Market politics

[wdolson]

Probably the same that it would take to convince you that Obama had similar offenses, and was treated differently (more respectfully) than the Dems are treating Trump. Obama was just sneakier about it. Trump is blunt.

You admit that, I'll acquiesce to what you propose.

So you are claiming that Obama is just as guilty of the same crimes despite not a shred of real evidence that he committed any of these crimes? Before you claim that Biden pressuring the Ukrainians in 2014 was the same thing, there are some very critical factual differences that make what Biden did legal and what Trump did illegal.

What Biden did was pressure a foreign power to advance the foreign policies of the United States. He did not benefit personally and in fact he was putting his son at potential risk because the prosecutor he was trying to get fired was not investigating Burisma. A later prosecutor did investigate Burisma and found a number of tax law violations on the part of the company and the CEO, but no link whatsoever to Hunter Biden in large part because he had nothing to do with Burisma's finances. The company is currently under investigation for contract law violations from before the time Hunter Biden had anything to do with the company.

What Donald Trump did was put pressure on the Ukraine to give him something of personal value ie gin up a fake investigation of Hunter and Joe Biden to help him in the 2020 election.

Nobody employed by the United States government is to get any compensation for doing their job beyond their paycheck and government benefits. To receive any other form of compensation in return for doing an official act of your office is bribery. The law also makes it clear to make any attempt to get any form of compensation is also bribery.

Fox News and the conservative media has been working overtime to make the two seem equivalent, but they are not.

Now were some of Obama's policies questionable? Possibly. Obama conducted a raid in Pakistan without the government's permission, did drone strikes in that country, as well as many more drone strikes than Bush. However, the drone strike capability expanded dramatically in the last months of the Bush administration, so if it had been online earlier, Bush may have used drones just as prolifically.

There is not the slightest shred of evidence that Obama did anything illegal in office to benefit himself personally. There are those who are 100% convinced it's there, but claiming there is with no evidence is the weakest form of "what aboutism".

I'm not saying it could not happen, but having known more than one person in the DC circle directly or indirectly, even the high-profile people like Bolton rarely write their own books. They sit down with a ghost writer that takes notes, and that person writes a first draft. Then multiple revisions ensue.

Ghostwritten political memoirs are common. Hillary Clinton has used ghostwriters for most of her books. Though her daughter did most of the writing in the most recent book on notable women of history. They are credited as co-authors.

Bill Clinton hand wrote his entire memoir on legal pads and all evidence shows Obama wrote his own books himself. As far as I can tell Bolton does all his own writing.

I would not put it above the Dems as this being a perfectly well-timed, completely false "leak" with the goal of trying to force the hand of moderate Republican Senators to get them to reconsider their votes on the introduction of new "evidence" in the Senate Trial. It's classic DC politics.

Quite a bit of the stuff coming out now is coming from former Trump associates and lifelong Republicans. John Bolton is one of the strongest warhawks in the Republican party and has been a faithful GOP hack his entire life. However he has been very concerned about Trump running US foreign policy.

Lev Parnas is doing a steady drip, drip of damning evidence. He has all this evidence because he was one of the deepest insiders in Trump's orbit for years.

There is old fashioned politics going on in Washington right now, but there is also unprecedented levels of corruption at the highest levels and reams of evidence to support it. The Republicans in the Senate are dead set to whitewash the entire thing, but the only politics involved on the part of the Democrats is to make the Republicans pay the maximum price for putting party before country. As they should. Any politician who will give a pass to a fellow party member for selling out the United States deserves to be fired by the voters and I would say the exact same thing for any Democrat who put party first in this sort of situation.

