U.S. politics. thread

[DanteGabriel]

Republican bad faith and demonization of the opposite side did not begin with Obama. It obviously kicked into high gear and became undeniable then, but you can go back to Newt Gingrich's career for the polarization of Congress. Other Republican resentments go back even further, like Robert Bork. Others go back as far as Nixon. The GOP tree has been producing rotten fruit for a damn long time.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, DanteGabriel said:

It obviously kicked into high gear and became undeniable then, but you can go back to Newt Gingrich's career for the polarization of Congress. Other Republican resentments go back even further, like Robert Bork. Others go back as far as Nixon.

Lincoln was pretty polarizing.

[Cpl. Tunny]

Just now, DanteGabriel said:

Republican bad faith and demonization of the opposite side did not begin with Obama. It obviously kicked into high gear and became undeniable then, but you can go back to Newt Gingrich's career for the polarization of Congress. Other Republican resentments go back even further, like Robert Bork. Others go back as far as Nixon. The GOP tree has been producing rotten fruit for a damn long time.

That could be true, and I won't doubt you. I think it's just when its reached its peak. And, it was totally unjustifiable. And, I'm not saying that Trump shouldn't be shamed and criticized at every turn. Without a doubt the worst President ever. What I meant by that is, the haters of Obama have turned into the hard core Trumpians. 

Still, there are good Republicans and good Democrats. And instead of vilifying the side your not affiliated with, I think we should hear them out, try to understand and try and come to compromise. Obviously, where compromise is possible. 

Dont know the posters name, but he/she has a huge dislike of centrists. This is very worrisome to me. This I believe is why you'll never come to an agreement on any issue, if this is how politicians think. Sure, there are a few things where we need to stand ground and compromise. But, there are not too many of those issues. The center is where policy is made. The center is where we need to meet in order to make thing happen to improve this country. Again, I'm a Democrat and this fall, voted a straight Dem ticket. I wanted the Blue Wave, to put the Republicans on check.

[Spockydog]

15 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I was trying not to accuse you of doing that. But I certainly know there are commentators out there who straight up say Israel is an apartheid state.

By definition, that's precisely what it is. Some might even propose that the Israelis are a far more brutal and oppressive regime than the South Africans.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

29 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I was trying not to accuse you of doing that. But I certainly know there are commentators out there who straight up say Israel is an apartheid state. It may yet get there, but it isn't for now.

I know, I just wanted to clarify.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, Cpl. Tunny said:

Dont know the posters name, but he/she has a huge dislike of centrists. This is very worrisome to me. This I believe is why you'll never come to an agreement on any issue, if this is how politicians think. Sure, there are a few things where we need to stand ground and compromise. But, there are not too many of those issues. The center is where policy is made. The center is where we need to meet in order to make thing happen to improve this country. Again, I'm a Democrat and this fall, voted a straight Dem ticket. I wanted the Blue Wave, to put the Republicans on check.

Don't get me wrong, in a vacuum I'd agree. But it's just not realistic both with the parties moving to the extremes and the fact that Republicans are moving faster causing the center to consistently move to the right.

[The Anti-Targ]

50 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

By definition, that's precisely what it is. Some might even propose that the Israelis are a far more brutal and oppressive regime than the South Africans.

By definition, the only definition being the South African apartheid legislation, no it isn't. 

[Spockydog]

16 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

By definition, the only definition being the South African apartheid legislation, no it isn't. 

Okay then.

Quote

Apartheid is the Afrikaans word for ‘apartness’, originally used to describe the system of racial discrimination that existed in South Africa until 1994.

The term apartheid is not only a reference to South Africa’s former regime; it is used in international law to describe a category of regime, defined in the United Nations (UN) International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973), to which more than 100 states are a party. The definition was refined in Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2002).

The Convention defines the Crime of Apartheid as: “inhumane acts...committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.”

The South Africans may have invented apartheid, but the Israelis are doing a hell of a job refining it.

ETA: It just struck me that the above comment is precisely the type of non-antisemitic comment that is being presented by the right, on both sides of the Atlantic, as the worst antisemitism since the Third Reich.

 

[DanteGabriel]

57 minutes ago, Cpl. Tunny said:

That could be true, and I won't doubt you. I think it's just when its reached its peak. And, it was totally unjustifiable. And, I'm not saying that Trump shouldn't be shamed and criticized at every turn. Without a doubt the worst President ever. What I meant by that is, the haters of Obama have turned into the hard core Trumpians. 

Still, there are good Republicans and good Democrats. And instead of vilifying the side your not affiliated with, I think we should hear them out, try to understand and try and come to compromise. Obviously, where compromise is possible. 

Dont know the posters name, but he/she has a huge dislike of centrists. This is very worrisome to me. This I believe is why you'll never come to an agreement on any issue, if this is how politicians think. Sure, there are a few things where we need to stand ground and compromise. But, there are not too many of those issues. The center is where policy is made. The center is where we need to meet in order to make thing happen to improve this country. Again, I'm a Democrat and this fall, voted a straight Dem ticket. I wanted the Blue Wave, to put the Republicans on check.

So tell me how to get the Republicans to negotiate in good faith. Obama reached out for bipartisanship numerous times, appointed Republicans to his Cabinet, offered them a thousand chances to work together on the ACA. Republicans met him with unprecedented disrespect and literally stole a Supreme Court seat.

