Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Lykos

US Politics - Term of surrender? Or is it wise to follow the Dumpty?

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Another point to emphasize about their not being a lack of enthusiasm or a pervasive feeling of resignation - look at the fundraising headlines that come out just today.  The Dem Senate's PAC raised records amount of money in 2019, trouncing their GOP counterpart's haul.  Likewise on the House side, where Kevin McCarthy went on record saying "they are kicking our ass," with the NRCC chair literally raising the alarm.

Like you said, I think a lot of it has to do with Trump fatigue - people are just tired.  And the other aspect is that there is a rational basis - if you're going to spend your time and effort to try to counteract this presidency - to focus your energy on defeating him in November rather than engaging protests that don't promise to yield any real substantive results.  I certainly would encourage any protest movement of the trial, but right now I doubt I myself would attend because I frankly don't have the time (now if this was last year, different story, so that's pretty much just based on me).

But in that the wrongdoing in question was specifically Trump interference with that election...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

But in that the wrongdoing in question was specifically Trump interference with that election...

Fair point, but one counter I'd raise (and I've hesitated saying this even on here because I don't want to minimize what Trump did).  Let's say Trump's gambit with Ukraine worked, and he didn't get caught (he was always going to get caught, but for the sake of argument).  How much would that have impacted the election?  Biden already is catching flak due to Hunter's role, and even a Bernie staffer wrote an op-ed with the headline that Biden had a "big corruption problem" (Bernie quickly apologized, to his credit). 

Would the Ukranian government announcing they were investigating Hunter's ties (and to be clear, all Trump wanted was the announcement, he didn't care if they actually conducted any investigation) lead to significantly more damage to Biden as a candidate?  I sincerely doubt it.  I'm much more concerned about the GOP's interference with the election at the state and local levels - ya know, where the votes are actually counted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DMC said:

Fair point, but one counter I'd raise (and I've hesitated saying this even on here because I don't want to minimize what Trump did).  Let's say Trump's gambit with Ukraine worked, and he didn't get caught (he was always going to get caught, but for the sake of argument).  How much would that have impacted the election?  Biden already is catching flak due to Hunter's role, and even a Bernie staffer wrote an op-ed with the headline that Biden had a "big corruption problem" (Bernie quickly apologized, to his credit). 

Would the Ukranian government announcing they were investigating Hunter's ties (and to be clear, all Trump wanted was the announcement, he didn't care if they actually conducted any investigation) lead to significantly more damage to Biden as a candidate?  I sincerely doubt it.  I'm much more concerned about the GOP's interference with the election at the state and local levels - ya know, where the votes are actually counted.

Even taking the first as a given, the point is if that’s rubber stamped when caught, what that does betoken for more aggressive/blatant interference in other spheres? If the conclusion is not ‘he didn’t do it’, but rather ‘we don’t care if he did it or not’, why won’t that ennui continue playing out?  Can you imagine trying to raise support for some kind of action against GOP hijinxs at state and local levels in the aftermath of a ‘we don’t care’ Impeachment where the basic facts are largely uncontested?

Edited by James Arryn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

If the conclusion is not ‘he didn’t do it’, but rather ‘we don’t care if he did it or not’, why won’t that ennui continue playing out?

Sure, this is the argument to impeach him in the first place - because it at least bring to bear some political cost.  But the GOP Senate's determination not to remove him, or even allow a fair process, is something pretty much wholly out of anyone that opposes Trump's control.  Meanwhile, there can be vigilance on trying to ensure a fair process and being a watchdog against the GOP's traditional dirty tricks.  Even if this encourages future bad behavior - which again I think the only way we can try to counteract that is by voting to impeach in the Dem controlled House - the point is Trump's efforts to use the powers of the presidency to interfere in the election are likely to be incompetent and ineffective.  He should leave it to the professionals, and there's not many professionals left even in the WHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DMC said:

Sure, this is the argument to impeach him in the first place - because it at least bring to bear some political cost.  But the GOP Senate's determination not to remove him, or even allow a fair process, is something pretty much wholly out of anyone that opposes Trump's control.  Meanwhile, there can be vigilance on trying to ensure a fair process and being a watchdog against the GOP's traditional dirty tricks.  Even if this encourages future bad behavior - which again I think the only way we can try to counteract that is by voting to impeach in the Dem controlled House - the point is Trump's efforts to use the powers of the presidency to interfere in the election are likely to be incompetent and ineffective.  He should leave it to the professionals, and there's not many professionals left even in the WHO.

