U.S. Politics: Alabama Jones and the Template of Doom

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

53 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

I watched the old documentary on Idi Amin last  week (just came out on Blu-ray, streaming on FilmStruck), and was blown away at how similar (both rhetorically and personality-wise) Trump is to him. 

I can't say I know much about Amin, but a quick Google search proves your point. Also, here's the clip:

 

[Kalbear]

21 hours ago, Altherion said:

You do realize that Dodd-Frank and ACA were quite likely the main contributors to the outcome of the 2010 elections, right?

Citation (yet again) needed.

21 hours ago, Altherion said:

ACA was even worse: under the guise of helping people who didn't have insurance, it gave a significant amount of money to the health care and insurance companies. Guess who got to pay for it? 

About 99% of it came from a tax increase on the wealthy. 

 

[Darth Richard II]

So I've been distracted by this space wars movie, but has Moore still not conceded? Last I heard he was still in his bunker praying to Cthulhu or what have you.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

25 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Citation (yet again) needed.

About 99% of it came from a tax increase on the wealthy. 

 

I think it's fair to argue that the ACA hurt Democrats in 2010 and was one of the main factors for the Republicans' wave election. I doubt Dodd-Frank had much of an effect.

25 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

So I've been distracted by this space wars movie, but has Moore still not conceded? Last I heard he was still in his bunker praying to Cthulhu or what have you.

A quick Google search says no, he has not. 

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think it's fair to argue that the ACA hurt Democrats in 2010 and was one of the main factors for the Republicans' wave election. I doubt Dodd-Frank had much of an effect.

Oh, I know the ACA hurt Democrats quite a bit. But saying that it hurt Democrats because people were mad that they were getting a tax hike or that they were paying for it? Total projectionist bullshit. Even today, when people are mad about Obamacare but happy about the ACA, we get the actual reason why; they hated Obama, but they didn't hate the actual policies all that much. 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Oh, I know the ACA hurt Democrats quite a bit. But saying that it hurt Democrats because people were mad that they were getting a tax hike or that they were paying for it? Total projectionist bullshit. Even today, when people are mad about Obamacare but happy about the ACA, we get the actual reason why; they hated Obama, but they didn't hate the actual policies all that much. 

 

Didn't help that you had Palin out there telling everyone that Obama was going to kill everyone....

Speaking of Palin, decades from now, when historians cover this period in time, will they point to Palin as the turning point when American conservatives went absolutely insane? 

[Jace, Extat]

49 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

So I've been distracted by this space wars movie, but has Moore still not conceded? Last I heard he was still in his bunker praying to Cthulhu or what have you.

He grabbed a little girl, got everybody fired up.

He gave a speech to his base, got everybody fired up.

Wishes he would have put a gun in his mouth, and fired up.

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think it's fair to argue that the ACA hurt Democrats in 2010 and was one of the main factors for the Republicans' wave election. I doubt Dodd-Frank had much of an effect.

I don't think it's just fair. It's true.

But asserting that fact without a bit of context is slightly misleading (I'm not accusing you of that. But the person that brought it up). For one, the Republican Party lied it's ass off about the bill. Secondly, they for about seven years let on that they had something better. 

And comparing the ACA to this current tax bill is just ridiculous, particularly by a person who claims to be greatly concerned about wealth inequality. And to insinuate that they are morally the same is weird, unless you just love Ayn Rand or something.

As far as Dodd Frank, while I'm sure the Republican Donor class was mad about it, for the most people their response was likely, "Dodd Frank? What in the hell is that?" So yeah, that didn't have much of an effect I don't think.

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Speaking of Palin, decades from now, when historians cover this period in time, will they point to Palin as the turning point when American conservatives went absolutely insane? 

Assuming we don't blow ourselves up or cook the planet to a crisp, I think future historians will marvel at how we managed to elect such an utter orange buffoon as president. And I think there is a good chance that they will trace super ultra conservative nuttery back to that era. It was kind of like the golden era of conservative nuttery, before it morphed into something more even sinister - the alt right. 

[Rippounet]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Speaking of Palin, decades from now, when historians cover this period in time, will they point to Palin as the turning point when American conservatives went absolutely insane? 

