US Politics: One No Trump

[Lord of Rhinos]

Now were just referring to other poorly defined words.

[Kalbear]

4 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Yeah, but it's not a complete takeover until the likes of The Turtle and Liz Cheney are purged.

They dont' need to be purged. They either go along with things or are at least not so obstructive that they don't matter. It's somewhat important to have things like the US version of Navalny so that people have some vague thought that polite resistance can exist. But as long as it doesn't really matter and doesn't get anything done, who cares? Let them impeach the POTUS over and over again. It ain't gonna slow down those EOs and those court decisions. 

[Kalbear]

25 minutes ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

Now were just referring to other poorly defined words.

Trumpism: a combination of conservative populism (supporting the 'real' Americans, white working class people), corruption, evangelical social concerns, obvious racism, and isolationism. This is in contrast to the GOP's policies in the last 20 years which are still fine with corruption but are lighter on evangelical social concerns, lighter on obvious racism, and significantly lighter on isolationism. A further aspect of Trumpism is the goal of ignoring expertise and favoring loyalty above all else, but this is less a policy view and more of a behavioral view.

Trumpism isn't that different than the GOP. The main major differences is the favoring isolation from the global leadership role and leaning heavily into evangelical social concerns. Everything else is just standard GOP rhetoric dialed up to 11 and being far more openly nepotistic.

[Lord of Rhinos]

Trump's administration was notable for how little it cared about Evangelical concerns.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

Unless you see everyday Americans individually choosing to move against the megawealthy, I'm not sure about that. I don't see the masses leveling consequences against Amazon, Microsoft, Tesla, Facebook, Twitter, the constant corporate consolidations that we can barely keep track of anymore, etc. We still give them our money directly or indirectly. We reward companies with investments when they turn out higher profits doing exactly what we claim to be against by shorting their workers, trashing the environment, etc.

If anyone wants to see where we got, the blame lies in the mirror for everyone and what ends it is for a lot of individuals to decide to quit subsidizing this.

 

Bold: Having grown up on the inside of Republicanism and Trumpism, they're deeply interconnected. The mega rich created their own army of enablers. They can now give themselves massive tax cuts and since they've told the everyday Republican to not listen to any other news, they don't even know about the rich folks' tax cuts. They can do whatever they want and the masses will believe only what they want them to believe.

Saw a movie very recently called Bacurau relevant to this point. The way the movie plays out is important to its point, so I won't say much except in spoilers in spoilers. It's on the kanopy app which you can access through your library card.

  Reveal hidden contents

The movie is about militants, in this case white nationalists, wiping out a small town of mixed race folks for funzies. An important point made in the movie that I'd like to underscore is that terrorists, white nationalists, etc are all too often really just deeply messed up people looking for someone to give them an excuse to act out, a way to tell themselves that they're somehow the good guy.

  Reveal hidden contents

In the end we find out that ambitious local politicians used the inherent violence of these people and their preferred narrative to rationalize it as a way to perpetuate their own power.

 

 

The point is, we are seeing one of the biggest disparities between a few and the rest of the population since this kind of thing has been recorded--and if you're saying, "nah, won't happen," then you're arguing against historical precedent. In fact, it is happening, it's just currently being directed at issues that aren't the cause of anyone's problems. It wouldn't be some noble war of the poor overthrowing the rich--it will be things like the capitol. 

[DanteGabriel]

5 minutes ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

Trump's administration was notable for how little it cared about Evangelical concerns.

Tell that to the Evangelicals. They still seem to love their grifting Manhattan libertine. And they got the judges they wanted.

Anyway, Trump gave white Evangelicals what they really like: white nationalism dressed up as populism.

 

 

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

Trump's administration was notable for how little it cared about Evangelical concerns.

I don't get this at all. Trump's administration was the best administration for the evangelical voters, like, ever. Certainly better than any Republican runs in the last 50 years. Every single judge was an evangelical win - including 3 new SCOTUS. Every.Single.One. 

In addition to that there were victories for companies to allow religious freedom over federal requirements, strengthening of anti-abortion laws and litigation, boosting up the role of Israel as the end-times signifier...seriously, the one group that can say more than any other that they got what they wanted from Trump is evangelicals. The only knock on him from that group is that Trump himself isn't particularly moral or good. 

[Week]

15 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

The only knock on him from that group is that Trump himself isn't particularly moral or good. 

Neither are white evangelicals*.

*That supported Trump

[Jaxom 1974]

5 hours ago, Maithanet said:

McConnell won reelection easily in November, so he's set for 6 more years. 

Well...easily...? Some seem to think he cheated. Maybe a little.  

[Lord of Rhinos]

Nominating judges that evangelicals find acceptable has been the case for sometime now.  Just look at what happened to Dubya when he nominated Myers without clearing it with the evangelicals first. Evangelicals may be happy Trump got to appoint three SC justices but having a different GOP president would not have changed that.

 

Dubya did or tried to address evangelical concerns with Terri Schavo, partial birth abortion,  banning gay marriage, stem cells, the office of faith based initiatives, and the national day of prayer.  Trump is way behind Bush when it comes to  catering to evangelicals.

[Lollygag]

2 hours ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

I'll take Trumpism seriously once I actually see a good definition of it.

The common denominator that I keep seeing is that it's a grift and then the rationalizations for why some are entitled to it and certain others are not.

 

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

The common denominator that I keep seeing is that it's a grift and then the rationalizations for why some are entitled to it and certain others are not.

 

I think the real major difference - that both Sanders and Trump tapped into - is globalism vs isolationism. The GOP was big on free trade deals and global hegemony and projecting power; Trump and his viewpoints were heavily insular. I think that got a lot of enthusiasm that normally didn't work. Same with being tough on immigration, though that's been a shift, but no one had been about building a physical manifestation of isolationism and fear until him (largely because it's ineffective and expensive, but the symbol was great).

