|
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 |
Although I'm an outsider with outsider-limited knowledge, the number of not-insignificant republican operatives/former white house officials etc. that have publicly rallied against Trump this time feels like quite a unique thing, especially when its from what was formerly seen (at least from a Sca/EU perspective) as the vanguard of the GOP right (Bush, Cheney, etc.)
Is there any historical precedent in US politics for the same kind of....thing for the US presidency?
|
On October 30 2024 01:54 blomsterjohn wrote:
Although I'm an outsider with outsider-limited knowledge, the number of not-insignificant republican operatives/former white house officials etc. that have publicly rallied against Trump this time feels like quite a unique thing, especially when its from what was formerly seen (at least from a Sca/EU perspective) as the vanguard of the GOP right (Bush, Cheney, etc.)
Is there any historical precedent in US politics for the same kind of....thing for the US presidency?
I can't think of any other president who was so divisive that a huge number of his first-term officials, appointees, and colleagues are actively rallying against him for his attempted second term, warning the public about how terrible of a human being and president he is.
|
On October 29 2024 21:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 21:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 29 2024 18:22 Gorsameth wrote:On October 29 2024 14:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 13:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Every time we mention socialism in this thread, i struggle to see if we are taking Denmark, Cuba, the USSR in 1925, France in 1982 or something that’s never existed.
It really makes the conversation very abstract. The word is unbelievably broad, and while I’m sure many here are very clear what they mean, it’s not always easy to follow. In the most general sense I'm talking socialism as a system to pursue conscientização or critical consciousness Critical consciousness focuses on achieving an in-depth understanding of the world, allowing for the perception and exposure of social and political contradictions. Critical consciousness also includes taking action against the oppressive elements in one's life that are illuminated by that understanding And generally aligned with Fanon, Freire, Kwame Ture, and that general flavor of revolutionary socialism. But at an even more basic level I'm just arguing in favor of socialism being a superior paradigm to pursue a "more perfect union" so to speak than capitalism and liberal democracy. As far as I can tell outside of the right-wingers, everyone agrees with that premise (socialism>capitalism going forward) at this point. The fighting is around what to do about that. Since your pointing to thinkers and not history I guess the answer to Biffs question is ' something that has never existed'. Yeah. That’s my point a little bit. And since most of us haven’t read those authors, we are talking without a clear reference over what any of that means, which dooms the conversation imo. I find though that the cultivated confusion about the word socialism is one of the reason the political debate in the US is so sterile. Republicans voluntarily entertain the confusion between « slightly more like Denmark » and « Moscow 1928 » and the progressives never explain if they want a completely new utopian system that has never existed, + Show Spoiler + or again, if we are talking increasing taxes and getting what most advanced countries already have, such as free healthcare, free education and so on.
Then everybody goes on talking with their definition in mind. Which is a major reason I've spent 7+ years trying to get you guys to read some of them. It also demonstrates how the inquiries are just bad faith sealioning. Seems like the US is getting forced into the choice of fascism or something new that hasn't existed and most US voters favor fascism over their fear of something new/reading socialists instead of hundreds of pages of oBlade type arguments.
Is this not the exact argument on why you should expand on from why capitalism is bad, to how and why socialism solves these problems. You have people asking you questions, answer them. You have a captive audience that will read basically anything you write. Surely you can summarize and use examples to get people excited about what you want them to read instead of assigning it as if you are a condescending professor.
Your approach is basically the opposite of the socialist idea of education. Like is Freire not big on people become active participants linking knowledge to action. How are we to bring our own knowledge and experience the way you expect?
|
On October 30 2024 01:41 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 23:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2024 23:09 Razyda wrote:Wow Bush, Cheney, almost seems like Kamala is planning to bless some Middle East country with her presence... I think the main idea is that only Trump could unite political leaders and families - from the most conservative to the most progressive - against him and his desire to repeat his reign of terror. I think issue with this idea is that it may be presented as "warmongers unite against Trump and support Kamala" Disclaimer - I have nothing against Bush daughter, know nothing about her, it is only that Bush Cheney surname combo gives somewhat weird vibes.
Isn't Trump the "warmonger" himself? Sure he is against helping Ukraine defend itself against his hero. But listen to his talk about what he thinks Israel should do Iran. Like he wants them to attack the nuclear facilities and so on.
"Biden's answer should have been: Target the nuclear facilities first and worry about the rest later,"
With Trump you have no consistency, no stability. Allies do not know how he will act, nor do adversaries. That leads to more not less conflict.
|
On October 30 2024 01:54 blomsterjohn wrote:
Although I'm an outsider with outsider-limited knowledge, the number of not-insignificant republican operatives/former white house officials etc. that have publicly rallied against Trump this time feels like quite a unique thing, especially when its from what was formerly seen (at least from a Sca/EU perspective) as the vanguard of the GOP right (Bush, Cheney, etc.)
Is there any historical precedent in US politics for the same kind of....thing for the US presidency?
You are correct with the word "formerly" as most of the people railing are not a "vanguard" but has-beens. This has happened with anyone from Jackson to Lincoln to Teddy to Truman to Johnson. Usually associated during realignments, which we are in one of now. It's completely expected as the party evolves to dump those people and more importantly their interests. From either personal pettiness or the Cheneys finding their interests better represented by the Democratic Party or a combination of both, it's a happy adoption in any case with both parent and child satisfied.
Inter-faction pressure is a beautiful thing. The Democrats unfortunately don't have it. From 20 years ago the people of the US grew to hate the likes of the Cheneys. At least, half of them did, and actually did something about it by cleaning house in the GOP. McConnell not seeking Senate leadership is the nail in that coffin. But apparently to the blue half it was all just performative, it's not about anything real it's just about consensus opposition to whatever the current Republican party is.
|
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
On October 30 2024 02:18 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 01:54 blomsterjohn wrote:
Although I'm an outsider with outsider-limited knowledge, the number of not-insignificant republican operatives/former white house officials etc. that have publicly rallied against Trump this time feels like quite a unique thing, especially when its from what was formerly seen (at least from a Sca/EU perspective) as the vanguard of the GOP right (Bush, Cheney, etc.)
