TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

Bat178 Since: May, 2011
#181026: Apr 4th 2017 at 4:29:10 PM

Only 6% of voters agree with repealing internet privacy, 83% oppose it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-online-privacy-poll_us_58e295e7e4b0f4a923b0d94a

edited 4th Apr '17 4:30:58 PM by Bat178

CenturyEye Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign? from I don't know where the Yith sent me this time... Since: Jan, 2017 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign?
#181027: Apr 4th 2017 at 4:30:12 PM

[up]Something for next year's campaign commercials

What Math said. Also what Megaliz said. However to Capsase, I'd like to present this premise: note 

I have already discussed this question at length and have shown the ingratitude of the populace to be less than that of princes. While in the matter of prudence and stability I claim that the populace is more prudent, more stable, and of sounder judgement than the prince. Not without good reason is the voice of the populace likened to that of God; for public opinion is remarkably accurate in its prognostications, so much so that it seems as if the populace by some hidden power discerned the evil and good that was to befall it. With regard to its judgement, when two speakers of equal skill are heard advocating different alternatives, very rarely does one find the populace failing to adopt the better view or incapable of appreciating the truth of what it hears.”

History supports that, however recent history looks. There's a reason, states invest so much into propaganda and clientelas. And elections == democracy. Encouraging voter apathy, the lack of civic education, and the lack of community investment kind of pull the rug out from under the system. (If your response requires me to define what democracy is, well I can try, but De Marquis and I have spent half of this thread debating it and his points are as good as mine).

edited 4th Apr '17 4:33:49 PM by CenturyEye

Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#181028: Apr 4th 2017 at 4:55:06 PM

North Korea just test fired what may be a ballistic missile. And the American response is just as worrying.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/04/politics/white-house-north-korea-china/index.html

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#181029: Apr 4th 2017 at 5:07:20 PM

Noam Chomsky just did an interview with Democracy Now that's making the rounds:

Noam Chomsky: Trump Administration Is Aiming to Decimate All Programs to Help Working People

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, I think it was captured pretty well by a Los Angeles Times editorial, which simply called it a "train wreck." But it’s very consistent, very systematic. Anything that can be of assistance to ordinary people, working people, middle-class people, people on the street—any such program has to be decimated. Anything that adds to wealth and power or that increases the use of force, that we carry forward.

And it’s done with—there’s kind of a two-tiered system working—I presume, consciously, so systematic it’s hard to question. The Bannon-Trump team wants to make sure that they dominate the headlines. So, whatever they do, that’s what people look at, and one crazy thing after another, the assumption apparently being you’ll forget the old ones by the time the new ones come in. So, no one talks anymore about the 3 million illegal immigrants who voted for Clinton. That one, we’ve forgotten. We’re on to the next one, and we’ll go on to the next one. While this is going on in front, the Paul Ryan-style budgetary and planning operations are going on quietly in the back, ripping to shreds any element of government that can help people either today or tomorrow. That’s the point of the destruction of the environmental system. It’s not just the EPA which was slashed. Most of the environmental programs were actually in the Energy Department. Their research and activist programs were slashed very seriously.

Chomsky: It's As If Trump Administration Is Flaunting That U.S. Is Run by Goldman Sachs

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, as you say, they’ve run it all the time. The simple measures, like campaign funding alone, simple measure like that, is a very close predictor, not only of electoral victory, but even of policies. That’s been true for a century. And if you take a look at the analysis of public attitude—a major topic in academic political science is comparing popular attitudes with public policy. It’s pretty straightforward. Public policy, you can see. Popular attitudes, we know a lot about from extensive polling. And the results are pretty startling. Turns out that about 70 percent of voters, which is maybe half the electorate—about 70 percent of voters are literally disenfranchised, the lower 70 percent on the income scale, meaning that their own representatives pay no attention to their—to their attitudes and preferences. If you move up the income scale, you get a little more correlation, more—a little more influence. The very top, which is probably a fraction of 1 percent, if you could get the data, it’s where policy is set. Now, the Trump administration is kind of a caricature of this. It’s always pretty much true. But here they’re—it’s as if they’re kind of purposely trying to flaunt the fact that this country is run by Goldman Sachs and billionaires, and nobody else counts.'''

