Jump to content
Jace, Basilissa

U.S. Politics: You Didn't Think It Would Be So Easy, Did You?

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, HoodedCrow said:

Trump alone can fix it Just give him dictatorial powers and let him hire the very best people with dodgy pasts.

I wonder, if one were expecting to be raptured and one believed the end times have come, whether climate change would be a priority. Some people also believe that suffering brings people closer to the divine, or that our fate is predestined. And if you take Noah and the Ark literally, than the white male boss guy likes to cleanse the earth of most life forms occasionally. 

This is exactly why it's not a priority, for those who believe. The world is going to hell in a hand-basket irrespective of what puny little humans try to do. It's when Jesus comes again that there will be a big reset button pushed somewhere and the faithful few will find themselves back in the garden of Eden in blissful paradise, free from war, hunger, pollution and disease. So it's not a case of not believing in climate change, for some, climate change being real or not is not important to the fate of humanity.

Of course politically you can't say climate change is irrelevant because Jesus will save the true believers, so the political rhetoric kind of has to be that climate change is a hoax, or if real is not man-made, in order to provide a non-batshit crazy rationale for opposing action. Instead rejecting science is just plain old crazy, and politically plain old crazy can work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone should watch Seb Gorka's video in this post.  Holy shit.

@ThinkerX - I sure hope you're right about what you said about Barr but think you're very likely wrong.  This guy has almost certainly come to an understanding with Trump.  To me the only hope you're right would be that there ends up being some legal thing that Barr won't do even though he's helping Trump in every other respect and Trump like an idtiot goes ballistic.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Everyone should watch Seb Gorka's video in this post.  Holy shit.

@ThinkerX - I sure hope you're right about what you said about Barr but think you're very likely wrong.  This guy has almost certainly come to an understanding with Trump.  To me the only hope you're right would be that there ends up being some legal thing that Barr won't do even though he's helping Trump in every other respect and Trump like an idtiot goes ballistic.   

It may be that Barr is willing to go along to a certain point. What is that point? Well it's back to putting Americans into prison just because Trump wants it done. It's in the realm of the possible that Barr is not willing to go that far. Not to say that you should sleep well all night, we just don't know. I suggest alcohol. 

Edited by Martell Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

 I suggest alcohol. 

Those three beers you mention in the exercise thread ain't gonna cut it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Triskele said:

Everyone should watch Seb Gorka's video in this post.  Holy shit.

@ThinkerX - I sure hope you're right about what you said about Barr but think you're very likely wrong.  This guy has almost certainly come to an understanding with Trump.  To me the only hope you're right would be that there ends up being some legal thing that Barr won't do even though he's helping Trump in every other respect and Trump like an idtiot goes ballistic.   

Monkey, your link identified what is most likely to put Barr and Trump at odds with each other.

 

Keep in mind there is a public (propaganda) component (as described in your link) AND a private, down to business component.

Yes, in public, Trump fans are going to be crowing about the demise of the deep state and. attendant delusions, egged on by Trump himself.

Behind the thunderous diatribes, though, the tale will be a bit different.  Barr is almost certain to have it explained to him by the alphabet agency types why what he intends will not work and is extremely dangerous to boot. Those warnings won't register on somebody like Trump, but Barr, unlike his boss, is rational, capable of connecting action with consequence.  He won't be able to release certain things without facing charges of the same nature leveled against other disgraced (and even convicted) members of Team Trump.  More, he *has* to know that Trump will not support him should charges appear likely - consider Trumps past history here.  

 

Eventually, the behind the scenes goings on will spill into the public sphere.  Keep in mind, the spy boys are not stupid and are expert at manipulation.  

 

There is also the issue pointed out in the link itself: after his doctored summary of the Mueller Report, ANYTHING Barr releases will automatically be greeted with great skepticism by anybody who is not already a 'Trump Cultist.'  That status quo remains unaltered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

MAke Goldfish great Again !!!!!

 

 

eta: fixed it lol.

Edited by DireWolfSpirit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MAGoldfishA!

Thanks Anti-Targ, I think you nailed the rapture thinking.

Here’s a quixotic idea. Why not have a Blue State  Gofundme disaster relief for Oklahoma? Okay it’s not that simple, but it would be about supporting American people not politics, unlike Trump. Make America Human Again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

This is exactly why it's not a priority, for those who believe. The world is going to hell in a hand-basket irrespective of what puny little humans try to do. It's when Jesus comes again that there will be a big reset button pushed somewhere and the faithful few will find themselves back in the garden of Eden in blissful paradise, free from war, hunger, pollution and disease. So it's not a case of not believing in climate change, for some, climate change being real or not is not important to the fate of humanity.