Is there any historical precedent in US politics for the same kind of....thing for the US presidency?
You are correct with the word "formerly" as most of the people railing are not a "vanguard" but has-beens. This has happened with anyone from Jackson to Lincoln to Teddy to Truman to Johnson. Usually associated during realignments, which we are in one of now. It's completely expected as the party evolves to dump those people and more importantly their interests. From either personal pettiness or the Cheneys finding their interests better represented by the Democratic Party or a combination of both, it's a happy adoption in any case with both parent and child satisfied. Inter-faction pressure is a beautiful thing. The Democrats unfortunately don't have it. From 20 years ago the people of the US grew to hate the likes of the Cheneys. At least, half of them did, and actually did something about it by cleaning house in the GOP. McConnell not seeking Senate leadership is the nail in that coffin. But apparently to the blue half it was all just performative, it's not about anything real it's just about consensus opposition to whatever the current Republican party is.
The Democrats don’t have inter-faction pressure? What are you talking about?
I mean great the GOP cleaned house, only the newly cleaned house they chose was a cult of personality largely devoid of ideological consistency.
|
On October 30 2024 02:18 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 01:54 blomsterjohn wrote:
Although I'm an outsider with outsider-limited knowledge, the number of not-insignificant republican operatives/former white house officials etc. that have publicly rallied against Trump this time feels like quite a unique thing, especially when its from what was formerly seen (at least from a Sca/EU perspective) as the vanguard of the GOP right (Bush, Cheney, etc.)
Is there any historical precedent in US politics for the same kind of....thing for the US presidency?
You are correct with the word "formerly" as most of the people railing are not a "vanguard" but has-beens. This has happened with anyone from Jackson to Lincoln to Teddy to Truman to Johnson. Usually associated during realignments, which we are in one of now. It's completely expected as the party evolves to dump those people and more importantly their interests. From either personal pettiness or the Cheneys finding their interests better represented by the Democratic Party or a combination of both, it's a happy adoption in any case with both parent and child satisfied. Inter-faction pressure is a beautiful thing. The Democrats unfortunately don't have it. From 20 years ago the people of the US grew to hate the likes of the Cheneys. At least, half of them did, and actually did something about it by cleaning house in the GOP. McConnell not seeking Senate leadership is the nail in that coffin. But apparently to the blue half it was all just performative, it's not about anything real it's just about consensus opposition to whatever the current Republican party is. No this is not normal at all in any sense at all.
The amount of former Trump staff coming out to publicly say he should not be President is completely and utterly unprecedented in recent history.
His vice president
Attorney general
Secretary of defense
2nd secretary of defense
Chairman of the joint chiefs
Secretary of state
2nd Secretary of State
Ambassador to the UN
Presidential transition vice-chairman
National security adviser
2nd National security adviser
Chief of staff,
2nd chief of staff
Communications director
2nd communications director
Secretary of education
Secretary of transportation
Secretary of the Navy
Homeland security adviser
Personal Lawyer
White House lawyer
Director of strategic communications
Deputy White House press secretary
|
On October 30 2024 02:25 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 02:18 oBlade wrote:On October 30 2024 01:54 blomsterjohn wrote:
Although I'm an outsider with outsider-limited knowledge, the number of not-insignificant republican operatives/former white house officials etc. that have publicly rallied against Trump this time feels like quite a unique thing, especially when its from what was formerly seen (at least from a Sca/EU perspective) as the vanguard of the GOP right (Bush, Cheney, etc.)
Is there any historical precedent in US politics for the same kind of....thing for the US presidency?
You are correct with the word "formerly" as most of the people railing are not a "vanguard" but has-beens. This has happened with anyone from Jackson to Lincoln to Teddy to Truman to Johnson. Usually associated during realignments, which we are in one of now. It's completely expected as the party evolves to dump those people and more importantly their interests. From either personal pettiness or the Cheneys finding their interests better represented by the Democratic Party or a combination of both, it's a happy adoption in any case with both parent and child satisfied. Inter-faction pressure is a beautiful thing. The Democrats unfortunately don't have it. From 20 years ago the people of the US grew to hate the likes of the Cheneys. At least, half of them did, and actually did something about it by cleaning house in the GOP. McConnell not seeking Senate leadership is the nail in that coffin. But apparently to the blue half it was all just performative, it's not about anything real it's just about consensus opposition to whatever the current Republican party is. The Democrats don’t have inter-faction pressure? What are you talking about?
Basically any Democrat has favorability among Democrats above 80%, minimum 70%, and never disagree on anything. Contrast that with Republican voters who basically hate any politician equally.
I would ask you to list the significant challenges to Pelosi's leadership over 20 years, or the difference between Jeffries and her, or the challenges to Schumer over 8 years, or the ideological differences between any presidential candidates since 2008 except Bernie, who almost got a bunch of votes and then disappeared and has had the net effect on the party of... what exactly?
On October 30 2024 02:25 WombaT wrote:
I mean great the GOP cleaned house, only the newly cleaned house they chose was a cult of personality largely devoid of ideological consistency.
Devoid of ideological consistency... due to not being a monolith... due to pressure among factions...
|
Bisutopia19274 Posts
On October 30 2024 01:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 01:54 blomsterjohn wrote:
Although I'm an outsider with outsider-limited knowledge, the number of not-insignificant republican operatives/former white house officials etc. that have publicly rallied against Trump this time feels like quite a unique thing, especially when its from what was formerly seen (at least from a Sca/EU perspective) as the vanguard of the GOP right (Bush, Cheney, etc.)
Is there any historical precedent in US politics for the same kind of....thing for the US presidency?
I can't think of any other president who was so divisive that a huge number of his first-term officials, appointees, and colleagues are actively rallying against him for his attempted second term, warning the public about how terrible of a human being and president he is.
It's stuff like this that distracts from the focus on how bad Trump is.