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Wilbur Ross, Betsy De Vos.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Right, all of them. I mean, it’s almost like a shocking parody, as if they’re trying to show, "Yeah, what we all know is true is dramatically true, and we’re going to show it to you."

The interesting—an interesting question, the one you raise, is: How are they maintaining support among the people they’re kicking in the face? That’s not uninteresting. And if you look into it, there’s a number of factors. One—first of all, many of the Trump voters, white working-class voters, quite a few of them voted for Obama in 2008. You go back to the Obama campaign, the exciting words were "hope" and "change." I don’t usually agree with Sarah Palin, but when she asked, "Where’s this hopey-changey stuff?" she wasn’t talking nonsense. It quickly became clear there’s no hope and there’s no change. And the working people were significantly disillusioned. You could see it right in Massachusetts, where—when Kennedy died, you know, the "liberal lion There was going to be a vote for—to replace him, 2010. Amazingly, a Republican won, in Democratic Massachusetts, Kennedy’s seat. And union voters didn’t vote for the Democrats. They were very upset by the fact that they had been cheated, they felt, rightly, by the Obama campaign of promises. And they turned to their bitter class enemy, who at least talks the words. The Republicans have mastered the technique of talking words as if you’re sort of an ordinary guy, you know, kind of guy you’d meet in a bar, that sort of thing. It goes back to Reagan and his jellybeans, and Bush, you know, mispronouncing words, and so on and so forth. It’s a game that’s played. And it’s a con game. But in the absence of any opposition, it works.

And what happens when there is an opposition? That’s very striking. The most astonishing fact about the last election, which is the Sanders achievements, that’s a break from a century of American political history. As I said, you can pretty well predict electoral outcomes simply by campaign funding alone. There’s other factors that intensify it. Here comes Sanders, somebody nobody ever heard of. No support from the wealthy, no support from corporations. The media ignored or disparaged him. He even used a scare word, "socialist." Came from nowhere. He would have won the Democratic Party nomination if it hadn’t been for the shenanigans of the Obama-Clinton party managers who kept him out. Might have been president. From nothing. That’s an incredible break. It shows what can happen when policies are proposed that do meet the general, just concerns of much of the population.

[[quoteblock]]AMY GOODMAN: Do you think he could still win if he ran again?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, there was a Fox News poll, couple of days ago—Fox News—asking who’s the—trying to ask who’s your favorite political figure. Sanders was way ahead, far ahead of anybody else, with no vocal, articulate support among the concentrations of power—media, corporations, elsewhere. In fact, if you look at policy preferences, you see something similar. We already mentioned the health issue. That’s—and on issue after issue, much of the public that is actually voting for their bitter class enemy, if you look at the policies, actually favor social democratic policies, even environmental policies.

Chomsky: Our Privatized U.S. Healthcare Program is an "International Scandal"

NOAM CHOMSKY: Actually, there was a pretty interesting poll about it that came out a couple of days ago, simply asking people what they preferred. The Republican proposal was the lowest of the choices available. I think about 15 percent of the population were willing to accept it. Somewhat higher was the existing system, so-called Obamacare. And on that, it’s worth bearing in mind that a lot of people don’t know that Obamacare is the Affordable Care Act. So you have negative attitudes towards Obamacare, thanks to lots of propaganda, but more positive attitudes towards the Affordable Care Act, because of what people see.

Most popular of all—over half—was the so-called public option, a government-guaranteed healthcare program, which is pretty remarkable because no one publicly advocates that. But it’s been a consistent polling result for decades, that when people are asked what they want, they say that’s their choice. And, in fact, that’s about the only proposal that makes any sense. The U.S. healthcare system is an international scandal. It’s roughly twice the per capita costs of comparable countries, and some of the worst outcomes, mainly because it’s privatized, extremely inefficient, bureaucratized, lots of bill paying, lots of officials, tons of money wasted, healthcare in the hands of profit-seeking institutions, which are not health institutions, of course. And for decades people have preferred what every other country has, in some fashion: either straight national healthcare or heavily government-regulated healthcare like, say, Switzerland. Sometimes the support is astonishingly high. So, in the late Reagan years, for example, about 70 percent of the population thought that guaranteed healthcare should be a constitutional guarantee, because it’s such an obvious desideratum. And about 40 percent thought it already was in the Constitution. The Constitution is just this holy collection of anything reasonable, so it must be there.

