US politics: No sub rosa Omarosa

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Zorral said:

They did not. Read Lee's papers for one instance.  He put his state above loyalty to the Constitution.  He said so.

There is context for that.  If you take as a given that State's have the power to leave the Union, as many did at that time, then his position is reasonable from that perspective.  At that time there was no guarantee of what would transpire if a State chose to leave the Union as it hadn't ever been attempted.  Therefore, while I understand what you are saying, if it is within the aegis of the Constitution for a State to voluntarily leave the Union what they are doing can constitute a loyal act if the Constitution allows for such a voluntary separation.  

I do not want to get into a huge debate about whether such a separation was Constitutionally allowable because we have been through that about a million times over the last 15 years.  I simply want to point out that loyalty to the US over loyalty to individual States was not viewed the same way in 1860 as it is today.

[Martell Spy]

3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

1. Trump may not have created the far right. But he certainly has benefitted from it and was able to get elected because of it. And the reason he was able to win the Republican nomination was because for years the Republican Party has simply gone fucking crazy. And a point I have emphasized in these threads is that Trump is not some random event that just hit the Republican Party out of the blue, but rather is a result of a  Republican Party that has simply lost it's effing mind.
After the the disaster that was the Bush administration, where about every conservative cliche seemed to just blow up, conservatives didn't attempt to revalaute some of their prior beliefs, but instead just decided to lose their minds and then doubled down on their dog whistle politics, creating the perfect enviorement for some shyster like Trump to take over the Republican Party and win an election.
2. Saying that "but, but, Democrats have their own 'cuckservatives' too!'" is the kind of both sides horseshit that is absurd. Yes, it's true the Democratic Party, and those left of center, have their disagreements. It's true the progressive wing of the Democratic Party doesn't agree with "third way" Democrats. But the dispute between those groups is nothing like one group of the right complaining that another group of the right is just too timid in promoting white resenment politics. Suggesting that what goes on the right is similar too what goes on in left wing politics is just straining too hard to look all centristry and reasonable. It's a very bad comparison.

And let me make clear, that the current Republican Party as it stands today is utterly fucking useless. It has about no useful policy ideas that is benefical to the vast majority of this country. About the only thing it has is the usual supply side cliche's that don't work. And over the last two decades or so, it has been massively wrong about every major public policy issue. It was certainly completely wrong about the Iraq war and it was wrong with respect to about everything related to the GFC. It continues to preach inchorent nonsense with respect to healthcare. It's wrong about immigration. And it has nothing on racial or gender issues as it doesn't even want to talk about them in any serious manner.
The Democratic Party certainly isn't perfect. But at least it's capable of governing somewhat seriously and it's capable of putting together policy proposals that aren't completely abusrd.
In short, making statements or implying that the Democratic Party is just as bad as the Republican Party is a bunch of horseshit.
2. Saying that racism was the primary reason that enabled Trump to get elected isn't just some wild eyed left wing theorizing that has no basis in reality. There are a number of empirical studies that confirm it.
Now sure, we can parse some of those findings and dig into details about how other policy failures enabled Trump.  For instance, I do in fact believe that if trade policy with China had been handled better Trump may not be sitting in the white house today as he might not have one several midwestern states based on the work of David Autor, et al. But I'd note that policy failure is connected to issues of race as job losses in certain sectors seems to have increased racial resenment and tribalism.
The basic fact remains that racial resentment seems to have been the key reason that motivated the Trump vote. And suggesting that it was "just one factor among many" is misleading and not accurate, when in fact it was a significant leading reason. One that should be alarming.
3. The problem with straining too hard to look "fair and balanced" is you end up not being all that reasonable or objective or "fair and balanced".
For instance, saying Antifa makes the left just as bad as the right with Nazis is a load of bull. Say for instance you're a complete pacsifist and oppose any sort of violence. Assuming that, it does not follow that your conclusion would be Antifa is just as bad as Nazis.
Nazis believe in genocide, rampant militarism, and war. Antifa basically believes that liberal democracies aren't simply equipped to deal with a Nazi threat and other means are necessary to combat and stop that.
You might disagree with Antifa's methods. But it does not logically follow they are "just as bad" as Nazis. People that want to put on airs as a "resonable centrist" slip into a big error when they try to use Antifa as an example of how the left is just as bad as the right.
I don't mind centrism per se. But, I have a lot of contempt for fake ass or sorry ass centrism. Sorry ass centrism is just too quick to declare, "look it's both sides" without remotely trying to think through details or facts.
Straining too hard to look all reasonable and centristy leads to shit like the media not shutting up about Hillary's emails, making it look like their was something there, when there really wasn't.
A while back, I do recall getting to an argument with some poster about the Republican Party's insane take on monetary policy.  The poster agreed basically the Republican Party was being nuts, but in an attempt to look oh centristry and reasonable, then declared the left was just as bad as evidenced by Krugman's calls for fiscal spending, which according to that poster was evidently bad, as "very serious people" knew we had to worry about the defecit. But, that poster had really no clue about that the technocratic arguments involved, nor had they read Krugman's liquitidy trap paper. That in a nutshell is what sorry ass centism is about. It doesn't really seek to understand arguments, but just wants to declare it's both sides in order to look reasonable. But, it's not reasonable and it's a very sloppy way to argue.
4. I have been around the block, at least a couple of times. And every once awhile I've come across the following argument by conservatives, which is basically:
We know we've gone fuckin' nuts. But it's not our fault! The liberals made us do it!
I know the special conservative snowflake is a fragile creature. And anything that might challenge his "conservative values" might cause smoke to come out of his ears as he goes into full blown helmet fire mode.
But, seriously, conservatives need to stop blaming liberals for their own nutty horseshit. That's on them, not liberals. If conservatives have a disagreement with a liberal argument, then fine. Make an intelligent argument to rebut it. But don't go around saying the reason you decided to go completely bonkers is because liberals made you do it.
That the American right went and lost it's mind is their own doing. They need to stop blaming liberals for it.

