What the frak was Hillary thinking?

[Romana]

I'm waiting for AOC or someone to use this description of them, which is prescient considering it was written in 1840s:

Communist Manifesto (Chapter 1)

Quite accurate also, but quoting from the Communist Manifesto world play right into the Republicans’ hands, so I’d hope they’d be smart enough to avoid doing that.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Heaven knows what they'd make of the British activist and writer Ash Sarkar

‘That’s when I lost my temper’: Ash Sarkar on her clash with Piers Morgan

The activist who confronted the Good Morning Britain presenter talks about her fears over Brexit, the future of communism in Britain and her passion for Spurs

www.theguardian.com

 

[Anya Ristow]

I just don't remember hearing the phrase 'Obama boys' or anything.
I don't doubt that he had his stans, most of the current Dem candidates have some.
But I don't remember them being as virulent as some of the ones these days (not singling out a candidate besides 45).

Social media has exploded since 2008, and Sanders probably has, by far, the largest online, unpaid group of boosters, other than Trump. Possibly including Trump. They are also younger than everyone else's, and at the risk of sounding ageist, they sometimes act it.

 

[Kara Spengler]

So, Hillary supports Biden, then?

No, donnie.

 

[Kara Spengler]

I suspect Hillary insulting Sanders hurts him less than her campaigning for him.

It probably will as he is running as anti-establishment. He does not even need to mention it in his requests for donations so can stay above the fray while benefiting from it. I am not concerned with that DINO badmouthing him, I am concerned about bad blood between him and Warren.

 

[Zaida Gearbox]

Well Hillary would know all about being not liked, wouldn't she? Hillary is hoping Dump Truck wins again because by the end of a second term the country would be in such a desperate state that we might think about electing her - mark my words. If Dump wins again - she'll be running again.

 

[Romana]

Heaven knows what they'd make of the British activist and writer Ash Sarkar

‘That’s when I lost my temper’: Ash Sarkar on her clash with Piers Morgan

The activist who confronted the Good Morning Britain presenter talks about her fears over Brexit, the future of communism in Britain and her passion for Spurs

www.theguardian.com

"Libertarian communism"? Who knows. There's are a fair amount of Rump-supporting Twitter accounts whose boss good day they're libertarian. This would shake them up, lol.
Piers Morgan, is, of course, a raging asshole.
I imagine right-wingers here would most likely accuse her of a terrorism agenda.

Well Hillary would know all about being not liked, wouldn't she? Hillary is hoping Dump Truck wins again because by the end of a second term the country would be in such a desperate state that we might think about electing her - mark my words. If Dump wins again - she'll be running again.

Let's not. I wouldn't last that long.

 

[Bea McMahon]

Seems to me the working class were sold out a long time ago. 'Supply-side economics' dates to the 70s. 'Trickle-down economics' to Reagan. So it didn't start with the Clintons.

Those are "Republican" policies. The Republicans were the party of business. The Democrats, at one time, were the party of labor.
This didn't start with Presidencies. Clinton and other young governors - like Michigan's Jim Blanchard - were moving in that direction.

That doesn't change my basic point. Clinton is a classic conservative and member of the establishment. Sanders is more of a threat to those people then Cheeto is.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Serious question -- in the event of Senator Sanders gaining the Democratic nomination and defeating Trump in November, which of his various domestic and economic policies would he actually be able to enact, assuming the membership of US Congress doesn't change dramatically, particularly bearing in mind that any attempt to effect drastic changes to the US economic structure would require making drastic changes, some of which would doubtless end up in the Supreme Court, to a great deal of tax and corporate law?

All that takes legislative time, after all, and would do even if the legislature were inclined to cooperate with him, which I doubt the Senate would be.

 

[Beebo Brink]

Serious question -- in the event of Senator Sanders gaining the Democratic nomination and defeating Trump in November, which of his various domestic and economic policies would he actually be able to enact....

This is exactly why I don't sweat the details of any candidate's proposed policies during the campaign. They're useful for a general understanding of their perspectives and priorities, but they're not blueprints for what will happen when they're in office; they can't be. In the end, I'll vote for "character" above policy. I'd like both to align with my values, but that's not always an option. For me, Obama falls in that category. He was too centrist for me in terms of policy, but I was won over to his presidency by my admiration for his character. He was the most presidential of any man in the White House since JFK.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

Seems to me the working class were sold out a long time ago. 'Supply-side economics' dates to the 70s. 'Trickle-down economics' to Reagan. So it didn't start with the Clintons.



