Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Market politics

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
My point was not punitive but more an attempt to recognize who we are today in an effort to understand who we might be tomorrow. We have progressively elected more and more corrupt/amoral people on either side of the isle. We must like it this way and that was my point.

Actually, from where I'm standing, we've been electing better and better people over time.

When I was growing up, Reagan got reelected with 60%+ on a platform which was a transparent fraud (the newspapers were pointing out the provably false statements he was making on a daily baseis); four years later, people were voting in massive numbers for George W Bush just after the Iran-Contra affair had been prosecuted, and Oliver North (traitor) was actually *popular*.

This isn't true any more. People are actually voting *against* politicians who make many blatantly verifiable lies and *against* politicians who engage in illegal gunrunning. It's *better* now.
 
Actually, from where I'm standing, we've been electing better and better people over time.

When I was growing up, Reagan got reelected with 60%+ on a platform which was a transparent fraud (the newspapers were pointing out the provably false statements he was making on a daily baseis); four years later, people were voting in massive numbers for George W Bush just after the Iran-Contra affair had been prosecuted, and Oliver North (traitor) was actually *popular*.

This isn't true any more. People are actually voting *against* politicians who make many blatantly verifiable lies and *against* politicians who engage in illegal gunrunning. It's *better* now.


OK, to be crude but make a point, dogshit doesn't smell as bad as catshit.
Does making two words into one avoid censorship?
 
Nice read and very informative.

One bone to pick with you. You don't think the current crop of Democrats aren't neocons? The way they celebrated McCain (the neocon's neocon) should tell you plenty. The way they are rehabilitating GWB? The way they cheer John Brennan? Who's next? Dick Cheney? I would recommend Cheney to quickly attack Trump to get back into Dem's good graces before he dies. Can you imagine what that funeral would look like?

I don't think the anti-war Democrat exists anymore. The progressive wing is all that is left to fight the military industrial complex.
The progressive wing is the only anti-war Democratic wing, yes. Luckily it is actually taking over the Democratic Party pretty fast.

And maybe the libertarian leaning Republicans like Rand Paul.

Most of what you say about Trump is correct but one of the reasons he won was he campaigned to the left of HRC on war. He made HRC look like a neocon, which she is based on her policies. He isn't governing that way but there is an insight to what the voters feel about the Democrats becoming closer to the Republicans on this issue.

As for the Russian collusion story, I don't think it matters because a successful impeachment is off the table. No way the Senate gets 67 votes to remove him.
James Madison screwed up when he required 2/3 in the Senate to convict on impeachment. It's too hard to get. (Andrew Johnson was plainly guilty, by the way, and should have been convicted.)

That said, I think if Trump is merely brought to an impeachment *trial*, he'll end up committing contempt of Congress. He's too narcissistic to show up and be grilled day after day, which is what the trial would feature. He will either resign, or throw the country into civil war, or *finally* cause the Republicans in the Senate to decide that he's a dead weight around their necks.

Of course, reputable legal scholars say that Trump can be arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned regardless of whether he's impeached. And he may be: the state attorneys general seem ready to do it if he fires Mueller. Only fascists claim that Trump's above the law.

It would be... interesting... if Trump remained President but was unable to enter half the states in the country because there was a warrant out for his arrest. Don't underestimate it -- it's actually a pretty likely scenario.
 
If Trump were impeached over things that happened before the campaign, especially related to his personal finances or something like that, he is vindictive enough to take down the system.

Call it a mutually assured destruction scenario.
 
Except for the current POTUS of course. Unless you mean since the 2016 election.

Since 2016 the media outside the conservative propaganda machine have pivoted to reporting what's actually going on instead of trying to keep up the false equality laying equal blame on both parties. During 2016 they bent themselves into pretzels trying to put Trump and Hillary Clinton on equal footing when Trump was less qualified than Jill Stein to be president (and she's way under qualified!) As a result they glossed over a lot of red flags with Trump and were overly harsh on Clinton's issues, which gave permission for some people to vote for Trump who wouldn't do so today.
 
Except for the current POTUS of course. Unless you mean since the 2016 election.
No, my point is that *people voted against the current POTUS*. He's super unpopular. He actually lost the popular vote. (This despite the media bending over backwards to *not* call out his lies during the election campaign.) He then became less popular after that.

The fact that we still have the undemocratic archaicism of the Electoral College is another matter entirely, and a problematic one....

But my point is, I'm not scared by a guy with a 53.6% disapproval rating.