+ Show Spoiler +
This ad does nothing to encourage voters to vote for Kamala. I feel bad for anyone who has kids on youtube in swingstates getting this ad.
|
On October 30 2024 01:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 23:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 29 2024 22:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 21:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 29 2024 21:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 21:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 29 2024 18:22 Gorsameth wrote:On October 29 2024 14:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 13:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Every time we mention socialism in this thread, i struggle to see if we are taking Denmark, Cuba, the USSR in 1925, France in 1982 or something that’s never existed.
It really makes the conversation very abstract. The word is unbelievably broad, and while I’m sure many here are very clear what they mean, it’s not always easy to follow. In the most general sense I'm talking socialism as a system to pursue conscientização or critical consciousness Critical consciousness focuses on achieving an in-depth understanding of the world, allowing for the perception and exposure of social and political contradictions. Critical consciousness also includes taking action against the oppressive elements in one's life that are illuminated by that understanding And generally aligned with Fanon, Freire, Kwame Ture, and that general flavor of revolutionary socialism. But at an even more basic level I'm just arguing in favor of socialism being a superior paradigm to pursue a "more perfect union" so to speak than capitalism and liberal democracy. As far as I can tell outside of the right-wingers, everyone agrees with that premise (socialism>capitalism going forward) at this point. The fighting is around what to do about that. Since your pointing to thinkers and not history I guess the answer to Biffs question is ' something that has never existed'. Yeah. That’s my point a little bit. And since most of us haven’t read those authors, we are talking without a clear reference over what any of that means, which dooms the conversation imo. I find though that the cultivated confusion about the word socialism is one of the reason the political debate in the US is so sterile. Republicans voluntarily entertain the confusion between « slightly more like Denmark » and « Moscow 1928 » and the progressives never explain if they want a completely new utopian system that has never existed, + Show Spoiler + or again, if we are talking increasing taxes and getting what most advanced countries already have, such as free healthcare, free education and so on.
Then everybody goes on talking with their definition in mind. Which is a major reason I've spent 7+ years trying to get you guys to read some of them. It also demonstrates how the inquiries are just bad faith sealioning. Seems like the US is getting forced into the choice of fascism or something new that hasn't existed and most US voters favor fascism over their fear of something new/reading socialists instead of hundreds of pages of oBlade type arguments. I know, but you have to realize that there are little chance anyone here is interested in another poster’s thought quite enough to read 2000 pages to understand what they are talking about. I am quite certain that you wouldn’t do it for me, and that’s really quite normal. So saying, go read my sources is not really a way to go in a discussion, because we could all do that. If I yold you: “you would understand me better if you read Spinoza and its commentary by Deleuze - and I believe you would - so your enquiries about what i say are done in bad faith” you would not take me very seriously. What I understand a bit from seven years of and and off discussion - and really, correct me if i am wrong - is that you think your ideas are deeper and worth more time and attention than any of us here. And that really limits the possibility of exchange. Except they have read thousands of pages of utter bollocks from the oBlades over the years. It's a matter of prioritization and they don't prioritize learning about socialism because they're addicted to capitalism and liberal democracy. "My ideas" are but a drop in an ocean of socialist thought, they aren't an a-z blueprint for a perfect socialist revolution. If I wanted people to take away one thing it'd be that we'd be better off trying to address all of the issues we face under a socialist paradigm rather than the profit driven capitalist one we live under now that promises global ecological catastrophe and nuclear annihilation. As such, we're all obligated to past, present, and future generations to do as much as we can to make that transition into a socialist paradigm a reality imo. I know GH but do you understand the problem? Look, I can tell you that my problem with your attitude is well summarized by Jaques Rancière in his seminal book, Althusser’s Lesson and his subsequent works, in which he explains how socialists revolutions have failed abjectly because of the arrogant position in which well-read revolutionaries that knew the theory and that were dogmatically entranched in a position of intellectual superiority were naturally the ones who knew what had to be done and how to do it, and considered they had nothing to learn from the people for whom the revolution was meant to be. Are you going to go to the library and read Rancière instead of, you too, read oBlade’s bs? No. You will keep reading oBlade. Rancière is one of the greatest french left wing philosopher of the XXth century. But you won’t take that from me or anyone here, yet you expect us to do the work you are absolutely not willing to do. And that, for me, kills all possibility of learning from each other. I recommend to read Althusser too by the way. “Reading the Capital” is a great work, but mainly to understand the problem Rancière had with him. Much better read that oblade, but that’s a lot of pages, I give you that. I don't really read oBlade or the responses and want a successful socialist revolution, so I'll probably read this "Althusser's Lesson" soon (long before you see me reply to oBlade) and recommend others do to. What immediately jumps out to me though is how such an analysis conflicts with my understandings of the Freirean concepts of empowering the masses through critical consciousness. Based on a cursory examination it seems people have discussed Freire and Rancière in relation to each other and there are some interesting points raised. I would find that conversation infinitely more interesting than the next red herring, but I imagine you can see the problem with that? EDIT: You know if Rancière wrote about the Black Panther Party specifically?
Although Rancière's critiques of Marxist and revolutionary intellectualism can be applied to some aspects of their approach, I am not aware that he ever wrote directly about the BPP.
In regards to Biff's response: While CC aims to empower marginalized individuals to understand and act against their oppression, the idea has limitations that echo some of the same criticisms Rancière applies to traditional socialist revolutions. Freire’s method often presupposes that the educator or organizer has a more enlightened view of oppression, which could create a hierarchy between the teacher (as liberator) and the learner (as oppressed). This mirrors Rancière's critique of socialist intellectuals who, from a perceived position of intellectual authority, impose their vision of revolution on the masses rather than co-creating it with them.
Freire’s approach still risks creating a dependency on educators to guide students toward 'liberation,' assuming the educator’s interpretation of oppression and liberation is definitive. This relationship can be paternalistic, making Freirean pedagogy susceptible to the same elitism that Rancière critiques in revolutionary socialism. In essence, it can reduce critical consciousness to a form of 'enlightenment' imposed on the people, rather than a process that genuinely emerges from their own experiences and understanding.
