|
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 November 10 2024 15:44 NewSunshine wrote:
Except it was part of Biden's administration. If you want to take issue with that in some way that isn't just waving your hands and saying "but the bill was bad" with no elaboration, then do so. The fact remains that Democrats tried to bend to the right and implement a border crackdown bill, that Trump ordered Republicans to kill. It's not for lack of Democrats trying the very thing you're trying to say they didn't do.
What's more likely in your worldview:
1) Blumpf campaigning on the border, but getting into office and not doing anything (after he already campaigned on the border and did things last time)
2) Harris getting into office and actually doing something about the border despite her administration undoing all of Blumpf's policies the first week after Biden was sworn in
|
On November 10 2024 16:02 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2024 15:44 NewSunshine wrote:
Except it was part of Biden's administration. If you want to take issue with that in some way that isn't just waving your hands and saying "but the bill was bad" with no elaboration, then do so. The fact remains that Democrats tried to bend to the right and implement a border crackdown bill, that Trump ordered Republicans to kill. It's not for lack of Democrats trying the very thing you're trying to say they didn't do. What's more likely in your worldview: 1) Blumpf campaigning on the border, but getting into office and not doing anything (after he already campaigned on the border and did things last time) 2) Harris getting into office and actually doing something about the border despite her administration undoing all of Blumpf's policies the first week after Biden was sworn in
Republicans killed the bipartisan border bill because Trump ordered them to do it. It's all just a game for them.
|
Biden day 1: undoes Trumps executive orders on border
Biden day 1,085: makes executive orders on border
Harris day 1,177: our executive orders on the border have significantly reduced the amount of migrants coming in
Anderson Cooper: then why didn’t you do that sooner?
Harris: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
On November 10 2024 15:32 Introvert wrote:
A) That bill was bad and I'm glad Trump killed it whatever the reason.
B) The reason no one took Harris seriously on the border is because the Biden administration was at fault in the first place. They let it stay in a state of crisis for years and then when election season rolled around tried to use that bill as a fig leaf instead of using his executive power under the law as it already existed to fix the problem! But of course when asked, twice, what she would do different than Biden she answered "nothing comes to mind." Not to be mean but you guys are being willing marks in all this, that terrible fig-leaf bill has provided this thread and Harris defenders everywhere a one line answer to why they don't have to do anything about the border. No one ever thinks to ask "why did they let it get that bad in the first place" and "what could they do to fix it under exiting law?"
Now lets see what the Republicans can do with their super majority...
I expect very little, complaining border problems is an important way for them to get votes.
|
On November 10 2024 18:50 Luolis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2024 16:02 oBlade wrote:On November 10 2024 15:44 NewSunshine wrote:
Except it was part of Biden's administration. If you want to take issue with that in some way that isn't just waving your hands and saying "but the bill was bad" with no elaboration, then do so. The fact remains that Democrats tried to bend to the right and implement a border crackdown bill, that Trump ordered Republicans to kill. It's not for lack of Democrats trying the very thing you're trying to say they didn't do. What's more likely in your worldview: 1) Blumpf campaigning on the border, but getting into office and not doing anything (after he already campaigned on the border and did things last time) 2) Harris getting into office and actually doing something about the border despite her administration undoing all of Blumpf's policies the first week after Biden was sworn in Republicans killed the bipartisan border bill because Trump ordered them to do it. It's all just a game for them.
Why didn't the 117th Congress pass a monopartisan bill?
|
On November 10 2024 19:37 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2024 18:50 Luolis wrote:On November 10 2024 16:02 oBlade wrote:On November 10 2024 15:44 NewSunshine wrote:
Except it was part of Biden's administration. If you want to take issue with that in some way that isn't just waving your hands and saying "but the bill was bad" with no elaboration, then do so. The fact remains that Democrats tried to bend to the right and implement a border crackdown bill, that Trump ordered Republicans to kill. It's not for lack of Democrats trying the very thing you're trying to say they didn't do. What's more likely in your worldview: 1) Blumpf campaigning on the border, but getting into office and not doing anything (after he already campaigned on the border and did things last time) 2) Harris getting into office and actually doing something about the border despite her administration undoing all of Blumpf's policies the first week after Biden was sworn in Republicans killed the bipartisan border bill because Trump ordered them to do it. It's all just a game for them. Why didn't the 117th Congress pass a monopartisan bill?
You're dodging the point because it makes you look bad. I get it. Imagine if you could look into the mirror and realize what you are doing, but you people will never learn.
|
On November 10 2024 20:18 Luolis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2024 19:37 oBlade wrote:On November 10 2024 18:50 Luolis wrote:On November 10 2024 16:02 oBlade wrote:On November 10 2024 15:44 NewSunshine wrote:
Except it was part of Biden's administration. If you want to take issue with that in some way that isn't just waving your hands and saying "but the bill was bad" with no elaboration, then do so. The fact remains that Democrats tried to bend to the right and implement a border crackdown bill, that Trump ordered Republicans to kill. It's not for lack of Democrats trying the very thing you're trying to say they didn't do. What's more likely in your worldview: 1) Blumpf campaigning on the border, but getting into office and not doing anything (after he already campaigned on the border and did things last time) 2) Harris getting into office and actually doing something about the border despite her administration undoing all of Blumpf's policies the first week after Biden was sworn in Republicans killed the bipartisan border bill because Trump ordered them to do it. It's all just a game for them. Why didn't the 117th Congress pass a monopartisan bill? You're dodging the point because it makes you look bad. I get it. Imagine if you could look into the mirror and realize what you are doing, but you people will never learn.
I am not dodging a point. I am making a different point. Try and answer it with that magic mirror. Here's our data points.
1) Biden administration undid all of Blumpf's border policies the first week.
2) Unified Dem government passed no border package in 117th Congress.
3) 6 Democrats voted against bill in question.
4) 51-50 Dem Senate never considered HR2 which was passed by Republican House in 118th Congress.
5) Allegedly bipartisan border-opening bill would have never passed 118th House controlled by Republicans to begin with.
Here's our competing theories.
