US Politics: Ruthless ambition

[Larry of the Lawn]

31 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

They’ve been getting clues their whole lives and still can’t form a thoughtful opinion. There’s a reason why the plurality of the eligible vote in this country is not to participate, and it’s in large part because we have a dumb citizenry.  

My mom started voting Dem in her 50s.  My grandma started in her 80s.  I know plenty of college educated people who don't vote.  It's not about being dumb, it's about being skeptical of the value of voting, voting on one or two issues, or the idea that special interests and the MIC actually run things.  

Who can blame them when one or two states decide the election, Wyoming gets the same senatorial representation as NY, and corporations are people?  Telling people they are dumb and misinformed is a shitty and way to get them to do what you want, and condescending as hell.

If they are so dumb it should be easy to get them to do what you want.

If you have as large of a nonvoting population as we do you'd think that some candidate out there could figure out a way to get them to vote.  Maybe actually talk about what you're going to do to make their lives better instead of berating them about their lack of participation in a super-flawed system with lame platitudes.

[Knight Of Winter]

Oh, great - more prophets of doom - just what we need at this time. Seriously, all these doomsday scenarios about USA turning into Orban's Hungary or worse, Hitler's Germany are laughable to anyone who knows anything about the latter two.

Hungary, for example, is not a two-party system like the US - yet Orban's party alone holds two thirds of the parliament. It's a also country with virtually no left-wing opposition - most popular lefty party got miserable 12% of votes in the last elections (seriously, Orban's most popular opposition is another far-right party). It's a country with pretty young and not fully developed democratic institutions - not unexpected given how it's been de facto independent for only last 30 years or so. It's a country where president managed to establish effective mechanism to control the courts (no, not just Supreme Court, but all the judges and courts). It's a country which suffered for almost half a century under what is basically communist dictatorship, causing pendulum to violently swing back in opposite direction (i.e. Orban's far right). Take all of this into account, and more - and ask yourself if any of this is applicable to US today. Fortunately, the answer is no - and the comparisons to Nazi Germany are even less applicable.

So, what will happen if Trump wins another 4 years? Not much. Nobody here will emigrate in panic. Gates to Hell will not open.  Four Riders of Apocalpyse will stay put. True, America will suffer four more years of deranged and ridiculously incompetent president, but it will hardly be the first country to do so. There will still be strong opposition in form of media, citizens' organizations and House of Representatives, occasionally managing to block some of his most dangerous ideas. And after 4 years, his mandate will be over, whether he likes it or not. In few more decades he won't be remembered at all, except as one of biggest blunders in a history of democratic world. Ffs, America has survived two world wars, several horrific economic depressions, Cold war and nuclear crisis - have some faith it will survive one charlatanic demagague.

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Oh, great - more prophets of doom - just what we need at this time. Seriously, all these doomsday scenarios about USA turning into Orban's Hungary or worse, Hitler's Germany are laughable to anyone who knows anything about the latter two.

Hungary, for example, is not a two-party system like the US - yet Orban's party alone holds two thirds of the parliament. It's a also country with virtually no left-wing opposition - most popular lefty party got miserable 12% of votes in the last elections (seriously, Orban's most popular opposition is another far-right party). It's a country with pretty young and not fully developed democratic institutions - not unexpected given how it's been de facto independent for only last 30 years or so. It's a country where president managed to establish effective mechanism to control the courts (no, not just Supreme Court, but all the judges and courts). It's a country which suffered for almost half a century under what is basically communist dictatorship, causing pendulum to violently swing back in opposite direction (i.e. Orban's far right). Take all of this into account, and more - and ask yourself if any of this is applicable to US today. Fortunately, the answer is no - and the comparisons to Nazi Germany are even less applicable.

