US Politics: Kill (the) Bill

[Toth]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I agree with some of your points, but let's not kid ourselves, our system has become a complete joke. It is now much closer to a Corporatist Oligarchy than it is a Representative Republic. Let's not kid ourselves. 

Add to that, a very frighteningly accurate video I found yesterday:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPayKb39Kao

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

22 minutes ago, Toth said:

Add to that, a very frighteningly accurate video I found yesterday:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPayKb39Kao

 

Yeah, as vitriolic as Olbermann can be, he nailed many of the salient points there. Worst Supreme Court ruling since Dred Scott. Corporations are people? How does that make any logical sense, let alone legal sense? It's a travesty of logic and common sense.

[Toth]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, as vitriolic as Olbermann can be, he nailed many of the salient points there. Worst Supreme Court ruling since Dred Scott. Corporations are people? How does that make any logical sense, let alone legal sense? It's a travesty of logic and common sense.

Yeah... I mean, sometimes he's going overboard with the nihilistic rants, but I find them still very entertaining. He makes good points connecting the dots, even in his new show, but frankly, he's giving Trump far too much credit for the schemings of his council of ominous evil. Like, for all his insight he admitted only four days ago to be surprised about just how incompetent this government really is.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Toth said:

Yeah... I mean, sometimes he's going overboard with the nihilistic rants, but I find them still very entertaining. He makes good points connecting the dots, even in his new show, but frankly, he's giving Trump far too much credit for the schemings of his council of ominous evil. Like, for all his insight he admitted only four days ago to be surprised about just how incompetent this government really is.

I've been a fan since his SportsCenter days, but yeah, he has a tendency to go one step too far. That said, as you mentioned he is entertaining at the very least. And for all his bluster he remains somewhat more intellectually honest than his Righty counterparts like Hannity or O'Reilly.

[Toth]

7 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I've been a fan since his SportsCenter days, but yeah, he has a tendency to go one step too far. That said, as you mentioned he is entertaining at the very least. And for all his bluster he remains somewhat more intellectually honest than his Righty counterparts like Hannity or O'Reilly.

Well, what he's mostly doing is stringing damning evidence together and then rant about the implications (like the one I referenced here, I was shocked that he seemed so surprised: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ntA246Fokg.). Sure, unbiased journalism looks different, but when unbiased journalism is about kissing Trump's feet and calling him 'presidential' the moment he manages to string one somewhat coherent speech together for once, then I take his rants any day. It also helps that I get most of the background information from German sources, which report about Trump's latest exploits with something close to neutrality, so that I can crosscheck.

 

[James Arryn]

6 hours ago, Darryk said:

I got to say, it's beautiful to see the system of checks and balances built into the government actually working.

America is far from perfect and has failed many times to live up to its own ideals, but the people who designed the system of government clearly knew what they were doing. I thought Trump and Bannon would test it to the limit, but so far it's holding up.

Suppose a war...

[Fragile Bird]

While it's true that on Friday 45 snarked about how the ACA could just collapse, wham-bam-thank-you-m'am style, on Saturday he tweeted 'not to worry, the Democrats would come asking for a fix'. That was supposed to undo Friday's teeet.

[Ser Reptitious]

9 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

While it's true that on Friday 45 snarked about how the ACA could just collapse, wham-bam-thank-you-m'am style, on Saturday he tweeted 'not to worry, the Democrats would come asking for a fix'. That was supposed to undo Friday's teeet.

Yeah, those silly Democrats, caring about people... such a weakness... sad!

/sarcasm towards Trump (and his tweet)

[Which Tyler]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-angela-merkel-nato-bill-defence-ignore-usa-germany-spending-a7650636.html

Quote

Donald Trump printed out made-up £300bn Nato invoice and handed it to Angela Merkel

President estimated Germany’s underspend on alliance over the past 12 years, then added interest 

 

[DMC]

Oh come now, so we're back on the fascist/oligopoly train huh.  If anything, the AHCA passing would have been realization of actual representation and responsible party government.  Take away the party labels/policy implications and you've got:  a party that ran largely on promising to institute a policy for six years, a presidential candidate agreed, then - once achieving unified government - that president and Congress attempting to enact said policy.  That's virtually what happened with the ACA, right, and who was complaining then?

Now sure, you can bring up the undemocratic nature of gerrymandering or the electoral college, but those enduring aspects of America hardly are causing the verge of fascism or oligopoly.  You can bring up Citizen's United, corporations as people, and money as speech, but Hillary outspent Trump in every conceivable way, as Obama did vs. Romney and McCain (but at greater levels).  You may bring up that corporate influence is across both parties, which is very valid, but first of all, it's not like that is any different then throughout our history - or in most other countries, for that matter.  Second, corporate influence in politics is how interest groups work.  Got a problem with it?  Join and donate to an interest group and help fight the collective action problem.

