Jump to content
downzy

US Politics/Elections Thread

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, TheSeeker said:

Uhhhh buddy. It's been exactly that for decades.

Prepared to provide examples that are akin to what Trump has done with Ukraine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, downzy said:

One thing that yesterday made clear is that Virginia is no longer a swing state.

First time in 50 years that Democrats control both state houses, the governorship, both federal senate seats, and voted for the Democratic candidate in the previous presidential election.

Republican politics have now been shut out in Virginia urban areas and suburbs.  Fairfax County, once a Republican stronghold, has become a lock for the Democrats.

With respect to Kentucky, I kind of dismiss claims that a small Democratic victory for the Governor's mansion doesn't mean anything.  No, Kentucky isn't about to become a swing state, but the claim that because Bevin didn't lose in a landslide is a win for Republican politics is a bit questionable.  There have been a lot of terrible Republican and Democratic Governors who have won re-election in states that are traditionally deep red or deep blue.  In a state where Republican registration is plus ten over democrats, where Trump got 22 percent of the Democratic vote in 2016 and won the state by 30 points, it's significant that Trump and Trumpism couldn't keep the Governor's mansion red in 2019.  

Significant is that Trump-style Republicans seem to lose when they try to nationalize the race: make it about Warren, Pelosi, socialism, impeachment, Trump.  Democrats in 2020 should learn that they win by focusing on small-ball politics; focus on healthcare, education, inequality.  That's how Beshare won yesterday.  

Was Bevin really a Trump Republican? Is Trump even still a (2016) Trump Republican?

I don't know much about Bevin, but based on his wikipedia page, his fiscal issues section makes him sound like a standard Paul Ryan type Republican, not a 2016 Trump style Republican.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Was Bevin really a Trump Republican? Is Trump even still a (2016) Trump Republican?

I don't know much about Bevin, but based on his wikipedia page, his fiscal issues section makes him sound like a standard Paul Ryan type Republican, not a 2016 Trump style Republican.

Trumpism is more about attitude and posture than it is about policy.  Bevin hugged as tightly as he could to the identity politics practiced by Trump to inflame divisions and gin up support amongst an angry, largely uneducated white base.

Trump is just as, if not more, popular today with Republicans and his voters than he was in 2016 despite adopting much of Paul Ryan's conservative policy platform.  Gutting regulations, lowering taxes on the wealth, cutting and dismantling the social safety net.  So if Trump's continued popularity amongst his base has little do with with his record of governance, then it has to be about something else.  Like I said, attitude and posturing.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, downzy said:

Trumpism is more about attitude and posture than it is about policy.  Bevin hugged as tightly as he could to the identity politics practiced by Trump to inflame divisions and gin up support amongst an angry, largely uneducated white base.

Trump is just as, if not more, popular today with Republicans and his voters than he was in 2016 despite adopting much of Paul Ryan's conservative policy platform.  Gutting regulations, lowering taxes on the wealth, cutting and dismantling the social safety net.  So if Trump's continued popularity amongst his base has little do with with his record of governance, then it has to be about something else.  Like I said, attitude and posturing.  

 

Trump as president is all attitude and posture, no doubt there. But policy wise he has been essentially standard operating procedure Republican, or Wall Street Republican, or whatever you want to call it. Nothing like the guy who ran in 2016. Where's the guy who stood up in a debate in a southern state calling the Iraq war a disaster and George W Bush a liar and saying he wanted to get out of these wars (in reality he hasn't been able to fully pull out of Syria or Afghanistan)? Where's the guy who said he wanted an end to illegal immigration but also reduce legal immigration (now he claims he wants more legal immigrants)? Where is the guy who talked about replacing Obamacare with something (he was never specific but if you read in between the lines he was talking about some type of national system that covered everybody and had competition between providers, now he doesn't even talk about healthcare)? Where's the guy who talked about big infrastructure spending (again, another thing he never talks about now)? But I agree, he as turned out to be all hot air. A sheep in wolf's clothing is what I call him.

I would need to see the numbers, but I have a feeling turnout of Trump type republicans has to be lower than it otherwise would be if he were actually fighting for the policies he ran on in 2016 rather than the Paul Ryan agenda.

Edit: I think there's a large swath of the American electorate who want left wing economics, more traditional social values, and 'isolationist' (even though I think that is a bad term) foreign policy. But no one will actually give it to the public because the big donors want the antithesis of all of that.

