syd syside Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 This would have been the last white majority election. Say what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLA FUR BIS FLE Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Tyler Perry for President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoodie Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 i'm scared that we'll get a republican for eight years in 2016. In 2016 the white voter will have even less influence on the ballot. If the Reps are going to win in 2016, they won't lok like anything they currently are, imo. It'd look like the latino party, or something. I hope I'm not coming across as too racial, but the success of the reps in the future largely depends on them adapting fresh blood, so to speak. This would have been the last white majority election. it follows that a lot of hispanic people are very conservative due to the catholic religion. the only thing that keeps them voting liberal is immigration issues. if the republican party switches positions on that, liberals are (even more) fucked. i predict a republican president in 2016, possibly with a hispanic running mate. let's hope i'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 remember that if we have a republican for 8 years starting in 2016 and the patriot act, the ndaa and gitmo are still active. Say goodbye to civil rights forever, no fucking chance of getting those back. So now is the time to put as much pressure on Obama from his base, no excuses to carry water of keep the gloves on for the guy. Demand real change, and don't be satisfied with just pandering to gay marriage, demand he actually man the fuck up and federally mandate it. This is the ultimate test for all the hopefuls out there who claimed Obama will do all the 'real' change in term 2 because he has nothing to lose. Let's hope those faithful people were even remotely right, i'm not so hopeful but i will be patient and see how things unfold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweepstakes Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 i'm scared that we'll get a republican for eight years in 2016. In 2016 the white voter will have even less influence on the ballot. If the Reps are going to win in 2016, they won't lok like anything they currently are, imo. It'd look like the latino party, or something. I hope I'm not coming across as too racial, but the success of the reps in the future largely depends on them adapting fresh blood, so to speak. This would have been the last white majority election. it follows that a lot of hispanic people are very conservative due to the catholic religion. the only thing that keeps them voting liberal is immigration issues. if the republican party switches positions on that, liberals are (even more) fucked. i predict a republican president in 2016, possibly with a hispanic running mate. let's hope i'm wrong. Yeah, this is kind of what I'm thinking too. I could definitely see a transition to this given the current climate of the GOP. It would be great if religious folk could stop conflating individual morality with sensible, effective policy for the greater good. I guess frustration about that is the definition of social liberalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 the Republican party isn't christian or socially 'moral', just like the democratic party isn't intrinsically socially liberal or environmentally protective. Each side panders to who they perceive as their constituency to get votes. This is party of why i think it's sort of sad (but understandable) so many women and by proxy feminists get fear mongered into voting for a democrat because they fear their right to have an abortion will go away. I think the possibilities of this happening are extremely slim in this country, even if we do get even more right wing judges on the supreme court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Agreed, pretty much all progress needs to be driven on a local level conjoined with protests for electoral reform. It'll be slow, but I think we may be reaching an edge where internet accessibility and transparency makes omission of ideas/platforms/policies all the more obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweepstakes Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 I agree about party personnel themselves, but I was talking about voters. I've talked with plenty of people who are socially "moral", meaning they want certain things to become or remain illegal because they are "wrong", i.e. they disagree with them and therefore they believe no one should be allowed access to them. The voters dictate how the pandering goes and for lots of folks this is still a pretty easy button to push. Sucks for everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 re: compson true in part, but people just don't have the time or energy to actually give a shit about social movements or political change for the most part until a cycle of a few months out of every 4 years. IT's just the sad reality that people think (even when continuously proven wrong by statistics and history) that by electing a new president we will see anything more than an incremental shift in anything. All real social change comes from the bottom. People need to realize they have more power than just being a participant in the electoral system, until they do we'll be stuck in the same vacuous tokenistic cycle. The nice thing about the internet and access to more information is that it shows that the spectrum and diversity of opinions in the US is much wider than we are led to believe in each election and it will likely increase the understandable disillusionment people have in the 2 party system, the mount of money spent on campaigns and the essentially rigged electoral system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest A/D Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Warren 2016 Warren 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 re: compson true in part, but people just don't have the time or energy to actually give a shit about social movements or political change for the most part until a cycle of a few months out of every 4 years. IT's just the sad reality that people think (even when continuously proven wrong by statistics and history) that by electing a new president we