|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 28 2018 05:03 Introvert wrote:
I hope now left and right can really agree that the Congress should exercise its role and rein in the courts.
That would be the actual best outcome.
Congress doesn't *WANT* to govern. The court situation we have is because people are refusing to do their jobs. We could have decided a great deal of supreme court decisions through legislation. We decided not to.
|
On June 28 2018 05:04 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 05:00 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2018 04:53 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 28 2018 04:45 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2018 04:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 28 2018 04:36 zlefin wrote:On June 28 2018 04:01 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 28 2018 03:44 Simberto wrote: So more decisions for money in politics, against minority rights, against womens rights, for christian liberty (It isn't really religious liberty anymore, is it?), for corruption, against humans rights and for all the other disgusting shit the republican party stands for. nah, the republican party doesn't stand for a long list of "disgusting shit" like you say they do. I disagree with many of their policies and at the same time I realize that engaging in a maudlin rant won't result in meaningful discussion. they actually kinda do. not completely ofc; but there's a substantial validity to it. just because such a rant won't result in meaningful discussion doesn't mean it's wrong. and it's been amply demonstrated that meaningful discussion isn't their plan anyways. i don't think there is a long list of "disgusting shit" that is in their platform. They are good enough at meaningful discussion to lead the Democrats in governors 33-16. The Republicans are a well oiled political machine... and they're winning. The republicans are far more than donald trump. In fact, many republicans don't want him as their leader. There is no arguing with this line. The Republicans have been amazing at winning elections since Obama was elected. They have shitkicked the Democrats into political irrelevance and control the majority of the US government. It is their inability to govern effectively that will likely be their downfall. This isn’t the 2007 financial crash where the Democrats take control so they can save the country from the crash and take the blame for doing it. When tax cut and the poor governance rural red states comes back to haunt them, there won’t be anyone to save them. And there won’t be black president to blame for everything. imo , W. Bush is the worst US president in the last 50 years by a huge margin. what he did to the USA was horrific... and Clinton left the country in great shape... which makes W. Bush's incompetence even more sad. I have no love for Clinton. Most of what he did in his second term under the Republican held house got to the country to where we are today. From de-regulating cable media to the three strikes law, most the bills Clinton championed and signed have done real damage to this country. But Bush was complete shit. For all Bills faults, he didn’t trick the US and our Allies into invading a country on a lie and openly advocate for torture of terrorists. On June 28 2018 04:58 Sermokala wrote:On June 28 2018 04:53 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 28 2018 04:45 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2018 04:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 28 2018 04:36 zlefin wrote:On June 28 2018 04:01 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 28 2018 03:44 Simberto wrote: So more decisions for money in politics, against minority rights, against womens rights, for christian liberty (It isn't really religious liberty anymore, is it?), for corruption, against humans rights and for all the other disgusting shit the republican party stands for. nah, the republican party doesn't stand for a long list of "disgusting shit" like you say they do. I disagree with many of their policies and at the same time I realize that engaging in a maudlin rant won't result in meaningful discussion. they actually kinda do. not completely ofc; but there's a substantial validity to it. just because such a rant won't result in meaningful discussion doesn't mean it's wrong. and it's been amply demonstrated that meaningful discussion isn't their plan anyways. i don't think there is a long list of "disgusting shit" that is in their platform. They are good enough at meaningful discussion to lead the Democrats in governors 33-16. The Republicans are a well oiled political machine... and they're winning. The republicans are far more than donald trump. In fact, many republicans don't want him as their leader. There is no arguing with this line. The Republicans have been amazing at winning elections since Obama was elected. They have shitkicked the Democrats into political irrelevance and control the majority of the US government. It is their inability to govern effectively that will likely be their downfall. This isn’t the 2007 financial crash where the Democrats take control so they can save the country from the crash and take the blame for doing it. When tax cut and the poor governance rural red states comes back to haunt them, there won’t be anyone to save them. And there won’t be black president to blame for everything. imo , W. Bush is the worst US president in 50 year by a huge margin. what he did to the USA was horrific. Oh please everyone loves to hate on W but he really hasn't half as bad as people say. No other president had their term upended by such a nationally traumatic event and the economic crash of 2007 was a result of an effort to give everyone a chance at having generational wealth. Carter made mistakes real mistakes in his presidency and worse then anything did less then obama to note of. Carter didn't send my brother to war based on a lie, so Bush is still top dog for shit president. Trump is a close second. He sent my aunt to war on intelligence that was faulty. He didn't lie to the world and the world didn't all jump in with us even like they did with the first gulf war. If the nations didn't feel that the intelligence was good enough they could have followed Frances lead and not gone. Putting all the responsibility on the US isn't honest or fair.
