Printable View
Might as well have a thread.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-conten...ied09.2019.pdf
https://www.lawfareblog.com/timeline...kraine-scandal
(Note that this was not a transcript but a summary "memorandum" of a 30-minute call.)
But again, this was being reported since as far back as April and Trump commits and repeats impeachable offenses on an ongoing basis. Do you masochists find this more entertaining than reading progressive Democrats' sweeping new antipoverty package?
Better hope this goes nowhere, dont think the dems will survive giving trump a clinton boost.
Not that they arent shaking themselves apart as it is.
I think someone forgot it was their turn to babysit Trump. I guess that it was their reasoning that no one takes him seriously, so he couldn't possibly do any harm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I like how you finally gave into the "showing it to the libtards" mentality. You can't get your stupid way, so the best way to deal with it is a protracted temper tantrum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
No, it indicates that the old narrative of "adults in the room" mitigating Trump's impulses is now thoroughly bogus, if it was ever anything other than horsecrap. Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, apparently the Attorney General, and any number of other upper-level officials watched - at best passively watched along - as Trump engaged in this and other banana republic lawlessness. There is no White House, only Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
I'm still upset over losing my other post.
I like how you have remained determined to not react to what I have actually said but instead what you seem to want to believe I have said.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Your side is doomed, I'm getting my way and I am gloating. No tantrum here.
It borders on "woohoo dem lebturds r gettin a likkin", so I didn't respond; there was nothing to respond to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I would like to point out that "my side" wants things like global stability and standards ensuring sustainability, as well as general equality. Your side appears to include blond orangutans screaming about- you know what? I'm not sure anymore. Brexit would objectively weaken the UK and complicate the EU-US union, which would weaken both in terms of being able to counter the RF and PRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
If "your side" wants this, then I guess you are actively working against the interests of your country.
Once my mayor, now someone about to have a closeup of their gaping eyes as they die in an anime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Giuliani
I just gotta hope that the inquiry gets people from within the White House and forces them to corroborate the memo and whistle blower's report as well as perhaps the actual transcript that was sent to the more classified server. If the impeachment vote goes forward but on essentially party lines within the House I don't think the Republican Senators would dare break rank and give enough votes to remove POTUS from office.
It'll be interesting if the WH tries to use executive privilege to protect itself from an Impeachment investigation. It shouldn't stand as there is precedent from previous impeachment trials but still, convention hasn't been the norm with Trump in office.
I'll also hope that they do more closed door inquires if possible. While I'd like to see and hear the soundbites as well I'd much rather have the different committees and the people being questioned not working to get the right soundbite to add in the evening news or get a positive tweet from the president.
The simple fact that Republicans are prepared to tolerate almost any amount of scandal to keep power means that this whole process is close to theatre.
~:smoking:
Its what happens when the cry of wolf is sounded constantly for three years over worse scandals (ones that prove false positives more often than not by the by) without provoking this action. The less stalwart republicans have learned to suppress the instinct to preemptively condemn trump and now wait for confirmation of legitimacy of scandal before reacting.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I'll be suprised if they can even get all of the non safe seat democrats to vote for it now the chips have fallen into yet another "kinda sorta if you shake your head and squint" issue.
Indeed - to paraphrase Stalin - A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I would imagine that the majority in the USA are numb from the sheer number of things that for most others would have led an individual to resign. Everyone is realising that all you have to do is live in the moment - don't let what you said slow you down and what, in fact, can stop you? Where previously even the whiff of a scandal would have led to a nomination to the Supreme Court be removed - why should that be the case? Is lying a crime? After all, who knows what the truth is?
So it is all scandal. And equally all normal. I've seen people say the Muller report found nothing. In fact it found plenty but it was not the place to action - that is for Congress.
I can well sympathise with the apathy - as long as the Senate is Republican, Trump will stay since they know Bill Clinton benefited from the whole process - as if screwing an intern and lying about it could be considered a "crime"!
~:smoking:
The word scandal has become like a swear word, use it rarely with good cause the impact is immense, use it often over nothing and soon noone gives a :daisy:.
The word you're looking for is "fascism." A scandal is an episode of wrongdoing. Trump and the Republican Party are dismantling the government.
"Fascism", Another word that has become meaningless by incessant misuse, along with "racism", "sexism", "homophobia", "xenophobia", "transphobia", "islamaphobia", "anti-semitism" and of course "impeachable".
Here's another word: tyranny. In its classical definition, getting more and more like what's going on in the UK, perhaps not as far along in the US, but looking like a common MO of Bannonite politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
How many days since the Supreme Court ruling overturned the Government and Parliament was reopened? How many times has Boris had his plans voted down?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Just to be clear - who is the tyrant in the UK?
~:smoking:
We're seeing threats of violence from the right. Does that count towards the definition of tyranny?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
No... That's if anything anarchy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
And how safe does a country have to be before a few posts online is viewed as tyranny?
~:smoking:
In this decade? Where some representatives's greatest concern while walking in the halls of the mighty is online trolling and harsh language?
I may actually go with rory and greymaids on this one. After what happened to the Leave Campaign after the referendum, I don't think anyone has any concrete plan to do anything except take the money and run away to Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I agree that fascists reject the normal communicative function of language.
I'm not sure what that has to do with this thread, but the point is that the politicians of one major American party, for the sake of unlimited political power and out of fear of their constituents, are willing to tolerate their president using his office for political gain and personal enrichment while ruthlessly violating the law and eliminating or suborning the career civil service in favor of party flunkies and personal loyalists. They support him and themselves by restricting the electoral access of the lower-class and non-white when not committing outright electoral fraud. It is the continuation of an explicit generational project to capture the institutions of government and it has been wildly successful. In other words, the entire right-wing of the most powerful country in the world is a criminal junta and a conspiracy to seize power.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
I'm honestly scared now at the lengths Trump will go to prevent losing.
Are you still surprised? You shouldn't be.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Here's a helpful heuristic: Whatever bad shit you see them doing at any given moment, it will necessarily, dialectically get worse because they haven't reached the logical conclusion at the confluence of their goals and methods.
Please, please, remember, for now and for 10 years from now, if there's nothing else you will remember of our interactions: The worst-case scenario is the likeliest scenario.