But it just doesn’t matter what people think. When Obama put through his own program, I think support for the public option was almost two-thirds, but it was simply dismantled. When this is—occasionally, this is discussed in the press, New York Times, others. And they mention it. They say it’s a possibility, but it’s called politically impossible, which is correct, which means you can’t pass it through the pharmaceutical corporations and financial institutions. That’s politically possible in what’s called democracy. Sometimes they say "lacking political support," meaning from the institutions that really matter. There’s kind of this population on the side, but we can dismiss them, yeah.

Chomsky: With U.S. History of Overthrowing Govts, Outrage over Russian Hacking Claims is Laughable

NOAM CHOMSKY: It’s a pretty remarkable fact that—first of all, it is a joke. Half the world is cracking up in laughter. The United States doesn’t just interfere in elections. It overthrows governments it doesn’t like, institutes military dictatorships. Simply in the case of Russia alone—it’s the least of it—the U.S. government, under Clinton, intervened quite blatantly and openly, then tried to conceal it, to get their man Yeltsin in, in all sorts of ways. So, this, as I say, it’s considered—it’s turning the United States, again, into a laughingstock in the world.

So why are the Democrats focusing on this? In fact, why are they focusing so much attention on the one element of Trump’s programs which is fairly reasonable, the one ray of light in this gloom: trying to reduce tensions with Russia? That’s—the tensions on the Russian border are extremely serious. They could escalate to a major terminal war. Efforts to try to reduce them should be welcomed. Just a couple of days ago, the former U.S. ambassador to Russia, Jack Matlock, came out and said he just can’t believe that so much attention is being paid to apparent efforts by the incoming administration to establish connections with Russia. He said, "Sure, that’s just what they ought to be doing."

So, meanwhile, this one topic is the primary locus of concern and critique, while, meanwhile, the policies are proceeding step by step, which are extremely destructive and harmful. So, you know, yeah, maybe the Russians tried to interfere in the election. That’s not a major issue. Maybe the people in the Trump campaign were talking to the Russians. Well, OK, not a major point, certainly less than is being done constantly. And it is a kind of a paradox, I think, that the one issue that seems to inflame the Democratic opposition is the one thing that has some justification and reasonable aspects to it.

When Scapegoating Immigrants No Longer Works, Would Trump Stage an Attack to Maintain Power?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, actually, the statement I made was pretty muted. It wasn’t quite as strong as the headlines indicated. What I pointed out—and what everyone, I think, is aware of—is that sooner or later this con game is not going to work. People will understand he’s not bringing back jobs. He’s not going to recreate the partly illusory, partly real picture of what life was like in the past, with manufacturing jobs and a functioning society, and you could get ahead, and so and so forth. He’s not going to create that.

What happens at that point? Something has to be done to maintain control. The obvious technique is scapegoating. So blame it on immigrants, on Muslims, on somebody. But that can only go so far. The next step would be, as I said, an alleged terrorist attack, which is quite easy. It’s, in fact, almost normal to—like Condoleezza Rice’s mushroom clouds. That’s easy to construct, alleged attacks. The other possibility is a staged attack of a minor kind. And how hard would that be? Take the FBI technique, which they’re using constantly, of creating situations of entrapment. Well, suppose one of them goes a little too far, that you don’t stop it right in time. That wouldn’t be hard to work out. I don’t particularly anticipate it, but it’s a possibility. And this is a very frightened country. For years, this has been probably the most frightened country in the world. It’s also the safest country in the world. It’s very easy to terrify people.

Extraordinarily Dangerous: Chomsky on How Trump's Threats Toward N. Korea Could Backfire

Noam: NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, it’s kind of interesting to look at the record. The claim is "Well, we’ve tried everything. Nothing works. Therefore, we have to use force." Is it true that nothing’s worked? I mean, there is a record, after all. And if you look at the record, it’s interesting.

