|
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 13:17 CatharsisUT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 12:45 Introvert wrote:On June 28 2018 12:23 Mercy13 wrote:On June 28 2018 11:07 Introvert wrote:On June 28 2018 10:41 Tachion wrote:On June 28 2018 08:03 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 28 2018 07:40 iamthedave wrote:On June 28 2018 07:35 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 28 2018 07:33 iamthedave wrote:On June 28 2018 06:57 ticklishmusic wrote:
democrats, progressives, whatever got complacent. xdaunt posted a article about conservatives and how, essentially, they always lost - the other side of that is the other side won. the other side got complacent in various ways - we started dividing ourselves, instilling purity tests, all the while ceding control of state level governments. and now we are here. I don't understand how that works. Going back to 1980s, the Presidency runs like this R (Reagan) R (H. W. Bush) D (Bill Clinton) R (Dubya) D (Obama) R (A complete arsehole) Two Democrat Presidents in nearly FORTY YEARS and this is 'The Republicans always lost'? i suggest you take a look at the bit xdaunt posted which i referred to. I suggest you provide a link to said bit if you want me to look at it. its literally like 2 pages ago, not hard to find. but tl;dr regardless of held offices conservatives were "losing" on abortion, gay rights, healthcare, etc. etc. etc. and generally liberals steadily marched ahead with their agenda in a fashion that began to seem inevitable until it wasn't I don't really get it. Those are still issues that they are losing. All they've been doing in the past year and a half is throwing band-aids on bullet holes. The guy who wrote the flight 93 election article apparently left the Trump administration if that tells you anything. The one thing of Trump's that stood out above standard Rebpublican fare from a policy point was immigration, and they're still losing that, assuming the goal was to ensure a white Christian country for the foreseeable future. And ironically enough, public support for left shifting policy is on the rise, so there is no reason why the next election won't be an even graver flight 93. And the one after that. And the one after that. At this point it just comes off to me as nonsense to rationalize voting for someone as immoral and unethical as Trump. The results don't match the panic that fueled them. Indeed, when fighting the pull of big government the most you can hope for are reprieves. Trump has done a lot of good, but what is needed are changes to laws and institutions. Even controlling and slowing the bureaucracy is not something one president could do. If I were a leftist, I'd be more concerned than I was in summer 2016, but I'd still be hopeful. A government and country this size has considerable inertia. edit: on a semi-related note, it turned out to be true that opposing Gorsuch when the balance of the Court wouldn't change was foolish for Democrats, although that seems to be the way their court strategy has gone on the last few years. They really didn't think they were ever going to lose another election. https://hotair.com/archives/2018/06/27/schumer-hadnt-insisted-filibustering-gorsuch-hed-much-better-position-now/edit2: A follow up to what I mentioned earlier, from the same author of the piece I cited. Midterm year confirmations are not extraordinary, especially when the same party controls the Senate and the Presidency. + Show Spoiler + Are you implying that if the Dems hadn't filibustered Gorsuch but had done so for Kennedy's replacement McConnell would have been like "oh well, I guess we won't ensure right wing dominance of SCOTUS for the next generation or two after all"? If so, that's the funniest thing I've heard all week. McConnell is shameless. After the stunt he pulled with Garland there was no way the SCOTUS appointment filibuster was going to last through Trump's term, one way or another. Hopefully the Dems use this as an excuse to do away with the filibuster entirely the next chance they get. Requiring a supermajority to get anything done is stupid. Read what I linked. They'd have a stronger claim to having some input. They could conceivably get a more moderate justice, and if McConnell ran over that (possible) he'd have a large political problem. You remember how McConnell handled Garland, right? So why would anyone think that suddenly, THIS TIME, the power of shame would just be too much for him. He'd have a "large political problem?" What, attending all the parties his supporters would throw for him? They don't care about violating norms of politics. Trump should teach everyone that.
Odds are low that all GOP senators would vote to remove the filibuster in that situation. But the Dems burned it on Gorsuch, a tactical mistake.
|
[B]On June 28 2018 11:28 Kyadytim wrote:
This isn't a country for me or people like me. Not like this.
And it's almost certainly going to get even worse before there's any opportunity for it to get better.
What, exactly, do you think I should feel hopeful about?