"There is no bottom" etc.
Worry when you see a repeal of the two-term limitation pass one of the houses of Congress. All the sturm and drang Trump may care to deliver does not carry with a majority of the electorate, only his rabidly supportive 30%. I have no fears of a civil war or a race war and we are too aware of "wag the dog" conflicts as political tools to be snowed under by that (Note: Monty will likely assert that GWB's administration did just that in 2003 with the poorly reviewed (at best) evidence on Sadam Hussein's efforts at MDW; I would assert that that is one of the reasons WHY that card would be tough to play again right now).Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
This is such insane levels of cowardice masked as caution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The dude is clearly strong-arming other countries to influence our election in his favor. You say worry when Congress starts dismantling the Constitution? Jesus man, you might as well ask people to take a day off when the illegals are executed in the streets.
You're edging on hysterical.
I just understand the road this leads to, and you know where it goes as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Support for impeachment increases, independents included, so I'm not sure that the failure to impeach Donald will harm the Democrats. An interesting perspective on the issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ0Z2i8WZfY
I said it that way because it ain't gonna happen. People are reacting to this asshat as though the system will let him roll over and declare a dictatorship by fiat. Our system, culture, and outlook won't permit such absent a civil war. And if he somehow managed to inspire his yahoo 30% to take up arms they would lose. Instead, he probably loses in November and flitters away into the twitterverse in mid-January 2021.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
And you can shove the 'cowardice' comment sideways up your own orifice of your choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I would replace "cowardice" with unwarranted hopefulness. It's just drawing another line in the sand, and belaying commitment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
You don't have to tiptoe around it, it was lies. The Bush administration consciously and deliberately manufactured lies to create a pretext to invade Iraq, which it had wanted to do since before 9/11. This is all well-documented and common knowledge. I mean, it was kind of out there even in 2002/3, but afterwards there were whole Congressional inquiries and everything that brought thousands of pages of evidence to public attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Besides that historical note, I would note that Trump supporters are especially dangerous because they don't need manufactured evidence, they will literally reject the evidence of their eyes and ears on command. Trump can lie about anything he likes and they will literally believe it. See the especially ludicrous spectacle of Trump releasing a smoking gun for modified limited hangout and then shamelessly declaring that it says what it doesn't and doesn't say what it does, before - and after - personally confirming and *repeating* the substance publicly. The more insipid Republicans then go about debasing themselves by perpetually pretending lack of familiarity with the events when pressed for comment. But again they ultimately subordinate themselves to the subset who will support Trump regardless of what he does that they know is wrong. The former are merely evil. It's the larger group slouching through a haze dreaming dreams who are marked most by their troglodytism, represented by bestial converts like Lindsay Graham, who are more frightening for being both evil and stupid, knowing and representing their constituents so very well.
Though from the perspective of the Republican Party seizing power, being the party of genuinely stupid people hooked on dark soma is a definite inherent weakness. This correlation between malice and stupidity is perhaps our best hope for survival. Force may shit on reason's back, but the weight of the inability to correctly interpret empirical reality must weigh eventually. The trick is to minimize the damage.
He's been working the hinges since before he got into office. He has and will continue to do a lot of damage. But if he loses re-election we 'only' have to worry about low-level violence and the institutional damage of an (loudly) unwilling transfer of power in succession. If the guy was smarter and more in step with the Republican Party our prospects would be much bleaker. Imagine what a dedicated propagandist and ideologue like Tucker Carlson could accomplish in office. Thankfully, he is quite uncommonly stupid and irrational for a human being, and as noted above so are many Republicans.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
He knows what side he's on.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Again, cause and symptom - it's the Republican Party we have to worry most about. Not because they will likely back this guy this time around if he wants to seize the republic, but because they will the next one from the start.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
This isn't a viable safeguard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
It goes to 4 more years of good times for every american not driving themselves into conniptions following the media cycle of endlessly trying to build up a scandal and then ditching it when it turns out bunk and looking for the slightest sign of new scandal to hype past reason. All the while hoping people just forget the umpteen times the newest scandal that would bring down the presidency dissapeared into the ether.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
You're being blue balled into insanity.
Trump himself will not become a dictator or tyrant, the situation in the US - political and cultural - simply won't allow it. However, Trump can do real damage to the Republic by corrupting American civil society (already done) and moving America that bit closer to an actual Despot.
The fact the Democrats and moderate Republicans are following Trump in a race to the bottom is the real problem here.
I know you are aware this isn't true. Farmers are totally screwed and will continue to be screwed. They can't even distribute aid properly. I guess it helps that they will still vote for him, even if his policies absolutely wreck them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1VY0ZT
This type of complacency is honestly the most alarming thing I have seen. It's not Trump, it's not his drones, it's not Farage or anything else. It's the fact that people living in democracies are willing to trash their own house if it means they feel better about themselves in the short term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Quite the opposite - I am unwilling to roll around in the mud with Trump. Rather, I seek to roll back his perverse influence instead - one coffee shop, one pub, one damned Internet Forum at a time.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
It's one of the best we have, alongside sic semper tyrannis, but you're right:Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
HOLY FUCKING SHIT every accusation is always a confession. These reports of unlimited malfeasance always make me smile.Quote:
Profit, not politics: Trump allies sought Ukraine gas deal
As Rudy Giuliani was pushing Ukrainian officials last spring to investigate one of Donald Trump’s main political rivals, a group of individuals with ties to the president and his personal lawyer were also active in the former Soviet republic.
Their aims were profit, not politics. This circle of businessmen and Republican donors touted connections to Giuliani and Trump while trying to install new management at the top of Ukraine’s massive state gas company. Their plan was to then steer lucrative contracts to companies controlled by Trump allies, according to two people with knowledge of their plans.
Democrats certainly aren't rofl.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
You're still not getting it. Factual accuracy is not relevant in these circles. What is false may be truer than true in the truest sense, while anyone can use facts to prove what can't be right.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
It's like the old-school political nihilism. Refer to the Dostoevsky quote I dredged up a year ago:Quote:
This type of complacency is honestly the most alarming thing I have seen. It's not Trump, it's not his drones, it's not Farage or anything else. It's the fact that people living in democracies are willing to trash their own house if it means they feel better about themselves in the short term.