Sorry, I can’t share this opinion. I would love to, because I used to have so much faith in our government and elected representatives. But truly believe Cheney and Bush knew the intel was bad just or hoped they would get luck. We were to eager to support our president and not critical enough of the intelligence his administration provided. And we didn’t listen to those who were critical. We mocked France with Freedom Fries, only to have history prove them right. We had people like Bolton advocating for invasion, even though people in congress knew he didn’t operate on facts. We were fools and never real came to terms with how badly we got burned by it.
|
On June 28 2018 03:14 On_Slaught wrote:
Sigh... things are going to get ugly now. Disappointed in Kennedy doing it now, before the election, but he has his reasons. FedSoc dancing in the streets. Also, get ready for all the Republican hypocrisy. No waiting for a vote this time!
I'm not worried about issues like gay marriage, since Roberts will go to bat for his own courts precedence, but a range of other issues like abortion and guns and a number of social rights issues are in serious danger now.
I've said it before and I'll say it again... I hope all those angry Bernie and Stein voters are happy.
I mean, have you seen some of the liberals I was arguing with in 2016 positions now?
For those of us who think neither party was an acceptable choice this is about as good as we could hope for. Additionally I think you should blame the candidate that lost to the most openly repugnant presidential candidate ever despite having the party clear the field and give her every possible advantage they could including cheating.
But sure, makes sense to blame the people who were telling you this is what would happen if you nominated Clinton.
I suggest the hardcore Clinton supporters from 2016 not push against the progressive candidate (polling much better than the centrist against Trump) this time around.
|
On June 28 2018 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 03:14 On_Slaught wrote:
Sigh... things are going to get ugly now. Disappointed in Kennedy doing it now, before the election, but he has his reasons. FedSoc dancing in the streets. Also, get ready for all the Republican hypocrisy. No waiting for a vote this time!
I'm not worried about issues like gay marriage, since Roberts will go to bat for his own courts precedence, but a range of other issues like abortion and guns and a number of social rights issues are in serious danger now.
I've said it before and I'll say it again... I hope all those angry Bernie and Stein voters are happy. I mean, have you seen some of the liberals I was arguing with in 2016 positions now? For those of us who think neither party was an acceptable choice this is about as good as we could hope for. Additionally I think you should blame the candidate that lost to the most openly repugnant presidential candidate ever despite having the party clear the field and give her every possible advantage they could including cheating. But sure, makes sense to blame the people who were telling you this is what would happen if you nominated Clinton. I suggest the hardcore Clinton supporters from 2016 not push against the progressive candidate (polling much better than the centrist against Trump) this time around.
I'm a little confused as to how you think that conservative ideologues cementing control of the Supreme Court probably for the rest of our lives is anything approaching a best case scenario. This is a worst case scenario for the country.
Ignore for a moment things like abortion rights and gay marriage. We are potentially going to be entering a new age of voter disenfranchisement where it doesn't matter if the Democratic party gets supplanted by a Democratic Socialist party because gerrymandering, voter suppression, and other measures make it next to impossible for Republicans to lose control government at any level. It's terrible for everyone to the left of the nation's political center, and terrible for the nation in general.
I'm not going to say that you should have voted for Clinton because she was less bad because this thread has had that discussion already multiple times. However, I'm really baffled as to how you are cheering serious damage to the nation that is going to last decades because unlike legislation or executive actions, court appointments can't be reversed following an election that flips control of the government.
|
On June 28 2018 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
I suggest the hardcore Clinton supporters from 2016 not push against the progressive candidate (polling much better than the centrist against Trump) this time around.
