U.S. Politics: A Request to Address the Cleft on the Left

[Shryke]

3 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Demographics.  That be another critical issue getting swept under the rug, especially here.

First, as I pointed out before, a majority of the younger voters preferred a self-avowed socialist for president.  They are the future, and will eventually make that happen - though I suspect it will be far from a panacea.

 

Second, the people in the conservative movement tend to be OLD.  Really old. And they're dying.  I get to see this at  work.  The younger ones seem to be mostly military sorts or opportunists, out for power and money. From a straight demographic standpoint, the current conservative/Tea Party movement doesn't have much of a future.  Before too much longer (2-3 presidential elections?) their numbers will decline to the point where even gerrymandering and voter suppression won't keep them in power. 

 

I don't really think that's true actually. I mean, the amoral shits just after low taxes and "libertarian" ideals and fuck everyone else are certainly a central part of the whole College Republican thing. But the real core of the GOP youth is, well, the alt-right. That's what it is really.

The Pod Save America guys actually had a former writer from the National Review on this Monday talking about this issue. Basically youth recruitment has issues for them because, hey, it turns out the GOP has been a party of bigotry and white supremacy for like 50 years now and the awareness of that by many people these days makes it difficult to sell a lot of young people on conservatism. So the people you end up attracting are mostly those who aren't bothered by that shit. And so, lo and behold, your young members end up being a fairly nasty group of people.

[Which Tyler]

Trump says he is willing to 'close government' to build Mexico wall

Quote

 

Also cherry picked from the article:

...

What did he say about Charlottesville?

President Trump attacked the media in the campaign-style speech, saying reporters had misrepresented his "perfect" words in the wake of the violence in Charlottesville, where Heather Heyer was killed after a car ploughed into a crowd of people protesting against far-right demonstrators including neo-Nazis.

He accused "truly dishonest people in the media and the fake media" of "trying to take away our history and heritage" because, he said, they "don't like our country".

...

What other topics came up?

Nafta: The US, Mexico and Canada have begun talks on revising their trade deal, and negotiators are due to meet again on 1 September. But Mr Trump said he thought he would "probably end up terminating Nafta"

North Korea: He sounded hopeful about a reduction in tensions. Referring to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, Mr Trump said: "I respect the fact that he is starting to respect us." He added: "And maybe - probably not, but maybe - something positive can come about"

Sheriff Joe Arpaio: The US president hinted he would pardon the controversial former Arizona sheriff, who rose to national prominence because of his tough stance against illegal immigration. He said that Joe Arpaio - who was found guilty of criminal contempt in July over his detention of migrants - "is going to be just fine", but he would not yet formally pardon him because "I don't want to cause any controversy"

 

[Morpheus]

I hate how every time Trump gives a speech without hurling feces, we get all of these "Presidential" takes. I love that he is such a disaster of a human being that all of these asshole praising him have to eat their words with 24 hours. However, I know we will have to hear how "disgusted", "disturbed" and "concerned" Republicans are after that performance last night. This is not a fucking horror movie, you are not being unsettled for entertainment, do something, shitheads.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

I hate how every time Trump gives a speech without hurling feces, we get all of these "Presidential" takes. I love that he is such a disaster of a human being that all of these asshole praising him have to eat their words with 24 hours. However, I know we will have to hear how "disgusted", "disturbed" and "concerned" Republicans are after that performance last night. This is not a fucking horror movie, you are not being unsettled for entertainment, do something, shitheads.

I'm shocked people will give Trump any credit for anything he says at this point.

[drawkcabi]

14 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

I hate how every time Trump gives a speech without hurling feces, we get all of these "Presidential" takes. I love that he is such a disaster of a human being that all of these asshole praising him have to eat their words with 24 hours. However, I know we will have to hear how "disgusted", "disturbed" and "concerned" Republicans are after that performance last night. This is not a fucking horror movie, you are not being unsettled for entertainment, do something, shitheads.

I agree with you except for the loving the disaster part. The "Presidential" Trump people praise him for - he can read off a teleprompter, some feat for being presidential  

The Repubs having to eat their words I just find frustrating and disgusting that they had postiive toward Trump words to eat in the first place.