Both Freire and traditional socialist thinkers, including Althusser, envision an emancipatory process but do so with assumptions (uniformity of oppression, intellectual authority, defined paths to liberation) that may inadvertently re-establish hierarchies - which psychologists argue are a natural state of human societies.
Freire's educational model, while less overtly hierarchical, still risks positioning the educator as a figure of authority on what constitutes 'oppression,' potentially reinforcing the top-down power dynamics it seeks to dismantle. Consequently, without careful attention to inclusivity and genuine co-learning, both approaches may struggle to fully engage the people they aim to empower.
Thus, CC rings several bells that most socialist movements do, due to an optimistic, noble or idealistic idea that probably will face difficulties in the "real world".
Moreover - and this is more myself speaking, although Rancière also mentions this when talking about the supposed "will of the people" that socialist/revolutionary movements assume - Freire's emphasis on collective liberation through awareness and reflection does not account for the diverse motivations, interests, and values among individuals, which can dilute the cohesiveness of such movements. Especially in diverse societies where individuals and groups have differing views on what liberation should entail... thus, I asked before, if there is an actual, let's say practical blueprint for this revolution and the kind of goal(s) it wishes to achieve.
|
On October 30 2024 02:51 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 02:25 WombaT wrote:On October 30 2024 02:18 oBlade wrote:On October 30 2024 01:54 blomsterjohn wrote:
Although I'm an outsider with outsider-limited knowledge, the number of not-insignificant republican operatives/former white house officials etc. that have publicly rallied against Trump this time feels like quite a unique thing, especially when its from what was formerly seen (at least from a Sca/EU perspective) as the vanguard of the GOP right (Bush, Cheney, etc.)
Is there any historical precedent in US politics for the same kind of....thing for the US presidency?
You are correct with the word "formerly" as most of the people railing are not a "vanguard" but has-beens. This has happened with anyone from Jackson to Lincoln to Teddy to Truman to Johnson. Usually associated during realignments, which we are in one of now. It's completely expected as the party evolves to dump those people and more importantly their interests. From either personal pettiness or the Cheneys finding their interests better represented by the Democratic Party or a combination of both, it's a happy adoption in any case with both parent and child satisfied. Inter-faction pressure is a beautiful thing. The Democrats unfortunately don't have it. From 20 years ago the people of the US grew to hate the likes of the Cheneys. At least, half of them did, and actually did something about it by cleaning house in the GOP. McConnell not seeking Senate leadership is the nail in that coffin. But apparently to the blue half it was all just performative, it's not about anything real it's just about consensus opposition to whatever the current Republican party is. The Democrats don’t have inter-faction pressure? What are you talking about? Basically any Democrat has favorability among Democrats above 80%, minimum 70%, and never disagree on anything. Contrast that with Republican voters who basically hate any politician equally. I would ask you to list the significant challenges to Pelosi's leadership over 20 years, or the difference between Jeffries and her, or the challenges to Schumer over 8 years, or the ideological differences between any presidential candidates since 2008 except Bernie, who almost got a bunch of votes and then disappeared and has had the net effect on the party of... what exactly? Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 02:25 WombaT wrote:
I mean great the GOP cleaned house, only the newly cleaned house they chose was a cult of personality largely devoid of ideological consistency. Devoid of ideological consistency... due to not being a monolith... due to pressure among factions...
Kamala Harris openly disagreed with Biden in a debate leading up to 2020. That was before she became Vice president. Sanders strongly opposes Biden/Harris on Gaza, calling it a genocide and asking for a withdrawal of military aid. These are just two examples. You can find plenty of examples of Democrats disagreeing with one another on various issues.
So what are you talking about? You never make any efforts to double check or substantiate your claims. I'm Austrian and I appear to know US politics better than you do, how is that even possible?
|
On October 30 2024 02:25 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 02:18 oBlade wrote:On October 30 2024 01:54 blomsterjohn wrote:
Although I'm an outsider with outsider-limited knowledge, the number of not-insignificant republican operatives/former white house officials etc. that have publicly rallied against Trump this time feels like quite a unique thing, especially when its from what was formerly seen (at least from a Sca/EU perspective) as the vanguard of the GOP right (Bush, Cheney, etc.)
Is there any historical precedent in US politics for the same kind of....thing for the US presidency?
You are correct with the word "formerly" as most of the people railing are not a "vanguard" but has-beens. This has happened with anyone from Jackson to Lincoln to Teddy to Truman to Johnson. Usually associated during realignments, which we are in one of now. It's completely expected as the party evolves to dump those people and more importantly their interests. From either personal pettiness or the Cheneys finding their interests better represented by the Democratic Party or a combination of both, it's a happy adoption in any case with both parent and child satisfied. Inter-faction pressure is a beautiful thing. The Democrats unfortunately don't have it. From 20 years ago the people of the US grew to hate the likes of the Cheneys. At least, half of them did, and actually did something about it by cleaning house in the GOP. McConnell not seeking Senate leadership is the nail in that coffin. But apparently to the blue half it was all just performative, it's not about anything real it's just about consensus opposition to whatever the current Republican party is. The Democrats don’t have inter-faction pressure? What are you talking about? I mean great the GOP cleaned house, only the newly cleaned house they chose was a cult of personality largely devoid of ideological consistency.
I think "cult of personality" thing is kind of reasoning which costs Democrats election. What I would say happened is 2016 Trump - Republicans though 'some kind of fluke" - 2020 Trump "support he got is odd, but he lost so we were right", 2024 "that seems more like a pattern, we have to adapt" and I think thats what they trying to do.
Meanwhile Democrats deluded themself into thinking that Trump is simply some kind of magnet for bad and stupid, which united them against so much better Democrats. It kinda feels sometimes like they decided on a path which is so right that any critique of it is like a heresy. I think thats loosing them votes.
