US politics: No sub rosa Omarosa

[Morpheus]

The Never Trumper Republcans already use the “Trump is not Conservative” line and are quick to point out that he donated to Democrats. They extend this line of thinking to all of Trump’s enablers and long for true  Republicanism to return when everything falls apart for the current regime. There is zero awarenes that Trump is the natural culmination of the Southern strategy, Nixon, Reaganite greed, the Tea Party.......Trump is about as real Republican as you can get.

[SweetPea]

12 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

In response to @SweetPea

You know the so called alt-right or Nazis love Trump for a reason. And that is because he replaced the usual low level dog whistle with a loud bullhorn. They saw mainstream conservative politicians as being too squishy on matters of race. Hence the reason they came up with the names like "cuckservatives".

I agree with much of what you said in your post. But I honestly don't see that Trump had such a big enabling, or emboldening effect on the far right. I think things were moving towards more and more polarization anyway. The left and the right moving further towards the fringes. The left also have their own "cuckservatives", the divide in the Democratic Party is getting more and more apparent each day. So yes, I think it's not that Trump simply enabled more extreme right-wing views, it's that those views were spreading anyway, and Trump capitalized on it. The same is happening in Europe. Are the newly elected populist parties popularizing these right-wing ideas, or is it the other way around? (or both)

(As a side note, I'm using terms like 'far right' and 'extreme' for the sake of discussion, even though I think it's not appropriate for many of the things you have in mind)

Quote

As others have pointed out on these boards, there is a growing body of evidence that the primary reason for Trump support was racism or white resentment. And that is extremely troubling. And people rightly worry that Trump style politics might begin a new phase where unscrupulous politicians, noting his success, might seek to emulate him. The low level dog whistle politics that has been always present in conservative politics, which was bad enough, has been replaced with something worse and more insidious by Trump style politics.

It would be nice if you'd acknowledged that and why it's a problem. 

I think it's very misleading to say that simple racism was the primary reason. There was a lot more at play. People losing faith in corrupt politicians, the problems of the working class being ignored, growing social tensions, a broken immigration system... Trump promised to change those things. He promised tax cuts, he promised a stronger economy, more jobs, better infrastructure, a fix to immigration, draining the swamp, pulling the US out of useless foreign wars, and so on. He spoke the language of the common people and he promised change. That is why he was elected. Do you think some other Republican would have won if he simply spouted some racist stuff? No. Plus there were many people who voted for Trump not because they particularly liked him, but because they hated Clinton, so there's also that.

Quote

But instead, you focus on "but, but, the left!" Or "Antifa!"

There are two reasons for that. One is that I think the far-right mostly emerges in response to the far left. Think of how many people have been pushed to the right because all they hear from the left is that they're evil racist bigots. The other reason is that people in this thread already provide ample criticism of the Republicans, so I might as well try and bring some balance to the discussion by calling out the problems on the left, which are largely ignored here.

[DMC]

To be fair to the Never-Trumpers, they are absolutely right that Trump is not ideologically conservative.  Beyond racism and hatred (which is of course intertwined with the following), the only consistent political attitudes he's expressed is anti-immigration and anti-free trade.  The former is conservative, but the latter isn't.  In his seminal work, Converse defined ideology by constraint, which means specific attitudes are guided by an overarching clear set of beliefs.  If you believe Trump is a demagogue and sociopath - which I and most here assumedly do - then it's difficult to argue he's a "conservative."  Obviously, he's simply capitalized on the ugliest and increasingly extremist elements of the far right.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So would that make the senate like a House of Lords?

Not really.  It simply means Senators wiuld be elected by State legislatures (who arw elected by the people of the State) but not in Statewide elections any longer.  It would make State Legislative Elections much more important on the national level as control of State legislatures would mean control of the US Senate.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

28 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

I think it's very misleading to say that simple racism was the primary reason. There was a lot more at play. People losing faith in corrupt politicians, the problems of the working class being ignored, growing social tensions, a broken immigration system... Trump promised to change those things. He promised tax cuts, he promised a stronger economy, more jobs, better infrastructure, a fix to immigration, draining the swamp, pulling the US out of useless foreign wars, and so on. He spoke the language of the common people and he promised change. That is why he was elected. Do you think some other Republican would have won if he simply spouted some racist stuff? No. Plus there were many people who voted for Trump not because they particularly liked him, but because they hated Clinton, so there's also that.

