2016 Democratic Thread

[StrangeSox]

Noam Chomsky on "lesser evil" voting and the problems with the voter-as-consumer mindset

 

https://chomsky.info/an-eight-point-brief-f...er-evil-voting/

 

felt his 8 points deserved to be pulled out, especially #1/2. It's a message to leftists about voting for Clinton, but it applies to "protest" voters broadly imo.

 

1) Voting should not be viewed as a form of personal self-expression or moral judgement directed in retaliation towards major party candidates who fail to reflect our values, or of a corrupt system designed to limit choices to those acceptable to corporate elites.

 

2) The exclusive consequence of the act of voting in 2016 will be (if in a contested “swing state”) to marginally increase or decrease the chance of one of the major party candidates winning.

 

3) One of these candidates, Trump, denies the existence of global warming, calls for increasing use of fossil fuels, dismantling of environmental regulations and refuses assistance to India and other developing nations as called for in the Paris agreement, the combination of which could, in four years, take us to a catastrophic tipping point. Trump has also pledged to deport 11 million Mexican immigrants, offered to provide for the defense of supporters who have assaulted African American protestors at his rallies, stated his “openness to using nuclear weapons”, supports a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. and regards “the police in this country as absolutely mistreated and misunderstood” while having “done an unbelievable job of keeping law and order.” Trump has also pledged to increase military spending while cutting taxes on the rich, hence shredding what remains of the social welfare “safety net” despite pretenses.

 

4) The suffering which these and other similarly extremist policies and attitudes will impose on marginalized and already oppressed populations has a high probability of being significantly greater than that which will result from a Clinton presidency.

 

5) 4) should constitute sufficient basis to voting for Clinton where a vote is potentially consequential-namely, in a contested, “swing” state.

 

6) However, the left should also recognize that, should Trump win based on its failure to support Clinton, it will repeatedly face the accusation (based in fact), that it lacks concern for those sure to be most victimized by a Trump administration.

 

7) Often this charge will emanate from establishment operatives who will use it as a bad faith justification for defeating challenges to corporate hegemony either in the Democratic Party or outside of it. They will ensure that it will be widely circulated in mainstream media channels with the result that many of those who would otherwise be sympathetic to a left challenge will find it a convincing reason to maintain their ties with the political establishment rather than breaking with it, as they must.

 

8) Conclusion: by dismissing a “lesser evil” electoral logic and thereby increasing the potential for Clinton’s defeat the left will undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to achieve.

 

tl;dr "did you dummies already forget Nader 2000? jfc"

[GoSox05]

You know s*** is bad when Noam Chomsky is like "yeah, I think I would vote for Clinton in a swing state".

[bmags]

I'm no labels party.

[bmags]

From Conor Sen:

https://twitter.com/conorsen/status/759023399284768769

 

It's a little hyperbolic, but I grow increasingly concerned that so much money is being sucked up in an unproductive resource, from our most productive areas, that we are going to strangle ourselves.

 

Especially with how irrational people are about housing and neighborhoods, how they can never, ever change. That was fine while neighborhoods sprawled out, but now most jobs are service related and need to be in an denser area.

 

Don't be NIMBY.

[Jenksismyhero]

Again, why would he make that statement? What purpose does O'reilly saying that s*** besides being a troll or actually being a racist? There's just no need to bring up those "facts" in response to Michelle's speech.

 

My take giving it 30 seconds of time is that he took issue with Michelle Obama claiming that the White House was built by slaves. I think on the one hand he was trying to say that's not a full truth since the White House was also built by non-slaves, and then he wanted to go further and differentiate between "real" slaves in the south versus "well fed, sheltered" slaves in the north.

 

A stupid, unnecessary distinction that really gets you nowhere. It was dumb of him to say. However, I do agree with Y2HH that there's nothing racist about saying it.

[StrangeSox]

The discussion was whether or not O'Reilly was peddling standard slavery apologia in response to Michelle Obama's speech (he was), not whether he's racist (he is, but we've known this for a long time for other reasons).

