General politics

[drjim]

Not since the damn 1800s.....people don't kill their political oppponents anymore....the 50s-80s, the most prosperous time for every US citizen, that was the time of compromise. Then it started to wane in the 90s, and died this century.

That's also a historical fluke brought on by an existenstial crisis. Hard and undesirable context to replicate.

 

A lot has changed since the 80s, foremost (for this discussion) the ideological sorting of parties. "Compromise" is a great idea, but really doesn't mean much in practice, other than having those you disagree with concede the argument.

[drjim]

We have literally developed derogatory slang words for people are willing to listen to others.

 

That's our politics today in a nut shell.

And basically politics throughout the history of the country.

[nicksaviking]

 

It's relatively well known American history.

 

As is slavery, horses and buggies and muskets. Unless we're talking about Lee Harvey Oswald being a viable political entity, political assassination hasn't been an American pastime for a long time.

 

Anyone claiming murder is a better option than compromise is a lunatic. And compromise still happens all the time in our government, just on a more micro level. You vote for this and your district will get that infrastructure funding, or the school improvement bill will get added to such and such a bill if we can add my economic initiative.

[drjim]

As is slavery, horses and buggies and muskets. Unless we're talking about Lee Harvey Oswald being a viable political entity, political assassination hasn't been an American pastime for a long time.

 

Anyone claiming murder is a better option than compromise is a lunatic. And compromise still happens all the time in our government, just on a more micro level. You vote for this and your district will get that infrastructure funding, or the school improvement bill will get added to such and such a bill if we can add my economic initiative.

It's why it was stated that it used to be that way. I don't think anyone, anywhere called fkr murder.

 

Your last point is interesting. Bringing back earmarks might be a good idea. Could lead to a little more compromise in smaller scale, bring more bargaining chips to Congress.

[TheLeviathan]

 

And basically politics throughout the history of the country.

 

There has always been mudslinging and dirty politics, but I think this particular brand of tribalism is new.  

 

We've come to a point where outcomes are nearly irrelevant, when they should be the most important thing.

[TheLeviathan]

And now the left is starting to eat it's own for ending the shutdown.  

 

Ugh.

[stringer bell]

I don't like that Democrats voted in a shutdown and relented in three days, but there is another deadline in three weeks and CHIP is now funded. 

 

Unless and until there is a real budget, Democrats can shut down the government if they want, so this weekend wasn't a "now or never" event.

 

Personally, I think it is insane to continue like this, but I'm positive the current ruling party can't come up with any kind of compromise that could both pass the House and get 60 votes in the Senate. 

[drjim]

 

I don't like that Democrats voted in a shutdown and relented in three days, but there is another deadline in three weeks and CHIP is now funded. 

 

Unless and until there is a real budget, Democrats can shut down the government if they want, so this weekend wasn't a "now or never" event.

 

Personally, I think it is insane to continue like this, but I'm positive the current ruling party can't come up with any kind of compromise that could both pass the House and get 60 votes in the Senate. 

 

The Dems really had no choice. A shutdown won't force the Republicans to pass a bill. Waiting longer would only make it worse. They can see what happens before now and then.

[glunn]

It seems to me that the Dems need a comprehensive plan that they can sell to voters -- something like Newt's "Contract with America", but populist and realistic. 

[nicksaviking]

 

It seems to me that the Dems need a comprehensive plan that they can sell to voters -- something like Newt's "Contract with America", but populist and realistic. 

 

They also need to de-stigmatize the word socialism with the voters. Everything they do gets clobbered by the GOP as being socialist while those knee-jerk voters fail to understand that their Red State staples of agriculture assistance, social security and co-ops are already socialism at work and paying off for them.

 

Socialism = bad if it's not benefiting me. Sigh. If the GOP was consistent with their message they'd be telling everyone that their parents and grandparents are commie scum and that farmers are the bane of capitalism for accepting government income and assistance. Why can't the Dems competently show this hypocrisy?

[PseudoSABR]

Of course the corporate structure is a kind of socialism that socializes risk and privatizes profit.

[glunn]

 

They also need to de-stigmatize the word socialism with the voters. Everything they do gets clobbered by the GOP as being socialist while those knee-jerk voters fail to understand that their Red State staples of agriculture assistance, social security and co-ops are already socialism at work and paying off for them.