Me: The bill you are touting was dog shit, and the Democrats either have no solution for these issues, do not want to solve them, or support the status quo and want to perpetuate it or make it worse. Explains: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Also is independently supported by the fact that I bothered to read it.
You: Blumpf ordered Republicans not to pass the most amazing bipartisan border bill in the history of the country out of spite. Explains: Nothing. Doesn't even explain 3. One Republican voted for it and six Democrats against. When you're so shrewdly bipartisan that you lose your own people at a ratio of 6:1 compared to the support you gain from the other party, you are politicking extremely wrong.
|
On November 10 2024 20:39 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2024 20:18 Luolis wrote:On November 10 2024 19:37 oBlade wrote:On November 10 2024 18:50 Luolis wrote:On November 10 2024 16:02 oBlade wrote:On November 10 2024 15:44 NewSunshine wrote:
Except it was part of Biden's administration. If you want to take issue with that in some way that isn't just waving your hands and saying "but the bill was bad" with no elaboration, then do so. The fact remains that Democrats tried to bend to the right and implement a border crackdown bill, that Trump ordered Republicans to kill. It's not for lack of Democrats trying the very thing you're trying to say they didn't do. What's more likely in your worldview: 1) Blumpf campaigning on the border, but getting into office and not doing anything (after he already campaigned on the border and did things last time) 2) Harris getting into office and actually doing something about the border despite her administration undoing all of Blumpf's policies the first week after Biden was sworn in Republicans killed the bipartisan border bill because Trump ordered them to do it. It's all just a game for them. Why didn't the 117th Congress pass a monopartisan bill? You're dodging the point because it makes you look bad. I get it. Imagine if you could look into the mirror and realize what you are doing, but you people will never learn. You: Blumpf ordered Republicans not to pass the most amazing bipartisan border bill in the history of the country out of spite. Explains: Nothing. Doesn't even explain 3. One Republican voted for it and six Democrats against. When you're so shrewdly bipartisan that you lose your own people at a ratio of 6:1 compared to the support you gain from the other party, you are politicking extremely wrong.
Hey dumbfuck, it was a Republican bill, and Republicans turned against it after Trump said "dont vote for it, i need it as a weapon for the election". How do you function with a brain that small? Fuck, i hope Republicans go hard on the tariffs so morons like you will suffer from the consequences of your actions.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On November 10 2024 20:56 Luolis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2024 20:39 oBlade wrote:On November 10 2024 20:18 Luolis wrote:On November 10 2024 19:37 oBlade wrote:On November 10 2024 18:50 Luolis wrote:On November 10 2024 16:02 oBlade wrote:On November 10 2024 15:44 NewSunshine wrote:
Except it was part of Biden's administration. If you want to take issue with that in some way that isn't just waving your hands and saying "but the bill was bad" with no elaboration, then do so. The fact remains that Democrats tried to bend to the right and implement a border crackdown bill, that Trump ordered Republicans to kill. It's not for lack of Democrats trying the very thing you're trying to say they didn't do. What's more likely in your worldview: 1) Blumpf campaigning on the border, but getting into office and not doing anything (after he already campaigned on the border and did things last time) 2) Harris getting into office and actually doing something about the border despite her administration undoing all of Blumpf's policies the first week after Biden was sworn in Republicans killed the bipartisan border bill because Trump ordered them to do it. It's all just a game for them. Why didn't the 117th Congress pass a monopartisan bill? You're dodging the point because it makes you look bad. I get it. Imagine if you could look into the mirror and realize what you are doing, but you people will never learn. You: Blumpf ordered Republicans not to pass the most amazing bipartisan border bill in the history of the country out of spite. Explains: Nothing. Doesn't even explain 3. One Republican voted for it and six Democrats against. When you're so shrewdly bipartisan that you lose your own people at a ratio of 6:1 compared to the support you gain from the other party, you are politicking extremely wrong. Hey dumbfuck, it was a Republican bill, and Republicans turned against it after Trump said "dont vote for it, i need it as a weapon for the election". How do you function with a brain that small? Fuck, i hope Republicans go hard on the tariffs so morons like you will suffer from the consequences of your actions.
The bill in question was introduced by Sen Chris Murphy D-Conn. That capital D there stands for Democrats which would make it a stretch to call it a “Republican bill.”
|
On November 10 2024 20:39 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2024 20:18 Luolis wrote:On November 10 2024 19:37 oBlade wrote:On November 10 2024 18:50 Luolis wrote:On November 10 2024 16:02 oBlade wrote:On November 10 2024 15:44 NewSunshine wrote:
Except it was part of Biden's administration. If you want to take issue with that in some way that isn't just waving your hands and saying "but the bill was bad" with no elaboration, then do so. The fact remains that Democrats tried to bend to the right and implement a border crackdown bill, that Trump ordered Republicans to kill. It's not for lack of Democrats trying the very thing you're trying to say they didn't do. What's more likely in your worldview: 1) Blumpf campaigning on the border, but getting into office and not doing anything (after he already campaigned on the border and did things last time) 2) Harris getting into office and actually doing something about the border despite her administration undoing all of Blumpf's policies the first week after Biden was sworn in Republicans killed the bipartisan border bill because Trump ordered them to do it. It's all just a game for them. Why didn't the 117th Congress pass a monopartisan bill? You're dodging the point because it makes you look bad. I get it. Imagine if you could look into the mirror and realize what you are doing, but you people will never learn. I am not dodging a point. I am making a different point. Try and answer it with that magic mirror. Here's our data points. 1) Biden administration undid all of Blumpf's border policies the first week. 2) Unified Dem government passed no border package in 117th Congress. 3) 6 Democrats voted against bill in question. 4) 51-50 Dem Senate never considered HR2 which was passed by Republican House in 118th Congress. 5) Allegedly bipartisan border-opening bill would have never passed 118th House controlled by Republicans to begin with. Here's our competing theories. Me: The bill you are touting was dog shit, and the Democrats either have no solution for these issues, do not want to solve them, or support the status quo and want to perpetuate it or make it worse. Explains: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Also is independently supported by the fact that I bothered to read it. You: Blumpf ordered Republicans not to pass the most amazing bipartisan border bill in the history of the country out of spite. Explains: Nothing. Doesn't even explain 3. One Republican voted for it and six Democrats against. When you're so shrewdly bipartisan that you lose your own people at a ratio of 6:1 compared to the support you gain from the other party, you are politicking extremely wrong.
