Jump to content

US Politics - And Now it Begins


Lollygag

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

It would if you're suggesting he's going to be Trump's political successor, yes.  Plus, Haley didn't lodge herself up Trump's ass for four years in compunction for such apostasy.

Graham may very well see himself as such. And no she did not. She did a good job at demonstrating she could both be at his side and independent. She doesn't have to win purely through her devotion to Trump. She can win both camps.

Quote

....Yeah, except she hasn't staked out this position in any way and she quit two years ago.  Which means you're pulling this out of your ass.

Has she not said on numerous occasions that she's standing up for America at the UN? 

Quote

....Uh, no it doesn't.  Again, you're being incredibly naive if you don't think this will come up if she runs in 2024 - and it will be salient with Trumpists.

No, I'm being realistic. You're approaching this from the view point of an incredibly smart person. That's a mistake. Become a method actor and view it through the lens of some Trumpist moron. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

She doesn't have to win purely through her devotion to Trump. She can win both camps.

She is quite obviously going to be crowded out of the Trumpist vote by the likes of Cotton, Noem, Hawley, or whomever else can easily out-crazy her.  This is very apparent to anyone paying attention to the fault lines within the current GOP.

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Has she not said on numerous occasions that she's standing up for America at the UN?

That's hardly the same thing as presenting herself as saying "fuck off" to the UN.  Every single American UN ambassador would say they are standing up for America at the UN.  In terms of actually attacking the UN, Bolton actually did this and has said so (both before and after his tenure) far more than Haley ever has.

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, I'm being realistic.

You're really not.  Acting like a Trumpist won't be exposed to all of Haley's attacks and comments against Trump via the efforts of her opponents - and will take issue with them - is insanely unrealistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

I mean, even if she is coming at Syria and Assad from a non-interventionist perspective, she still supports Hindu nationalist organizations and as recently as a year ago she was pushing back on the Gujarat pogrom being a bad thing and implying it was the victims who were at fault.

Tulsi sucks, and the sooner the dum-dum left realizes it, the better.

She may very well suck, she is no savior to me. But I still maintain there was a necessary (and unpopular) argument to be made over whether (the U.S) toppling Assad was a good idea, especially given our very unimpressive history with regime changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, Ormond said:

Nunes is in the House, not the Senate.

Kristi Noem has been mentioned as a possibility. There are also some Fox TV personalities like Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, though I have no idea if they would be at all interested in running for any political office. I do think this is unpredictable, though -- especially after Trump dies, there could be someone who has no fame at all now who comes out of the woodwork to take over his mantle. You never really know if someone has "charisma" or not until they get enough media attention to see how average people will react to them. 

Why would people like them want to actually appear to be accountable for anything? I say appear to be accountable, because even though Trump dialled unaccountability to 11, presidents have always dodged accountability for anything they've done. OK, yes some have faced accountability for their overall performance in the form of failing to get a 2nd term. But that isn't real accountability. Nixon? He dodged accountability by resigning, but also he was not going to be impeached for doing or not doing things as the President.

Hmmmm, on second thought, maybe having great power and no true accountability might be attractive to these types after all. Heck, they probably have more true accountability in their current positions: keeping the boss and the advertisers happy. And for all their fawning over Trump while he's in power, I bet Carlson and Ingraham both think they are way smarter than Trump, and they are probably right, only they have a fairly low bar to clear on that count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Er, no.  This is revisionist and a false equivalency.  There's an important difference between voting for DOMA in reelection self-interest and actively lobbying for SSM bans.  Even in 2004, when Massachusetts and Gavin Newsom were issuing marriage licenses, Gabbard was in the Hawaii House fighting against civil unions.

 

1 hour ago, Fury Resurrected said:

She has NOT explained how her views have changed. She said that her personal views on homosexuality are the same (that it’s sinful and an abomination), but serving in the Middle East made her decide that enforcing that on others is bad. I think it was between 2016-2018 that she said that- and by then she was certainly considering a presidential run. If someone who is trying to become president on a Democratic ticket can only say “I think they’re going to hell but I GUESS that can’t be illegal”- that’s a raging homophobe trying to do the minimum to get elected.