Of course politically you can't say climate change is irrelevant because Jesus will save the true believers, so the political rhetoric kind of has to be that climate change is a hoax, or if real is not man-made, in order to provide a non-batshit crazy rationale for opposing action. Instead rejecting science is just plain old crazy, and politically plain old crazy can work.

There are also some religious people who refuse to do much about the climate because they feel it places mankind within nature rather than above it. They feel that environmentalism seeks to be a new religion by offering different notions of mankind and of the common good that leave little room for the ideas and values advocated by their -old- religion(s).
Not to mention the fact that the "common good" in question is almost impossible to oppose and criticize (the old conversative habit of victimizing oneself).
In other words it's not necessarily that they deny climate change, it's that they feel that environmentalism promotes secularism at the expense of their faith, and thus will oppose it on principle. They are terrified of losing the battle of ideas that is coming and angry that they have to defend what they feel are the age-old traditions and truths about humanity.
It's a subtle difference, but I think it may shed a different light on the entire debate around climate change. For most of us, climate change is essentially a technical problem. But some conservatives believe that dealing with the problem has the potential to harm religious values and transform the way we think of our society and civilization.
They're not wrong. For humanity to actually do something about climate change it must first come to terms with the fact that many wonders of modern society are only possible because we waste resources like a bunch of mindless apes. Actually figuring out how to obtain progress in a responsible manner also means thinking hard about what we see as progress and thus start thinking about the long-term evolution(s) of our species. In turn, such thinking would likely bring about the slow death of many religions, because it would emphasize empiricism at the expense of transcendentalism by forcing everyone to adhere to the "immanent frame" of modernity.
I guess one way to simplify it all is that there are some who feel that focusing on the harm we inflict on our material world means renouncing transcendentalism altogether. They would rather die with their love of humanity intact rather than condone what they see as a victory of materialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump’s Judge Whisperer Promised to Take Our Laws Back to the 1930s

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/leonard-leo-federalist-society-new-deal-trump-judges.html

Quote

 

Last week, the Washington Post published a profile of Federalist Society Executive Vice President Leonard Leo, focusing in part on a speech he gave to the Council for National Policy in which he warmly predicted the Supreme Court would soon return to the pre–New Deal era of “limited, constitutional government.” Leo believes, in other words, that the court’s view of the Constitution was better off 85 years ago than it is today.

“I think we stand at the threshold of an exciting moment in our republic,” Leo told the council at a closed-door meeting in February, audio of which was obtained by the Post. “This is really, I think, at least in recent memory, a newfound embrace of limited constitutional government in our country. I don’t think this has really happened since probably before the New Deal.”


The average American doesn’t know who Leo is, but as the Post piece makes clear, he‘s one of the most influential lawyers in the country. A longtime leader within the Federalist Society, Leo has had Donald Trump’s ear on judicial appointments and has been the main curator of the president’s list of Supreme Court candidates. Two of Leo’s personal picks, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, have been elevated to the highest court in the country since Trump’s election. So when Leonard Leo says he wants to return to a pre–New Deal Constitution, you should listen. And you should be alarmed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t know why any human would think Barr fears any consequences. All of history and especially of recent history states emphatically that being a senior official in a presidency automatically confers lifetime immunity for all crimes committed in office, before office or after office. Barr knows he can do whatever he wants because he has reached a state where the consequences for any illegal action are precisely and always ZERO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Trump’s Judge Whisperer Promised to Take Our Laws Back to the 1930s

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/leonard-leo-federalist-society-new-deal-trump-judges.html

 

Sooo, the Supreme court will strike down the Civil Rights Act to pave the way for a return to segregation and Jim Crow and all the other wonders of unfettered states' rights? I think the US would have levels of internal displacement that make Southern border crossings seem negligible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Trump’s Judge Whisperer Promised to Take Our Laws Back to the 1930s

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/leonard-leo-federalist-society-new-deal-trump-judges.html

While it certainly has an effect on civil rights, the article is a bit off in the target for what the Federalist Society types are going after when they refer to reverting to before the New Deal/1930s.  They're referring to the interpretation of the commerce clause and West Coast Hotel v Parrish ending SCOTUS' ridiculous defense against almost any type of regulation on business during the Lochner era.  This was the bone John Roberts threw to that side in his ACA decision.  John Birchers have been whining about this since my father was in diapers.  That it's now a part of mainstream conservative ideological creed is, ironically, a natural "progression" of asymmetrical polarization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DMC said:

   That it's now a part of mainstream conservative ideological creed is, ironically, a natural "progression" of asymmetrical polarization.

Oh I love it when you talk dirty...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Oh I love it when you talk dirty...

:P  Such pillow talk has always made the ladies swoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Sooo, the Supreme court will strike down the Civil Rights Act to pave the way for a return to segregation and Jim Crow and all the other wonders of unfettered states' rights? I think the US would have levels of internal displacement that make Southern border crossings seem negligible. 