As a long disillusioned progressive, I finally see some light at the end of the tunnel for once. The right controls the levers of power, so we must fight back with grassroots organizing. Where the hope lies, is that new ideas are gaining traction and winning the intellectual debates. Most importantly in economics, which affect everything else in politics. It takes education and awareness... and time. See video at end of link for a primer on MMT:
http://heteconomist.com/what-everyone-should-know-about-budget-deficits-and-public-debt/
Democrats fight against macroeconomic reality as hard as Republicans though, and there's also a rare breed coming back from extinction in the form of progressive Republicans. Mike Norman is one planning to run in 2020... a bit cooky, but knows his economics heh. Personally, I would love to see another Tom McCall one day.
MMT is my hope. It is the scientific method of understanding how our monetary system works, and leads to logically sound progressive policy.
|
On June 28 2018 14:14 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +[B]On June 28 2018 11:28 Kyadytim wrote:
This isn't a country for me or people like me. Not like this.
And it's almost certainly going to get even worse before there's any opportunity for it to get better.
What, exactly, do you think I should feel hopeful about? As a long disillusioned progressive, I finally see some light at the end of the tunnel for once. The right controls the levers of power, so we must fight back with grassroots organizing. Where the hope lies, is that new ideas are gaining traction and winning the intellectual debates. Most importantly in economics, which affect everything else in politics. It takes education and awareness... and time. See video at end of link for a primer on MMT: http://heteconomist.com/what-everyone-should-know-about-budget-deficits-and-public-debt/Democrats fight against macroeconomic reality as hard as Republicans though, and there's also a rare breed coming back from extinction in the form of progressive Republicans. Mike Norman is one planning to run in 2020... a bit cooky, but knows his economics heh. Personally, I would love to see another Tom McCall one day. MMT is my hope. It is the scientific method of understanding how our monetary system works, and leads to logically sound progressive policy.
You completely missed my point. Ideas gaining traction with the left is irrelevant, because the right is in the process of locking down their control of government and ramming through their economic and social agenda. Grassroots organizing isn't going to overcome organized voter disenfranchisement surgically targeted at left leaning voters, increasing gerrymandering, and a supreme court that upholds it all.
Progressive policy is irrelevant, because nobody to the left of the most moderate Republicans will get a say in public policy for decades.
|
On June 28 2018 15:00 Kyadytim wrote:
You completely missed my point. Ideas gaining traction with the left is irrelevant, because the right is in the process of locking down their control of government and ramming through their economic and social agenda. Grassroots organizing isn't going to overcome organized voter disenfranchisement surgically targeted at left leaning voters, increasing gerrymandering, and a supreme court that upholds it all.
Progressive policy is irrelevant, because nobody to the left of the most moderate Republicans will get a say in public policy for decades.
I understand you, but just think you are underestimating the power of grassroots unity. Nixon never wanted to create the EPA after all. It doesn't matter who is in power if the public is united for a common purpose. More important is to change the national discourse and combat propaganda. There is a lot of work to do for sure. Considering that Bernie Sanders's economic adviser during the Dem primary was Stephanie Kelton (MMT Rockstar), I can see progress- even if his rhetoric was wrong at times. I urge you not to give up the fight. 
|
On June 28 2018 15:16 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 15:00 Kyadytim wrote:
You completely missed my point. Ideas gaining traction with the left is irrelevant, because the right is in the process of locking down their control of government and ramming through their economic and social agenda. Grassroots organizing isn't going to overcome organized voter disenfranchisement surgically targeted at left leaning voters, increasing gerrymandering, and a supreme court that upholds it all.
Progressive policy is irrelevant, because nobody to the left of the most moderate Republicans will get a say in public policy for decades. I understand you, but just think you are underestimating the power of grassroots unity. Nixon never wanted to create the EPA after all. It doesn't matter who is in power if the public is united for a common purpose. More important is to change the national discourse and combat propaganda. There is a lot of work to do for sure. Considering that Bernie Sanders's economic adviser during the Dem primary was Stephanie Kelton (MMT Rockstar), I can see progress- even if his rhetoric was wrong at times. I urge you not to give up the fight.