Just looked and wow did I have that one wrong.  Was basing this off of talking to an old Hawaiian roommate who has otherwise been very reliable, back during the primaries.  Yeah, that is not an apology or justifiable explanation.  Should have checked myself before posting that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

 

Just looked and wow did I have that one wrong.  Was basing this off of talking to an old Hawaiian roommate who has otherwise been very reliable, back during the primaries.  Yeah, that is not an apology or justifiable explanation.  Should have checked myself before posting that.

She sucks, not even sure how she’s a democrat at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

She is quite obviously going to be crowded out of the Trumpist vote by the likes of Cotton, Noem, Hawley, or whomever else can easily out-crazy her.  This is very apparent to anyone paying attention to the fault lines within the current GOP.

And how do any of them win the non-Trump sycophantic vote? 

Quote

That's hardly the same thing as presenting herself as saying "fuck off" to the UN.  Every single American UN ambassador would say they are standing up for America at the UN.  In terms of actually attacking the UN, Bolton actually did this and has said so (both before and after his tenure) far more than Haley ever has.

Again, from your lens. I know she didn't actually tell the UN to fuck off. But reality doesn't matter. Perception is the key, and she can campaign in a way that suggests she was tough against the UN for Merika. 

Quote

You're really not.  Acting like a Trumpist won't be exposed to all of Haley's attacks and comments against Trump via the efforts of her opponents - and will take issue with them - is insanely unrealistic.

?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And how do any of them win the non-Trump sycophantic vote? 

I dunno.  That's why I said to @SFDanny that if someone can consolidate that bloc - instead of it being split until way too late like in 2016 - during the early states they'd have a very good chance at the nomination.  And that may well be Haley.  This would basically be the mirror image of how Biden won the nomination.

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Perception is the key, and she can campaign in a way that suggests she was tough against the UN for Merika. 

Again, there's no indication she's going to do this in any aggressive manner, and the fact that she hasn't staked out such a posture as of yet suggests she isn't.  Thus, this is just you making things up.

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

?

Dunno what you're confused about here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

I dunno.  That's why I said to @SFDanny that if someone can consolidate that bloc - instead of it being split until way too late like in 2016 - during the early states they'd have a very good chance at the nomination.  And that may well be Haley.  This would basically be the mirror image of how Biden won the nomination.

So you agree with me then. Haley can win by being popular enough with both camps to consolidate the base. What are we even arguing about at this point?

Quote

Again, there's no indication she's going to do this in any aggressive manner, and the fact that she hasn't staked out such a posture as of yet suggests she isn't.  Thus, this is just you making things up.

No, it's thinking about how things may play out. She was smart to lay low after she left her role if her goal was the Presidency. And if she does run in 2024, yes, it's logical to expect her to use her time at the UN as a plus, and the best way to spin that is how I laid out, to have been proudly America First, for Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

It's not "fair," it's factual.

Interestingly enough, originally democracy (rule of the people) was opposed to aristocracy (rule of an elite), though today we would no doubt talk of the oligarchy.

Do we live in democracies or oligarchies? Methinks that's not a very difficult question to answer.

"Democracy" was reserved specifically for the Athenian mode of direct democracy. As opposed to, say, the Romans, who had representative (partly) elected officials, i.e. a repulic. To my knowledge, the latter only came to be considered "democratic" in the course of the 19th century, and so I'd assume Madison referred to the distintion democracy-republic (although I admittedly don't know the specific passage).

Not that I disagree with your overall assessment, necessarily, although I don't think we should so easily dismiss the role of democratic institutions out of hand. The Athenians, too, were dominated by a tiny clique (I think there are altogether like 20 documented speakers in the people assembly for the entirety 5th and 4th century bce), so informal elites have always excersised power in democratic societies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So you agree with me then. Haley can win by being popular enough with both camps to consolidate the base. What are we even arguing about at this point?

No, I don't agree.  I'm saying she could win by consolidating the non-Trumpist vote, which in 2016 was split among Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio for far too long.  Thought I was pretty clear about that.

