Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
A Horse Named Stranger

US Politics: The American Messias, Greenland and attacks on Jews voting Democrats. Or as we call it Wednesday.

Recommended Posts

We are of like minds my friend. I too was work shopping a title that captured this insane day of headlines. Here's a quick recap:

  • Trump called the Danish PM "nasty."
  • Trump claims to me the messiah (remember when Republicans attacked Obama making up claims that he was a messiah).
  • And the king of Israel
  • Trump Administration removes the time limits on detaining children (yup, the situation at the border is getting worse, not improving).
  •  Trump doubles down on his anti-Semitic attacks 
  • Trump does want to cut the payroll tax, then he doesn't, then he does, then he doesn't then he wants to cut the capital gains tax which overwhelming go to millionaires.
  • Oh, did you hear, were about to run a trillion dollar deficit next year. MOAR TAX CUTS NEEDED! WE CAN GET TO TWO TRILLION, but only if the Fed, and us Jews, stay loyal.

If this all happened during Obama's entire presidency, he'd be impeached. But for Trump, it's just another day at the office.*

 

 

*couch watching Fox. 

Share this post


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

Well, if the "realignment" can be traced back to the rise of the Tea Party - otherwise known as a decade ago - then I'd more refer to that as a gradual shift.  But that's just a disagreement on conceptual definitions.  As the current shift "holding firm" for for decades, I suspect the coalitions of the GOP will continue to (d)evolve in the coming years and decades, just as both parties always have.

But aren't realignments gradual shifts by nature, albeit it with a fixed point political scientists try to agree on? 1968 is often used as the point where the last realignment occurred, but it really started during the passage of the Civil Rights Act. That's a roughly four year period. I don't think it's wrong to say that the Tea Party uprising marked a notable shift in the GOP, and that the election of Trump was the culmination of that shift. Let's face it, the old Republican Party is dead, at least nationally. The party is now the party of Trump, and to me that does seem to meet the requirements of a potential realignment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

But aren't realignments gradual shifts by nature, albeit it with a fixed point political scientists try to agree on? 1968 is often used as the point where the last realignment occurred, but it really started during the passage of the Civil Rights Act. That's a roughly four year period. I don't think it's wrong to say that the Tea Party uprising marked a notable shift in the GOP, and that the election of Trump was the culmination of that shift. Let's face it, the old Republican Party is dead, at least nationally. The party is now the party of Trump, and to me that does seem to meet the requirements of a potential realignment. 

I would not refer to realignments as gradual shifts, no.  If that's the case it loses all meaning.  The mishegoss of the 1824 election and Jackson subsequently creating the Democratic party was not a "gradual shift."  The emergence of the Republican Party as explicitly anti-slavery wasn't either.  Neither was FDR.  The 1896 realignment you'll read about in the party sections of most intro US govt text books also was a direct result of the Panic of 1893. 

I suppose you could say the "realignment" following the Civil Right Movement was indeed vary gradual - it arguably lasted from 1964 until the 1994 Contract With America.  So, I guess maybe you could say shifts in "party systems" are more gradual than they used to be.  But like I said, these are all conceptual definitions that have not even approached any type of consensus within the lit and talking heads throw out there without any fucking idea what they're talking about.  It doesn't really matter, and it's difficult for me to see any reason why it'd be worthwhile to more thoroughly examine this as research - other than post hoc for historians.

Share this post


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

It really doesn’t matter what we do if that fascist piece of shit in Brazil wipes out the rainforest. 

I touched on this in the climate change thread, but if climate change is really the threat that everyone says it is, and Chinese Politburo leaders, EU leaders, and a majority of US leaders know it (even if Trump doesn't and some of the Senate doesn't), why isn't there more talk about a NATO-style pact to defend the rainforest from any attacks under punishment by invasion?  Sure that many Brazilians wouldn't like this, but is this really a threat to our future on this planet or not?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the theories on why Harris has had such a collapse?  Any analysis on where some of the polling that was behind her has gone?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Triskele said:

I touched on this in the climate change thread, but if climate change is really the threat that everyone says it is, and Chinese Politburo leaders, EU leaders, and a majority of US leaders know it (even if Trump doesn't and some of the Senate doesn't), why isn't there more talk about a NATO-style pact to defend the rainforest from any attacks under punishment by invasion?  Sure that many Brazilians wouldn't like this, but is this really a threat to our future on this planet or not?  

 

You can't do this until you're willing to pay them for maintaining the rainforest, which is 1000% what we should have been doing to prevent this. If we're going to say that this one section of natural certain belongs to humanity and can't be exploited after we got wealthy exploiting everything else then we need to share the wealth that came from said exploitation to safeguard it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, karaddin said:

You can't do this until you're willing to pay them for maintaining the rainforest, which is 1000% what we should have been doing to prevent this. If we're going to say that this one section of natural certain belongs to humanity and can't be exploited after we got wealthy exploiting everything else then we need to share the wealth that came from said exploitation to safeguard it.

That sounds like a different version of "It's not fair for the US to tell countries like India and China that they can't get wealthier off of the same process of industrialization that the US became richer from."  Which sounds completely reasonable from a certain vantage point.  

But if climate change is a clear and present danger to life on the planet it sounds quaint.  

Just to be clear, I have no illusions about anyone stopping JB from burning the Amazon or humanity solving he climate crisis any time soon and this is all just words.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Any analysis on where some of the polling that was behind her has gone?  