I really think you're not understanding the problem. The Republican party has been actively working to insulate themselves from voter discontent for years. Nixon didn't want to create the EPA, but Congresspeople still had to worry about losing elections. That is substantially less of an issue these days. Also, there is more to being a progressive than economic policy.
EDIT: I need to elaborate on that bit about losing elections. It's possible for progressives to elect candidates in a number of districts/states, but it is not a significant number of them. Progressives have a tendency to pack themselves into geographically small areas, and there just outright aren't enough of them to win statewide races in most states. Even Republicans not in safely red districts/states can ignore progressives, because the districts/states that can elect progressives are already electing Democrats. Trading in moderate Democrats for progressive Democrats doesn't change anything, because Republicans will still control Congress and only pass legislation they wrote without input from Democrats, be they moderate or progressive Democrats.
For grassroots organizing to matter, they would have to persuade enough people who regularly vote Republican to vote for progressives to threaten Republican enough seats to flip Congress.
|
On June 28 2018 15:19 Kyadytim wrote:
I really think you're not understanding the problem. The Republican party has been actively working to insulate themselves from voter discontent for years. Nixon didn't want to create the EPA, but Congresspeople still had to worry about losing elections. That is substantially less of an issue these days. Also, there is more to being a progressive than economic policy.
EDIT: I need to elaborate on that bit about losing elections. It's possible for progressives to elect candidates in a number of districts/states, but it is not a significant number of them. Progressives have a tendency to pack themselves into geographically small areas, and there just outright aren't enough of them to win statewide races in most states. Even Republicans not in safely red districts/states can ignore progressives, because the districts/states that can elect progressives are already electing Democrats. Trading in moderate Democrats for progressive Democrats doesn't change anything, because Republicans will still control Congress and only pass legislation they wrote without input from Democrats, be they moderate or progressive Democrats.
For grassroots organizing to matter, they would have to persuade enough people who regularly vote Republican to vote for progressives to threaten Republican enough seats to flip Congress.
I think you might be surprised how much more support progressives have in rural areas compared with establishment liberals. There are also different views among progressives, true. I suppose that I refer to the economic populist progressive view. I would still say that understanding our monetary system and macroeconomic reality is the key to just about every other plank of a progressive platform. Any single issue that I can think of has its root problems in economics (and misunderstanding of it). If conservatives realized that their federal taxes don't pay for an immigrant family or poor or disabled person's medical care or food stamps, there would be less anger and xenophobia... for example. If that person scowling at and berating a mother using her SNAP card to feed her family understood that they are likely helping the economy and keeping them employed through an automatic stabilizer, perhaps they would be more tolerant and not calling for our economy to be tanked. The list goes on and on...
The kicker here, is that moderate Democrats do nothing to address any of it, and are just as bad on this front as Republicans. Trading in conservative Republicans for conservative or moderate Democrats is an exercise in futility. You are correct that progressives are still in the minority, but I see that beginning to change. Anyway, was only trying to give you some hope here.
|
Some interesting developments in the Manafort case recently. Manafort, of course, is Trump's presidential campaign manager who is currently in jail. Mueller's team said in a court filing that while he was Trump's campaign manager, he had an outstanding loan from Oleg Deripaska, a Russian billionaire & Putin ally who Manafort had long done business with, including lobbying work for Putin's government. Manafort was also more than willing to use his position in Trump's campaign to improve his position with Deripaska, and these talks involved "the future of Deripaska's country":
Manafort reportedly wrote to Konstantin Kilimnik, his longtime employee and a Russian-Ukrainian operative, on April 11, 2016, asking whether he had shown "our friends" the media coverage of him since his hiring as a senior campaign strategist.
...
"How do we use to get whole," Manafort responded. "Has OVD operation seen?"
Investigators have concluded — and Manafort's spokesman has not disputed — that "OVD" was a reference to the oligarch's full name: Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska.
...
Bloomberg reported last week that Manafort had offered "private briefings" about the campaign to Deripaska in hopes of resolving a years-long business dispute involving a failed Ukrainian TV company called Black Sea Cable.
Jason Maloni, a representative for Manafort, declined to comment. But he told The Washington Post earlier this month that Manafort had been trying to leverage his high-level role on the campaign to collect past debts. But it was Manafort who owed Deripaska money, according to the oligarch.
...
