Politics: The Final Frontier

[Guard Dog]

27 minutes ago, TrueNeutral said:

But people from other countries like Mexico shouldn't "love it or leave it", that's a one way ticket to concentration camps.

Not an unreasonable concern I am sorry to say. I always assumed it would be the Democrats that would be sending armed men to round people up. Of the two big parties they have always been the one with the authoritarian tendencies. Now I just expect the worst from both of them. With jubilant throngs cheering whatever terrible actions they take. The Republican party has turned it's back on Lincoln, Eisenhower, Goldwater, and Reagan. 

[Gfted1]

Why does everyone conveniently forget the "illegal" part of illegal immigration?

[Skarpen]

18 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Why does everyone conveniently forget the "illegal" part of illegal immigration?

The example comes from above. Just days ago a congresswoman "Cortez" claimed it's not illegal to cross US border when questioning a person appointed to guard the borders.

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Not an unreasonable concern I am sorry to say. I always assumed it would be the Democrats that would be sending armed men to round people up. Of the two big parties they have always been the one with the authoritarian tendencies. Now I just expect the worst from both of them. With jubilant throngs cheering whatever terrible actions they take. The Republican party has turned it's back on Lincoln, Eisenhower, Goldwater, and Reagan. 

Over Republicans ?  I would think they'd be ones to do it, if one had to.  Always seem to get off on dropping the hammer on people, add that to the uniform worship (then again, 9/11 probably made this worse) and seems pretty likely. 

[Guard Dog]

40 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Why does everyone conveniently forget the "illegal" part of illegal immigration?

Can't speak for TN but I was referring to us; American citizens. The target of the crowd's ire in NC last night, the ones they wanted "sent back" were four American citizens. Send them back where exactly? Their home districts? Well, their constituents can do that any even numbered year by voting them out of office. 

The greatest threat to Americans has always been other Americans. When they time comes and the powers that be of that day decide there are a bunch of people they would be better off without the targets of those "purges" in whatever form they end up taking, will be Americans. That is why political leaders denigrating whole swaths of the citizenry as "deplorable", "racist', "ignorant", "unpatriotic", etc is dangerous. It may be unpleasant or cynical politics or it may be the fabrication of a pretext to do something terrible. How are we to know? Now couple that with the knowledge that one of the two parties wants the citizens completely disarmed, the other wants them partially disarmed, and both are all for stepped up surveillance on us. They are also lock step on increasing power of the state to operate in secrecy. Anyone who isn't more than a little concerned by all the players in the government, not just one side or the other, is either an optimist or an utter fool. 

There is a quote I recall reading, "The governance of men is the domain of devils. Power is sought for iniquitous acts and exercised with absence of morality. No saints may be found in Hell" 

[Guard Dog]

6 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Over Republicans ?  I would think they'd be ones to do it, if one had to.  Always seem to get off on dropping the hammer on people, add that to the uniform worship (then again, 9/11 probably made this worse) and seems pretty likely. 

Now? No. They are six of one, half dozen of the other. Twenty years ago the Republican Party was a very different thing. The Democrats were mostly the same. They have gotten worse but only by degree. Remember, the last time Americans were rounded up and put it in camps (1942) it was done by Democrats to the cheering of Democrats. 

[HoonDing]

SEND HER BACK SEND HER BACK

 

[Guard Dog]

I've always enjoyed the OP EDs by Thomas Friedman. He had a pretty good one in the NYT today. It's behind the pay wall so I'll post a few excerpts here:

 

Quote

Trump’s Going to Get Re-elected, Isn’t He?

 

I’m struck at how many people have come up to me recently and said, “Trump’s going to get re-elected, isn’t he?” And in each case, when I drilled down to ask why, I bumped into the Democratic presidential debates in June. I think a lot of Americans were shocked by some of the things they heard there. I was.

I was shocked that so many candidates in the party whose nominee I was planning to support want to get rid of the private health insurance covering some 250 million Americans and have “Medicare for all” instead. I think we should strengthen Obamacare and eventually add a public option.