Not to beat the dead horse anymore, but the least of Hillary's problems politically was that she was a centrist democrat.
|
On June 28 2018 04:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 02:34 ChristianS wrote:On June 28 2018 02:16 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 02:13 Introvert wrote:On June 28 2018 00:15 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2018 23:54 Introvert wrote:On June 27 2018 23:31 Danglars wrote:2. The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled. Janus decisionExcellent decision! No more compulsory union due collection from objecting public sector employees. The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, neither an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay. So it appears the burdensome opt-out and re-up every year provisions present in some states (or might've served as a basis in this decision nationally) are also gone. I think this concludes the major decisions I was watching for this June. Think it's been a pretty conservative year (without looking). Kennedy didn't have a 5-4 with the liberals once, I don't think. Only thing to look for now would be a retirement announcement  This is one more reason why all of those never-Trump conservatives were and are a bunch of charlatans. This decision does not happen if Hillary is president. As one of those people who wasn't a fan of Trump (to out it lightly), I will say that on this issue he has exceeded expectations. He's actually been excellent. I do have to acknowledge that. Also I suspect your usage of Never Trumper may differ enough from some others to cause confusion. The Never Trumpers are the republicans/conservatives who refused to support (and even openly advocated against) Trump's candidacy for president once he secured the nomination. Okay. Care to share what makes them hypocrites? I'm not a Never Trump conservative, obviously, but I know several It's all written in the Flight 93 Election article that was referenced a million times in the old thread. Go dig it up again if you want. The TLDR version is that all of these people who purport to adhere conservative principles never do anything to materially advance those principles when given the opportunity to do so. And I want to single out these passages from the article for further comment: Show nested quote +Conservatives spend at least several hundred million dollars a year on think-tanks, magazines, conferences, fellowships, and such, complaining about this, that, the other, and everything. And yet these same conservatives are, at root, keepers of the status quo. Oh, sure, they want some things to change. They want their pet ideas adopted—tax deductions for having more babies and the like. Many of them are even good ideas. But are any of them truly fundamental? Do they get to the heart of our problems?
....
How have the last two decades worked out for you, personally? If you’re a member or fellow-traveler of the Davos class, chances are: pretty well. If you’re among the subspecies conservative intellectual or politician, you’ve accepted—perhaps not consciously, but unmistakably—your status on the roster of the Washington Generals of American politics. Your job is to show up and lose, but you are a necessary part of the show and you do get paid. To the extent that you are ever on the winning side of anything, it’s as sophists who help the Davoisie oligarchy rationalize open borders, lower wages, outsourcing, de-industrialization, trade giveaways, and endless, pointless, winless war. For those missing the context, the author is ripping the conservative intelligentsia -- especially the never trumpers -- for being a bunch of whores who have sold out conservative principle. Over the past year, I have had the opportunity to look behind the curtain at some of the higher levels of conservative politics and media. What the author writes up above is truer than I dared thought possible. Most of the established conservative intelligentsia is entirely dependent upon large donors for their financial survival and well-being. Look behind any such publication, whether it be The Weekly Standard or The Daily Caller, and you're going to find a billionaire pulling the strings. These guys resent Trump because of his populism and because Trump is not beholden to them. So they issue marching orders downstream to their publications to take anti-Trump stances. Earlier this year, I saw Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard at a seminar. The massive, anti-Trump leash that Anschutz placed on Hayes and The Weekly Standard was utterly palpable in the room. When prompted with very soft questions on good, conservative things that Trump had done, Hayes refused to say anything nice about Trump. It was simply incredible. And if this is the influence that is being exerted on the media, you can only wonder what strings have been pulled on the politicians. The bottom line is that, regardless of Trump's atypical presentation, he has been a wonderfully conservative president. Republicans at large should be happy with what they have gotten so far. And most are. But the sophists and charlatans in the republican/conservative establishment continue to resent Trump and stand in his way of moving things forward. This is why I have far more disdain for the republican establishment than any other political entity out there.