No. States rights should be squashed by the iron jackboot of the federal government if they’re the “wrong” kind of states rights. You have the state right to be conservative or the state right to try to be more conservative, there is no other allowable option under the doctrine of states rights ideology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@DMC, love reading your posts. I wont pretend to understand most of what you say, this seems to be your field of expertise. Couple questions, and could remember you're talking to a.layman? ;)

1. Who would you, with all of your expertise in polling, what makes a good candidate and what issues we need them to push, would be your best pick to take down Trump.

2. And, after thinking those things over, do you see Trump being reelected?

 

I have such a strong dislike of Trump, that when I find someone I know is a proud supporter of Trump, I lose a whole lot of respect for them. Yes, I'm what you would call a centrist (what I mean by that is I support issues on both side of the fence, for logical reasons. Well, seem logical to me), but a registered Dem and my values are left leaning by far. I like Harris & Wareen, both seem to have a good handle, to me, on what issues we really need to focus on. But, I really do think Biden has the best chance to beat Trump. Just dont wanna have to Vote him in office, tbh. If you have time to respond, thank you.

ETA: What about O'Rourke? I have been thinking that he has appeal (think JFK). Also, he is a moderate Dem from all I have heard of him. I guess his biggest Knock would be age, or that he didnt even win his race in Texas, last vote.

 

 

Edited by Cpl. Tunny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Beto O'Rourke is the candidate Democrats deserve. I think I'm actually sad that Mayor Pete has replaced him as the darling of the party. 

Watching Trump dunk on that piece of soggy Texas Toast would have had a certain personal victory element at play.

Edited by Jace, Basilissa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cpl. Tunny said:

@DMC, love reading your posts.

Thanks, that's nice of you!

4 hours ago, Cpl. Tunny said:

1. Who would you, with all of your expertise in polling, what makes a good candidate and what issues we need them to push, would be your best pick to take down Trump.

I favor Harris, but it's not a particularly strong preference.  I strongly do not prefer Biden or Sanders.  I think they have the highest potential to be poison pills if nominated - Biden due to lack of enthusiasm and Bernie because I think it will be difficult for him to get to 270 electoral votes.  I have issues with others - e.g. Beto's tendency to fail upwards or Booker's authenticity problem - which is mostly why I prefer Harris.  I'm pretty snobby about supporting politicians though (shocker I know), and the only presidential candidate I've ever been totally on board from start to finish was Obama.

There are three things the Dem nominee needs to improve upon from 2016 in order to win - recapture Obama-Trump voters, recoup minority mobilization and turnout, and return voters that went third party due to the historically unpopularity of Trump and Hillary.  Arguably, if a candidate improves enough on just one of these facets that should be sufficient to defeat Trump considering the unified opposition among Democrats and his low approval among independents.  However, to be safe, you want a candidate that is strong in at least two categories. 

Harris is uniquely qualified among the field as a Jamaican and Indian American to mobilize minority voters (plus she obviously has experience courting the Hispanic vote having won three statewide Californian elections).  While it's difficult to group all the increased 3rd party voters from 2016 into a monolith, she has also developed a profile that is inoffensive to most - other than criminal justice activists - so she should be able to regain most of the lost Dem presidential vote that was experienced from 2012 to 2016.  As for appealing to Obama-Trump voters, she is probably the most appealing top-tier candidate for them as well after Biden and Buttigieg.  It's that combination/versatility that makes me think she's got the best chance to defeat Trump.

As far as issues, that's not really my strong suit - I'm not a policy guy.  Personally, I think each and every Dem candidate should be emphasizing the unfairness of the economic system in every single stump speech.  That polls well for all the voters that matter:

Quote

A 63% majority of those who identify as Republicans say the U.S. economic system is fair to most Americans; fewer than half as many (29%) say the system unfairly favors powerful interests. GOP leaners are divided: 49% say the system is generally fair, while nearly as many (46%) say it unfairly favors powerful interests.

Large majorities of both Democrats (85%) and Democratic leaners (81%) say the U.S. economic system unfairly favors powerful interests. Most independents who do not lean toward a party share this view (70%).

 

4 hours ago, Cpl. Tunny said:

2. And, after thinking those things over, do you see Trump being reelected?

Usually, it would be very difficult (near impossible) to defeat an incumbent with an economy that is as healthy as it is right now.  However, the fact Trump only has (*checks 538*) 41.3% approval and 54.1% disapproval in spite of that does not speak well for his chances.  Nobody is getting reelected with those numbers.  They are likely to improve as the election approaches just because more right-leaning voters tend to come home, but if his disapproval remains above 50 percent and he can't get approval above 45, he is very very unlikely to be reelected.  More unlikely than he was unlikely to get elected in 2016.  We'll see - it's still very early.  Ask me about a year from now and I'll be much more sure of the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×