will see anything more than an incremental shift in anything. All real social change comes from the bottom. People need to realize they have more power than just being a participant in the electoral system, until they do we'll be stuck in the same vacuous tokenistic cycle. The nice thing about the internet and access to more information is that it shows that the spectrum and diversity of opinions in the US is much wider than we are led to believe in each election and it will likely increase the understandable disillusionment people have in the 2 party system, the mount of money spent on campaigns and the essentially rigged electoral system. Agreed, but that doesn't mean that protests aren't happening. It's just become something a bit different, not sure if its better... certainly more convenient and ultimately spreads information faster (talking about the internet). Before the Internet the only way to randomly discuss stuff like this with strangers would be to protest/hold town halls etc... now we are connecting at any living second if we want to and are able to spread ideas. What's missing is organization but that will come. There's quite a lot of progress being made in state elections lately and I think that its only a matter of time before that level of cyber organization reaches a global scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweepstakes Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 re: compson true in part, but people just don't have the time or energy to actually give a shit about social movements or political change for the most part until a cycle of a few months out of every 4 years. IT's just the sad reality that people think (even when continuously proven wrong by statistics and history) that by electing a new president we will see anything more than an incremental shift in anything. All real social change comes from the bottom. People need to realize they have more power than just being a participant in the electoral system, until they do we'll be stuck in the same vacuous tokenistic cycle. The nice thing about the internet and access to more information is that it shows that the spectrum and diversity of opinions in the US is much wider than we are led to believe in each election and it will likely increase the understandable disillusionment people have in the 2 party system, the mount of money spent on campaigns and the essentially rigged electoral system. Agreed, but that doesn't mean that protests aren't happening. It's just become something a bit different, not sure if its better... certainly more convenient and ultimately spreads information faster (talking about the internet). Before the Internet the only way to randomly discuss stuff like this with strangers would be to protest/hold town halls etc... now we are connecting at any living second if we want to and are able to spread ideas. What's missing is organization but that will come. There's quite a lot of progress being made in state elections lately and I think that its only a matter of time before that level of cyber organization reaches a global scale. I think you guys are getting at something interesting but I don't see how this spontaneous organization will come about. Do you see any evidence of this yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 i dont think it will be spontaneous here is what Glenn Greenwald has to say about the election, and as cynical as he may seem to folks here he's 100% right. So the delirium of liberals this morning is understandable: the night could scarcely have gone better for them. By all rights, they should expect to be a more powerful force in Washington. But what are they going to get from it? Will they wield more political power? Will their political values and agenda command more respect? Unless the disempowering pattern into which they have voluntarily locked themselves changes, the answer to those questions is almost certainly "no".Consider the very first controversial issue Obama is likely to manage, even before the glow of his victory dims, literally within the next couple of weeks. It is widely expected - including by liberals - that Obama intends (again) to pursue a so-called "Grand Bargain" with the GOP: a deficit- and debt-cutting agreement whereby the GOP agrees to some very modest tax increases on the rich in exchange for substantial cuts to entitlement programs such as social security and Medicare, the crown legislative jewels of American liberalism. Indeed, Obama already sought in his first term to implement sizable cutsto those programs, but liberals were saved only by GOP recalcitrance to compromise on taxes. In light of their drubbing last night, they are likely to be marginally if not substantially more flexible, which means that such a deal is more possible than ever. In other words, the political leader in whose triumph liberals are today ecstatically basking is likely to target their most cherished government policies within a matter of weeks, even days. With their newly minted power, will they have any ability, or even will, to stop him? If history is any indication, this is how this "fight" will proceed: STEP ONE : Liberals will declare that cutting social security and Medicare benefits – including raising the eligibility age or introducing "means-testing" – are absolutely unacceptable, that they will never support any bill that does so no matter what other provisions it contains, that they will wage war on Democrats if they try. STEP TWO : As the deal gets negotiated and takes shape, progressive pundits in Washington, with Obama officials persuasively whispering in their ear, will begin to argue that the proposed cuts are really not that bad, that they are modest and acceptable, that they are even necessary to save the programs from greater cuts or even dismantlement. STEP THREE : Many progressives – ones who are not persuaded that these cuts are less than draconian or defensible on the merits – will nonetheless begin to view them with resignation and acquiescence on pragmatic grounds. Obama has no real choice, they will insist, because he must reach a deal with the crazy, evil GOP to save the economy from crippling harm, and the only way he can do so is by agreeing to entitlement cuts. It is a pragmatic necessity, they will insist, and anyone who refuses to support it is being a purist, unreasonably