Flight 93 will never be a good argument besides a way to support Donald Trump without fully admitting it and sounding intellectual at the same time. The never Trumpers are basing their opposition on principle. If you have to make a Flight 93 analogy to justify voting for trump you should at least admit that there are reasonable grounds to oppose him.
Btw the Flight 93 author is now viewed with suspicion as a McMaster aligned leaker in the administration. He may be filling a Claus von Stauffenberg role aboard Flight 93.
|
On June 28 2018 06:06 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2018 03:14 On_Slaught wrote:
Sigh... things are going to get ugly now. Disappointed in Kennedy doing it now, before the election, but he has his reasons. FedSoc dancing in the streets. Also, get ready for all the Republican hypocrisy. No waiting for a vote this time!
I'm not worried about issues like gay marriage, since Roberts will go to bat for his own courts precedence, but a range of other issues like abortion and guns and a number of social rights issues are in serious danger now.
I've said it before and I'll say it again... I hope all those angry Bernie and Stein voters are happy. I mean, have you seen some of the liberals I was arguing with in 2016 positions now? For those of us who think neither party was an acceptable choice this is about as good as we could hope for. Additionally I think you should blame the candidate that lost to the most openly repugnant presidential candidate ever despite having the party clear the field and give her every possible advantage they could including cheating. But sure, makes sense to blame the people who were telling you this is what would happen if you nominated Clinton. I suggest the hardcore Clinton supporters from 2016 not push against the progressive candidate (polling much better than the centrist against Trump) this time around. I'm a little confused as to how you think that conservative ideologues cementing control of the Supreme Court probably for the rest of our lives is anything approaching a best case scenario. This is a worst case scenario for the country. Ignore for a moment things like abortion rights and gay marriage. We are potentially going to be entering a new age of voter disenfranchisement where it doesn't matter if the Democratic party gets supplanted by a Democratic Socialist party because gerrymandering, voter suppression, and other measures make it next to impossible for Republicans to lose control government at any level. It's terrible for everyone to the left of the nation's political center, and terrible for the nation in general. I'm not going to say that you should have voted for Clinton because she was less bad because this thread has had that discussion already multiple times. However, I'm really baffled as to how you are cheering serious damage to the nation that is going to last decades because unlike legislation or executive actions, court appointments can't be reversed following an election that flips control of the government.
Democrats are supposed to be the "opposition" party. They aren't. The only way to get an opposition party in this system is for a party to die. The Democratic party as it existed in 2016 is dying. That's the most hopeful outcome we could have once it was Hillary vs Trump.
The damage sucks, and as a Black man in Amerikkka I'm keenly aware of what it means. Liberals were not going to wake up if Hillary won. Many still might not, but unquestionably more liberals have realized the Democratic party is trash. Nothing was going to get better without that realization and a Clinton presidency would have been 4 years of "The Republicans won't let us" and "This is the best we could get past the Republicans" all of which would be making things worse in a way that was 'acceptable' to liberals as opposed to Trump which makes them want to take to the streets and wonder why their politicians are a bunch of cowards. That was the only path toward progress that was left after Hillary won the nomination.
On June 28 2018 06:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
I suggest the hardcore Clinton supporters from 2016 not push against the progressive candidate (polling much better than the centrist against Trump) this time around. Not to beat the dead horse anymore, but the least of Hillary's problems politically was that she was a centrist democrat.
For you, sure. But that's why her turnout numbers sucked. Did you want to get back to me on the slavery thing? You can do it in PM but I'm genuinely curious under what interpretation you think slavery was constitutional.
|
As a liberal, I'm more concerned if (and when) Trump wins his second term, as most presidents do. Kennedy's the moderate conservative swing vote, so replacing him with a more conservative justice is pretty bad, but next term the Supreme Court will probably be replacing a liberal justice, and I have no reason to believe that this next presidential election won't feature the same kind of fighting among progressive voters:
Establishment liberals will say "Surely *this time* the non-establishment progressives will fall in line and vote for our candidate, because they don't want Trump to win a second term!"