[Kalbear]

28 minutes ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

Nominating judges that evangelicals find acceptable has been the case for sometime now.  Just look at what happened to Dubya when he nominated Myers without clearing it with the evangelicals first. Evangelicals may be happy Trump got to appoint three SC justices but having a different GOP president would not have changed that.

 

Dubya did or tried to address evangelical concerns with Terri Schavo, partial birth abortion,  banning gay marriage, stem cells, the office of faith based initiatives, and the national day of prayer.  Trump is way behind Bush when it comes to  catering to evangelicals.

Okay. The evangelicals largely disagree with you. Perhaps you should take it up with them as to why. 

[Lollygag]

5 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

I think the real major difference - that both Sanders and Trump tapped into - is globalism vs isolationism. The GOP was big on free trade deals and global hegemony and projecting power; Trump and his viewpoints were heavily insular. I think that got a lot of enthusiasm that normally didn't work. Same with being tough on immigration, though that's been a shift, but no one had been about building a physical manifestation of isolationism and fear until him (largely because it's ineffective and expensive, but the symbol was great).

I agree. Just feel the need to make the distinction between the thing that is Trump and the things people project onto him.

I don't think Trump has any sort of policy regarding globalization and isolationism. He's just purely transactional which globalization doesn't play into and lives like an isolationist, control-freak dictator who only eats toddler food and tried to turn the country into his company in turn because that's all he knows or cares about.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Lollygag said:

I agree. Just feel the need to make the distinction between the thing that is Trump and the things people project onto him.

I don't think Trump has any sort of policy regarding globalization and isolationism. He's just purely transactional which globalization doesn't play into and lives like an isolationist, control-freak dictator who only eats toddler food and tried to turn the country into his company in turn because that's all he knows or cares about.

I disagree. Trump has been strongly isolationist in his viewpoint for 30 years. That's one of his consistent views. Now, he's not particularly articulate about what that means and why, but he absolutely wants to be more independent from other countries, less including, less caring about their policies, and do whatever the hell he wants to do without any other real checking from others. 

Another thing that we probably have to note is that Trumpism is heavily authoritarian, and while some consider that a bug a whole lot of people consider getting a strongman vigilante as POTUS a feature. 

[Martell Spy]

6 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

It is amazing how Senators and Reps who hold actual power now are in thrall to Trump, who has no legislative power, and the nearest elections are 2 years away. As for McConnell, so what if he is less popular than QAnon Barbie? He is safe for at least 4 years (or isit 6?). Hard to purge him at this point.

Hard through normal channels. Kidnappings and murderous mobs are now in the toolkit of Trumpies. 

[Martell Spy]

1 hour ago, Karlbear said:

They dont' need to be purged. They either go along with things or are at least not so obstructive that they don't matter. It's somewhat important to have things like the US version of Navalny so that people have some vague thought that polite resistance can exist. But as long as it doesn't really matter and doesn't get anything done, who cares? Let them impeach the POTUS over and over again. It ain't gonna slow down those EOs and those court decisions. 

Trumpism is whatever Trump wants he gets. That's part of why it's all so deeply stupid. There were reports that Trump badly wanted Cheney purged. McCarthy, who is usually a reliable tool for Trump blocked it. He's not really a Trumpist or he wouldn't done that. Now, you may say this is a stupid thing for Trump to want, but you aren't him. I doubt he's given up on it. 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Trumpism is whatever Trump wants he gets. That's part of why it's all so deeply stupid. There were reports that Trump badly wanted Cheney purged. McCarthy, who is usually a reliable tool for Trump blocked it. He's not really a Trumpist or he wouldn't done that. Now, you may say this is a stupid thing for Trump to want, but you aren't him. I doubt he's given up on it. 

I'm assuming Trumpism without necessarily having Trump. Trump himself will likely have some problems running, but someone blessed by Trump running in his stead will do a lot of the same things. 

[Lollygag]

1 minute ago, Karlbear said:

I disagree. Trump has been strongly isolationist in his viewpoint for 30 years. That's one of his consistent views. Now, he's not particularly articulate about what that means and why, but he absolutely wants to be more independent from other countries, less including, less caring about their policies, and do whatever the hell he wants to do without any other real checking from others. 

Another thing that we probably have to note is that Trumpism is heavily authoritarian, and while some consider that a bug a whole lot of people consider getting a strongman vigilante as POTUS a feature. 

I guess I'm trying to say that Trump isn't an isolationist because of any sort of principle or desired outcome and it shouldn't be treated that way on his or his cohorts' part. He's just id run amok and isolationist (control-freak, afraid of differences, the new, raised by a psychopath father, etc) is how his id rolls. It's has one foot still in the evolutionary swamp and likes it that way-ism.
 

He's tried to start a war with Iran twice now which goes against isolationist ideas because it was all about his lizard-brain survivalism. He gives up our sovereignty to the likes of Russia because of lizard-brain survivalism, something a true isolationist wouldn't do.

[Week]

2 hours ago, Karlbear said:

Everything else is just standard GOP rhetoric dialed up to 11 and being far more openly nepotistic.

One addendum to add, which links standard GOP to Trumpism is "own the libs" as an ethos. As raison d'etre even.

 

The insanity of state GOP is really concerning - 

"Actual quote from a PA GOP official, explaining why Sen. Toomey should be censured: “We did not send him there to vote his conscience. We did not send him there to ‘do the right thing’ or whatever”"

https://twitter.com/JanNWolfe/status/1361510807620706304