Look even on this forum: BJ is a democrat (far as I know) however, whenever he says something what can be a critique of democratic party he is pretty much ganged up upon, accused of bad faith arguments, moving goalposts, and so on. If Democrats keep their current trajectory I wouldnt be surprised if 2 elections from now he would vote Republicans (not saying he will, for all I know he may be devoted Democrat who will be last one on this forum voting for them). You know whats most funny about it? You guys would blame him.
|
So the Trump Rogan interview is at 38 million YouTube views and however many Spotify listens on top of that.The latest from Rogans twitter is Kamala demanded 1 hour instead of 3 and she wants Rogan to fly out to her rather than her going to Rogans Texas studio, which he is not up for.
https://x.com/joerogan/status/1851118464447971595
JD Vance is now set to appear on Rogan also, guess he doesn't have any strange demands.
|
On October 30 2024 03:31 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 02:25 WombaT wrote:On October 30 2024 02:18 oBlade wrote:On October 30 2024 01:54 blomsterjohn wrote:
Although I'm an outsider with outsider-limited knowledge, the number of not-insignificant republican operatives/former white house officials etc. that have publicly rallied against Trump this time feels like quite a unique thing, especially when its from what was formerly seen (at least from a Sca/EU perspective) as the vanguard of the GOP right (Bush, Cheney, etc.)
Is there any historical precedent in US politics for the same kind of....thing for the US presidency?
You are correct with the word "formerly" as most of the people railing are not a "vanguard" but has-beens. This has happened with anyone from Jackson to Lincoln to Teddy to Truman to Johnson. Usually associated during realignments, which we are in one of now. It's completely expected as the party evolves to dump those people and more importantly their interests. From either personal pettiness or the Cheneys finding their interests better represented by the Democratic Party or a combination of both, it's a happy adoption in any case with both parent and child satisfied. Inter-faction pressure is a beautiful thing. The Democrats unfortunately don't have it. From 20 years ago the people of the US grew to hate the likes of the Cheneys. At least, half of them did, and actually did something about it by cleaning house in the GOP. McConnell not seeking Senate leadership is the nail in that coffin. But apparently to the blue half it was all just performative, it's not about anything real it's just about consensus opposition to whatever the current Republican party is. The Democrats don’t have inter-faction pressure? What are you talking about? I mean great the GOP cleaned house, only the newly cleaned house they chose was a cult of personality largely devoid of ideological consistency. I think "cult of personality" thing is kind of reasoning which costs Democrats election. What I would say happened is 2016 Trump - Republicans though 'some kind of fluke" - 2020 Trump "support he got is odd, but he lost so we were right", 2024 "that seems more like a pattern, we have to adapt" and I think thats what they trying to do. Meanwhile Democrats deluded themself into thinking that Trump is simply some kind of magnet for bad and stupid, which united them against so much better Democrats. It kinda feels sometimes like they decided on a path which is so right that any critique of it is like a heresy. I think thats loosing them votes. Look even on this forum: BJ is a democrat (far as I know) however, whenever he says something what can be a critique of democratic party he is pretty much ganged up upon, accused of bad faith arguments, moving goalposts, and so on. If Democrats keep their current trajectory I wouldnt be surprised if 2 elections from now he would vote Republicans (not saying he will, for all I know he may be devoted Democrat who will be last one on this forum voting for them). You know whats most funny about it? You guys would blame him.
I would tend to hold someone responsible for the choices they make. Nobody forces someone to vote Republican, it's a choice they make. Same for making bad faith arguments and logical fallacies such as shifting goalposts. Nobody makes BlackJack's arguments transform beyond recognition the way they do, that's a choice he makes rather than acknowledge he made poor choices in his communication.
|
On October 30 2024 03:38 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 03:31 Razyda wrote:On October 30 2024 02:25 WombaT wrote:On October 30 2024 02:18 oBlade wrote:On October 30 2024 01:54 blomsterjohn wrote:
Although I'm an outsider with outsider-limited knowledge, the number of not-insignificant republican operatives/former white house officials etc. that have publicly rallied against Trump this time feels like quite a unique thing, especially when its from what was formerly seen (at least from a Sca/EU perspective) as the vanguard of the GOP right (Bush, Cheney, etc.)
Is there any historical precedent in US politics for the same kind of....thing for the US presidency?
You are correct with the word "formerly" as most of the people railing are not a "vanguard" but has-beens. This has happened with anyone from Jackson to Lincoln to Teddy to Truman to Johnson. Usually associated during realignments, which we are in one of now. It's completely expected as the party evolves to dump those people and more importantly their interests. From either personal pettiness or the Cheneys finding their interests better represented by the Democratic Party or a combination of both, it's a happy adoption in any case with both parent and child satisfied. Inter-faction pressure is a beautiful thing. The Democrats unfortunately don't have it. From 20 years ago the people of the US grew to hate the likes of the Cheneys. At least, half of them did, and actually did something about it by cleaning house in the GOP. McConnell not seeking Senate leadership is the nail in that coffin. But apparently to the blue half it was all just performative, it's not about anything real it's just about consensus opposition to whatever the current Republican party is. The Democrats don’t have inter-faction pressure? What are you talking about? I mean great the GOP cleaned house, only the newly cleaned house they chose was a cult of personality largely devoid of ideological consistency. I think "cult of personality" thing is kind of reasoning which costs Democrats election. What I would say happened is 2016 Trump - Republicans though 'some kind of fluke" - 2020 Trump "support he got is odd, but he lost so we were right", 2024 "that seems more like a pattern, we have to adapt" and I think thats what they trying to do. Meanwhile Democrats deluded themself into thinking that Trump is simply some kind of magnet for bad and stupid, which united them against so much better Democrats. It kinda feels sometimes like they decided on a path which is so right that any critique of it is like a heresy. I think thats loosing them votes. Look even on this forum: BJ is a democrat (far as I know) however, whenever he says something what can be a critique of democratic party he is pretty much ganged up upon, accused of bad faith arguments, moving goalposts, and so on. If Democrats keep their current trajectory I wouldnt be surprised if 2 elections from now he would vote Republicans (not saying he will, for all I know he may be devoted Democrat who will be last one on this forum voting for them). You know whats most funny about it? You guys would blame him. I would tend to hold someone responsible for the choices they make. Nobody forces someone to vote Republican, it's a choice they make. Same for making bad faith arguments and logical fallacies such as shifting goalposts. Nobody makes BlackJack's arguments transform beyond recognition the way they do, that's a choice he makes rather than acknowledge he made poor choices in his communication.