Non-establishment progressives will say "Surely *this time* we'll be given more respect from the establishment liberals because they've already seen what happens if we don't get thrown a few bones, and that's the only way we'll vote for the Democratic primary winner."
Hopefully, the next Democratic nominee will be able to overcome this in-fighting.
|
To GH’s point, the Republican party as it existed is also dying. The party has slowly shifted from free trade, to opposing it. Polling now shows that a good number of their base oppose legal and illegal immigration. The tea party insurgence has changed the message of the Republican party from the party management to the party of “No”. For the entire time the Republicans have controlled congress, the GOP leadership has barely been able to control the conservative wing of their party.
It is just a question what happens when they face a progressive insurgence from the Democrats in the House. The Tea party has never been in the minority or even had a close margin in the House. And Trump won’t save them from a bunch of pissed off progressive House Reps spoiling for a fight on everything.
At bare minimum, it will be entertaining to watch.
On June 28 2018 06:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Hopefully, the next Democratic nominee will be able to overcome this in-fighting.
If the upset victory in NYC shows us anything, the establishment democrats can lose with grace. At the end of the day, they want to win too. As long as they can put their guns away after the November, the progressives will do fine in congress.
|
On June 28 2018 06:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
As a liberal, I'm more concerned if (and when) Trump wins his second term, as most presidents do. Kennedy's the moderate conservative swing vote, so replacing him with a more conservative justice is pretty bad, but next term the Supreme Court will probably be replacing a liberal justice, and I have no reason to believe that this next presidential election won't feature the same kind of fighting among progressive voters:
Establishment liberals will say "Surely *this time* the non-establishment progressives will fall in line and vote for our candidate, because they don't want Trump to win a second term!"
Non-establishment progressives will say "Surely *this time* we'll be given more respect from the establishment liberals because they've already seen what happens if we don't get thrown a few bones, and that's the only way we'll vote for the Democratic primary winner."
Hopefully, the next Democratic nominee will be able to overcome this in-fighting.
It's just a matter of who wins. Progressives aren't going to vote for Kamala the Cop Harris, and liberals advocate lesser of two evils.
A liberal like Kamala wins and Trump wins in 2020, a progressive like Bernie wins and liberals have no choice but to vote for him (or be completely and totally full of shit).
That's the choice. Someone more progressive than Kamala or 4 more years of Trump. Those are the only choices.
|
On June 28 2018 06:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
As a liberal, I'm more concerned if (and when) Trump wins his second term, as most presidents do. Kennedy's the moderate conservative swing vote, so replacing him with a more conservative justice is pretty bad, but next term the Supreme Court will probably be replacing a liberal justice, and I have no reason to believe that this next presidential election won't feature the same kind of fighting among progressive voters:
Establishment liberals will say "Surely *this time* the non-establishment progressives will fall in line and vote for our candidate, because they don't want Trump to win a second term!"
Non-establishment progressives will say "Surely *this time* we'll be given more respect from the establishment liberals because they've already seen what happens if we don't get thrown a few bones, and that's the only way we'll vote for the Democratic primary winner."
Hopefully, the next Democratic nominee will be able to overcome this in-fighting.
unlikely they'll be able to overcome it; as division in society is increasing across the board, and the grievances are pretty large, and quite justified in some cases.
a fair bit of it will depend on chance of course.