1994, Clinton made—established what was called the Framework Agreement with North Korea. North Korea would terminate its efforts to develop nuclear weapons. The U.S. would reduce hostile acts. It more or less worked, and neither side lived up to it totally, but, by 2000, North Korea had not proceeded with its nuclear weapons programs. George W. Bush came in and immediately launched an assault on North Korea—you know, "axis of evil," sanctions and so on. North Korea turned to producing nuclear weapons. In 2005, there was an agreement between North Korea and the United States, a pretty sensible agreement. North Korea agreed to terminate its development of nuclear weapons. In return, it called for a nonaggression pact. So, stop making hostile threats, relief from harsh sanctions, and provision of a system to provide North Korea with low-enriched uranium for medical and other purposes—that was the proposal. George Bush instantly tore it to shreds. Within days, the U.S. was imposing—trying to disrupt North Korean financial transactions with other countries through Macau and elsewhere. North Korea backed off, started building nuclear weapons again. I mean, maybe you can say it’s the worst regime in history, whatever you like, but they have been following a pretty rational tit-for-tat policy.

And why are they developing nuclear weapons altogether? I mean, the economy is in bad shape. They could certainly use the resources. Everyone understands that it’s a deterrent. And they have a proposal, actually. There’s a proposal on the table. China and North Korea proposed that North Korea should terminate its further development of nuclear weapons. In return, the United States should stop carrying out threatening military maneuvers with South Korea right on its border. Not an unreasonable proposal. It’s simply dismissed. Actually, Obama dismissed it, too. There are possible steps that could be taken to alleviate which could be an extremely serious crisis. I mean, if the U.S. did decide to use force against North Korea, one immediate reaction, according to the military sources available to us, is that Seoul, the city of Seoul, would simply be wiped out by mass North Korean artillery aimed at it. And who knows where we’d go from there? But the opportunity to produce—to move towards a negotiated diplomatic settlement does not seem outlandish. I mean, this Chinese-North Korean proposal is certainly worth serious consideration, I would think.

And it’s worth bearing in mind that North Korea has some memories. They were practically destroyed by some of the most intensive bombing in history. The bombing—you should—it’s worth reading. Maybe you should read, people, the official Air Force history of the bombing of North Korea. It’s shattering. I mean, they had flattened the country. There were no targets left. So, therefore, they decided, well, we’ll attack the dams—which is a war crime, of course. And the description of the attack on the dams is—without the exact wording, I hate to paraphrase it. You should really read the—they were simply exalting, in the official histories, Air Force Quarterly and others, about the—how magnificent it will be to see this massive flood of water coursing through North Korea, wiping out crops. For Asians, the rice crops is their life. This will destroy them. It will be magnificent. The North Koreans lived through that. And having nuclear-capable B-52s flying on their border is not a joke.

But, most significantly, there’s a record of partial success in diplomatic initiatives, total failure with sanctions and harsh moves, and options that are on the table which could be pursued. Now, instead of concern about whether somebody talked to the Russians, this is the kind of thing that should be—that should be pursued very seriously. That’s what the Democrats or anyone hoping for some form of peace and justice should be working for.

Why Does U.S. Consider Iran the Greatest Threat to Peace, When Rest of World Agrees It's the U.S.?

NOAM CHOMSKY: That’s been going on for years. Right through the Obama years, Iran was regarded as the greatest threat to world peace. And that’s repeated over and over. "All options are open," Obama’s phrase, meaning, if we want to use nuclear weapons, we can, because of this terrible danger to peace.

Actually, we have—there’s a few interesting comments that should be made about this. One is, there also is something called world opinion. What does the world think is the greatest threat to world peace? Well, we know that, from U.S.-run polls, Gallup polls: United States. Nobody even close, far ahead of any other threat. Pakistan, second, much lower. Iran, hardly mentioned.

Why is Iran regarded here as the greatest threat to world peace? Well, we have an authoritative answer to that from the intelligence community, which provides regular assessments to Congress on the global strategic situation. And a couple of years ago, their report—of course, they always discuss Iran. And the reports are pretty consistent. They say Iran has very low military spending, even by the standards of the region, much lower than Saudi Arabia, Israel, others. Its strategy is defensive. They want to deter attacks long enough for diplomacy to be entertained. The conclusion, intelligence conclusion—this is a couple years ago—is: If they are developing nuclear weapons, which we don’t know, but if they are, it would be part of their deterrent strategy. Now, why is the United States and Israel even more so concerned about a deterrent? Who’s concerned about a deterrent? Those who want to use force. Those who want to be free to use force are deeply concerned about a potential deterrent. So, yes, Iran is the greatest threat to world peace, might deter our use of force.