While there's definitely room to make arguments about how Democrats significantly lost on the issue of immigration, your misrepresentation of the bipartisan border bill undermines the broader point. When you lie about actual Republican support for that bill, before Trump stepped in and made sure that Democrats couldn't make bipartisan progress on immigration, it reduces your overall credibility on the issue.
|
On November 10 2024 20:56 Luolis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2024 20:39 oBlade wrote:On November 10 2024 20:18 Luolis wrote:On November 10 2024 19:37 oBlade wrote:On November 10 2024 18:50 Luolis wrote:On November 10 2024 16:02 oBlade wrote:On November 10 2024 15:44 NewSunshine wrote:
Except it was part of Biden's administration. If you want to take issue with that in some way that isn't just waving your hands and saying "but the bill was bad" with no elaboration, then do so. The fact remains that Democrats tried to bend to the right and implement a border crackdown bill, that Trump ordered Republicans to kill. It's not for lack of Democrats trying the very thing you're trying to say they didn't do. What's more likely in your worldview: 1) Blumpf campaigning on the border, but getting into office and not doing anything (after he already campaigned on the border and did things last time) 2) Harris getting into office and actually doing something about the border despite her administration undoing all of Blumpf's policies the first week after Biden was sworn in Republicans killed the bipartisan border bill because Trump ordered them to do it. It's all just a game for them. Why didn't the 117th Congress pass a monopartisan bill? You're dodging the point because it makes you look bad. I get it. Imagine if you could look into the mirror and realize what you are doing, but you people will never learn. You: Blumpf ordered Republicans not to pass the most amazing bipartisan border bill in the history of the country out of spite. Explains: Nothing. Doesn't even explain 3. One Republican voted for it and six Democrats against. When you're so shrewdly bipartisan that you lose your own people at a ratio of 6:1 compared to the support you gain from the other party, you are politicking extremely wrong. Hey dumbfuck, it was a Republican bill, and Republicans turned against it after Trump said "dont vote for it, i need it as a weapon for the election". How do you function with a brain that small? Fuck, i hope Republicans go hard on the tariffs so morons like you will suffer from the consequences of your actions.
I will certainly be eating crow if Blumpf lets 20 million illegals into the country as this thread would gaslight me into believing.
|
On November 10 2024 16:02 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2024 15:44 NewSunshine wrote:
Except it was part of Biden's administration. If you want to take issue with that in some way that isn't just waving your hands and saying "but the bill was bad" with no elaboration, then do so. The fact remains that Democrats tried to bend to the right and implement a border crackdown bill, that Trump ordered Republicans to kill. It's not for lack of Democrats trying the very thing you're trying to say they didn't do. What's more likely in your worldview: 1) Blumpf campaigning on the border, but getting into office and not doing anything (after he already campaigned on the border and did things last time) 2) Harris getting into office and actually doing something about the border despite her administration undoing all of Blumpf's policies the first week after Biden was sworn in
What's more likely in your opinion? Trump not lying? Democrats lying?
Also I'll save this for reference later:
On November 10 2024 21:10 oBlade wrote:
I will certainly be eating crow if Blumpf lets 20 million illegals into the country as this thread would gaslight me into believing.
|
Id like to know where all these "illegals" numbers come from. Ive heard 5 million 10 million 20 million etc. Yearly? The country would have 80 million illegal immigrants of it was 20 million a year.
Do people really think Joe Biden let in 20 million illegal immigrants in 4 years? I remember hearing something 10-15 years ago that the number had been pretty flat around 14 million...
|
On November 10 2024 07:06 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 10 2024 06:01 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2024 03:12 Introvert wrote:
Guys, Harris campaigning with Liz Cheney was not "Republican outreach." Harris called her a "Republican thought leader" but she was kicked out of her own party! Dems don't like the Cheney family, but Republicans don't like them either! Thr leason from this is not that "outreach" failed, that's the exact wrong way around. Moreover it doesn't answer the question of how Dems lost ground with people they usually do well with! Maybe they are doing something to alienate a substantial chuck of their own voters? Campaigning with Cheney I contend was a net negative. I think they were hoping there was still a substantial number of constitutional conservatives left in the Republican party instead of Trump loyalists. They were wrong. It's depressing watching people like Shapiro, who I once thought had interesting things to say, tie himself into knots trying to support Trump with 'he's bad, but he's incompetent so it doesn't matter and I want the federal government incompetent anyways so that's good." Shapiro, Walsh, heck, even chalkboard-Glenn Beck all saw what a danger Trump posed to their party and wrote articles loudly proclaiming they would never vote for Trump. Every one of them bent the knee and defend and sanewash him to this day. It's sadly funny in the wake of Jan 6, you briefly saw Shapiro think he could separate himself as Trump looked like he was gone from politics. Shapiro flatly called Jan 6 an insurrection and the worst day in American history since 9/11... he has since walked it back once it was clear Trump would return to politics. It's Trump before everything else and so it turned out it did not matter how many former Cabinet members (that Trump himself selected) that came out against him saying he should never lead the country again. Lifelong Republicans, every one of them were secretly Democrats the whole time, the so-called "Uni-party". Trump above all. Stop the steal! They are going to take away your country! (Only not this time???) It's maddening, but so yes, in retrospect there was no point. Trump loyalism has subsumed too much. Having said that, Dick Cheney was never going to help and ought to have been fended off with a very long pole. Something like that "we are grateful for every vote, but we still remember the Iraq war". Or else a more forceful condemnation of the Cheney era of Middle East adventurism. Dick Cheney will always be an anchor to any side he attaches himself. To a lesser degree, so is W Bush. Even if he was supportive of Harris to get rid of Trump "Well, that was some weird s--", I think he was wise to stick with his policy of peacing out of the whole political world and just paint. Hm there's a lot