Manafort reportedly wrote to Kilimnik on July 7, 2016, asking whether there was "any movement" on the Black Sea Cable "issue" with "our friend" — another reference to Deripaska, The Atlantic said it confirmed.
"Our friend V said there is lately significantly more attention to the campaign in his boss's mind, and he will be most likely looking for ways to reach out to you pretty soon, understanding all the time sensitivity," Kilimnik wrote on July 7, The Atlantic reported. "I am more than sure that it will be resolved and we will get back to the original relationship with V.'s boss."
Kilimnik reportedly wrote to Manafort again on July 29, after Trump had accepted the GOP presidential nomination:
"I met today with the guy who gave you your biggest black caviar jar several years ago. We spent about 5 hours talking about his story, and I have several important messages from him to you. He asked me to go and brief you on our conversation. I said I have to run it by you first, but in principle I am prepared to do it, provided that he buys me a ticket. It has to do about the future of his country, and is quite interesting."
Manafort agreed, and they met in New York on August 2.
Manafort was forced to resign just over two weeks later, after The New York Times reported that the pro-Russia political party he had worked for had earmarked him $12.7 million for his work between 2007 and 2012.
www.businessinsider.com
Also, the same day that Manafort stepped down from the campaign, he created a LLC that subsequently received millions in home loans from companies connected to Trump allies. The first of these was from a company backed by Alex Rovt, a Ukrainian who previouslyl sold his company to Manafort's Ukrainian billionaire business/lobbying partner. Some other facts about Rovt:
- He was previously involved with Trump Hotels.
- He was an author of the Ukraine/Russian peace plan delivered by Michael Cohen to the White House, which would have lifted sanctions.
www.nbcnews.com
www.mcclatchydc.com
If anything approaching collusion occurred (that is to say, if team Trump succeeded in what they were willing to do), Manafort would probably be the one.
From Jan. 30:
Donald Trump is telling friends and aides in private that things are going great — for him.
Some reasons: He's decided that a key witness in the Russia probe, Paul Manafort, isn't going to "flip" and sell him out, friends and aides say.
www.nbcnews.com
|
On June 28 2018 11:47 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 11:43 zlefin wrote:On June 28 2018 11:28 Mohdoo wrote:
The Cortez win in new York is a much bigger deal than people are giving credit. I think this is actually really huge. It gives me hope that my prediction Trump would birth a left version of the tea party will end up true. This could totally be the beginning of Democrat establishment getting a solid boot to the curb.
I expect we are going to end up in a situation where Democrats and socialists form a coalition of sorts. I want this other party to grow and I want it to play hardball with Democrats. I could see an Oregon seat totally going the way of socialists. Start with deep blue districts and work your way out. This is just so huge. There are so many movements that end up stagnant because no "real" progress being made gives everyone cold feet. This shell finally cracked. Let it flow.
I predict 4 seats in Congress going to this new party the next election cycle. Then probably 10 after that, assuming Democrats don't find a way to adapt. given how bad the tea party is; what makes you think a leftist version of the tea party would be a good thing? When I compare "relevance of social conservatism" before and after the tea party, I have a hard time thinking the tea party was a bad thing for Republicans. The tea party made people think their vote might actually change something. That's big. It's the same reason Cortez won.
ok; but social conservatism very much was still relevant before the tea party. though I suppose it did get bigger and more obnoxious, or at least more visible.
at any rate the tea party was a terrible thing for the country though; I'm talking about the good of the country, not the good of an individual party. and from what i've seen the leftist versions of the tea party would also be quite bad for the country (though not near as bad as the tea party).
|
You'll have to declare what you consider a leftist version of the tea party to declare it bad for the country. Then again everything in that sentence is up for debate.
|
At the risk of repeating myself, "far left" in the US isn't actually far left, it's just standard left that looks far away because the Overton window is fucked up. Nothing that has a chance of being the "Tea Party of the left" in the US is actually far left under any sane definition. So no, it won't be bad for the country, it will just work towards restoring a lost balance.
|
The biggest fear is that the infighting never stops, like the tea party. That the primary season never ends and they fight all the way through their term.
|
On June 28 2018 21:54 Plansix wrote:
The biggest fear is that the infighting never stops, like the tea party. That the primary season never ends and they fight all the way through their term.