I doubt it. I hang around historians on a regular basis and the feeling I get is that everyone has already forgotten Palin.
Plus, though it's easy to write this with the benefit of hindsight, historical perspective makes Trump a logical conclusion of the evolution of American conservatism. Think about the precedents: Goldwater, Wallace, Buchanan, Perot, W... There's a bit of each of these guys in Trump. Mostly the worst bits, of course, but still, the craziness was always there.
Palin, by comparison, is something of a footnote. Though I'm sure some historians will remember to speak of her popularity.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I don't think it's just fair. It's true.

But asserting that fact without a bit of context is slightly misleading (I'm not accusing you of that. But the person that brought it up). For one, the Republican Party lied it's ass off about the bill. Secondly, they for about seven years let on that they had something better. 

And comparing the ACA to this current tax bill is just ridiculous, particularly by a person who claims to be greatly concerned about wealth inequality. And to insinuate that they are morally the same is weird, unless you just love Ayn Rand or something.

As far as Dodd Frank, while I'm sure the Republican Donor class was mad about it, for the most people their response was likely, "Dodd Frank? What in the hell is that?" So yeah, that didn't have much of an effect I don't think.

I agree with what you wrote, but there's something ironically hypocritical about the bolded. What they're doing with the tax bill right now is literally everything they claimed that the Democrats were doing with the ACA. And of course their claims about the ACA were for the most part all lies. 

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Assuming we don't blow ourselves up or cook the planet to a crisp, I think future historians will marvel at how we managed to elect such an utter orange buffoon as president. And I think there is a good chance that they will trace super ultra conservative nuttery back to that era. It was kind of like the golden era of conservative nuttery, before it morphed into something more even sinister - the alt right. 

True, but I think Palin is the line of demarcation. She's the one who made being a crazy hack conservative the norm.

[Ghjhero]

12 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I don't think it's just fair. It's true.

But asserting that fact without a bit of context is slightly misleading (I'm not accusing you of that. But the person that brought it up). For one, the Republican Party lied it's ass off about the bill. Secondly, they for about seven years let on that they had something better. 

And comparing the ACA to this current tax bill is just ridiculous, particularly by a person who claims to be greatly concerned about wealth inequality. And to insinuate that they are morally the same is weird, unless you just love Ayn Rand or something.

As far as Dodd Frank, while I'm sure the Republican Donor class was mad about it, for the most people their response was likely, "Dodd Frank? What in the hell is that?" So yeah, that didn't have much of an effect I don't think.

Put me down as one of those people who knows very little about Dodd Frank. I know it was supposed to regulate the banks or something, but what did it actually do? I also recall hearing some mutterings about it maybe being repealed earlier this year. Has that come to pass or not?

[Fragile Bird]

Back to 45's speech.

There was a lot to unpack from a pretty weird speech. A big part of it was once again a campaign speech, with more attacks against past administrations. The only thing not mentioned was e-mails. Trump went to his usual theme that no one in the world had respect for the US anymore, and in the 11 months since he's been prez, since he's travelled the world and met more than 100 world leaders, the world has much more respect for the US.

One of the ways he plans to ramp up that respect is to reverse the downsizing of the US armed forces and modernize the woefully underfinanced military. Increase the size of the military! Rebuild their arms! Jobs jobs jobs in abundance! (Will he bring back the draft?)

I know that if you dare mention Hitler you are sneered at, but I think of Hitler telling Germans had badly treated they had been (and the topic of the evils of the Treaty of Paris is grist for another mill), how the world had no respect for them, how the military was built up and armed. The fascist I had in mind, yes, was Hitler.

But it is so weird for non-Americans to hear this stuff. The richest country in the world, the number one superpower, is being cheated and shortchanged by the rest of the world? Germans at least had serious issues with reparation payments and being ground down by the world, stripped of assets, colonies, even patents. Yes, the US has to think of itself first! As if it ever stopped thinking of itself first?

And just like Mexico is going to pay for The Wall, the rest of the world, all those rich countries the US is protecting, is going to pay for the US military. No sir, no military bases in 800 places around the world unless those countries pay for the US troops stationed there. And they will spend more money arming their military, presumably by buying US arms and making the US rich again, because it's so poor now! Because the US never really wanted to be a super power, right? And if countries told the US to close their bases, that wouldn't bother the US at all, right? More greatness in the US itself?

Bah, there was a lot more, but I think others can give their opinions.

 

[Kalbear]

I think that when historians write about this they will write that corrupt Western culture finally elected an idiotic corrupt actor that represented all of their lazy, weak stereotypes, and this weakness ushered in a great time of prosperity as the yoke of American imperialism was weakened enough for the true power of the Jade Kingdom to take over.