So, what will happen if Trump wins another 4 years? Not much. Nobody here will emigrate in panic. Gates to Hell will not open.  Four Riders of Apocalpyse will stay put. True, America will suffer four more years of deranged and ridiculously incompetent president, but it will hardly be the first country to do so. There will still be strong opposition in form of media, citizens' organizations and House of Representatives, occasionally managing to block some of his most dangerous ideas. And after 4 years, his mandate will be over, whether he likes it or not. In few more decades he won't be remembered at all, except as one of biggest blunders in a history of democratic world. Ffs, America has survived two world wars, several horrific economic depressions, Cold war and nuclear crisis - have some faith it will survive one charlatanic demagague.

Re: bolded

1.  Trumps appointments to federal courts are arguably more dangerous than what he's done to the supreme court 

2.  Where have you been the last 4 years?

[argonak]

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I've made analogies to Nazi Germany before; not here on the board but in regular society, and most people just laugh or shrug it off. But the similarities are absolutely there with mid-1930s Germany, not just in the tendencies of the Administration itself but also with the way the populace is reacting to steady erosion of liberties. The 40% of people who have cult like devotion to the leader is also reminiscent of that period, especially in the way they appear to have neutered the remaining 60%.

I do think there are some critical differences as well, but things could get much worse here for sure (will just take a different form).

I think its more like like 20% in the cult, 30% against the cult, 50% too ignorant or exhausted to care.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

My mom started voting Dem in her 50s.  My grandma started in her 80s.  I know plenty of college educated people who don't vote.  It's not about being dumb, it's about being skeptical of the value of voting, voting on one or two issues, or the idea that special interests and the MIC actually run things.  

Who can blame them when one or two states decide the election, Wyoming gets the same senatorial representation as NY, and corporations are people?  Telling people they are dumb and misinformed is a shitty and way to get them to do what you want, and condescending as hell.

If they are so dumb it should be easy to get them to do what you want.

If you have as large of a nonvoting population as we do you'd think that some candidate out there could figure out a way to get them to vote.  Maybe actually talk about what you're going to do to make their lives better instead of berating them about their lack of participation in a super-flawed system with lame platitudes.

You’re conflating two different things here. You can both believe, accurately, that the average American isn’t very informed, and craft a strategy without throwing it in their face.

Hell, why do you think all these elected Ivy League lawyers talk like junior high students?

[Ormond]

17 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Re: bolded

1.  Trumps appointments to federal courts are arguably more dangerous than what he's done to the supreme court 

2.  Where have you been the last 4 years?

And where have you been for the last 4 years? 

Honestly, I cannot see how anyone can disagree with the second statement you bolded, because it includes the word "occasionally". If it wasn't possible to occasionally block some of Trump's ideas, Obamacare would have been repealed back in 2017. 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Ormond said:

And where have you been for the last 4 years? 

Honestly, I cannot see how anyone can disagree with the second statement you bolded, because it includes the word "occasionally". If it wasn't possible to occasionally block some of Trump's ideas, Obamacare would have been repealed back in 2017. 

Not that I'm disagreeing with your argument, but I think @larrytheimp's incredulity is at least partially based in what we are currently experiencing, which is that if your goal is only to break things and not actually govern, having control of the HoR is a pretty small consolation prize. Yes, it keeps the worst excesses at bay, but it's still all going downhill.

Now, I don't think that a dystopia is baked-in yet, but a Trump victory even with a Democratic House will be bad for almost everyone.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Of course a second Trump term wont look like Nazi Germany, but in just the past few months we've seen talk of patriotic indoctrination in schools, actual declaration of parts of the US as lawless zones, alleged forced hysterectomies, jackbooted thugs spiriting off protestors and many other examples. All this is before an election; think of how much further he'll go with no political consequences. No, its going to get much worse. In light of all that, a few demonstrations and news articles are essentially toothless (having the House less so, but there is only so much it can do)

[OnionAhaiReborn]

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Romney and Gardner will vote on a nominee, so whichever huckster (I beg your pardon, originalist/textualist) Trump wants to put up will probably go through. Its time to expand the court in 2021.

Fucking Romney... "Earlier this year I voted to remove this President from office, but now I'm going to approve his pick for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court."

Makes perfect sense. 

[karaddin]

His statement is really trying to dress up "I'm going to do this because it's in my interest, no more no less". Not quite as honourable as he's making out

[Larry of the Lawn]

51 minutes ago, Ormond said:

And where have you been for the last 4 years? 

