2020 US Election (Part One)

Status
Not open for further replies.
How is endlessly rehashing Hillary Clinton's votes in 2003 at all relevant for the 2020 election?
 
History matters?

The American Democrats must be the most inept political entity in the world. They have de facto one competitor for power, the Republicans and Trump. The republicans have the rather up-hill and thankless task of raising +50% of the effective vote by serving 1 % of the constituents with their legislation. That is no mean feat to pull off. And they do it by appealing to the fringe parts of the electorate on populist matters of fact like wars, guns, Immigration, abortion, lgbt and race. Almost all of the fights are about personal security and identity as an American citizen. So naturally the Democrats lacking any kind of genuine agenda themselves agree to dance. And dance terribly. Americans don’t know who to believe anymore and they have the Democrats to thank for it.

The US took a long-term detrimental turn for the worse when the democrats in a fit of national capitalist hubris abandoned the working class roughly 50 years ago. All of a sudden keeping blue collar Americans socially and democratically equal to white collar Americans was increasingly out of policy. Why become a mechanic or welder when you could be a millionaire or president – are you stupid or just inadequate? How un-American. Unions were demonised as both dangerously strong criminal and at the same time touted as for the weak and those who could not hack it in the ever expanding and magically providing market: Losers, rebels, thinkers, whoever; lost their representation in national politics. Somehow sales and marketing offered better positions and progression than production or development. Not because they provided value but because they were the same people. They chose to get ahead and trample the rest. They, even by contemporary American Democratic Party standards, are smart. Hillary is still, however unfair you find it, the last figurehead of this shower of …. clown parade.
 
Will Rodgers often said, I'm not a member of an organized political party. I'm a Democrat." That all changed not long before Will died, when FDR reforged the party in his own image. The fragmentation we are seeing now is the party returning to its roots. Unfortunately for the next few elections, Trump stole one of the big Democratic constituencies--blue collar workers. Democrats have become the party of elites and a Republican is the hero of the working man. Strange times.

J
 
Trump stole one of the big Democratic constituencies--blue collar workers. Democrats have become the party of elites and a Republican is the hero of the working man. Strange times.
white "working man", don't forget the "white" part... its a pretty important... lets call it "nuance" of Trump's appeal
 
It's like that in part. And it's not like that in part. Unless it's a coincidence that "white" while simultaneously existing and not existing, like some weird Schroedinger's nightmare, is also both hispanic and not hispanic. Mattering more on geography and economic circle than either blood or income.
 
Quote the article, Truthy.

No, it doesn't work like that.

Does that mean you didn't hold her responsible for voting to invade Iraq but asking why is a straw man?

Probably the ones chanting "blood and soil"

Where on the list of attendees was the 'blood and soil' faction? Its been argued neo-Nazis were the bulk of the protesters the day of the brawl and that list shows the majority were constitutionalists and militia.

Well then Trump said I guess so when asked if he supported the invasion of Iraq which is directly opposite to the position of being against the Invasion of Iraq. Trump also praised G.W.Bush for doing a good job which again is in support for the actions of the President in invading Iraq both are also statements for war

You see thats the problem with cherry picking one of Trump statements which are contradicted by hes other statements. Just like you have with Clinton, its clear she was hedging her bets in such a way she could either claim credit or walk away. Now it is true she and Bill are both viewed quite rightly as hawks having been involved with both US intervention in Somalia and Kosovo.

The point is, Trump supported the Iraq invasion initially. You can argue it was luckwarm, or he hedged hes bets but you cannot say he was against it.

Didn't you just pick one of Trump's contradictory statements?

"we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know<....> I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned."

That was less than 2 months before the war. His "I guess so" more than 4 months earlier had become no.

How is endlessly rehashing Hillary Clinton's votes in 2003 at all relevant for the 2020 election?

Democrats are criticizing Trump's foreign policy, that makes the records of both relevant for 2020
 
Your focus seems to be Hillary and she isn't running, so not really relevant anymore.
 