I was shocked that so many were ready to decriminalize illegal entry into our country. I think people should have to ring the doorbell before they enter my house or my country.

I was shocked at all those hands raised in support of providing comprehensive health coverage to undocumented immigrants. I think promises we’ve made to our fellow Americans should take priority, like to veterans in need of better health care.

And I was shocked by how feeble was front-runner Joe Biden’s response to the attack from Kamala Harris — and to the more extreme ideas promoted by those to his left.

So, I wasn’t surprised to hear so many people expressing fear that the racist, divisive, climate-change-denying, woman-abusing jerk who is our president was going to get re-elected, and was even seeing his poll numbers rise.

Dear Democrats: This is not complicated! Just nominate a decent, sane person, one committed to reunifying the country and creating more good jobs, a person who can gain the support of the independents, moderate Republicans and suburban women who abandoned Donald Trump in the midterms and thus swung the House of Representatives to the Democrats and could do the same for the presidency. And that candidate can win!

But please, spare me the revolution! It can wait. Win the presidency, hold the House and narrow the spread in the Senate, and a lot of good things still can be accomplished. “No,” you say, “the left wants a revolution now!” O.K., I’ll give the left a revolution now: four more years of Donald Trump.

That will be a revolution.

Four years of Trump feeling validated in all the crazy stuff he’s done and said. Four years of Trump unburdened by the need to run for re-election and able to amplify his racism, make Ivanka secretary of state, appoint even more crackpots to his cabinet and likely get to name two right-wing Supreme Court justices under the age of 40.

Yes sir, that will be a revolution!

It will be an overthrow of all the norms, values, rules and institutions that we cherish, that made us who we are and that have united us in this common project called the United States of America.

If the fear of that doesn’t motivate the Democratic Party’s base, then shame on those people. Not all elections are equal. Some elections are a vote for great changes — like the Great Society. Others are a vote to save the country. This election is the latter.

That doesn’t mean a Democratic candidate should stand for nothing, just keep it simple: Focus on building national unity and good jobs.

I say national unity because many Americans are terrified and troubled by how bitterly divided, and therefore paralyzed, the country has become. There is an opening for a unifier.

And I say good jobs because when the wealth of the top 1 percent equals that of the bottom 90 percent, we do have to redivide the pie. I favor raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans to subsidize universal pre-K education and to reduce the burden of student loans. Let’s give kids a head start and college grads a fresh start.

But I’m disturbed that so few of the Democratic candidates don’t also talk about growing the pie, let alone celebrating American entrepreneurs and risk-takers. Where do they think jobs come from?

It has always been what’s made us rich, and we’ve drifted away from it: investing in quality education and basic scientific research; promulgating the right laws and regulations to incentivize risk-taking and prevent recklessness and monopolies that can cripple free markets; encouraging legal immigration of both high-energy and high-I.Q. foreigners; and building the world’s best enabling infrastructure — ports, roads, bandwidth and basic social safety nets.

Ask Gina Raimondo, Rhode Island’s governor, and my kind of Democrat. She was just elected in 2018 for a second term. In both her elections she had to win a primary against a more-left Democrat. When Raimondo took office in 2015, Rhode Island had unemployment near 7 percent, and over 20 percent in some of the building trades.

“When I ran in 2014, there was a temptation to appeal to particular constituencies — gun safety, choice, all things that I believe in,” Raimondo recalled. “I resisted that temptation because I felt the single greatest issue was economic insecurity and people who were afraid they were never going to get a job. So I said there are not three or four issues, there’s one issue: jobs.” Unemployment in Rhode Island today is about 3.6 percent.

Raimondo has faced a constant refrain from critics on her left that she is too close to business. “I created an incentive program for companies to get a tax subsidy if they created jobs that pay above our state’s median income or jobs in advanced industries,” she noted. “I have cut small-business taxes two years in a row since 2015. I am not ashamed of any of that.”