EDIT: Sorry, here it is.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
You don't think Elizabeth Warren's claims of native American ancestry are shameless, populist pandering?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I hope in the future you will refrain from commenting on a matter without informing yourself first, as your question is ridiculous in every conceivable facet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Warren has thought of herself as having Native ancestry since childhood, in a state (Oklahoma) where perhaps a majority of white people would attest to such ancestry.
Warren didn't affirmatively advance any claim about herself as Native American to the public, Donald Trump did - in a derogatory fashion. She reacted to it (naively clearly) by demonstrating the accuracy of her family stories.
There are fewer Native Americans in the United States than there are Jews. Elizabeth Warren acknowledges that she is not a Native American, nor do Natives see her as one. I struggle to imagine how even a calculated claim of such ancestry could begin to be "populist pandering" in theory.
Even in a scenario where Warren had fabricated an identity as having Native ancestry for the purpose of this election, and doing so was thought to be electorally advantageous among Democratic constituencies, it should be obviously inappropriate to frame it in context with, among other things, violent rhetoric and the corrupt subversion of governmental and civil institutions.
That was a seriously dogshit post Phil. :thwack:
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/warren-...gh-cheekbones/
https://www.boston.com/news/politics...rican-heritage
Warren self-identified as Native-American whilst working as a legal scholar and after being hired at Harvard. These articles are from 2012-13 when she was running for the Senate, before Donald Trump even entered politics.
"No, as I said, these are my family stories. I have lived in a family that has talked about Native Americans, talked about tribes since I had been a little girl," she said. "I still have a picture on my mantel and it is a picture my mother had before that - a picture of my grandfather. And my Aunt Bea has walked by that picture at least a 1,000 times remarked that he - her father, my Papaw -- had high cheek bones like all of the Indians do. Because that is how she saw it and your mother got those same great cheek bones and I didn't. She that thought was the bad deal she had gotten in life."
"Being Native American has been part of my story, I guess, since the day I was born," Warren continued.
Yes, Trump then mocked her for these claims and when she ultimately took a DNA test there was little physical basis for them. At the end of the day it's rather like me identifying as Welsh based on my grandmother's ancestry, though she actually bore the giveaway name Lloyd.
I'm sorry, but if it's not deliberate pandering then it feels like naive Liberal wish-fulfilment. This is not something she just idly claimed - she had it on her professional resume and deliberately presented herself as Native American in public life.
I see no reason why we can be ultra-Cynical about the likes of Trump, Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn but not Elizabeth Warren.
Absolute best-case explanation is a woeful lack of judgement that makes her unfit for high public office.
This is a caliber of stupidity approaching insolence. She never presented herself as Native American in public life. She talked about her family history. The DNA test corroborated the family history. The lack of judgement was in thinking her right-wing critics were concerned with that substance for its own sake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
She chose to list herself as "Native American", not "white" or "Mixed White and Native American".Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
She chose consciously to present herself, within her profession, as unambiguously native American.
This also has very little to do with Trump, as opposed to the Birther conspiracy which WAS supported early by Trump.
When she was confronted she initially doubled down.
If you think I'm wrong why has she now apologised? It's because she committed the cardinal Liberal sin of claiming an ethnic identity she was not, in their view, entitled to.
A supportable Oklahoman (a focal point for white-Native admixture) family legend had her self-identifying as a Native American in 1980s and 90s, in a time where this was a very prominent trend in America. Native groups complained over the 2018 events because the dispute was not politically relevant and could contribute to misconceptions about what constitutes Native affiliation. As Warren said this year, "I am not a person of color; I am not a citizen of a tribe. Tribal citizenship is very different from ancestry. Tribes, and only tribes, determine tribal citizenship, and I respect that difference." So what's the story?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
We can talk about how her response to Trump was in bad judgement, but your characterization of it is plain silly and shows rather worse judgement on your part.
In a perfect world, politicians would be perfect and would not say or do such stupid things. Of the imperfect world we live in, she seems to be on balance the best of the bunch on offer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
This comment is at best foolish - although she is no fool - and isn't really defensible. But if this is the worst thing she has recently done, well, I'll accept that.
~:smoking:
What infuriates me about PVC's framing is that it accuses Warren of something she hasn't done while completely ignoring what is in fact bad about what she has done. A real :daisy: sandwich.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
The problem with Warren's handling of this issue is that her pedantic sense of her heritage (and the claim of heritage from specific tribal groups rather than generically) is that its contestation serves no benefit for the electorate, and for it to enter national discourse as a subject of discussion probably only brings negative attention to Native interests. Most Natives don't get to enjoy the benefits of whiteness while also eating the cake of exotic aesthetic, and Warren becoming a de facto representative for them when the subject comes up doesn't contribute to repairing their sovereignty or addressing the many demands of Native groups. The publicity doesn't help with the long-running scams that white Americans have run while fraudulently touting Native membership to gain its benefits and access. Warren's family stories might have more substance than most, but the whole trend of excitement and pride over a marginal (non-cultural) connection to Amerindians is both very American and very White, the latter in its ability to treat the putative association to an oppressed minority as a cute factoid or empowering story without burden (though to be fair it has also been a trend among African Americans to identify distant Native ancestry, for slightly different reasons). It's basically a racist mindset in how it relates to Amerindians and how it conceives of what makes one. The technical accuracy of one of Warren's narrowest ancestral propositions or the accuracy of Republican criticisms of her is nothing at all to be resolved on her terms because it's of purely personal import. This is the political sphere. As a politician she has an especially prominent platform, which is best and most responsibly used when advancing the interests of constituents and the country rather than in validating her self-image. That's why it's been gratifying to see her demonstrate the ability to adapt and to learn from mistakes throughout her campaign this year, those being exactly some of the most important qualities a leader can have.
Whereas PVC comes in here with a propagandistic mindset that sees no dissonance in saying that Warren maintaining her self-image discussing Native ancestry only when prompted to do so by Republican attacks is somehow pandering (without explaining what that could possibly mean in context) and in turn that this testifies to a race to the bottom on Democrats' part is just - the stuff of committed bull artistry and I hold it in contempt.