|
On June 28 2018 05:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 04:55 Zambrah wrote:On June 28 2018 04:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 28 2018 04:46 Zambrah wrote:On June 28 2018 04:45 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 28 2018 04:41 zlefin wrote:On June 28 2018 04:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 28 2018 04:36 zlefin wrote:On June 28 2018 04:01 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 28 2018 03:44 Simberto wrote: So more decisions for money in politics, against minority rights, against womens rights, for christian liberty (It isn't really religious liberty anymore, is it?), for corruption, against humans rights and for all the other disgusting shit the republican party stands for. nah, the republican party doesn't stand for a long list of "disgusting shit" like you say they do. I disagree with many of their policies and at the same time I realize that engaging in a maudlin rant won't result in meaningful discussion. they actually kinda do. not completely ofc; but there's a substantial validity to it. just because such a rant won't result in meaningful discussion doesn't mean it's wrong. and it's been amply demonstrated that meaningful discussion isn't their plan anyways. i don't think there is. they are good enough at meaningful discussion to lead the Democrats in governors 33-16 the Republicans are a well oiled political machine. that does not follow at all as an argument. Just because they win doesn't mean they hold meaningful discussion. It means they are a well oiled political machine; which is very different from having meaningful discussion. it's also very clear that their mechanism of victory isn't based on meaningful discussion; and there's vast amounts of literature in the political science field to show that reasonable, meaningful discussion isn't the basis of how most people vote in general. most of their terrible shit isn't expressly in their platform, but some of it is; and far more is proven by their wink and a nod patterns demonstrating so. meangingful discussion is how you persuade voters. Is it though? After the last election I feel more like stoking the populaces fear and insecurities is how you persuade voters. At least in the US. i find trump to be very charismatic... "make america great again" .. is meant to inspire... not invoke fear. reagan used it.. it worked for him. now Trump contradicts himself in crazy ways sometimes... to the point of almost being comical. I remember Trump's campaign more for it's Mexican Rapists, Bad Hombres, and Muslim Ban comments inspiring less in the conventional sense and more in the "you're uncomfortable with those scary brown folk right?" way. But campaign Trump was a lot like looking into a mirror, everyone sees something different. The key is to look at what Trump does and not what he says.
I can't think of any recent leader that has done or attempted to do as many of their promises as Trump. And that's a legitimate thing for his voters to be content about. But no, some of you have to be contrarian and keep up the stupid 4D chess meme.
|
On June 28 2018 06:31 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 05:11 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 04:55 Zambrah wrote:On June 28 2018 04:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 28 2018 04:46 Zambrah wrote:On June 28 2018 04:45 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 28 2018 04:41 zlefin wrote:On June 28 2018 04:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 28 2018 04:36 zlefin wrote:On June 28 2018 04:01 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
[quote]
nah, the republican party doesn't stand for a long list of "disgusting shit" like you say they do. I disagree with many of their policies and at the same time I realize that engaging in a maudlin rant won't result in meaningful discussion. they actually kinda do. not completely ofc; but there's a substantial validity to it. just because such a rant won't result in meaningful discussion doesn't mean it's wrong. and it's been amply demonstrated that meaningful discussion isn't their plan anyways. i don't think there is. they are good enough at meaningful discussion to lead the Democrats in governors 33-16 the Republicans are a well oiled political machine. that does not follow at all as an argument. Just because they win doesn't mean they hold meaningful discussion. It means they are a well oiled political machine; which is very different from having meaningful discussion. it's also very clear that their mechanism of victory isn't based on meaningful discussion; and there's vast amounts of literature in the political science field to show that reasonable, meaningful discussion isn't the basis of how most people vote in general. most of their terrible shit isn't expressly in their platform, but some of it is; and far more is proven by their wink and a nod patterns demonstrating so. meangingful discussion is how you persuade voters. Is it though? After the last election I feel more like stoking the populaces fear and insecurities is how you persuade voters. At least in the US. i find trump to be very charismatic... "make america great again" .. is meant to inspire... not invoke fear. reagan used it.. it worked for him. now Trump contradicts himself in crazy ways sometimes... to the point of almost being comical. I remember Trump's campaign more for it's Mexican Rapists, Bad Hombres, and Muslim Ban comments inspiring less in the conventional sense and more in the "you're uncomfortable with those scary brown folk right?" way. But campaign Trump was a lot like looking into a mirror, everyone sees something different. The key is to look at what Trump does and not what he says. I can't think of any recent leader that has done or attempted to do as many of their promises as Trump. And that's a legitimate thing for his voters to be content about. But no, some of you have to be contrarian and keep up the stupid 4D chess meme.
iirc there's research showing most leaders do at least attempt to do the things they promised; and it's just a meme that they don't.
|
Okay let me help the liberals with the Crowley thing.
