U.S. Politics. Next?

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Triskele said:

Do Drum says the GOP is doing this in more of a death throes kind of way because they're terrified.  That does make a degree of sense to me because if they were just resigned to their fate you'd think their big tax cut was enough and that they'd chill out on everything else and believe Trump expendable.  Since that does not seem to be the case it lends credibility to both Atkins and Drum and it's just a matter of where one thinks it ultimately shakes out. But that leaves open the possibility that all of this works out for the GOP, and that's quite a horrible thought.  

I think that's Drum's argument. I usually agree with lots of things Drum says, and think he makes a decent case here, but I'm extremely cautious about buying into things this optimistic.

And even if the Republican Party, as we know it at least, is on it's way out, it still can do an enormous amount of damage before it goes.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

The Department of Justice can ignore such a referral. It’s ominous, however, that on the very same day, the FBI obeyed Trump’s repeated demands and reopened a long-closed criminal investigation into the Clinton Foundation. The FBI has come under relentless abuse from Trump, who complains about its refusal to do his will. Is it now yielding?

We also learned this week from The New York Times that aides to the Attorney General sought damaging information on Capitol Hill about FBI director Comey, indicating close cooperation between the White House and Main Justice to exert political control over the country’s chief law enforcement agency.

Michael Wolff has drawn the most indelible picture yet of Donald Trump, the man. But the important thing about Trump is not the man; it’s the system of power surrounding the man.

 

Donald Trump Goes Full Fredo
But unlike the Godfather character, the president of the United States is backed by powerful people enabling him.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/donald-trump-goes-full-fredo/549875

These are the most disturbing facts to come out this week. I have not really been down with the whole "We are headed to a fascist Trump dictatorship" theory, but we really do need to start questioning if the FBI and Justice have been politically corrupted. They've really given us no choice here until they are willing to clear this up.

This could just be Trump playing cartoon autocrat as usual. However, they have created the appearance of corruption in some of our most trusted institutions, which is idiotic in of its self. It's more terrifying than all the nuke threats going around.

[ThinkerX]

for what little it be worth, I have been coming across conservative commentary (and the odd article) insisting that the FBI and other intelligence agencies are 'out of control.'  Usually, this has to do with technicalities (FISA warrant for monitoring Trumps people) in an effort to discredit Mueller's investigation.

 

My assessment is that the FBI is currently between a rock and a hard place with all this.  No matter what they do, a major faction is going to be royally ticked off.

[ThinkerX]

A positive sign? Or perhaps a sign of desperation?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-gop-to-consider-return-of-earmarks-ryan-wants-hearings/ar-BBHWBiD?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580

Fox has learned that House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions, R-Texas, under the direction of House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., plans to conduct hearings evaluating the merits and demerits of restoring some forms of earmarks.

[Darzin]

So I think we got lucky with Trump... Not that Trump is a good president or even a passable one, or even somewhat competent one, but in the sense Trump lacks the focus to directly attack American institutions. When you read that article in the Hollywood reporter or from the new book, you see an unfocused lout, who is damaging our democracy but who is doing so by lashing out rather than in targeted attacks, if Trump had been a different person but said the same things but actually believed them in a coherent way, instead of just ranting or if he made Bannon his chief of staff things could have been so so much worse.

Picture another world where Trump or a character like him gets elected same campaign same promises same story Lets call him Alt Trump. Now when our Alt Trump gets elected he meets with McConnel and Ryan and tells them the agenda, tax cuts then healthcare, well actually healthcare first then taxes, he has campaign promises to keep and tells them they can always repeal healthcare later but for now some cosmetic fixes. He meets with some democrat and day one they pass some badly needed fixes to Obamacare, the more conservative Republicans will balk, but with Democratic votes they can pass it and it does. The Alt Right doesn't really care about healthcare they care about immigration. So now we go to tax cuts and the Republicans pathetic, spineless need to pass them no matter what, Alt Trump explains simply to McConnel and Ryan he will sign whatever bill they bring him, as long as it includes two things; first funding for a border wall full and complete, second funding to hire 50,000 new agents for ICE, not really investigative iv agents more like manpower trained the way the border patrol are quickly and less rigorous put someone David Clarke in charge of running it nonwhite but authoritarian to the max. Paul Ryan and McConnel will grumble and grovel and threaten but in the end the NEED these tax cuts, we all saw how painfully supplicant they were to their donors, they will find the money if it is provide those things or lose their tax cuts, because their dream is here. Also during this time two executive orders are issued one which says the executive branch views undocumented immigrants as clear criminals, the other in which the administration makes clear that aiding criminals is a crime,  Or perhaps regulations carrying the force of law are issued. I bet you can see where I'm going with this but lets hold off a minute. Our Alt Trump then moves on to infrastructure and a nice bi partisan bill is passed rebuild middle America yadda yadda, the New York Times says nice things about him, and just after that the hammer drops, massive raids across the country targeting not only undocumented immigrants, but also all the Liberal organizations which help them from the leadership on down are charged with aiding and abetting criminals human trafficking whatever they think can stick. It's certainly not all Liberal organizations but a fair part of the Civil society has been removed maybe even some entire governments of sanctuary cities arrested .Of course massive protests kick off and for our Alt Trump hopefully riots too, he starts talking about law and order how we have large parts of society failing to follow the law, and just look we have people rioting and destroying things because criminals were arrested, we need to restore order to society ect ect. Then our Alt Trump starts offering a solution we have makers  vs takers, and well the takers and leaches are taking to much so propose only makers can vote to need to vote you need to give more money to the federal government to vote, it's like having foxes vote for what to eat! Now this comes close to violating the 24th amendment but I'm not sure it does since it's not about a poll tax it's about a positive tax balance, of course not every state would adopt this but if a few key ones with Republican  governors and legislatures and it's game over.