 

Socialism = bad if it's not benefiting me. Sigh. If the GOP was consistent with their message they'd be telling everyone that their parents and grandparents are commie scum and that farmers are the bane of capitalism for accepting government income and assistance. Why can't the Dems competently show this hypocrisy?

I see this as a branding issue. Many people see socialism as a failed approach, based on the fall of the Soviet Union and the success of capitalism in China. It seems to me that the word "progressive" is safer.

 

Sadly, the Republicans seem to be geniuses at branding, while the Democrats are not. 

 

If I were a member of Congress I would introduce legislation to:

 

1. Cut $250 billion per year of waste/inefficiency, starting with the defense budget. We need to stop building weapons systems for political reasons and we need to think smarter about who we may be fighting and how best to defeat them. It would also be cheaper to pursue nuclear disarmament than proliferation. This would also replace the war on drugs with a much less expensive program to get people off drugs and into jobs, housing and becoming taxpayers.

 

2. Create a health care system based on what's worked best in other countries, and tout the undeniable fact that the abortion rate could be cut by as much as 50% by providing better sex education and birth control services. My legislation would provide that if specified benchmarks are not met within two years (including a 25% reduction in abortions), then we will default to the Israeli health care system, because I like competition and am tired of the abortion debate. 

 

3. Raise taxes on people making more than $500,000 per year and use the additional revenue to fix our infrastructure and provide affordable public college educations for everyone who is willing to work for them.

 

4. Offer "GI" type loans to train people to fill the millions of unfilled jobs.  http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/06/news/economy/us-job-openings-6-million/index.html

 

5.  Take an Oprah position regarding jobs -- EVERYONE GETS A JOB. If someone can't find a job then they can train for one, and if that does not work then they can take a minimum wage job paid for by the government. In California, this would mean that we might never have another wildfire (because the brush would get cleared), and in the long run the taxpayers would save money compared with the current welfare/unemployment system. Also, the minimum wage needs to be a living wage, and I would view $15 per hour as a starting point, with a target of $20 (adjusted for inflation) if and when items 1 through 4 are working and the government is running a surplus.

 

I would call this the "American Values Act", because it includes thriftiness and efficiency, and it also requires everyone (who is able to do so) contribute to society, it would cut the abortion rate by at least 25%, while expanding women's reproductive autonomy and in the long run make us far safer from enemies.

 

I think that this could all be done without debating socialism, and the Democrats could win if they would focus on programs that reflect all of our values, including being smart and creative.

[stringer bell]

GLunn for Congress, or Senate, or President! Taking a swing at what ails this country from the left side is probably overdue.

[glunn]

 

GLunn for Congress, or Senate, or President! Taking a swing at what ails this country from the left side is probably overdue.

I once ran for the school board as a protest candidate and won. Sadly, the other members were often too concerned about re-election to do the right thing.

[Craig Arko]

The Doomsday Clock is now set to two minutes to midnight. Pretty much the closest we've been to self destruction in my lifetime. (Note: the Cuban missile crisis came and went too quickly for them to react to it.)

 

https://thebulletin.org/timeline

[TheLeviathan]

Today in Republican politics:

 

It's ok to slander law enforcement as bumbling, biased, incompetent, untrustworthy oppressors.

 

As long as they do it.

[Musk21]

 

Today in Republican politics:

 

It's ok to slander law enforcement as bumbling, biased, incompetent, untrustworthy oppressors.

 

As long as they do it.

 

This about sums it up:

 

Chris Hayes
‏@chrislhayes
 

Remember, if you're grief-stricken and horrified when an innocent person is shot & killed by police, then you hate law enforcement. But if you want the the #2 at the FBI hauled out in cuffs because of his wife's political affiliation then you're a good law and order conservative.

 

[gunnarthor]

Everything is so messed up I barely even noticed that a US Congressman invited a holocaust denier to the State of the Union.  Good grief. In a normal year, that would be the scandal we wouldn't stop hearing about and the guy would be out of office in no time. 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/31/gaetz-florida-right-wing-troll-380577

[Badsmerf]

Again, nothing matters anymore. The president blatantly lies during his state of the union, and tweets afterward, and his supporters don't care. It's like the twilight zone. I feel like if I ran for office, it would be mandatory to lie now. I couldn't win or keep supporters by telling the truth all the time!