All in all, and this is not something I say lightly, I don't like to say it about anyone, but I can't deny it, I can break your post down to this:

14 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

I hate how every time Trump gives a speech without hurling feces, we get all of these "Presidential" takes. I love that he is such a disaster of a human being that all of these asshole praising him have to eat their words with 24 hours. However, I know we will have to hear how "disgusted", "disturbed" and "concerned" Republicans are after that performance last night. This is not a fucking horror movie, you are not being unsettled for entertainment, do something, shitheads.

or put even simpler:

I hate how every time Trump gives a speech without hurling feces, we get all of these "Presidential" takes. I love that he is such a disaster of a human being that all of these asshole praising him have to eat their words with 24 hours. However, I know we will have to hear how "disgusted", "disturbed" and "concerned" Republicans are after that performance last night. This is not a fucking horror movie, you are not being unsettled for entertainment, do something, shitheads.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Last night was a lower point for Trump than his “many sides” speech. That display was absolutely disgusting. And when will people realize that Teleprompter Trump is meaningless?

[Morpheus]

35 minutes ago, drawkcabi said:I agree with you except for the loving the disaster part. The "Presidential" Trump people praise him for - he can read off a teleprompter, some feat for being presidential  

The Repubs having to eat their words I just find frustrating and disgusting that they had postiive toward Trump words to eat in the first place.

All in all, and this is not something I say lightly, I don't like to say it about anyone, but I can't deny it, I can break your post down to this:

or put even simpler:

 

I don't love that he IS a disaster, he is probably going to kill us all, I am however happy that he can't hide his true self behind teleprompter speeches and, if only for a short time and in the most meaningless terms imaginable, Republicans have to address reality. 

[Rippounet]

8 hours ago, Shryke said:

Cause the history of the Democratic party and it's politics is not near as simple as the picture you wanna paint here.

Probably not. Well, for starters, the picture is always more complicated than one would like to paint. Plus, I'm far more knowledgeable about the Republicans.

8 hours ago, Shryke said:

And of course, by the time Clinton came around the New Deal Coalition had already collapsed due to civil rights issues. Like, decades before.

I have a slightly different narrative, and I'm not sure where to fit the Civil Rights in mine.
The story I have is that starting with Taft-Hartley, the Republicans started attacking the unions, which were originally the main source of financial support for the Democratic Party. And while union membership steadily declined from the 1950s to the 1980s, it plummeted under Reagan. This is one of the factors that eventually forced the Democrats to move away from their usual causes, because they started relying on private corporations for their financing instead.
Plus, the stagflation in the 60s slowly drew politicians away from Keynes (though, ironically, not Reagan, but let's not get into that 'cause @OldGimletEye can talk about this shit way better than I can), which started slowly eroding support for New Deal policies in the Democratic Party around the end of the 1960s.
Anyway, in my narrative, the movement to the right did start around the end of the 1960s, but only reached fruition sometime at the end of the 1980s.
I'm curious to know more about your narrative. What role did the Civil Rights play in the internal movements of the Democratic Party?

[Zorral]

The theoretical underpinnings of take-over strategy for aggressive stateists such Lenin -- and certainly these days Bannon and his ilks -- is that one needs only a 25% support.  Which is what the orange's base is, about 25% of the country.  He's got that 100% internalized as was again demonstrated last night in Phoenix.  He's deranged, demented, but he's got that so internalized it comes out whenever there is nobody standing on him to stop it.  Attacking journalists and, now, these days, long after Lenin's dead, of course, other media outlets and forms.  Leading the attack on CNN, lying to the people present (who seemed too tired, hot and dehydrated to get off their asses, which was fortunate for the press there) that the cameras were shut off, which they weren't -- they were live feeding to a variety of networks -- the best they managed -- last night -- was CNN SUCKS!

Bannon may not be in the White House any longer, but fully inhabits the orange, and Bannon is fully Russianized / Putinized.  Putin knows the Lenin playbook inside and out, you betcha!  So does Bannon, and he's been brainwashing the orange into getting it for a very long time.