Because, she continued, “I listen to people every day, and you hear what they are worried about. People say to me, ‘Governor, I just got a real job.’ And I’d ask them, ‘What is a real job?’ And they’d say, ‘It’s a job where I can support my family with real benefits.’ So I named our state job-training program ‘Real Jobs Rhode Island.’” It will be impossible to “sustain a vibrant democracy with this level of inequality.”

The right answer is to reinvigorate the key elements of a healthy public-private partnership, said Raimondo: higher taxes on wealthier people, more investments in affordable housing, infrastructure and universal pre-K, and empowering the private sector to create more real jobs — “so that no one who is working full time at any job should have to collect Medicaid and need food stamps to make ends meet.”

Concluded Raimondo: “I am no apologist for a brand of capitalism that leads to unsustainable inequality. But I do believe a more responsible capitalism is necessary for growth. We need to redivide the pie and grow the pie. I am a ‘pro-growth Democrat.’ I am for growing the pie as long as everyone has a shot at getting their slice.”

That’s a simple message that can connect with enough Democrats — as well as independents, moderate Republicans and suburban women — to win the White House.

Pragmatism is usually a great riposte to it's absence. And it is absent everywhere these days. The problem is, just three of the current Democrat candidates check these boxes. One is an elderly buffoon the left will never suffer and the other two are polling around 1%. So, no matter who wins the 2020 election we're all pretty much f----d.  

[smjjames]

Of the three you mention, I assume you mean Biden (elderly, yeah, buffoon? Come on. Though his debate performance doesn't bode well despite Trump being scared ****less of him. Gonna give him the benefit of the doubt that he's just rusty (though he really SHOULD have at least anticipated that broadside from someone and Harris had apparently been telegraphing it as incoming for months) and there is plenty of time to improve) and probably Tulsi Gabbard as you've mentioned number of times that you'd possibly vote for her given the chance, but who's the third? Theres a buttload of them polling at 1%.

Also, it's still early, one of the 1% pollings could still pull away, not hugely likely, but still.

edit: Why is sh it a bleeped out thing? I mean, really?

Edited July 18, 2019 by smjjames

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Lol in 2015/2016 those people were saying Trump was too extreme and would never win the nomination or election. In 2023 they'll be saying the same appeal to "centrism" and will continue until the world melts or they get thrown into a camp.

[smjjames]

1 minute ago, KaineParker said:

Lol in 2015/2016 those people were saying Trump was too extreme and would never win the nomination or election. In 2023 they'll be saying the same appeal to "centrism" and will continue until the world melts or they get thrown into a camp.

Yeah, that's what I meant earlier when I told GD to not underestimate the left and that anything could happen since Trumps election has thrown the usual rules into doubt.

[Guard Dog]

13 minutes ago, KaineParker said:

Lol in 2015/2016 those people were saying Trump was too extreme and would never win the nomination or election. In 2023 they'll be saying the same appeal to "centrism" and will continue until the world melts or they get thrown into a camp.

When the government's boot is on your neck does t matter if it's the left boot or the right one? When the appeals to centrism go unheeded we'll have naught but savages governing us. If the ideology of the savages is left or right will make no difference in the end. 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Guard Dog

[smjjames]

7 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

When the government's boot is on your neck does t matter if it's the left boot or the right one? If the appeals to centrism go unheeded we'll have naught but savages governing us. If the ideology of the savages is left or right will make no difference in the end. 

You seem to be missing the point (or at least not indicating that you do get the point) that KaineParker is making. There were people saying that Trump is too extreme and will never be elected, then he got elected. Friedman is saying the exact same kind of thing here, that the Democrats are being too extreme and won't be elected. So, is Friedman right? We don't know as Trump has thrown all the usual norms into question.

[Guard Dog]

11 minutes ago, smjjames said:

You seem to be missing the point (or at least not indicating that you do get the point) that KaineParker is making. There were people saying that Trump is too extreme and will never be elected, then he got elected. Friedman is saying the exact same kind of thing here, that the Democrats are being too extreme and won't be elected. So, is Friedman right? We don't know as Trump has thrown all the usual norms into question.