Remember Russiagate? 30+ million dollar investigation and the Dems had "incontrovertible proof" that Trump colluded with Russia (which they didn't have - Schiff flat out lied, repeatedly, on that) . . . The odds are high that 1) this is just made up (not uncommon for the NYT with regards to their coverage of Trump - it's completely speculative with zero proof put out there, and was released at EXACTLY the right time to try to shake up the trial in the Senate), or 2) that the ghost writer is a Democrat that is out to hurt Trump - a la the CIA "whistleblower" which we pretty much know is a registered Dem with VERY close ties to Joe Biden. Or (less likely) is 3) that this is actually true. If Bolton would have wanted to hurt Trump, he would not have fought the subpoena from the House so hard, and he did and wound up not testifying.

There is a possibility that the Mueller investigation in the end will turn a profit. They seized a lot of property in their investigation.

But that aside, there is no crime in the US Code called "collusion". The crime is "conspiracy against the United States". Of that Mueller found lots. Michael Flynn was initially charged with conspiracy and he plead down to 1 count of making false statements. Paul Manfort was convicted of conspiracy and rick Gates plead to it

Mueller found lot of evidence of conspiracy against the United States. But Mueller also does not charge anyone unless he's 99.9% sure of a conviction. Because of the 1973 DOJ memo, he couldn't indict Trump. In the Roger Stone trial his team made is blatantly clear that Roger Stone and Donald Trump were working together on a conspiracy against the US, but he couldn't indict Trump so he had to speak indirectly and refer to Trump as "the candidate".

The conservative media likes to play down the Mueller investigation, but it turned up plenty of evidence of conspiracy. Seth Abramson wrote a book called Proof of Conspiracy. I recommend it if you want to know the true story and not one pre-digested by conservative media with an agenda. It's a very lawyerly book, but he lays out the case in meticulous detail.

Mueller would not say in his Congressional testimony anything about Trump's guilt because he is obligated by the rules of ethics lawyers need to follow not to. If a prosecutor is not charging someone with a crime, they cannot ethically accuse that person of any crime, even informally. If you know lawyer speak, of which I am not fluent, but I can pick up some (my SO is fully fluent), Mueller was indirectly saying that he had Trump on crimes, but since he is not allowed to indict, he can't directly say anything.

I don't believe that Mueller would indict Trump on conspiracy with Russia in the 2016 election because, despite some evidence that he might have, there is not enough evidence rising to the 99.9% certainty level that Trump himself was directly involved in the conspiracy. The fact that the conspiracy existed has been proven in court. Trump just stayed one step into the plausible deniability side. Many of his closest associates crossed that line and got nailed for it.

The conservative media has been on a campaign for 30 years to convince those who will listen to their message that Republicans are saintly and Democrats are the epitome of evil. But there is a secondary line of attack too: convince those who aren't willing to believe that first argument that both sides are equally corrupt and that any attempts to bring anyone involved in Republican corruption to justice are just playing political games.

I dig into the real facts and look past the spin. There really is a difference between the two parties. The Democratic party is far from perfect and I don't agree with all their policies, but the Republican party has been growing more and more corrupt and forgetting how to govern for the last 25 years. The Trump administration is the stage 4 of this cancer.

There is only one party left who gives any whiff of concern for the health of the country.

 

[dmunjal]

There is only one party left who gives any whiff of concern for the health of the country.

After reading your post, I'm ready to convict Trump. Until I read the last line and I came back to reality. That the Democratic party will once again steal defeat from the clutches of victory come November.

The DNC is Getting Ready For a Contested Convention, and So Should Bernie’s Base.

"It is incredibly telling that the Democratic Party would rather another four more years of Donald Trump and the death of their party than have Bernie Sanders as the nominee."

 

[EVNow]

After reading your post, I'm ready to convict Trump. Until I read the last line and I came back to reality. That the Democratic party will once again steal defeat from the clutches of victory come November.

The DNC is Getting Ready For a Contested Convention, and So Should Bernie’s Base.

"It is incredibly telling that the Democratic Party would rather another four more years of Donald Trump and the death of their party than have Bernie Sanders as the nominee."

Dem donors would absolutely prefer 4 more years of Trump to a tax increasing Sanders.

Its telling that establishment Dems have zero to say about Bernie's policies that they can't oppose directly - but want to "stop" him anyway.