He's so okay with losing because now he is going to get paid directly from his corporate donors to be a lobbyist.
So more money less stress and accountability. Of course he's happy. IT has absolutely nothing to do with being a gracious loser or consolidation. Other than the party is already trying to co-opt Ocasio-Cortez and her message.
|
|
|
On June 28 2018 06:39 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2018 06:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
As a liberal, I'm more concerned if (and when) Trump wins his second term, as most presidents do. Kennedy's the moderate conservative swing vote, so replacing him with a more conservative justice is pretty bad, but next term the Supreme Court will probably be replacing a liberal justice, and I have no reason to believe that this next presidential election won't feature the same kind of fighting among progressive voters:
Establishment liberals will say "Surely *this time* the non-establishment progressives will fall in line and vote for our candidate, because they don't want Trump to win a second term!"
Non-establishment progressives will say "Surely *this time* we'll be given more respect from the establishment liberals because they've already seen what happens if we don't get thrown a few bones, and that's the only way we'll vote for the Democratic primary winner."
Hopefully, the next Democratic nominee will be able to overcome this in-fighting. It's just a matter of who wins. Progressives aren't going to vote for Kamala the Cop Harris, and liberals advocate lesser of two evils. A liberal like Kamala wins and Trump wins in 2020, a progressive like Bernie wins and liberals have no choice but to vote for him (or be completely and totally full of shit). That's the choice. Someone more progressive than Kamala or 4 more years of Trump. Those are the only choices. Well he is 72, over weight, drinks 12 diet cokes and day and loves him some McDonalds. There is also a chance he does not make it through the next elections.
Dick Cheney is still alive. I'll put about as much hope in that scenario as I did the Russia investigation being Trump's undoing lol.
|
On June 28 2018 06:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
For you, sure. But that's why her turnout numbers sucked. Did you want to get back to me on the slavery thing? You can do it in PM but I'm genuinely curious under what interpretation you think slavery was constitutional.
Hillary's turnout numbers sucked because she was a horrible, lifeless candidate. No one has ever liked Hillary. She has always polled terribly. She was as artificial a politician as there ever has been. Policy was really quite besides the point when it came to her losing.
As for slavery and the Constitution, I'm not sure what you're looking for. At the time of ratification, 1) the Constitution did not prohibit slavery, 2) the Constitution expressly contemplated the existence of slavery, and 3) the Constitution reserved issues not expressly addressed in the Constitution to the states. It's really that simple. I don't know any particularly reputable legal argument that slavery was unconstitutional before the passage of the 13th Amendment. That's why the 13th Amendment was necessary.
|
On June 28 2018 06:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 06:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Hopefully, the next Democratic nominee will be able to overcome this in-fighting. If the upset victory in NYC shows us anything, the establishment democrats can lose with grace. At the end of the day, they want to win too. As long as they can put their guns away after the November, the progressives will do fine in congress.
I hope so, although "doing fine" in Congress doesn't really mean much unless there's a Democratic majority.
On June 28 2018 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 06:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
As a liberal, I'm more concerned if (and when) Trump wins his second term, as most presidents do. Kennedy's the moderate conservative swing vote, so replacing him with a more conservative justice is pretty bad, but next term the Supreme Court will probably be replacing a liberal justice, and I have no reason to believe that this next presidential election won't feature the same kind of fighting among progressive voters:
Establishment liberals will say "Surely *this time* the non-establishment progressives will fall in line and vote for our candidate, because they don't want Trump to win a second term!"
Non-establishment progressives will say "Surely *this time* we'll be given more respect from the establishment liberals because they've already seen what happens if we don't get thrown a few bones, and that's the only way we'll vote for the Democratic primary winner."
Hopefully, the next Democratic nominee will be able to overcome this in-fighting. It's just a matter of who wins. Progressives aren't going to vote for Kamala the Cop Harris, and liberals advocate lesser of two evils. A liberal like Kamala wins and Trump wins in 2020, a progressive like Bernie wins and liberals have no choice but to vote for him (or be completely and totally full of shit). That's the choice. Someone more progressive than Kamala or 4 more years of Trump. Those are the only choices.