I think you are ignoring the irrationality of believing Trump is the proper response to the concerns you point out.  How is electing a corrupt and repeatedly failed businessman a proper response to corrupt politicians?  How is “speaking their language” which appears to be ignorance and fear based racism in anyway a positive thing?  

Trump is among the worst people ever to hold the office of President and dangerous to boot because he loves power and finds those silly Constitutional restrictions on his power quite chaffing.  He’s gotten people who normally scream about Executive overreach and Government abuse of power in relation to Constitutional restrictions to sqweel with delight because “their guy” is doing it.

It scares the shit out of me when people who claim to be for small government think it’s great when “their guy” does things they should hate.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, SweetPea said:

I think it's very misleading to say that simple racism was the primary reason. There was a lot more at play. People losing faith in corrupt politicians, the problems of the working class being ignored, growing social tensions, a broken immigration system...

The argument here appears to be 'it wasn't just racism, there were also many euphemisms for racism'. 

The 'problems of the working class' were not being ignored, they were being addressed: and indeed, in this sort of discussion 'the working class' is invariably used to refer to specifically white working class voters' concerns. As for 'growing social tensions' or 'a broken immigration system', there are just dog whistles for racism.

You also seem supremely uninterested in addressing the argument that a voter who supports a racist for any reason is still supporting a racist, and that is by definition a racist thing to do. I'm presuming this is because you have no counter to that argument. 

1 hour ago, SweetPea said:

Trump promised to change those things. He promised tax cuts, he promised a stronger economy, more jobs, better infrastructure, a fix to immigration, draining the swamp, pulling the US out of useless foreign wars, and so on. He spoke the language of the common people and he promised change. That is why he was elected. Do you think some other Republican would have won if he simply spouted some racist stuff? No. 

The problem with this idea is that other Republican candidates also promised tax cuts, a stronger economy, more jobs, better infrastructure, etc. And they didn't win. So it is apparent that it was not Trump promising these things that made a difference. 

1 hour ago, SweetPea said:

Think of how many people have been pushed to the right because all they hear from the left is that they're evil racist bigots.

The answer is 'none'.

If you become a racist because someone called you a racist, then you were always inclined to become a racist. No matter how many times someone calls me a racist, I haven't ever thought 'hey, those Nazi flags are looking better all the time'. 

Are there people claiming that they became openly racist for this reason? Yes. But those claims are self-serving attempts to evade responsibility, not a genuine account of a real phenomenon. 

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, mormont said:

The answer is 'none'.

If you become a racist because someone called you a racist, then you were always inclined to become a racist. No matter how many times someone calls me a racist, I haven't ever thought 'hey, those Nazi flags are looking better all the time'.

I agree with this on the...I guess I'll call it "Trump" level.  But there is plenty of well-founded research that stipulates racial resentment can be activated by external forces, and subsequently, significantly impact changes in voting behavior.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

9 hours ago, DMC said:

While I love Charlie WIlson's War, I don't think us weaponizing the Mujahideen then abandoning them financially compares to the coup in Iran nor the dog wagging at Gulf of Tonkin.  Nor Guatemala, nor Chile, nor Nicaragua...

 

9 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

When you can pretty much draw a direct line from that to the Taleban, to 9/11 and all the shit that has come from 9/11, it pretty much joins the list shame.

Yeah, and what isn't shown in Charlie Wilsons war is that the United states started supporting the Mujahideen 6 months before the Soviet invasion, helping to  create the the conflict in the first place.  https://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

 

Yeah, and what isn't shown in Charlie Wilsons war is that the United states started supporting the Mujahideen 6 months before the Soviet invasion, helping to  create the the conflict in the first place.  https://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/

 

And, that's how the Superpowers played in that day and age.  The Soviets, during the invasion, were mining toys.  Kids toys.  Given what we knew at the time I really don't have a problem supporting those who were opposed to the Soviets.  

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

And, that's how the Superpowers played in that day and age.  The Soviets, during the invasion, were mining toys.  Kids toys.  Given what we knew at the time I really don't have a problem supporting those who were opposed to the Soviets.  

