Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Doc Democracy]

On 4/24/2019 at 10:12 PM, Pariah said:

I don't reel like there's even a place on the Left↔Right spectrum for my views any more. 

 

I think that this is something true across the Western world.  All of our politics were defined by the nineteenth century struggle between labour and capital and our current parties were forged in that fire.  The political context has changed for most people.  I do not think that the things we are truly concerned about today are so easily defined in terms of left and right, labour and capital.  The political power framework has not caught up with that in many places (especially the US and UK where there has been two big beasts dominating the political landscape).

 

In Scotland the defining political question became union or independence and suddenly the political landscape changed drastically and what had been a very minor party (Scottish National Party) not only increased its share of the vote, it actually became the government of Scotland and of the 59 MPs Scotland sends to Parliament 56 of them were SNP.  Labour, which had nothing unique to offer in this new political spectrum lost 40 MPs in seats that were considered safe.  The swing from Labour to SNP in some of these seats was close to 40%.

 

I think that the three big parties in the UK during the 20th century (Liberals, Labour and Conservatives) are all going to have re-invent themselves to address the new political realities or they will cease to exist.  We can already see the strains, Labour and Conservative parties are polling the lowest share of the national vote than ever before and we have new parties and groupings beginning to emerge under the strains of Brexit that voters might swing to in large numbers simply because they no longer strongly identify as Labour or Conservative.

 

You may not be a political pariah for much longer.... 

 

🙂

 

Doc

[Hermit]

So, to the surprise of no one, Biden is officially in the race for Democratic Nom. I'll vote for him over Trump, but I don't really see him as reigning Wall Street in as much as I'd like. I also wonder how much support he'll get for his recent brush with 'handsy' accusations. Mind you, anyone should still think that's better than our Current Grabber in Chief but it may lead to a wave of apathy among a section of the democratic blocks.

 

 

 

[archer]

Judge dismisses Bush-era warrantless wiretapping lawsuit citing national security concerns

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/440777-judge-dismisses-bush-era-warrantless-wiretapping-lawsuit-citing

 

 

This is a particularly gutless decision by the judge.

 

It's going to endanger national security for the judge himself to look at the case closely enough to figure out whether the government is deliberately and systematically violating the 4th amendment???

 

Screw national security. We're supposed to be governed by the Constitution, not by national security concerns.

 

And if the judge considers himself to be too big of a national security risk to look at the case, he should have recused himself so another judge who is more trustworthy could have looked at it.

 

 

 

 

[archer]

5 hours ago, Hermit said:

So, to the surprise of no one, Biden is officially in the race for Democratic Nom. I'll vote for him over Trump, but I don't really see him as reigning Wall Street in as much as I'd like. I also wonder how much support he'll get for his recent brush with 'handsy' accusations. Mind you, anyone should still think that's better than our Current Grabber in Chief but it may lead to a wave of apathy among a section of the democratic blocks.

 

 

As for Biden invading personal space of women, some of that could be regional behavior and some of it could be cultural. When I was growing up, we learned to give women (with whom we felt close personal relationship) what would be considered today a very inappropriate full-body hug. I was probably in my 40's before I figured out that it made some women uncomfortable. But then, I've hadn't felt a close personal relationship with many women outside of family to have used such a hug very much. But if I'd gone deeper into politics than I had, I probably would have...and would have figured out how much it made women uncomfortable much sooner because I'm not totally clueless.

 

I switched over to using a normal handshake and while that was happening, putting my other hand over our clasped hands. It adds an additional warmth to the handshake without being intrusive and cuts off any ingrained habit which might otherwise make me move closer to the person.

 

I don't really think that's something which is going to haunt him unless his Democrat opponents go after him repeatedly on the subject in a very savage manner. I don't think Biden could handle that without repeated gaffes. And I think doing that would backfire on any candidate who attacked him in that manner: both Biden and that candidate would wind up losing ground.

 

I'll vote for him over Trump, sure.

 

I'll be interested in what Biden says he wants to accomplish. Most of the candidates don't have anything approaching a real platform to read on their website. Elizabeth Warren's is probably the most complete but her plan sounds more like a fantasy since I don't see a way for her to get from point A to point B and her plans for the taxes which she says would be funding her multiple country-changing projects would be woefully inadequate to do so.