There's a lot of coordination between the Bannonites on both sides of the Atlantic, and their supporters lap up their stories whilst imagining that their Bannonite position has nothing to do with the Bannonite position on the other side of the water. Thus you will have Brexiteers affecting some kind of contempt for Trump, whilst parroting the narratives devised by Trumpites. Functionally there is no dividing Trump and Brexit; both are branches of the Anglo-American far right, directed by the same group. There is a fair bit of suspicion that Russia and Putin do the strategy, that Russia is the state benefits most, with the leaders of the US and UK also benefiting financially.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Over here, the main director is Dominic Cummings, currently chief of staff of the PM Boris Johnson. Who are the personnel on the American side?
You might mind your stress levels go down if you stop assuming other people are more stupid and ignorant than yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
There is a very long history of white people claiming some distant, invisible minority heritage for what is - essentially - a fetish. The most famous of these in the US is the claim to "Native" ancestry for a variety of reasons.
In the UK it's often claims of Black heritage - not always so simple, either: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...on-hattenstone
In the case where people who "present" as only white have stories of mixed-race ancestry they tend to do one of three things; reject it, accept it, or shout it to the world. For obvious reasons people on the Far-Right will usually pick the first. Liberals, especially academics, will sometimes (but rarely) pick the third. This is what Warren did - self-identified to the Texas Bar and in an academic directory as "Native American". There are a number of reasons she may have done this, including outright fetishisation, rejection of white american culture or a need to expunge her own sense of guilt as a product of colonialism.
I don't think Warren did this to get a job, but I do think she did it to assert a Native American identity, to "be" a Native American lawyer and legal academic. The fact she hunkered down and protested this identity for more than half a decade and took a DNA test to prove it shows she's used it as part of her political idenity too.
WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/elizabe...nk-11566241904
Now, you may be most concerned with the impact this will have on Native Americans but I would counter that given your entire system is still designed bottom-up to wipe them out and integrate them into wider American society it's small beer. I'm much more concerned with what this whole sorry episode says about Warren's judgement, because you can bet if she'd been able to convince her detractors and won the election as some point she would have said, "As the first Native American President..."
Now that would have been damaging to Native interests.
Our treatment of Native Americans/First Peoples/Amerinds was nowhere near as programmatic as you suggest. It was not designed, so much as happenstance, arising from a mix of racism, greed, remorse, and corruption. A truly coordinated policy of subjugation would have crushed those cultures entirely so that they could be fully absorbed or massacred en toto.
She was baited into taking the tests by a tweet and publicized the results entirely on her own volition.
Warren being nominated, trump could not ask for an easier opponent.
The end-goal of all American policy so far as I am aware has always been:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
1. Christianisation.
2. Assimilation.
3. Obliteration through interbreeding.
Alongside this you have had, at certain times, forced removal and outright massacre alongside the blatant violation of treaties without any pretext.
So, really, the problem has been that greed has hampered point 2 and 3 - if the white had been less greedy the Native Americans would have disappeared as a separate people just as native Caribbean Islanders have.
I am aware that they are incapable of humility or critical thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Trump has accomplished two things: He unified the left in terms of bare hatred towards Republicans, and created a homogenized group loyal to him. How would a shrewd mind exploit this? What are the strengths of the former and the weaknesses of the latter?
I apologize, I took it too far.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I still disagree with your sentiment, for an example of what is to come, look at Oregon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_O...lican_walkouts
Refusal to comply with the institutions they were elected to, with the full force of armed militia's. Now that it has worked once, they will keep doing it.
I wish you would not use the term "Bannonite," because it imputes far too much influence to Stephen Bannon. He is presently a marginal chump with no particular influence remaining (crossing Trump even got him kicked off of Breitbart), despite the "liberal" media often still handing him pundit-circuit welfare checks to appear on TV.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Speaking of, searching his name earned me the funniest juxtaposition. What a hack:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Sadly also typical for what sort of insight and content the cable TV news prioritizes.
The important thing to note is that his ideas are merely one outgrowth of mainstream Republicanism. This reddit comment is a perfect representation of the psychology that has been cultivated and in turn feeds this movement:
It's a death cult, pure and simple, and death cults tend to collapse at the end of an apocalyptic doom spiral.Quote:
I think what most liberals are missing is that this isn't about right and wrong, it's about winning and losing. I've attached my entire worldview to this man and I am going down with the ship. Not one of you is going to convince me otherwise.
Movement conservatism has no prominent central thought leaders that I am currently aware of, if that's what you mean by your question. Seamus could tell you more. I would identify just the usual longtime constellation of Beltway pundits (e.g. Bill O'Reilly, Tucker Carlson), magazine columnists (David French, Rod Dreher), audiovisual freak shows (Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones) and religious leaders/televangelists/christofascists (Falwell & Graham kids, Pat Robertson - who recently said Trump was in danger of losing "the mandate of heaven" for pulling out under the Kurds). Plus the billionaires who fund many of them and other projects and help refine the party line to their own taste.
The point is, the Republican Party is not a Leninist organization because Bannon engineered it, Bannon is who he is because the Republican Party has been a Leninist organization since the 1960s and Trumpism dissolved the mask.
As for Russia, I wouldn't be surprised at Republicans welcoming any level of foreign interference (see: NRA), but more importantly their interests align well enough already that Russia probably wouldn't need any specific leverage; Republicans could independently arrive at a similar result, and increasingly so with the direction of recent political alignments around the globe. Unsurprisingly, a party whose reason for being is to serve domestic fascistic plutocrats does not actually have many doctrinal differences with foreign fascistic plutocrats. Sure, ultimately nationalists have to compete with other nationalists - the pie isn't big enough for every foreigner to wet their beak and sharing is for communists - but trampling civil society and the rights of the peasants, suppressing liberal dissent, that's something they can all agree on.
You posted something egregious so I had to respond forcefully. Don't post nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
I'd have you read these on the matter.Quote:
There is a very long history of white people claiming some distant, invisible minority heritage for what is - essentially - a fetish.