blind to political realities, recklessly willing to blow up Obama's second term before it even begins. STEP FOUR : The few liberal holdouts, who continue to vehemently oppose any bill that cuts social security and Medicare, will be isolated and marginalized, excluded from the key meetings where these matters are being negotiated, confined to a few MSNBC appearances where they explain their inconsequential opposition. STEP FIVE : Once a deal is announced, and everyone from Obama to Harry Reid and the DNC are behind it, any progressives still vocally angry about it and insisting on its defeat will be castigated as ideologues and purists, compared to the Tea Party for their refusal to compromise, and scorned (by compliant progressives) as fringe Far Left malcontents. STEP SIX : Once the deal is enacted with bipartisan support and Obama signs it in a ceremony, standing in front of his new Treasury Secretary, the supreme corporatist Erskine Bowles, where he touts the virtues of bipartisanship and making "tough choices", any progressives still complaining will be told that it is time to move on. Any who do not will be constantly reminded that there is an Extremely Important Election coming – the 2014 midterm – where it will be Absolutely Vital that Democrats hold onto the Senate and that they take over the House. Any progressive, still infuriated by cuts to social security and Medicare, who still refuses to get meekly in line behind the Party will be told that they are jeopardizing the Party's chances for winning that Vital Election and – as a result of their opposition - are helping Mitch McConnell take over control of the Senate and John Boehner retain control of the House. And so it goes. That is the standard pattern of self-disempowerment used by American liberals to render themselves impotent and powerless in Washington, not just on economic issues but the full panoply of political disputes, from ongoing militarism, military spending and war policies to civil liberties assaults, new cabinet appointments, immigration policy, and virtually everything else likely to arise in the second term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salvatorin Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoodie Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 I agree about party personnel themselves, but I was talking about voters. I've talked with plenty of people who are socially "moral", meaning they want certain things to become or remain illegal because they are "wrong", i.e. they disagree with them and therefore they believe no one should be allowed access to them. The voters dictate how the pandering goes and for lots of folks this is still a pretty easy button to push. Sucks for everyone else. an interesting thing to note is that people tend to hold more socially liberal positions when directly asked, but they tend to vote more conservatively. i learned this in my high school government textbook and, from what i've seen, it holds true. i know a lot of people who don't have a problem with abortion, homosexuality or drugs, yet they are staunch republicans. sorta boggles the mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweepstakes Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 I haven't heard that before but it does make sense. It is pretty weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plarkreluke Banloboh Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 6 billion dollars spent on ads explaining that something needs to be done about the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 i dont think it will be spontaneous here is what Glenn Greenwald has to say about the election, and as cynical as he may seem to folks here he's 100% right. So the delirium of liberals this morning is understandable: the night could scarcely have gone better for them. By all rights, they ... So if I understand his piece correct, Greenwald says Obama will try to make some compromise with the Reps in the next couple of weeks? And he's cynical because he shouldn't? And this is where I stop to take mr. Greenwald serious. The language of "no compromises" is the language of extremists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest theSun Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 I agree about party personnel themselves, but I was talking about voters. I've talked with plenty of people who are socially "moral", meaning they want certain things to become or remain illegal because they are "wrong", i.e. they disagree with them and therefore they believe no one should be allowed access to them. The voters dictate how the pandering goes and for lots of folks this is still a pretty easy button to push. Sucks for everyone else. an interesting thing to note is that people tend to hold more socially liberal positions when directly asked, but they tend to vote more conservatively. i learned this in my high school government textbook and, from what i've seen, it holds true. i know a lot of people who don't have a problem with abortion, homosexuality or drugs, yet they are staunch republicans. sorta boggles the mind. this is why i hate american politics. social positions should simply not be so relevant in politics. fiscal conservatism and social conservatism are not even comparable. of course, neither party is fiscally conservative these days so much of the political strategies focus on social issues. i'm extremely socially liberal, but i don't think we should be electing political leaders based on moral stances on gay marriage or abortion. i also don't think the fed should mandate social change, because america is too varied and diverse. forced, mandated social change can be counterproductive. however much of the political pandering and news emphasize social bullshit so social conservatives elect complete buffoons like michelle bachman and sarah palin, who are objectively unqualified for a position of political power. there is a growing demographic of young people that are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but i do not think this group is outspoken like the bible belt idiots or the gun nuts, so their power will be limited and slow to rise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr lopez Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 i dont think it will be spontaneous here is what Glenn Greenwald has to say