192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
Lash
 
  0  
Sun 3 Dec, 2017 03:58 am
@Builder,
Pretty bleak.

Stay tuned to see if the idiots in this country will finally wake up and do something about it.
hightor
 
  3  
Sun 3 Dec, 2017 04:00 am
@Builder,
Quote:
I opened that post with "too phunny" which is a combo of phony and funny

Never heard the word before, and I doubt I'll ever use it. In fact it wouldn't be surprising if I never saw it used again by anyone other than you. But I'll agree that the fake news site was amusing.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Sun 3 Dec, 2017 04:14 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
What does that have to do with whether or not they are members of your tribe?

First thing, I don't claim kinship with either of them. I never watch NBC nor have I ever been to a Miramax movie. That you think they're "liberals" doesn't mean much to me.

My point, which I didn't think was that obscure, is that very few people will defend the very believable and extremely disturbing criminal behavior of these people, regardless of their perceived political identity. The fact that many commentators — and victims — do differentiate between the depth of depravity indicated by different levels of impropriety and abuse only backs up my point. Which I'm not positing as any sort of moral imperative, by the way. I'm not saying it's a great thing; I'm saying that it is unsurprising.
Quote:
Individuals can be trusted and even revered, tribes cannot.

I agree — although I can't think of any political figures worthy of reverence.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  0  
Sun 3 Dec, 2017 04:15 am
@Lash,
Quote:
Stay tuned to see if the idiots in this country will finally wake up and do something about it.


Our 2IC, recently deposed as having dual citizenship (and philandering, and taking bribes, and a 2 million dollar expense account) was just re-elected, so back to business as usual.

The stupidity seems to be global, Lash.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Sun 3 Dec, 2017 05:02 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
For some time Max warned and complained about unscrupulous behavior by some women who falsely accuse men of sexual misbehavior,(perhaps he wrote from experience) and how were his words received? With condemnation and abhorrence! He was slandered, excoriated and cast into the wasteland.

I had heard about this but never saw or participated in any of those threads.
Quote:
And now that Progressive Pigs are being gored, we find that the libs here and in the NYT, WaPo and elsewhere are echoing his concerns.

Believe it or not, I have long shared those concerns because I've had friends and workmates who were victimized by vindictive scheming wives, labeled "dead beat dads", wages garnished, loss of custody or visitation rights, restraining orders, the whole bit. I know that when it comes to some personal matters you can't always trust the words of an accuser, certainly not simply based on their gender. While we may find some people more believable than others — details of the story, awareness of past patterns of behavior, general air of trustworthiness, etc — all of us should be reminded of the distinction between knowledge and belief.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Sun 3 Dec, 2017 06:53 am
How the Republicans Broke Congress
Quote:
In the past three days, Republican leaders in the Senate scrambled to corral votes for a tax bill that the Joint Committee on Taxation said would add $1 trillion to the deficit — without holding any meaningful committee hearings. Worse, Republican leaders have been blunt about their motivation: to deliver on their promises to wealthy donors, and down the road, to use the leverage of huge deficits to cut and privatize Medicare and Social Security.

Congress no longer works the way it’s supposed to. But we’ve said that before.

Eleven years ago, we published a book called “The Broken Branch,” which we subtitled “How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track.” Embedded in that subtitle were two assumptions: first, that Congress as an institution — which is to say, both parties, equally — is at fault; and second, that the solution is readily at hand. In 2017, the Republicans’ scandalous tax bill is only the latest proof that both assumptions are wrong.

Which is not to say that we were totally off base in 2006. We stand by our assessment of the political scene at the time. What is astounding, and still largely unappreciated, is the unexpected and rapid nature of the decline in American national politics, and how one-sided its cause. If in 2006 one could cast aspersions on both parties, over the past decade it has become clear that it is the Republican Party — as an institution, as a movement, as a collection of politicians — that has done unique, extensive and possibly irreparable damage to the American political system.

Even today, many people like to imagine that the damage has all been President Trump’s doing — that he took the Republican Party hostage. But the problem goes much deeper.