 

I don't want to Godwin this, but think of this analog: someone it talking about the horrific treatment of Jews at Dachau, and someone pipes up to say "actually, it wasn't only Jews who were killed, and they were treated even worse at Auschwitz-Birkenau!" Who cares? It's not relevant to the point being made, and you look like an asshole for bringing it up even if it is factually correct.

Edited July 29, 2016 by StrangeSox

[CanOfCorn]

See, Newt argues there like some of us. You think I'm ignoring stats. Newt is going by feel there, with his position. Hey, there is a ton of crime in Chicago and Baltimore and some big cities. I don't know what the FBI stats are, but cmon, America safe? There was a whole story in USA Today recently by the surgeon moving his family to his native country cause ours is so dangerous. Newt is not owned in that clip.

 

 

Did you know, in 1974, there were roughly 900 murders in the city of Chicago? Last year, there were 468. Now, that is still 468 too many, but to say that we live in a more dangerous place is a misnomer. I just read an article the other day about this notion that things are getting worse. Here it is: The World Isn't Falling Apart. We're just paying attention.

 

People, like you in this case, focus in on one aspect and don't see the world view. And THAT is the dangerous part of all of this.

[Jenksismyhero]

The discussion was whether or not O'Reilly was peddling standard slavery apologia in response to Michelle Obama's speech (he was), not whether he's racist (he is, but we've known this for a long time for other reasons).

 

Well, to that point, I'm saying I don't think he was being a slavery apologist, I think he was trying to make a dumb distinction between awful slavery and slightly less awful slavery. Making the point that slaves were treated differently =/= slave apologia.

[CanOfCorn]

My take giving it 30 seconds of time is that he took issue with Michelle Obama claiming that the White House was built by slaves. I think on the one hand he was trying to say that's not a full truth since the White House was also built by non-slaves, and then he wanted to go further and differentiate between "real" slaves in the south versus "well fed, sheltered" slaves in the north.

 

A stupid, unnecessary distinction that really gets you nowhere. It was dumb of him to say. However, I do agree with Y2HH that there's nothing racist about saying it.

 

There's no gray area of slavery. It is or it isn't. A person should never be "owned." End of story.

[Jenksismyhero]

There's no gray area of slavery. It is or it isn't. A person should never be "owned." End of story.

 

If you're debating whether slavery is good or bad, sure. But there's a difference between the treatment of slaves by people like Jefferson versus the treatment of slaves in the deep, deep South. Not recognizing and talking about the distinction allows people to be slavery apologists in the first place.

[StrangeSox]

Well, to that point, I'm saying I don't think he was being a slavery apologist, I think he was trying to make a dumb distinction between awful slavery and slightly less awful slavery. Making the point that slaves were treated differently =/= slave apologia.

 

Making that distinction in a meaningful and relevant way in the appropriate forum is perfectly fine. Historians absolutely should and do study regional variations, and contemporary literature from slaves, freemen and whites alike attest to the horrors of being sold "down south" and how it'd be used as a punishment or threat to keep Upper South and northern slaves "in line."

 

Making that distinction in response to the First Lady who is black talking about waking up every day in a house built by slaves makes you an a slavery-apologia peddling asshole, though. There's no other reason for conservative political pundit Bill O'Reilly to bring that up in response to Michelle Obama except to try to lessen the impact of her point about the legacy of slavery. Bill O'Reilly isn't some sort of neo-confederate pining for the Old South and openly going to bat for slavery, but that sort of rhetoric and what it was in response to still has the effect of downplaying the horrors of even the 'slightly less awful' chattel slavery of the Upper South. The author's/speaker's intentions aren't the only thing that matters.

[StrangeSox]

If you're debating whether slavery is good or bad, sure. But there's a difference between the treatment of slaves by people like Jefferson versus the treatment of slaves in the deep, deep South. Not recognizing and talking about the distinction allows people to be slavery apologists in the first place.

