Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? Bernie Sanders wants to know who owns America?
#21981
Posted 2024-October-01, 13:34
I was simply saying "when they're talking about 'Americans', and don't qualify that word with an adjective, they're talking about you (and me). If you're feeling like they are discussing 'everybody but you' (and me), try listening with that in mind and maybe you will see it more." And the *definition* of "these people are considered 'X', everyone else is 'qualified-X' that get handled specially (or ignored unless mentioned specifically or...) is "systemic behaviour". We are treated as "normal", and everything caters to "normal", and doesn't pay attention to "outliers" unless somebody specifically points it out.
These days, the Democrats are realizing that their opponents have absolutely abandoned people who are not "normal", but since they haven't specifically paid attention to them either, they're not catering to the outliers at all; and the outliers notice *and don't vote* because there's nobody paying attention to them. There's a huge "untapped" constituency out there, that are natural Democrats (frankly, for lack of an alternative) who are currently in the "nobody's talking to me, so it doesn't matter who I vote for or even if I vote at all, I'll just be ignored" world. And these people are *not* in danger of going R if they can be turned politically active, so it's a "win-win". It's certainly easier than going for the "traditional undecided" voter - the "normal person" who is right of the Democrats and left of the Republicans. Especially this year, when most of them are actually "republican right, but can't stand/don't trust their leader" - in order to get them, they would have to abandon their base (and, coincidentally, show the "not normals" (and progressives, and actual socialists, and...) that yes, their concerns really aren't important, if some "normal" people can be converted from U to D).
So, they've made a concerted effort to do so (in typical soft-shoe, pussy-footing, "we can't afford to take a stand" D fashion, except for abortion). They've also - for all the wrong reasons, but still - finally broken away from the Boomer Generation control of the party (who look a lot like "65+, white, male, married-so-probably-straight" and who put forward the "safest" candidate last time. Just a coincidence that it looked like them, yeah?) and dropped it down to, well, you know, not "young", not "middle-aged" even, but at least "not collecting Social Security".
And, in a world where it has been proven that "settled" rights of women are dead or in danger, and protections against (overt, proud, public) discrimination by race, sexual orientation, and more are very much as "settled" as Roe, they've put a multi-racial (including black) woman as point, with a pretty "normal" male in second(!) place (a former union man! with a family that was only possible because of some of those "settled" rights! Part of whom are also in at least one of those categories that are in danger of no longer being "settled"!) And they're opening up the conversation to an even younger demographic, and focussing on policies that might speak to those "D or don't vote" Americans. A bit, at least.
And it sounds to "normal" Ds like they're ignoring us (do remember, I am sort of in this category, but I'm younger than the VP, and I am not American, and I vote NDP unless I voting "anti-C" is more important. And while *I* am male, cis, straight and (nominally, if currently non-practising) Christian, my family and friends are definitely not. So, I "hear" them talking to "me") because, you know, they're centering "not-us" almost half the time. I haven't looked, but I bet it's about 30% (okay, probably more, because they are *really* hitting the "abortion is a wedge issue". Because it [-]ing *is*. Women who are worried that might not have voted will because of it, women who voted R because that's what they do may change (if not for themselves, then for their daughters), even NRA-Republicans who aren't the anti-choice hardcore (or were okay with campaigning anti-choice when it was "settled" and therefore not really in danger of going away) might find that their fears of where the people who caught the car will go (no-fault divorce, birth control (even when provided for non-sexual reasons), lack of GYN services for non-pregnancy issues because all the OBGYNs have moved or been scared of lawsuits into less effective medicine, ...) along with the One At The Top (or the Men Behind The Curtain) push them, just this once.
And frankly, it's about time. If you are specifically concerned that it will hurt the Ds that people like you (but not you) don't hear themselves centred (even though they still are, as "no-adjective-Americans") I agree you have a point. But White Males already vote 15-20% R > D, and Old Males 5+% (in 2022, according to Pew, 14%. But Midterms are different) and Older Whites are more committed voters (both to a party, and to vote). There just isn't much "there" there to reach. Sure, there's some "there" to *keep*, and they should try, but again, Older Whites are more committed voters. They'll vote even if they aren't talked to as much, because that's what they do. And they'll vote D if they traditionally voted D, because that's what they do.
#21983
Posted 2024-October-01, 15:15
kenberg, on 2024-September-29, 10:02, said:
To be fair, you grew up in the midwest, immigrants probably weren't something that affected your life in any significant way. Or civil rights for black people, either, I suspect. If you'd grown up in Brooklyn or Chicago, your family probably would have had a very different viewpoint. The immigrants were right there, in your face. Watch "West Side Story" for a very simplified idea of what it was like -- "they" are invading "our" turf.
While it wasn't the same level of problem, Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis were viewed by many similarly to the refugees at our southern border now.
I don't think there's been much of a post-WWII refugee crisis until the last few decades, as conditions in South America degraded. There's been lots of illegal immigration for a long time, but since the farm economy depended on their cheep labor it was rarely considered a "crisis" unless a politician needed to make it one.
