Jump to content

US Politics: Sing us a song, you're the Tariff man


Kalbear

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, S John said:

Perhaps McConnell and Murdoch feel that the sponge has been wrung dry.  Time to toss it aside for the future of the party.

McConnell might be able to get rid of Trump.  It would take a colossal effort, with great uncertainty, but McConnell + Mueller report + Democratic House might pull it off (McConnell would assuredly lose a Republican primary in 2020 if he did this).  But Trumpism?  That Frankenstein's monster isn't going anywhere and it will kill a lot more people before it is done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

McConnell might be able to get rid of Trump.  It would take a colossal effort, with great uncertainty, but McConnell + Mueller report + Democratic House might pull it off (McConnell would assuredly lose a Republican primary in 2020 if he did this).  But Trumpism?  That Frankenstein's monster isn't going anywhere and it will kill a lot more people before it is done. 

Oh I don't think McConnell will actually do anything overt like try to impeach him. 

They sent HRC packing, got their tax cuts, and they got some judges out of Trump + 2 years of Republican government.  With a Dem house about to be sworn in that's the probably best they are going to do under this President.  Even while R's controlled House, Senate, and Executive they really didn't get as much done as they could have under a competent leader (the one silver lining to the Trump disaster) and, as you say, the Mueller report is looming. 

If Trump can no longer serve as a rubber stamp to the policies most desired by the R donor class due to Dem control of the House, then it no longer makes sense for the establishment wing and their FOX cronies to run constant interference for Trump's blatant idiocy.    

With people like Tucker Carlson suddenly criticizing Trump, it makes me wonder if there's not some strategy afoot to create a little distance between Trump and the Republican brand.  Tucker Carlson is the very definition of a shill and has been in Trump's corner through thick and thin up until the other day, it is strange for him to now come out with a pretty damning statement about Trump.   I think they're conditioning the base for a post-Trump world.  Make criticism from the right OK so that when the SS Trump finally sinks the party doesn't go down with it.  They've gotten as much as they can out of him. 

Trumpism will continue to be a problem for a long time, but Trump is a force of personality and had years of celebrity and brand recognition prior to becoming president.  It won't be an easy vacuum to fill when he's gone from the stage, so I am hopeful that without Trump in an actual position of power, Trumpism will diminish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, S John said:

With people like Tucker Carlson suddenly criticizing Trump, it makes me wonder if there's not some strategy afoot to create a little distance between Trump and the Republican brand.

I wouldn't take anything Tucker Carlson says as evidence of any type of a coordinated strategy.  Dude's been talking out of his ass for twenty years now, and that oftentimes includes criticizing the Republicans in power.  Ann Coulter recently wrote an op-ed highly critical of Trump as well.  This is what happens when you lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm interested to see where Trumpism goes post Trump. I think there is a chance that after Trump is no longer president the knives come out and the movement conservatives take control after the partisan fervor to defend the president has dissipated.  After all Trump has failed to cultivate his own brand outside of himself and his administration has mostly just been a standard Republican one with an unusual amount of incompetence and corruption. But on the other hand he has shown that a large portion of the Republican base doesn't give a fig about many conservative sacred cows so perhaps some will take advantage of that and run on his platform. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DMC said:

Call me a cynic, but ambition and avarice is always going to trump this elitist ideal.  It heavily informs how our system was structured in the first place.  Further, and more importantly, how is abiding by a standard your opposition isn't going to follow "combating" anything?  This reminds me of the West Wing episode where Sam doesn't want to use soft money to fund attack ads because he opposes soft money.  I will never understand the liberal urge to play by rules that only limit themselves.  It's the political equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face, and they don't give you extra votes for "doing things the right way."

My rebuttal would be that each time you sink down to your opponent's level, you give them more wiggle room to sink even further. And this cycle will just repeat itself until we get to a place where there is no where left to sink but to absolute destruction. The political division in this country hasn't been this bad since the 60's, and maybe as far back as the Civil War (we've now fulfilled our weekly requirement of bringing the Civil War up in these threads, so no need to do it again until next weekend!!!). Fighting dirtier, in some instances, can be totally justified, but just saying screw it and going all in is only going to dramatically exacerbate the situation.  And the eventually ending point of that path is something I don't want to see.