Your focus seems to be Hillary and she isn't running, so not really relevant anymore.

I predict that the right will still be attacking her decades after she is dead.
 
^See Berzerker's latest post.
 
I meant about his criticising HRC after her death.
 
I know, I'm saying that logic can be extended indefinitely including after her death.
 
the 2154 Republican campaign slogan: Her Emails!
 
white "working man", don't forget the "white" part... its a pretty important... lets call it "nuance" of Trump's appeal
Why is race important particularly?

Trump is also doing better in minority populations than previous Republicans, so I do not understand the reason for making a distinction. The common smear that he promotes white nationalism is simply mud slinging. He promotes nationalism. You are calling race a nuance of his appeal. I am calling BS. His appeal is equal treatment, good economy, jobs and national pride. No race card necessary.

J
 
Why is race important particularly?

Because race proved critical in the election?

White voters polarized around education levels
In 2012, college graduates (50/48 Obama/Romney) and nongraduates (51/47 Obama/Romney) voted similarly, with the Republican tilt of whites without degrees (typically shorthanded as “white working class”) offset by the fact that the noncollege population is disproportionately black and Latino.

By 2016 that had changed. Clinton carried college graduates 52 to 42 while losing nongraduates 44 to 51.

graduate.png

The working-class population is still disproportionately black and Latino, so the switch in the overall result was driven by a high level of educational polarization among whites. Clinton nearly tied Trump with white college graduates 45 to 58 while getting slaughtered with nongraduates 29 to 66.

Trump won the white working class and that's how he won the election.


I predict that the right will still be attacking her decades after she is dead.

Nah, they're already on to AOC.
 
So you found an instance of Fox not praising Trump in 2017. If I looked, how many do you think I could find where they not only support him, but also repeat his lies? I'm guessing 520 in 2017 and 2018. (That's 5 days a week for two years.)

Hmm... If I find an instance of Rachel Maddow saying something nice about Trump, does that mean she is not out to end his presidency?
Like I said, and you quoted, this was on-subject. Charlottesville came up presumably because of Joe Biden's notion of announcing his 2020 candidacy there. I looked up Fox's reaction to Trump's statements about the rally in 2017, and this was the result frontloaded by foxnews. A long, strident condemnation from the newsroom. If you'd like, when a different subject comes up you can start a fresh diatribe about how they are a mouthpiece for the administration and get trounced again.

@El_Machinae points out that the newsroom is different from the commentators. In fairness to what you said, we can look at the commentator lineups and easily draw the conclusion that each network, taken as a whole, is biased. The newsrooms are supposed to focus on reporting, but...


The republicans have the rather up-hill and thankless task of raising +50% of the effective vote by serving 1 % of the constituents with their legislation.
When it comes to voting in national elections, if I cared about handouts I'd examine the Democrat candidate pool for who's offering the most. Currently on the offer is student loan erasure, free basic income, free medicare, free college, free citizenship. And the standard package on the boilerplate: free food, free monthly checks, free housing, free phones, free needles, free schools, free retirement money. I care about Western civilization instead, so I pass the Democrats by in favor of issues you have appropriately tied to "identity as an American citizen." The odd thing is that liberals do not often vote for whoever promises the most handouts, either, but they seem to expect everyone else does.
 
Your focus seems to be Hillary and she isn't running, so not really relevant anymore.

Its relevant if her supporters insist on criticizing other people... But we can focus on Biden, he voted to invade Iraq too and it doesn't appear he objected to Libya and Syria. Throw in his role in the mass incarceration of Americans over the last few decades and Trump's First Step bill freeing some of them and it'll be fun watching Democrats lecture the rest of us about the clear moral choice like they did with Hillary.

I predict that the right will still be attacking her decades after she is dead.

Some people have earned it

the 2154 Republican campaign slogan: Her Emails!

No, in 2154 people will be trashing her because the terrorist who just blew up a bunch of people was a former Syrian or Libyan child refugee.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom