The Politics Thread

[DramatistDreamer]

I guess if Turkey wants some outside help with the investigation of a possible murder that allegedly occurred within the walls of their embassy then they must do a 'quick fix' with their own lack of human rights, at least as much as it concerns foreigners.

 

[Juliajms]

Of course!

Yes. I'm afraid it's going to start feeling normal at some point.

[ReddFoxx]

A Republican demonstrates that Hillary Clinton was right about civility

https://twitter.com/mattmfm/status/1050779638463639552 https://twitter.com/mattmfm/status/1050779638463639552

 

[Fevuh]

I went and got a MAGA hat.  I put it on and MAN it makes me feel like Superman!  My favorite super hero!

 

Good lord what a circus...it just shows how mean 45 really is.  To put this spectacle in the White House - and not only that but the OVAL OFFICE and not stop the nonsense when the nonsense started coming out of Kanye or YE or whatever his name today - it's just mean.  And it's bad enough to do it but then just not do it privately and have all the media there?  I've never seen anything like it.   It's clear he's mentally ill, but then again, someone who is a narcissist and is mentally ill as well wouldn't notice that.  He's just glad to get back into Reality TV and be connected with someone who people in the general public would think is 'popular'.  I would say I'm shocked that the Kardashians didn't or don't step in, but I'm not shocked.  They are all attention whores anyway they can get it.  I would have thought that Kim's robbery, etc. would have brought her down to Earth, but that was short-lived. 

Edited October 12, 2018 by Fevuh

[DramatistDreamer]

[Khan]

That incident seems strange now...but wait 'til it becomes the next Watergate.

Please register in order to view this content

Edited October 13, 2018 by Khan

[DramatistDreamer]

Except, at least with Watergate, the media, in general acted with a degree of integrity (from what I've read).  There are aspects of today's media that have traded what integrity they might of had, for WH access.

Then there's trash commentary like the type that the Federalist engages in...

 

[Khan]

 

No, what I meant was, the incident with the two men posing as Communists (to make a donation to a Democratic candidate) might look like an incident of little (or no) significance, but so did the break-in at DNC headquarters back in '72, before Bob Woodward (according to the movie) decided there was something more.

Edited October 13, 2018 by Khan

[DramatistDreamer]

 

Yes, I definitely understood what you meant there, it was more of an add on, more than an "except".  I just couldn't imagine where that whole breakin would be if they'd had the access journalism type press that we have these days.  Not a whole lotta follow up is going on now. 

 

I guess I've got what's going on with the disappearance and presumed death of that Saudi journalist and the obvious ties to Trump's WH more on my mind than that bizarro story of people trying to create leftist ties to communists.  That was laughable.  What's going on with this Saudi journalist is clearly not.

[DramatistDreamer]

 

Probably what Trump likes best about his S-I-L.  Clearly, they have much in common.

 

[Max]

This isn't meant to upset anyone, but I just wanted to share some thoughts about the current political situation. I apologize if anybody is offended by what I have to say.

 

I'm someone who was a lifelong Republican before the Trump Era. Though I find Trump to be an utterly racist, corrupt, and despicable human being, I'm more disgusted over (1) how GOP establishment politicians (who should know better) have enabled him and (2) how most of the GOP base has devolved into a cult that is blindly devoted to Trump. (This is a bit off-topic, but many members of the Trump cult either were vehemently against Trump during the 2016 primary or at least reluctant to support him initially. In my opinion, watching those once opposed to Trump become zealous supporters of his is the most bizarre thing in American political history.)

 

Before anybody proclaims "FALSE EQUIVALENCE," I'm not suggesting that both parties are equally bad at the moment, since the GOP is undeniably worse than the Democrats. However, as somebody on the center-right of the political spectrum, I am very disinclined to ever become a Democrat. (Although I don't ever envision becoming a Democrat, I plan on voting for one in my local House race because Congressional oversight of Trump is absolutely necessary; furthermore, I'm only voting Republican in my Senate race because I live in NJ and I want the corrupt Bob Menendez to be defeated.) Part of the reason for my reluctance is that today's Democratic Party is much more liberal than the Democratic Party of 20 years ago. (I would guess that most people here would disagree with my assessment that Democrats have become too liberal, and probably also believe that the Democratic Party of 20 years ago wasn't sufficiently progressive. However, it's pretty hard to dispute the fact that Democratic Party has moved to the left relative to where it was 20 years ago.) But an even bigger reason for my reluctance to become a Democrat is my disgust over how they behaved when it came to the Clintons and the Kennedys. Nobody likes whataboutism, but Bill Clinton should have resigned for perjuring himself and having an affair with a subordinate who was nearly half his age. And Ted Kennedy should not only have been expelled from the Senate, he should have also gone to prison for what happened at Chappaquiddick. But instead of disowning both men, the liberal base of the Democratic Party zealously defended Bill Clinton during the impeachment saga and adores Ted Kennedy, believing that he was "The Lion of the Senate."