Yeah, I’ve made many of these same arguments. I think what I’m going through...well, basically at my most despairing I can retreat to the shallow comfort of smug Canadian anti-Americanism, and at my most anti-American the worst I wish on America is self-awareness. Ie, I think the degree of buying into it’s own bullshit is hugely destructive in terms of what it allows under those illusions.  But though I think Trumpists are actually the repository die-hard coalition of MericaFuckYeah, their complete disregard for everything but what the leader says ironically might be the catalyst for a more realistic self assessment, it only by being shown what actually works.

What I’m confronting here now is ‘what would America actually be like if they stopped even caring about the myth?’ and...well, dunno. It might even get uglier. Or it might just be more of the same, or it might get better. But it’s unsettling.

Share this post


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

Fair point, but one counter I'd raise (and I've hesitated saying this even on here because I don't want to minimize what Trump did).  Let's say Trump's gambit with Ukraine worked, and he didn't get caught (he was always going to get caught, but for the sake of argument).  How much would that have impacted the election?  Biden already is catching flak due to Hunter's role, and even a Bernie staffer wrote an op-ed with the headline that Biden had a "big corruption problem" (Bernie quickly apologized, to his credit). 

Would the Ukranian government announcing they were investigating Hunter's ties (and to be clear, all Trump wanted was the announcement, he didn't care if they actually conducted any investigation) lead to significantly more damage to Biden as a candidate?  I sincerely doubt it.  I'm much more concerned about the GOP's interference with the election at the state and local levels - ya know, where the votes are actually counted.

If you mean Teachout, she isn't a Sanders' staffer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

If you mean Teachout, she isn't a Sanders' staffer.

Whatever, she's a campaign surrogate and his campaign circulated the op-ed.  I wasn't even trying to attack Bernie, just using it as an example, man you guys are so sensitive about him.

7 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

What I’m confronting here now is ‘what would America actually be like if they stopped even caring about the myth?’ and...well, dunno. It might even get uglier. Or it might just be more of the same, or it might get better. But it’s unsettling.

I agree that's very hard to conceptualize.

Share this post


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

Well, looks like there will be witnesses.

No it doesnt. It looks like McConnell is telling people to get the fuck in line. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I've often thought about one of the main differences between the conservative and liberal mindset is that belief in the myth. IMO the conservatives cling to that and believe America is truly exceptional. It's the individual frontier attitude that we haven't outgrown. Liberals love their country just as much as the most jingoistic tea-partier, they are just more aware of our faults and are more open to looking for solutions from outside the American box. It doesn't cover all the differences, but I think it covers a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No it doesnt. It looks like McConnell is telling people to get the fuck in line. 

Yeah way too premature as of yet.  And at least one of the two "new" Senators the WSJ article I mentioned earlier identifies - Toomey - is the one pushing for the one-for-one deal, i.e. Bolton for Hunter Biden, etc.  I'm not sure the Dems are gonna agree to that construct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the last thread I saw someone something along the lines of they hope that the Bernie folks don't ruin the primary again, to which I say if you are so worried that Bernie's following is going to ruin everything, vote Bernie, it's as simple as that. That said I think that is is clear that most Bernie people are going to vote for whoever the Dem's nominate, but no one is going to bring out low propensity voters like Bernie will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Kalbear said:

sonable counterarguments to this. In particular, the 2018 election which showed moderate dems winning across the board and leftist dems losing every single time in the same nonsafe seats makes me think all Sanders will do is at best win the popular vote but lose in an electoral landslide. 

Earlier this very day something made me wonder to myself about the particulars of why the Democratic Party would not want Sanders as badly as it seems.  This piece made a strong case that it could be more about genuine fear that he'll lead them to defeat than that it's "Nobody likes him."

The 2018 midterm piece also stood out to me, and I am not sure how one answers it.  It's a remarkable statistic.

I think Chait is careful though in the opening paragraphs.  The real point is not that anyone's sure that Sanders cannot win.  But he would be an unusually unorthodox nominee, so we just don't have history to evaluate from, ergo the "downside risk."  

Another important point was that just because more young people don't see socialism as a dirty word does not mean that it is now all of the sudden broadly popular.  

ETA:  Someone at Vice has a nice response to Chait's piece that's also turning it around on Biden.  

Each of these pieces plus the Jacobin one I linked earlier on Bernie v. Warren....I swear they all can feel quite compelling as you read them and then you see counterarguments and you're not so sure.  I think this is why it's easy right now to agonize over who the best choice would be.  Both in the danger of Trump but then also in all the ways you can slice it when you try to decide who to run.

Edited by Triskele

Share this post


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

I think Chait is careful though in the opening paragraphs.  The real point is not that anyone's sure that Sanders cannot win.  But he would be an unusually unorthodox nominee, so we just don't have history to evaluate from, ergo the "downside risk." 

I have tired of reiterating why I think Warren is more electable than both Biden and Sanders, and I have an avid dislike for Chait, so I didn't really want to respond to that article.  But I will say one thing about his argument - no, Sanders does not embody the most downside risk of potential presidential nominees since Goldwater.  George McGovern presented just as much risk.  Really, so did Trump, but he won - which emphasizes why nobody ultimately really knows anything when it comes to electability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, James Arryn said:

What I’m confronting here now is ‘what would America actually be like if they stopped even caring about the myth?’

There's a case to be made that this is exactly what we are witnessing. Or the beginning of it at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

There's a case to be made that this is exactly what we are witnessing. Or the beginning of it at least.

Considering who's in the Oval, methinks we're still in the backlash phase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Zorral said:

Bloomberg has been putting his money into campaigns that are anti-NRA and pro gun control ever since Sandy Hook and the consequent NRA campaign to get Sandy Hook labeled a hoax.  That's for starters.  He would not be cozy with Russia or Saudi.  I don't know about China though.  But of course he's all about corporate rulership of everything, and he's certainly in favor of development of real estate of all kinds.  His own businesses, which he runs definitely top down, have a bad rep for how female employees are treated.  But he certainly has been in board rooms, charity event tables, etc. with bedbug all their lives so he knows the guy very well, and despises him.  He has lots of money all his own to spend to take the foney billionaire out.

But -- Bloomie isn't that well connected in D.C., but then neither was bedbug.

In the meantime, there is this:

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/impeachment-trial-live-01-28?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage#what-c-span-viewers-didnt-see-once-the-defense-ended-its-arguments

I think the best description of Bloomberg's (nonexistent) chances of winning the presidency was given by Josh Marshall of TPM in 2016: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/bubble-boy-2

Quote

After all, he wants your gun, your soda and your union card. Should go great.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

In the last thread I saw someone something along the lines of they hope that the Bernie folks don't ruin the primary again, to which I say if you are so worried that Bernie's following is going to ruin everything, vote Bernie, it's as simple as that. That said I think that is is clear that most Bernie people are going to vote for whoever the Dem's nominate, but no one is going to bring out low propensity voters like Bernie will.

His record of bringing them out in Democratic primaries is good, but ultimately has always proven not to be good enough. Which, I guess, is just reiterating Kalbear's point from earlier: the notion that Sanders is the best candidate to win is somewhat undermined by the fact that he doesn't win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, DMC said:

Considering who's in the Oval, methinks we're still in the backlash phase.

What do you mean by "backlash" exactly ?

Coincidentally (or not) I'm looking at this shit CFP this morning (not mine, obviously):

Quote

 

The United States of America was originally founded on a unifying principle: the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution aimed at promoting collective values transcending the states’ individual interests and at bringing together people with various origins and heritage. Despite the persistence of these founding myths, communitarianism and divides in the linguistic, ethnic, religious, political, and social fields have endured since the colonial period, while some might argue that they may have even deepened (Arthur Schlesinger’s The Disuniting of America, George Hawley’s Making Sense of the Alt-Right, Bryan Stevenson’s Just Mercy). The American people appears therefore as primarily divided and disunited, despite efforts to maintain some degree of national cohesion. Federalism is repeatedly questioned; the American foreign policy alternates between isolationism and interventionism; racial tensions continue unabated; the counter-culture that prevailed in the 1960s contrasts with the conservatism of the 1980s; ideological and political discrepancies between corporatism and democracy endanger the perpetuation of the social compact (John R. Saul, The Unconscious Civilization). And yet, the USA strives to display the image of a strong and resolute nation through their current president who has kept on aggravating the country’s dis-union or division, as proves the unprecedented context of the recent shutdown.

            All these elements raise the more general question of the country’s unity: how a nation-state in which some states are cut off geographically (i.e. Alaska) or culturally (former Mexican territories, Native American lands), or where the inhabitants do not even live in the same time zone can contrive a national identity? Nationalisms and extremes progress as the economic context aggravates the social chasm. Confronted with foreign economic, industrial, or military competition, while “new models” are emerging (i.e. China), dissensions keep increasing and uncover the fragility of the nation itself. As a defining feature for the country, this “united/dis-united” dialectic, which is not a new phenomenon, might eventually jeopardize the nation’s power and/or its identity.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

What do you mean by "backlash" exactly ?

The reactionary response to realigning change.  A compulsion to return to the myth of the dominant paradigm as ideal - even though that never existed - in the face of generational shifts that will demand foundational alterations to what "mainstream" or the status quo interval represents.  Basically, the last stand against the ceding of white dominant society to genuine diversity and what that means for the state, its institutions, and policy across the board.

I don't know what CFP means in this context, but the quote you provided seems pretty boilerplate.

Share this post


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

×