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

it's logical to expect her to use her time at the UN as a plus, and the best way to spin that is how I laid out, to have been proudly America First, for Trump.

This would not be logical if she's going after the non-Trumpist vote - and for the fourth time there's no indication she's going to present her experience in this way.  Instead, she's likely to present it as she actually conducted herself - as a standard neo-con that actually somehow maintained opposition to both China AND Russia within Trump's administration.  And opposed the racist elements of the Trump MAGA posture in the form of opposing his Muslim ban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, I don't agree.  I'm saying she could win by consolidating the non-Trumpist vote, which in 2016 was split among Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio for far too long.  Thought I was pretty clear about that.

That's a minority in the party. She'll need to overwhelming win them while also having appeal to Trumpists. It's her only path. She won't win with just the former.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's a minority in the party. She'll need to overwhelming win them while also having appeal to Trumpists. It's her only path. She won't win with just the former.

First, it remains to be seen how many dyed-in-the-wool Trumpists there still will be in 2024.  Right now, I'd say it's about 60% of the primary electorate, yeah.  But that very well could dissipate down to the levels Trump got in 2016 over the next four years.  Second, the Trumpist vote may well be split among all the candidates that are more earnestly trying to position themselves as his successor - as I mentioned, Noem, Hawley, Cotton and others (say Rick Scott, or, oh yeah, Trump's Vice President and Secretary of State).  In which case if someone can consolidate the non-Trumpists they could very well win the nomination, ironically, in a similar manner to how Trump won it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, assuming Trump fails to overturn any states with the action he's taking and Biden gets his 306 ECVs, what does this do for the right-wing voter fraud cause? Voter fraud has been the bogey man of the right for several election cycles. Now it has been robustly (though not competently) examined in the courts in a number of states all to no avail. Not only has the litigation failed to show fraud on a scale that would overturn any state, but it has also failed to show fraud on any scale. Does voter fraud now go away as an excuse? Or do the proponents simply say it was too well hidden for Trump to be able to find the necessary evidence, but there is no doubt it happened, so controls need to be made even more robust to prevent the deep state from effecting silent coups like Joe just benefitted from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian Kemp is a socialist. But not a communist yet.

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/trump-lawyer-sidney-powell-accuses-georgia-gov-brian-kemp-and-bernie-sanders-of-complicity-in-bonkers-voting-machine-conspiracy/

-----------------------------------------------

Tucker seemed like the one with the 2nd most clout, but I was wrong. He criticized the whole Dominion thing and said there was no evidence and the base creamed him for it. No real power here at present.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/22/parler-maga-election-echo-chamber-439056

Quote

And people on the site have in recent days started attacking Fox News host Tucker Carlson after he aired a segment pointing out that Sidney Powell, one of the lawyers leading Trump’s court battle to overturn the election, had refused to give him evidence to back up the Dominion claims.

In a sign of the split between Twitter and Parler, Carlson’s takedown went viral on Twitter, while a video of Powell rebutting Carlson on Fox Business Network has spread everywhere on Parler.

Quote

Whether Parler can actually scale and present a reliable challenge to Twitter or Facebook is another question, though. It could simply go the way of other right-wing media projects and remain ostensibly on the fringe.

“The self-segmenting of this group to Parler will intensify their extremism. No doubt about that,” said Carusone of Media Matters. “But it will also weaken the influence of the right wing by siphoning off a segment of users, many of whom will be the most engaged users.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So, assuming Trump fails to overturn any states with the action he's taking and Biden gets his 306 ECVs, what does this do for the right-wing voter fraud cause? Voter fraud has been the bogey man of the right for several election cycles. Now it has been robustly (though not competently) examined in the courts in a number of states all to no avail. Not only has the litigation failed to show fraud on a scale that would overturn any state, but it has also failed to show fraud on any scale. Does voter fraud now go away as an excuse? Or do the proponents simply say it was too well hidden for Trump to be able to find the necessary evidence, but there is no doubt it happened, so controls need to be made even more robust to prevent the deep state from effecting silent coups like Joe just benefitted from?