Let's be aware that politicians often have some sort of narrative about their heritage, and may even be wrong, so the presence of the topic is not a problem in itself. Amerindian heritage in American context is a special category however, and it's a claim that millions of Americans, across the political spectrum make. I wouldn't be surprised if most whites who claim Native ancestry identified as Republicans given their geographic distribution. The "white guilt" narrative is largely a figment of perpetually-panicked conservative imaginations.
Or, she was very close to her mother, who maintained a claim to Native American ancestry, she liked the sound of it because it made her working-class upbringing more unique, and she wanted to meet other people with similar backgrounds.Quote:
This is what Warren did - self-identified to the Texas Bar and in an academic directory as "Native American". There are a number of reasons she may have done this, including outright fetishisation, rejection of white american culture or a need to expunge her own sense of guilt as a product of colonialism.
She didn't shout it to the world, Republicans did. Quibble all you like about her response but recognize that basic fact that she never brings it up except in response to Republicans (and now on her various apology tours with Native groups).Quote:
I don't think Warren did this to get a job, but I do think she did it to assert a Native American identity, to "be" a Native American lawyer and legal academic. The fact she hunkered down and protested this identity for more than half a decade and took a DNA test to prove it shows she's used it as part of her political idenity too.
Now then - so :daisy: what? Gosh, she self-reported herself in a directory for private and professional networking without ever claiming contemporary affiliation! What does this have to do with pandering or a race to the bottom? If you merely don't like how she reacted to the political controversy that's fair enough, now the next step is to update yourself on her recent conduct.
Baseless BS. You would have to ignore all reality to create this hypothetical. It's like saying, if Barack Obama could be appointed Democratic nominee today he would do it. Absurd counterfactual prejudice.Quote:
I'm much more concerned with what this whole sorry episode says about Warren's judgement, because you can bet if she'd been able to convince her detractors and won the election as some point she would have said, "As the first Native American President..."
Now that would have been damaging to Native interests.
To say that there wasn't a single overarching national plan (until the end) does not mean that it wasn't systematic. I mean, from the beginning of the country's history almost all white people wanted and expected all indigenous people in the way of expansion to be removed and preferably killed. They carried this desire forward over generations and regions. It was one of the most overwhelming, unifying consensuses in American history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
At this moment, Trump calls impeachment illegal and treasonous, and announces his total refusal to cooperate with legally mandatory Congressional oversight. Watch for the escalation of calls to violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Read your own link, they've done it before in 2001, and the Democrats walked out in 1971, 1995, and 2001. This is not a watershed moment and the act isnt a republican monopoly, at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Only interesting thing is the "come take it" revolutionary rhetoric, and that is hardly a new thing in american politics, even on the century scale.
Overheated rhetoric is never justified. You just didn't like what I said and responded emotionally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
White Guilt is certainly present in other parts of the world, if there is no white guilt in the US at all then that suggests a complete lack of self-awareness as a nation. There's a difference in claiming ancestry and asking others to identify you with that ancestry.Quote:
I'd have you read these on the matter.
Let's be aware that politicians often have some sort of narrative about their heritage, and may even be wrong, so the presence of the topic is not a problem in itself. Amerindian heritage in American context is a special category however, and it's a claim that millions of Americans, across the political spectrum make. I wouldn't be surprised if most whites who claim Native ancestry identified as Republicans given their geographic distribution. The "white guilt" narrative is largely a figment of perpetually-panicked conservative imaginations.
She was middle class - and that statement by her was completely wrong-headed. What does "people like her" mean in this context? Other Native Americans, or other middle class white people who claim Native American heritage? Again, what she wrote in that directory was "Native American" and not "white-Native American".Quote:
Or, she was very close to her mother, who maintained a claim to Native American ancestry, she liked the sound of it because it made her working-class upbringing more unique, and she wanted to meet other people with similar backgrounds.
I think if I self-reported as Hong-Kong Chinese I'd get a similar reaction - just because one of my ancestors was posted there and I have dark har and slightly slanted eyes does not mean I should consider myself Hong-Kong Chinese. There's probably nothing to it.Quote:
She didn't shout it to the world, Republicans did. Quibble all you like about her response but recognize that basic fact that she never brings it up except in response to Republicans (and now on her various apology tours with Native groups).
Now then - so :daisy: what? Gosh, she self-reported herself in a directory for private and professional networking without ever claiming contemporary affiliation! What does this have to do with pandering or a race to the bottom? If you merely don't like how she reacted to the political controversy that's fair enough, now the next step is to update yourself on her recent conduct.
Sorry, what? A little while back she had a section on her web site about her DNA test. If she's been embraced by the Cherokee Nation it would presumably still be there. The whole sorry mess speaks to her poor judgement.Quote:
Baseless BS. You would have to ignore all reality to create this hypothetical. It's like saying, if Barack Obama could be appointed Democratic nominee today he would do it. Absurd counterfactual prejudice.
At Monty RE #54 above.
As to the conquest of the Native Americans, I agree with you. While it was not programmatic or systemic, the 'we are better then them so we have a right to squelch them' mentality was a nearly ubiquitous attitude that allowed "euro" Americans to treat them with disdain for so long. While never as openly and completely articulated as the eugenics message of Germany's NSDAP, it was functionally they same self-aggrandizing belief that we were superior and had a right (duty?) to treat them little better than livestock.
Movement Conservatism Thought Leaders:
The modern American Conservative movement really has three intellectual founders: Buckley, Kristol, & Friedman. This is the troika who estabished the mantra of smaller and less intrusive government, anti-Keynesianism, market deregulatin etc. At the outset their was a bit of a "white man's burden" attitude towards segregation etc. This was, fortunately, set aside by Buckley et al. Goldwater was the first pol to take up this stance on a national scale. Reagan was his heir in this role.
GOP'ers usually see two 'counter-points' to movement conservatism: Country Club Republicans [typified by Nixon, GHWB, and Ford] who seek power but have little interest in small government or scaling down government's role in the economy. They are often viewed as seeking to keep their privilege intact while maintaining government power to do so. Trump doesn't use the 'country club' label, since Limbaugh has rechristened them as "Never Trumpers" but they Movement conservatives view them as too willing to make a deal and not dedicated to conservatism winning.