Personally, I agree with most of what he said but not on Russia except where he said Trump de-escalating tensions with them is a good thing.

edited 4th Apr '17 5:09:47 PM by MadSkillz

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#181030: Apr 4th 2017 at 5:15:50 PM

So yeah, those of you who have spent so much time debating me, thank you very much for providing some very stimulating and thought provoking conversation. You probably won't see me again for at least a month if ever, because I've gotten a rather unfortunate ultimatum from my father who is quite frustrated with my (lack of) progress in finding a job which basically boils down to me no longer being welcome in the house if I don't have anything by the end of the month. Wish me luck.

CenturyEye Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign? from I don't know where the Yith sent me this time... Since: Jan, 2017 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign?
#181031: Apr 4th 2017 at 5:17:53 PM

[up][up]That's rather long. You may want to folder those by topic.
[up][up][up]Also, fuuuuuuuuuu

[up]Best of Luck

edited 4th Apr '17 5:19:00 PM by CenturyEye

Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
IFwanderer use political terms to describe, not insult from Earth Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
use political terms to describe, not insult
#181032: Apr 4th 2017 at 5:25:18 PM

[up][up]Good luck on job searching. You've been very interesting to read.

edited 4th Apr '17 5:25:48 PM by IFwanderer

1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV
MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#181034: Apr 4th 2017 at 5:30:29 PM

@Century How do you use folders?

I guess I can slim it down and go topic by topic.

@Captain I hope it all goes well with you. Good luck.

Bat178 Since: May, 2011
#181035: Apr 4th 2017 at 5:37:23 PM

[up]x7 Sorry South Korea and possibly Japan, we screwed up big time letting this fool become president and remain there...

edited 4th Apr '17 5:38:21 PM by Bat178

Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#181036: Apr 4th 2017 at 5:38:18 PM

@Capsase: I relate. I'm not in danger of being kicked out but I know what it feels like to be a millenial with seemingly no job prospects. Good luck.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#181037: Apr 4th 2017 at 5:39:10 PM

Good luck Cap.

Hope you get all of that resolved soon.

Disgusted, but not surprised
IFwanderer use political terms to describe, not insult from Earth Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
use political terms to describe, not insult
#181038: Apr 4th 2017 at 5:39:50 PM

Mad Skillz:

[[folder:Title Or Description]] And whatever you want to write inside it. [[/folder]]

1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV
kkhohoho (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#181039: Apr 4th 2017 at 5:44:06 PM

[up][up][up]Same here. I know we've hardly seen eye to eye, but still, good luck Cap, seriously. Take it easy man.

As for N.Korea, on the one hand, I'm not really sure it's going to affect us that much personally short of maybe a war with China, so that's something. On the other hand, Asia's a different story. The only thing we can really do though is just wait and see.

edited 4th Apr '17 5:47:43 PM by kkhohoho

math792d Since: Jun, 2011 Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#181040: Apr 4th 2017 at 5:45:53 PM

@Cap best of luck to you.

@interview Oh God do we have to pretend to take Chomsky seriously again? Please tell me we don't have to take Chomsky seriously again. The man is the Neil Tyson of the humanities only for some reason people take his mediocre hot takes seriously.

edited 4th Apr '17 5:48:22 PM by math792d

Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.
IFwanderer use political terms to describe, not insult from Earth Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
use political terms to describe, not insult
#181041: Apr 4th 2017 at 5:49:17 PM

[up] Only if you're in linguistics, in a place that does Generativist Grammar. Now, for this, we should at least make the effort of trying to refute him.

edited 4th Apr '17 5:58:27 PM by IFwanderer

1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV
MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#181042: Apr 4th 2017 at 5:56:01 PM

I'll just divide it into 3-4 parts since it's a lot with time between each other.

Part 1:

Trump Administration aiming to decimiate all programs aimed to help the poor

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, I think it was captured pretty well by a Los Angeles Times editorial, which simply called it a "train wreck." But it’s very consistent, very systematic. Anything that can be of assistance to ordinary people, working people, middle-class people, people on the street—any such program has to be decimated. Anything that adds to wealth and power or that increases the use of force, that we carry forward.

