Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

aidenmalecky

How have you changed since Election Results?

Recommended Posts

 

Wrong. We can't allow human rights to be infringed on some sort of economic excuse. Trampling the rights of "homo-sexuals" does nothing (NOT ONE THING) to advance the position of working people.

 

And wrecking the planet isn't a sustainable option. This is not an example of the "arrogance of the elitist left." but sound thinking.

 

Sad day when Trumpist values are in ascendancy on this sub-forum.

 

Bill

I agree! The folks who are hungry or didn't have enough opportunity when truth hits the rail do not care that much about those of us who are slightly different through zero fault of their own. To say they must is a huge problem in this world for sure! People can change if and when they understand the truth about biology and fairness.

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the term "neo-liberal."

 

It is another way of saying libertarian.

 

Bill

 

Clinton was the quintessential neo-liberal. Free trade (slave) treaties, regime change, military support for Middle East despots, total monetary empowerment top the banks and Wall Street, $200 million payoff for her betrayal of the middle class, an international slush fund run by her and her family from the basement of her house - in other words unbridled ambition and greed (as described by in a leaked Colin Powell email).

 

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/295939-powell-in-leaked-email-slams-bill-clinton-on-affairs-with-bimbos

 

A more disgusting candidate could not be found. So despicable that she even lost to Trump. I hope next time, her supporters are able to find someone that isn't a neo-liberal puppet of Wall Street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is you who are out of step with the modern definition of the term "Neo-Liberal". Today, the term is widely used in print and electronic media to mean Liberals who support the elites and probably want to be ones themselves. No one uses the term Neo Liberal to refer to Libertarians, anymore.

 

Only the lunatic leftist fringe misuses the term "neo-liberal" as a slur. It reveals a lack of education and ignorance of political science terminology that is well-established.

 

Makes those who use it sound like Ajamu Baraka-type nutters.

 

Bill

Clinton was the quintessential neo-liberal. Free trade (slave) treaties, regime change, military support for Middle East despots, total monetary empowerment top the banks and Wall Street, $200 million payoff for her betrayal of the middle class, an international slush fund run by her and her family from the basement of her house - in other words unbridled ambition and greed (as described by in a leaked Colin Powell email).

 

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/295939-powell-in-leaked-email-slams-bill-clinton-on-affairs-with-bimbos

 

A more disgusting candidate could not be found. So despicable that she even lost to Trump. I hope next time, her supporters are able to find someone that isn't a neo-liberal puppet of Wall Street.

 

Do you have a point beyond name calling and lies?

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only the lunatic leftist fringe misuses the term "neo-liberal" as a slur. It reveals a lack of education and ignorance of political science terminology that is well-established.

 

Makes those who use it sound like Ajamu Baraka-type nutters.

 

Bill

 

Do you have a point beyond name calling and lies?

 

Bill

Just trying to describe neo-liberalism for you by example. I think Colin Powell said it best: unbridled greed and ambition. Terse and to the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Democrats and liberals have a rhetorical commitment women, minorities, and LGBT people. They have not done enough for any of these groups.

 

After supporting the Civil Rights Acts in 1964 , 1965 , and 1968 Liberals and Democrats did nothing about economic inequality tied to race and class. While they have supported affirmative action used by the public and private sector. Most of them have allowed it to be rolled back in the Federal Courts and by voter referendums.

 

They supported Roe v. Wade in the 1970s and the ERA but with states rolling back abortion rights and the defeat of the ERA they haven't done enough to stop those trends or close the gender pay gap and prevent the feminization of poverty among single parent women.

 

There is no actual Federal Civil Rights statute that protects LGBT people in employment, housing, and public places.

 

To many white men both working class and educated any progress by these groups is a threat. Liberals and the Democratic Party should be for working people with equal rights for all. Otherwise we will fail trying to be the populist party only concerned with white men. We had better choose wisely or keep losing.

 

I agree. Democrats must do all they can for women, LGBT, and minorities. For instance: Glass ceiling must be removed. Marriage must become universal, regardless of sex and minorities must be given equal footing. These are huge tasks, now receding farther into the distance, after this last election.