#21984
Posted 2024-October-01, 16:01
barmar, on 2024-October-01, 15:15, said:
While it wasn't the same level of problem, Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis were viewed by many similarly to the refugees at our southern border now.
I don't think there's been much of a post-WWII refugee crisis until the last few decades, as conditions in South America degraded. There's been lots of illegal immigration for a long time, but since the farm economy depended on their cheep labor it was rarely considered a "crisis" unless a politician needed to make it one.
Edited slightly after dinner.
In a stramge way you are right that immigration did not affect me. I say strange, because my (adoptive) father was an immigrant. But in day-to-day living, it played no obvious role. His early life was very difficult. His mother died not long after he wasborn, when he was 5 his father but him and his 9 year old brother in some type of care and he, the father, immigrated tothe USA. When my father was 10, he and his brother got on a ship, went threough Ellis Island, and joioned ther father somewhere in Wisconsin. Two years later their father died. The older brother watched over my father until he finished eighth grade and then my father was on his own. My main regret, I can hardly say complaont, is that that period was so awful for him he simply refused to say any mopre about any of it other than what I have said above. But I think it is safe to say that when my mother married him her family would have approved of her marriage to a responsible hard working guy, they wouold not have given a thought to the fact that he was an immigrant who did not even know which country he was born in. So yeah, immigration did not affect me. It was history, but not history we spoke of.
My childhood frineds were White. It is not quite correct to say I did not know anyone who was not White, but it is close to true. I knew a Japanese girl well enough that she made it pretty clear that If I asked her out she would be saying yes. Japamese was fine. I sasw no problem, but she was pretty forward, I was a bit shy, she scared me.
here was a kid from Latvia, he and his family came as Displaced persons after WW II.
In South Saint Paul there was a heavily Mexican area, I sometimes went there for a meal, and I bought a few records with Mexican music to help me with my Spanish class.
But right, immigrants were an occasional thinng.
College, at the University of Minnesota, broadened my experience at least somewhat.
#21985
Posted 2024-October-02, 08:16
Oh. Of course I do not want Vance antwhere near that office. Or any other office.
Yuk
#21986
Posted 2024-October-02, 13:56
kenberg, on 2024-October-02, 08:16, said:
Oh. Of course I do not want Vance antwhere near that office. Or any other office.
Yuk
I don't think FDR is available.
#21987
Posted 2024-October-02, 18:46
mycroft, on 2024-October-01, 13:34, said:
Exactly. I had a long-time bridge partner (I loved him like a brother) who told me that his grandfather picked him up from school on his 18th birthday, drove him to the county registrar's office, marched him in and told the registrar, "He wants to register to vote..."As a Democrat". And he did. Lifelong. Well, I do remember him telling me that he didn't vote for Jimmy Carter, even though they were personal friends. So, occasionally, common sense overcomes party loyalty. But I think it's rare.
#21988
Posted 2024-October-02, 20:02
i m kookie, on 2024-October-02, 18:46, said:
First, welcome. I do not think we have seen you here before.
And now I must ask. Yout choice of "Kookie" comes from the character in 77 Sunset Strip? So Lend Me Your Comb?
Childhoods vary. My grandparents were all dead by the time I was 18 but when I was 18 my parents would not have done anything remotely like what your friend's grandfather did. Eg When I was 13 I finished eighth grade and our house was located so that I could go to either of two public high schools. I let my parents know which one I had chosen. When I was 15 I picked out the used car that I would buy, a 47 Plymouth, and had my parents sign the necessary papers, no questions were asked. When I was 17, graduating from high school, I thought over going to college or joining the Navy. I let my parents know that I had decided to go to college and told them which one. When I was 21 I voted for Kennedy. I have no idea who my parents voted for, nor diid they ask me who I voted for. I was married by then and I cannot recall asking my wife who she voted for. Oops. Now that I think of it, she was only 20 then and in 1960 you had to be 21 to vote. OK, I didn't ask her who she would have voted for if she could have voted.
Anyway, the thought that my parents would make much of any choice for me when I was 18 is just not realistic. They first met my future wife after I had prioposed and she had accepted. Well, that was when I was 20 but still you get the point.
Now I will repeat myself. I do that. Childhoods vary. And welcome. I'm a little weird but you can cope.
#21989
Posted 2024-October-03, 09:15
kenberg, on 2024-October-01, 16:01, said:
And I grew up on suburban Long Island. In the early 60's many Jewish families moved, almost en masse, from Brooklyn to the same few towns on the island. I think there was one black kid in my grade school. I had a Chinese friend -- Jewish people love Chinese food, and someone has to run the restaurants we frequent (his family owned a little takeout-only place). One of my best friends was Catholic, but probably at least 80% of the town was Jewish.
So I knew about antisemitism in the abstract -- we learned about it in Hebrew School. And it was obvious that we were a minority from the media: there were lots of TV shows about Christmas and Easter, and priests and nuns were a cultural staple. You almost never saw anything about Judaism on TV (it's kind of funny that "The Ten Commandments" was considered an Easter movie, even though it's about one of the seminal events in Jewish history).