Yeah, one of the versions of blaming liberals going around is that liberals we're too mean to Romney in 2012, and at fault for how conservatives reacted to that loss 

[S John]

2 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Yeah, one of the versions of blaming liberals going around is that liberals we're too mean to Romney in 2012, and at fault for how conservatives reacted to that loss 

That's so weird to think about now.  Romney is basically squeaky clean, but they got him on that 'binders of women' comment.  I can remember that being all over the news,  It was a weird comment, sure, but knowing what we know now, what would we trade for a man for whom 'binders of women' was his signature gaffe?  It's funny to think about our naive past selves where THAT statement was somehow disqualifying.  We knew nothing!  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, S John said:

That's so weird to think about now.  Romney is basically squeaky clean, but they got him on that 'binders of women' comment.  I can remember that being all over the news,  It was a weird comment, sure, but knowing what we know now, what would we trade for a man for whom 'binders of women' was his signature gaffe?  It's funny to think about our naive past selves where THAT statement was somehow disqualifying.  We knew nothing!  

Indeed.  Indeed.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

20 minutes ago, S John said:

That's so weird to think about now.  Romney is basically squeaky clean, but they got him on that 'binders of women' comment.  I can remember that being all over the news,  It was a weird comment, sure, but knowing what we know now, what would we trade for a man for whom 'binders of women' was his signature gaffe?  It's funny to think about our naive past selves where THAT statement was somehow disqualifying.  We knew nothing!  

There was also the "Takers and Makers comment",  which was when the Right Wing beef du jour was poor people not paying enough taxes.  Also, Romney had to do the most amazing contortions to attack Obama from the right.

Maybe Obama just wasn't that beatable in 2012.

[Morpheus]

 One story I am sick of hearing is the “The Fall of Paul Ryan”, the principled Conservative who sold himself to Trump. The fucker was always a Randian nightmare who viewed poverty as a character flaw,  a weasel without a spine. Romney selecting him as his running mate made any attempts to paint himself as a moderate laughable.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

27 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

 One story I am sick of hearing is the “The Fall of Paul Ryan”, the principled Conservative who sold himself to Trump. The fucker was always a Randian nightmare who viewed poverty as a character flaw,  a weasel without a spine. Romney selecting him as his running mate made any attempts to paint himself as a moderate laughable.

There are people still going with that narrative? I don't think any such thing as a principled conservative exists in the US, if by principled you mean more than tax cuts for them and their paying masters.

As for Ryan, he ran for years on tax cuts, while opposing Obama policy (namely the ACA) because of fiscally responsibilty. As soon as the tax cuts and their fiscal impacts came out, his reaction was: "Oh, right, the deficit, well this was gonna blow up in the future anyway."

