Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Simon
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

I don't really see this as a threat.

 

With the original Contract with America in 1994, the Republicans hadn't controlled the House of Representatives since 1958. And that meant they'd had no way of forcing legislation to come to the floor for a vote in almost 40 years.

 

So Gingrich and his followers came up with a list of 10 longstanding hobby-horse issues which they'd not been able to have an up-or-down vote on for longer than many of their voters had been alive. There was a VAST pent up demand which their voters wanted satisfied.

 

That isn't the case today, regardless of which issues go into the "contract". The Republicans have controlled the House on and off since 1994 and have had plenty of times to vote on whatever their little hearts desire. Their failure to pass legislation in recent years can be much more easily blamed on Republican infighting than on even Democrat opposition.

 

Now having said that, Gingrich was a savvy political operative back then and had had close to twenty years of work behind him to bring the Republican caucus together enough to promote his plan through the election.

 

This time, in contrast, he's having to convince a self-destructive orange clown to support a plan. The plan is going to have to be grandiose enough to appeal to a clown or the clown will toss it five minutes after he agrees to it. You can't pull together legislators and voters to support plans which are absurdly grandiose.

 

And you likely can't pull together legislators and voters to be wildly enthusiastic about policy initiatives which have been brought up over and over for the last couple of decades but have always failed to make it into law even when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and presidency (which accurately describes the proposals mentioned in the article).

 

So in order to be successful, it seems to me that Gingrich would have to thread the needle in finding something grand enough to appeal to Trump and keep his attention for 1.5 years, something new, AND something that Republican voters have been desperately wanting forever.

 

< cue Mission Impossible music >

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, archer said:

So in order to be successful, it seems to me that Gingrich would have to thread the needle in finding something grand enough to appeal to Trump and keep his attention for 1.5 years, something new, AND something that Republican voters have been desperately wanting forever.

 

The "something" you're looking for is the stolen 2020 presidential election.  That's how the GOP plans to override elections at the state level in 2024 (if not 2022).  They're already laying the groundwork with the election fraudits in Arizona and Georgia (so far) and direct legislative control over election certification in a number of other states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dr. MID-Nite said:

Underestimating Trump and Republicans in general is what got us to this point to begin with....

 

They are a threat.

 

I don't think this contract will be a threat on any level during the mid-term elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pariah said:

Typical GOP thinking. "Hey, it worked 25 years ago, let's do it again!"

 

1 hour ago, Old Man said:


To be honest I’m not sure it’d be any less effective today. 

 

It is a whole new generation to not have learned from the past, and plenty of time for the previous generation to have forgotten it...

 

17 hours ago, Old Man said:

 

The "something" you're looking for is the stolen 2020 presidential election.  That's how the GOP plans to override elections at the state level in 2024 (if not 2022).  They're already laying the groundwork with the election fraudits in Arizona and Georgia (so far) and direct legislative control over election certification in a number of other states.

 

Arizona voting bill fails in the House, with 2 Republicans crossing party lines

 

By no means indicative of a trend, but suggestive that Republican-dominated state legislatures may not give those efforts a smooth ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About these "election security" bills.

 

< rant on >

 

I absolutely don't mind the "you have to have an ID and show the ID to vote", which has been a hobby-horse for conservatives for decades before Trump ever raised his ugly head in Republican politics.

 

IMO everyone should be registered to vote and should be registered to vote at only one address so an ID requirement doesn't bother me.

 

Make the ID free and make the state come to the person's home to make him/her/other an ID (if he doesn't already have one). And make the state come at the convenience of the voter whatever time of day that happens to be. (Sure, offer to pick him up and bring him into the office first or pay for an Uber during office hours. But when all else fails, go to him. Working odd hours or not having transportation to go get the ID should never be an obstacle.)

 

The restriction to the voter of voter ID's comes when the state makes you go through hell to get an ID, whether it makes you show an impossible number of other ID's in order to get a state ID or whether the state ID's are only given out in certain locations and certain times which make it highly inconvenient for a potential voter to get one.

 

Actually carrying that ID, after you get it, to the polls on election day is not any kind of significant restriction to the voter. If the ID is lost/stolen on election day, let the person do a provisional ballot, take his photograph to keep conservatives from gasping in horror at someone voting without an ID, and call it good.

 

I personally think Democrats should push that as a compromise on the state level in every state.