#21990
Posted 2024-October-03, 09:57
barmar, on 2024-October-03, 09:15, said:
FYP
#21991
Posted 2024-October-03, 10:40
barmar, on 2024-October-03, 09:15, said:
So I knew about antisemitism in the abstract -- we learned about it in Hebrew School. And it was obvious that we were a minority from the media: there were lots of TV shows about Christmas and Easter, and priests and nuns were a cultural staple. You almost never saw anything about Judaism on TV (it's kind of funny that "The Ten Commandments" was considered an Easter movie, even though it's about one of the seminal events in Jewish history).
The neighborhood that I grew up in was a mix of religions, but only in the sense of Protestants (as we were), Jewish, as the girl houses down was, and Catholic, as the multiple kids in the family across the street were. The Jewish girl was about three years older than I was so we did not interact much, although I worked for a while in her family's corner grocery when I was 13. Sixty cents an hour stocking shelves. I soon went on to a better job. The Catholic girl was my age and we were friends in early grade school years. Our parents became close friends. When I was 12 my friend Stan would get picked up by a bus after school and he was off to Hebrew School preparing for Bar Mitzvah. I was preparing for confirmation in the local Presbyterian Church. I, and other Protestants, got off school early a couple of days each week to go to confirmation class. I noticed that I got off school to go to confirmation, while Stan did not get off school to go to Hebrew School, but I can't say I thought much about it. Religion was, at that age, incidental. At least Protestant-Catholic-Jewish was incidental. No Muslims, and, when my views became more skeptical of religion, I did not advertise it that much.
As to The Ten Commandments movie, I was 17 when it came out, I had not been attending church for about three years, and I found it too much DeMille for my taste. I recall Chuck, a Jewish friend, saying he thought there were some things they should not make a movie of. I agreed.
Chuck went off to MIT, I stayed in the Twin Cities and went to the University of Minnesota, we largely lost touch, but he married a non-Jewish woman, much to the dismay of his parents.
Religious differences exist and play a role in life. I take some pleasure in often being oblivious. Still, there are many things that I know a little about, and it would be good to know more.
#21992
Posted 2024-October-04, 16:29
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
#21993
Posted 2024-October-05, 06:08
PassedOut, on 2024-October-04, 16:29, said:
Thanks for the link, I had forgotten about that.
I have been thinking about "declined" and Trump, maybe that is really the route to getting some votes for Harris. By now, many are immovable on issues such as immigration. But Trump is sounding more and more as if he needs to be in a senior care facility.
#21994
Posted 2024-October-07, 15:01
kenberg, on 2024-October-05, 06:08, said:
I have been thinking about "declined" and Trump, maybe that is really the route to getting some votes for Harris. By now, many are immovable on issues such as immigration. But Trump is sounding more and more as if he needs to be in a senior care facility.
Unfortunately, to his supporters it's just "Trump being Trump".
#21995
Posted 2024-October-07, 20:32
I don't see how to fix that.
#21996
Posted 2024-October-07, 21:14
akwoo, on 2024-October-07, 20:32, said:
I don't see how to fix that.
I watched 60 minutes tonight and it was quite informing. One segment was about Maricopa Country in Arizona, and the Republicans there. The takeaway from watching their denial of the Biden victory although Republicans were in charge and that the election results were hand counted is that what Trumpism is all about is that it is a religious belief system. It is totally faith based. There is no way to penetrate the denial because facts are lies, and propagada. There is no way to deal with this amount of radicalization other than by trained deprogrammers.
#21997
Posted 2024-October-07, 21:38
You're only allowed to say the same thing they say.
Which I suppose is why you feel concussed after talking to them.
#21998
Posted 2024-October-08, 05:43
Winstonm, on 2024-October-07, 21:20, said:
Yes, when interviewed, Convicted Felon Trump's cult members always talk about establishing a (fake) "christian" nation in the USA. They justify this by claiming the US Constitution says that the US is a christian nation under god.
They are always confused when the interviewer points out the "god" is nowhere to be found in the text of the Constitution. Not surprising at all when they don't know that the 1st Amendment starts out by saying "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "
#21999
Posted 2024-October-08, 05:44
Charts like this are a classic example of the sort of thing that I was talking about
https://pbs.twimg.co...=jpg&name=large
The share price essentially boils down to the beliefs of a handful of individuals taking large positions
#22000
Posted 2024-October-08, 07:05
Winstonm, on 2024-October-07, 21:20, said:
It also has the propensity to use the words Crhistianity and pattriotism as synonymous.
It would require trained professional deprogrammers to make a dent in their belief system.
A question: On the 60 minutes presentation, did they something akin to "We interiewed many many Republicams and they all, every one of them, think in the manner that we are showing."?
We know that many Republicans believe, or at least pretend to believe, that Trump won the lection in 2020, that Jan 6 was just a simple tourist event, and so on. But we also know that some people who have long voted Republican will at least not be voting for Trump, and some will be voting for Harris. Perhaps each and every R in Maricopa County county believes that the 2020 election was stolen. Or perhaps many but not all of them do. Did 60 minutes clarify this? Maybe time was too short, they would have needed 65 minites to discuss such details.
105 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 105 guests, 0 anonymous users
- Google,