And based on the new DNC rule, the candidates running have to be registered Democrats, right? In other words, Independents like Bernie literally can't run in the Democratic primary anymore unless they formally change their party affiliation? Obviously, there are still Democrats who are more progressive than Hillary, but any restrictions to the candidate pool surely do a disservice in the long run.
On June 28 2018 06:28 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 06:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
As a liberal, I'm more concerned if (and when) Trump wins his second term, as most presidents do. Kennedy's the moderate conservative swing vote, so replacing him with a more conservative justice is pretty bad, but next term the Supreme Court will probably be replacing a liberal justice, and I have no reason to believe that this next presidential election won't feature the same kind of fighting among progressive voters:
Establishment liberals will say "Surely *this time* the non-establishment progressives will fall in line and vote for our candidate, because they don't want Trump to win a second term!"
Non-establishment progressives will say "Surely *this time* we'll be given more respect from the establishment liberals because they've already seen what happens if we don't get thrown a few bones, and that's the only way we'll vote for the Democratic primary winner."
Hopefully, the next Democratic nominee will be able to overcome this in-fighting. unlikely they'll be able to overcome it; as division in society is increasing across the board, and the grievances are pretty large, and quite justified in some cases. a fair bit of it will depend on chance of course.
It may just come down to two things:
1. Just how conservative our political landscape ends up being (i.e., "When will things be so bad for liberals that they need to come together and compromise");
2. Will one progressive group (establishment vs. anti-establishment) officially blink first and make large concessions towards the other for the greater good, or can they come up with an amicable compromise where everyone saves some face?
|
On June 28 2018 06:39 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2018 06:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
As a liberal, I'm more concerned if (and when) Trump wins his second term, as most presidents do. Kennedy's the moderate conservative swing vote, so replacing him with a more conservative justice is pretty bad, but next term the Supreme Court will probably be replacing a liberal justice, and I have no reason to believe that this next presidential election won't feature the same kind of fighting among progressive voters:
Establishment liberals will say "Surely *this time* the non-establishment progressives will fall in line and vote for our candidate, because they don't want Trump to win a second term!"
Non-establishment progressives will say "Surely *this time* we'll be given more respect from the establishment liberals because they've already seen what happens if we don't get thrown a few bones, and that's the only way we'll vote for the Democratic primary winner."
Hopefully, the next Democratic nominee will be able to overcome this in-fighting. It's just a matter of who wins. Progressives aren't going to vote for Kamala the Cop Harris, and liberals advocate lesser of two evils. A liberal like Kamala wins and Trump wins in 2020, a progressive like Bernie wins and liberals have no choice but to vote for him (or be completely and totally full of shit). That's the choice. Someone more progressive than Kamala or 4 more years of Trump. Those are the only choices. Well he is 72, over weight, drinks 12 diet cokes and day and loves him some McDonalds. There is also a chance he does not make it through the next elections.
Hes not advocating for literal bernie anymore but at least someone that resembles a legitimate progressive like bernie in contrast to the Hilliary centrist democrats.
and again Amy Klobuchar is the candidate that you're looking for. She takes back the blue wall and is a safe nice midwestern woman for everyone to make nice with each other over.
|
On June 28 2018 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 06:27 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2018 06:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Hopefully, the next Democratic nominee will be able to overcome this in-fighting. If the upset victory in NYC shows us anything, the establishment democrats can lose with grace. At the end of the day, they want to win too. As long as they can put their guns away after the November, the progressives will do fine in congress. I hope so, although "doing fine" in Congress doesn't really mean much unless there's a Democratic majority.
I wouldn't take the rants of some folks online as evidence of some tea party style division in the party. It isn't AS BAD as the Republicans and there is a lot of common ground. But we will have to wait until after November to see what the leadership looks. That is really going to set the tone in congress. Lets all pray it isn't Pelosi.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