 

[wdolson]

After reading your post, I'm ready to convict Trump. Until I read the last line and I came back to reality. That the Democratic party will once again steal defeat from the clutches of victory come November.

The DNC is Getting Ready For a Contested Convention, and So Should Bernie’s Base.

"It is incredibly telling that the Democratic Party would rather another four more years of Donald Trump and the death of their party than have Bernie Sanders as the nominee."

I did say the Dems do play politics. That's what political parties do, but Dems are also concerned about policy and Republicans aren't anymore.

Paul O'Neil, who was GW Bush's first treasury secretary published a memoir (yes, it was ghostwritten) of his time in the Bush administration. The ghostwriter had a forward in which he said it was one of the easiest books he's ever written because O'Neil took copious notes daily about what was going on and he handed over everything to the ghostwriter.

O'Neil had been in and around the White House for many years from the Nixon administration through to Bush I. He knew how both Democrats and Republicans did business and he said conversations about what to do usually had a mix of politics and policy. But there was always policy as part of the discussion. He was shocked to get into the GW Bush administration and there was never a discussion of policy on anything. Everything was about politics: keeping the base happy, sticking it to the Democrats, and how to get re-elected. They didn't have a clue about policy and didn't care.

Obama and Clinton were both more traditional White Houses with a mix of both.

Unfortunately in the primaries it seems the Democrats are more focused on the policy questions than the question on the minds of most Democratic voters which is: get rid of Trump. Which is more political.

Both sides seems to project onto the other their own way of doing things. I have seen Republicans accuse Democrats of playing politics when they are more focused on policy and I have seen Democrats make the mistake in believing that they can craft policy with the Republicans.

Dem donors would absolutely prefer 4 more years of Trump to a tax increasing Sanders.

Its telling that establishment Dems have zero to say about Bernie's policies that they can't oppose directly - but want to "stop" him anyway.

I know the pro-Bernie crowd likes to say that about the establishment Democrats, but I don't think it's true. I think the establishment Democrats do feel Bernie is a bit of a carpet bagger. He's been independent his entire career and suddenly flies a flag of convenience to run for president. In 2016 there were many core establishment Democrats who felt it was Hillary's year and they resented Bernie coming as close as he did to the nomination.

Hillary's strongest base are first wave feminists. They had an issue with Obama too because they saw what happened to Hillary in 2008 was what had happened to them during their careers: they got passed up for promotion by a less experienced and less qualified man. They saw the same almost happening again in 2016 and it freaked them out.

That crowd has mostly gone silent at this point. The wiser of them have realized that their attempts to crown Hillary no matter what opened the door for Trump. The resistance to Bernie this time does have an element of resisting the carpet bagger from hijacking the party, despite his ideas gelling with a faction of the party and the other is concern that the Republicans will cast Bernie as the next Stalin and beat him based on votes of scared Gen X and older who still fear the commie menace deep down in there.

Rick Wilson has been sounding the siren call about Bernie for months and the wiser Democrats are listening. He's a defector handing the Democrats the entire Republican play book. Anyone who isn't listening is surrendering a massive asset to the enemy.

 

[JRP3]

Sanders is the most liked senator year after year, no one really thinks he's a commie, or if they do they don't care. It's not the 50's or the 80's any longer.

 

[dmunjal]

Sanders is the most liked senator year after year, no one really thinks he's a commie, or if they do they don't care. It's not the 50's or the 80's any longer.

And it's absurd to think that only Republicans ignore policy. The establishment Democrats are willfully ignoring what the majority of their constituents want in terms of trade, war, and healthcare. All policy areas where Bernie differs from Biden.

The DNC and the Hillary wing made this mess and will have to own it when they lose it all in November.

 

[wdolson]

And it's absurd to think that only Republicans ignore policy. The establishment Democrats are willfully ignoring what the majority of their constituents want in terms of trade, war, and healthcare. All policy areas where Bernie differs from Biden.

The DNC and the Hillary wing made this mess and will have to own it when they lose it all in November.