We do not come at this issue as political partisans; though we are registered Democrats, we have supported Republicans, consider ourselves moderates and have worked with key figures in both parties to improve political processes. Still, we can’t help seeing the Republican Party as the root cause of today’s political instability. Three major developments in the party required us to change our view.

First, beginning in the 1990s, the Republicans strategically demonized Congress and government more broadly and flouted the norms of lawmaking, fueling a significant decline of trust in government that began well before the financial collapse in 2008, though it has sped up since. House Republicans showed their colors when they first blocked passage of the Troubled Asset Relief Plan, despite the urgent pleas of their own president, George W. Bush, and the speaker of the House, John Boehner. The seeds of a (largely phony) populist reaction were planted.

Second, there was the “Obama effect.” When Mr. Bush became president, Democrats worked with him to enact sweeping education reform early on and provided the key votes to pass his top priority, tax cuts. With President Barack Obama, it was different. While many argued that the problem was that Mr. Obama failed to schmooze enough with Republicans in Congress, we saw a deliberate Republican strategy to oppose all of his initiatives and frame his attempts to compromise as weak or inauthentic. The Senate under the majority leader Mitch McConnell weaponized the filibuster to obstruct legislation, block judges and upend the policy process. The Obama effect had an ominous twist, an undercurrent of racism that was itself embodied in the “birther” movement led by Donald Trump.

House leaders continued to inflame the populist anger of their base to win enormous midterm victories in 2010 and 2014. They repeatedly promised the impossible under divided party government: that if they won, Mr. Obama would be forced to his knees, his policies obliterated and government as we knew it demolished. Their subsequent failures to do so spurred even more rage, this time directed at establishment Republican leaders. But most pundits still clung to the belief that pragmatism would win out and Republicans would nominate an establishment insider in 2016.

Third, we have seen the impact of significant changes in the news media, which had a far greater importance on the right than on the left. The development of the modern conservative media echo chamber began with the rise of Rush Limbaugh and talk radio in the late 1980s and ramped up with the birth of Fox News. Matt Drudge, his protégé Andrew Breitbart and Breitbart’s successor Steve Bannon leveraged the power of the internet to espouse their far-right views. And with the advent of social media, we saw the emergence of a radical “alt-right” media ecosystem able to create its own “facts” and build an audience around hostility to the establishment, anti-immigration sentiment and racial resentment. Nothing even close to comparable exists on the left.

Mr. Trump’s election and behavior during his first 10 months in office represent not a break with the past but an extreme acceleration of a process that was long underway in conservative politics. The Republican Party is now rationalizing and enabling Mr. Trump’s autocratic, kleptocratic, dangerous and downright embarrassing behavior in hopes of salvaging key elements of its ideological agenda: cutting taxes for the wealthy (as part of possibly the worst tax bill in American history), hobbling the regulatory regime, gutting core government functions and repealing Obamacare without any reasonable plan to replace it.

This is a far cry from the aspirations of Republican presidential giants like Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower, as well as legions of former Republican senators and representatives who identified critical roles for government and worked tirelessly to make them succeed. It’s an agenda bereft of any serious efforts to remedy the problems that trouble vast segments of the American public, including the disaffected voters who flocked to Mr. Trump.

The failure of Republican members of Congress to resist the anti-democratic behavior of President Trump — including holding not a single hearing on his and his team’s kleptocracy — is cringe-worthy. A few Republican senators have spoken up, but occasional words have not been matched by any meaningful deeds. Only conservative intellectuals have acknowledged the bankruptcy of the Republican Party.

We have never suggested that Democrats are angels and Republicans devils. Parties exist to win elections and organize government, and they are shaped by the interests, ideas and donors that constitute their coalitions. Neither party is immune from a pull to the extreme.

But the imbalance today is striking, and frightening. Our democracy requires vigorous competition between two serious and ideologically distinct parties, both of which operate in the realm of truth, see governing as an essential and ennobling responsibility, and believe that the acceptance of republican institutions and democratic values define what it is to be an American. The Republican Party must reclaim its purpose.


By Thomas Mann, Norman Ornstein, NYT Dec. 2, 2017
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  3  
Sun 3 Dec, 2017 07:58 am
@Builder,
Builder wrote:

Most thinking souls are simply content that he's the hiccup that slowed the forward march of the neoliberal agenda.