The infighting will likely be worse on the left if the democrat version of the tea party takes off. The far left isn’t bound by sufficient civility and decency for it to go any other way.
|
On June 28 2018 22:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 21:54 Plansix wrote:
The biggest fear is that the infighting never stops, like the tea party. That the primary season never ends and they fight all the way through their term. The infighting will likely be worse on the left if the democrat version of the tea party takes off. The far left isn’t bound by sufficient civility and decency for it to go any other way.
Since when are you a connoisseur of the "far left"? Or are you basing your opinion on... GH?
|
On June 28 2018 22:09 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 22:08 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 21:54 Plansix wrote:
The biggest fear is that the infighting never stops, like the tea party. That the primary season never ends and they fight all the way through their term. The infighting will likely be worse on the left if the democrat version of the tea party takes off. The far left isn’t bound by sufficient civility and decency for it to go any other way. Since when are you a connoisseur of the "far left"? Or are you basing your opinion on... GH?
The far left of the US is the political group that thinks it’s okay to riot and relentlessly harass political opponents as a form of civil disobedience. Are you really going to debate this after what we have seen over the past couple years?
|
I don't understand how Trump gets away with lamenting people who got sent to jail for money laundering and fraud. He's calling it a disgrace. While at the same time hammering on about 'crooked Hilary' who was also investigated and cleared of any charges.
He wants an investigation for someone that is already investigated but hates the investigation that brings out actual crooks. Like is it really this transparent?
|
On June 28 2018 22:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 21:54 Plansix wrote:
The biggest fear is that the infighting never stops, like the tea party. That the primary season never ends and they fight all the way through their term. The infighting will likely be worse on the left if the democrat version of the tea party takes off. The far left isn’t bound by sufficient civility and decency for it to go any other way. I am confusing.
This comment seems to imply the tea party has civility or decency.
|
On June 28 2018 22:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 22:08 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 21:54 Plansix wrote:
The biggest fear is that the infighting never stops, like the tea party. That the primary season never ends and they fight all the way through their term. The infighting will likely be worse on the left if the democrat version of the tea party takes off. The far left isn’t bound by sufficient civility and decency for it to go any other way. I am confusing. This comment seems to imply the tea party has civility or decency.
Not as much as I would like, but far more than what you’ll find on the other end of the spectrum.
|
On June 28 2018 22:12 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
I don't understand how Trump gets away with lamenting people who got sent to jail for money laundering and fraud. He's calling it a disgrace. While at the same time hammering on about 'crooked Hilary' who was also investigated and cleared of any charges.
He wants an investigation for someone that is already investigated but hates the investigation that brings out actual crooks. Like is it really this transparent? Yes, the power of congestive dissonance.
|
On June 28 2018 22:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 21:54 Plansix wrote:
The biggest fear is that the infighting never stops, like the tea party. That the primary season never ends and they fight all the way through their term. The infighting will likely be worse on the left if the democrat version of the tea party takes off. The far left isn’t bound by sufficient civility and decency for it to go any other way.
It is a good thing that civility and decency are not that relevant to voters any more, thanks to your boy Trump. The gloves are off now. So it is just a question of if they can get along long enough to vote on things like healthcare and other measures(assuming they pick up a majority).
The one fact I picked up yesterday is the three most popular politicians in the country are three Republican governors in blue states. One with a 70% approval rating, which is crazy town high. They are popular because they govern well, pass bills and fix problems. Voters like results. So assuming the far left isn’t the dumpster fire that is the tea party, they have a good chance of making voters happy.
|
On June 28 2018 22:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 22:09 Acrofales wrote:On June 28 2018 22:08 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 21:54 Plansix wrote:
The biggest fear is that the infighting never stops, like the tea party. That the primary season never ends and they fight all the way through their term. The infighting will likely be worse on the left if the democrat version of the tea party takes off. The far left isn’t bound by sufficient civility and decency for it to go any other way. Since when are you a connoisseur of the "far left"? Or are you basing your opinion on... GH? The far left of the US is the political group that thinks it’s okay to riot and relentlessly harass political opponents as a form of civil disobedience. Are you really going to debate this after what we have seen over the past couple years?
Donald Trump.
Lock her up.
Enough said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
