US Politics: Terminal America

[BloodRider]

16 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 And just to clarify, I'm not putting all this escalation on Antifa, the Right is complicit in this as well. If you just look at the progression of the various Berkeley incidents, both sides have upped the ante with each passing event. One could reasonably argue that a Milo Yiannopoulos event at Berkeley is by itself a provocation. 

Antifa is not the left either.  They are - something else.  Anarchists - but while anarchists can be left or right these folks are neither - not anymore.  They started there, but the sole vestiges of their leftest politics is only where they are opposed to the extreme right, the rest is just nihilism.

[Kalbear]

18 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Then they were amazingly lucky in that this silly belief resulted in a nearly optimal political strategy. I wouldn't bet money on it though. Remember, Obama was elected in 2008 and in this election, he not only won the Electoral College, but also the largest share of the popular vote in 30 years. He also won reelection in 2012 (albeit by a smaller margin). Thus, attitudes towards him are not likely to explain the magnitude of the Democrats' defeat in 2010.

Board ate my post, but the idea that attitudes towards him don't explain it belies a lot of willful ignorance about which areas voted against Obama, what the climate was actually like, how much people hated the ACA, how obstructionist the Republicans were, and puts ALL of that ignorance on the shoulders of your pet idea which is not backed by data - that the reason people voted against the Democratic congress was because they were protesting against 'elites'. 

This is much like me saying that the reason congress switched parties is because Obama  voted for the Ledbetter Fair Pay act. Correlation doesn't imply causation, and in this case there's not even much in the way of correlation. 

[Fez]

2 hours ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

What they can with reconciliation is more limited than what they can do with 60 votes or getting rid of the filibuster. 

True. But that's at least two levels of complexity beyond what Trump understands about policymaking and bills. Hell, he apparently still thinks the AHCA increases health care spending.

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You're correct, he apparently tweeted the same thing a month ago. As far as McConnell goes, I fear that the pressure may eventually get too strong and his hand is forced. Imagine the temptation to go nuclear a year from now if Republicans have yet to have any major legislative victories and look like they're about to get wiped out in the midterms. 

There's two big problems for McConnell here (along with a bunch of smaller ones):

1) The filibuster increases every individual senator's power, and senators never want to see their power reduced;

2) By having the filibuster, Senate Republicans can blame the Democrats for blocking stuff rather than facing the issue that there's almost no major policy changes that Collins/Murkowski/Portman/etc. will affirmatively vote for that Cruz/Lee/Paul/etc. will also affirmatively vote for. The filibuster protects Senate Republicans from tough failed votes.

There's also the very real fear that if they get rid of the legislative filibuster, then the next time Democrats have unified control they will jam through single payer, major tax increases, and every other progressive policy item they can think of.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, BloodRider said:

Antifa is not the left either.  They are - something else.  Anarchists - but while anarchists can be left or right these folks are neither - not anymore.  They started there, but the sole vestiges of their leftest politics is only where they are opposed to the extreme right, the rest is just nihilism.

I would tend to agree.

[Trebla]

There have been stories floating around that Trump has been constantly belittling his White House staff. Not so says spokeswoman Hope Hicks: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/30/this-white-house-statement-on-trumps-positive-energy-reads-like-a-parody/?utm_term=.c86ff9f58342

Quote

President Trump has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000. He has built great relationships throughout his life and treats everyone with respect. He is brilliant with a great sense of humor … and an amazing ability to make people feel special and aspire to be more than even they thought possible.

Yeah...is this Washington DC or Pyongyang? And as the article points out, Trump has repeatedly told America that he is anti-PC and tells it like it is. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Trebla said:

There have been stories floating around that Trump has been constantly belittling his White House staff. Not so says spokeswoman Hope Hicks: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/30/this-white-house-statement-on-trumps-positive-energy-reads-like-a-parody/?utm_term=.c86ff9f58342

Yeah...is this Washington DC or Pyongyang? And as the article points out, Trump has repeatedly told America that he is anti-PC and tells it like it is. 

Oh, he's "anti-PC" because he gets to determine... for everyone what is and is not the truth.  :vomit:

[James Arryn]

4 minutes ago, Trebla said:

There have been stories floating around that Trump has been constantly belittling his White House staff. Not so says spokeswoman Hope Hicks: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/30/this-white-house-statement-on-trumps-positive-energy-reads-like-a-parody/?utm_term=.c86ff9f58342

Yeah...is this Washington DC or Pyongyang? And as the article points out, Trump has repeatedly told America that he is anti-PC and tells it like it is. 