If "most thinking souls" really were "content" with this "hiccup", he would be popular. He is not.
Lash
 
  -1  
Sun 3 Dec, 2017 08:07 am
@snood,
Your premise is wrong.

You don’t have to like trump at all — you can hate him — and be relieved that the message about the duopoly and the roll toward neoliberalism has gotten through to millions via the last election.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Sun 3 Dec, 2017 08:26 am
@Builder,
Sorry, but whoever wrote that is retarded and is engaging in some serious wish projection

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Sun 3 Dec, 2017 08:48 am
@Lash,
Quote:
and be relieved that the message about the duopoly


Duopoly itself isn't the worst thing. In fact, the way our government is set up, it's pretty much a natural outgrowth of party politics. The problem isn't that there are only two main parties, the problem is who and what those parties represent and the policies they put into play. Over time, the ideologies of the parties change to reflect evolving conditions and opinions. Trump's GOP is obviously not the same as that of George W. Bush or Mitt Romney.

Quote:
and the roll toward neoliberalism has gotten through to millions via the last election.


I don't think the majority of Trump voters were consciously sending a message about the onward roll of "neoliberalism" and their desire to stop it. They were responding to the effects of the ideological stalemate in Congress which has made Washington seem hamstrung, unhelpful, and non-productive and they were recoiling from a candidate believed by many to be corrupt, boring, or stale — or any and all of those things. It seems to me that the message of populism — throw the bums out — won the election for Trump, while the old Republican machine works to enact neoliberal legislation such as the current tax bill.
hightor
 
  4  
Sun 3 Dec, 2017 08:52 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
You might want to remember that there is nothing even remotely wrong with them having contacts with the Russians.

Then why were such efforts made to hide the fact of these contacts? And if "collusion" is totally above board and proper, why does Trump repeatedly deny that it occurred?
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Sun 3 Dec, 2017 09:13 am
@hightor,
There were some efforts by Trump /via twitter) to shift the attention to Clinton ... did I miss those by our regular contributor?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Sun 3 Dec, 2017 09:16 am
@hightor,
I’ve noticed your tendency to pretend to re-state my comments, add something I didn’t say, and then argue with the statement you created. This makes it seem that you’re really just here to **** off. I don’t mind that, but you can see it puts a damper on my desire to take you seriously.

For anyone legitimately interested in the damage he duopoly does to your country, here.


http://fortune.com/2017/03/09/why-politics-is-failing-america/

It wasn’t always that way. America’s political system was long the envy of the world. The system advanced the public interest and gave rise to a grand history of policy innovations. Today, however, it serves as only a barrier to solving nearly every important challenge our nation needs to address.


The Harvard Business School’s project on U.S. competitiveness found that Washington has made virtually no progress on any of the essential policy steps needed to restore prosperity and growth. A broken political system has suddenly become the greatest threat to our nation’s future.

So how did we get here? In part, by stealth. Over the last several decades, the American political system has been slowly reconfigured to serve not the public interest, but rather the interest of private, gain-seeking organizations: our major political parties and their industry allies. These players have put in place a set of rules and practices that, while largely unnoticed by the average citizen, have enhanced their power and diminished our democracy.

Indeed, America’s current political system would be unrecognizable to our founders. Many of its day-to-day components have no basis whatsoever in the Constitution—which offers no mention of political parties, party primaries, caucuses, ballot access rules, segregated congressional cloakrooms, party-determined committee assignments, filibuster rules, and countless other practices that drive today’s dysfunction. John Adams, our second President and one of the most astute thinkers among America’s founders, even warned the upstart nation against slipping into a duopoly, saying, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other.
Lash
 
  0  
Sun 3 Dec, 2017 09:21 am
We have two oligarchy-serving corporate parties that are almost completely unresponsive to the will of the public. They are identical, but idiots who have been sold this small-minded diversion of what amounts to a high school football rivalry have lost the ability to look and SEE and THINK.

They have little measures to keep the tribal cheerleading factions fighting while they rape the land.