But America is a great place to visit, provided that you get a local bodyguard and guide.

 

[GAROVORKIN]

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Didn't help that you had Palin out there telling everyone that Obama was going to kill everyone....

Speaking of Palin, decades from now, when historians cover this period in time, will they point to Palin as the turning point when American conservatives went absolutely insane? 

Imagine if John McCain had won and Sarah Palin had gotten to be Vice President. 

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Ghjhero said:

Put me down as one of those people who knows very little about Dodd Frank. I know it was supposed to regulate the banks or something, but what did it actually do? I also recall hearing some mutterings about it maybe being repealed earlier this year. Has that come to pass or not?

Well it did a lot of stuff. But the two most important, I think, are:

1. Raised equity capital requirements (though probably not enough).  This is important because it limits systematic risk. When banks hold too much leverage (ie debt) they are more vulnerable to downturns. And despite what clowns like Jamie Dimon say, there is little evidence that these higher equity capital requirements are slowing down lending.

2. If you don't like no strings attached bailouts you have to have some kind of credible mechanism to wind banks or firms down, without disrupting credit markets. That's what the Orderly Liquidation Authority is all about. Now typically sending troubled firms to bankruptcy court would be the preferred option. But during a fast moving credit crunch that is not realistic, as bankruptcy court is too slow. People like Jeb Hensarling think bankruptcy court is all you need. But he is being delusional and setting up the country for more Tarp like bailouts.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I doubt it. I hang around historians on a regular basis and the feeling I get is that everyone has already forgotten Palin.
Plus, though it's easy to write this with the benefit of hindsight, historical perspective makes Trump a logical conclusion of the evolution of American conservatism. Think about the precedents: Goldwater, Wallace, Buchanan, Perot, W... There's a bit of each of these guys in Trump. Mostly the worst bits, of course, but still, the craziness was always there.
Palin, by comparison, is something of a footnote. Though I'm sure some historians will remember to speak of her popularity.

Historians in the U.S. or in France? Because I could totally see the latter already forgetting about her, but the former sure haven't, though her role has shrunken quite a bit. 

As for your examples, yes you have a point, but there was still away to justify their rises in some regards. I really can't say that for Trump. He's the biggest con in American political history, and that's saying something. And I don't think he could have existed in the way that he does today without Palin. She's the turning point when the Establishment began to lose their control over the party to the fire breathers in the base. It would be a mistake to view her as a mere footnote in American conservatism. She's the one that made the base feel like they could utter their deepest, darkest thoughts into existence. And that's what in large part gave rise to Trump. 

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

 True, but I think Palin is the line of demarcation. She's the one who made being a crazy hack conservative the norm.

Well I really don't disagree. It seems once she started up, is when you had other crazy critters, like Glenn Beck, and Alex Jones come out of the woodwork. Now it's possible those two clowns were popular before her, but I don't recall it or remember it.

It seems she showed you could make a lot of money by being a professional conservative (clown).

[Ormond]

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well I really don't disagree. It seems once she started up, is when you had other crazy critters, like Glenn Beck, and Alex Jones come out of the woodwork. Now it's possible those two clowns were popular before her, but I don't recall it or remember it.

It seems she showed you could make a lot of money by being a professional conservative.

Glenn Beck's television program aired on CNN Headline News starting in January 2006 and got pretty good ratings. So I think one can say he was popular at least a couple of years before Sarah Palin was well known outside of Alaska. 

And certainly Rush Limbaugh was making lots of money as a professional media conservative well before that. 

 

[S John]

23 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well I really don't disagree. It seems once she started up, is when you had other crazy critters, like Glenn Beck, and Alex Jones come out of the woodwork. Now it's possible those two clowns were popular before her, but I don't recall it or remember it.

It seems she showed you could make a lot of money by being a professional conservative (clown).

I remember in 2006 or 2007 or so listening to Jones sometimes over the internet at work and a coworker and I would laugh about how much of a kook he was.  I mean he was into aliens and lizard people, all kinds of obviously ridiculous shit that we would sometimes tune into for the sheer entertainment value.  I mean, it was (and still is) clearly a schtick as Jones himself testified in court recently.  The fact that he’s become semi-legitimized in the Trump era (at least in some circles) is one of the bigger surprises to me in a year and a half that’s been pretty full of surprises.