 

I contend that the fundamental reason we, the Democrats lost so badly, is because we lost so much trust in the Rust Belt which is the region hit hardest by austerity, economic repression and upward transfer of wealth. It is the areas where standards of living dropped the most grievously, in the last 40 years that Democrats and Clinton lost the most ground to Trump and his regressives.

 

In order to gain back the trust of the people, the Democratic Party must pursue both social and economic justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is you who are out of step with the modern definition of the term "Neo-Liberal". Today, the term is widely used in print and electronic media to mean Liberals who support the elites and probably want to be ones themselves. No one uses the term Neo Liberal to refer to Libertarians, anymore.

I disagree with you bludog regarding the meaning of Neo-Liberal. To me it has to do with Wall Street and the Center left bending towards the conservative right in a disastrous way. A lot of it is penned in the Washington Post editorial sections these days by folks who pretend to understand economics but surely do not!

 

The Neo-Liberal does not much talk about economic subsidy given to large corporations in many ways which is written into law by corporate lobbyists who work a lot harder at making a ton of money after they leave Congress than they did when they were in it. And this is why the Democratic party lost a lot of hardworking peoples trust! They simply do not stand up for the people like they should! Multinational corporations, huge bureaucratic entities which are entitled to the nth score, survive and prosper by buying up smaller firms and the bottom line as we all are well aware of is called making the rich super rich.

 

So what do we do to make these huge beyond belief entities work for us? The Neo-Liberal, joins with the conservative to ask for a little bit here and little bit there - you know, to get elected and then get a nice cushy job after they leave offices. It's little wonder people are confused about all this. If those rich folk all leave we're all screwed seems to be the message. This has nothing to do with free markets, quite the opposite, they are all fixed markets, and yeah, the Neo-liberal is just as wrong as anyone on the ideological conservative side / no questions asked...

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Democrats must do all they can for women, LGBT, and minorities. For instance: Glass ceiling must be removed. Marriage must become universal, regardless of sex and minorities must be given equal footing. These are huge tasks, now receding farther into the distance, after this last election.

 

I contend that the fundamental reason we, the Democrats lost so badly, is because we lost so much trust in the Rust Belt which is the region hit hardest by austerity, economic repression and upward transfer of wealth. It is the areas where standards of living dropped the most grievously, in the last 40 years that Democrats and Clinton lost the most ground to Trump and his regressives.

 

In order to gain back the trust of the people, the Democratic Party must pursue both social and economic justice.

People can not achieve permanent social equality until they achieve economic equality. Well paying, secure jobs has to come first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with you bludog regarding the meaning of Neo-Liberal. To me it has to do with Wall Street and the Center left bending towards the conservative right in a disastrous way. A lot of it is penned in the Washington Post editorial sections these days by folks who pretend to understand economics but surely do not!

 

The Neo-Liberal does not much talk about economic subsidy given to large corporations in many ways which is written into law by corporate lobbyists who work a lot harder at making a ton of money after they leave Congress than they did when they were in it. And this is why the Democratic party lost a lot of hardworking peoples trust! They simply do not stand up for the people like they should! Multinational corporations, huge bureaucratic entities which are entitled to the nth score, survive and prosper by buying up smaller firms and the bottom line as we all are well aware of is called making the rich super rich.

 

So what do we do to make these huge beyond belief entities work for us? The Neo-Liberal, joins with the conservative to ask for a little bit here and little bit there - you know, to get elected and then get a nice cushy job after they leave offices. It's little wonder people are confused about all this. If those rich folk all leave we're all screwed seems to be the message. This has nothing to do with free markets, quite the opposite, they are all fixed markets, and yeah, the Neo-liberal is just as wrong as anyone on the ideological conservative side / no questions asked...

 

Peace!

 

I agree with this on all points. It looks to me like a different and more detailed version of what I said.

People can not achieve permanent social equality until they achieve economic equality. Well paying, secure jobs has to come first.

