Jump to content

US Politics: There's No Morning After Pill


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

GOP split over Medicaid imperils Obamacare plans
Republicans want to cut costs, return control to states and keep people covered — a near impossibility.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/medicaid-overhaul-republicans-234049


Is American Democracy Strong Enough for Trump?
The case against panic.
By FRANCIS FUKUYAMA January 23, 2017

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/donald-trump-american-democracy-214683

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OH MY FUCKING GOD STOP WITH THE ROCK BULLSHIT

DO YOU WANT CAMACHO AS PRESIDENT? BECAUSE THAT'S HOW YOU GET CAMACHO.

Also, SMH Bernie. While I happen to think that Mattis is a pretty good pick, Sanders praising Trump for the TPP XO and then voting for both his candidates when he doesn't have to and gets nothing out of it kind of belies much in the way of his leading any resistance. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sanders understand that mindless obstruction and disparaging is ultimately going to make things even worse. From the Fukuyama article one post about yours:

Quote

It is important to remember that one of the reasons for Trump’s rise is the accurate perception that the American political system was in many respects broken—captured by special interests and paralyzed by its inability to make or implement basic decisions. This, not a sudden affinity for Russia, is why the idea of a Putin-like strongman has suddenly gained appeal in America. The way democratic accountability is supposed to work is for the dominant party to be allowed to govern, and then be held accountable in two or four years time for the results it has produced. Continued stalemate and paralysis will only convince people that the system is so fundamentally broken that it needs to be saved by a leader who can break all rules—if not Trump, then a successor.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

OH MY FUCKING GOD STOP WITH THE ROCK BULLSHIT

DO YOU WANT CAMACHO AS PRESIDENT? BECAUSE THAT'S HOW YOU GET CAMACHO.

Also, SMH Bernie. While I happen to think that Mattis is a pretty good pick, Sanders praising Trump for the TPP XO and then voting for both his candidates when he doesn't have to and gets nothing out of it kind of belies much in the way of his leading any resistance. 

 

O lordessa, you are so correct.

A young bench, like the new Republican party in the 1850's found with Lincoln. Go looking locally, not nationally.

You all know what most of these so-called Dem parties leaders did on Saturday, right?  They don't deserve to continue at all.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/23/democrats_missed_women_s_march_for_david_brock_donor_retreat.htmll

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mexal said:

Different world today. Everything is connected and we have progressed as a society. Trump threatens that progression while also threatening the world as we know it. He's the most powerful man in the most powerful country and he can do a lot of damage. I think the hysterics is warranted especially as he only became president on Friday.

 

28 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

Sure you can point things out, but what is the point? Person A seems to want to rub it in for the US folks again and again. Persons A, B and C lash out back against Germans (not you) or Bavarians and so on... while there are lots of nice, progressive people in B., just as there are in the US.

For me, the rise of right wing nationalist parties, and the potential breakdown of international cooperation, here and in Europe is a bit scary.

And I think, all us lefties should worry about it.

I don’t know precisely the reasons, but I’d suspect it is a toxic cocktail of racism, sexism, and straight neo-liberal orthodoxy.

On the economic front, free trade and globalism is potentially coming into disfavor for the reason, it was mishandled.

You have these clowns in Davos right now, freeting about the breakdown of globalism, when they, in my view, are largely the reason things are going a bit down the shitter right now. It would seem, they offer little in the way of policy solutions, other than your standard right wing cliches ie “a rising tide lifts all boats!!!”.

Anyway, I think its up to us lefties to think about these issues and try to make them work better, if we’re to stop these right wing ultra-nationalist groups.

Lots of countries are having a difficult time right now and I think, no matter what country you live in, many of us have the same concerns with the way stuff is going right about now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Commodore said:

I thought The Rock was a registered Republican?

 

Apparently he was, though the last report was 12 years ago. 

Amusingly, in searching for this I found this bit from the reporting of GWB's RNC convention:

Quote

 

But presence of the short-haired, loud-talking hulk at the Philadelphia gala is drawing fire. The head of the conservative Parents Television Council says the wrestler should not be given a prime-time platform.

In a news release from the PTC, L. Brent Bozell III said “The Rock” regularly uses obscene and profane language, and frequently makes demeaning comments about women.

“George Bush should do what corporate America is doing in droves—disassociating itself with the vulgarity and violence the WWF weekly markets to over 3 million children. Over than 30 corporate CEOs have pulled their sponsorship of WWF Smackdown!. As the de facto CEO of the GOP, George Bush should make the responsible decision and do the same thing,” Bozell said.