I'm not going to be an apologist for the Soviet union, but I'd be skeptical about the
"booby trapped toys" story.  It was more likely unexploded ordinance from cluster bombs.  Rather like the problem, still ongoing by the way, with unexploded American ordinance in Laos.

And, it still doesn't change the fact that the US actions were to provoke the invasion, not as a response to it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

I'm not going to be an apologist for the Soviet union, but I'd be skeptical about the
"booby trapped toys" story.  It was more likely unexploded ordinance from cluster bombs.  Rather like the problem, still ongoing by the way, with unexploded American ordinance in Laos.

And, it still doesn't change the fact that the US actions were to provoke the invasion, not as a response to it.

We wanted to provoke a Soviet invasion?  I doubt that.  We may have wanted to destabilize and replace the regime in Afganistan with one more friendly to the US but I doubt we wanted to provoke a Soviet invasion.  That put Pakistan at risk which was a major US ally.  

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

We wanted to provoke a Soviet invasion?  I doubt that.  We may have wanted to destabilize and replace the regime in Afganistan with one more friendly to the US but I doubt we wanted to provoke a Soviet invasion.  That put Pakistan at risk which was a major US ally.  

Don't take it from me. Listen to Zbigniew Brzezinski.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

14 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Don't take it from me. Listen to Zbigniew Brzezinski.

He was Sec. of State for Carter.  That was an incredibly stupid move.

[Altherion]

The Washington Post is finally catching on to the nature of antifa:

Quote

So — you might expect that when antifa can’t find any fascists, it has nothing to fight. That seemed to be the situation this weekend, when a long-planned rally for far-right extremists fizzled into a paltry gathering of a few dozen white supremacists, unapproachable and nearly invisible behind a police blockade as they met without incident in a Washington, D.C., park.

And yet antifa still managed to fight — not fascists this time, but reporters.

...

When a Washington Post reporter tried to interview the antifascists, they refused to speak. When he followed them up the street with his cellphone camera, one of them shoved a black umbrella into his lens and several shouted: “No photos!”

...

In video published by the right-wing website Breitbart, journalists with USA Today and Agence France-Presse tried to explain their jobs to the woman while a man in a bandanna screamed expletives at them.

At the same event, NPR reporter Tim Mak watched antifa protesters lob fireworks and bottles at the police separating them from the white supremacists.

Then he ducked as someone whipped an egg at his head.

This article and others like it led to a pretty funny joke:

Quote

Maybe the "anti-" in "antifa" doesn't really mean against, but is just the Italian prefix for "before," as in "antipasto" (or, it turns out, "anticipate"). It comes before the planned fascism, as a way of paving the way for fascism, as antipasto makes us anticipate the pasta.

I mean, yeah, that prefix is usually rendered "ante-" in English, but fascism comes from Italian, so that must be it

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 hours ago, DMC said:

So Keith Ellison won his primary race for Minnesota AG in spite of the (credible) abuse allegations.  Glad he'll be out of Congress, but there should be pressure from both sides for him to suspend his campaign (not sure what the Dems would do).  Minnesota hasn't had a Republican AG since 1955.  The next step for the Dems is to strip him of his vice chair position at the DNC.  That should happen soon.

The whole thing is bizarre. I suspect the DFL will try and force him out and just have Swanson run again.

It was also a delight to see Pawlenty lose.

Quote

First, there won't be 33 GOP governors for long.  There are four (IL, ME, MI, NM) easy pickups for Dems this cycle, and another 8 GOP seats (6 open) that are very much up for grabs.  Second, as Scot said, Article 1 Section 3 states state legislatures chose Senators before the seventeenth - there's 31 states in which the GOP holds both chambers (again, for now).  Ultimately, it's entirely unclear if reverting Senate selection back to the legislatures would be more of an advantage than the GOP already has in the Senate with popular elections.  The effort and capital expended on abolishing the 17th would be pretty damn stupid considering the uncertain and very marginal gains.  Of course, the fact that doing something would be very stupid does not preclude the GOP from trying it.

You’re right to say that they’ll probably lose some governorships and state legislatures in the near future, but they should be able to hold a majority of them for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the projections I’ve seen for the next few decades indicate that the population will continue to concentrate in urban hubs, and in fewer states, which should mean that conservatives will control the smaller states, so repealing the 17^th Amendment would be beneficial for the GOP.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

23 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The Washington Post is finally catching on to the nature of antifa:

This article and others like it led to a pretty funny joke:

 

An Egg?  Just like Mussolini. Call in the Militia!  Is this the same NPR who platformed a white nationalist just before the rally?

