Shroom Man 777 wrote:You're conflating the power of those who voted for Trump with the power of those who chose to say no to either of them, who in abstaining thus enabled Trump to win. One can tap into the "power" of those who sat out without bending over backwards for those who voted for Trump.
By reducing it into two sides, you're overlooking other crucial factors.
Those with the power to say no and make a change belongs to the swing states that did vote for Trump last year. My question is, how are you going to convince them to think otherwise and not make any form of concession?
1.) MLK never denounced the riots and has stated that he knew the riots and the potential of violence were necessary in order for the establishment to be willing to concede or compromise to the non-violent MLK. So it's much more complex than MLK or the Civil Rights movement just one-sidedly bending over backwards to those in power. They made the other side concede too.
And that's my point. They made the other side concede. MLK never denounced the riots, neither he did he actively support the riots.
2.) Funnily enough that period of time, WW1, also saw less-compromising movements succeed in overturning the establishment.
That are usually won by an actual military conflict.
Does it always have to be that way?
Have there been any other way? Have those in power ever concede ground without gaining some form of concession back?
I think you're mis-gauging the parameters here. I think a more radical approach would be workable than the compromising approach. The DNC's neutering of progressives, its incremental approach and its compromise with the neoliberal order of things is what allowed the populists to rise. They didn't lose because they were Too Radical. We saw the effects of a change-centered approach in 2008 and 2012.
And is there any supporting evidence that a more radical approach would work, espeically in the case of feminisim?
I said "That's because the democrat establishment didn't substantiate what they said or show what their candidate had... and because the democratic establishment's history of compromise, rather than its radical actions, were what made it look unpalatable to a considerable number of people who previously voted for Obama and who were galvanized by Bernie. That's not exclusive from calling out Trump and others for being fucks."
You said "And Hillary also lost the states that did vote for Obama, showing they hate Hilary far more than they hate what Trump will bring to the Presidency."
Which means Hillary was "unpalatable to a considerable number of people who previously voted for Obama and who were galvanized by Bernie" etc.
Anyway. You're conflating movements like feminism and BLM with Hillary and the DNC's failures.
I know the movements aren't the same. There are many liberal movements that did not support HIliary because of that. However, my point is that there are a large number of people that are simply not offended by Trump. To them sexist remarks are fine as long as he can promise them jobs and seeing less foreigners.
And those are separate from the omg meanie black lives matter omg meanie feminists. The DNC's failures include multiple dimensions.
It is seperate, but not entirely unconnected. See above.
What about the normcore "Bernie or bust" people? What about the people who just sat it out instead of supporting Trump? Since he got less votes than her in the first place!
Those normcore Bernie people still let Trump win and be President for 4 years. Yeah for their efforts while he implements policies that aren't helpful to many people. Put it this way, sexism from Trump was not enough
to galvanize them into voting for Hillary. They accepted a possiblity of Hiliary failing because they were not offended enough by Trump.
This is what I mean when I pointed out that some see Hillary and other DNC efforts to "reach across the aisle" (even in non-race non-gender matters) are futile, there will always be that GOP core that will always vote for the GOP. On the other hand, these efforts end up making Hillary and her "centrist" cohorts look like GOPlites and John McCain-y and end up just alienating or disillusioning other more progressive demographs who could've clinched the deal for the DNC.
Anyway, the DNC has been trying to appeal to the GOP base for forever!
What I am trying to say is that trying to solve gender and racial inequality have not been the primary concern for many people. There are not enough people being offended by the GOP to take actions against them.
My point is that the "GOP base" isn't only the demograph that can be tapped into. You've got a false dichotomy. I'm focusing on the potential anti-Trump anti-GOP voters whose numbers were turned off from voting for either one precisely because the DNC and Hillary are acting like GOPlites in trying to futilely bend-over and appeal to the GOP base...
Urgh. What I mean to say is, if it weren't for shitty US electoral college systems, the "oh we gotta swing these states, we gotta prioritize these delegate-rich states that have zero people with messaging that'll disillusion the more-populous progressive coastal areas" wouldn't be as big of an issue.
Thank you for repeating what I'm trying to say?
"What might be necessary for elections in the US, due to the way US elections are arranged, might not apply to the bigger conversation that also happens in places that, guess what, might kind of sort of possibly be not only in the USA."