Edited by Basic_GnR_Fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Trump as president is all attitude and posture, no doubt there. But policy wise he has been essentially standard operating procedure Republican, or Wall Street Republican, or whatever you want to call it. Nothing like the guy who ran in 2016. Where's the guy who stood up in a debate in a southern state calling the Iraq war a disaster and George W Bush a liar and saying he wanted to get out of these wars (in reality he hasn't been able to fully pull out of Syria or Afghanistan)? Where's the guy who said he wanted an end to illegal immigration but also reduce legal immigration (now he claims he wants more legal immigrants)? Where is the guy who talked about replacing Obamacare with something (he was never specific but if you read in between the lines he was talking about some type of national system that covered everybody and had competition between providers, now he doesn't even talk about healthcare)? Where's the guy who talked about big infrastructure spending (again, another thing he never talks about now)? But I agree, he as turned out to be all hot air. A sheep in wolf's clothing is what I call him.

I would need to see the numbers, but I have a feeling turnout of Trump type republicans has to be lower than it otherwise would be if he were actually fighting for the policies he ran on in 2016 rather than the Paul Ryan agenda.

That guy never truly existed.  It was a marketing ploy, not a real political platform that was pie in the sky bullshit (which is why I take issue with much of what Sanders and Warren proposes).

Trump has stronger support and approval numbers at this point in his Presidency (well, at least before the impeachment inquiry) than any Republican President since I believe Eisenhower.  Hell, his support among Republicans seems to go up whenever he goes full David Duke).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, downzy said:

That guy never truly existed.  It was a marketing ploy, not a real political platform that was pie in the sky bullshit (which is why I take issue with much of what Sanders and Warren proposes).

Trump has stronger support and approval numbers at this point in his Presidency (well, at least before the impeachment inquiry) than any Republican President since I believe Eisenhower.  Hell, his support among Republicans seems to go up whenever he goes full David Duke).  

I agree that it was marketing. But I take issue with the fact that it is pie in the sky for a President to at least fight for things such as infrastructure spending, immigration control, and a less aggressive foreign policy. I mean, I feel like that's not asking for much. Yeah I don't expect a President to solve the cost of college or something like that, but there are realistic things that can be fought for that would be really popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe diGenova: I would say explosive and I would say for people at the highest levels of the FBI and at the highest levels of the Justice Department, more important at the Justice Department, it’s going to be devastating. What’s clear now we know is that the senior levels of the Obama Justice Department were complicit in knowingly submitting materially false applications to the FISA Court for an illegitimate counterintelligence purpose. Not for a legitimate purpose but to spy on Americans for political purposes. And it really will end up being the beginning of the greatest political scandal in history. And it’s being held up partially because of John Durham’s new grand jury exists for one reason and one reason only – because people are going to be indicted.

Justice Dept. is trying to finish report on Russia probe before Thanksgiving, Trump's counterpunch :popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Silent Jay said:

Joe diGenova: I would say explosive and I would say for people at the highest levels of the FBI and at the highest levels of the Justice Department, more important at the Justice Department, it’s going to be devastating. What’s clear now we know is that the senior levels of the Obama Justice Department were complicit in knowingly submitting materially false applications to the FISA Court for an illegitimate counterintelligence purpose. Not for a legitimate purpose but to spy on Americans for political purposes. And it really will end up being the beginning of the greatest political scandal in history. And it’s being held up partially because of John Durham’s new grand jury exists for one reason and one reason only – because people are going to be indicted.

Justice Dept. is trying to finish report on Russia probe before Thanksgiving, Trump's counterpunch :popcorn:

Well if Joe diGenova says it, it must be true... 

:jerkoff:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing on Mexican ISIS yet?

Quote

“I really believe that the cartels in Mexico have moved to another level of barbarity, they are as bad or worse than ISIS. ISIS have an ideology,” said Rosa LeBaron, 65, whose cousins, nieces and nephews died in the attacks. “These sicarios (hitmen), why are they doing it? Out of greed and pure evil.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-violence/mexican-cartels-worse-than-isis-massacre-victims-kin-urge-us-help-idUSKBN1XI0KB

I guess since it doesn't involve Israel or oil there's no need to get involved...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Nothing on Mexican ISIS yet?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-violence/mexican-cartels-worse-than-isis-massacre-victims-kin-urge-us-help-idUSKBN1XI0KB

I guess since it doesn't involve Israel or oil there's no need to get involved...

This is a story that I don't think gets enough attention.  

One thing that I think Trump might be ahead of is having American troops enter Mexico.

I think it's only a matter of time.  Mexico is a failing state.  The government is outgunned by the cartels.  

Things are going to get a lot worse in Mexico before they get any better.  Legalization of most narcotics in the US is likely going to have to happen.  It's what's driving the drug trade and violence in Mexico.

The other issue that's coming down the pipe is automation.  This will cripple the manufacturing sector in Mexico, causing more Mexicans into gangs, violence and drugs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 “I think in light of all of the things going on, and you know what I mean by that: the fake news, the Comeys of the world, all of the bad things that went on, it’s called the swamp… you know what I did,” he asked. “A big favor. I caught the swamp. I caught them all. Let’s see what happens. Nobody else could have done that but me. I caught all of this corruption that was going on and nobody else could have done it.”