 

If Biden comes up with two or three major projects and focuses on them and a way to realistically get his plan passed into law and funded, he'll come across as a much more serious candidate than the various ones who might be more entertaining but who promise everything.

 

A good president is lucky to be able to pass through two or three major projects in a four year term. Promising everything is always a red flag to me, even if the person is promising everything that is on my Christmas list.

[DShomshak]

On ‎4‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 3:50 PM, archer said:

 

I have no idea what most people think is a "real conservative" these days. Many Democrats I speak to think a "real conservative" is a white nationalist fascist. Most people I talk to who voted for Trump think a "real conservative" is someone who blindly supports Trump no matter what he says or does.

 

I consider "real" conservatives to be people who believe in a national government which has limited powers (and which is the kind of government the US Constitution outlines) and obeying the constitution even when you disagree with it. That leaves out Trumpism, the Religious Right, the Bush's, the Romney's, the vast majority of Republican politicians, most people in federal law enforcement and intelligence services, and most other people in the country (who don't know anything about politics and who don't want to know anything about politics).

 

I've been trying to figure out "conservatism" for years, by observation of what people who claim to be conservatives say and do. (The definitions I've seen are too variable.) I've concluded that "conservatism" is a coalition of several ideologies, only tangentially related, but fall into two main groups.

 

First is the conservatism of caution. Go slow, baby steps, try not to make things worse. "Conservative" as "Not Radical." I mostly agree with this: People are not infinitely malleable. Sweeping policy changes can be costly errors. I view the establishment of same-sex marriage as a model for conservative progress: Nudge people along gradually, give them time at each step to see the world doesn't end, and here we are. Hard for the LGBTQ along the way who want to live their lives the way they want, and seeing that every argument against them doing so is flipping nuts, but it avoided a backlash.

 

A conservatism of form, but not content.

 

The second cluster -- pro-business, religious, racial, others -- seems to have a perhaps subtler common pattern: An underlying assumption that people are not equal and should not be treated equally. There's a hierarchy, an Us and Them: of races, of classes, of a True Faith vs. Infidel, of nation against nation, of Real Patriotism vs. squishy internationalism, etc.

 

You can argue with this. I don't claim to vast expertise here. But I think it accounts pretty well for the vahavior I see,

 

Dean Shomshak

[Toxxus]

14 hours ago, DShomshak said:

I've been trying to figure out "conservatism" for years, by observation of what people who claim to be conservatives say and do. (The definitions I've seen are too variable.) I've concluded that "conservatism" is a coalition of several ideologies, only tangentially related, but fall into two main groups.

 

First is the conservatism of caution. Go slow, baby steps, try not to make things worse. "Conservative" as "Not Radical." I mostly agree with this: People are not infinitely malleable. Sweeping policy changes can be costly errors. I view the establishment of same-sex marriage as a model for conservative progress: Nudge people along gradually, give them time at each step to see the world doesn't end, and here we are. Hard for the LGBTQ along the way who want to live their lives the way they want, and seeing that every argument against them doing so is flipping nuts, but it avoided a backlash.

 

A conservatism of form, but not content.

 

The second cluster -- pro-business, religious, racial, others -- seems to have a perhaps subtler common pattern: An underlying assumption that people are not equal and should not be treated equally. There's a hierarchy, an Us and Them: of races, of classes, of a True Faith vs. Infidel, of nation against nation, of Real Patriotism vs. squishy internationalism, etc.

 

You can argue with this. I don't claim to vast expertise here. But I think it accounts pretty well for the vahavior I see,

 

Dean Shomshak

 

You could put a mirror to this and with very few alterations say the same of the Democrats.

 

The issue is that you can't squash 330+ million people into two parties.  There's no way for that to make any sense at all.  Even if you took a binary toggle to only the major issues of the day you'd need dozens or hundreds of parties.  And the major issues are frequently more complex and nuanced than D or R.

 

These days a lot of the "conservatives", even ones who voted for Trump, are actually Democrats who got scared out of their own party by it's race to the left.  My wife certainly falls into that category.

 

A lot of the iconic Democrats of history would be considered staunch conservatives by modern standards.