 

Achieving economic equality will be a long, hard fight. The Democrats cannot afford, nor is it morally desirable, to ignore social equality issues for all that time. And now we are forced to watch the Nation regress because of the greed of those in the Democratic Party who were on the take for moneyed interests. Maybe we will come to our senses and get rid of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anybody in congress that isn't a millionaire? Where does the idea come from that those people somehow represent the 99% of us out there. How come it takes a friggen billion to elect a president? We can argue all day about neoliberalism and any other ism. In the end it's the golden rule. Who has the gold makes the rules. As long as we are ok with that, nothing will change

 

Our best hope is for some other country to "liberate" us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How have I changed myself since the election??? First, and this is apparent if you knew me. I do not go to an extended family Thanksgiving dinner and talk about politics, but never have I. Why, because I love my family and I am not a jerk who comes in with his opinions and tries to push them or project that those who disagree with me are stupid dolts, which they aren't, even if I may have a dim opinion of their views of politics - which I might secretly think to myself are ill-informed.

 

Others come to Thanksgiving however with a red had that says Make America Great Again!!! I simply laugh, a nice beer is all I need to make America Great Again, I say, patting them on the back. Man oh man, the Detroit Lions almost blew it again but didn't. Whoa, see, I turn the tables on that. I'm a man of the family a fellow who is thankful that I was invited to a gorgeous table setting and a meal that took a lot of hard work to put together, and on top of that, damn it, I love these people and time on this Earth is too short.

 

No family member wants a lecture. I stay fun and work harder. I will look more to the center of my own town and all the people I can help. I will also watch less of the soap opera that is CABLE news and read print more.

 

I was thinking about math a bit the other day. It's been a while since I was in college and I have a fourteen year old daughter who happens to be gifted in math - it's hard, she's surpassed me already. She wants to be an engineer and work at JPL. Most of her short life, she's loved astronomy and is self taught big time. She's always been the top at her class in math, but guess what happens if you get an advanced mathematics degree from a top university these days???

 

Well, you get offered a big time job working for Wall Street where they pay astronomical sums. But no not her. She was so much into Bernie Sanders, and not because anything I've said.

 

What will I do, how have I changed. I was talking to a physician friend of mine the other day and the discussion had to do with treating children who have diseases or terrible accidents. My friend suggested and I absolutely agree that it's true, children are by far much more resilient than adults.

 

So, I will stay young. That is hard to do but that's my new composure in life now. I mean it, I will work harder to stand resilient to all the nonsense and remain ever-so calm. And yeah, try to better myself by helping out with charitable endeavors that involve my time.

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anybody in congress that isn't a millionaire? Where does the idea come from that those people somehow represent the 99% of us out there. How come it takes a friggen billion to elect a president? We can argue all day about neoliberalism and any other ism. In the end it's the golden rule. Who has the gold makes the rules. As long as we are ok with that, nothing will change

 

Our best hope is for some other country to "liberate" us

I remember not too long ago, it was discovered and publisized by some that it was legal for member of congress to invest in the stock market based upon insider information. If a member of congress is on a committee that funds some corporation to do something, that congressman is allowed to purchase that stock, knowing the stock price will rise based on the money coming in. People were outraged, and congress made it illegal for congressmen to so invest. After several months, and congress telling the American people that this loophole has been shut, they reauthorized congressmen to buy and sell based on insider information. Anyway, that's the way I heard it.

 

So if you are a congressman and not rich, you are simply not using the tools provided to you by the laws of America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People can not achieve permanent social equality until they achieve economic equality. Well paying, secure jobs has to come first.

 

I disagree we have to do both at the same time. Here's why I say that :

 

1.The New Deal under Roosevelt did tame capitalism with regulations and a basic welfare state. However it's programs especially in the South were discriminatory keeping large numbers of blacks out of public works jobs in order to keep them beneath whites and maintain segregation. It did nothing about racial discrimination in employment in the urban north where employers and unions both kept the vast majority of blacks out of good paying factory jobs. Instead blacks were most likely to be unemployed, underemployed, or working in the lowest paying unskilled jobs.

 

2. Blacks did not get government loans or private loans to buy homes like whites did after the Second World War so we lag behind working and middle class whites in the wealth creation that comes from homeownership. Things didn't change much until the sixties and seventies because of the 1968 Fair Housing Act and we are still far behind.

 

3. Breaking up Wall Street Banks and Investment firms along with fair trade can make the economy more prosperous but if a woman is paid less than a man or kept out of a better paying job because of the glass ceiling she doesn't benefit. She and possibly her children will have a lower living standard or even be poor.