[S John]

52 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

There was also the "Takers and Makers comment",  which was when the Right Wing beef du jour was poor people not paying enough taxes.  Also, Romney had to do the most amazing contortions to attack Obama from the right.

Maybe Obama just wasn't that beatable in 2012.

I think it's more about their taxes going to support poor people than poor people not paying enough, but either way, yes I had forgotten about that.  I'd still take that over Trump, who is damaging in so many other ways beyond being a standard Republican.  Trump has driven a wedge into the existing divide, routinely flouts norms, alienates allies, and attacks the press in ways none of us would have foreseen when we were all worried about Romney.  I wouldn't have liked most of Romney's polices, but he could at least be trusted not to burn the whole fucking place down.     

[Martell Spy]

1 hour ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

There was also the "Takers and Makers comment",  which was when the Right Wing beef du jour was poor people not paying enough taxes.  Also, Romney had to do the most amazing contortions to attack Obama from the right.

Maybe Obama just wasn't that beatable in 2012.

Yeah the Obama 2012 campaign mainly won by painting Romney as an out of touch rich guy, which is exactly what he was. 

Also it is ridiculous to think that liberals should have bowed down to Romney to avoid the Nazi plague. His policies would have been terrible for America. Plus, the Republicans continue to top themselves with crazy. No one in 2012 predicted the GOP trying to put a pedo in the Senate.

[Maithanet]

Just now, Martell Spy said:

Yeah the Obama 2012 campaign mainly won by painting Romney ad an out of touch rich guy, which is exactly what he was. 

Also it is ridiculous to think that liberals should have bowed down to Romney to avoid the Nazi plague. His policies would have been terrible for America. Plus, the Republicans continue top themselves with crazy. No one in 2012 predicted a GOP trying to put a pedo in the Senate.

And the 2012 loss was supposed to lead to GOP soul searching and outreach to new voters to avoid getting left behind.  Instead they did what they always do, doubled down crazy/racist appeals to white voters.  If Trump had lost in 2016, I've no doubt there would have been similar grumblings about GOP reform, but I doubt they'd be any more successful than the 2012 attempts were.  Instead we'd probably have a 2020 nominee that would probably be just as abhorrent as Trump and who would be heavily favored given how holding the White House 4 terms in a row hasn't been done since the 40s. 

[Frog Eater]

http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/16/sen-bill-nelson-admits-no-evidence-2018-election-hacking/

Bill Nelson is now backing completely away from his claims that the Russians have penetrated Florida's election system. 

His backing away from those claims wont get the coverage his initial claims made

[aceluby]

27 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/16/sen-bill-nelson-admits-no-evidence-2018-election-hacking/

Bill Nelson is now backing completely away from his claims that the Russians have penetrated Florida's election system. 

His backing away from those claims wont get the coverage his initial claims made

Didn't hear the initial claims, so from my stance his backing from those claims looks to be getting more coverage.  YMMV, but I don't have a crystal ball on what future coverage will or won't look like; as apparently you do.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

1 hour ago, S John said:

I think it's more about their taxes going to support poor people than poor people not paying enough, but either way, yes I had forgotten about that.  I'd still take that over Trump, who is damaging in so many other ways beyond being a standard Republican.  Trump has driven a wedge into the existing divide, routinely flouts norms, alienates allies, and attacks the press in ways none of us would have foreseen when we were all worried about Romney.  I wouldn't have liked most of Romney's polices, but he could at least be trusted not to burn the whole fucking place down.     

Romney used to be a centrist republican, back when those existed.

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

Yeah the Obama 2012 campaign mainly won by painting Romney as an out of touch rich guy, which is exactly what he was. 

Also it is ridiculous to think that liberals should have bowed down to Romney to avoid the Nazi plague. His policies would have been terrible for America. Plus, the Republicans continue to top themselves with crazy. No one in 2012 predicted the GOP trying to put a pedo in the Senate.

 

Yeah, like they blamed Obama for racism.  How about the party of personal responsibility actually fucking take some?  Like any time between 2008-2012,

"Yeah, maybe we all should have been more vocal about shouting-down the "Birther" and "Muslim-Fifth-Columnist" crap."

"But hey, the pollsters said it was resonating with our base..." 