You also have the "Buchhannan" wing. This was a batch of ardent America Firsters. Less taxation, less social welfare, but promote American economic growth and success through tariffs and leveraging American economic power to advantage. TEA party wingers draw some of their motivation from this wing.
Trump core support (aside from the racist asshats who want their Aryan nation fantasy) draw from this Buchannan wing and have, to a goodly extent, taken over Movement Conservatism from the inside. I am not enamored of the distortions this brings.
Yes and no. Easiest to defeat would be Joe because he's not liked by the whole party; Sanders would be an automatic loss for Trump BUT since his health scare this is very unlikely to get to the nomination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Warren on the other hand has all the attributes, charm and power to get to the job. However it depends on her ability to withstand politics.
I actually don't have a problem with the philosophical fathers of Conservatism. Even where I strongly disagree, I still respect their right to pursue their politics. The distinguishing features of what I've called Bannonism are little to do with their political philosophy, and more to do with how they pursue them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
1. Build a core of around 30% who will back them no matter what.
2. Build an operational strategy around consequences. If there are no repercussions, they are free to break the law and/or constitution.
3. Refer all disagreements to the holy principle of democracy, based on the core 30% and whoever else they can get.
4. Silence the opposition.
Given the ongoing relevance,here is a delightful opportunity to highlight the stakes in the Oregon walkout earlier this year.
In 2018, Oregon Democrats won a supermajority (18-12) in the Oregon State Senate, as well as in the House. Republican senators walked out first in May to block a school funding tax. They returned only after Democrats scrapped bills on gun control and vaccines. The legislature advanced a cap & trade bill that would have easily passed under normal circumstances. Then, the Republican senators walked out to deny the Democrats quorum. The governor authorized state police to detain the senators, most of whom then fled beyond state lines. One of them (Brian Boquist) threatened violent resistance against agents of the state, and he was backed up by militia groups. One day during the walkout loggers held a peaceful protest outside the capitol building that the Oregon GOP twitter account captioned with "Heavily armed militia lays siege to Oregon's Capitol as Senate Democrats cower in fear", and indeed the capitol building was closed out of fears that actual armed militia groups would arrive.
After a few days, a conservative Democrat took the opportunity to withdraw her support from the bill, breaking the supermajority (needed for tax-related legislation in Oregon). The Democratic leadership announced the cap & trade bill was dead and the Republicans soon returned. Brian Boquist, due to his violent rhetoric, has been restricted from entering the capitol building, but I believe he is still technically sitting in office. For their part at least the other Republican Senators disavowed militia support (though only after Democrats withdrew the bill).
A chilling usurpation of the legitimate government, especially in light of the long history of political violence and even local coups in the name of white supremacy and other far-right shibboleths in the United States.
For comparison, let's take a look at the other walkouts.
March 8, 2007: Senate Republicans staged a brief walkout over a tax deal. Gov. Ted Kulongoski asked the Oregon State Police to fetch two Republican senators from Corvallis for a vote. The senators returned voluntarily without being arrested.
June 25, 2001: House Democrats staged a five-day walkout to prevent a Republican maneuver to redraw state legislative districts without the governor’s signature. The walkout strategy was supported by then-Senate Minority Leader Kate Brown, who now is Governor.
April 14, 1995: Ten Senate Democrats walked out, holing up in a Salem restaurant and denying Republicans a quorum, after Republicans decided to kill an award named after the late Sen. Frank Roberts, a Democrat.
1971: Both House and Senate Democrats staged walkouts during the session, but neither lasted more than a day. Senate Democrats walked out to protest Republican leadership’s refusal to consider ratification of a federal constitutional amendment lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. State Police rounded up missing lawmakers, who were at a Salem legislator’s house. House Democrats also walked out, although the reason is unclear. Oregon State Police were unable to locate the missing legislators, who were hiding in the Senate Majority Leader’s office.
Obviously this 2019 walkout was a watershed moment.
You should consider that I had very good reason for not liking what you said, and that you should internalize it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
If you had merely offered that you thought she had showed poor judgement in handling the controversy, and your opinion of her political abilities was diminished, it would have been a valid opinion. I would have disagreed on the grounds of her demonstrated campaigning skill and adaptiveness in 2019, but the disagreement would have been so banal as to not warrant arguing over.
Instead, you said that Warren even maintaining this identity was shameless pandering and part of a race to the bottom, which is the rhetorical and logical equivalent of throwing a flaming sack of excrement. Of course that's shameful, what's wrong with you?
You thankfully seem to have withdrawn this line, but it's one of the worst I've seen you post.
Well, yes?Quote:
White Guilt is certainly present in other parts of the world, if there is no white guilt in the US at all then that suggests a complete lack of self-awareness as a nation. There's a difference in claiming ancestry and asking others to identify you with that ancestry.
So?Quote:
She was middle class - and that statement by her was completely wrong-headed. What does "people like her" mean in this context? Other Native Americans, or other middle class white people who claim Native American heritage? Again, what she wrote in that directory was "Native American" and not "white-Native American".
Yes, if you excise events from all context and substitute a different arrangement anything is possible.Quote:
I think if I self-reported as Hong-Kong Chinese I'd get a similar reaction - just because one of my ancestors was posted there and I have dark har and slightly slanted eyes does not mean I should consider myself Hong-Kong Chinese. There's probably nothing to it.
So if she hadn't been criticized for something she wouldn't have adjusted her behavior? That's not shocking.Quote:
Sorry, what? A little while back she had a section on her web site about her DNA test. If she's been embraced by the Cherokee Nation it would presumably still be there.
I fear your overall perspective on Warren is an unreasonable and prejudicial one, leading to your fixation to the exclusion of facts.Quote:
The whole sorry mess speaks to her poor judgement.
Referring to the above, this doesn't even bear debating because the facts will develop in the short-term, over the next year. Either she doesn't win nomination and it's irrelevant, or she does and her judgement will be on full exercise for review.
I think he was asking more after present-day figures though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I still think her public expression of native identity is somewhat cynical. The "I wanted to be invited to a luncheon" line doesn't wash with me unless you want to believe she's exceptionally naive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Maybe she is though, the more I read about this the more intellectually incoherent it is. The biggest miss-step would seem to be the DNA test because that, to my understanding, imposes a White Germanic standard on Native American Tribal membership.