Yes, US prominence in the global sociocultural conversation cannot be understated. But nonetheless. Some of the issues bothering the US are things that other parts of the world have gotten over and dealt with already.
And while US progress is important, that doesn't mean that people in other parts of the world can only make progress by adopting the strategies US progressives had to use to sway the voters in Assfuck, Arkansas in the name of affecting the electoral college.
Who said anything about everyone having to adopt the same strategies as the Americans. I'm saying having positive change occur within America would have far more ramification for the world as a whole than a less powerful nation. The entire western world could have achieved gender equality but it still won't be enough for the whole world as long as the US is behind them.
Simon_Jester wrote:As someone who's been observing this conversation for a bit-
You are very much failing to notice the difference between a setback and "the movement is doomed and is achieving nothing." Trumpolini's victory was one of the most profoundly narrow, circumstantial ones in the history of democracy. It doesn't represent a broad-based refutation of "the left" because it doesn't represent a broad-based anything, for the good and simple reason that it doesn't have a broad base. Voters did not turn out in droves to support Trump because of years of Internet rage of the "BAN THE ESS-JAY-DOUBLE-YOUS, THEIR CRITICISM OF ME MAKES ME FEEL UNSAFE!" He had about the same percentage support among the voting age public as Romney did, actually a percentage point lower, just distributed a little differently.
See above at what I said to Shroom.
ray245 wrote:At the same time, you're ignoring the voters of Obama that did vote for Trump. You know, the people who showed they are perfectly willing to accept Trump for what he is to "bring their jobs back". You're also ignoring the large group of women who also DID vote for Trump. These are facts we cannot ignore.What percentage of people voted for Obama, then Trump? How many were there? I want numbers. If the answer is something like "1% of the American population," and I bet it is... then that proves not a goddamn thing. There were people who voted for Romney, then Clinton, too. There were people who voted for Obama, then nobody, for nobody, then Clinton, for nobody, then Trump, for Romney, then nobody. There were all kinds of people.
We know from exit polls that 52% of white women did vote for Trump. 52% of white women who aren't affected by what Trump said. http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls
It takes time.
How long has it been since American women got the right to have abortion? Yet this is still something in danger of being taken away in 2017.
I'm imagining this as being like someone arguing in 1912 that the election of Woodrow Wilson (a profoundly racist man) means that black equality will never happen and that it's pointless to advocate for an end to segregation. Or that the only way to get enough allies to succeed was for blacks to refuse to allow themselves any form of recognition, anything, without first thanking the whites who so generously gave it to them.
Predictions along those lines turned out not to be true.
Look, I never said change isn't possible. I never said time cannot affect things. However, what I have been constantly saying is that changes with time are often a result of concessions being made. New generations are taught different things because society as a whole is willing to make change and concession.
We are always making concessions of some form in the push for a different world from the past, unless there is actually a war of some form.
Joun_Lord wrote:Apologies for butting my head in an existing conversation but I wanted to tackle this.
Trump winning shows three things. First it shows that groups like BLM, feminists, and other social movements have not failed but haven't won yet. It shows that there is still ugliness and bigotry in America despite some thinking it had disappeared but instead it just went underground. Trump did not win solely because of the racists or sexists (and I'd believe that they weren't even a majority of his supporters, more on that later) but he still won despite pandering to those fuckers. The fact the bigoted assholes like Dick Spencer are now back in the light I think makes the job of social movements easier. While I don't advocated smacking the fuckers around physically I do think they deserve a non-physical smackdown and its all that much easier when you aren't fighting against shadowy opponents hidden behind computer screens and in secret meetings.
Second it shows that some people care more about their own lives, jobs, and families then they do social issues. Kinda understandable in some ways even if you might not agree with it, things like bathroom rights and being allowed to sexually identify as an attack helicopter seems less important when you have no job, when you are on the public dole, when your infrastructure is crumbling, and your communities are rife with drugs and crime and drug crime. Trump unfortunately pandered to blue collar workers better then Hillary did despite being objectively worse for them because of him being a rich cunt who had never known hardship and opposition to public benefits and health care reform. Hillary just seemed to do everything in her power to fuck herself over when it came to appealing to the blue collar types which leads into the final point.