When they throw a car at his head, let me know.

[Guy Kilmore]

35 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

The whole thing is bizarre. I suspect the DFL will try and force him out and just have Swanson run again.

It was also a delight to see Pawlenty lose.

You’re right to say that they’ll probably lose some governorships and state legislatures in the near future, but they should be able to hold a majority of them for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the projections I’ve seen for the next few decades indicate that the population will continue to concentrate in urban hubs, and in fewer states, which should mean that conservatives will control the smaller states, so repealing the 17^th Amendment would be beneficial for the GOP.

I loved seeing Pawlenty lose, that felt really good

The Ellison thing is just weird and I'm not really comfortable with it.  I think Swanson running again would be nice, but is that even feasible at this point?

[Seli]

4 hours ago, SweetPea said:

I agree with much of what you said in your post. But I honestly don't see that Trump had such a big enabling, or emboldening effect on the far right. I think things were moving towards more and more polarization anyway. The left and the right moving further towards the fringes. The left also have their own "cuckservatives", the divide in the Democratic Party is getting more and more apparent each day. So yes, I think it's not that Trump simply enabled more extreme right-wing views, it's that those views were spreading anyway, and Trump capitalized on it. The same is happening in Europe. Are the newly elected populist parties popularizing these right-wing ideas, or is it the other way around? (or both)

In what way do you see left-ish parties anywhere moving to fringes? In my experience they mostly exist slightly left of centre at most. Which admittedly is a contributing factor to the current levels of social unrest, since they have stopped advocating for (financially) vulnerable groups in most of the west since the late 80's, instead promoting liberal capitalist solutions.

 

4 hours ago, SweetPea said:

There are two reasons for that. One is that I think the far-right mostly emerges in response to the far left. Think of how many people have been pushed to the right because all they hear from the left is that they're evil racist bigots. The other reason is that people in this thread already provide ample criticism of the Republicans, so I might as well try and bring some balance to the discussion by calling out the problems on the left, which are largely ignored here.

I don't think this is true. The rise of the far-right everywhere seems to be a result of people being more vulnerable in the individual reward focussed liberalized capitalist societies we have been building. And the insecurity and fear that creates has been directed at groups that are seen as weaker and outsiders who can compete a bit easier in that less regulated space.

They are bigots who rise to prominence because they are not willing to look at themselves, or the people in power, to examine why they have a difficult time. But rather blame those who did look like they might have made gains from disadvantaged positions.

[Zorral]

10 hours ago, DMC said:

While as I've repeatedly stated judicial "originalism" is bullshit justification and an ideological fig leaf, it is decidedly against originalist dogma to "reinterpret" amendments.  It would be exceedingly problematic in terms of that one big amendment the right holds so dear (as well as, in Thomas' case, the 10th, which he frequently cites).  Like Scot, I'd put good money on Roberts voting down anything of the sort - and I suspect both Thomas and Gorsuch would as well, perhaps even Alito.  The only sure yay vote in such a case would be Kavanaugh.  Even in the current climate, it's not reconcilable to simultaneously hold a "plain text" ethos and overturn the first sentence of the 22nd:

 

The thing in terms of this issues is that Kavanagh has established a long record in action as well as writen opinion, that justices have the right and obligation to go looking for issues they themselves believe make a likely Constitutional examination even when there are no legal cases about such matters pending anywhere.  This is particularly important as Kavanagh has written copiously since at least the end of the 1990's that no sitting POTUS should be or can be sworn, indicted or anything for criminal behaviors.  That is his interpretation of the Constitution.

[Zorral]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Not really.  It simply means Senators wiuld be elected by State legislatures (who arw elected by the people of the State) but not in Statewide elections any longer.  It would make State Legislative Elections much more important on the national level as control of State legislatures would mean control of the US Senate.

No direct election of senators is how it was before the 17th amendment.  How making them Lords is going to help our political catastrophe is impossible to fathom.

Also the argument that not all people who vote for the orange nazi are racists -- then how in the world did he get elected in the first place?  And don't say it's because the left talks about racism and that makes voters so mad they decide to vote for a racist.  You see what kind of argument that is, don't you?