[Hermit]

Ranked or Alternative voting, please.

*Sigh*

 

 

[Ternaugh]

1 hour ago, Toxxus said:

 

A lot of the iconic Democrats of history would be considered staunch conservatives by modern standards.

 

Well, certainly, especially after the Southern strategy.

[Lord Liaden]

I've long noticed a distinction between "fiscal conservative" and "social conservative," at least in North America and western Europe. A given person may be one without being the other. A fiscal conservative today mostly supports operation of a capitalist free-market economy with a minimum of government intervention, i.e. taxation and regulation. (Ironic in that historically, that was the original definition and philosophy of "liberalism.") A frequent corollary to that is emphasizing "responsible" government spending balanced to income. Practically speaking nowadays, that most often entails reducing funding for government departments regulating industry and financial institutions, as well as social support programs for the financially less-advantaged.

 

The latter category is where fiscal and social conservatives most often join forces. Social conservatism frequently takes a rather Darwinian view on how people should adapt to and function within capitalist society. However, most often today social conservatives seem to focus on defending the status quo, on preserving and promoting the values, practices, and privileges of the particular groups and classes that have long dominated society, in the face of changing demographics. In the West that means mostly white, male, middle- and upper-class, and Christian.

 

Naturally there are gradations within those categories, from moderate and adaptive to extreme and reactionary. Fiscal and social conservatives often have very reasonable perspectives to contribute on a range of issues. Sadly nowadays, the ruckus raised by extremists too often drowns them out.

 

[Sociotard]

1 hour ago, Hermit said:

Ranked or Alternative voting, please.

*Sigh*

 

 

My fantasy is Mixed Proportional (5% min for proportional seats) with IRV. I'd be open to switching to a parliamentary system too, but that would take a bunch of amendments or a full constitutional rewrite, while just mixed proportional would not.

 

Just imagine a the Republicans splitting off into Evangelicals, Libertarians, NRA, etc.

 

And the Democrats into a few as well.

 

And I could have my fantasy of voting for a party that doesn't want to get involved in every other war. 

[Toxxus]

1 hour ago, Sociotard said:

And I could have my fantasy of voting for a party that doesn't want to get involved in every other war. 

 

Sadly, that party doesn't exist.

 

I recall being somewhat shocked that instead of reducing the number of active wars we actually increased it under Obama's first term.  I hadn't wanted a Democratic president ever up until then and I was sure he would get us out of the endless morass of overseas wars.

 

Nope. 

[Ternaugh]

A constant state of war is a consequence of the political power wielded by the military-industrial complex. There has to be a justification for the spending of a large percentage of our GDP on tanks, planes, and bombs, instead of general infrastructure.

 

https://www.npr.org/2011/01/17/132942244/ikes-warning-of-military-expansion-50-years-later

 

 

[Sociotard]

2 hours ago, Toxxus said:

 

Sadly, that party doesn't exist.

 

I recall being somewhat shocked that instead of reducing the number of active wars we actually increased it under Obama's first term.  I hadn't wanted a Democratic president ever up until then and I was sure he would get us out of the endless morass of overseas wars.

 

Nope. 

That's my point. I acknowledge that Democrats are every bit as war-mongery as Republicans. I even suspect Trump has shown more restraint in this regard than Clinton would have.

But if we could have a plurality of parties? I think that party might come to exist.

[megaplayboy]

If a centrist wins the Democratic nomination, I will support the nominee.  If a progressive-leftist wins the Democratic nomination, I will support the nominee.  I expect both leftist Dems and centrist Dems to pledge likewise.  If winning the internal ideological struggle for control of the party matters more than defeating 45, then imho people's priorities are a bit screwed up.  No centrist or lefty will do as much damage, from a Dem perspective, as the current occupant given another term.  Purity trolling can be done not just by extremists on left and right, but by centrists too.  

[csyphrett]

1 hour ago, Sociotard said:

That's my point. I acknowledge that Democrats are every bit as war-mongery as Republicans. I even suspect Trump has shown more restraint in this regard than Clinton would have.

But if we could have a plurality of parties? I think that party might come to exist.

Trump's staff have shown more restraint since no one seemed to have followed his orders.