I don't remember "Obama boys". Maybe because I wasn't on social media til Obama's second term.
Not doubting that Hillary said it. She seems to have a history of coming phases that backfire, like "basket of deplorables", which, while an accurate description of the most ardent 45 boosters, not only didn't trip her but gave them an extra identity to embrace.
I just don't remember hearing the phrase 'Obama boys' or anything.
I don't doubt that he had his stans, most of the current Dem candidates have some.
But I don't remember them being as virulent as some of the ones these days (not singling out a candidate besides 45).

Yeah, I don't remember "Obama boys" either. I love how she is called Granny by a certain Bernie supporter yet that same supporter squawks when people mention that they would prefer a much younger candidate than Bernie.

As far as the working class and labor, I think that support declined just as unions declined in this country. That came down to new and different types of jobs being created and NOT unionized while traditional unionized jobs were shipped overseas. It's kind of down to our own fault that we didn't organize in the newly created job categories. Republicans have done a fantastic job of demonizing those few who do still hold unionized jobs pitting those who do not against those who do, asking things like "Why should they have better benefits than you receive?" If it was up to Republicans we would all be making 25 cents/hr, working 80 hr weeks in unsafe conditions and working until we drop on the job. Trump's rollback of assorted safety regulations for the coal industry speaks well to their mindset even as they preach "We'll save your jobs". The mindset it NOT on the workers, but the factory/mine/company owners.

Reagan was by far and away the most anti-union. Anyone remember the aircraft controller strike? I wouldn't assign Clinton the blame for the decline of the working class. That goes more to the corporations that chose to use labor for 25 cents an hour in order to not have to pay American wages and even our own capitulation to that in the form of cheap consumer goods. Clinton DID fuck up big time in welfare reform and in increasing the prison industry complex. He sold out, not the middle class, but those at the lowest rungs economically. I don't know if it's because he still believed that Republicans could be negotiated with (a very faulty assumption) or if he genuinely believed in those bad reforms.

ETA: I've heard tell of union members voting for Trump and Bush before him and I'm thinking, "Have you lost your damn mind?"

 

[Aeon Jiminy]

Yeah, I don't remember "Obama boys" either. I love how she is called Granny by a certain Bernie supporter yet that same supporter squawks when people mention that they would prefer a much younger candidate than Bernie.

Tone Police Clarification: Just for the record, "Granny" was used in reference to Clinton's new focus on being a Grandmother and staying out of politics. I can say, without a doubt, when I think of Hillary Clinton I do not think of old and grandmother. Now, borrowing from your playbook, I don't remember "yet that same supporter squawks when people mention that they would prefer a much younger candidate than Bernie". Even if you source it, It's irrelevant. (This is a very handy tool, I like it. ). Why Calling Hillary Clinton 'Grandmother' Is Not A Smear - The National Memo

Hey, Obama boys: Back off already!

 

[Jolene Benoir]

Tone Police Clarification: Just for the record, "Granny" was used in reference to Clinton's new focus on being a Grandmother and staying out of politics. I can say, without a doubt, when I think of Hillary Clinton I do not think of old and grandmother. Now, borrowing from your playbook, I don't remember "yet that same supporter squawks when people mention that they would prefer a much younger candidate than Bernie". Even if you source it, It's irrelevant. (This is a very handy tool, I like it. ). Why Calling Hillary Clinton 'Grandmother' Is Not A Smear - The National Memo

Hey, Obama boys: Back off already!

Sure, you just called her granny to be oh so nice and refer to her status as a grandmother, because you respect her so much.

Fuck off clarification. You can fuck off. I probably wasn't clear in that. Let me be very clear now. You are a hypocrite who uses terms like granny for her while not doing so for your favorite old gramps and defending his age when others would prefer a younger candidate.. Again, fuck off.

 

[Aeon Jiminy]

Sure, you just called her granny to be oh so nice and refer to her status as a grandmother, because you respect her so much.

Fuck off clarification. You can fuck off. I probably wasn't clear in that. Let me be very clear now. You are a hypocrite who uses terms like granny for her while not doing so for your favorite old gramps and defending his age when others would prefer a younger candidate.. Again, fuck off.

You forgot to mention how Sanders's supporters are so rabid online.

 

[Cristalle]

Though we may not remember "Obama boys" does not mean it didn't happen. Point is, using sexism to delegitimize her opponent isn't a new trick. It might have been more effective against Obama if he wasn't black.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

You forgot to mention how Sanders's supporters are so rabid online.