That's awesome, in a 'we're all going to die' way.

[Ormond]

12 minutes ago, Trebla said:

There have been stories floating around that Trump has been constantly belittling his White House staff. Not so says spokeswoman Hope Hicks: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/30/this-white-house-statement-on-trumps-positive-energy-reads-like-a-parody/?utm_term=.c86ff9f58342

Yeah...is this Washington DC or Pyongyang? And as the article points out, Trump has repeatedly told America that he is anti-PC and tells it like it is. 

But this woman will probably soon be promoted at the White House since she has shown herself to be willing to flatter the boss in the over the top way he desires.

[The Anti-Targ]

14 hours ago, Toth said:

I'm better not asking what your alternative would be. Instead I'm just going ask you to reflect why exactly your best president of the past few decades had most of his proposed changes smothered in the crib.

The system is why. The system of democracy and govt is not set up to find the best solutions to socioeconomic issues.

[MerenthaClone]

1 minute ago, Ormond said:

But this woman will probably soon be promoted at the White House since she has shown herself to be willing to flatter the boss in the over the top way he desires.

Good news for her, the WH communications director just resigned. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/30/dubke-resigns-as-white-house-communications-director/?utm_term=.41be06917c7a

[Larry of the Lawn]

Well this is just more great news on the public health front.  Not sure really how serious a threat zika is in the US, but seems like just giving taxpayer and public resources to a foreign company to sell back to us at a profit.  Thanks, Trumpf.

But seriously any one know how much the current administration is responsible for this?

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/05/30/529887446/states-fear-price-of-new-zika-vaccine-will-be-more-than-they-can-pay

[Rippounet]

44 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Neither Trump nor Goldwater can be classified as neo-fascist without expanding that term to encompass at least a quarter of the overall political spectrum, but Goldwater was almost certainly closer to it than Trump is.

Ah, I can see why you'd say that. I guess this is what happens when you over-use a term like "fascism."
I guess looking at the purely racist dimension, Goldwater was indeed more of a neo-fascist than Trump. But as I said, I was originally talking about being a threat to US institutions. Goldwater was a U.S. Senator who didn't speak like a six-year old, could no doubt be relied upon to respect the U.S. Constitution, had the support of  establishment figures like Ford or Nixon, and proposed actual substance. And we're talking about American politics more than 50 years ago anyway, at a time when a bit of racism and a lot of anticommunism wasn't as far out of left field as Johnson's campaign asserted. Whatever his political ideas and statements, it was hard to see Goldwater as a threat to the institutions themselves. He was however seen as a threat to a stable relationship with the Soviet Union in a Cold War context.

[ljkeane]

21 minutes ago, Trebla said:

There have been stories floating around that Trump has been constantly belittling his White House staff. Not so says spokeswoman Hope Hicks: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/30/this-white-house-statement-on-trumps-positive-energy-reads-like-a-parody/?utm_term=.c86ff9f58342

Yeah...is this Washington DC or Pyongyang? And as the article points out, Trump has repeatedly told America that he is anti-PC and tells it like it is. 

It wouldn't surprise me if Trump is both constantly belittling many of his staff and has a good relationship with a few of them. He's clearly a petty, vindictive dick who it's not hard to imagine it would be horrible to work for but he also seems to be quite good at getting people to like him when he decides he wants to.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

You're correct, he apparently tweeted the same thing a month ago. As far as McConnell goes, I fear that the pressure may eventually get too strong and his hand is forced. Imagine the temptation to go nuclear a year from now if Republicans have yet to have any major legislative victories and look like they're about to get wiped out in the midterms. 

There are enough GOP Senators to block abolishment.  Pretty sure Graham specifically came out against it a couple months ago (while supporting abolishing for SCOTUS nominees).  McCain has consistently been against abolishment throughout his career.  Collins ain't doing it...

12 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

He was however seen as a threat to a stable relationship with the Soviet Union in a Cold War context.

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

41 minutes ago, Fez said:

There's two big problems for McConnell here (along with a bunch of smaller ones):

1) The filibuster increases every individual senator's power, and senators never want to see their power reduced;

2) By having the filibuster, Senate Republicans can blame the Democrats for blocking stuff rather than facing the issue that there's almost no major policy changes that Collins/Murkowski/Portman/etc. will affirmatively vote for that Cruz/Lee/Paul/etc. will also affirmatively vote for. The filibuster protects Senate Republicans from tough failed votes.