Oh, so as a nation you ARE completely lacking in self awareness?Quote:
Well, yes?
She wasn't working class - she was poor. There's a difference, I should know.Quote:
So?
Or I could include my legendary ancestor Tord in my university Bio. I don't though - because that would be stupid. Tord is merely a subject for polite conversation over dinner.Quote:
Yes, if you excise events from all context and substitute a different arrangement anything is possible.
You don't imagine that eventuality would be somewhat scandalous? I do.Quote:
So if she hadn't been criticized for something she wouldn't have adjusted her behavior? That's not shocking.
Exclusion of what facts? You tried to blame all of this on Trump when it actually started years ago - which is a pretty important fact.Quote:
I fear your overall perspective on Warren is an unreasonable and prejudicial one, leading to your fixation to the exclusion of facts.
Referring to the above, this doesn't even bear debating because the facts will develop in the short-term, over the next year. Either she doesn't win nomination and it's irrelevant, or she does and her judgement will be on full exercise for review.
Monty addressed this better than I could.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Oof. Your self deprecation cuts far deeper than I would be willing to on that one.
I disagree, a suprise to everyone I am sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Biden and Sanders are at an advantage over Warren for the simple fact they have not far to move from thier primary to thier electoral strategies; the former did not indulge much relative to the majority of the candidates and the latter is a true believer who will plant his feet and tell the world "no, you move". Warren dived head first into the worst excesses of the democratic fringe: indulging the prejudices of race, sex, class and origin, pinning her flag to every bad mast of policy and legislation put to the country in the last year.
The problem is for most of it she's an ingenuine, she has the same stink of cynicism around her that hillary did, the cherokee blood issue is merely the most visible example. It's worst of two worlds, true believers are gonna worry she'll U-turn while the moderates are gonna worry she wont. There's plenty of ammunition for both arguments; the warren of the 2000's is markedly different to the one of the 2010's, plenty of footage to stoke both sides' fears.
I would agree a major issue would be her political capability, being easily baited is a bad thing when your opponent is an expert at anger tactics and she's prone to trouble when derailed.
Looking further into Oregon walkouts, I found something interesting that the other timeline missed.
The 2019 walkouts seemed a watershed in terms of: an opposition preventing a (super)majority and unified government from governing at all, denying all major legislation; partisans threatening political violence to coerce capitulation.
In the former, I see that in fact February 2016 was a prior milestone, at least in concept. The Democrats in 2016 also had a Senate supermajority of 18, and the Republicans also walked out in an attempt to block multiple new pieces of legislation, including another environment/climate bill (re: utilities rates regulation). However, the walkout only lasted an evening and beyond delaying proceedings (as with their other tactic of forcing all bill texts to be read aloud on the floor) as far as I can tell did not actually prevent multiple laws from leaving the legislature (as in 2019).
Looking afield, supermajority quorum requirements (where they exist) for the most part have been taken advantage of by minority parties during redistricting processes to try to secure more favorable boundaries. The 2001 Oregon walkout was in this mold but something of an anomaly because the Republicans controlled the legislature but the Democrats had the governorship and secretary of state; the Democrats walked out to prevent legislature Republicans from bypassing the governor's veto through the contested procedural gimmick of calling the redistricting a resolution instead of a bill (had it gone as Republicans wanted there would have been a court case but ultimately the redistricting defaulted to the Secretary of State). Searching contemporary American history for an instance of a walkout with the primary objective of standing athwart the government's legislative agenda I could find only the 2011 Wisconsin and Indiana walkouts, which saw limited success (they delayed some anti-union/labor legislation) for which state Democrats suffered heavily - or at least, it didn't help them, nor did it avert subsequent extreme gerrymandering in Wisconsin. Therefore in this regard the 2019 Oregon walkouts were not unique as an agenda denial strategy, albeit they were stunning and likely unprecedented for their relative success in mostly stymieing the majority's agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
To comment further on this, I was just throwing out some names on the top of my head at first. Pat Buchanan is a big one. Another one within the party and activist infrastructure itself would be Grover Norquist. But now I wonder if these names aren't too 'legacy.' They would have seemed more appropriate to list in 2015. Columnists like French and Dreher I perhaps shouldn't have mentioned at all because they've never had much of an audience, I believe, outside upper-middle class people online. I bet more liberals read them than "ordinary" conservatives. In this day and age you've got more Internet-famous types like Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk who are sometimes feted like some kind of new wave, but don't do much besides monetizing "own the libs" rhetoric on Youtube and social media. meanwhile, in the contemporary Republican party there just hasn't been much intellectual theorizing about government and society that has a meaningful influence on party doctrine. Currently it's really just Trump's whim, he is the doctrine. Going by audience size maybe we could keep figures like Rush Limbaugh and Tucker Carlson, who are technically ideologically independent of Trump, but that ideology is just a variant of Trumpism. There are no ideas as such within Trumpism - though even in the past conservative philosophy consisted largely of fig leaves for depravity - and no content beyond the irritable gestures of white grievance and masculine chauvinism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
In the end one could list Trump and the other billionaires standing astride it all, the pretense of substance stripped away.
As for someone like Dominic Cummings in the specific capacity of party/government strategist: Stephen Miller.
Throughout the 20th century, what was she cynically trying to accomplish by believing similar things to millions of other Americans? Or by not raising the matter in her political career until her opponents did?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
I could give you one interpretation though, that because Trump was attacking her for it she became reinforced in the notion that reacting to the attack on its own terms would look best to her constituents. She did double down harder in 2016-8 than during her first Senate race. Being seen to hit back at Donald Trump is something that motivates most Democratic politicians for its own sake, and by accounts she formulated her 'Native heritage' messaging privately and without recourse to her advisers. The result could then be painted as a toxic mixture of purblind personal slight and perceived political imperative.
To reiterate she had a common naive racist image in her head of what being Native means, as demonstrated by her talk of "high cheekbones" and whatnot when the controversy was first instigated. Leftists tend to recognize white racism as inevitable; what we demand is the capacity to update one's worldview.Quote:
Maybe she is though, the more I read about this the more intellectually incoherent it is. The biggest miss-step would seem to be the DNA test because that, to my understanding, imposes a White Germanic standard on Native American Tribal membership.