there. First, Cheney was a lap dog for Pelosi on her silly Jan 6 committee. If I recall Pelosi rejected anyone else McCarthy tried to add. She was a willing fool for an enterprise that was not aimed at truth, even if it happened to find some (it was just too obviously partisan to be of any use). Next, Trump won a lot of conservatives over by governing more to the right than they were expecting. I certainly was pleasantly surprised by the Trump presidency for the most part. I haven't listened to Shapiro in ages but my impression was that he was a DeSantis guy before Trump won the nom. A lot of conservatives came around when he's the only game in town. Which brings me to my other point. I have in this thread tried many, many times to point out that Democrats were not giving Republicans, much less conservatives, ANYTHING at all to bring them on board. The Biden admin went all in on things like student loan bailouts, an unconstitutional spending of federal money that dwarfed the amount Trump tried to appropriate for the wall. He was derelict in his duty to protect the nation by allowing an unprecedented crisis at the southern border, with border security and immigration being an issue the right has cared about for two decades now. He and his state level allies threw the book at Trump with all these court cases, only some of which were even plausibly legitimate, even after we found out Biden himself was keeping documents he shouldn't have had. Democrat's advantage on "Democracy" slowly shrunk as all this went on and I think I saw one exit poll where voters trusted Trump more on that! Harris meanwhile gave no olive branch to conservatives on a single thing. Nothing on abortion, nothing on the border, nothing on social or economic issues at all. When she did "moderate" it wasn't believable (e.g. fracking). As I've said so many times, if Democrats really believed that Trump was the next Hitler you would think they would have offered skeptical Republicans something, instead they tried to say "Trump is bad so you MUST vote for us and swallow our entire agenda or else you are a bad person." This is not a winning message and it indicates that most of the rhetoric isn't sincere. There is one final part of this. Trump can only be president for one more term. People are less worried because I don't think any serious person actually believes that he's going to try and steal an election for a third term. Meanwhile, while his election shenanigans are bad, people really don't like Biden or Harris. They remember times as being better under Trump before COVID. All the hair-on-fire antics from Dems in retrospect look silly, as half the crap they said about him turned out to be just noise. Meanwhile his attempt to take 2020 failed. Call it survivorship bias, but that I think is the way it's viewed by many people. TLDR is that Dems didn't even pretend that they had to earn Republican votes, they expected to just get them because of Trump. Harris didn't give Cheney anything, and she didn't have to because Cheney already hated Trump. Not the same for normie Republicans or conservatives. Ultimately the calculus of who was worse was pretty clear for most conservatives. + Show Spoiler +For my own part, I still think that the system is more resilient to Trump's problems then Dems problems in general. Dem expansion of the administrative state and their disdain for federalism is far more dangerous long term.
Edit: like I said the other day about GWB, I think also part of him recalls how the left treated him and how he was the previous Republican Hitler. While he obviously has no love for Trump, I doubt he felt the need to publicly agree with the people who called him all sorts of names.
Maybe wasting my time but there’s some revisionist history that feels worth correcting.
First, as I mentioned the other day, Democrats believe in two propositions:
- Proposition 1: The president should be whoever won the presidential election.
- Proposition 2: You’d better not vote for any politician who tries to take or keep power in violation of an election result; leaving power in their hands could have really bad consequences.
Thing is, if you’d asked 10 years ago, everybody would have said those propositions weren’t partisan, they were universally held, and in fact so obvious they didn’t even really need to be stated.
Prior to Stop the Steal and J6, Liz Cheney was a Republican member of the House in good standing. Well-regarded by the party, occupied leadership positions, probably could have been Speaker or something some day. I seriously doubt Introvert would have had a bad thing to say about her. Then Trump made very clear he didn’t believe Proposition 1; Trump believes the president should be Donald Trump, regardless of who won the election.
Among other elected Republicans it was less clear; for a minute there it really looked like the party was finally going to buck Trump over this, and Senate Republicans kind of did, but House Republicans overwhelmingly didn’t. Cheney was one of the only ones that did, and I don’t see any real explanation besides a sincere belief in Propositions 1 and 2. It certainly wasn’t in her self-interest.
Then when the J6 committee was starting up, Republicans were offered the kind of equal-representation bipartisan committee rules that Congress has used after, e.g., 9/11. Republicans rejected it. When it got set up under more typical majority-party-favored committee rules, they were still asked to submit members, and they exclusively recommended members clearly intended to undermine the entire project (e.g. Jim Jordan). Cheney was one of a very small number of Republicans around who seemed to think that J6 was, y’know, a crime that should be investigated and punished, so Pelosi put her in but rejected the Republicans who had, essentially, continued shouting “Stop the Steal” that entire day.
Fast forward a few years and the Republican party leader had rejected both propositions, and nearly all party elected representatives had rejected both propositions, but what about Republican voters? Didn’t they believe in democracy? Danglars, for instance, came around to something like “in retrospect Biden was the correct choice in 2020” as a direct consequence of J6 before he got banned. Maybe there were still a bunch of Republican voters, perhaps in swing states, that would at least stay home if the election were sufficiently focused on Propositions 1 and 2?
This was surely the thinking behind campaigning with Cheney, and I said a few weeks before the election I thought it was a mistake. It was a bet on the principled integrity of Republican voters, and, well, I guess we all already have a decent idea of how good a bet that is. Intro said then and continues to say now “yeah, yeah, democratic norms or whatever, but what policy concessions are you offering me? Make it worth my while!” And even if they were willing to make policy concessions, Republicans have made clear since at least Obamacare that while they’re happy to accept policy concessions, they will under no circumstances actually change their vote as a result of them.