 

Jefferson hired other people to beat his slaves and repeatedly raped at least one of them. He may have expressed a lot of anguish over it in his writings, but it Monticello was still a brutal, awful place. (long article, but I remember it being really good and worth the read when it first came out)

[CanOfCorn]

If you're debating whether slavery is good or bad, sure. But there's a difference between the treatment of slaves by people like Jefferson versus the treatment of slaves in the deep, deep South. Not recognizing and talking about the distinction allows people to be slavery apologists in the first place.

 

But who decides? It doesn't matter how a slave is treated. They are owned. They have no control over their own life. Even if they are granted a little extra freedom or are better fed or clothed or housed. They couldn't say, "I can't build this building today, because I need to tend to my farm." Because A) they don't have a farm and B) THEY ARE SLAVES!

 

I'm sorry, but if you don't have free will, then it doesn't matter. Sorry, I can't be swayed no matter how you or Y2HH or O'Reilly wants to argue it.

[Jenksismyhero]

Making that distinction in a meaningful and relevant way in the appropriate forum is perfectly fine. Historians absolutely should and do study regional variations, and contemporary literature from slaves, freemen and whites alike attest to the horrors of being sold "down south" and how it'd be used as a punishment or threat to keep Upper South and northern slaves "in line."

 

Making that distinction in response to the First Lady who is black talking about waking up every day in a house built by slaves makes you an a slavery-apologia peddling asshole, though. There's no other reason for conservative political pundit Bill O'Reilly to bring that up in response to Michelle Obama except to try to lessen the impact of her point about the legacy of slavery. Bill O'Reilly isn't some sort of neo-confederate pining for the Old South and openly going to bat for slavery, but that sort of rhetoric and what it was in response to still has the effect of downplaying the horrors of even the 'slightly less awful' chattel slavery of the Upper South. The author's/speaker's intentions aren't the only thing that matters.

 

If you can make the distinction and it's fine in one setting, how does the effect of that distinction in another setting downplay the horrors of slavery? That makes no sense. You state, correctly, that he's wasn't pining for the good ole days. It appears that he was trying to lessen the impact of what Michelle Obama said about the progress we've made. I agree with you it was stupid for him to do in the first place, but I don't buy that him making a distinction between the treatment of some slaves versus others necessarily means he's trying to downplay slavery in general.

[Jenksismyhero]

Jefferson hired other people to beat his slaves and repeatedly raped at least one of them. He may have expressed a lot of anguish over it in his writings, but it Monticello was still a brutal, awful place. (long article, but I remember it being really good and worth the read when it first came out)

 

Ok fine, bad example. Pick another "better" slave owner that still owned slaves but didn't beat them into submission. We all can agree that slavery is awful and terrible and never should have happened. I think we can also agree that there was a spectrum of slave owners. Pointing that out doesn't downplay or justify the practice.

[Jenksismyhero]

But who decides? It doesn't matter how a slave is treated. They are owned. They have no control over their own life. Even if they are granted a little extra freedom or are better fed or clothed or housed. They couldn't say, "I can't build this building today, because I need to tend to my farm." Because A) they don't have a farm and B) THEY ARE SLAVES!

 

I'm sorry, but if you don't have free will, then it doesn't matter. Sorry, I can't be swayed no matter how you or Y2HH or O'Reilly wants to argue it.

 

Who decides what?

 

And it does matter how they were treated. You wash away some of the truly awful practices of slave owners if you just view all slaves/owners the same. Some were far, far, far worse than others. That in no way negates the awfulness of slavery itself. Yes, even the best slave owners were still awful people for owning other human beings. That's the baseline we all understand and agree with.

 

[StrangeSox]

If you can make the distinction and it's fine in one setting, how does the effect of that distinction in another setting downplay the horrors of slavery? That makes no sense. You state, correctly, that he's wasn't pining for the good ole days. It appears that he was trying to lessen the impact of what Michelle Obama said about the progress we've made. I agree with you it was stupid for him to do in the first place, but I don't buy that him making a distinction between the treatment of some slaves versus others necessarily means he's trying to downplay slavery in general.