[drawkcabi]

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

I don't love that he IS a disaster, he is probably going to kill us all, I am however happy that he can't hide his true self behind teleprompter speeches and, if only for a short time and in the most meaningless terms imaginable, Republicans have to address reality. 

I get that and think that's a legitimate response.

For me, I can't even love the disaster because it's such a disaster I can only feel anger, embarrassment, frustration, and disgust at the whole.

I think for love to enter the equation there would have to be on the level of seeing Trump get impeached or at least impeachment hearings commencing. I don't think that would be love either but much more akin to schadenfreude. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

I wont go on Breitbart, but I take it Bannon has started putting out articles critical of Trump? Maybe that site is fake news too...

At any rate, I'd agree with Bannon that the Trump presidency is over.

[Morpheus]

3 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I wont go on Breitbart, but I take it Bannon has started putting out articles critical of Trump? Maybe that site is fake news too...

At any rate, I'd agree with Bannon that the Trump presidency is over.

They went after him for flip flopping on Afghanistan, Bannon was the one who wanted to completely privatize the war by giving it to the founder of blackwater.

[KingintheNorth4]

I'm really starting to wonder if Trump is having early on set Dementia.

[Morpheus]

17 minutes ago, KingintheNorth4 said:

I'm really starting to wonder if Trump is having early on set Dementia.

I think he is just a dumb, vicious, ignorant asshole. Narcissistic, paranoid, racist, misogynistic, sheltered, privileged, in a perpetual state of arrested development, vindictive, unstable--he is and always has been those things, I don't see enough to suspect serious mental decline. It has been suggested that in older interviews and speeches he could hold a thought without jumping around, but he said similarly stupid things and said them in a very stupid way, always relying on superlatives and best/worst comparisons.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I wont go on Breitbart, but I take it Bannon has started putting out articles critical of Trump? Maybe that site is fake news too...

At any rate, I'd agree with Bannon that the Trump presidency is over.

Sorry to burst your bubble. But you know the old saying, it's only over when the fat orange's sunk. Atm he is still standing at the front of the MS America yelling at the iceberg, that he is the king of the world, and that it's not an iceberg, that's fake news.

I mean what has fundamentally changed now? Has Paul Ryan come out publicly condemned him? No, of course not. We all know Ryan's moral compass is spinning over the magnet called tax reform. So he in running circles muttering some lukewarm critcism, but not mentioning the orange one by name when he is north of the magnet, and praising the orange one, when he has drifted a bit south of the magnet. McConnel is still a partisan homer, who is just happy that he defended the conservative SCOTUS majority, and is generally morally as strong as little Paul Ryan.

I seriously believe, they would sink the racist orange, when they lose the senate or the house in the mid-term election, or if Mueller forced their hand (still the best bet imo). If you want to look for positives, the only positives I can provide you with, is that all the top Republicans are on record with their moral short comings, which should harm them in 2020 and thereafter.

Having that said. I don't know which of our fellow boarders had argued that Democrats should try to get into the ear of Orange Twitler, and try to sweettalk him into good policy (that idea was floating around here during inaugaration and whether Dems should boycott it). But I am curious whether he (presumably) still thinks that would've been a good idea.

Anyway, to end this rant on a lighter more optimistic note. The rule of a fascist in Germany ended in 45. So hopefully it will end in the US with 45.

[IheartIheartTesla]

I don't dispute we are stuck with him for the next 4 years, but there is no grand 'economic nationalism' agenda he will be able to execute on. We wont be building shipyards or even getting a fresh coat of paint on our interstates, as Bannon envisioned. Instead, it will be an increasingly weary electorate (even his supporters will eventually tire of defending 24/7 his incoherent garbage) and his poll numbers will slowly circle the drain.