The Council claims credit for helping pressure AT&T, Coca-Cola and others to withdraw their ads from the WWF Smackdown! a wrestling show aired weekly on UPN.

PTC calls the show ‘the most ultra-violent, foul-mouthed, and sexually explicit show on prime-time television, a fact made even worse when one considers it is broadcast during the “family hour.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

See how far the GOP has come? 12 years later and they're fine with demeaning comments to women and using obscene and profane language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

OH MY FUCKING GOD STOP WITH THE ROCK BULLSHIT

DO YOU WANT CAMACHO AS PRESIDENT? BECAUSE THAT'S HOW YOU GET CAMACHO.

Also, SMH Bernie. While I happen to think that Mattis is a pretty good pick, Sanders praising Trump for the TPP XO and then voting for both his candidates when he doesn't have to and gets nothing out of it kind of belies much in the way of his leading any resistance. 

 

Why does Camacho always get maligned and denigrated.  

 

Sanders on Foreign Policy has never been much of a radical break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TheKitttenGuard said:

Why does Camacho always get maligned and denigrated.  

 

Sanders on Foreign Policy has never been much of a radical break.

On Sanders, it's mostly that he had a fairly clear opportunity to actually be the opposition to Trump in every single facet of the man's being, and he isn't. He is willing to play along with him and even work with him if it means getting some things that he supposedly wants. He could have been the Democratic version of McConnell, but nope. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

On Sanders, it's mostly that he had a fairly clear opportunity to actually be the opposition to Trump in every single facet of the man's being, and he isn't. He is willing to play along with him and even work with him if it means getting some things that he supposedly wants. He could have been the Democratic version of McConnell, but nope. 

McConnell was the Senate Minority leader so this difference in what Sanders does. 

I do not think the Republican were uniformly oppose to all of Obama's nominees as well.

There were some Economics that alligned with Sanders and Trump that was never the case with Obama and McConnell.  You expect Sander's to support TPP after running against in the Primary because of Trump?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TheKitttenGuard said:

McConnell was the Senate Minority leader so this difference in what Sanders does. 

Not in this action, no. Though it is somewhat telling that Schumer also voted for it; it means that the notion of constant resistance to Trump's stuff won't be happening, either because Schumer isn't wanting it or he can't control the senate dems.

Just now, TheKitttenGuard said:

I do not think the Republican were uniformly oppose to all of Obama's nominees as well.

No, but McConnell basically was. And then there's Cotton, who basically delayed Obama's candidate just so they could die of leukemia and make Obama feel bad.

Just now, TheKitttenGuard said:

There were some Economics that alligned with Sanders and Trump that was never the case with Obama and McConnell.  You expect Sander's to support TPP after running against in the Primary because of Trump?

McConnell ostensibly aligned with Obama on a whole lot of things. They weren't diametrically opposed on things like TPP, for example. It didn't matter; McConnell simply viewed his role was to obstruct Obama whenever he possibly could. 

I'm not surprised that Sanders would be cool with Trump's view on TPP. That's not particularly offensive to me, nor is it particularly surprising. Praising Trump for it, however, is very surprising. Praising Trump when not speaking out about, say, Trump's order to ban all funding to any contraceptive services worldwide that also happen to go to places which do abortion? That sucks. Him not speaking out about killing the ACA? That sucks. His not even doing a symbolic opposition of Trump's candidates when he could have without any reprisal? That sucks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

For me, the rise of right wing nationalist parties, and the potential breakdown of international cooperation, here and in Europe is a bit scary.

And I think, all us lefties should worry about it.

I don’t know precisely the reasons, but I’d suspect it is a toxic cocktail of racism, sexism, and straight neo-liberal orthodoxy.

This is probably worthy of its own thread. Here's an interesting article about it. In a nutshell, the Democrats abandoned the working and lower-middle classes for a combination of urban professionals and various groups based on intrinsic identity. They then proceeded to team up with Republicans to implement neoliberal policies which drastically increased inequality. This left the working and lower-middle class people not belonging to a Democrat-favored identity with literally no representation... until Trump came along. Something similar (though not quite the same) happened in many (though not all) of the European countries.

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

See how far the GOP has come? 12 years later and they're fine with demeaning comments to women and using obscene and profane language.