McCain, at least, did this during the 2008 campaign when he was confronted by that crazy person at a town-hall style campaign rally.  His response could probably have been more vigorous, but there were definitely elements of the crowd that were not down with him taking the controversial stance that his opponent was, in fact, a citizen who was not an enemy of the United States.

Observe.

I don't know where these people are getting this, but it isn't MSNBC.

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

And the 2012 loss was supposed to lead to GOP soul searching and outreach to new voters to avoid getting left behind.  Instead they did what they always do, doubled down crazy/racist appeals to white voters.  If Trump had lost in 2016, I've no doubt there would have been similar grumblings about GOP reform, but I doubt they'd be any more successful than the 2012 attempts were.  Instead we'd probably have a 2020 nominee that would probably be just as abhorrent as Trump and who would be heavily favored given how holding the White House 4 terms in a row hasn't been done since the 40s. 

I've been following politics quasi-seriously since the Bush v Gore race.  Obama's election and subsequent re election drove the right wing completely off the deep end.  I had may agreements and disagreements before, but there was a marked change around that time.  I couldn't believe what was hearing and it came so fast I I just couldn't keep up with it any more.

Little did I know...

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 hours ago, Casablanca Birdie said:

It's really weird, no, surreal, to watch the US melt away before your very eyes.

You big meanie! Don’t make me initiate Operation Dive Bomb!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

And the 2012 loss was supposed to lead to GOP soul searching and outreach to new voters to avoid getting left behind.  Instead they did what they always do, doubled down crazy/racist appeals to white voters.  If Trump had lost in 2016, I've no doubt there would have been similar grumblings about GOP reform, but I doubt they'd be any more successful than the 2012 attempts were.  Instead we'd probably have a 2020 nominee that would probably be just as abhorrent as Trump and who would be heavily favored given how holding the White House 4 terms in a row hasn't been done since the 40s. 

It’s hard to imagine many people who could fit that bill. Republican nominee Louie Gohmert?

[A True Kaniggit]

8 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

You big meanie! Don’t make me initiate Operation Dive Bomb!

Wait. Are we no longer calling it War Plan Crimson?

[aceluby]

10 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

I've been following politics quasi-seriously since the Bush v Gore race.  Obama's election and subsequent re election drove the right wing completely off the deep end.  I had may agreements and disagreements before, but there was a marked change around that time.  I couldn't believe what was hearing and it came so fast I I just couldn't keep up with it any more.

Little did I know...

There were a few things at play with them going over the edge here IMO.  First was how terrible the Iraq war went and how much money was thrown at it.  Second, was the financial meltdown due precisely to the policies they've been espousing for 30 years.  Third, Obama being a smart, black, charismatic man that all walks of the left rallied around.

It made the right question everything about themselves and how they kept power for the last few decades.  Economic responsibility was gone.  Moral high ground was out the door.  Promising more military interventions was getting nowhere.  Top that with demographic and culture shifts across the spectrum and they no longer had anything to stand for.

So now they stand for nothing, and found a way to race-bait their way back into power for what little time they can so they can cut taxes on the rich, roll back environment protections, and work to make it as difficult as possible to vote so they may be able to sneak in a unified govt again once in the next decade.

[Maithanet]

10 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

It’s hard to imagine many people who could fit that bill. Republican nominee Louie Gohmert?

I probably would have said something similar after Bush in '08, and in both cases it just shows a lack of imagination.  Trump could be much worse. 

- He could have ignored the judicial orders to halt the Muslim ban as "infringing on his responsibility to protect the country".  Andrew Jackson demonstrated that if the President ignores the court, the courts don't have a lot of recourse. 

 - He could start (big, costly) wars of convenience for political gain. 

 - He could use the pardon power far more aggressively than he currently is to demonstrate that anyone acting on his behalf needs not fear the law. 

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:


I do not want to get into a huge debate about whether such a separation was Constitutionally allowable because we have been through that about a million times over the last 15 years.  I simply want to point out that loyalty to the US over loyalty to individual States was not viewed the same way in 1860 as it is today.

By whom? There are a whole hell of a lot of people from Texas that think entirely otherwise. Same with the South and their waving a flag of a traitorous attempt at a nation state. The military is not monolithic either, and all it takes is some military to make a choice. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

By whom? There are a whole hell of a lot of people from Texas that think entirely otherwise. Same with the South and their waving a flag of a traitorous attempt at a nation state. The military is not monolithic either, and all it takes is some military to make a choice. 

Yes.