 

Look, I personally hope that the GOP becomes extinct the way the Whig Party did back in the 1850s. But I also very much want to see a viable centerist party emerge (composed of Republicans disgusted with Trump as well as moderate Democrats who feel out of place in their party) to challenge the Democrats. And I'm certainly hoping that somebody (preferably John Kasich) wages a third-party presidential bid in 2020, although I recognize that such an effort is very likely to fail.

Edited October 13, 2018 by Max

[I Am A Swede]

^^

Hi Max, nice to see you back here again.  

Please register in order to view this content

Knowing that you are a Republican I often wondered how you felt about Trump and his cohorts.

 

[DramatistDreamer]

Hi @Max. 

I don't think that your post was presented in a manner that was at all offensive, I thought it was pretty respectful, in general.

From my perspective, in recent times, I think that Democrats have been mostly liberal socially but economically have been centrist, if not slightly right of center. 

For example, Bill Clinton instituted welfare reforms that many liberals balked at, not to mention that he did nothing to reverse the tide of mass incarceration, particularly as it connected to non-violent crimes (mostly drugs, that many judges today might suggest treatment for, instead of prison) that begun under the Reagan era.

Many people (even some conservatives) still express bitterness toward Obama over not sending any of the bankers to prison for causing the global economic crisis which had become a full-blown recession by the end of the George W. Bush era.  The irony was that the GOP had already launched preemptive attacks on the Obama administration as being anti-capitalist in anticipation of severe penalties and restrictions against Wall Street for their part in the global economic crisis.  Plenty of fines (that were easily paid by the offending financial institutions), some regulations (which the GOP have been trying to repeal ever since) but no jail time for anyone.

Perhaps the Democratic populace are more liberal than their leaders.  Even on the issue of gay marriage, President Obama and Hillary Clinton, as well, were both halting (at first), in their acceptance of gay marriage.  Do you remember when both stated that they believed that marriage was an institution between a man and a woman?  Both changed their minds but this was not an automatic shift.  Obama even said that he would have to think about it, which happened before he eventually shifted his position.  The interesting thing is that, although many complained that neither Obama nor Hillary seemed sufficiently liberal, Bernie Sanders, seen as a liberal icon obviously couldn't gather the votes to take the nomination and his future prospects for doing so seem dubious.

 

I think that the populace, particularly the ones under 45, seem to be pushing leaders further to the left, which does have implications for the future but the leadership at this time still seems fairly rooted to the center.  Again, socially, there is a bit of movement to the left of center but if you look at social programs, one of the biggest strides made in healthcare, even that is far from a liberal policy-- the insurance companies remain ensconced in the healthcare market place.  A true liberal policy would've eliminated them altogether a la Canada or Sweden.

 

Time will tell whether younger generations continue to push toward a genuinely liberal policy or whether there is more vacillation between centrist and left of center policies but I make a clear distinction between social/cultural liberalism and actual economic geo-political policy that I can see in government.  I would say the former, not the latter is happening today.

 

Also, I do agree with your assessment of the Republican party that their ethos seems unsustainable.  Years ago, since the emergence of the Tea Party, I've been saying that the GOP will eventually fall in on itself and within twenty years will be relegated to the history books.  I still believe this but I'm not sure that this won't happen sooner than I predicted.

[DRW50]

Welcome back @Max . I often think of your #1 Billboard hits post. I wish you could revive it.

 

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the topic, but I saw this article talking about how Latinos aren't motivated to vote. I'm not Latino, but I can't help thinking - if they aren't motivated this year, when will they be?

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/13/latino-turnout-democrats-midterms-898556

[Max]

I Am A Swede, DramatistDreamer, and Carl, thank you so much for your kind words.