There's also the very real fear that if they get rid of the legislative filibuster, then the next time Democrats have unified control they will jam through single payer, major tax increases, and every other progressive policy item they can think of.

I don't disagree with anything you said. It's highly unlikely for the reasons you've laid out and more, but I can see a scenario where they do it to jam through as much as humanly possible while hoping they can hold on to one of the two chambers. They could also do it after the midterms if they lose one of the two chambers. 

Another thing to consider is what type of threats Trump might use to try and strong arm some Senators. That could play a significant role. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, denstorebog said:

Heh. Spicey just held what must have been his shortest and most frustrated press briefing ever, and was actually booed at the end.

There was also this hilarious gem:

At one point Spicer called Trump's speech one of the greatest foreign policy speech ever given. That's some serious sycophanting.

[Dr. Pepper]

46 minutes ago, Trebla said:

There have been stories floating around that Trump has been constantly belittling his White House staff. Not so says spokeswoman Hope Hicks: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/30/this-white-house-statement-on-trumps-positive-energy-reads-like-a-parody/?utm_term=.c86ff9f58342

Yeah...is this Washington DC or Pyongyang? And as the article points out, Trump has repeatedly told America that he is anti-PC and tells it like it is. 

I had to quadruple fact check this article because I truly thought it was satire.  That sick feeling in my gut just grows stronger.

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Another thing to consider is what type of threats Trump might use to try and strong arm some Senators. That could play a significant role. 

I would love to be a fly on the wall during Trump's attempt to strongarm any Senator.  He has little political capital and less credibility, although I could totally see him try to haphazardly emulate "the Johnson Treatment."  

[Altherion]

10 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Ah, I can see why you'd say that. I guess this is what happens when you over-use a term like "fascism."
I guess looking at the purely racist dimension, Goldwater was indeed more of a neo-fascist than Trump. But as I said, I was originally talking about being a threat to US institutions. Goldwater was a U.S. Senator who didn't speak like a six-year old, could no doubt be relied upon to respect the U.S. Constitution, had the support of  establishment figures like Ford or Nixon, and proposed actual substance. And we're talking about American politics more than 50 years ago anyway, at a time when a bit of racism and a lot of anticommunism wasn't as far out of left field as Johnson's campaign asserted. Whatever his political ideas and statements, it was hard to see Goldwater as a threat to the institutions themselves. He was however seen as a threat to a stable relationship with the Soviet Union in a Cold War context.

But is Trump really a threat to American institutions? Up until now, he has not even gone as far as previous Presidents (e.g. Andrew "the genocide" Jackson). Trump has not challenged the right of the courts to block his orders or taken any measures to coerce Congress. Everything he has done is within the rules of the system. Furthermore, he may not have held elective office prior to the Presidency, but Trump is no sans-culotte: he is the billionaire son of a multi-millionaire father and has moved among the highest political tier his entire life. There are elements of his base which aspire to what could be described as a variant of neo-fascism, but Trump himself is just a populist whose message was surprisingly well received and who is now struggling with the system (with predictable results).

[Sivin]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don't believe that's what he said.  I believe he's saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that the former (bunch of kids) creates the environment that the latter (member of the government condoning armed gangs) are using as the excuse for the latter's actions.  In other words that it is foreseeable that the latter would use the former to excuse an action like bringing the Republican version of the brown shirts to rallies.  

I do not believe ME is offering a statement condoning, justifying, or "normalizing" the actions of the Republicans.  I believe he is saying their actions are foreseeable based upon the earlier actions of antifa protesters.  

 

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Not claiming an equivalence here. That said, a percentage of the "bunch of kids" you refer to are not pacifists, that's kind of the point. They have adopted fascist tactics. They've destroyed property and injured people. That's not pacifism.

And pointing out that this is an escalation of polarization is not condoning the action. This idiot's pronouncement is going to get people killed and when that happens, he should be held responsible for it. Or better yet, the appropriate authorities should step in to prevent it from occurring in the first place.  

Ok, if you guys are going to maintain that the right is always excused for each new outrage because 'there were lefties too!' Without acknowledging the difference between individual actors and political agents then we have nothing more to discuss.