The reason why you should strive for the high ground is to contrast yourself with your political opponents in the hopes that the public rewards you, and if you can obtain unified power, you can being to put a dent in Trumpism, which is an absolute necessity going forward. Perhaps you are correct to say that it's folly, but to me it seems like the only path if your goal is turn down the heat rather than cranking it up to 11. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Hmmm it seems you're assuming that I, or you, or we, can do something about it. As you may recall, I'm somehow cynical as to the nature of our "democracies." Since the only power we kinda have is to vote, do you propose to not vote for candidates who over-simplify or misrepresent issues, at the risk of seeing much worse people come to power? Or are we talking about taking a stance on the internet for appearance's sake? ;)

Your vote.....and your freedom of speech. But to answer your question, no, that's not what I'm saying especially when you consider that while Democrats do do that here and there, it is in no way shape or form comparable to the way Republicans abuse the truth. But that doesn't mean you can't also tell your own side to try and be a bit better when they err, and you should expect them to hold you to that same standard if you make a mistake as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The reason why you should strive for the high ground is to contrast yourself with your political opponents in the hopes that the public rewards you, and if you can obtain unified power, you can being to put a dent in Trumpism, which is an absolute necessity going forward. Perhaps you are correct to say that it's folly, but to me it seems like the only path if your goal is turn down the heat rather than cranking it up to 11. 

  

Except as we've seen the public does not actually reward you for taking the higher ground. Anakin was right, and you're underestimating their power. 

Turning down the head is a laudable and correct goal. I don't think allowing yourself to be a punching bag is the right way to do it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

McConnell might be able to get rid of Trump.  It would take a colossal effort, with great uncertainty, but McConnell + Mueller report + Democratic House might pull it off (McConnell would assuredly lose a Republican primary in 2020 if he did this).  But Trumpism?  That Frankenstein's monster isn't going anywhere and it will kill a lot more people before it is done. 

Never. Ever. Gonna. Happen! 

McConnell wouldn't just lose a primary, Republicans would get swept nationwide as the Trump base stays home and/or creates chaos. The last thing Republicans want is to get destroyed in an election that will impact redistricting. McConnell would possibly stab Trump in the back and remove him from office, but it won't take place before the 2020 elections are over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Except as we've seen the public does not actually reward you for taking the higher ground. Anakin was right, and you're underestimating their power. 

Turning down the head is a laudable and correct goal. I don't think allowing yourself to be a punching bag is the right way to do it. 

Generally speaking they don't, but these are different times and 2016 somewhat showed that. People were disgusted by Trump, but enough were also disgusted with Clinton. If you run a likable person verses Trump, you should win. Run someone who is willing to sink in the swamp with Trump and you might just get a repeat of 2016.

:dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Generally speaking they don't, but these are different times and 2016 somewhat showed that. People were disgusted by Trump, but enough were also disgusted with Clinton. If you run a likable person verses Trump, you should win. Run someone who is willing to sink in the swamp with Trump and you might just get a repeat of 2016.

:dunno:

Here's the thing - people often like folks who are willing to do bad things. People sometimes even love them. Don't conflate being a good guy with being likeable. I agree that one of the problems Clinton faced was that people didn't like her - but that had very little to do with any reality of her doing bad things, certainly not in that election, and certainly not about things like PAC money or the like. 

Most elections I can remember had some dirty play with the result being the winner. Who was dirtier with Bush v. Gore? Bush v. Kerry? Obama wasn't above it either too - the 47% comment from Romney, the 'economy is fundamentally sound requote by McCain. 

What you risk is that liberals want to have their lilly-white perfect candidate unicorns, and often can't be bothered to vote if their candidate doesn't make them feel love. But Republicans? Nah, they don't give two shits at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

My rebuttal would be that each time you sink down to your opponent's level, you give them more wiggle room to sink even further. And this cycle will just repeat itself until we get to a place where there is no where left to sink but to absolute destruction. The political division in this country hasn't been this bad since the 60's, and maybe as far back as the Civil War (we've now fulfilled our weekly requirement of bringing the Civil War up in these threads, so no need to do it again until next weekend!!!). Fighting dirtier, in some instances, can be totally justified, but just saying screw it and going all in is only going to dramatically exacerbate the situation.  And the eventually ending point of that path is something I don't want to see.