 

Carl, I'm really glad that you enjoyed my # 1 Billboard hits thread, and I would like to revive it someday. Regarding the voting behavior of Latinos, one of the biggest surprises of the 2016 election was that Trump received a slightly higher percentage of the Latino vote than did Romney. (I was honestly expecting Trump to receive less than 20% of the Latino vote.) To me, this fact suggests that there's a ceiling on Democratic support among Latinos. I know that there's a spirited debate in the Democratic Party over whether their best path to victory in 2020 is to get minorities much more enthused or if Democrats have a better pathway to the White House by trying to win over the white-working class voters who voted for Trump but also voted for Obama twice. To be honest, I'm really not sure which option is better for the Democrats. (Conventional wisdom would suggest that Democrats should try to regain ground among working class whites, but in the aftermath of the 2012 election, conventional wisdom also suggested that Republicans needed to expand their appeal among minorities. Instead, Trump ran on a racist / white nationalist platform and managed to win the presidency.)

 

DramatistDreamer, you brought up a lot of interesting points in your post. I certainly believe that Democratic leaders such as Chuck Schumer and (even) Nancy Pelosi are not as liberal as the party's base. The disaffection with the Democratic leadership seemed apparent when a large portion of the base wanted Keith Ellison to become chair of the DNC and when Joe Crowley lost his primary to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I also agree with your suggestion that the Democratic base's move to the left is party a reaction to Trump (and to the Tea Party movement that proceeded him). Liberals know that the GOP was rewarded (at least in the short-term) by embracing the Tea Party and Trumpism, and they are justified to be angry over that fact. In my opinion, there seems to be an attitude among many Democrats that they need to fight fire with fire (and perhaps they're correct in that assessment), which explains why the the energy and the momentum is currently with the party's most liberal members.

 

To address some other topics in your post, liberals have long been dissatisfied with many of the aspects of Bill Clinton's presidency. (This is a bit off-topic, but I actually think that the policy positions that characterized the Democratic Party during the 1990s were quite appealing, although I'm a bit more to the right than where the Democratic Party was during the Clinton years. My objections to the Democratic Party of the 1990s were largely due to Bill Clinton's ethical flaws and to the way in which so many Democrats seemed to be OK with those flaws.) When Hillary Clinton ran in 2016, it's notable that she ran as a third term of Obama (who granted isn't as liberal as folks like Elizabeth Warren, but is definitely to the left of WJC) as opposed to a third term of her husband. During the 2016 primaries, she clearly distanced herself from aspects of Bill's record that were unpopular with the base (such as the 1994 crime bill) and even attacked Bernie Sanders as not being sufficiently progressive on racial issues.

 

If there's one area where we most disagree, it probably is your suggestion that HRC's victory over Sanders shows the limits of how much influence the most liberal wing of the Democratic Party current has (or did have in 2016). (Before I continue, I sincerely apologize if I am misrepresenting or misinterpreting what you said, as that certainly is not my intention.) Apart from issues related to race, Bernie was obviously much further to the left than Hillary. However, I believe that Hillary was able to defeat Bernie largely due to the overwhelming institutional support she had from the Democratic establishment. Of course, Trump won the GOP nomination in spite of having zero establishment support, but I also believe that the GOP establishment was in much weaker shape in 2016 than was the Democratic establishment. (Additionally, the GOP establishment made the horrendous mistake of backing Jeb Bush. Had they chosen another candidate, Trump would have had a harder time winning the nomination.) Hillary also benefitted from the fact that apart from Bernie, she had no real serious challengers for the nomination, which is in stark contrast to the 17 candidates who sought the GOP nomination. This is merely speculation on my part, but I suspect that tremendous pressure was placed on Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren not to run in 2016. While I don't think Biden had a realistic chance of winning the nomination, he would have taken a disproportionate number of votes away from Hillary, and that in turn would have boosted Bernie's chances. And I honestly believe that Elizabeth Warren would have won the nomination had she run. In fact, Bernie's campaign likely would have fizzled had Warren been in the race. Although Warren and Bernie appealed to many of the same voters, Warren had broader appeal and was far more well-known than Bernie was when the 2016 campaign season started.

 

I'm sorry for writing such a long post, but you folks have given me a lot to think about. Thanks again for your kindness and for being so welcoming.

Edited October 14, 2018 by Max