Most Democrats have policy, it's just that you aren't all that wild about their policy agendas. The Republicans today wouldn't know policy if it dropped on their head.

Having control of both houses of Congress and the White House is the white whale of American politics and only happens once or twice in a generation. The Democrats pulled off the trifecta in 2008 and had majorities from Jan 2009 to Jan 2011, though they lost a Senate seat when Kennedy died which dropped them to a 59/41 majority. McConnell used that to stop all legislation with abuse of the filibuster. But for the first year the Democrats had the ability to advance any policy achievements they wanted. Obama in his naivete wasted all his political capital getting the ACA through.

The Republicans pulled the feat in 2016 and had control from Jan 2017 to Jan 2019 and they got essentially nothing done beyond a disastrous tax cut bill that was rammed through without proper consideration and was a heavy lift to get through even that. It's the only time in American history a party had the trifecta and didn't get anything of any real substance passed.

Why? They have no clue how to govern anymore. Look back at past Republican administrations and they had policy agendas they were constantly working towards. Reagan's overarching policy agenda internationally was to break the Soviet Union and that took many steps throughout his administration. The USSR ceased to exist shortly after he left office.

GW Bush did things that looked like policy, but in reality there was a lot of chaos under the surface because there was no clear cut direction to the administration. Iraq spun out of control and ISIS rose to power because the Bush administration badly botched the occupation of Iraq. Trump is an order of magnitude worse than GW Bush. In the states when Republicans get power their primary mission seems to be just dismantling what has gone before with no thought what to replace it with.

Policy agendas can get derailed by the opposition which is what happened to much of Obama's policy agendas, at least the legislative part of it. The Republicans are very good at tearing apart what others are trying to build. There was talk a few years ago that the Republicans had become the party of "no". They just existed to stop other people from achieving anything. Then in 2016 they ended up like the dog which caught the car, "now what?"

 

[canoemore]

Most Democrats have policy, it's just that you aren't all that wild about their policy agendas. The Republicans today wouldn't know policy if it dropped on their head.

Having control of both houses of Congress and the White House is the white whale of American politics and only happens once or twice in a generation. The Democrats pulled off the trifecta in 2008 and had majorities from Jan 2009 to Jan 2011, though they lost a Senate seat when Kennedy died which dropped them to a 59/41 majority. McConnell used that to stop all legislation with abuse of the filibuster. But for the first year the Democrats had the ability to advance any policy achievements they wanted. Obama in his naivete wasted all his political capital getting the ACA through.

The Republicans pulled the feat in 2016 and had control from Jan 2017 to Jan 2019 and they got essentially nothing done beyond a disastrous tax cut bill that was rammed through without proper consideration and was a heavy lift to get through even that. It's the only time in American history a party had the trifecta and didn't get anything of any real substance passed.

Why? They have no clue how to govern anymore. Look back at past Republican administrations and they had policy agendas they were constantly working towards. Reagan's overarching policy agenda internationally was to break the Soviet Union and that took many steps throughout his administration. The USSR ceased to exist shortly after he left office.

GW Bush did things that looked like policy, but in reality there was a lot of chaos under the surface because there was no clear cut direction to the administration. Iraq spun out of control and ISIS rose to power because the Bush administration badly botched the occupation of Iraq. Trump is an order of magnitude worse than GW Bush. In the states when Republicans get power their primary mission seems to be just dismantling what has gone before with no thought what to replace it with.

Policy agendas can get derailed by the opposition which is what happened to much of Obama's policy agendas, at least the legislative part of it. The Republicans are very good at tearing apart what others are trying to build. There was talk a few years ago that the Republicans had become the party of "no". They just existed to stop other people from achieving anything. Then in 2016 they ended up like the dog which caught the car, "now what?"

This is spot on. As is your take on Sanders' position in the Democratic primary and the Republican playbook that will be used against him. That playbook may not work, but I think it's more likely that it will. If it does, it'll be a rough lesson in politics for a lot of idealists on the left and I hope they aren't too proud to learn from it if that comes to pass.