Choices Democrats made cost them presidency, are you holding them responsible, or are you blaming Trump for that?
|
On October 30 2024 03:48 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 03:38 NewSunshine wrote:On October 30 2024 03:31 Razyda wrote:On October 30 2024 02:25 WombaT wrote:On October 30 2024 02:18 oBlade wrote:On October 30 2024 01:54 blomsterjohn wrote:
Although I'm an outsider with outsider-limited knowledge, the number of not-insignificant republican operatives/former white house officials etc. that have publicly rallied against Trump this time feels like quite a unique thing, especially when its from what was formerly seen (at least from a Sca/EU perspective) as the vanguard of the GOP right (Bush, Cheney, etc.)
Is there any historical precedent in US politics for the same kind of....thing for the US presidency?
You are correct with the word "formerly" as most of the people railing are not a "vanguard" but has-beens. This has happened with anyone from Jackson to Lincoln to Teddy to Truman to Johnson. Usually associated during realignments, which we are in one of now. It's completely expected as the party evolves to dump those people and more importantly their interests. From either personal pettiness or the Cheneys finding their interests better represented by the Democratic Party or a combination of both, it's a happy adoption in any case with both parent and child satisfied. Inter-faction pressure is a beautiful thing. The Democrats unfortunately don't have it. From 20 years ago the people of the US grew to hate the likes of the Cheneys. At least, half of them did, and actually did something about it by cleaning house in the GOP. McConnell not seeking Senate leadership is the nail in that coffin. But apparently to the blue half it was all just performative, it's not about anything real it's just about consensus opposition to whatever the current Republican party is. The Democrats don’t have inter-faction pressure? What are you talking about? I mean great the GOP cleaned house, only the newly cleaned house they chose was a cult of personality largely devoid of ideological consistency. I think "cult of personality" thing is kind of reasoning which costs Democrats election. What I would say happened is 2016 Trump - Republicans though 'some kind of fluke" - 2020 Trump "support he got is odd, but he lost so we were right", 2024 "that seems more like a pattern, we have to adapt" and I think thats what they trying to do. Meanwhile Democrats deluded themself into thinking that Trump is simply some kind of magnet for bad and stupid, which united them against so much better Democrats. It kinda feels sometimes like they decided on a path which is so right that any critique of it is like a heresy. I think thats loosing them votes. Look even on this forum: BJ is a democrat (far as I know) however, whenever he says something what can be a critique of democratic party he is pretty much ganged up upon, accused of bad faith arguments, moving goalposts, and so on. If Democrats keep their current trajectory I wouldnt be surprised if 2 elections from now he would vote Republicans (not saying he will, for all I know he may be devoted Democrat who will be last one on this forum voting for them). You know whats most funny about it? You guys would blame him. I would tend to hold someone responsible for the choices they make. Nobody forces someone to vote Republican, it's a choice they make. Same for making bad faith arguments and logical fallacies such as shifting goalposts. Nobody makes BlackJack's arguments transform beyond recognition the way they do, that's a choice he makes rather than acknowledge he made poor choices in his communication. Choices Democrats made cost them presidency, are you holding them responsible, or are you blaming Trump for that?
Hillary Clinton had more votes than Trump, the reason why she lost has little to do with her popularity. What mistakes are we talking about?
|
On October 30 2024 03:48 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 03:38 NewSunshine wrote:On October 30 2024 03:31 Razyda wrote:On October 30 2024 02:25 WombaT wrote:On October 30 2024 02:18 oBlade wrote:On October 30 2024 01:54 blomsterjohn wrote:
Although I'm an outsider with outsider-limited knowledge, the number of not-insignificant republican operatives/former white house officials etc. that have publicly rallied against Trump this time feels like quite a unique thing, especially when its from what was formerly seen (at least from a Sca/EU perspective) as the vanguard of the GOP right (Bush, Cheney, etc.)
Is there any historical precedent in US politics for the same kind of....thing for the US presidency?
You are correct with the word "formerly" as most of the people railing are not a "vanguard" but has-beens. This has happened with anyone from Jackson to Lincoln to Teddy to Truman to Johnson. Usually associated during realignments, which we are in one of now. It's completely expected as the party evolves to dump those people and more importantly their interests. From either personal pettiness or the Cheneys finding their interests better represented by the Democratic Party or a combination of both, it's a happy adoption in any case with both parent and child satisfied. Inter-faction pressure is a beautiful thing. The Democrats unfortunately don't have it. From 20 years ago the people of the US grew to hate the likes of the Cheneys. At least, half of them did, and actually did something about it by cleaning house in the GOP. McConnell not seeking Senate leadership is the nail in that coffin. But apparently to the blue half it was all just performative, it's not about anything real it's just about consensus opposition to whatever the current Republican party is. The Democrats don’t have inter-faction pressure? What are you talking about? I mean great the GOP cleaned house, only the newly cleaned house they chose was a cult of personality largely devoid of ideological consistency. I think "cult of personality" thing is kind of reasoning which costs Democrats election. What I would say happened is 2016 Trump - Republicans though 'some kind of fluke" - 2020 Trump "support he got is odd, but he lost so we were right", 2024 "that seems more like a pattern, we have to adapt" and I think thats what they trying to do. Meanwhile Democrats deluded themself into thinking that Trump is simply some kind of magnet for bad and stupid, which united them against so much better Democrats. It kinda feels sometimes like they decided on a path which is so right that any critique of it is like a heresy. I think thats loosing them votes. Look even on this forum: BJ is a democrat (far as I know) however, whenever he says something what can be a critique of democratic party he is pretty much ganged up upon, accused of bad faith arguments, moving goalposts, and so on. If Democrats keep their current trajectory I wouldnt be surprised if 2 elections from now he would vote Republicans (not saying he will, for all I know he may be devoted Democrat who will be last one on this forum voting for them). You know whats most funny about it? You guys would blame him. I would tend to hold someone responsible for the choices they make. Nobody forces someone to vote Republican, it's a choice they make. Same for making bad faith arguments and logical fallacies such as shifting goalposts. Nobody makes BlackJack's arguments transform beyond recognition the way they do, that's a choice he makes rather than acknowledge he made poor choices in his communication. Choices Democrats made cost them presidency, are you holding them responsible, or are you blaming Trump for that?