 

4. Think about gay people who want to marry. They want the security that comes form sharing money and benefits. Take that away in the name of opposition to LGBT people and they suffer the burdens of both economic inequality and homophobia. Think about the states and localities where LGBT face employment bias how will they benefit from a purely class agenda ? They won't.

 

Liberalism and the Radical left have always approached economic issues in a way that gives the most benefits to white working men. Getting their support and keeping it to either reform capitalism ( liberalism ) or achieve socialism ( the radical left ) has too often involved putting up with racism, sexism, and homophobia.

 

I want all working people to benefit equally from a reformed capitalism with shared prosperity for workers and wealthy owners. But doing things your way will only benefit working white people. And they can't have it all at the expense of others. They have struggle together with others so we all can be free and prosperous. If they only care about lost factory jobs in their communities and killing NAFTA and TPP that's not enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minorities need to form their own party(s) and sieze control of their own political and economic lives. No chance that the Elite 1% and those who benefit from crony capitalism (which number in the millions) will ever give minorities an even break. Time to fracture the system of the Elites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How have you changed since Election Results?

 

I think an even more meaningful question will be 'How have you changed two months into the Trump administration?' Because Trump is so unpredictable and inconsistent, there is no real consensus on what he will do. Everyone has a best guess, of course.

 

In the morning, the day after the election I thought 'How did it come to this'? I felt a sense of unease and uncertainty. Now, with a little perspective, I feel encouraged that Trump has walked back many of his more extreme campaign promises. But deeply discouraged at many of his cabinet picks. I feel in limbo about how bad it will really be.

 

I am waiting until after the inauguration, when events will start to play out, in earnest. Then we will know what we are up against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think an even more meaningful question will be 'How have you changed two months into the Trump administration?' Because Trump is so unpredictable and inconsistent, there is no real consensus on what he will do. Everyone has a best guess, of course.

 

In the morning, the day after the election I thought 'How did it come to this'? I felt a sense of unease and uncertainty. Now, with a little perspective, I feel encouraged that Trump has walked back many of his more extreme campaign promises. But deeply discouraged at many of his cabinet picks. I feel in limbo about how bad it will really be.

 

I am waiting until after the inauguration, when events will start to play out, in earnest. Then we will know what we are up against.

Seriously, could you be in the same room with Trump for half an hour and remain civil? Everything about the man is repulsive. He is dreck. No redeemable human quality whatsoever. His politics will refect that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said Zaro. Everyone has a best guess. How bad it will really be remains to be seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the world is different now. It's a more frightening world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree. Democrats must do all they can for women, LGBT, and minorities. For instance: Glass ceiling must be removed. Marriage must become universal, regardless of sex and minorities must be given equal footing. These are huge tasks, now receding farther into the distance, after this last election.

 

I contend that the fundamental reason we, the Democrats lost so badly, is because we lost so much trust in the Rust Belt which is the region hit hardest by austerity, economic repression and upward transfer of wealth. It is the areas where standards of living dropped the most grievously, in the last 40 years that Democrats and Clinton lost the most ground to Trump and his regressives.

 

In order to gain back the trust of the people, the Democratic Party must pursue both social and economic justice.

I agree with Bludog on every one of these points.

 

I have never understood what is meant by the term "Neo-Liberal". It seems to be far more confusing than NeoCon, and the definitions are varied and in opposition to one another.

 

The possibility that this country would invade us and teach us how to run this place is nonexistent. Only the Canadians are qualified and they are peaceful people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still just don't understand the idea of voting for Trump for economic reasons. Ending social security, ending medicare, shutting down public education, reducing wages of Americans so that "we" can compete with the lowest wage countries in the world are not suggestions for improving the middle class. Rebuilding the infrastructure seems to mean building a wall between the US and other places, like Mexico (A Canada wall?) While there might be a few jobs during the time it is build, it will have no long term benefit to anyone.

 

So why would anyone vote for Trump for economic reasons? I see no reason, and if no one can provide any, I suggest the only reason to vote for Trump is for racist reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still just don't understand the idea of voting for Trump for economic reasons. Ending social security, ending medicare, shutting down public education, reducing wages of Americans so that "we" can compete with the lowest wage countries in the world are not suggestions for improving the middle class. Rebuilding the infrastructure seems to mean building a wall between the US and other places, like Mexico (A Canada wall?) While there might be a few jobs during the time it is build, it will have no long term benefit to anyone.

