Market politics

[dmunjal]

The DNC changed rules to allow a billionaire into the next debate but will change superdelegate rules to hurt Bernie.

DNC members discuss rules change to stop Sanders at convention

This is the Democratic party in 2020.

 

[Norbert]

The "out" party does win the presidency during a party system, but the out party takes on the memes of the in control party. Thus Democrats have talked in terms of trickle down economics over the last 30 years and both Eisenhower and Nixon were very liberal compared to Republicans post Reagan.

Currently it seems the memes are moving towards a genuinely medieval mindset, in actual, literal, historic terms...I wonder how long that can last.

 

[Norbert]

A more complete statement would be that, yes, any congressional committee usually has subpeona power (depends on the rules of that committee), but enforcement of an ignored subpeona requires the full house vote. Hence Eric Holder did not respond to several committees requests and the whole house voted to hold him in contempt of Congress. The committee could not have held Holder in contempt by themselves.

In Trumps case, the information the subpeonas requested could ultimately have been blocked with executive privilege, which would have spawned a judicial review which would not have happened within the time frame the committees were looking for. So they punted.

And what is your view of what happended in the White House?

I'm not asking for their reasons of legal maneuvering, but about what actually happened there, the whole story.

 

[wdolson]

The DNC changed rules to allow a billionaire into the next debate but will change superdelegate rules to hurt Bernie.

DNC members discuss rules change to stop Sanders at convention

This is the Democratic party in 2020.

Not good IMO.

Currently it seems the memes are moving towards a genuinely medieval mindset, in actual, literal, historic terms...I wonder how long that can last.

We're moving in two directions at once. Most people feel things aren't right, but the ideas for solutions are split in two opposite directions. About half the population want to double down on progressive ideas and charge ahead aggressively. The other half want to go back to a mythical past that never existed. It's not just happening in the US, but in most of the developed world too.

It's been going on for a while, but in recent years it's picked up in intensity on both sides. The Democratic party has always had a very liberal wing, but it has found its voice in the last few years.

The conservatives wanting to go back to a past that never existed won Brexit in the UK, is fueling the anti-immigrant attitudes in the US and Europe, and helped elect Trump.

 

[Intl Professor]

Not good IMO.



We're moving in two directions at once. Most people feel things aren't right, but the ideas for solutions are split in two opposite directions. About half the population want to double down on progressive ideas and charge ahead aggressively. The other half want to go back to a mythical past that never existed. It's not just happening in the US, but in most of the developed world too.

It's been going on for a while, but in recent years it's picked up in intensity on both sides. The Democratic party has always had a very liberal wing, but it has found its voice in the last few years.

The conservatives wanting to go back to a past that never existed won Brexit in the UK, is fueling the anti-immigrant attitudes in the US and Europe, and helped elect Trump.

It all boils down to the evil "other" of tribalism augmented by change and opportunists, as you catch better than most.

 

[Dare]

We’ve effectively ended checks and balances on the Executive Branch. Does it get more fundamental than that?

Biggest global disaster of the 21st century.

 

[Norbert]

The conservatives wanting to go back to a past that never existed won Brexit in the UK, is fueling the anti-immigrant attitudes in the US and Europe, and helped elect Trump.

There is the "wanting" again. Conservatives were always looking to the past (hence the name "conservative", I suppose) but this extreme "wanting" seems new, at least to me. I remember more talk about being "realistic" in a conservative sense of the word. Now that climate change is the quite obvious reality, denial or not, that word at least had to give way.

Currently only those most comfortable with the idea of "change" are willing to acknowledge the requirement of ending CO2 emissions really seriously. However reasonable people exist in a larger spectrum, and that will change as well. But I don't think for example T will change easily. So at least from that point of view, there will be an increasingly stronger separation of reasonable people and the current direction of that party.

Brexit doesn't strike me as typical old-school conservatism either, it is a disaster so far, do you see it as going anywhere except in extremely ideological eyes? Lots of people will ask if it was really worth it. More and more young people.

 

[JRP3]

The DNC changed rules to allow a billionaire into the next debate but will change superdelegate rules to hurt Bernie.

More likely is a bid to rewrite the rules after the convention in Milwaukee — not for this year’s nominating contest, but for 2024

 

[dmunjal]

I don't think so.

 

[JRP3]

I think he made a strong case as to why that probably won't happen this time.

 

[wdolson]

We’ve effectively ended checks and balances on the Executive Branch. Does it get more fundamental than that?

Biggest global disaster of the 21st century.

Pelosi isn't done yet. We may see another impeachment for different crimes before this is all done.

But what is happening is we're getting to the ridiculous stage of the double standard Republicans want to enforce. Democrats need to be perfect or they are going to get slammed, but Republicans can be career criminals and get a pass because they are Republicans. If the Republicans don't rip themselves apart and get control of the House, they will impeach the next Democratic president for wearing the wrong color suit.

There is the "wanting" again. Conservatives were always looking to the past (hence the name "conservative", I suppose) but this extreme "wanting" seems new, at least to me. I remember more talk about being "realistic" in a conservative sense of the word. Now that climate change is the quite obvious reality, denial or not, that word at least had to give way.

Currently only those most comfortable with the idea of "change" are willing to acknowledge the requirement of ending CO2 emissions really seriously. However reasonable people exist in a larger spectrum, and that will change as well. But I don't think for example T will change easily. So at least from that point of view, there will be an increasingly stronger separation of reasonable people and the current direction of that party.