Reagan's approval rating *during the Iran-Contra affair* and *after the explosion of the Challenger* was 71%. THAT was scary.
 
Last edited:
If Trump were impeached over things that happened before the campaign, especially related to his personal finances or something like that, he is vindictive enough to take down the system.

Call it a mutually assured destruction scenario.

What system? Trump can't take down the New York or California state governments; he lacks the power. I believe the existence of state governments is about to be very, very important. Most of the countries which have gone fascist in recent years had unitary governments. Even in the collapse of the USSR, where the state governments were thought to be meaningless puppets, they turned out not to be.

(Interwar Germany had state governments, but that was a very different situation; the situation was really dire economically and the other parties had discredited themslves, and Hitler had the backing of practically all of Germany's upper class *and* had managed to do popular things economically.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Johann Koeber
I did some more historical research recently and found that the Radical Republican Congress during the post-Civil-War period stripped jurisidiction from the Taney court over a key law related to conditions of readmission for the conquered rebel states. So the Constitutional provision whereby Congress can strip jurisdiction from the federal courts *has* been used. (Parliamentary supremacy, a legal doctrine from England, is embedded in the US constitution.)

If the Republican Party lunatics manage to shove that apparatchik Kavanaugh onto the court, and he keeps acting like a party apparatchik, expect the court to be packed as soon as there's a Democratic President. Within minutes; there's already a strong movement for it. The FDR court-packing plan was, according to our best estimates of the polling at the time, *extremely popular*, and was only averted because it proved unnecessary when one of the judges saw sense. The Radical Republicans changed the size of the court at least three times. Expect jurisdiction-stripping bills too; this hasn't become a movement yet, but it's Congress's ultimate power-play over corrupt courts and people are looking at it.

It does seem like the fascist Republican Party leadership has decided to utterly reject the will of the people. They don't seem to understand that this is suicide. They may take down the US Constitution, but they can't stay in power with 60%-and-increasing disapproval, especially since they have earned the opposition of very powerful industrialists, many state governments, alienated all foreign allies, insist on mistreating and abusing military veterans, and have openly made themselves look like monsters by locking children in cages.

Jeff Sessions claimed he was going to enforce federal marijuana laws in states where it's been legalized. So the Colorado governor threatened to imprison any DEA agents who tried to do so if they committed so much as a traffic violation, Congress inserted provisions in the budget making it illegal for Sessions to spend federal funds on doing so, and he backed off. Apparently someone warned him that defying the will of the people and the House of Representatives was only going to lead to an uprising.

Apparently most of the other Republicans in DC have not figured this out. It's strange.

After the unconstitutional Muslim ban and the resulting random harassment, NY came within three State Senate votes of cutting the water and power supply to ICE at JFK Airport last year. (The Assembly actually passed the bill, by wide margins!)

The Republican Party leadership is on very thin ice; they've been gerrymandering, malapportioning, trying to prevent people from voting, relying on the Electoral College... all antidemocratic stuff which everyone hates, even Republican voters. They are now *accurately* seen as in office illegitimately and undemocratically. Do they understand what happens if they try to cling violently to power when they have lost the consent of the governed? Revolution, that's what. You'd think some of the Republicans in the Senate would care more for their own skin than for loyalty to the Republican death cult, but it seems that most of them are like the kool-aid drinkers at Jonestown.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Intl Professor
Nice read and very informative.

One bone to pick with you. You don't think the current crop of Democrats aren't neocons? The way they celebrated McCain (the neocon's neocon) should tell you plenty. The way they are rehabilitating GWB? The way they cheer John Brennan? Who's next? Dick Cheney? I would recommend Cheney to quickly attack Trump to get back into Dem's good graces before he dies. Can you imagine what that funeral would look like?

Essentially we are at war. It's not a shooting war, but a war that decides whether the rule of law and the Constitution holds, or whether we tear it all up and become an authoritarian dictatorship.

When at war, you accept allies where you can find them, even if their ideologies aren't in line with yours. I have heard many Democrats point out they disagreed with John McCain's politics, but they respect him as a person based on his behavior as a POW and some of the stands he took in politics.

GWB was an epicaly bad president, probably the 2nd worst the US ever had. However he too opposes Trump. For all his other faults GW Bush is not a racist and has some other positive traits.

