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
Look, Bluefish, the Suffragists and the Civil Rights movement had to struggle with "feasibility". The thing about feasibility in society is that for every gain made people said it was "unfeasible" or some other such thing. But people kept trying. And they knew it was going to be the work of lifetimes: Suffragists didn't succeed in getting the vote for damn near a century. There's folks alive today who participated in the Civil Rights movement who realized that their work wasn't done before all this.
So don't get hung up on "feasibility" regarding the next four years. Just figure out what you can do.
@Reframing issues without mentioning race
That sounds like a fast way to alienate the minority vote; and, fail to get all of the white vote.
I know I would be pissed beyond belief if the democrats started moving away from socially progressive policies because they want more votes.
I doubt I'm the only one.
Not really. It'd be more like benevolent dog-whistling.
The minority voters know what we mean but the white folks would take it at face value.
edited 10th Nov '16 11:32:15 PM by MadSkillz
I don't think we need to eliminate race entirely from the discourse, and certainly not drop them altogether. But it seems like Clinton's platform focused on such issues at the expense of the economic ones, when as the statistical majority white people are more immediately likely to tune into the latter.
It's not about not mentioning race issues because talking about helping blacks upsets racists, it's about also talking about economic issues because not telling whites you're going to help them means they won't vote for you.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
It really sucks that for a not insignificant number of white people, just mentioning race issues is apparently a Trigger.
White Fragility: https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116
And of course, there are those people who don't just want more in general — they specifically want more than those "other" people.
Disgusted, but not surprisedThing is if you want people to vote for you you need to give them a reason to vote for you, if you're unwilling to do that you shouldn't be surprised when people don't vote for you.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranOne absolutely key element of Trump's victory is that he was extremely famous to begin with. I have absolutely no doubt that there were millions of Trump voters who chose him because they thought they'd heard the name somewhere, while they didn't really recall ever hearing about Hillary Clinton. Perhaps this is a slight exaggeration, but the general point is that non-political people who bothered to vote would be inclined to pick the celebrity.
This is why I am almost sympathetic to Kanye West's apparent offer (although I'm not quite certain if this came from himself or from fans - or even critics) to stand as the Democrat candidate in 2020. To be perfectly honest, I believe he would get at least 10-30% of the same voters who picked Trump, simply on the virtue of being more famous. He would probably be slightly more qualified as President than Trump, but of course he would also come with a set of (admittedly less serious) scandals and controversies.
I hate to see American politics get even more dumbed-down than it already was, but I think we already saw with Bush jr that the winner of the election is not the more clever, eloquent, honest, or principled candidate; it's the more "folksy" one.
So, yeah. Kanye West 2020.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.The Democratic Party embracing the, as Capase put it, "Racially apathetic" is certainly sure to give people reasons to vote.
I was just linked this
◊ by a friend, and I have to agree. It's not our job to reach out and ask Trump voters what they want from us before they'll agree not to strip the rights from large swaths of American citizens and human beings; they already got what they wanted with Trump. It may only be a matter of time until Trump's policies turn out not to actually help anyone the people who thought it would help them, but changing the Democratic party line to cater to them is like buying extra presents for one of your children because they won't stop screaming when their younger siblings have birthday parties.
Something needs to be done about the economic problems in the Rust Belt and so on, yes, but even the "good" Trump voters have just demonstrated that their concerns outweigh the rights and lives of minorities of every stripe. How much do we prioritize their concerns over LGBT+ concerns, over POC concerns, over women's concerns, and how do we draw a line in that prioritization when they've clearly stated that 'zero' is an acceptable amount to them for the non-'white-straight-cis-able-male' side of that balance?
^Ah yes, a good old Hashtag That Shall Not Be Named tactic that the world definitely needed. Excuse me while I vomit in my mouth for typing that even sarcastically.
edited 11th Nov '16 12:42:16 AM by RedSavant
It's been fun.I'll just say that I'm staying with an open mind. If Trump does well or not, that's up for the future to decide. Yes, he has said many tactless things, but I don't think he is as bad or worse than someone like Hitler. All I can really do is pray and hope for the best.
Like, while I don't exactly think many of the fears people have of him will turn out to be correct, I do have my concerns with him, especially with his views on climate change. However (please don't hate me for saying this), I don't exactly think he's a racist, at least against Mexicans.
edited 11th Nov '16 12:44:16 AM by LDragon2
He literally said that Mexico was sending their human garbage to the United States.
He called both my parents garbage based on their ethnic background. Am I supposed to think that wasn't racist?
edited 11th Nov '16 12:50:46 AM by MadSkillz
Again, he really needs to show much more tact in his statements, which were, admittedly, overly cruel. But again, was he really talking about all Mexicans, or just the illegal immigrants? I looked up the transcript of his speech, and he was mainly talking about the illegal immigrants when he was discussing the stuff coming in from Mexico.
Granted, he should have worded it much more tastefully, I agree.
edited 11th Nov '16 12:56:15 AM by LDragon2
![]()
All Mexicans, he made that clear.
Do you not understand the phrase "banned topic" or just think that we shouldn't respect the rules right now with all the chaos going on?
edited 11th Nov '16 12:54:06 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

I agree, and I think that's probably what most of us are saying. Internet Trumpists are a lost cause, but a lot of the people who voted for him don't even really spend much time on social media. They kind of live in a bubble, and if we want to change their minds we have to go to them. And like you said it's not easy. It's going to take a lot of manpower and funding, and yes people putting themselves out there instead of holing up in the cities where the Democratic base is already strong. But it's something that needs to be done.
Of course it might sound a little selfish and hypocritical for me to say because I don't expect to be one of those people, but nevertheless it's absolutely something that needs to be brought to the DNC's awareness.
edited 10th Nov '16 11:07:41 PM by AlleyOop