Good job.
hightor
 
  3  
Sun 3 Dec, 2017 09:23 am
@Lash,
Where did I add anything you didn't say? I commented on the quoted material; I did not add anything where I quoted you. It would be more helpful if you showed exactly what you meant rather than just editorializing, "hightor's here to **** off." Honestly, I don't recall "neoliberalism" being a topic during the campaign.
Quote:
Indeed, America’s current political system would be unrecognizable to our founders.

Hell, the whole political planet would be unrecognizable to them.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Sun 3 Dec, 2017 09:53 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
We have two oligarchy-serving corporate parties that are almost completely unresponsive to the will of the public.

Yup.
Fortune wrote:
John Adams, our second President and one of the most astute thinkers among America’s founders, even warned the upstart nation against slipping into a duopoly, saying, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other.

Washington was another critic of political parties.
Wikipedia wrote:
Duverger's law is an idea in political science which says that constituencies that use first-past-the-post methods will lead to two-party systems, given enough time. Economist Jeffrey Sachs explains:

The main reason for America's majoritarian character is the electoral system for Congress. Members of Congress are elected in single-member districts according to the "first-past-the-post" (FPTP) principle, meaning that the candidate with the plurality of votes is the winner of the congressional seat. The losing party or parties win no representation at all. The first-past-the-post election tends to produce a small number of major parties, perhaps just two, a principle known in political science as Duverger's Law. Smaller parties are trampled in first-past-the-post elections.
— from Sachs's The Price of Civilization, 2011[13]

Duverger's law is rarely seen in reality, with most first-past-the-post elections resulting in multiparty legislatures, the United States being the major exception

(article on "first past the post")


Fortune wrote:
Over the last several decades, the American political system has been slowly reconfigured to serve not the public interest, but rather the interest of private, gain-seeking organizations: our major political parties and their industry allies.

Both parties are unrepentant supporters of capitalism and cater shamelessly to the rich and powerful. The GOP because it actually represents the rich and powerful, the Democrats because they need the financial support of the rich and powerful. Campaign finance reform, a new "fairness doctrine", electoral reform to prohibit gerrymandering, encouraging early voting and mail-in ballots, overturning "Citizens United", limits on media monopolies in any single market, and ranked choice voting would all go some way toward making our political system more effective and more representational. These reform measures would be strongly opposed by the corporate power structure and thus, very difficult to enact.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  3  
Sun 3 Dec, 2017 09:59 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

Your premise is wrong.

You don’t have to like trump at all — you can hate him — and be relieved that the message about the duopoly and the roll toward neoliberalism has gotten through to millions via the last election.

I don't agree with you about what the salient message was from this last election. No surprise since I think you're wrong headed about just about everything you've been saying for at least the last two years. The caveat "just about everything" is because I happen to agree with some of your entertainment (movies, genres, actors) choices.
Cycloptichorn
 
  5  
Sun 3 Dec, 2017 10:08 am
@Lash,
This is the bullshit that makes me not take you seriously.

The idea that our parties are 'identical' is a farce. Not only does the current tax debate show this, the actual actions and priorities forwarded by the Dems when they were last in power show this as well.

Your Icon Sanders would scoff and scold you for making such statements, why do you engage in such false and overly simplistic reductionism?

Cycloptichorn
maporsche
 
  2  
Sun 3 Dec, 2017 10:24 am
@hightor,
I’m a neoliberal and I don’t think that tax bill is neoliberal.
Lash
 
  0  
Sun 3 Dec, 2017 10:28 am
@snood,
I’m surprised you don’t admit how many things I’ve been proven right about.

Not everybody can point to actual emails that prove them right. The Podesta file dump proved me right about Bernie being cheated by the DNC, as I so emphatically pointed out.

Media collusion with the DNC is a matter of public record.

I cited a coming sea change is politics — I don’t think anyone will argue that.

Hillary was hated. You said there was no way she’d lose the election.

I feel like my bead on American politics definitely dominates yours—from the day you said there was no way in hell a black man could be elected president, and I said you were wrong.

People are finally talking about Bill Clinton’s rapes. I was right about that.

I’ve been proven right about a lot.

I could go on... 😇
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.47 seconds on 05/15/2025 at 07:18:39