Hillary was a shite candidate that combined with the email bullshit and having about as much appeal as a dirty diaper to some people(outside of communities that get off on that shit....literally) she practically handed the election to Donnie. He appealed to some disenfranchised people better, he definitely appealed to desperate people better, he played the existing system better, any scandals rolled off him like water on a duck, and I'm fairly certain made a deal with the devil because if there is one thing to make me believe in the existence of hell its this fucker somehow winning. Progressives did their job, they went out and voted, they tried their damnedest to sell a progressive candidate despite Hillary herself stonewalling him, some supported her perhaps grudgingly after Bernie got burned, and attempted to protect their rights. Hillary didn't do her job, didn't sell herself as enough of a progressive candidate, didn't appeal to disenfranchised voters, shot herself in the foot when it came to desperate voters, just really seemed to just pile on the bullshit on top of her already under siege campaign.
The fact she lost doesn't mean progressives lost, it means the tired as fuck DNC lost, something they have become exceedingly efficient at. Social movements are still in the fight, energized and ready to fight even harder now. I'd argue Trump winning this election could be the first step towards progressives getting back on their feet and actually cold cocking regressive cunts back into the stone age they want to wallow in. Trump is such a massive tool he's going to fire up his opponents, going to get people normally not friendly to stop talking just because of a mutual hatred, get people scared and angry enough that they get up and do something beyond posting inane bullshit to their twitter feed. They saw they couldn't rely on people like Hillary to limp along drip feeding them treats to keep them in line but actually need to fight themselves, actually need to stand up themselves. If that momentum can carry along then Trump could well be the final nail in the coffin of mainstream bigotry.
Who dares win that fight I cannot say, my powers of premonition do not extend to that particular realm, but I can truthfully say right now those social groups and progressives have not failed.
That's what I am saying for a freaking long time. I'm saying there are way too many people who view social issues as a secondary concern. There are also those people that are well off that also thinks that social issue isn't going to bother them in their voting decisions. People did vote for Trump even when the economy is largely good for most Americans.
The Romulan Republic wrote:Perhaps. It may be that we have gotten somewhat off the original point, and into a larger, though still valid, argument.
All my points are related to Sophie Trudeau's initial comments.
Some of the most sweeping changes in American history have been enacted, shot down, or upheld by the courts, perhaps particularly when it comes to equality and civil liberties. Do not underestimate the power of the Judicial Branch. It is the guarantor of our Constitution, perhaps more than anything else.
But the supreme court also acts in conjunction with how other branches of government in order to enact changes. It's no point making abortion legal when people cannot get access to abortion clinics.
But its also about where the sympathies of the public lie. Trying to oppose the Republicans by making concessions to bigotry is not only unethical, but likely to fail, if the majority does not support such views. Especially since we'll never out-bigot the Republicans enough to win over the far Right base, even if we tried.
I think the sympathies towards feminism by a large segment of men lies in how the movement can articulate the role of men. Feminist that somehow wants to do away with all male allies or men are being shaped to be the main leaders of the movement. We have Trump acting as an walking advertisment that you can be an asshole to women and still get attractive women to marry them.
I thought I already mentioned how the loss to Trump was due, at least in part, to a backlash against perceived corruption and economic injustice, not just social justice issues. And how their was a problem with the individual candidates we ran?
Why not focus on those issues, the changes that address the Democratic Party's actual weaknesses without requiring us to throw women and minorities under the bus?
So you're calling social justice issues to be less of a concern? How is that actually going to help bring about social changes when politicans can win votes without bringing up social reforms?
A lot of those states voted for Obama. Twice. Clearly they didn't have a problem with Democrats, or black Democrats for that matter, being in the White House.
Why do you insist on treating this election as some sort of national repudiation of women and minorities, while refusing to adequately address the reasons why this is not the case?
Because they clearly have no problem with a misogynistic president? Put it this way, voting for a president candidate that is a feminist or Black does not mean they care about those social movements. They don't care if social justice is being achieved or not as long as they have the nice jobs on the table ( or in the case of the rich that voted for Trump, fewer immigrants to see every day).
They don't care if the President is Black. But neither do they care if Police targets more blacks than other ethnicities in the US. So if another Black President won the election while doing nothing to solve those social problems, he will still be reelected. Either that or people will switch to voting for another Trump if that person promise them to have enough jobs again.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.