Also, I worry that we're seeing bit of a rerun of the McGovern-Muskie in this Democratic Primary where Nixon basically chose the candidate he'd rather run against (McGovern) and used his dirty tricks to knock back the front runner (Muskie). Given that Trump is basically using a more repugnant version of Nixon's political playbook, I think it's likely there's an element of this going on right now.

 

[winfield100]

....get rid of Trump......I know the pro-Bernie crowd likes to say that about the establishment Democrats, but I don't think it's true. I think the establishment Democrats do feel Bernie is a bit of a carpet bagger. He's been independent his entire career and suddenly flies a flag of convenience to run for president. In 2016 there were many core establishment Democrats who felt it was Hillary's year and they resented Bernie coming as close as he did to the.

@wdolson
Not a flag of convenience, only way to win and implement policies.

A few comments
Since 1980, a bush or Clinton in White House for 28 years to 2008, new ideas?
Held nose and voted for her vs the orange gall bladder disease symptoms.

Did you get “clean for Gene” (Eugene McCarthy in 1968) wasted vote
Did you vote for John Anderson in 1980, wasted vote
Ross Pirogue in 1992 “I’m all ears” and “who am I and why am I here”
There are only 2 parties capable of winning in the US
How can Bernie win?
Not as a 3rd party
Btw
We are already socialist,
got social security?
That’s universal basic income for elders, Andrew Yang
Got Medicare?
That’s universal healthcare for elders, Bernie
Go to libraries, drive on non toll roads, go to public schools, etc
All socialism.
Remember when the cuyahoga river caught on fire?
Drive through Los Angeles in a smog alert

Gaia is getting really angry with humanity and striking back with increasing ferocity, hurricanes, tornadoes, rising seas, floods, famines

 

[dmunjal]

This is spot on. As is your take on Sanders' position in the Democratic primary and the Republican playbook that will be used against him. That playbook may not work, but I think it's more likely that it will. If it does, it'll be a rough lesson in politics for a lot of idealists on the left and I hope they aren't too proud to learn from it if that comes to pass.

Also, I worry that we're seeing bit of a rerun of the McGovern-Muskie in this Democratic Primary where Nixon basically chose the candidate he'd rather run against (McGovern) and used his dirty tricks to knock back the front runner (Muskie). Given that Trump is basically using a more repugnant version of Nixon's political playbook, I think it's likely there's an element of this going on right now.

This isn't the 60s and 70s anymore. The new generation is ready for a populist candidate who takes on the establishment.

Look at how the establishment reacted to the Joe Rogan endorsement of Bernie and how that is backfiring.

 

[dmunjal]

Most Democrats have policy, it's just that you aren't all that wild about their policy agendas. The Republicans today wouldn't know policy if it dropped on their head.

Having control of both houses of Congress and the White House is the white whale of American politics and only happens once or twice in a generation. The Democrats pulled off the trifecta in 2008 and had majorities from Jan 2009 to Jan 2011, though they lost a Senate seat when Kennedy died which dropped them to a 59/41 majority. McConnell used that to stop all legislation with abuse of the filibuster. But for the first year the Democrats had the ability to advance any policy achievements they wanted. Obama in his naivete wasted all his political capital getting the ACA through.

The Republicans pulled the feat in 2016 and had control from Jan 2017 to Jan 2019 and they got essentially nothing done beyond a disastrous tax cut bill that was rammed through without proper consideration and was a heavy lift to get through even that. It's the only time in American history a party had the trifecta and didn't get anything of any real substance passed.

Why? They have no clue how to govern anymore. Look back at past Republican administrations and they had policy agendas they were constantly working towards. Reagan's overarching policy agenda internationally was to break the Soviet Union and that took many steps throughout his administration. The USSR ceased to exist shortly after he left office.