CES  

[Sociotard]

That's on the obstruction of justice issue, not the military adventurism issue.

 

The have heard rumors of his staff calmly explaining why invading Venezuela would be counterproductive, but none of his orders being flat-out disregarded on military action. Sure, I'd rather a President who didn't need talking out of foolish wars, but I'll take one who can be talked out of them over one who can't.

[archer]

2 hours ago, megaplayboy said:

If a centrist wins the Democratic nomination, I will support the nominee.  If a progressive-leftist wins the Democratic nomination, I will support the nominee.  I expect both leftist Dems and centrist Dems to pledge likewise.  If winning the internal ideological struggle for control of the party matters more than defeating 45, then imho people's priorities are a bit screwed up.  No centrist or lefty will do as much damage, from a Dem perspective, as the current occupant given another term.  Purity trolling can be done not just by extremists on left and right, but by centrists too.  

 

 

In 2016 Republican primaries, I would have accepted anyone except the one candidate who was a white nationalist.

 

====

Sidebar: In the primaries, I ended up working (in a diminished capacity due to health) for the white nationalist's chief opponent. I had problems with some of that guy's positions but at least on many of the fringe items he was honest and said "but we will have to pass a constitutional amendment in order to do that". That as a tactic is what's supposed to happen when someone wants something unconstitutional to happen: try to pass an constitutional amendment. In real terms, that wasn't going to happen because there was no national consensus for it which makes following the proper constitutional process a much better path forward as opposed to what many people in both parties say they'll do if elected: try to cram unconstitutional laws through Congress. I'll gladly take a candidate who throws red meat to his followers in the form of fantasy constitutional amendments which will never get off the ground rather than a candidate who might seriously try to pass unconstitutional legislation. YMMV

====

 

After that white nationalist candidate cut a deal with a Republican establishment (which thought they could control him) to ignore their own party's rules in order to give him the nomination even though he hadn't won enough delegates in the primaries to earn the nomination, I would have accepted any Democrat president in order to keep a white nationalist from becoming the head of the Republican party (which is what happens after a Republican presidential nominee is elected president but not before).

 

It also didn't help the white nationalist's case that he was certifiably a nut case. But I would have been vehemently against his candidacy regardless so I consider that a relatively minor issue. (As odd as "this candidate is insane" being a minor issue might have sounded during any other election cycle).

 

I ended up actively campaigning for Hillary in the general election in order to try to keep the white nationalist out of control of the Republican party and the country.

 

Four years of any president from the other party being in charge of the country, even one who might be diametrically opposed to me philosophically, would have been better than bringing white nationalists openly and permanently into being a major force in the political party which I'd been trying for decades to convert to my philosophy. I was having a big enough problem already with the huge Religious Right faction and even larger establishment "I'm not very ideological, I'm a republican because I'm not a democrat and I just want to win elections no matter what I have to do" factions of the party.

 

But now the party for decades will have to deal with idiots who believe in Trump's larger-than-life antics as being the pathway to victory and, much worse, white nationalists who the country has again given a political party to so they can have a seat at the table in national politics.

 

Unfortunately in this country, you need a political party in order to change policy on a national level. My tiny faction of the party has moved from getting vaguely close to being in charge a couple of times in the last thirty years to likely being completely shut out of the remote possibility of being power for the next 80. I'm out of the Republican party. It was always a long shot to gain control of it and I don't have the health or time necessary to keep fighting against the forces (more and more "the forces of evil") inside of it. I'll keep rooting for the very few people who are still inside and fighting the good fight but I'm no longer doing it side-by-side with them on a daily basis.

 

I'll be campaigning (what little I can) for whichever Democrat I think has the best chance of beating the white nationalist in 2020.

 

At the moment, that looks like Bernie the socialist who has an enthusiastic base or Biden who is well-known in his party and is likely the most acceptable alternative to most of the party members who hold elected office (aka the people most likely to become regular delegates at the Democrat convention under the new party rules which have stripped superdelegates of power).

 

 

[wcw43921]

It may cover the military adventurism issue as well.

 

 

[Dr.Device]

12 hours ago, Toxxus said:

You could put a mirror to this and with very few alterations say the same of the Democrats.

 

 

People keep saying stuff like this, trying to equate the two parties, but I never see any actual coherent point by point comparisons.