Which do you fear more? Extreme right or extreme left? I say there is absolutely no difference. Extreme in response to extreme is going to make things worse. Friedman says it gets us four more years of... this. I say it won't necessarily re-elect Trump but we certainly won't be better off for it either way.

You already know I am 100% convinced this country is doomed in it's present form. Perhaps it will be our passions that tear us apart. Perhaps not. Perhaps the better angels of our nature will prevail. Most people are pretty decent left to their own nature. But passions are being exploited on all sides now. Hardly new for the Dems but it is new for the Republicans who have completely abandoned their restrained pragmatism that has been the calling card of that party in the past.  But even if it's not our passions then it will be the more mundane, and altogether inescapable economic mismanagement. The collapse of the dollar when it happens will mean debt can no longer be monetized. And the political center has a hard time telling people the government needs to spend less money. The political extremes don't even understand that. 

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

I've always enjoyed the OP EDs by Thomas Friedman. He had a pretty good one in the NYT today. It's behind the pay wall so I'll post a few excerpts here:

 

Pragmatism is usually a great riposte to it's absence. And it is absent everywhere these days. The problem is, just three of the current Democrat candidates check these boxes. One is an elderly buffoon the left will never suffer and the other two are polling around 1%. So, no matter who wins the 2020 election we're all pretty much f----d.  

Friedman is often on CNN where he is one of my favorite, insightful  and logical political commentators. He also offers very honest and critical views on Netanyahu and has written several books

I agree with most of what he says as usual but not  his view on Biden as I still believe he will come out as the final and most reasonable Democratic candidate in 2020 

[BruceVC]

5 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Which do you fear more? Extreme right or extreme left? I say there is absolutely no difference. Ebt can no longer be monetized. And the political center has a hard time telling people the government needs to spend less money. The political extremes don't even understand that. 

But GD you seeing this in binary choices and its not, Biden for example is not extreme left.....you could vote for him considering the alternatives?

[HoonDing]

Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

53 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

When the government's boot is on your neck does t matter if it's the left boot or the right one? When the appeals to centrism go unheeded we'll have naught but savages governing us. If the ideology of the savages is left or right will make no difference in the end. 

This assumes that centrists are not capable of allowing or partaking in savagery, which can be clearly disproven by history unless one takes an extremely reductive view of what qualifies as a centrist. Moreover it is irrelevant to my point, which is that centrism doesn't necessarily win and that Friedman's advocacy for such is rooted in ideology rather than reality.

[Guard Dog]

I'm sorry KP. James was right, I did miss your point. Got it now. I guess his hopeful optimism can be forgiven. 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Guard Dog

[smjjames]

If you're referring to my optimism, it's a bit more 'never say never' since most of the usual conventions and assumptions don't seem to apply anymore. If he can win the way he did (minus the vitriol), what's stopping the Democrats from winning that way?

It's still the Democrats race to lose though.

Also, for the record, I haven't settled on any particular favorite yet.

Edited July 18, 2019 by smjjames

[ShadySands]

I'm still where I was at before. I prefer some candidates like Warren, Gabbard, Sanders, and Yang but would not vote for Harris or Biden for anything. Everyone else I'm still undecided on.

[HoonDing]

what's wrong with Harris

[ShadySands]

I dunno but she rubs me the wrong way in pretty much every interview I've seen with her. My spider senses say something is off.

Edited July 18, 2019 by ShadySands

[Volourn]

She racist. She claims to believe Biden isn't racist yet attacked him as racist ;largely because she knew he was an easy target him being an 'old white male'. That is racism and sexism. targeting someone because of their race and gender.

[Zoraptor]

I'd actually agree, though I'd put a fair bit of the blame on the US media and the packed field. I'd be perfectly willing to accept that she doesn't think Joe is racist but attacked him as a calculated move because she knew it would get exposure (and whatever he did in response could not turn out well); and that is what was necessary given the way the Democratic nomination field is. That approach is another thing that is great for a candidate looking for a nomination, but a lot less so when an actual nominee.

5 hours ago, HoonDing said:

Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Ah, a true classic copypasta. Even a fat degenerate mass murderer can get things right once in a while.