Nothing?

 

Remember. Soros is always hiding under their beds to jump out and scare them at any moment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So, assuming Trump fails to overturn any states with the action he's taking and Biden gets his 306 ECVs, what does this do for the right-wing voter fraud cause? Voter fraud has been the bogey man of the right for several election cycles. Now it has been robustly (though not competently) examined in the courts in a number of states all to no avail. Not only has the litigation failed to show fraud on a scale that would overturn any state, but it has also failed to show fraud on any scale. Does voter fraud now go away as an excuse? Or do the proponents simply say it was too well hidden for Trump to be able to find the necessary evidence, but there is no doubt it happened, so controls need to be made even more robust to prevent the deep state from effecting silent coups like Joe just benefitted from?

Every time voter fraud isn't found it confirms how entrenched and dangerous the Deep State really is. So much so that democracy must be abolished to return things to the natural order. Save the Constitution is now code for pro-fascism (goes down easier). Don't think about it too hard unless you want a headache.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, DMC said:

First, it remains to be seen how many dyed-in-the-wool Trumpists there still will be in 2024.  Right now, I'd say it's about 60% of the primary electorate, yeah.  But that very well could dissipate down to the levels Trump got in 2016 over the next four years.  Second, the Trumpist vote may well be split among all the candidates that are more earnestly trying to position themselves as his successor - as I mentioned, Noem, Hawley, Cotton and others (say Rick Scott, or, oh yeah, Trump's Vice President and Secretary of State).  In which case if someone can consolidate the non-Trumpists they could very well win the nomination, ironically, in a similar manner to how Trump won it.

Lol no, it's not going to dissipate (side note, one of my favorite MTG cards). Every poll I've seen indicates that Republicans are rallying to Trump's batshit claims. But that bloc, as you've acknowledged, is really split. If you can win a good share of it while claiming the "sane" Republican vote, you should be good. 

Also, I highly doubt Pompeo will be the nominee. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Lol no, it's not going to dissipate (side note, one of my favorite MTG cards). Every poll I've seen indicates that Republicans are rallying to Trump's batshit claims.

LOL, no, it definitely could dissipate with Trump out of office for three years (I guess we should be fair and say the three years and two months until the primaries start).  If you're gonna look at polls, look at his "strongly approve" number, not the amount that think the election was stolen from him.  The latter can include voters that are just pissed off their side lost.  That's human nature, called sour grapes. 

And actually, honestly didn't know this before giving that 60% number, but according to Morning Consult - the most recent approval poll I could find that gave PID breakdowns - exactly 60% of Republicans strongly approve of Trump.  Assuming it's going to stay that high throughout Biden's term is highly dubious.  It could, but it certainly could go down as well.

Regardless, the point is with all the potential candidates that are more credibly set up to seek the Trumpist vote, Haley's best tack is to try to unite the non-Trumpist vote, which is her natural constituency anyway.

As for Pompeo, I'm not exactly bullish on his chances either, but he's definitely setting up for a run literally right now.  And pretty much exactly in the way you're imagining Haley would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So, assuming Trump fails to overturn any states with the action he's taking and Biden gets his 306 ECVs, what does this do for the right-wing voter fraud cause? Voter fraud has been the bogey man of the right for several election cycles. Now it has been robustly (though not competently) examined in the courts in a number of states all to no avail. Not only has the litigation failed to show fraud on a scale that would overturn any state, but it has also failed to show fraud on any scale. Does voter fraud now go away as an excuse? Or do the proponents simply say it was too well hidden for Trump to be able to find the necessary evidence, but there is no doubt it happened, so controls need to be made even more robust to prevent the deep state from effecting silent coups like Joe just benefitted from?

I honestly wish I knew at what point bad faith voter fraud allegations actually become treason or some other kind of high crime to a politician. It’s sad we’d have to make some enforceable rule with consequences about it, but even in children’s games, you get punted out if you don’t want to play by the rules.   Allegations against our nation, and how we elect our leaders without a proof = your party removed from the ballot the next year? Or a rescinding of exemptions for political donations to your candidacy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...