Brexit doesn't strike me as typical old-school conservatism either, it is a disaster so far, do you see it as going anywhere except in extremely ideological eyes? Lots of people will ask if it was really worth it. More and more young people.

Conservatism used to be on both sides of the aisle. The Deep South has always been one of the most conservative American cultures and white Southerners were had core Democrats until the 1960s. The Republicans started out as a radically progressive party. They turned into the haven for conservatism we see today in the 1960s in reaction to the civil rights movement though there were signs of this shift 10-20 years before this.

Before the 1960s the Republicans were fiscally conservative, but in a sane way (balance the budget, rather than slash taxes and kill the government), but had some progressive social ideas. The ERA started with Republicans. There were some signs that the Republicans were turning social conservative in the 1950s too. The Dulles brothers had a lot of influence in the Eisenhower administration.

 

[dmunjal]

Pelosi isn't done yet. We may see another impeachment for different crimes before this is all done.

But what is happening is we're getting to the ridiculous stage of the double standard Republicans want to enforce. Democrats need to be perfect or they are going to get slammed, but Republicans can be career criminals and get a pass because they are Republicans. If the Republicans don't rip themselves apart and get control of the House, they will impeach the next Democratic president for wearing the wrong color suit.

If all this were true, then Democrats would have no problem with winning in November. With the primary officially beginning today, why can't they let the election decide it now?

The first impeachment has served its purpose by letting the Democrats stand on principle. A second one will just be pathetic.

 

[Norbert]

If all this were true, then Democrats would have no problem with winning in November. With the primary officially beginning today, why can't they let the election decide it now?

Freedom requires truth, not manipulated elections.

The first impeachment has served its purpose by letting the Democrats stand on principle. A second one will just be pathetic.

So I wonder: do you deny the possibiility that T committed different crimes, or that democrats will be able to prove it?

Or that it doesn't matter because republicans hold the senate majority?

 

[Off Shore]

This thread has devolved into several articulate posters arguing with a ghost. It used to be more interesting, and may yet be again. Please someone PM me when it is. Thanks (almost) all.

 

[dmunjal]

Freedom requires truth, not manipulated elections.

What is the truth? Certainly not the drip-drip news spots you get from mainstream media.

Where is this version of the story being discussed?

US arming of Ukraine is a scandal on its own

Answer : Nowhere.

So I wonder: do you deny the possibiility that T committed different crimes, or that democrats will be able to prove it?

Or that it doesn't matter because republicans hold the senate majority?

Every president IMO is guilty of war crimes far worse than what Trump is being accused of.

I'm of the belief that both parties are equally corrupt and that this is all a political circus for the upcoming election. Given that it is political, I expect the Senate to act politically for this impeachment and for the next one. The Democrats would do the same thing if this was reversed.

The only thing that can change anything is the election but even that is doubtful.

Someone made the observation that no matter who we vote for president, we always seem to get John McCain.

 

[Norbert]

What is the truth? Certainly not the drip-drip news spots you get from mainstream media.

Where is this version of the story being discussed?

US arming of Ukraine is a scandal on its own

Answer : Nowhere.





Every president IMO is guilty of war crimes far worse than what Trump is being accused of.

I'm of the belief that both parties are equally corrupt and that this is all a political circus for the upcoming election. Given that it is political, I expect the Senate to act politically for this impeachment and for the next one. The Democrats would do the same thing if this was reversed.

The only thing that can change anything is the election but even that is doubtful.

Someone made the observation that no matter who we vote for president, we always seem to get John McCain.

John McCain? Ok.

 

[dmunjal]

John McCain? Ok.

I guess you didn't get it.

The point is that foreign policy never changes from warmongering, regime change, and support for the MIC regardless of party or campaign promises of the presidential candidate.

That is the foreign policy of John McCain.

 

[eevee-fan]

1593. Benjamin Franklin (1706-90). Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations. 1989

AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)
QUOTATION: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
ATTRIBUTION: The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.

McHenry’s notes were first published in The American Historical Review, vol. 11, 1906, and the anecdote on p. 618 reads: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.” When McHenry’s notes were included in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand, vol. 3, appendix A, p. 85 (1911, reprinted 1934), a footnote stated that the date this anecdote was written is uncertain.

 

[Norbert]

I guess you didn't get it.

The point is that foreign policy never changes from warmongering, regime change, and support for the MIC regardless of party or campaign promises of the presidential candidate.

I don't get what that had to do with anything up to that point. I guess you just spoke out on what really was on your mind. I find it difficult to respond in a specific way to the postiion that everything is corrupt anyway, other than that it doesn't result in any practical insight. For me it is all about finding a way out of corruption, in the first place. The obvious one and, given the readiness, the easiest to resolve, being the corruption by the oil industry. That's because we really don't need oil at all.

 

[dmunjal]

I don't get what that had to do with anything up to that point. I guess you just spoke out on what really was on your mind. I find it difficult to respond in a specific way to the postiion that everything is corrupt anyway, other than that it doesn't result in any practical insight. For me it is all about finding a way out of corruption, in the first place. The obvious one and, given the readiness, the easiest to resolve, being the corruption by the oil industry. That's because we really don't need oil at all.

Did you read the article I linked?

It made the case that this whole Ukraine thing is about maintaining a certain military posture against Russia and supporting the MIC. Both parties are guilty of it.

Ever wonder why the Democrats chose this line of attack vs war crimes, emoluments, tax evasion, kids in cages, or plenty of other Trump crimes?

Because they are guilty of those, too!