The only place he has really made an impact is in court appointments, which is hard to undo I'm afraid. Still, I dont foresee any big signature accomplishments from this admin in the next 3 years.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Looks like the Clowns are not down to battle the Browns..

 http://dcist.com/2017/08/the_juggalos_want_to_keep_their_ral.php?_ga=2.199426542.1169297025.1503322787-770672284.1463088217&utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

[Morpheus]

President Teleprompter just finished a speech to the America Legion stressing unity or some shit, prepare for hot takes about "two Trumps". 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 hours ago, Zorral said:

The theoretical underpinnings of take-over strategy for aggressive stateists such Lenin -- and certainly these days Bannon and his ilks -- is that one needs only a 25% support.  Which is what the orange's base is, about 25% of the country.  He's got that 100% internalized as was again demonstrated last night in Phoenix.  He's deranged, demented, but he's got that so internalized it comes out whenever there is nobody standing on him to stop it.  Attacking journalists and, now, these days, long after Lenin's dead, of course, other media outlets and forms.  Leading the attack on CNN, lying to the people present (who seemed too tired, hot and dehydrated to get off their asses, which was fortunate for the press there) that the cameras were shut off, which they weren't -- they were live feeding to a variety of networks -- the best they managed -- last night -- was CNN SUCKS!

Bannon may not be in the White House any longer, but fully inhabits the orange, and Bannon is fully Russianized / Putinized.  Putin knows the Lenin playbook inside and out, you betcha!  So does Bannon, and he's been brainwashing the orange into getting it for a very long time.

Don't you think Bannon = Lenin is a bit of a stretch at this point? At least in terms of competency? He may have been the most sinister Trump Whisperer, but it seems to me he's fumbled the ball pretty badly here. Anyone's title that is "Chief Strategist" of this particular administration has to be considered an abject failure at this point. 

[Dr. Pepper]

On 8/22/2017 at 2:09 PM, Tywin et al. said:

I want to say on the front end that you made some valid points in the part of your post that I snipped, but I’m trying to raise a basic question. In conservative parts of the country where a liberal Democrat stands no chance of winning, is the party not better off if it runs a conservative Democrat who may not be in line with the liberal wing of the party, regardless of what the issue is within a reasonable standard? Staying on abortion and reproductive rights, I would not support running a anti-choice candidate that wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and do things like defund Planned Parenthood or close abortion clinics, but I could support a candidate who would use their position of power to not expand abortion rights if they couldn’t support it morally or for whatever reason. I think that’s a fair compromise to pick up a seat that might help lead to universal healthcare, for example.

I would support a candidate who is personally opposed to abortion but who will commit themselves to improving education and affordable access to reproductive care.  I think that's more than fair and makes a lot more sense to have candidates in more conservative areas of the country saying "hey, I don't like abortion, let's work to prevent those unwanted pregnancies from happening so abortion isn't even an issue we have to concern ourselves with'.  

I'm not sure what you mean about 'expand abortion rights'. Do you mean oppose anything that might enable women to have an abortion?  What if this is in a state where Republicans have practically made abortion impossible due to all of the phony useless laws that shut down clinics or made wait times too lengthy?  Which side of the aisle would they be on for these votes?  What if they are the deciding factor in a vote to repeal some of these laws and they see repeal of these laws as technically expanding abortion access, should we be ok if they vote with Republicans? It just becomes way too slippery for women's health when the Dem party embraces anti-choice candidates.  

As for leading to universal healthcare, I think this is where a candidate personally anti-choice could really assist with messaging.  "I personally hate abortion for reasons and that's why i want to do everything to prevent women from reaching that step and here are my healthcare proposals and what I'd support to get us there blah blah blah."  Beyond that, I think these personally anti-choicers could perhaps help us with messaging on other issues.  "I personally despise abortion and so here are some economic plans to make it as desirable as possible for a woman to choose to give birth rather than abort."  "I don't want anyone getting an abortion so here is some of my pro-family agenda which includes maternity and paternity leave, subsidized childcare, more head start programs, etc."  

Basically, let's look for a candidate in those conservative areas who will not attack a woman's right to her own health choices but who will attack some of the societal ills that might lead a woman to make a choice to abort - lack of healthcare, lack of education, lack of economic opportunity, lack of pro family policies in the workforce, etc.   Maybe while they are at it they can also attack toxic masculinity and work on preventing incest and rapes, though that might be too much to hope for.