Finally, while I think it's important not to lionize the Founding Fathers/Framers, and I try not to in lectures, they did create the longest standing constitution in world history.  Trump lost because there were too many blocs within the GOP that could not be reconciled, and each stood up to him because they have to answer to their own constituents.  That is the very realization of Madison's two most famous quotes from the Federalist:  "liberty is to faction what air is to fire" (#10) and "ambition must be made to counteract ambition" (#51).  Maybe there's a reason the constitution has lasted so long - and maybe it has something to do with why there's always so much damn gridlock.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

37 minutes ago, Toth said:

 Sure, unbiased journalism looks different, but when unbiased journalism is about kissing Trump's feet and calling him 'presidential' the moment he manages to string one somewhat coherent speech together for once, then I take his rants any day. It also helps that I get most of the background information from German sources, which report about Trump's latest exploits with something close to neutrality, so that I can crosscheck.

I'm actually good with giving Trump positive press for doing something even vaguely competent (like his State of the Union speech). Discourse has become so damaged in this country that I feel we need to at least acknowledge it when he gets something right.

[James Arryn]

5 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I'm actually good with giving Trump positive press for doing something even vaguely competent (like his State of the Union speech). Discourse has become so damaged in this country that I feel we need to at least acknowledge it when he gets something right.

He tied his own shoes today, according to unconfirmed reports!

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

11 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Oh come now, so we're back on the fascist/oligopoly train huh.  If anything, the AHCA passing would have been realization of actual representation and responsible party government.  Take away the party labels/policy implications and you've got:  a party that ran largely on promising to institute a policy for six years, a presidential candidate agreed, then - once achieving unified government - that president and Congress attempting to enact said policy.  That's virtually what happened with the ACA, right, and who was complaining then?

Now sure, you can bring up the undemocratic nature of gerrymandering or the electoral college, but those enduring aspects of America hardly are causing the verge of fascism or oligopoly.  You can bring up Citizen's United, corporations as people, and money as speech, but Hillary outspent Trump in every conceivable way, as Obama did vs. Romney and McCain (but at greater levels).  You may bring up that corporate influence is across both parties, which is very valid, but first of all, it's not like that is any different then throughout our history - or in most other countries, for that matter.  Second, corporate influence in politics is how interest groups work.  Got a problem with it?  Join and donate to an interest group and help fight the collective action problem.

Finally, while I think it's important not to lionize the Founding Fathers/Framers, and I try not to in lectures, they did create the longest standing constitution in world history.  Trump lost because there were too many blocs within the GOP that could not be reconciled, and each stood up to him because they have to answer to their own constituents.  That is the very realization of Madison's two most famous quotes from the Federalist:  "liberty is to faction what air is to fire" (#10) and "ambition must be made to counteract ambition" (#51).  Maybe there's a reason the constitution has lasted so long - and maybe it has something to do with why there's always so much damn gridlock.

 

 To your first point, yeah this bill passing would have on one level been an example of representation of the base, but it was also intertwined with the oligarchic claim due to the huge tax cut. I think it would also be fair to argue that much of the base that proclaims to want this probably failed to take into account how this law would've affected their lives directly. 

 To your second point, I'm not blaming this turn to Corporatism solely on the Right. The Left is extremely complicit, as your Hillary campaign expenditures show. This trend towards corporatism and big money involvement in our political system has been undoubtably bipartisan. I don't think that can be denied. I suppose most on the Left would argue that this was a necessity in order to keep up with conservative oponents who had been taking advantage of this dynamic for a longer period of time, but it's a poor excuse at best.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

He tied his own shoes today, according to unconfirmed reports!

I realize that it is a fairly ridiculous idea that we should have to coddle the leader of our country, but at the end of the day I think it probably does more good than harm. Hammer him on the incompetent bullshit. Ridicule him for the obvious, indefensible lies. But why not praise him just a little bit when he manages to get something right? I think we need a little less outrage and a little more measure right about now.

[James Arryn]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I realize that it is a fairly ridiculous idea that we should have to coddle the leader of our country, but at the end of the day I think it probably does more good than harm. Hammer him on the incompetent bullshit. Ridicule him for the obvious, indefensible lies. But why not praise him just a little bit when he manages to get something right? I think we need a little less outrage and a little more measure right about now.

1) What did he get right? A speech with less racist invective? Praising short-term non-abuse is actually affirming the abuser.