And it’s done with—there’s kind of a two-tiered system working—I presume, consciously, so systematic it’s hard to question. The Bannon-Trump team wants to make sure that they dominate the headlines. So, whatever they do, that’s what people look at, and one crazy thing after another, the assumption apparently being you’ll forget the old ones by the time the new ones come in. So, no one talks anymore about the 3 million illegal immigrants who voted for Clinton. That one, we’ve forgotten. We’re on to the next one, and we’ll go on to the next one. While this is going on in front, the Paul Ryan-style budgetary and planning operations are going on quietly in the back, ripping to shreds any element of government that can help people either today or tomorrow. That’s the point of the destruction of the environmental system. It’s not just the EPA which was slashed. Most of the environmental programs were actually in the Energy Department. Their research and activist programs were slashed very seriously.


Trump Administration flaunting that the US government is run by Goldman Sachs:

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, as you say, they’ve run it all the time. The simple measures, like campaign funding alone, simple measure like that, is a very close predictor, not only of electoral victory, but even of policies.That’s been true for a century. And if you take a look at the analysis of public attitude—a major topic in academic political science is comparing popular attitudes with public policy. It’s pretty straightforward. Public policy, you can see. Popular attitudes, we know a lot about from extensive polling. And the results are pretty startling. Turns out that about 70 percent of voters, which is maybe half the electorate—about 70 percent of voters are literally disenfranchised, the lower 70 percent on the income scale, meaning that their own representatives pay no attention to their—to their attitudes and preferences. If you move up the income scale, you get a little more correlation, more—a little more influence. The very top, which is probably a fraction of 1 percent, if you could get the data, it’s where policy is set. Now, the Trump administration is kind of a caricature of this. It’s always pretty much true. But here they’re—it’s as if they’re kind of purposely trying to flaunt the fact that this country is run by Goldman Sachs and billionaires, and nobody else counts.'

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Wilbur Ross, Betsy De Vos.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Right, all of them. I mean, it’s almost like a shocking parody, as if they’re trying to show, "Yeah, what we all know is true is dramatically true, and we’re going to show it to you." The interesting—an interesting question, the one you raise, is: mHow are they maintaining support among the people they’re kicking in the face?That’s not uninteresting. And if you look into it, there’s a number of factors. One—first of all, many of the Trump voters, white working-class voters, quite a few of them voted for Obama in 2008. You go back to the Obama campaign, the exciting words were "hope" and "change." I don’t usually agree with Sarah Palin, but when she asked, "Where’s this hopey-changey stuff?" she wasn’t talking nonsense.It quickly became clear there’s no hope and there’s no change. And the working people were significantly disillusioned. You could see it right in Massachusetts, where—when Kennedy died, you know, the "liberal lion There was going to be a vote for—to replace him, 2010. Amazingly, a Republican won, in Democratic Massachusetts, Kennedy’s seat. And union voters didn’t vote for the Democrats. They were very upset by the fact that they had been cheated, they felt, rightly, by the Obama campaign of promises. And they turned to their bitter class enemy, who at least talks the words. The Republicans have mastered the technique of talking words as if you’re sort of an ordinary guy, you know, kind of guy you’d meet in a bar, that sort of thing. It goes back to Reagan and his jellybeans, and Bush, you know, mispronouncing words, and so on and so forth. It’s a game that’s played. And it’s a con game. But in the absence of any opposition, it works'

And what happens when there is an opposition? That’s very striking. The most astonishing fact about the last election, which is the Sanders achievements, that’s a break from a century of American political history. As I said, you can pretty well predict electoral outcomes simply by campaign funding alone. There’s other factors that intensify it. Here comes Sanders, somebody nobody ever heard of. No support from the wealthy, no support from corporations. The media ignored or disparaged him. He even used a scare word, "socialist." Came from nowhere. He would have won the Democratic Party nomination if it hadn’t been for the shenanigans of the Obama-Clinton party managers who kept him out. Might have been president. From nothing. That’s an incredible break. It shows what can happen when policies are proposed that do meet the general, just concerns of much of the population.

Anything here that anyone disagree with in these two passages besides the Bernie stuff? Let's leave the Bernie stuff alone. Or does this all sound reasonable thus far?

edited 4th Apr '17 6:03:43 PM by MadSkillz

AngelusNox Warder of the damned from The guard of the gates of oblivion Since: Dec, 2014 Relationship Status: Married to the job
Warder of the damned
#181043: Apr 4th 2017 at 5:57:07 PM

[up][up][up]Honestly, the only thing I read about Chomsky is over his automaton language works, the rest? Only if I want to be angry at someone who's obvious to double standards.