TL;DR: All this “Cheney was Pelosi’s lap dog” stuff boils down to Cheney being one of the only Republicans that believes the presidency should be determined by presidential election results, and that anyone who tries to have power by other means shouldn’t be given power. The rest is just name-calling and partisan distractions.
|
|
|
Is that accurate? Obama invited Trump to the whitehouse after he won. Its my understanding Trumps team did not meet with Biden after he LOST
|
Northern Ireland24326 Posts
On November 10 2024 11:18 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2024 09:55 WombaT wrote:On November 10 2024 09:21 Introvert wrote:On November 10 2024 08:11 WombaT wrote:On November 10 2024 07:06 Introvert wrote:On November 10 2024 06:01 Falling wrote:On November 10 2024 03:12 Introvert wrote:
Guys, Harris campaigning with Liz Cheney was not "Republican outreach." Harris called her a "Republican thought leader" but she was kicked out of her own party! Dems don't like the Cheney family, but Republicans don't like them either! Thr leason from this is not that "outreach" failed, that's the exact wrong way around. Moreover it doesn't answer the question of how Dems lost ground with people they usually do well with! Maybe they are doing something to alienate a substantial chuck of their own voters? Campaigning with Cheney I contend was a net negative. I think they were hoping there was still a substantial number of constitutional conservatives left in the Republican party instead of Trump loyalists. They were wrong. It's depressing watching people like Shapiro, who I once thought had interesting things to say, tie himself into knots trying to support Trump with 'he's bad, but he's incompetent so it doesn't matter and I want the federal government incompetent anyways so that's good." Shapiro, Walsh, heck, even chalkboard-Glenn Beck all saw what a danger Trump posed to their party and wrote articles loudly proclaiming they would never vote for Trump. Every one of them bent the knee and defend and sanewash him to this day. It's sadly funny in the wake of Jan 6, you briefly saw Shapiro think he could separate himself as Trump looked like he was gone from politics. Shapiro flatly called Jan 6 an insurrection and the worst day in American history since 9/11... he has since walked it back once it was clear Trump would return to politics. It's Trump before everything else and so it turned out it did not matter how many former Cabinet members (that Trump himself selected) that came out against him saying he should never lead the country again. Lifelong Republicans, every one of them were secretly Democrats the whole time, the so-called "Uni-party". Trump above all. Stop the steal! They are going to take away your country! (Only not this time???) It's maddening, but so yes, in retrospect there was no point. Trump loyalism has subsumed too much. Having said that, Dick Cheney was never going to help and ought to have been fended off with a very long pole. Something like that "we are grateful for every vote, but we still remember the Iraq war". Or else a more forceful condemnation of the Cheney era of Middle East adventurism. Dick Cheney will always be an anchor to any side he attaches himself. To a lesser degree, so is W Bush. Even if he was supportive of Harris to get rid of Trump "Well, that was some weird s--", I think he was wise to stick with his policy of peacing out of the whole political world and just paint. Hm there's a lot there. First, Cheney was a lap dog for Pelosi on her silly Jan 6 committee. If I recall Pelosi rejected anyone else McCarthy tried to add. She was a willing fool for an enterprise that was not aimed at truth, even if it happened to find some (it was just too obviously partisan to be of any use). Next, Trump won a lot of conservatives over by governing more to the right than they were expecting. I certainly was pleasantly surprised by the Trump presidency for the most part. I haven't listened to Shapiro in ages but my impression was that he was a DeSantis guy before Trump won the nom. A lot of conservatives came around when he's the only game in town. Which brings me to my other point. I have in this thread tried many, many times to point out that Democrats were not giving Republicans, much less conservatives, ANYTHING at all to bring them on board. The Biden admin went all in on things like student loan bailouts, an unconstitutional spending of federal money that dwarfed the amount Trump tried to appropriate for the wall. He was derelict in his duty to protect the nation by allowing an unprecedented crisis at the southern border, with border security and immigration being an issue the right has cared about for two decades now. He and his state level allies threw the book at Trump with all these court cases, only some of which were even plausibly legitimate, even after we found out Biden himself was keeping documents he shouldn't have had. Democrat's advantage on "Democracy" slowly shrunk as all this went on and I think I saw one exit poll where voters trusted Trump more on that! Harris meanwhile gave no olive branch to conservatives on a single thing. Nothing on abortion, nothing on the border, nothing on social or economic issues at all. When she did "moderate" it wasn't believable (e.g. fracking). As I've said so many times, if Democrats really believed that Trump was the next Hitler you would think they would have offered skeptical Republicans something, instead they tried to say "Trump is bad so you MUST vote for us and swallow our entire agenda or else you are a bad person." This is not a winning message and it indicates that most of the rhetoric isn't sincere. There is one final part of this. Trump can only be president for one more term. People are less worried because I don't think any serious person actually believes that he's going to try and steal an election for a third term. Meanwhile, while his election shenanigans are bad, people really don't like Biden or Harris. They remember times as being better under Trump before COVID. All the hair-on-fire antics from Dems in retrospect look silly, as half the crap they said about him turned out to be just noise. Meanwhile his attempt to take 2020 failed. Call it survivorship bias, but that I think is the way it's viewed by many people. TLDR is that Dems didn't even pretend that they had to earn Republican votes, they expected to just get them because of Trump. Harris didn't give Cheney anything, and she didn't have to because Cheney already hated Trump. Not the same for normie Republicans or conservatives. Ultimately the calculus of who was worse was pretty clear for most conservatives. + Show Spoiler +For my own part, I still think that the system is more resilient to Trump's problems then Dems problems in general. Dem expansion of the administrative state and their disdain for federalism is far more dangerous long term.
Edit: like I said the other day about GWB, I think also part of him recalls how the left treated him and how he was the previous Republican Hitler. While he obviously has no love for Trump, I doubt he felt the need to publicly agree with the people who called him all sorts of names.