 

It'd defang a lot of the "elections aren't secure" chatter/concerns that have been around for decades and make the Democrats part of "securing elections" rather leaving that as a Republicans-only issue.

 

And it'd not allow some common sense low-key "voter ID" concerns be a smoke screen to allow Republicans to push for draconian anti-voter legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/28/2021 at 2:20 PM, archer said:

And it'd not allow some common sense low-key "voter ID" concerns be a smoke screen to allow Republicans to push for draconian anti-voter legislation.

 

Unfortunately the current R strategy seems to be to slam bills out to exhaust D's resources stopping the most horrific stuff so they can make room to seize politics (via voter laws) en masse:

 

https://fox8.com/news/coronavirus/proposed-ohio-bill-would-prohibit-requiring-vaccinations-masks/

 

Literally a 'we are going to force bills that you have to stop or the bills will **** the country over, so then we can pass bills that will let us seize control of the political apparatus legally'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Sociotard said:

[Quote]"I want to know why what happened in Myanmar can't happen here?" one attendee asked, prompting loud applause from the crowd.

"No reason. I mean, it should happen here," Michael Flynn said.[/quote]

 

https://www.newsweek.com/michael-flynn-says-coup-like-myanmar-should-happen-america-1596248

 

For those who might still be confused, this is what actual treason looks like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Pariah said:

 

For those who might still be confused, this is what actual treason looks like.

 

Um, no.  Not at all.  Treason has a very defined meaning under the law.  Expressing an opinion, no matter how misguided you may feel it is, or how much you disagree with, isn't treason.  It may be argued to be a lot of things (misstated, misguided, incendiary, etc) but it is nowhere near treason.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pariah said:

For those who might still be confused, this is what actual treason looks like.

 

2 hours ago, Sociotard said:

Still, saying there should be a coup is pretty awful.

 

To elaborate my own thoughts - this is not legal/Constitution treason, but the clear rabble-rousing to legitimize a military coup looks pretty bad (speaks to intent), especially when the motivations are wholly political satisfaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dr. MID-Nite said:

What amazes me is the amount of people in the country that openly support authoritarian fascism. It's insulting and frightening at the same time.

 

It amazed me too, but I'm done underestimating the depths to which corrupt American politicians, and the people who support them, will sink.  I'm just trying to get my elected representatives to come to the same realization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

It amazed me too, but I'm done underestimating the depths to which corrupt American politicians, and the people who support them, will sink.  I'm just trying to get my elected representatives to come to the same realization.

 

Sadly, I don't think that's possible. Meaningful bipartisan governance in America is dead, but the Dems continue to act as if it is still possible. That's why they always lose. They want to do things in the perceived "proper way"  while the Reps just care about winning. Guess who is having better results? The side that plays to win. Victory is perceived as strength. And Americans perceive strength as being needed to "fix" the country. That's why Reps can literally do just about anything...no matter how heinous....and it doesn't matter...as long as they are victorious. Remember Deep Space Nine?  "Victory is Life!" At this point, I'm more worried about this old adage... "Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them." Do we really want to be a country that has so much in common with Nazi Germany? I sure as hell don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be precise, Flynn's statement isn't treason;  it may, however, be sedition.  I have to leave it as "may" only because his phrasing doesn't necessarily rise to the level.  From FindLaw:

 

Quote

Sedition is a serious felony punishable by fines and up to 20 years in prison and it refers to the act of inciting revolt or violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it.

 

So was Flynn inciting revolt or just blowing smoke?

 

That said, I think most of us agree with Pariah's overall sentiment, because Flynn's at the root of a faction that WOULD consider revolt, we believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine that like all elitists, they think they will be the ones in charge, and they will get to do whatever they want and injure/kill whomever they want without consequence.  That would seem to be why they are so fond of their guns.

 

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So yesterday, as the players were walking off after the Nets pretty much thrashed the Celtics, some stupid moron threw a non-empty bottle of water at Kyrie Irving of the Nets...formerly of the Celtics.  Yeah, Irving's rep in Boston is only marginally better than LeBron's is in Cleveland.  The whole thing was caught on video.  The kid was cuffed and removed.  

 

So today, the kid, who's 21 and white, got charged with a felony-level assault and battery charge.

 

Now, ok, I'm not gonna be surprised if this was a tactical move to drive a plea deal, and I'd be fine with that too.  But I think it's a sign of a general shift where actions like this are not tolerated, in light of Black Lives Matter and Jan. 6th both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...