I mean seems pretty clear just looking at the shifts it just went back to Biden.  As for why, yeah I got nothing.  These are the dog days, we'll see where things are at in a few months.

29 minutes ago, Triskele said:

I touched on this in the climate change thread, but if climate change is really the threat that everyone says it is, and Chinese Politburo leaders, EU leaders, and a majority of US leaders know it (even if Trump doesn't and some of the Senate doesn't), why isn't there more talk about a NATO-style pact to defend the rainforest from any attacks under punishment by invasion?  Sure that many Brazilians wouldn't like this, but is this really a threat to our future on this planet or not?  

I mean, I don't know specifically about protecting the rainforest, but in general wasn't the Paris Agreement the NATO-style pact you're referring to?  It at least definitely was in spirit, if not really in practice - but then of course you could say the exact same thing about NATO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Triskele said:

That sounds like a different version of "It's not fair for the US to tell countries like India and China that they can't get wealthier off of the same process of industrialization that the US became richer from."  Which sounds completely reasonable from a certain vantage point.  

But if climate change is a clear and present danger to life on the planet it sounds quaint.  

Just to be clear, I have no illusions about anyone stopping JB from burning the Amazon or humanity solving he climate crisis any time soon and this is all just words.  

The difference is that that's being used as an excuse not to do something, I'm arguing its something that it is vital to do and we should have already been doing it. It's that the entire world is, to use a gross capitalist framework, profiting from a high value asset that Brazil itself can't generate revenue off but it's also not allowed to liquidate the assert. 

That's an awful way of looking at it, and I wouldn't just apply this to the Amazon but all the forests of the world. Unfortunately we're all a bunch of selfish fucks so that kind of international cooperation isn't going to happen and the fascist fucks are going to kill us all.

Share this post


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

The difference is that that's being used as an excuse not to do something, I'm arguing its something that it is vital to do and we should have already been doing it. It's that the entire world is, to use a gross capitalist framework, profiting from a high value asset that Brazil itself can't generate revenue off but it's also not allowed to liquidate the assert. 

That's an awful way of looking at it, and I wouldn't just apply this to the Amazon but all the forests of the world. Unfortunately we're all a bunch of selfish fucks so that kind of international cooperation isn't going to happen and the fascist fucks are going to kill us all.

Well obviously richer nations should be paying the way for poorer nations. It's just a question of how to make that happen. International law tends to be a bit toothless. I mean, we can't even stop dictators from gassing their own people these days. 

And Bush Jr. taught us the lesson of randomly going to invade a country over ideas. 

The world's workers should be uniting on the internet to punish shitty employers. And the world's young people should be uniting on the Internet to demand changes on climate change. 

Edited by Martell Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, we even managed to combine the Trump-created immigration crisis with the healthcare access crisis by deporting a guy off to Iraq where he died due to lack of insulin. 

 

Health Care Rationing? It’s Already A Reality Here, And This Report Proves It.
Almost 18% of working-age diabetics are skipping meds because of cost.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/diabetes-insulin-cost-rationing_n_5d5c9809e4b0f667ed6a1adf

Nearly 18% of working-age adults with diabetes are rationing their own medication by taking smaller dosages, waiting to fill prescriptions or skipping the treatments altogether, according to a new government study.

The finding, which comes from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is not exactly a revelation. Over the past few years, there’s been no shortage of studies on people forgoing medical care because it’s too expensive, just as there’s been no shortage of stories about people suffering as a result.

Just last month, Jesimya David Scherer-Radcliff, a 21-year-old diabetic from rural Minnesota, died. His family said it was because he had skipped insulin doses he couldn’t afford. 

Among the mourners at that memorial service was activist Nicole Smith-Holt, from nearby Minneapolis, whose 26-year-old son, Alec Raeshawn Smith, had died under similar circumstances in 2017. 

“We lost another Type 1 diabetic due to insulin rationing,” Smith-Holt said. “This is something you know we hoped would never happen again.” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, karaddin said:

The difference is that that's being used as an excuse not to do something, I'm arguing its something that it is vital to do and we should have already been doing it. It's that the entire world is, to use a gross capitalist framework, profiting from a high value asset that Brazil itself can't generate revenue off but it's also not allowed to liquidate the assert. 

That's an awful way of looking at it, and I wouldn't just apply this to the Amazon but all the forests of the world. Unfortunately we're all a bunch of selfish fucks so that kind of international cooperation isn't going to happen and the fascist fucks are going to kill us all.

Got it.  Thank you for clarifying.

I could be wrong about this and hope that someone with better k-nolledge will jump in, but my understanding i that it's not purely an issue of pure total surface area forest coverage.   That the Amazon being lush as it's, located as it is, etc...makes an acre of amazon loss potentially worse than an acre of Mannitoba forest loss.  

Edited by Triskele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For crying out loud, you go off to Ireland and ignore the US for a few days and look at all the shit going on in the US.

*Goes back to the pub with no internet*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

For crying out loud, you go off to Ireland and ignore the US for a few days and look at all the shit going on in the US.

*Goes back to the pub with no internet*

So does Canada have Pubs or Bars?

Just curious.

Edit: Also, is Canada for sale? Asking for my IIC. 

Idiot in Chief

Edited by A True Kaniggit

Share this post


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

×