their disgust with trump and with the republicans who enable him.[/quote]

maybe, and it can go both ways….

I really only started to care more about voting after CA politicians tried to bring back affirmative action….

[FlyerInHi]

Flu, you pretty much agree that Trump voters are dumb because they were conned.

At least Democrats expect “free stuff”, as is said in right-wing parlance, and sometimes they get it. Republican voters are more easily conned by identity politics, and they get screwed on economics. Not all, but the preponderance of Republicans. There has been much written about why they vote against their own interests.

Also, Flu, how does an undecided turned Republican vote in coastal California matter? Democratic votes matters more because they’re holding the fort. I now vote in Nevada and that sure matters.

I still think demographics are destiny. When Texas, Arizona, Nevada and Florida turn blue, we would have won the states that matter USA. It’s only a matter of time. Trump is accelerating that just like Pete Wilson did for California. There are always silver linings and unintended consequences.

The blue wave that I’m most excited about is Beto O’rourke. That reminds me to send him a check. Beto is cool. He can skate. He’s a White Obama, but not Harvard educated.
https://youtu.be/SwizfmPNrH8

[FlyerInHi]

Flu, btw, i agree with a lot in your latest post.

What will you do when Republicans want affirmative action for White university applicants?

[Coronita]

I wouldn’t consider that trump voters are smarter or dumber than Obama voters that fell for “hope and change”….

After all , a lot of them voted for both…

I wouldn’t equate a person’s desperation to their intelligence or lack there of.

In all, it boils down to which party is more capable of manipulating the most vunerable in our country to sway votes their way. The strategy and tools used by the democrats might have worked before, but they won’t work moving forward. It needs to come up with a better manipulation machine to win votes back… It will be difficult win if you can’t get buy in from the white working class…. it doesn’t matter how many blacks or Latinos you try to convince…. they most likely vote blue anyway.

[FlyerInHi]

We will see if women will be part of the blue wave. Are women still subservient to their men. Or are they independent thinkers charting their own destiny?

[zk]

[quote=flu]I wouldn’t consider that trump voters are smarter or dumber than Obama voters that fell for “hope and change”….

[/quote]

I disagree. Anyone who couldn’t tell – before the election – that trump was impulsive, narcissistic, vindictive, belligerent, childish, petty, unstable, misogynistic, xenophobic, lazy, delusional, amoral, unintelligent, ignorant, concerned with no one and nothing but himself, a bully, a cheater, a liar, and a fool and therefore entirely unlikely to accomplish anything good seems like they’d have to be pretty much an idiot. If they could tell and didn’t care… also an idiot.

Also, selling hope and change and delivering a steady hand and stable government is entirely different from selling make America great “again” and delivering an attack on the rule of law, an attack on the free press, a destructive trade war, rampant corruption, a degraded society, a generally incompetent and chaotic administration, a blizzard of lies, toadying up to a foreign power which interfered in our elections, angering several close allies, and seriously degrading the morale and effectiveness of the state department.

[Coronita]

I predict in CA the Democrats lose their supermajority in 4-6 years, when people in the state rebel and a bachlash is released on unchecked, one party dominated decision making.

It’s starts as small as passing laws stating restaurants can only sell kids meal with milk and water….or mandating middle school and high school can start no earlier than 830am… But people will grow tired of a one party unchecked party that passes laws that begin to overreached then there is a backlash and everything is undone, door good or worse. This happened at the national level.

[FlyerInHi]

Hope and change for more social benefits in the future is very rational.

Hope and change for a return to an illusionary time gone by… that’s whack.

[FlyerInHi]

Zk, talking about anonymous, how that the sexual allegations against Brett Kavanaugh are not longer anonymous, I wonder if women will believe the accuser.

I personally think that men at pigs generally and society always minimalized their piggish behavior as “boys will be boys.”

We discussed this before, and with #metoo, the information economy and girls getting more educated than boys, it’s the beginning of male privilege. It’s only the beginning because women are still defending the piggish behavior of their men and sons. Women don’t seem to have the “sisterhood” the same way that men have “brotherhood.”

American women seem to be behind women in the developed world. In Europe, women don’t dream of weddings. Even in China, highly educated women don’t care so much about marriage. Oprah did a segment about that when she went to Denmark.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?utm_term=.96af1ccf3e18

[zk]

[quote=FlyerInHi]

Zk, talking about anonymous, how that the sexual allegations against Brett Kavanaugh are not longer anonymous, I wonder if women will believe the accuser.

I personally think that men at pigs generally and society always minimalized their piggish behavior as “boys will be boys.”

[/quote]

While behavior such as that described by the victim is extremely serious and should never be minimized…

And, while I despise Kavanaugh, and while I think making him a SCOTUS judge has the potential to significantly set women back in this country…

Setting a precedent where any person can derail a confirmation or election of a person by alleging previously unmentioned (or only privately mentioned, and not using names) crimes would, in my opinion, be dangerous.

Every candidate who ever runs for office henceforth runs the risk of some nut job from the opposition party making up a story. They can take anything they ever told their therapist and say, “that was about (candidate x).”

I’m not saying Ms. Ford is a nut job. I’m saying that those who follow this precedent in the future might be. I’m saying that even if the current allegation is true – which, to my untrained and relatively uninformed eye, it seems to probably be – the above still applies.

Anybody can say, “(candidate x) did this to me. How come you don’t believe me? The evidence is the same as when Kavanaugh’s confirmation was blocked.” And I’m not sure what the answer would be.

[quote=FlyerInHi]

We discussed this before, and with #metoo, the information economy and girls getting more educated than boys, it’s the beginning of male privilege. It’s only the beginning because women are still defending the piggish behavior of their men and sons. Women don’t seem to have the “sisterhood” the same way that men have “brotherhood.”

American women seem to be behind women in the developed world…

[/quote]

I presume you meant to say, “the beginning of the end of male privilege.”

Male privilege has been on the decline in this country for some time. But the fight is oh-so-far from over. Unfortunately, we have a long way to go even in this country. Sure, maybe some countries are a little bit ahead of us. But in much of the Middle East, and some other parts of the developed world, and in huge swaths of the third world and the undeveloped world, male privilege is rampant. In many places it’s not even questioned to any significant degree.

The only way to fix this particular problem (SCOTUS appointments) is at the ballot box. Unfortunately, progressives and rational people in general blew it at the ballot box in 2016. Not enough of us showed up. We (all Americans except rich people) are going to be paying the price for that for a long, long, long time.

Let’s not make that mistake again in 2020. Or in 2018. Or ever again.

[FlyerInHi]

zk, I don’t think people will come out of the woodwork to make bogus claims.

Consider the risk of slander and perjury. Powerful people have the resources to sue accusers into poverty. Look how Stormy Daniels was minimized by Rudy Julianni. Any ordinary woman would have been crushed already.

Yes, I think it’s the beginning of the end male privilege. As women make money and girls acquire higher education, they will not stand for the same old. And parents will stand by their daughters.

[FlyerInHi]

In the end. people know what they did.
So I asked a friend who’s born again Christian. This is what he said. It should be important to Christian believers.

To God, all sin is the same. It is the breaking of His commandments. The penalty is the second death (eternal separation from God) unless you accept that Jesus’s sacrifice for your sins covers yours since he died for you and me.
So lie or murder, still a sin.

[Author]

Posts