GW Bush did things that looked like policy, but in reality there was a lot of chaos under the surface because there was no clear cut direction to the administration. Iraq spun out of control and ISIS rose to power because the Bush administration badly botched the occupation of Iraq. Trump is an order of magnitude worse than GW Bush. In the states when Republicans get power their primary mission seems to be just dismantling what has gone before with no thought what to replace it with.

Policy agendas can get derailed by the opposition which is what happened to much of Obama's policy agendas, at least the legislative part of it. The Republicans are very good at tearing apart what others are trying to build. There was talk a few years ago that the Republicans had become the party of "no". They just existed to stop other people from achieving anything. Then in 2016 they ended up like the dog which caught the car, "now what?"

The Democrats can claim to have policy but what if the policy makes things worse?

Obama's signature legislation (ACA) has completely failed to control medical costs and premiums have doubled since it passed.

He won the Nobel Peace prize and promised to get us out of Iraq only to take us from two wars to seven.

He promised to take on Wall Street but never took any of them to court and now makes millions from speeches to them.

This is why Trump exists.

The Democratic party still has not realized this and are in danger of losing to Trump one more time.

 

[canoemore]

This isn't the 60s and 70s anymore. The new generation is ready for a populist candidate who takes on the establishment.

Look at how the establishment reacted to the Joe Rogan endorsement of Bernie and how that is backfiring.

Well, I certainly would like to be wrong about the outcome of a match-up between tRump and Senator Sanders (though my personal preference is for a different Democratic nominee for a number of reasons). I am skeptical of any argument that casually casually dismisses the efficacy of political tactics used effectively since Cicero with platitudes about how this time is different. The fundamentals of politics don't change that much.

What is clear is that the Republican's only chance is to foster disillusionment and strife in the voting public and especially within the Democratic party. Naive expectations about how the political process works serve the interests of tRump.

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on the outcome), we will see how it plays out in the next 9 months.

 

[dmunjal]

Well, I certainly would like to be wrong about the outcome of a match-up between tRump and Senator Sanders (though my personal preference is for a different Democratic nominee for a number of reasons). I am skeptical of any argument that casually casually dismisses the efficacy of political tactics used effectively since Cicero with platitudes about how this time is different. The fundamentals of politics don't change that much.

What is clear is that the Republican's only chance is to foster disillusionment and strife in the voting public and especially within the Democratic party. Naive expectations about how the political process works serve the interests of tRump.

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on the outcome), we will see how it plays out in the next 9 months.

The DNC and their treatment of Sanders in 2016 is what fostered disillusionment and strife in the voting public. Can't blame Trump or the Republican Party for that.

You want to see strife? Let's see what happens if there is a contested convention and the superdelegates pick an establishment candidate over Bernie. Yes, the "Democratic" Party still has superdelegates.

 

[JRP3]

In 2016 I wasn't happy with what happened with Sanders but couldn't imagine voting for Trump just to "send a message" to the Democratic party. Now, as bad as Trump is, he still manages to "fail upward" and has not made as much of a mess as I expected, and thus I can see some disillusioned Dems voting for him or at least not supporting Biden, or whichever corporate stooge they prop up.

 

[wdolson]

@wdolson
Not a flag of convenience, only way to win and implement policies.

I was talking about how the powers that be within the Democratic party see it, not how I see it. I've been an independent since the late 80s. I've been voting Democrat pretty consistently since 2000, but that's because the Republican party is bankrupt in both ideas and ethically. They have such a solid hold on their caucus in legislatures that a vote for the most moderate Republican is also a vote for the most radical in another jurisdiction.

My SO thinks political parties should be banned entirely, but I can't see how that would work in the real world.

A few comments
Since 1980, a bush or Clinton in White House for 28 years to 2008, new ideas?
Held nose and voted for her vs the orange gall bladder disease symptoms.

And from 2009 to 2013 a Clinton held one of the highest cabinet posts.