I mean, yes, I blame the people who voted Trump in for Trump winning the election. There's also a number of liberals who in 2016 either abstained from voting, or cast a vanity third party vote because they assumed Hillary would win, and they have some share of the blame too. I don't think what I'm saying is controversial.
|
On October 30 2024 04:01 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 03:48 Razyda wrote:On October 30 2024 03:38 NewSunshine wrote:On October 30 2024 03:31 Razyda wrote:On October 30 2024 02:25 WombaT wrote:On October 30 2024 02:18 oBlade wrote:On October 30 2024 01:54 blomsterjohn wrote:
Although I'm an outsider with outsider-limited knowledge, the number of not-insignificant republican operatives/former white house officials etc. that have publicly rallied against Trump this time feels like quite a unique thing, especially when its from what was formerly seen (at least from a Sca/EU perspective) as the vanguard of the GOP right (Bush, Cheney, etc.)
Is there any historical precedent in US politics for the same kind of....thing for the US presidency?
You are correct with the word "formerly" as most of the people railing are not a "vanguard" but has-beens. This has happened with anyone from Jackson to Lincoln to Teddy to Truman to Johnson. Usually associated during realignments, which we are in one of now. It's completely expected as the party evolves to dump those people and more importantly their interests. From either personal pettiness or the Cheneys finding their interests better represented by the Democratic Party or a combination of both, it's a happy adoption in any case with both parent and child satisfied. Inter-faction pressure is a beautiful thing. The Democrats unfortunately don't have it. From 20 years ago the people of the US grew to hate the likes of the Cheneys. At least, half of them did, and actually did something about it by cleaning house in the GOP. McConnell not seeking Senate leadership is the nail in that coffin. But apparently to the blue half it was all just performative, it's not about anything real it's just about consensus opposition to whatever the current Republican party is. The Democrats don’t have inter-faction pressure? What are you talking about? I mean great the GOP cleaned house, only the newly cleaned house they chose was a cult of personality largely devoid of ideological consistency. I think "cult of personality" thing is kind of reasoning which costs Democrats election. What I would say happened is 2016 Trump - Republicans though 'some kind of fluke" - 2020 Trump "support he got is odd, but he lost so we were right", 2024 "that seems more like a pattern, we have to adapt" and I think thats what they trying to do. Meanwhile Democrats deluded themself into thinking that Trump is simply some kind of magnet for bad and stupid, which united them against so much better Democrats. It kinda feels sometimes like they decided on a path which is so right that any critique of it is like a heresy. I think thats loosing them votes. Look even on this forum: BJ is a democrat (far as I know) however, whenever he says something what can be a critique of democratic party he is pretty much ganged up upon, accused of bad faith arguments, moving goalposts, and so on. If Democrats keep their current trajectory I wouldnt be surprised if 2 elections from now he would vote Republicans (not saying he will, for all I know he may be devoted Democrat who will be last one on this forum voting for them). You know whats most funny about it? You guys would blame him. I would tend to hold someone responsible for the choices they make. Nobody forces someone to vote Republican, it's a choice they make. Same for making bad faith arguments and logical fallacies such as shifting goalposts. Nobody makes BlackJack's arguments transform beyond recognition the way they do, that's a choice he makes rather than acknowledge he made poor choices in his communication. Choices Democrats made cost them presidency, are you holding them responsible, or are you blaming Trump for that? I mean, yes, I blame the people who voted Trump in for Trump winning the election. There's also a number of liberals who in 2016 either abstained from voting, or cast a vanity third party vote because they assumed Hillary would win, and they have some share of the blame too. I don't think what I'm saying is controversial.
But really only a few of them. That is the weird thing about the US system. Most votes don't matter. Your vote only matters if you are in a state which might go both ways.
If you live in California, your vote doesn't matter. Same for Texas mostly. The system is inherently shitty. If you live in California, you can probably vote third party or abstain, and it doesn't matter.
|
On October 30 2024 04:18 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 04:01 NewSunshine wrote:On October 30 2024 03:48 Razyda wrote:On October 30 2024 03:38 NewSunshine wrote:On October 30 2024 03:31 Razyda wrote:On October 30 2024 02:25 WombaT wrote:On October 30 2024 02:18 oBlade wrote:On October 30 2024 01:54 blomsterjohn wrote:
Although I'm an outsider with outsider-limited knowledge, the number of not-insignificant republican operatives/former white house officials etc. that have publicly rallied against Trump this time feels like quite a unique thing, especially when its from what was formerly seen (at least from a Sca/EU perspective) as the vanguard of the GOP right (Bush, Cheney, etc.)
Is there any historical precedent in US politics for the same kind of....thing for the US presidency?