 

If it can be done so easily, please show us how. 

 

 

[Lord Liaden]

6 hours ago, megaplayboy said:

If a centrist wins the Democratic nomination, I will support the nominee.  If a progressive-leftist wins the Democratic nomination, I will support the nominee.  I expect both leftist Dems and centrist Dems to pledge likewise.  If winning the internal ideological struggle for control of the party matters more than defeating 45, then imho people's priorities are a bit screwed up.  No centrist or lefty will do as much damage, from a Dem perspective, as the current occupant given another term.  Purity trolling can be done not just by extremists on left and right, but by centrists too.  

 

I absolutely understand that view, and I concur that a divisive ideological battle would only damage the public standing of the Democratic Party. However, Bernie Sanders in his recent infamous Fox News town hall, made the assertion that if the Democrats make defeating Donald Trump the defining issue of their presidential campaign, they'll lose. According to Sanders, the Dems need to counter Trump's cult of personality, which he's wielded so effectively, by presenting an alternative platform that actually speaks to the American public, that addresses issues of concern to them that the Trump-led Republicans have ignored or attacked.

[megaplayboy]

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

I absolutely understand that view, and I concur that a divisive ideological battle would only damage the public standing of the Democratic Party. However, Bernie Sanders in his recent infamous Fox News town hall, made the assertion that if the Democrats make defeating Donald Trump the defining issue of their presidential campaign, they'll lose. According to Sanders, the Dems need to counter Trump's cult of personality, which he's wielded so effectively, by presenting an alternative platform that actually speaks to the American public, that addresses issues of concern to them that the Trump-led Republicans have ignored or attacked.

I don't disagree with that.  My point was, whether it's a centrist policy platform or a progressive-leftist policy platform advanced by the nominee, Dems should support them regardless.  Because the alternative is far worse from a Dem perspective.

[Starlord]

Mark my words, the Dem candidate will be whomever Trump wants it to be...all he has to do is pick a feud with someone and media coverage of that feud will drown out anything anyone else has to say.

[megaplayboy]

I think "electability" is way too hard to determine at this point. People should pick the candidate they actually like the most in the primaries and the electability thing will sort itself out.  The "safe" choice might not inspire enough enthusiasm to offset base voters who stay home with crossover voters who show interest.  And vice versa.  Every choice entails an element of risk.

[Toxxus]

3 hours ago, Starlord said:

Mark my words, the Dem candidate will be whomever Trump wants it to be...all he has to do is pick a feud with someone and media coverage of that feud will drown out anything anyone else has to say.

 

Defeating Trump will require two things:

1-  The Democrats will have to stop underestimating his ability to win.  They laughed him off in the primaries and practically celebrated their victory in advance before the general election.  He's a non-politician who took the presidency.  And he did this, imo, based on being told he couldn't do it at a random celebrity event a few years earlier.  Stop pretending he's somehow insane, mentally deficient, stupid, etc., and take the opponent seriously.

2-  Stop claiming to be the party of diversity while forwarding a roster of 80 year old white candidates.  The drop in black voters in 2016 and the number of white voters that voted for Obama and then voted for Trump instead of Hillary are the two primary factors that landed Trump in the White House.  Also, it might be helpful to stop alienating white voters - 12 percent of whom voted for Obama and then picked Trump over Hillary.

 

from the Washington Post:

Those percentages aren’t distributed evenly by race. According to the analysis, 12 percent of white voters who had backed Obama in 2012 voted for Trump four years later. Eleven percent of black Obama 2012 voters stayed home.

[Hermit]

4 hours ago, Starlord said:

Mark my words, the Dem candidate will be whomever Trump wants it to be...all he has to do is pick a feud with someone and media coverage of that feud will drown out anything anyone else has to say.

 

I fear you might be right. A lot of the media seems to go chasing after Trump twitters like dogs after dropped fast food- no matter how trivial, or obvious a lie, or whatever. This propels Trump where he wants to be, in the limelight, and meanwhile other news seems overshadowed. IMO

 

I think whatever one thinks of Trump's intellect, he has proven Jon Stewart was right to call the 4th Estate "lazy and sensationalist" and Trump exploits that.