 

Because of why he was making that distinction. Michelle Obama made a point about slaves who built the White House, and O'Reilly's response to was to claim that they didn't have it as bad as others. There's no way to describe that but to say he's downplaying how bad the slaves who built the White House had it. When professional historians are doing it as part of research, it's a distinctly different context than when a political pundit it using it in response to a political opponent.

 

Ok fine, bad example. Pick another "better" slave owner that still owned slaves but didn't beat them into submission. We all can agree that slavery is awful and terrible and never should have happened. I think we can also agree that there was a spectrum of slave owners. Pointing that out doesn't downplay or justify the practice.

 

 

Pointing that out as a response to someone making a point about the horrors of slavery is downplaying it, though. What other reason does Prof. O'Reilly have to bring it up if not to minimize what Michelle Obama was saying?

 

I edited this example in last page, but hopefully it's an egregious enough example that we can all at least agree on:

 

I don't want to Godwin this, but think of this analog: someone it talking about the horrific treatment of Jews at Dachau, and someone pipes up to say "actually, it wasn't only Jews who were killed, and they were treated even worse at Auschwitz-Birkenau!" Who cares? It's not relevant to the point being made, and you look like an asshole for bringing it up even if it is factually correct. There is a big difference between professional historians noting the differences in the camps and David Duke bringing it up in response to eulogies for Elie Wiesel. Just to stress again, O'Reilly is not David Duke, this is an example we hopefully all can agree on being used to illustrate the problems inherent in O'Reilly's response to Michelle Obama.

[bmags]

My take giving it 30 seconds of time is that he took issue with Michelle Obama claiming that the White House was built by slaves. I think on the one hand he was trying to say that's not a full truth since the White House was also built by non-slaves, and then he wanted to go further and differentiate between "real" slaves in the south versus "well fed, sheltered" slaves in the north.

 

A stupid, unnecessary distinction that really gets you nowhere. It was dumb of him to say. However, I do agree with Y2HH that there's nothing racist about saying it.

 

 

I don't think its racist to say, but it is perhaps the most ignorant and stupid "Well, Actually" I've seen in a while.

 

Michelle Obama, the descendent of slaves, talking about how she lives in the most important house in america, which was built by slaves (modifying house, but all of it kind of), and then to say

 

"Michelle said this but in all reality the place was built by a mixture of slave and real labor and the slaves were treated well"

 

WHY, WHY WOULD YOU SAY THAT. If this was dinner I would laugh you out of the house because for one, the most innocent thing you can say about that is also the most insulting: that Michelle Obama does not know history the way that you do. Screw off, O'Reilly.

[Quin]

Is there really a debate going on about the degrees of slavery?

 

Slavery is bad.

[StrangeSox]

Is there really a debate going on about the degrees of slavery?

 

Slavery is bad.

 

Investigations about the differences in slavery throughout cultures or even throughout the chattel slavery system of the United States and different eras/regions can be interesting, but nightly cable news pundit shows aren't exactly the place those sorts of discussions could ever be fruitful.

 

For some full-blown "slavery wasn't that bad!" garbage, The Economist's review of "The Half Has Never Been Told" was an instant classic.

 

“Mr Baptist has not written an objective history of slavery. Almost all the blacks in his book are victims, almost all the whites villains.”

[Jenksismyhero]

Because of why he was making that distinction. Michelle Obama made a point about slaves who built the White House, and O'Reilly's response to was to claim that they didn't have it as bad as others. There's no way to describe that but to say he's downplaying how bad the slaves who built the White House had it. When professional historians are doing it as part of research, it's a distinctly different context than when a political pundit it using it in response to a political opponent.

 

Pointing that out as a response to someone making a point about the horrors of slavery is downplaying it, though. What other reason does Prof. O'Reilly have to bring it up if not to minimize what Michelle Obama was saying?