When in crisis you need to triage. In the late 1930s and early 1940s the Republicans were beginning to get some traction pushing back on Roosevelt's New Deal. The Republicans won 72 seats in the 1938 midterm elections. On Dec 8, 1941 all those divisions were set aside because there was a higher priority both parties could agree on.

We are at another crisis point. It's time for people across the ideological spectrum to deal with the crisis and deal with the other political concerns later. There are Republicans and former Republicans who are willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with Democrats and anyone else willing to oppose this fascism. Some have come out and said everyone should vote Democrat, not for ideological reasons, but to protect the republic. I have no illusions they are going to change their ideological stances, but the left should welcome them rather than turn their back because they aren't denouncing their ideology too.

It's good strategy to welcome these people for what they are: allies in a fight. They are doing something risky for them and they are losing friends doing this. Acceptance from the left lowers the bar for them to cross and more will join the fight rather than hide in the closet hoping the monster goes away.

And there may be an upside. A lot of these people have been in the conservative news bubble long enough they believe all sorts of untrue things about the left and maybe their crossing the line will educate them that the left aren't made up of ideological unyielding monsters. Welcoming them goes a long way towards this goal too.

I don't think the anti-war Democrat exists anymore. The progressive wing is all that is left to fight the military industrial complex. And maybe the libertarian leaning Republicans like Rand Paul.

Most of what you say about Trump is correct but one of the reasons he won was he campaigned to the left of HRC on war. He made HRC look like a neocon, which she is based on her policies. He isn't governing that way but there is an insight to what the voters feel about the Democrats becoming closer to the Republicans on this issue.

As for the Russian collusion story, I don't think it matters because a successful impeachment is off the table. No way the Senate gets 67 votes to remove him. Democrat voters should give up hope that he will be removed before his first term has ended.

The story continues only to weaken Trump going into 2020.

The Democratic party and the mainstream news media has operated under a constant bombardment from the right for 30+ years. Every progressive idea has been vigorously and usually successfully attacked from the right. That's weakening now and a new generation of politicians are coming into the forum who don't cow to right wing attacks.
 
I wouldn't even say the enemy of my enemy is a friend. All they are is an ally.

Neither party has historically embraced the ideas of it's extreme ideological wings. The current Republican Party is an exception and it would be dangerous for the Democrats to do the same right now.

Rachel Maddow has described the long term Democratic policy towards their left wing as "kick the hippie". Get their vote in the primaries then otherwise ignore them. Some of the up and comers are extreme progressives now and I don't have an issue with their voice in the mix. I think all political views should be heard. Some great ideas started on the fringes. I don't think extreme ideologues, of any stripe, should be running anything. Ideally my leaders are pragmatists willing to listen to all ideas, but will do what they feel is the best solution for the most people today. That includes ideas that may not be the greatest, but the most people can accept right now.

When I wrote yesterday I hadn't seen Barack Obama's speech at all. We watched it in its entirety last night and I was struck at how he touched many themes I've been thinking about lately. He's one of those pragmatists who listened to all voices, but made the pragmatic decision.

I see the moves by the Democratic leadership of late to be strategic in nature. The Democrats need people who normally vote Republican to cross the aisle and vote Democrat this fall. In major cities that isn't the case, but it is in many suburbs and even some rural areas. Some people who never thought they would ever vote Democrat are thinking about it. One key thing the Democrats need to do both on a candidate level and on a national level is give these people permission to think about it further.

For example Chuck Schumer caving on the court nominations was giving up something without a fight he knew his coalition couldn't win anyway. He did give his coalition permission to fight tooth and nail over Kavanaugh, but when in the minority, you have to pick your fights and position yourself to win the next election. The Democrats in the Senate are playing defense in a lot of red states this fall and they need to appeal to voters in those states. Those candidates will probably be asked to take a tough vote against Kavanaugh, so the leadership has to do something else to help them.

As for defense spending, defense contractors have played an insidious game. They placed facilities of some kind in just about every congressional district in the country which hamstrings both parties to curb defense spending because chances are god they will be laying off their constituents if they cut back the spending.

Democratic candidates have a good chance to flip seats in Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and Tennessee, but they are also defending seats that look iffy in Florida, Missouri, West Virginia, Indiana, and North Dakota. The possibility is there to pick up 50 seats in the House, but lose seats in the Senate. The political map for the Democrats in the senate races this year is one of the toughest for any party in history.

I don't agree with everything the Democrats are doing either. I don't understand all of it either. However, I see the strategy in at least some of it.