Did you get “clean for Gene” (Eugene McCarthy in 1968) wasted vote
Did you vote for John Anderson in 1980, wasted vote
Ross Pirogue in 1992 “I’m all ears” and “who am I and why am I here”
There are only 2 parties capable of winning in the US
How can Bernie win?
Not as a 3rd party
Btw
We are already socialist,
got social security?
That’s universal basic income for elders, Andrew Yang
Got Medicare?
That’s universal healthcare for elders, Bernie
Go to libraries, drive on non toll roads, go to public schools, etc
All socialism.
Remember when the cuyahoga river caught on fire?
Drive through Los Angeles in a smog alert

Gaia is getting really angry with humanity and striking back with increasing ferocity, hurricanes, tornadoes, rising seas, floods, famines

I grew up in Los Angeles (East LA) from the mid-60s to the mid-80s. Those were the days of the worst smog and I paid the price. I realized when I moved away that I was very allergic to smog. My lungs have permanently lower capacity because of it.

The Democrats can claim to have policy but what if the policy makes things worse?

Having some kind of policy agenda gives the people a chance to put pressure on the government to change the policy. It isn't always successful, but it has worked sometimes in the past.

Obama's signature legislation (ACA) has completely failed to control medical costs and premiums have doubled since it passed.

He won the Nobel Peace prize and promised to get us out of Iraq only to take us from two wars to seven.

He promised to take on Wall Street but never took any of them to court and now makes millions from speeches to them.

This is why Trump exists.

The Democratic party still has not realized this and are in danger of losing to Trump one more time.

A critical read:
https://www.amazon.com/Running-Agai...80244398&sprefix=running+again,aps,204&sr=8-1

In the first chapter he paints a scenario of what could happen in 2020 if the Democrats are not going to pull their head out and realize beating Donald Trump is job 1. If the Democrats can't win the White House, all the Pollyanna ideas in the world don't mean anything.

Rick Wilson in a recent TV interview pointed out that in the UK Jeremy Corbin was just handed one of the worst defeats in UK election history losing many strong Labour ridings to Boris Johnson. Labour had a complex message and refused to take a solid stand on the biggest issue facing Britain. The Tories had a very simple message repeated often "Get BREXIT Done!"

I've followed UK politics for years and they work differently from the US, both in the mechanisms of government as well as the informal rules people play by. But political conditions in the US and UK are often congruent. Johnson is significantly smarter than Trump, but that just makes him more dangerous. Under the buffoon exterior is a Machiavellian who plans to tear apart the UK's social institutions.

The Tories have been underfunding the NHS for years, which has left the system in crisis. They want to switch to a private system like the US where their friends can rake in the big bucks and the poor can die in the streets like any graduate of Eton feels they should. They are going after the BBC too because the BBC is too fair and the facts are too liberal for the Tories.

I don't think that any Democrat this cycle is going to be anywhere near as feckless as Jeremy Corbin and Boris Johnson had only been PM for a couple of months before this last election. Trump has 4 years of disaster to defend. So I don't agree with Wilson that the UK example is going to happen here with any certainty, but it is a lesson in nominating someone who is too idealistic in the current world political climate.

As far as the problems with the ACA. The ACA had many, many compromises that got in there in a vain attempt to get GOP votes. The GOP put them in there to weaken the legislation. The ACA stands alone as the only piece of major legislation ever passed in the history of the US that was never revisited over the following years. Major legislation always has "bugs" that need to be worked out. But the Republicans have refused to allow any changes at all so a weak law limps along.

The reason costs have continued to go up is due to parts of the legislation that were tossed out by the courts and other parts that had loopholes the GOP have figured out how to exploit to make the whole thing look bad.

The DNC and their treatment of Sanders in 2016 is what fostered disillusionment and strife in the voting public. Can't blame Trump or the Republican Party for that.

You want to see strife? Let's see what happens if there is a contested convention and the superdelegates pick an establishment candidate over Bernie. Yes, the "Democratic" Party still has superdelegates.

The Russian Internet Research Agency was doing all it could to promote Bernie Sanders in the primaries and after the primaries were over they were doing all they could to keep the resentment alive. It was part of their strategy to weaken the Democrats and help Trump.