Not only that, but they're also fine with somebody who is actually in the WWE Hall of Fame. :)

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

On Sanders, it's mostly that he had a fairly clear opportunity to actually be the opposition to Trump in every single facet of the man's being, and he isn't. He is willing to play along with him and even work with him if it means getting some things that he supposedly wants. He could have been the Democratic version of McConnell, but nope.

Why in the world would anyone want to be the Democratic version of McConnell? The obstruction strategy is fundamentally flawed: it damages both parties and it's not clear which one was damaged more. The Democrats lost bigly, but the Republicans had half of their platform or more torn up by opportunistic populists. Although... I suppose McConnell's behavior did ultimately get his wife appointed to a Cabinet position so it's not all bad, but I don't think Sanders would be interesting in harming his cause even if he personally came out ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:
  Hide contents

 

Zuckerberg as the Democratic Candidate for POTUS in 2020.  Young. Not much baggage.  Rich.  Has the social media market cornered.  Plus, the DNC is far too corrupt and out of touch to stop him.

 

Did you see that on a message board? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

This is probably worthy of its own thread. Here's an interesting article about it. In a nutshell, the Democrats abandoned the working and lower-middle classes for a combination of urban professionals and various groups based on intrinsic identity. They then proceeded to team up with Republicans to implement neoliberal policies which drastically increased inequality. This left the working and lower-middle class people not belonging to a Democrat-favored identity with literally no representation... until Trump came along. Something similar (though not quite the same) happened in many (though not all) of the European countries.

Not only that, but they're also fine with somebody who is actually in the WWE Hall of Fame. :)

Why in the world would anyone want to be the Democratic version of McConnell? The obstruction strategy is fundamentally flawed: it damages both parties and it's not clear which one was damaged more. The Democrats lost bigly, but the Republicans had half of their platform or more torn up by opportunistic populists. Although... I suppose McConnell's behavior did ultimately get his wife appointed to a Cabinet position so it's not all bad, but I don't think Sanders would be interesting in harming his cause even if he personally came out ahead.

That is a good article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Altherion said:

Why in the world would anyone want to be the Democratic version of McConnell? The obstruction strategy is fundamentally flawed: it damages both parties and it's not clear which one was damaged more. The Democrats lost bigly, but the Republicans had half of their platform or more torn up by opportunistic populists. Although... I suppose McConnell's behavior did ultimately get his wife appointed to a Cabinet position so it's not all bad, but I don't think Sanders would be interesting in harming his cause even if he personally came out ahead.

McConnell's strategy paid off. I don't know how it damaged anyone. The Republicans got almost every single thing they possibly wanted save Romney elected in 2012. They got campaign reform destroyed, they got to repeal the ACA, they got a Republican majority everywhere for the first time in, like, a billion years and they got all this at a time when executive action was at its highest power ever. 

The obstruction strategy is awesome for Republicans because they want most of the government to be ineffective so they can privatize it. This is why the Democrats as a whole shouldn't do obstruction as a tactic, because they are the party that is supposed to show that government can, actually, do things. The Republican platform, meanwhile, had precisely one thing edited out - the response to Ukraine - and everything else is staying in. 

No, the value for Sanders (or really, any Democrat, but Sanders as outsider especially) is acting as an actual opposition point to Trump in everything. He doesn't need to lead the Democratic party right now, and arguably that's not what his supporters want anyway. But he can be a symbol of that opposition, especially when that symbol costs him nothing at all. He can plausibly argue against Mattis if it comes up later anyway, make it a point that he refuses to support those who need a waiver regardless, and otherwise plausibly state that he was against Trump at every single point. This is how Obama positioned himself and won in 2008 - he could state and show that his limited record he was completely and totally anti-Bush at every point, and could use that against Clinton. 

If the Democrats are going to have any kind of chance, they'll need someone like that. It might not pay off - it could be that Trump's policies are successful or popular, or only some of them are horrific and others are good - but you need to have that as an option in a couple years.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Sanders praising Trump for the TPP XO and then voting for both his candidates when he doesn't have to and gets nothing out of it kind of belies much in the way of his leading any resistance. 

 

 Have no problem with TPP being tossed. All that shit was being passed under the table. They weren't even going to let us know what the deal was until more than a year after it passed. Smells like some shady bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

He could have been the Democratic version of McConnell, but nope. 

Fuck that shit. The man is repellent. Why would you want that? As others have mentioned, obstruct him when he does something you don't want to pass. McConnell is a fucking shill who is afraid to scratch his own ass. Emulating him is a terrible idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...