The first hearing will be November 13th. :popcorn:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Silent Jay said:

 “I think in light of all of the things going on, and you know what I mean by that: the fake news, the Comeys of the world, all of the bad things that went on, it’s called the swamp… you know what I did,” he asked. “A big favor. I caught the swamp. I caught them all. Let’s see what happens. Nobody else could have done that but me. I caught all of this corruption that was going on and nobody else could have done it.”

The first hearing will be November 13th. :popcorn:

 

Pretty impressive considering he doesn't start work until 11am and watches cable news most of the day.  He must be extremely efficient in those few moments he gets any work done.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Nothing on Mexican ISIS yet?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-violence/mexican-cartels-worse-than-isis-massacre-victims-kin-urge-us-help-idUSKBN1XI0KB

I guess since it doesn't involve Israel or oil there's no need to get involved...

I wouldn't call it ISIS. I mean, Al Capone was never called a terrorist. Back in the 20s and 30s the U.S. looked pretty much like that. It's the same shit with different smell.  I'm afraid not much is going to change unless drugs become legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further indication of how fucked up the state of affairs are when something like this gets little to no mention or coverage:

Trump (or I should say the Trump "Foundation") admits to defrauding veterans charities.  

This would ruin any other President.  But thankfully for Trump there's enough deplorables out there that this stuff doesn't matter.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, downzy said:

or I should say the Trump Foundation? 

No, I think you were right the first time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2019 at 1:20 PM, downzy said:

This is a story that I don't think gets enough attention.  

One thing that I think Trump might be ahead of is having American troops enter Mexico.

I think it's only a matter of time.  Mexico is a failing state.  The government is outgunned by the cartels.  

Things are going to get a lot worse in Mexico before they get any better.  Legalization of most narcotics in the US is likely going to have to happen.  It's what's driving the drug trade and violence in Mexico.

The other issue that's coming down the pipe is automation.  This will cripple the manufacturing sector in Mexico, causing more Mexicans into gangs, violence and drugs.  

I think NAFTA or whatever it's called now really needs to be revamped, because that deal just destroyed all the Mexican farmers. And now manufacturing disappearing on top of that, not good for Mexico or the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Silent Jay said:

worth mentionning the hall she and Booker appear before was nearly empty.

EI8lpM3WwAURCp-?format=jpg&name=small

Wow! Reminds me of Trump’s inauguration. :o 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, TheSeeker said:

 

Yikes! That "I'm just a player in the game" line will bite her in the butt.

Not something you want to hear from someone promising to take on the establishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, -W.A.R- said:

Yikes! That "I'm just a player in the game" line will bite her in the butt.

Not something you want to hear from someone promising to take on the establishment.

Her (true) private position slipped out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been saying this for awhile.

Republicans could give a rats ass about democracy.  They don't really believe in it anymore.  It's all about the accumulation of power, imposing their ideology on the country, and prioritizing the interests of some (and more often than not, the minority) over everyone else.  They reject election results that do not go their way.  

It's why they dismiss the concerns about Russian interference (since it helped their side), defend the electoral college (it has given them the White House two of the last five elections despite losing the popular vote), and do not see abuse of power as an impeachable offence and justifying removal from office for a sitting President (so long as it's one of their own).  

They strip incoming Democrat governors of power when they can, deny a sitting Democratic president the right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and fight tooth and nail to defend hyper gerrymandered districts in courts.  

The Republican party has become the vessel in which authoritarianism currently spreads in America.  This emergence of authoritarianism will likely not be limited to the Republican party going forward. The in-kind reaction from Democrats and non-Republicans will likely follow suit.  But it's a dangerous precedent.  

Trump isn't the cause but the result of authoritarian politics in the Republican party.  If a day comes when unabashed and naked authoritarianism takes over governance in America, whether it's the left or the right, people of that time only need to look back at the bad faith actions and words espoused by Republicans starting in the mid 90s through the age of Trumpism.  So whenever I hear people like Lindsay Graham, Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, Mitch McConnell talk about the will of the people, it makes shake my head.  They only give a shit about power and give zero fucks about respecting the values, principles, norms and ethics of what made America one of the greatest countries on the planet.  

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-secret-reason-republicans-wont-impeach-trump?ref=scroll

"So when you hear someone on television say that Republicans’ posture is all about their fear of Trump, don’t buy it. It’s partly about that. But it’s also about this. If they were to acquiesce in the removal of a Republican president, they’d be placing democracy ahead of power. And this is one thing that we know they will not do."  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×