2) He got lots of praise for it and responded by...changing absolutely nothing, going right back to his usual behaviour and attacking everyone/thing. And in fact often citing the acclaim his speech got as affirmation for his normal behaviour.

I get why you want what you say to be true, I really do. But I just don't think it is, at all. We know his speech was completely insincere and meaningless and the praise it got just fed his narcissism, which feeds stuff like the wiretapp (sic) and media is enemy of America, etc. Even if the bar were higher than 'hardly insulted anyone', it wouldn't be a great idea to hit 'inflate'. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

1) What did he get right? A speech with less racist invective? Praising short-term non-abuse is actually affirming the abuser.

2) He got lots of praise for it and responded by...changing absolutely nothing, going right back to his usual behaviour and attacking everyone/thing. And in fact often citing the acclaim his speech got as affirmation for his normal behaviour.

I get why you want what you say to be true, I really do. But I just don't think it is, at all. We know his speech was completely insincere and meaningless and the praise it got just fed his narcissism, which feeds stuff like the wiretapp (sic) and media is enemy of America, etc. Even if the bar were higher than 'hardly insulted anyone', it wouldn't be a great idea to hit 'inflate'. 

Was it the most coherent speech he ever gave? (I think it probably was) On the curve, I think you have to give him some credit. Did I see it as being a glimmer of hope or something? No. All I'm saying is it costs us nothing to give him some small measure of credit when he earns it. If anything I think it makes us appear more reasonable when we are criticizing him for one of his massive failures.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I think it would also be fair to argue that much of the base that proclaims to want this probably failed to take into account how this law would've affected their lives directly. 

I agree with this on substance.  Where it gets dicey is in determining when voters are behaving against their own interests.  Who are you, me, or anyone else to say a voter is deciding against his interests?  How do we know the range of her interests in determining vote choice?  So yeah, I try to stay out of that, because it can lead from just being condescending to intellectual authoritarianism in its own right.

15 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

This trend towards corporatism and big money involvement in our political system has been undoubtably bipartisan.

I agree, and as far as a discernible "trend" I suppose it started with Bob Rubin and Larry Summers during the mid 90s.  However, my point was in terms of corporate influence on the political system, there have been far greater intrusions throughout our history and we have yet to devolve into an oligopoly.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

I agree with this on substance.  Where it gets dicey is in determining when voters are behaving against their own interests.  Who are you, me, or anyone else to say a voter is deciding against his interests?  How do we know the range of her interests in determining vote choice?  So yeah, I try to stay out of that, because it can lead from just being condescending to intellectual authoritarianism in its own right.

I agree, and as far as a discernible "trend" I suppose it started with Bob Rubin and Larry Summers during the mid 90s.  However, my point was in terms of corporate influence on the political system, there have been far greater intrusions throughout our history and we have yet to devolve into an oligopoly.

 Yeah, I winced a little bit inside when I wrote it.  That said, I believe this to be true on a number of different levels. How many stories have you read regarding Trump supporters who are dealing with complex, chronic medical conditions who now express dismay over the fact that Trump and the GOP are trying to pass legislation that would make their insurance unaffordable? I suppose some of this could be confirmation bias on my part, but when an alarming percentage of the Republican base don't understand that Obamacare and the ACA are one and the same, I have to shake my head in disbelief. It boggles the mind.

 To the second bit, I'd credit the Clintons with the lion's share of that blame. Maybe they are just the most obvious example. Seems to me they are a shining example of naked political ambition selling itself to the highest bidder for personal gain that I've seen on the Dem side of things. I'm sure there are others as well. 

[Toth]

16 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Was it the most coherent speech he ever gave? (I think it probably was) On the curve, I think you have to give him some credit. Did I see it as being a glimmer of hope or something? No. All I'm saying is it costs us nothing to give him some small measure of credit when he earns it. If anything I think it makes us appear more reasonable when we are criticizing him for one of his massive failures.

But Trump is a lost case. For all its worth he would throw nearly everything in that speech out of the window the moment he thinks it served its purpose. He's made a living out of screwing people over who trust in his name, this won't change, ever.

The ones people should encourage for their behaviour though are the Republicans who voted against Trumpcare. If the flood of phone calls changes its tone to "Well done, that's how doing your job looks like!" they may have a longterm incentive to go against Trump in the long term. After all, they can make themselves look like they're acting for the people for a change.

[LongRider]

4 minutes ago, Toth said:

The ones people should encourage for their behaviour though are the Republicans who voted against Trumpcare.

There was no vote tho, so that really can't be done, but I see your point.