about the election, and as cynical as he may seem to folks here he's 100% right. So the delirium of liberals this morning is understandable: the night could scarcely have gone better for them. By all rights, they should expect to be a more powerful force in Washington. But what are they going to get from it? Will they wield more political power? Will their political values and agenda command more respect? Unless the disempowering pattern into which they have voluntarily locked themselves changes, the answer to those questions is almost certainly "no".Consider the very first controversial issue Obama is likely to manage, even before the glow of his victory dims, literally within the next couple of weeks. It is widely expected - including by liberals - that Obama intends (again) to pursue a so-called "Grand Bargain" with the GOP: a deficit- and debt-cutting agreement whereby the GOP agrees to some very modest tax increases on the rich in exchange for substantial cuts to entitlement programs such as social security and Medicare, the crown legislative jewels of American liberalism. Indeed, Obama already sought in his first term to implement sizable cutsto those programs, but liberals were saved only by GOP recalcitrance to compromise on taxes. In light of their drubbing last night, they are likely to be marginally if not substantially more flexible, which means that such a deal is more possible than ever. In other words, the political leader in whose triumph liberals are today ecstatically basking is likely to target their most cherished government policies within a matter of weeks, even days. With their newly minted power, will they have any ability, or even will, to stop him? If history is any indication, this is how this "fight" will proceed: STEP ONE : Liberals will declare that cutting social security and Medicare benefits – including raising the eligibility age or introducing "means-testing" – are absolutely unacceptable, that they will never support any bill that does so no matter what other provisions it contains, that they will wage war on Democrats if they try. STEP TWO : As the deal gets negotiated and takes shape, progressive pundits in Washington, with Obama officials persuasively whispering in their ear, will begin to argue that the proposed cuts are really not that bad, that they are modest and acceptable, that they are even necessary to save the programs from greater cuts or even dismantlement. STEP THREE : Many progressives – ones who are not persuaded that these cuts are less than draconian or defensible on the merits – will nonetheless begin to view them with resignation and acquiescence on pragmatic grounds. Obama has no real choice, they will insist, because he must reach a deal with the crazy, evil GOP to save the economy from crippling harm, and the only way he can do so is by agreeing to entitlement cuts. It is a pragmatic necessity, they will insist, and anyone who refuses to support it is being a purist, unreasonably blind to political realities, recklessly willing to blow up Obama's second term before it even begins. STEP FOUR : The few liberal holdouts, who continue to vehemently oppose any bill that cuts social security and Medicare, will be isolated and marginalized, excluded from the key meetings where these matters are being negotiated, confined to a few MSNBC appearances where they explain their inconsequential opposition. STEP FIVE : Once a deal is announced, and everyone from Obama to Harry Reid and the DNC are behind it, any progressives still vocally angry about it and insisting on its defeat will be castigated as ideologues and purists, compared to the Tea Party for their refusal to compromise, and scorned (by compliant progressives) as fringe Far Left malcontents. STEP SIX : Once the deal is enacted with bipartisan support and Obama signs it in a ceremony, standing in front of his new Treasury Secretary, the supreme corporatist Erskine Bowles, where he touts the virtues of bipartisanship and making "tough choices", any progressives still complaining will be told that it is time to move on. Any who do not will be constantly reminded that there is an Extremely Important Election coming – the 2014 midterm – where it will be Absolutely Vital that Democrats hold onto the Senate and that they take over the House. Any progressive, still infuriated by cuts to social security and Medicare, who still refuses to get meekly in line behind the Party will be told that they are jeopardizing the Party's chances for winning that Vital Election and – as a result of their opposition - are helping Mitch McConnell take over control of the Senate and John Boehner retain control of the House. And so it goes. That is the standard pattern of self-disempowerment used by American liberals to render themselves impotent and powerless in Washington, not just on economic issues but the full panoply of political disputes, from ongoing militarism, military spending and war policies to civil liberties assaults, new cabinet appointments, immigration policy, and virtually everything else likely to arise in the second term. yep. greenwald is a boss no doubt about it. I could not fucking stand facebook the last two days, so hard for me to deal with my dearest friends being completely deluded and hopeless. unbearable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCONES TO DIE FOR Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 White people mourning Romney. http://whitepeoplemo...ney.tumblr.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baph Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 White people mourning Romney. http://whitepeoplemo...ney.tumblr.com/ lol, convenient mutual breakup timing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
data Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 lol, romneys team accidentally put up his victory website, someone managed to take a few screenshots before it was taken down. http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/11/07/romneys_transition_site.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 lol nsfw language http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78cpieCcYtM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patternoverlap Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 lol but also disturbing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.