Ok some earnest questions. What concessions could Harris reasonably give to Conservatives that don’t piss off her base? You are one person and not an avatar of course, can you think of any? I struggle. It’s a little more of a ‘wider left’ thing than a Harris thing, as well, I feel. No matter what x political does will be dwarfed in a load of culture war stories, but that caveat aside. What threshold does Trump have to exceed to lose seemingly even moderate conservatives? Lose need not mean flipping, just not supporting or defending the man. It could even take the form of having misgivings with the Democrats and believing they’re indulging in politically expedient prosecutions. At the same time as considering Trump had transgressed. Jan 6th wasn’t sufficient? What actually would be? It’s difficult to envisage much compromise on all of much, while still relatively centrist by European standards, within the US what would be a gap between two centre right parties, or a centre right and a far right one, or a centre right and centre-left elsewhere and one of policy disagreements becomes a chasm. And a growing one. Secondly, I’m sure I’m not alone, and indeed I’m sure this charge will be levied in the opposite. It’s not that I don’t believe what others believe, it’s that I no longer believe what those others believe what they say they believe either. I’m talking broadly here on a purely individual level this isn’t the case, but as a political grouping If I make some compromise with someone who stresses they’re a (insert political belief system here), sometimes you gotta do these things. If however, said individual does something that contradicts the rationale for previous compromises because it benefits them, I’d be foolish to do another compromise on the same basis as the first. Rightly or wrongly I think there’s also a big perception that Republicans are full of shit. I mean I could bring up Merrick Garland for the 18 millionth time, but that 1-2 punch was just breathtakingly disingenuous stuff. While I do try to understand people with different views than myself I don't know that I could answer the question of what the left should have put on the table. I could answer maybe what just enough people on the right might have accepted...those things would be in line with what I outlined. I've already mentioned abortion recently, but it's clear that Dems actually viewed that issue as a way to win so they felt no need to slow down. Establishment-y writers like Matt Yglesias point out how Biden allowed more energy development than anyone thought (although he scuttled a bunch and Trump would/will allow more) but Biden barely talked about it. Or they could have acknowledged that the border was in crisis and moved to fix it (like the Trump admin did in the second half of his term). Could have forsworn paying off the student loans of people who Republicans think don't need it and don't particularly like. Maybe it is impossible now, but remember Bill Clinton got wrecked in the 1994 midterms and did an about face (the era of big government is over!). but perhaps dems can't do that anymore. Listen, in this country there's just no way a dem is going to get a large number of GOP votes (and vice versa) but on the margins who knows? They didn't even try, so I don't know how much theory crafting to do. And I'm not shocked, the progressive worldview involves seeing people who disagree with them as bad people that can't have legitimate points or concerns. Perhaps in the age of Trump this is more true on both sides, but I think the overwhelming dominance of the progressives in our societal institutions makes them very loath to consider compromise. That being said, the diversity of Trump coalition gives hope. There are plenty of former Democrat voters who are willing to give the GOP a chance, and that will have an effect on both parties, even if I don't like all the policies that will come from that. (so maybe what I said at the top of the last paragraph is not entirely true). All this is just a way of saying that I don't know if I could build a platform for Harris to do such a thing. But I do think that if everyone on her side really believed Trump was Hitler 2, she would have had a LOT of leeway from the left to make concessions. Maybe that shows that many on the left don't believe what they say either  I will say, and this applies to what Sadist wrote as well, we are talking about appealing to GOP voters-- not politicians. I view the situation with Congress differently as you can imagine. But the idea is not to appeal to some legislator for a deal and then have them stab you in the back, what I'm talking about is being open-minded enough to give Republican voters something, or at least cause them to feel like they can stay home and not vote for Trump. It would be hard, the overbearing cultural dominance of the left creates a siege mindset among many on the right and as I said above, seems to encourage those on the left to press forward. R.e. Jan 6, I think of a lot of people on the right don't hold Trump responsible for that, and I'm leaning in that direction. At least I don't hold him directly responsible, his failure was not doing something about it (it's still true that DC leadership turned down an offer for more police that day beforehand). In my mind at least the stolen election gambit and Jan 6 are related but not identical things. It was a riot, not a coup. What about Trump continuing to question the legitimacy of the election subsequently? I think the ‘it was a riot not a coup’ has some plausibility, but the man continued to rabble rouse on this to this day. I think the left (or indeed the centre) could build bridges on immigration certainly. That’s probably the area. It’s certainly an area they’ve been crushed on in many a recent election, my UK included. I think it’s a stupid horse to hitch yourself to, depending on how you do the messaging and what policies you advocate for. It’s also a topic you can somewhat message differently for the same policy, to different groups. It’s an asymmetric phenomenon as well. It’s generally poor areas that become the landing point for heavy (relatively) unskilled migration. They may not be proficient in the language. The middle class and up tend to deal with more highly skilled economic migrants. Those aren’t the same thing. I remember reading a piece the Guardian did on this quite vividly. Notable right wing rag. There was the father who lived in one of the poorest areas of London. Couldn’t stress enough he had no issues with race, or people immigrating. But for him specifically well his daughter was at school with a bunch of newly arrived migrant children who didn’t speak the language. Teachers tried their best but it’s a tricky scenario. Middle class folks don’t ever really have to deal with that kind of issue. While I feel the right too frequently involve xenophobic sentiment equally it’s been a long, long bugbear that the left ignore any kind of issue whatsoever. So maybe that’s the area where you could find some kind of common ground if you mediated for the more extreme impulses of either pole. Trump will never concede that of course, but it was interesting how on Joe Rogan he seemed like he didn't really want to talk about 2020. I just think he didn't want to act against people he thought were on his side.Immigration is actually a really good example of something where just doing the bare minimum expected, not even conceding ground!, would have benefited dems. If they hadn't created a crisis and then denied it that might have been something to assuage the concerns of the chunk of people who had immigration as their top issue. Idk if you've seen this little tidbit but Trump won Starr county in Texas, a 97% Hispanic county that has voted dem in every election since 1896. At one point Obama won it with 84%. So I think that's a good example of do-no-harm that really would have helped. But because of the Dems insistence that anything Trump did was bad, they couldn't keep the border secure. They wouldn't even have to debate against deportations if they had just done a good job in the first place.
The ‘of course’ being quite some telling phrasing. It’s sort of a ‘well I know Trump will do egregious things but hey I’ll shrug and say Trump gonna Trump, you know what he’s like’.
That element I would also believe, I don’t expect him to concede either, but it doesn’t mean we can’t both believe he SHOULD do that.