With the Millennials coming along, the pendulum is beginning to swing towards the left. But as they get the reigns of power they will be faced with the same problems older generations have been grappling with. There are some lobbies who spend heavily on influence and turning around those areas is going to be very difficult. They are well entrenched and know how to both lobby directly and indirectly. Getting money out of politics is an idea most Americans agree with, but the practical realities of doing it are not easy.
 
Here's what one popular progressive voice thinks of Obama's recent speech.


I think you're missing how much the progressives hate the Democratic establishment. Including Obama.

Let's see if progressives and Justice Democrats can make some major inroads into some races this November. That's the message that resonates. Not the Kabuki theater we saw during Kavanagh's hearing.
 
  • Love
Reactions: RABaby
It depends on how you define your terms. According to Pew, those who define themselves as Liberal Democrats and Lean Democrats are only 21% of the population, but are a larger number among Millennials.

Sharp differences in partisan, ideological identifications between younger and older generations

The problem with ideological extremes in any direction is they have so much animosity for so much of the rest of the bell curve they allow the perfect to become the enemy of movement in their direction. That's the message Obama was trying to convey the other day.

The needle is never going to swing fast nor swing to one extreme or the other unless the system has completely broken. We're on the precipice of it breaking into a right wing dystopia. Before it can swing to progressive it needs to get back to some semblance of center. Anyone who dreams of it swinging to some kind of European style system in a quick movement is not being realistic. The extremists on the other end of the spectrum have the reigns of power right now and that isn't going to change overnight.

I am certain we are at the end of a party system in this country. FDR brought in the new ideas that marked the last liberal party system in this country. Reagan took the country the other way into a conservative party system. The president elected in 2020 could be someone who is more like Roosevelt who will take the country in a more leftward direction, but if they are going to succeed it will have to be someone who has a leftward agenda, but is also a savvy politician. I don't see anyone like that in the wings right now, but people didn't see those skills in Reagan either until he ran in 1980.
 
The problem with ideological extremes in any direction is they have so much animosity for so much of the rest of the bell curve they allow the perfect to become the enemy of movement in their direction. That's the message Obama was trying to convey the other day.
This is IMHO the crux of the issue. We in large part have started this crazy idea of a "Purity Test" for either end of the spectrum.

Example: Although they recently recanted the ACLU placed Maajid Namaz on the Anti Muslim Extremist list How Did Maajid Nawaz End Up on a List of 'Anti-Muslim Extremists'? - The Atlantic

So if your ...say of liberal leaning and someone states that many Muslim country's are oppressive to Women or gay's ....well you an anti Muslim extremist. No you are simply pointing out some of the bat *sugar* crazy things in a particular set of belief's.

If we don't find a way to stop demonizing and de-platforming people we don't agree with I see no way forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wdolson
It depends on how you define your terms. According to Pew, those who define themselves as Liberal Democrats and Lean Democrats are only 21% of the population, but are a larger number among Millennials.

Sharp differences in partisan, ideological identifications between younger and older generations

The problem with ideological extremes in any direction is they have so much animosity for so much of the rest of the bell curve they allow the perfect to become the enemy of movement in their direction. That's the message Obama was trying to convey the other day.

The needle is never going to swing fast nor swing to one extreme or the other unless the system has completely broken. We're on the precipice of it breaking into a right wing dystopia. Before it can swing to progressive it needs to get back to some semblance of center. Anyone who dreams of it swinging to some kind of European style system in a quick movement is not being realistic. The extremists on the other end of the spectrum have the reigns of power right now and that isn't going to change overnight.

I am certain we are at the end of a party system in this country. FDR brought in the new ideas that marked the last liberal party system in this country. Reagan took the country the other way into a conservative party system. The president elected in 2020 could be someone who is more like Roosevelt who will take the country in a more leftward direction, but if they are going to succeed it will have to be someone who has a leftward agenda, but is also a savvy politician. I don't see anyone like that in the wings right now, but people didn't see those skills in Reagan either until he ran in 1980.

You describe the Democrats as slowly moving to the left as millenials and other demographic changes for this change. I agree.

The point I'm making is the Democratic party (not the Democratic voter) has actually moved to the right since Bill Clinton. They are pro-war, pro-wall street, less individual liberty and much more corporatists than ever before.

Maybe they had no choice but to compete with the Republicans on these issues but this is not the Democrat party I knew.

Democrat voters are choosing progressives for a reason. Hillary was the embodiment of everything that has gone wrong with the Democratic party over the last 30 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.