 

Now the above scenario is a bit extreme but it's more legal then many things Trump has actually done just more extreme in it's consequences. And you don't have to be that extreme Trump has not done targeted attacks and doesn't have enough foresight or knowledge of government to properly subvert it, but someone could... the Republicans have been useless in protecting democratic norms, and that's what Bannon saw Trump lacks the focus but if someone had the presidency and the focus to actually dismantle our government institutions the Republicans would do fuck all to stop them.That's why Bannon decided he needed to be president. Also I am firmly of the opinion that Trump not making Bannon his chief of staff is one of the most fortunate decisions in the countries history. If Bannon had been able to create an ideologically focused unified Alt Right staff we would be much worse off now. Things maybe be horrible now but remember they could have always been worse.

[Martell Spy]

Ben Stiller Reads Trump’s ‘Like, Really Smart’ Tweet as Zoolander
The man behind Derek Zoolander sees some parallels with President Trump

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ben-stiller-reads-trumps-like-really-smart-tweet-as-zoolander?ref=home

[GAROVORKIN]

12 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think that's Drum's argument. I usually agree with lots of things Drum says, and think he makes a decent case here, but I'm extremely cautious about buying into things this optimistic.

And even if the Republican Party, as we know it at least, is on it's way out, it still can do an enormous amount of damage before it goes.

 

The thing about predictions  and projections is that more often then not, they don't pan out.

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

 

The thing about predictions  and projections is that more often then not, they don't pan out.

If there is one thing I learned as an athlete, never ever start celebrating victory, until the clock runs out. Otherwise, you might just end up getting your ass kicked, and looking a like a real clown.

[GAROVORKIN]

5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

If there is one thing I learned as an athlete, never ever start celebrating victory, until the clock runs out. Otherwise, you might just end up getting your ass kicked, and looking a like a real clown.

I agree , celebrate only after the win.

[OldGimletEye]

22 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

I agree , celebrate only after the win.

And besides, destroying the current Republican Party is only half the fun. The other half is thrashing them in the process.

[GAROVORKIN]

14 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And besides, destroying the current Republican Party is only half the fun. The other half is thrashing them in the process.

The Democrats are in need of reform, they need to stop the political infighting , they need  new leadership, new ideas and more importantly, need to move the party back toward the center  to win back moderate voters that thye lost ,  otherwise they are going to be staying on sidelines comes midterms and possibly beyond.  So far, they show an unwillingness to do any the above. 

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

The Democrats are in need of reform, they need new leadership, new ideas and more importantly  need to move the party back toward the center , to win back moderate voters ,  otherwise they are going to be staying on sidelines comes midterms and possibly beyond. So far they show an unwillingness to do any the above. 

Once again, I hope were not doing "both sides" here.

I don't disagree that the Democrats have their own set of issues. But, to say it is as reckless, idiotic, and deranged as the current Republican Party is simply wrong, and no reasonable person should entertain that notion.

Secondly, I disagree with your assertion that the Democratic Party needs to move back to the center in order to get the moderates. That's what "professional centrist" say. The sorts of people that simply declare "its both sides" in order to look reasonable and wise, when really I think it's very intellectually sloppy. I'd make the argument that the Democratic Party tried to "triangulate" in the 1990s and it largely ended up backfiring. Rather, than trying to become all centristry and stuff, just for the sake of being centristy, in order to get the "moderate voter", I think the Democratic Party would be better off figuring out where they want to go and then going out and making the case for it. I think that is long term much more productive, rather than always whipsawing back and forth trying to get the "moderate voter" many of whom don't even know what in the hell they want anyway.

[GAROVORKIN]

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Once again, I hope were not doing "both sides" here.

I don't disagree that the Democrats have their own set of issues. But, to say it is as reckless, idiotic, and deranged as the current Republican Party is simply wrong, and no reasonable person should entertain that notion.