 

I edited this example in last page, but hopefully it's an egregious enough example that we can all at least agree on:

 

I don't want to Godwin this, but think of this analog: someone it talking about the horrific treatment of Jews at Dachau, and someone pipes up to say "actually, it wasn't only Jews who were killed, and they were treated even worse at Auschwitz-Birkenau!" Who cares? It's not relevant to the point being made, and you look like an asshole for bringing it up even if it is factually correct. There is a big difference between professional historians noting the differences in the camps and David Duke bringing it up in response to eulogies for Elie Wiesel. Just to stress again, O'Reilly is not David Duke, this is an example we hopefully all can agree on being used to illustrate the problems inherent in O'Reilly's response to Michelle Obama.

 

Seems to me his point was just to prove that she was factually correct and he wanted to give a short history lesson on the White House to his audience. Here's the transcript:

 

Finally tonight, Factor Tip of the Day. As we mentioned, Talking Points Memo: Michelle Obama referenced slaves building the White House in referring to the evolution of America in a positive way. It was a positive comment. The history behind her remark is fascinating.

 

George Washington selected the site in 1791 and as president laid the cornerstone in 1792. Washington was then running the country out of Philadelphia. Slaves did participate in the construction of the White House.

 

Records show about 400 payments made to slave masters between 1795 and 1801. In addition, free blacks, whites, and immigrants also worked on the massive building. There were no illegal immigrants at that time — if you could make it here, you could stay here.

 

In 1800, President John Adams took up residence in what was then called the Executive Mansion — it was only later on they named it the White House. But Adams was in there with Abigail, and they were still hammering nails, the construction was still going on.

 

Slaves that worked there were well fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government, which stopped hiring slave labor in 1802. However, the feds did not forbid subcontractors from using slave labor.

 

So, Michelle Obama is essentially correct in citing slaves as builders of the White House, but there were others working as well. Got it all? There will be a quiz.

 

Ultimately the only thing he seems to have wanted to clarify was that other non-slaves also helped build the White House. I don't know why it was necessary to include that unless ultimately he just wanted to say that the slaves working in the White House, hired by the federal government, were not the type of slaves that were treated horrifically like in the deep south. Again, a dumb distinction in the first place, but not one that appears to be made in a "see, it wasn't so bad!" context. I don't see him downplaying anything there.

Edited July 29, 2016 by JenksIsMyHero

[Chisoxfn]

<!--quoteo(post=3407700:date=Jul 28, 2016 -> 04:44 PM:name=Chisoxfn)-->

<!--quotec-->I actually like Newt a lot (his policies, etc).

This is why I posted that.

 

Yeah...I really don't have a problem with what he said. I get your point, but he technically was speaking facts himself. When he gets into the theory bit vs. feelings, well, hey, feelings do matter. Like I said, I would vote for Newt because in general, I feel he aligns with my policy views. I'm a Newt lover though (legitimately, I think he is one of the greatest politicians of the past 30 years). Key word being I. I don't think that clip was necessarily his finest moment as a whole, though, but again, we live in a society where the cool thing to do is take a 1 minute frame of a guy who has been in politics forever and hold it against him.

 

PS: I think a lot of people should realize that Greg isn't that much different than a lot of the American voting public.

[StrangeSox]

PS: I think a lot of people should realize that Greg isn't that much different than a lot of the American voting public.

 

God damn if that isn't the most cynical take on American politics and unfortunately true :(

[bmags]

I don't know Jas, he overplayed his hand to disaster in 1998. Almost everyone involved in the speaker of the house from in on is now disgraced.

 

Romney wiped the floor with Gingrich in debates. His intellect is way overblown.

[StrangeSox]

I don't know Jas, he overplayed his hand to disaster in 1998. Almost everyone involved in the speaker of the house from in on is now disgraced.

 

Romney wiped the floor with Gingrich in debates. His intellect is way overblown.

 

If you want to know why Dutch Colonialism in the Congo was actually A Good Thing, he's your man!

 

Gingrich is technically correct (the best kind of correct) as he points out, feelings/emotions do matter. But (imo, of course), there's one party in this country that has actively cultivated a "facts don't matter, experts are useless, just go by your gut" mindset that's culminated in Presidential Nominee Donald J. Trump.