After 9/11, Democrats rallied behind Bush. When Democrats questioned the wisdom of invading Iraq, a move we all know was fraudulent, Republicans called them terrorist sympathizers. When Obama was negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran, Republicans tried to spike the negotiations and took the radical step of inviting a foreign head of state to address Congress to insult Obama. Republicans have wholeheartedly embraced the criminal Trump regime and provide him cover for everything he does.

The two parties are not equal in their misbehavior and the Republicans have shown that they are unwilling to do anything in good faith or accept anything but total surrender.

So tell me how do you compromise with a party that won't negotiate, will lie to get whatever they want, and will paint you as a terrorist sympathizer or worse for questioning their lies? Find me the place to compromise there.

[Martell Spy]

Trump Organization’s Insurance Broker Subpoenaed by N.Y. Regulators

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-organizations-insurance-broker-subpoenaed-by-ny-regulators-report?ref=home

Quote

New York State regulators have issued a subpoena to the Trump Organization’s insurance broker, Aon. The expansive subpoena, which is part of a probe by the N.Y. State Department of Financial Services, comes just days after Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney, implied in congressional testimony that the Trump Organization inflated the value of its assets to insurance companies. The subpoena is the first step in an investigation of insurance claims involving Trump’s business, according to a person close to the matter. It shows that the Trump Organization is facing scrutiny from not only federal prosecutors and congressional Democrats, but also insurance regulators.

 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Cpl. Tunny said:

Dont know the posters name, but he/she has a huge dislike of centrists. This is very worrisome to me. This I believe is why you'll never come to an agreement on any issue, if this is how politicians think. Sure, there are a few things where we need to stand ground and compromise. But, there are not too many of those issues. The center is where policy is made. The center is where we need to meet in order to make thing happen to improve this country.

Asymmetric...

Quote

The Republican Party is primarily the agent of an ideological movement whose supporters prize doctrinal purity, while the Democratic Party is better understood as a coalition of social groups seeking concrete government action. This asymmetry is reinforced by American public opinion, which favors left-of-center positions on most specific policy issues yet simultaneously shares the general conservative preference for smaller and less active government. Each party therefore faces a distinctive governing challenge in balancing the unique demands of its base with the need to maintain broad popular support. This foundational difference between the parties also explains why the rise of the Tea Party movement among Republicans in recent years has not been accompanied by an equivalent ideological insurgency among Democrats.

Polarization...

Quote

Using data from the GSS, we show that party polarization is a dynamic, asymmetric phenomenon, driven largely by the preferences of the Republican Party and explained, at least in part, by the differential responsiveness of the two parties to domestic policy choices. [pg. 288, 13/15 on the pdf]

Is...

Quote

We find that almost the entire growth in Senate party polarization since the early 1970s can be accounted for by Republican senators who previously served in the House after 1978—a group we call the ‘‘Gingrich Senators.’’ While our analysis indicates that part of this effect has its roots in the senators’ constituencies, the experience of these representatives serving in the House continues to exert a real and substantial effect on their voting behavior in the Senate.

Real.

Quote

The underlying dynamics of the situation—extremist Republicans holding government hostage to their own ideological, anti-government beliefs—have only gotten worse, further bolstering their argument that Republicans are not merely ideologically different from Democrats, but engaged in a unique form of politics that undermines the system itself. Without a fundamental change in the character and course of the Republican Party, we may have a long way to go before we hit rock bottom.

 

[OldGimletEye]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Bloomberg won't run.  Yay!

As much as Bloomberg has at times annoyed me, and I'm glad he is not running, I say good on him on trying to do something about carbon emissions. Hope he does something serious.

[DanteGabriel]

New thread.

 

[OldGimletEye]

3 hours ago, Cpl. Tunny said:

 Dont know the posters name, but he/she has a huge dislike of centrists. 

The problem I have with many self styled centrist is they often have a bad habit of bleating out nonsense, that is often regarded as "sensible", but has little basis in reality. It's like Sgt Schultz saying the national debt being our biggest issue, when in reality it's not. It is no where near the magnitude of a serious problem that global climate change is. That is just one example.

Truth be told, I'm probably a lot more centrist than many that sit to the left of center of the US political spectrum. That said, I think it's important to be pretty clear about who is the bigger problem right now in American politics, and as such I have an utter contempt for "both sidism", I think it's fine to make a well placed critique of the left at times. But both sidism is for the birds and I think very intellectually lazy.

As far as civil conversation and compromise go: That at this juncture, I feel is manly for people that sit left of center and maybe some that are a bit right of center but realize what an utter dumpster fire the Republican Party is. I have about one interest with regard to the modern Republican Party. And that is smashing it.

[Cpl. Tunny]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Don't get me wrong, in a vacuum I'd agree. But it's just not realistic both with the parties moving to the extremes and the fact that Republicans are moving faster causing the center to consistently move to the right.

But, I dont see this. To me, the layman politico, Both sides seem to be moving to the extremes. Love AoC, but she is certainly extremely, but I like her style and thoughts. I feel people justify their own biases, is all.

 

[OldGimletEye]

7 minutes ago, Cpl. Tunny said:

Love AoC, but she is certainly extremely, but I like her style and thoughts. I feel people justify their own biases, is all.

 

I'll give one example: Really who is more extreme here? AOC with her New Green Deal proposal or the Republican Party with it's outright climate change denial? If you want to give a well placed critique of some the New Green Deal proposals, well that is fine and all. But, don't sit there and tell me she is being as extreme and ridiculous as the Republican Party. It's not even close.

And the problem here with some self styled centrist is that they will sit there and sweat bullets about the New Green Deal as being too radical, when in reality they ought to be extremely pissed off with the Republican Party, right about now.