The reason why you should strive for the high ground is to contrast yourself with your political opponents in the hopes that the public rewards you, and if you can obtain unified power, you can being to put a dent in Trumpism, which is an absolute necessity going forward. Perhaps you are correct to say that it's folly, but to me it seems like the only path if your goal is turn down the heat rather than cranking it up to 11. 

 

As they're already stealing elections, taking away the vote, and even overturning elections themselves, killing people, incarcerating people left and right, deliberately destroying what's left of the environment, piling up debt like never before (while the nazi outright gloats, "I'll be gone when the bill comes in and it all collapses), pillaging everyone's pensions, medicare, etc.,  making any health care too expensive for any but the very wealthy, paying no taxes themselves and breaking every rule, regulation and law in the land -- how much further down do they have to go before you decide turning the other cheek is not longer worth it?  I suppose ... when they come for you and your family ... which you and your family believe are immune from happening. Ha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

My rebuttal would be that each time you sink down to your opponent's level, you give them more wiggle room to sink even further. And this cycle will just repeat itself until we get to a place where there is no where left to sink but to absolute destruction. The political division in this country hasn't been this bad since the 60's, and maybe as far back as the Civil War (we've now fulfilled our weekly requirement of bringing the Civil War up in these threads, so no need to do it again until next weekend!!!). Fighting dirtier, in some instances, can be totally justified, but just saying screw it and going all in is only going to dramatically exacerbate the situation.  And the eventually ending point of that path is something I don't want to see.

Well, I gotta say, this has come a long way from AOC making a tweet that misrepresents military spending estimates.

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

The reason why you should strive for the high ground is to contrast yourself with your political opponents in the hopes that the public rewards you, and if you can obtain unified power, you can being to put a dent in Trumpism, which is an absolute necessity going forward. Perhaps you are correct to say that it's folly, but to me it seems like the only path if your goal is turn down the heat rather than cranking it up to 11. 

Taking the high ground doesn't work, and I do say it's folly.  There's no way to turn down the heat, and if there was, "striving for the high ground" in such a way wouldn't be it.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Except as we've seen the public does not actually reward you for taking the higher ground. Anakin was right, and you're underestimating their power. 

A for effort but the analogy ended up a bit tortured.  Woulda been better without the underestimating power part.

55 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

If you run a likable person verses Trump, you should win. Run someone who is willing to sink in the swamp with Trump and you might just get a repeat of 2016.

None of this is about a Democratic nominee "sinking" to Trump's level.  We were talking about a tweet about military spending, ffs!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok...I live in a heavily conservative area neck deep in Trump fans.  Many of the people I work with are Trump fans. 

And yet, I have been noticing...growing disillusionment...with at least some of these people as of late.  The one coworker put it like this:

'Trump is entertaining, you gotta give him that.  I like watching the rallies.  But it seems like nothing's changed - it's one scandal after another.  Why can't he get rid of the crooks?'

 

(I had to explain to him that Trump appointed those crooks in the first place.)  He was also less than thrilled with the tax cut - 'so I can buy a sandwich once a week - BFD.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clinton Email investigation reopened.  Well, it had to happen again eventually, I suppose. What with Ivanka being mentioned repeatedly, I'm not sure if the comments count as 'entertaining' or 'deeply disturbed.'

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-orders-justice-state-departments-to-reopen-narrow-inquiry-into-handling-of-clinton-email-records-lawsuit/ar-BBQBszy?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580&fbclid=IwAR2trkYu9V0DCP_0vbAV0JJ0X8fkUSNlawReoa9RUsFOKikPH2AZ5T8QLuA

 

 U.S. judge ordered the Justice and State departments Thursday to reopen an inquiry into whether Hillary Clinton used a private email server while secretary of state to deliberately evade public records laws and to answer whether the agencies acted in bad faith by not telling a court for months that they had asked in mid-2014 for missing emails to be returned. 

 

The order risks reopening partisan wounds that have barely healed since Clinton’s unsuccessful 2016 presidential bid, but in issuing the order Thursday, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth said the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act required it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...