[gunnarthor]

So Nunes bombshell is a big dud. Probably the reason they released it on the Friday before the Super Bowl. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

So Nunes bombshell is a big dud. Probably the reason they released it on the Friday before the Super Bowl. 

Just stupid politics, and smells of desperation. 

 

I don't know what Mueller knows or if there's discoverable evidence, but there's something that Nunes/Trump etc. don't want hitting the light of day. 

[gunnarthor]

 

Just stupid politics, and smells of desperation. 

 

I don't know what Mueller knows or if there's discoverable evidence, but there's something that Nunes/Trump etc. don't want hitting the light of day. 

Yeah, I figure Bannon was more or less right - Kushner's money trail probably leads to something and Mueller has some pretty good money laundering lawyers on the case so .... 

[Badsmerf]

We got into approval ratings and midterm potential in the other thread, but I want to migrate that topic here. The Nunes memo seems a lot to do about nothing. Nobody except Trump seems to be taking it seriously. Even on the faux news website, they provide the disclaimer many gop officials and the fbi discredit it. It provides fodder for the base, but not much.

 

The Democrat lead is narrowing right now, but what happens when more Russia indictments start happening? Or am obstruction case moves forward? None of it matters if the democrats don't get organized and push good candidates.

[Squirrel]

 

We got into approval ratings and midterm potential in the other thread, but I want to migrate that topic here. The Nunes memo seems a lot to do about nothing. Nobody except Trump seems to be taking it seriously. Even on the faux news website, they provide the disclaimer many gop officials and the fbi discredit it. It provides fodder for the base, but not much.

The Democrat lead is narrowing right now, but what happens when more Russia indictments start happening? Or am obstruction case moves forward? None of it matters if the democrats don't get organized and push good candidates.

The Dems can't get organized. Their ideology is too wide and there is strong disagreement from one end to the other what their message should be moving forward, and a strong unwillingness to compromise, so ... And their leadership needs to step aside and take a back seat and the let the younger voices lead us forward, but they won't and can't see the damage it's doing. There's also a strong disagreement who the leadership should be. Career politicians ... there really shouldn't be a thing and I think it would be better, but they are, in both parties.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I need to see unpopular truth-tellers front and center before I vote D again. No more "rising stars" or party bosses or 28th generation Kennedy kids saying all the right things.

[Mr. Brooks]

I need to see unpopular truth-tellers front and center before I vote D again. No more "rising stars" or party bosses or 28th generation Kennedy kids saying all the right things.

Would Joe Biden do anything for you.

I think he's the best kryptonite for Trump that the Dems currently have.

[TheLeviathan]

I would advise against letting "younger" voices lead as much as they need new voices. Millenial liberal ideas at the forefront would only further bury them. No more identity politics, back away from immigration. You can address those issues later when you are in power. Dont make them your identity.

 

They need to focus on two or three issues that are winners with the public. I would suggest health care and tax reform. Then sell the ever loving hell out of it with a candidate with real blue collar credentials.

[Squirrel]

I would advise against letting "younger" voices lead as much as they need new voices. Millenial liberal ideas at the forefront would only further bury them. No more identity politics, back away from immigration. You can address those issues later when you are in power. Dont make them your identity.

They need to focus on two or three issues that are winners with the public. I would suggest health care and tax reform. Then sell the ever loving hell out of it with a candidate with real blue collar credentials.

I think there are younger voices that aren’t the old guard and aren’t millennial, either. The point is that I think the party leadership needs to be adjusted in order to find the compromise needed to get it together. I will still vote D because I think it’s better than any alternative out there. Maybe younger voices wasn’t the right description ... but new, strong voices who can blaze a trail to a message that the party can at least go forward on. Some of those on the far left want it all or nothing and then claim non-inclusion in the process. And I think those more Central have difficulties with compromise, too. As I said, the party is too broad and it’s difficult to find a common voice because the gulf is wide between what the right and left in the party support.

[TheLeviathan]

Right, but IMO you bridge that gulf by simplifying the core messages. Thats how the Republicans garnered so much momentum.

 

Oh....and pick winning messages. They have, and are, bafflingly bad at that.

[Squirrel]

Right, but IMO you bridge that gulf by simplifying the core messages. Thats how the Republicans garnered so much momentum.

 

Oh....and pick winning messages. They have, and are, bafflingly bad at that.

This long/time liberal agrees but I still have little hope that the Dems will get it right in time