Ultimately in the aftermath of January 6th there was considerable pushback within his own party, which subsequently dissipated. And from Conservative pundits.
Were they bullshitting now or were they bullshitting then?
This has knock-on effects. I’m curious what the rest of my ‘fellow travellers’ believe, while Trump in isolation does worry me, this slavish loyalty, or at least reluctance to criticise that worries me just as much in combination.
If Trump can basically do anything, even things counter to what segments of his support claim to believe and not take any kind of hit, where’s the political leash? That potential check on his worst impulses seemingly doesn’t exist.
Furthermore it moves compromise and civility from already very difficult, to effectively impossible.
If memory serves you weren’t even a Trump voter this time around. Unsure indeed if you’ve ever voted for him.
Also to clarify I’m not talking about criticising him in his entirety, or indeed not voting for him, more the reluctance to actually criticise him for well, basically anything he does.
You really can’t level that same crit at the left, indeed perhaps perpetual factional infighting is detrimental to electoral success, but it certainly happens.
|
Tbh all of this talk seems designed to distract from the terrible things Trump has promised to do during his second term. He's already caused the end of abortion rights. Next he's going to end LGBT rights, as he promised last January. He's going to cause more death and destruction in the ME. He's planning to deport millions of Americans including legal citizens. He's going to make Americans poorer.
But here we are yapping about how the Democrats aren't better than Republicans (a straight up lie) and how Democrats have been doing the same terrible things that Republicans have been doing themselves (both-sides-ism, also a straight up lie).
It's a method. Paint the "other side" as worse than it is. This will hopefully excuse the terrible things on your own side. Deflection, gaslighting.
|
Northern Ireland24326 Posts
On November 11 2024 00:30 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2024 07:06 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 10 2024 06:01 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2024 03:12 Introvert wrote:
Guys, Harris campaigning with Liz Cheney was not "Republican outreach." Harris called her a "Republican thought leader" but she was kicked out of her own party! Dems don't like the Cheney family, but Republicans don't like them either! Thr leason from this is not that "outreach" failed, that's the exact wrong way around. Moreover it doesn't answer the question of how Dems lost ground with people they usually do well with! Maybe they are doing something to alienate a substantial chuck of their own voters? Campaigning with Cheney I contend was a net negative. I think they were hoping there was still a substantial number of constitutional conservatives left in the Republican party instead of Trump loyalists. They were wrong. It's depressing watching people like Shapiro, who I once thought had interesting things to say, tie himself into knots trying to support Trump with 'he's bad, but he's incompetent so it doesn't matter and I want the federal government incompetent anyways so that's good." Shapiro, Walsh, heck, even chalkboard-Glenn Beck all saw what a danger Trump posed to their party and wrote articles loudly proclaiming they would never vote for Trump. Every one of them bent the knee and defend and sanewash him to this day. It's sadly funny in the wake of Jan 6, you briefly saw Shapiro think he could separate himself as Trump looked like he was gone from politics. Shapiro flatly called Jan 6 an insurrection and the worst day in American history since 9/11... he has since walked it back once it was clear Trump would return to politics. It's Trump before everything else and so it turned out it did not matter how many former Cabinet members (that Trump himself selected) that came out against him saying he should never lead the country again. Lifelong Republicans, every one of them were secretly Democrats the whole time, the so-called "Uni-party". Trump above all. Stop the steal! They are going to take away your country! (Only not this time???) It's maddening, but so yes, in retrospect there was no point. Trump loyalism has subsumed too much. Having said that, Dick Cheney was never going to help and ought to have been fended off with a very long pole. Something like that "we are grateful for every vote, but we still remember the Iraq war". Or else a more forceful condemnation of the Cheney era of Middle East adventurism. Dick Cheney will always be an anchor to any side he attaches himself. To a lesser degree, so is W Bush. Even if he was supportive of Harris to get rid of Trump "Well, that was some weird s--", I think he was wise to stick with his policy of peacing out of the whole political world and just paint. Hm there's a lot there. First, Cheney was a lap dog for Pelosi on her silly Jan 6 committee. If I recall Pelosi rejected anyone else McCarthy tried to add. She was a willing fool for an enterprise that was not aimed at truth, even if it happened to find some (it was just too obviously partisan to be of any use). Next, Trump won a lot of conservatives over by governing more to the right than they were expecting. I certainly was pleasantly surprised by the Trump presidency for the most part. I haven't listened to Shapiro in ages but my impression was that he was a DeSantis guy before Trump won the nom. A lot of conservatives came around when he's the only game in town. Which brings me to my other point. I have in this thread tried many, many times to point out that Democrats were not giving Republicans, much less conservatives, ANYTHING at all to bring them on board. The Biden admin went all in on things like student loan bailouts, an unconstitutional spending of federal money that dwarfed the amount Trump tried to appropriate for the wall. He was derelict in his duty to protect the nation by allowing an unprecedented crisis at the southern border, with border security and immigration being an issue the right has cared about for two decades now. He and his state level allies threw the book at Trump with all these court cases, only some of which were even plausibly legitimate, even after we found out Biden himself was keeping documents he shouldn't have had. Democrat's advantage on "Democracy" slowly shrunk as all this went on and I think I saw one exit poll where voters trusted Trump more on that! Harris meanwhile gave no olive branch to conservatives on a single thing. Nothing on abortion, nothing on the border, nothing on social or economic issues at all. When she did "moderate" it wasn't believable (e.g. fracking). As I've said so many times, if Democrats really believed that Trump was the next Hitler you would think they would have offered skeptical Republicans something, instead they tried to say "Trump is bad so you MUST vote for us and swallow our entire agenda or else you are a bad person." This is not a winning message and it indicates that most of the rhetoric isn't sincere. There is one final part of this. Trump can only be president for one more term. People are less worried because I don't think any serious person actually believes that he's going to try and steal an election for a third term. Meanwhile, while his election shenanigans are bad, people really don't like Biden or Harris. They remember times as being better under Trump before COVID. All the hair-on-fire antics from Dems in retrospect look silly, as half the crap they said about him turned out to be just noise. Meanwhile his attempt to take 2020 failed. Call it survivorship bias, but that I think is the way it's viewed by many people. TLDR is that Dems didn't even pretend that they had to earn Republican votes, they expected to just get them because of Trump. Harris didn't give Cheney anything, and she didn't have to because Cheney already hated Trump. Not the same for normie Republicans or conservatives. Ultimately the calculus of who was worse was pretty clear for most conservatives. + Show Spoiler +For my own part, I still think that the system is more resilient to Trump's problems then Dems problems in general. Dem expansion of the administrative state and their disdain for federalism is far more dangerous long term.