You want me to mention that you are a rabid, venal, little steaming pile of dung? Consider it done.

 

[Isabeau]

Can I just say, on a side note that, personally, I do not mind at all someone pointing out someone's else' "tone" in an argument. Tone used does not necessarily mean you are wrong, but it CAN point out what a twat muffin you are being. I had been away for a while so wasn't up to date with some of the happenings, but I see now.

Everything is going fine in a thread, people disagree, yes, sometimes passionately, but they do so with a modicum of respect so we can all feel comfortable enough to continue the conversation. Then Aeon comes in, out of the blue, with his pretend reasonable-persona dripping with hidden scorn and ruins everything.

From that point on, anyone who may seem to agree with some of his posts because they have, for example, the same preference for a candidate, now feels attacked because the conversation has suddenly become an argument which will then turn into shit-flinging because everyone feels like the insults being thrown are meant for them. The people within this small community, all usually able to chat about emotionally charged subjects with respect, who all have different views, who are enjoying the debate/conversation either leave the discussion, or are sucked into this vortex of anger.

Does this seem about right?

In any case, for me at least, yes, tone is important. I'm not sure when or why it became irrelevant in a discussion. Unless of course, the people you are conversing with mean nothing to you.

 

[Aeon Jiminy]

Can I just say, on a side note that, personally, I do not mind at all someone pointing out someone's else' "tone" in an argument. Tone used does not necessarily mean you are wrong, but it CAN point out what a twat muffin you are being. I had been away for a while so wasn't up to date with some of the happenings, but I see now.

Everything is going fine in a thread, people disagree, yes, sometimes passionately, but they do so with a modicum of respect so we can all feel comfortable enough to continue the conversation. Then Aeon comes in, out of the blue, with his pretend reasonable-persona dripping with hidden scorn and ruins everything.

From that point on, anyone who may seem to agree with some of his posts because they have, for example, the same preference for a candidate, now feels attacked because the conversation has suddenly become an argument which will then turn into shit-flinging because everyone feels like the insults being thrown are meant for them. The people within this small community, all usually able to chat about emotionally charged subjects with respect, who all have different views, who are enjoying the debate/conversation either leave the discussion, or are sucked into this vortex of anger.

Does this seem about right?

In any case, for me at least, yes, tone is important. I'm not sure when or why it became irrelevant in a discussion. Unless of course, the people you are conversing with mean nothing to you.

I'm really giving what you wrote some thought. I have a question. "Then Aeon comes in, out of the blue, with his pretend reasonable-persona dripping with hidden scorn and ruins everything." Would you be specified at what point you are referring to? I'd like to understand where I initiated the degradation. Thank You.

 

[Anya Ristow]

I wouldn't assign Clinton the blame for the decline of the working class. That goes more to the corporations that chose to use labor for 25 cents an hour in order to not have to pay American wages and even our own capitulation to that in the form of cheap consumer goods. Clinton DID fuck up big time in welfare reform and in increasing the prison industry complex. He sold out, not the middle class, but those at the lowest rungs economically. I don't know if it's because he still believed that Republicans could be negotiated with (a very faulty assumption) or if he genuinely believed in those bad reforms.

Also credit to Clinton for Banking and media deregulation. And yes, he believes in those reforms. Any description of "third way" democrats features him prominently, often crediting him (incorrectly) with its formation. You'll also find video of both him and his wife at one time or another wanting to build a wallfencebarrier.

ETA: I've heard tell of union members voting for Trump and Bush before him and I'm thinking, "Have you lost your damn mind?"

Combating Trump's claims to be bringing jobs home or keeping them home would seem to be a simple matter of information organization. We get counter examples all the time, but they amount to nothing because individually they are forgettable. Someone needs to make probably has made a list.

Then, of course, there's his own crimebusiness organizations.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I wouldn't assign Clinton the blame for the decline of the working class. That goes more to the corporations that chose to use labor for 25 cents an hour in order to not have to pay American wages and even our own capitulation to that in the form of cheap consumer goods

But isn't that simply the way the capitalist system works? I mean, Marx and Engels discussed this at some length back in 1847

The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.

Communist Manifesto (Chapter 1)

(I've very little time for Communist politics but the Marxist intellectual tradition provides some very powerful analytical tools to help understand how capitalism works and how it creates the social reality in which we live).