I followed his page in AJE, but at the course of the Syrian civil war his pieces were blind to the impact of whoever isn't the US in the whole conflict.

edited 4th Apr '17 5:58:57 PM by AngelusNox

Inter arma enim silent leges
CenturyEye Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign? from I don't know where the Yith sent me this time... Since: Jan, 2017 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign?
#181044: Apr 4th 2017 at 5:58:08 PM

[up]x5 A N. Korean War may well have Seoul wiped out in the prologue requiring adjustments in the world economy. Oh, and several millions will be killed and impoverished with the proximate cause more or less being us.
Less humanely, a whole section of the gaming industry (and who knows what else) will vanish overnight. Internationally, the US may just become a rogue state. And the thing'll be close enough to WWIII that the entire millennial generation risks being called up and wiped out—with appropriate political consequences in the US.

[up][up]

Trump Administration aiming to decimiate all programs aimed to help the poor
That's not really news. As for the second part, Chomsky himself asserts such polls are unreliable. (They are). And, in the bureaucrat world, we have a term "satisficing." You'll never actually satisfy anyone, but reach the former and you don't get fired. (I don't think that's inherent to democracy, but its aggravated when people don't know how to be part of the process). I'd still contend the root cause of many problems is people forgetting democracy is not: occasionally vote and then forget about the community. That and no one (not named Germany) ever implementing UDHR 26.

edited 4th Apr '17 6:09:53 PM by CenturyEye

Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#181045: Apr 4th 2017 at 6:09:57 PM

[up] (for 6 math792d's comment about education) I was thinking something similar. Also is there a way to work in critical thinking in there somewhere? I've read in several places that instruction in critical thinking decreases belief in pseudoscience and should also should help increase peoples ability to distinguish "fake news" from real news as well.

https://news.ncsu.edu/2017/03/critical-pseudoscience-2017/

(Actually I wonder if the critical thinking skills that are encouraged at TV Tropes, helped some of the people on this thread who have admitted that they were at risk for joining the Alt-Right at one point, to evaluate their news sources more critically, and helped them get out)

edited 4th Apr '17 6:13:58 PM by megaeliz

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#181046: Apr 4th 2017 at 6:25:19 PM

So apparently the Democrats are, in fact, filibustering Gorsuch's nomination, and so far it's looking like he's going got fifty four votes in his favor. So it might go into a cloture vote (not sure what that is) on Thursday.

fruitpork Since: Oct, 2010
#181047: Apr 4th 2017 at 6:25:22 PM

[up][up][up] what really saddens me is that republicans just don't fucking care. They don't care if millions die, even on the domestic front, as long as they keep power. We're all going to fucking die.

edited 4th Apr '17 6:25:38 PM by fruitpork

Bat178 Since: May, 2011
#181048: Apr 4th 2017 at 6:26:51 PM

[up] We're not all gonna die!!! God, now we're in a Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0/Korean Missile Crisis....

[down] Sorry...

edited 4th Apr '17 6:30:39 PM by Bat178

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#181049: Apr 4th 2017 at 6:28:45 PM

[up]Ok, you seriously need to chill, and possibly get off the internet for a bit if that's going to be your response to posts. This is the politics thread, not the mental health thread. Plus, we can't really help you here, unless you want to talk to someone one on one.

[up][up]Please refrain from blanket statements like "we're all going to die", it is super not helpful.

AngelusNox Warder of the damned from The guard of the gates of oblivion Since: Dec, 2014 Relationship Status: Married to the job
Warder of the damned
#181050: Apr 4th 2017 at 6:31:52 PM

Nah, the US will be fine.

South Korea and Japan? Not so much.

Well, we will need to see how will be the response of the North Koreans and if the US officials talk some sense into this administration or tell Trump to tone down the war with North Korea rhetoric, because right now it is better to hope Mattis or other advisors remind Trump how starting a war with North Korea is a bad idea.

Not to mention that if the North Koreans feel pressured enough, the Little Fat Kim might give the first shot or if they realize that firing the first shot is an incredibly stupid idea, one that will end the top brass and the Kims, may push North Korea mainly through China to negotiate and attempt to avoid the Korean War from resuming as it was in 1949.

edited 4th Apr '17 6:36:26 PM by AngelusNox

Inter arma enim silent leges

Total posts: 417,856
Top