Edit: like I said the other day about GWB, I think also part of him recalls how the left treated him and how he was the previous Republican Hitler. While he obviously has no love for Trump, I doubt he felt the need to publicly agree with the people who called him all sorts of names.
Maybe wasting my time but there’s some revisionist history that feels worth correcting. First, as I mentioned the other day, Democrats believe in two propositions: - Proposition 1: The president should be whoever won the presidential election.
- Proposition 2: You’d better not vote for any politician who tries to take or keep power in violation of an election result; leaving power in their hands could have really bad consequences.
Thing is, if you’d asked 10 years ago, everybody would have said those propositions weren’t partisan, they were universally held, and in fact so obvious they didn’t even really need to be stated. Prior to Stop the Steal and J6, Liz Cheney was a Republican member of the House in good standing. Well-regarded by the party, occupied leadership positions, probably could have been Speaker or something some day. I seriously doubt Introvert would have had a bad thing to say about her. Then Trump made very clear he didn’t believe Proposition 1; Trump believes the president should be Donald Trump, regardless of who won the election. Among other elected Republicans it was less clear; for a minute there it really looked like the party was finally going to buck Trump over this, and Senate Republicans kind of did, but House Republicans overwhelmingly didn’t. Cheney was one of the only ones that did, and I don’t see any real explanation besides a sincere belief in Propositions 1 and 2. It certainly wasn’t in her self-interest. Then when the J6 committee was starting up, Republicans were offered the kind of equal-representation bipartisan committee rules that Congress has used after, e.g., 9/11. Republicans rejected it. When it got set up under more typical majority-party-favored committee rules, they were still asked to submit members, and they exclusively recommended members clearly intended to undermine the entire project (e.g. Jim Jordan). Cheney was one of a very small number of Republicans around who seemed to think that J6 was, y’know, a crime that should be investigated and punished, so Pelosi put her in but rejected the Republicans who had, essentially, continued shouting “Stop the Steal” that entire day. Fast forward a few years and the Republican party leader had rejected both propositions, and nearly all party elected representatives had rejected both propositions, but what about Republican voters? Didn’t they believe in democracy? Danglars, for instance, came around to something like “in retrospect Biden was the correct choice in 2020” as a direct consequence of J6 before he got banned. Maybe there were still a bunch of Republican voters, perhaps in swing states, that would at least stay home if the election were sufficiently focused on Propositions 1 and 2? This was surely the thinking behind campaigning with Cheney, and I said a few weeks before the election I thought it was a mistake. It was a bet on the principled integrity of Republican voters, and, well, I guess we all already have a decent idea of how good a bet that is. Intro said then and continues to say now “yeah, yeah, democratic norms or whatever, but what policy concessions are you offering me? Make it worth my while!” And even if they were willing to make policy concessions, Republicans have made clear since at least Obamacare that while they’re happy to accept policy concessions, they will under no circumstances actually change their vote as a result of them. TL;DR: All this “Cheney was Pelosi’s lap dog” stuff boils down to Cheney being one of the only Republicans that believes the presidency should be determined by presidential election results, and that anyone who tries to have power by other means shouldn’t be given power. The rest is just name-calling and partisan distractions.
Beautifully put.
I’m generally not a find of ‘other side’ politics, it ends up an exercise in trying to praise the virtues of one’s roughly aligned fellow travellers and find hypocrisy in the other side.
But there’s no fucking way Republican voters, politicians and aligned commentators would think a hypothetical leftist demagogue who did the same things in the lead up to an alternate reality Jan 6th weren’t attempting some kind of soft or hard coup.
Said hypothetical demagogue in this hypothetical is like, Sanders level left but with added guns, or a bit further again for the sake of argument.
I could absolutely see the far left leaning elements in the US being OK with this. There would be support. Equally if there’s such a thing as a strict Constitutionalist far leftist, I’ve genuinely never encountered one. One may reject the wisdom of revolution sure, but much of the far left don’t and openly state they don’t.
I think basically the entire rest of the left, from those who advocate for Scandinavian style electoral socialism, thru the centre left up to the ‘centre-centre’ Democrats would be absolutely appalled at Fidel Sanders’ conduct here, and wouldn’t be shy in coming forward about it.
It’s been 8ish years now of Trump being a major political player. My continual frustration isn’t not believing in the values of my political others, that’s how sometimes hugely divergent political beliefs will always work.
It’s that I don’t believe in their stated convictions on their own beliefs, and I rarely get so much of a morsel of evidence to the contrary.
|
I had an interesting thought experiment and I was hoping you all could help me find any errors.
If Trump was compromised by Russia, it’s possible the strict anti-coup rules of the military would prevent any investigation or whatever from occurring during his presidency. After Trump’s presidency, I think we all agree every single intelligence agency would be doing everything they can to determine if he was compromised or a threat to US interests and influence. And I think we can all agree the US has the capability to conclusively determine the answer to the question beyond any doubt.
If the US intelligence agencies determined he is an actual risk and actually compromised, they will kill him before inauguration. It may sound insane, but I think it’s true. I think there’s no way our intelligence or military organizations would allow transfer of power to a foreign adversary. It is equivalent to being conquered. However, since it’s possible trump simply dies of other causes between now and then, it is possible they would wait until the actual last moment before doing anything. So even if they have their finger on the trigger between now and January 20, they would still be incentivized to do nothing just in case a freak miracle takes place.
Conclusion: If he is actually inaugurated January 20, it will mean Trump is not a threat to the US.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