Honestly, I cannot see how anyone can disagree with the second statement you bolded, because it includes the word "occasionally". If it wasn't possible to occasionally block some of Trump's ideas, Obamacare would have been repealed back in 2017. 

"Occasionally" doing a lot of heavy lifting in this situation.

 

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

You’re conflating two different things here. You can both believe, accurately, that the average American isn’t very informed, and craft a strategy without throwing it in their face.

Hell, why do you think all these elected Ivy League lawyers talk like junior high students?

And yet we still have a massive non-voting population.  Maybe actually offer them something substantive and they'll turn up to vote for it instead of baby talking to them out of one side of the mouth and mocking them constantly out the other.

[GrimTuesday]

Gotta say it is pretty funny to see folks acting shocked that Romney is going to vote for a Trump nominee. The dude has always been and always will be a Republican, and Republicans suck. Really kind of puts into question this whole idea of flipping centrist Republicans when their figurehead just decided it is time to jump in line.

Pretty interesting article in the WaPo on how congressional staffers assume their consituants are more conservative than they actually are

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/11/02/congress-thinks-public-is-way-more-conservative-than-it-actually-is-deep-pocketed-lobbyists-are-blame-according-new-research/

[Martell Spy]

The court seats are the payment for every Republican voter and donor that held their nose at various times during the Trump era. Every time an American right-wing Christian was forced to defend adultery and sexual assault. And the bill is due. So, it was a much harder vote than the impeachment.

[aceluby]

Edit: NVM, already been posted

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

And yet we still have a massive non-voting population.  Maybe actually offer them something substantive and they'll turn up to vote for it instead of baby talking to them out of one side of the mouth and mocking them constantly out the other.

Or maybe politicians already have and a plurality of the public just doesn't care for whatever reason. Ignorance mainly. As the cliche goes, you bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. 

[Jace, Extat]

"Offer them something substantive."

You can take that la la land bullshit somewhere else. The American people don't care about anything that isn't in their line of sight. Stupid fucks deserve what they've got coming.

[Fez]

4 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Romney and Gardner will vote on a nominee, so whichever huckster (I beg your pardon, originalist/textualist) Trump wants to put up will probably go through. Its time to expand the court in 2021.

It'd never be in a million years. But I'd love it if Trump's nominee straight up said at the hearings "Roe v. Wade is settled law and I will not vote to overturn it." just to see the shitstorm that would occur after all these Republicans said they'd vote for whoever Trump put up.

(I know Romney only said he wanted a vote and would decide on the merits, but we all know how that'll turn out).

[Starkess]

22 hours ago, Kalibear said:

I think that it is one more  thing that is 100% in the pocket of Republicans now. We had police, we had several states, we had the federal executive branch and now we have the entire judicial branch. I had already thought that his chances were likely to be around 80% or better - but I think this is the absolute nail in the coffin, because I think most dems will simply accept whatever shitty choice is handed down from SCOTUS like they continually have.

Um, yes? I'm sorry, I don't follow this logic. SCOTUS shouldn't be binding because you think the judges have a political preference that is affecting their rulings? I'm not trying to "both sides" here, but that is basically exactly like Republican rhetoric and I damn well expect them to comply with the SCOTUS rulings they don't like.

Illegal activities should be stopped. We need to do better at holding people accountable for breaking laws and ignoring House subpoenas etc. We need to establish laws for things that turned out just to be important norms. We need to fight at every level to get smart, compassionate, and dedicated people elected into government. We even need to amend the damn Constitution if the original text is senseless. But yes, in the meantime, I do plan to accept SCOTUS rulings.

What you're advocating for is anarchy and a civil war. Perhaps you think we're at that point. But I think you will find the vast majority of people do not.

[Jace, Extat]

^ See, everybody. Once you accept your place and give up these fancies of resistance it's actually quite alright. You can even believe you still see a path to recovery, however impractically your dreams define such a concept.

Best to stop rocking the boat though.