The Democrats still have superdelegates, but their role is diminished from 2016.

 

[Intl Professor]

The Quest for Certainty, Old Progressives and New Conservatives

The Quest for Certainty in reality may be what distinguishes organisms and institutions which have the capacity of thought or, in the cases of simple organisms, an evolutionary hunger to survive now and in the future by reproduction.

In its positive aspects it has a liberating aspect for planning that is open ended, that is subject to change as analysis and new opportunities arise. In short, evolves. That is my belief is the progressive mind set. It is variable over time. So too is the mindset of true conservatives. It varies over time. See a decades old article by Samuel P. Huntington, on conservative views changing with time.

Conservatism as an Ideology | American Political Science Review | Cambridge Core

There is a perversion fixed in time for both left and right reflected in my modified version of a famous statement of Rousseau. “Everywhere humans are born free, yet everywhere they are looking for chains, that is to say, certainty.” An example on the Left and right is a fixation on Leninist versions of socialism and contemporary democratic socialism under free economies as practiced best in Scandinavian societies. As I’ve noted above in another post, Progressives want to christianize capitalism. (See Netflix', “The Two Popes.”) On the right is the tension between conservatives concerned with keeping those things worth keeping, and the demand of fealty to Der Führer.

These confusions are often encountered in real life as we see everywhere and everywhen, even here at TMC. Through conversation with evidence and argument we work through to better understanding. A fine example is the clarification of whether David Yang is a Luddite.

This is my way of arguing history will harshly condemn our democracy and the Republican Party if witnesses and documents are not admitted to scrutiny by the Senate in judging Trump. They will be ossified in time.

It also applies to the dialogue between shorts and longs. Think long, who wants to be a fossil? Timing is everything, duh.

 

[dmunjal]

As far as the problems with the ACA. The ACA had many, many compromises that got in there in a vain attempt to get GOP votes. The GOP put them in there to weaken the legislation. The ACA stands alone as the only piece of major legislation ever passed in the history of the US that was never revisited over the following years. Major legislation always has "bugs" that need to be worked out. But the Republicans have refused to allow any changes at all so a weak law limps along.

The reason costs have continued to go up is due to parts of the legislation that were tossed out by the courts and other parts that had loopholes the GOP have figured out how to exploit to make the whole thing look bad.

I've heard you mention this point many times. The ACA was not weakened because of Republicans. It was weakened because of Obama. Like Dodd-Frank before it, it was written by lobbyists for lobbyists.

ObamaCare Enriches Only The Health Insurance Giants and Their Shareholders

It didn't get any Republican votes so it's failure is 100% owned by the Democrats. Maybe it was designed to fail so we can finally get M4A or a public option.

The Russian Internet Research Agency was doing all it could to promote Bernie Sanders in the primaries and after the primaries were over they were doing all they could to keep the resentment alive. It was part of their strategy to weaken the Democrats and help Trump.

Show me how much Russia spent on helping Bernie vs. what Hillary spent ($2B) and how much support she had from the mainstream media, Hollywood, academia, etc. It was a rounding error in the larger scheme of things.

The Democrats still have superdelegates, but their role is diminished from 2016.

The Democrats still have superdelegates. They will end up deciding the nominee in the second round if it gets that far. Which it likely will.

 

[dmckinstry]

Most Democrats have policy, it's just that you aren't all that wild about their policy agendas. The Republicans today wouldn't know policy if it dropped on their head.

Just as they wouldn't recognize integrity if it dropped on their head. Of course the same could be said for some Democrats.

 

[dmunjal]

The impeachment has completely backfired on the Democrats exactly as I predicted.

Feinstein says she's a maybe on acquitting Trump as his defense team ends impeachment arguments

 

[bkp_duke]

The impeachment has completely backfired on the Democrats exactly as I predicted.

Feinstein says she's a maybe on acquitting Trump as his defense team ends impeachment arguments

OUCH. She's not one I had on my radar on the Dem side going that route. I was thinking Manchin was possible/likely given his base.