 

So why would anyone vote for Trump for economic reasons? I see no reason, and if no one can provide any, I suggest the only reason to vote for Trump is for racist reasons.

Maybe because they are in desperate economic straits? Now, why is it that such a simple and obvious answer is beyond the comprehension of some people. Lack of empathy? Lack of worldly experience? Maybe such people just don't care? I don't know.

 

Personally, I didn't vote for Clinton because she enjoys creating wars in the Middle East that are catastrophic for millions of people. But then again, I care about the plight of the millions of poor souls in the Middle East who had the unfortunate experience of being bombed by some of those $tens of billions of armaments sold to Middle East despots by Obama and Clinton. Maybe I'm too soft?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I like Elizabeth Warren. I wish she was the VP pick this year, and I'd happily support her run if she seeks the office in 2020.

 

Bernie Sanders isn't a liberal; he's a socialist (by his own self-definition).

 

Bill

Ermm... sorry, but being a socialist does not preclude being a liberal. That's a false dichotomy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all my opinion from observations around me in a very conservative place.

I'm trying harder to understand. I saw no way that Trump could win the Republican nomination. I saw no possibility that he could avoid a complete blowout loss in the general election. Who are these people who voted for him? Why don't I understand them? I tend to pride myself on being able to see both sides of an argument, even if I clearly favor one or the other. But, I really don't see how so many people could vote for Trump.

 

My response is an attempt to fill in the gaps in my understanding. I won't accomplish that by only talking to people who voted for Clinton. Progressives probably aren't going to be able to explain it to me. Even though I live in a red state, my workplace is apolitical. Those of my friends who discuss politics with me are just as lost as I am as to how this could have happened. There are no Trump signs in my neighbors' yards. I don't see Trump bumper stickers. So, I'm missing something. Ii don't understand how 60 million voters can want Donald Trump to be their President. I hope to find out. At present, I'm stumped.

 

Maybe I can help you out a little bit, I can not explain how he won the primary for you because I did not support him but for the election, many people decided that he was better than Hillary Clinton. Especially shit like Hillary's email thing where the data coming out proves she has broken the law and her being a person in power she doesn't get punished. Most presidents have some form of experience in a political position before taking office and Donald Trump does not. In reality, I think that a lot of the votes were people choosing the more unknown (because we don't know his true viewpoints) over Hillary Clinton.

 

I am interested in what you think about this option and I am sorry for not getting evidence and such but it is 2:27 AM my time and I have school tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all my opinion from observations around me in a very conservative place.

 

Maybe I can help you out a little bit, I can not explain how he won the primary for you because I did not support him but for the election, many people decided that he was better than Hillary Clinton. Especially shit like Hillary's email thing where the data coming out proves she has broken the law and her being a person in power she doesn't get punished. Most presidents have some form of experience in a political position before taking office and Donald Trump does not. In reality, I think that a lot of the votes were people choosing the more unknown (because we don't know his true viewpoints) over Hillary Clinton.

 

I am interested in what you think about this option and I am sorry for not getting evidence and such but it is 2:27 AM my time and I have school tomorrow.

Hillary was on the wrong side of the class war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe because they are in desperate economic straits? Now, why is it that such a simple and obvious answer is beyond the comprehension of some people. Lack of empathy? Lack of worldly experience? Maybe such people just don't care? I don't know.

 

Personally, I didn't vote for Clinton because she enjoys creating wars in the Middle East that are catastrophic for millions of people. But then again, I care about the plight of the millions of poor souls in the Middle East who had the unfortunate experience of being bombed by some of those $tens of billions of armaments sold to Middle East despots by Obama and Clinton. Maybe I'm too soft?

??? So you are suggesting that when people are in desperate economic straits they vote to be robbed? How does that make sense? If you continue to be robbed, you would vote for the robberies to stop, not increase. Do you really see any way that Trump would ease the destruction of those who work? He has openly stated he will work to reduce American wages so that the US can compete with other nations, like Vietnam. Wages there are about 65 cents per hour. That implies Trump would push for an average salary for Americans of 50 cents per hour. How is that going to help those who need livable wages? Why would someone earning way more than min wage, yet getting min wage want it further reduced?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...