You are correct with the word "formerly" as most of the people railing are not a "vanguard" but has-beens. This has happened with anyone from Jackson to Lincoln to Teddy to Truman to Johnson. Usually associated during realignments, which we are in one of now. It's completely expected as the party evolves to dump those people and more importantly their interests. From either personal pettiness or the Cheneys finding their interests better represented by the Democratic Party or a combination of both, it's a happy adoption in any case with both parent and child satisfied. Inter-faction pressure is a beautiful thing. The Democrats unfortunately don't have it. From 20 years ago the people of the US grew to hate the likes of the Cheneys. At least, half of them did, and actually did something about it by cleaning house in the GOP. McConnell not seeking Senate leadership is the nail in that coffin. But apparently to the blue half it was all just performative, it's not about anything real it's just about consensus opposition to whatever the current Republican party is. The Democrats don’t have inter-faction pressure? What are you talking about? I mean great the GOP cleaned house, only the newly cleaned house they chose was a cult of personality largely devoid of ideological consistency. I think "cult of personality" thing is kind of reasoning which costs Democrats election. What I would say happened is 2016 Trump - Republicans though 'some kind of fluke" - 2020 Trump "support he got is odd, but he lost so we were right", 2024 "that seems more like a pattern, we have to adapt" and I think thats what they trying to do. Meanwhile Democrats deluded themself into thinking that Trump is simply some kind of magnet for bad and stupid, which united them against so much better Democrats. It kinda feels sometimes like they decided on a path which is so right that any critique of it is like a heresy. I think thats loosing them votes. Look even on this forum: BJ is a democrat (far as I know) however, whenever he says something what can be a critique of democratic party he is pretty much ganged up upon, accused of bad faith arguments, moving goalposts, and so on. If Democrats keep their current trajectory I wouldnt be surprised if 2 elections from now he would vote Republicans (not saying he will, for all I know he may be devoted Democrat who will be last one on this forum voting for them). You know whats most funny about it? You guys would blame him. I would tend to hold someone responsible for the choices they make. Nobody forces someone to vote Republican, it's a choice they make. Same for making bad faith arguments and logical fallacies such as shifting goalposts. Nobody makes BlackJack's arguments transform beyond recognition the way they do, that's a choice he makes rather than acknowledge he made poor choices in his communication. Choices Democrats made cost them presidency, are you holding them responsible, or are you blaming Trump for that? I mean, yes, I blame the people who voted Trump in for Trump winning the election. There's also a number of liberals who in 2016 either abstained from voting, or cast a vanity third party vote because they assumed Hillary would win, and they have some share of the blame too. I don't think what I'm saying is controversial. But really only a few of them. That is the weird thing about the US system. Most votes don't matter. Your vote only matters if you are in a state which might go both ways. If you live in California, your vote doesn't matter. Same for Texas mostly. The system is inherently shitty. If you live in California, you can probably vote third party or abstain, and it doesn't matter.
Also yes, the Electoral College is a joke and needs to go. Hillary would've won despite everything if we held the result of a national election up to the national popular vote. Instead we insist on a system that intentionally kinks the results to one side and throttles what a vote is worth.
|
On October 30 2024 04:01 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 03:48 Razyda wrote:On October 30 2024 03:38 NewSunshine wrote:On October 30 2024 03:31 Razyda wrote:On October 30 2024 02:25 WombaT wrote:On October 30 2024 02:18 oBlade wrote:On October 30 2024 01:54 blomsterjohn wrote:
Although I'm an outsider with outsider-limited knowledge, the number of not-insignificant republican operatives/former white house officials etc. that have publicly rallied against Trump this time feels like quite a unique thing, especially when its from what was formerly seen (at least from a Sca/EU perspective) as the vanguard of the GOP right (Bush, Cheney, etc.)
Is there any historical precedent in US politics for the same kind of....thing for the US presidency?
You are correct with the word "formerly" as most of the people railing are not a "vanguard" but has-beens. This has happened with anyone from Jackson to Lincoln to Teddy to Truman to Johnson. Usually associated during realignments, which we are in one of now. It's completely expected as the party evolves to dump those people and more importantly their interests. From either personal pettiness or the Cheneys finding their interests better represented by the Democratic Party or a combination of both, it's a happy adoption in any case with both parent and child satisfied. Inter-faction pressure is a beautiful thing. The Democrats unfortunately don't have it. From 20 years ago the people of the US grew to hate the likes of the Cheneys. At least, half of them did, and actually did something about it by cleaning house in the GOP. McConnell not seeking Senate leadership is the nail in that coffin. But apparently to the blue half it was all just performative, it's not about anything real it's just about consensus opposition to whatever the current Republican party is. The Democrats don’t have inter-faction pressure? What are you talking about? I mean great the GOP cleaned house, only the newly cleaned house they chose was a cult of personality largely devoid of ideological consistency. I think "cult of personality" thing is kind of reasoning which costs Democrats election. What I would say happened is 2016 Trump - Republicans though 'some kind of fluke" - 2020 Trump "support he got is odd, but he lost so we were right", 2024 "that seems more like a pattern, we have to adapt" and I think thats what they trying to do. Meanwhile Democrats deluded themself into thinking that Trump is simply some kind of magnet for bad and stupid, which united them against so much better Democrats. It kinda feels sometimes like they decided on a path which is so right that any critique of it is like a heresy. I think thats loosing them votes. Look even on this forum: BJ is a democrat (far as I know) however, whenever he says something what can be a critique of democratic party he is pretty much ganged up upon, accused of bad faith arguments, moving goalposts, and so on. If Democrats keep their current trajectory I wouldnt be surprised if 2 elections from now he would vote Republicans (not saying he will, for all I know he may be devoted Democrat who will be last one on this forum voting for them). You know whats most funny about it? You guys would blame him. I would tend to hold someone responsible for the choices they make. Nobody forces someone to vote Republican, it's a choice they make. Same for making bad faith arguments and logical fallacies such as shifting goalposts. Nobody makes BlackJack's arguments transform beyond recognition the way they do, that's a choice he makes rather than acknowledge he made poor choices in his communication. Choices Democrats made cost them presidency, are you holding them responsible, or are you blaming Trump for that? I mean, yes, I blame the people who voted Trump in for Trump winning the election. There's also a number of liberals who in 2016 either abstained from voting, or cast a vanity third party vote because they assumed Hillary would win, and they have some share of the blame too. I don't think what I'm saying is controversial.
And thats the problem I tried to illustrate. If Democrats blame everyone and everything except Democrats, then they have no way to improve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