Secondly, I disagree with your assertion that the Democratic Party needs to move back to the center in order to get the moderates. That's what "professional centrist" say. The sorts of people that simply declare "its both sides" in order to look reasonable and wise, when really I think it's very intellectually sloppy. I'd make the argument that the Democratic Party tried to "triangulate" in the 1990s and it largely ended up backfiring. Rather, than trying to become all centristry and stuff, just for the sake of being centristy, in order to get the "moderate voter", I think the Democratic Party would be better off figuring out where they want to go and then going out and making the case for it. I think that is long term much more productive, rather than always whipsawing back and forth trying to get the "moderate voter" many of whom don't even know what in the hell they want anyway.

Really and what happened in 2016? The voters kicked out the democrats. They put in the Republicans , alot of  working class moderate voters whom the Democrats decided rather shortsightedly  to ignore voted against them.  You need to appeal to moderate voters or you don't win. 

 

 

[Dr. Pepper]

7 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Really and what happened in 2016? The voters kicked out the democrats. They put in the Republicans , alot of  working class moderate voters whom the Democrats decided rather shortsightedly  to ignore voted against them.  You need to appeal to moderate voters or you don't win. 

No, you need to appeal to your own base.  Get out the vote efforts are enormously more important than picking up a centrist here or there. 

[GAROVORKIN]

5 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

No, you need to appeal to your own base.  Get out the vote efforts are enormously more important than picking up a centrist here or there. 

How successful was that strategy  for the Democrats in 2016 ? By the end results, Id say not very successful.

[Dr. Pepper]

7 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

How successful was that strategy  for the Democrats in 2016 ? By the end results, Id say not very successful.

 I'm sure glad that you've figured out the results of the 2016 election....

But the loss was due to a large number of factors, including failing to mobilize the base and getting out the vote.  

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

No, you need to appeal to your own base.  Get out the vote efforts are enormously more important than picking up a centrist here or there. 

Yes this is exactly right. You need to worry about getting your own people out first.

23 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Really and what happened in 2016? The voters kicked out the democrats. They put in the Republicans , alot of  working class moderate voters whom the Democrats decided rather shortsightedly  to ignore voted against them.  You need to appeal to moderate voters or you don't win. 

One a lot of those moderate voters fell for horseshit. To the extent they are willing to revise their views, one hope they realize they fell for horseshit. The Democrats shouldn't adopt a bunch of horseshit to get these people back, particularly if it cost them their own base. And I'm pretty sure that Hillary under performed Obama in  key democratic constituencies. So your story of the Democrats losing moderate voters doesn't quite hold water.

Secondly on a range of policy issues, it would seem the Democrats hold the advantage. And they should press those advantages to the hilt.

And lastly, always whipsawing back to the center to get the "moderate voter" is a long term losing strategy anyway because "the center" can be shifted. But, in order to shift the center, you have to be persistent. Sure, it may cause you a few short term losses. But, in my view taking those short term losses are worth it, if in the long term you can shift the debate.

[LongRider]

5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Yes this is exactly right. You need to worry about getting your own people out first.

 

18 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

No, you need to appeal to your own base.  Get out the vote efforts are enormously more important than picking up a centrist here or there. 

For the Democrat Party, this includes the heavy lifting of working against the voter suppression that affects much of the D's base.  This also is very important.

edt;   and a 50 state strategy.  

[OldGimletEye]

22 hours ago, Nasty LongRider said:

 

For the Democrat Party, this includes the heavy lifting of working against the voter suppression that affects much of the D's base.  This also is very important.

Yep this is true.

Plus a lot of these moderates or the people that says we need to appeal to moderates, when it comes down too it, don't even know what in the hell they want. They like the idea of "moderation" but when it comes down to making actual policies, there is just no clue.

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Really and what happened in 2016? The voters kicked out the democrats. They put in the Republicans , alot of  working class moderate voters whom the Democrats decided rather shortsightedly  to ignore voted against them.  You need to appeal to moderate voters or you don't win. 

 

 

First of all, Democrats really shot themselves in the foot in 2016. They allowed a seriously flawed candidate to clear the field of all competition before the primaries even started. Going forward, Democrats probably shouldn't nominate a candidate for President who is under investigation by the FBI. Now, we can debate the merits of whether that investigation was fair or not, but the fact of the matter is that a candidate under investigation leads to bad news cycles.

Second, it wasn't as if Clinton was running a radically leftist campaign, so your argument doesn't make sense on the merits.

Finally, on top of all the other stuff, Clinton just ran a shitty campaign. Taking the Midwest firewall for granted and not campaigning there while trying to run up the score in safely blue states was just monumentally stupid.

So no, Democrats need to focus on turning out their base, like Doug Jones did with black women voters in Alabama. You win by firing up your base, because they're going to be the ones donating money to your campaign and volunteering for voter registration and GOTV efforts. That's what wins elections, not focusing on the mythical "moderate voter" touted by the know-nothing TV pundit class.