I mean, you and I don't know what her household income was at various junctures during her childhood, but "working class" is generally considered equivalent to "lower-middle class". That seems like a reasonable label, especially given that Warren described her upbringing as "on the ragged edge of the middle class."Quote:
She wasn't working class - she was poor. There's a difference, I should know.
Your alternate world seems to presuppose that this would not in fact be scandalous by dint of being accepted without controversy - which is trivial to say.Quote:
You don't imagine that eventuality would be somewhat scandalous? I do.
I referred to him as provoking the DNA test, which he did explicitly issue a challenge for, and as returning the ancestry issue to public attention after years dormant by repeatedly attacking her for this starting in 2016 (Pocahontas etc.)Quote:
Exclusion of what facts? You tried to blame all of this on Trump when it actually started years ago - which is a pretty important fact.
You started interpreting Warren to exclusion of the details of the history of her identification and the details of its entry into and course through public consciousness. Moreover I don't think you took into account contradictory evidence (such as a review of her primary campaign) before concluding that her handling of the matter testified to a disqualifying lack of judgement (as opposed to a redressable mistake).
Evidence includes her exceptionally well-organized campaign, her adept laundering of branding through policy, and her evident personal charisma as a retail politician (people like her when they see her and listen or talk to her). Here's an example of her more recent messaging in response to a Republican trying to smear her into a scandal.
She would be at her weakest against Trump if he were on stage screaming 'Affirmative action Pocahontas!' and her response were 'Fact check:...' Trump is very predictable and it doesn't look like she'll be falling for that trap again.
Why do right wingers only care about racism, sexism, dishonesty and greed when they want to use it to point the finger?
I don't understand how a group of people who reject fundamentally the idea of white male privilege can pick up the torch of anti racism for the 10 seconds it takes to make a dig, then go back to being racist and not giving a shit?
Projection / deflection / whataboutism. There's many explanations for it but a lot of it has to do with a fundamental part of being a human - insecurity.
For many people, and I'm not referring necessarily to race / ethnicity here, the pace at which the world changes is frightening and a lot of them reject advancement because it forces them in the unknown. It's not "safe" - so people retreat to their safe space (ironic) in order to have some sort of anchor in their life. Hence why you see a lot of angry, disenfranchised white male voters who are out of a job and vote apparently against their own interest.
Extrapolate this to the working career of a person who's specialised in one thing - if he's not constantly advancing, he will be replaced by robots in 10 years tops. People are afraid so they will go with whatever is closest to what they know as familiar.
I could go into a diatribe about the warped definition the left have adopted for the word but I know it wont penetrate; Why are the right selective about "racism"? Because the right dont have to play by the left's rules to point out when the left breaks those rules.
The left currently plays the moralistic preacher, denoucning people for not being "progressive" enough and the greatest counter to a preacher is to prove hypocracy. Getting people to ask "why should he dictate our lives when he doesnt live by his words?" robs the preacher of power. Ask our resident historian of the clergy what happens when preachers are publicly proven hypocrytes too often.
I would have thought I wouldnt have to explain this; the left are most adept at pouncing on every "pray the gay away" preacher that turned out to be an avid wurst eater, its the same principle.
I think what it comes down to is that the left values personal growth whereas the right - doesn't.
Importantly, it remains more common among economically-successful white male voters.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Which is why it's sometimes baffling - you're economically successful, so the safe part is covered by money. You don't have that "scare" any more, at least on paper. Why is it that still it's insecurity driving things?
Why would they feel secure in the prospect of the current democrats reclaiming power?
They may have a degree of security in the status quo, but two of the top three prospective democrat presidents are proposing to effectively flip the table and much the rest of the party are cheering them on in thier excess. Sure the ones on the higher end of economic success may have the capacity to uproot themselves so as to avoid thier livelyhoods being reduced should the democrats enact that which they are currently championing but those are by no means the majority.
Economically-successful conservatives - case in point the US Tea Party movement in the Republican Party from a decade ago - have few problems with government spending, taxation, and social programs in principle. They have a problem in their perception of who matters, and whom the government invests their money in.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Basically, they resent the thought that the government would spend money on "undeserving" people, and the ones they deem undeserving tend to be poor, dark of skin, city-dwellers, women, etc. Someone who thinks the government spends too much money on "lazy n*****s and sp*cs" will vocally reject new taxation and programs despite otherwise stating a high opinion of programs like Social Security and Medicare that they know they personally benefit from.
'It's theeconomyundesirables, stupid'
Remember that conservatives from the middle class on up to the wealthy have always sided with fascists over social democrats when the time came to make a choice. If you are aware of a single exception I should like to hear it.
Well, I like the trains to be on time when I am swinging through my Southern properties to acknowledge the obeisance of my peons, what can I say?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Except America is literally the worst income equality in the developed world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
In fact, I just found out today, which I find absolutely baffling and thought it was a hoax - you have to pay to file your taxes in an efficient manner, which is a government requirement. You can file your taxes for free on the IRS website only if you're making under a certain threshold, which is I think 66.000 USD a year income. This is so insanely absurd that I really understand why so many people are protesting against capitalism in the United States.
https://www.propublica.org/article/i...taxes-for-free
Quote:
The IRS had signed a contract that said it “will not compete with the [Free File Alliance] in providing free, online tax return preparation and filing services to taxpayers.”
You can do your own taxes on paper and mail them off on February 3rd for the cost of two first-class postage stamps.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
The threshold you note makes electronic filing free for roughly half of all US households. Making the upper echelons pay to e-file while the lower income holders do not is another attempt to lessen the burden on those who are economically less fortunate by having those higher income earners pay for the services received by the other half -- a limited form of the wealth transfer for which you seemed to indicate a preference in your opening sentence.
Besides, with the Withholding rules in place, the government already HAS the money, your federal return is about recovering your money the government is currently using without paying interest (roughly 2/3 of all tax returns generate refunds, not additional payments).
But hey, we're over 100% GDP in debt, so all wealth is illusory anyway. Better stock up on unhybridized seed and ammo for the shotty.
So why do you have companies that force the IRS to not give out a governmental service, which you already paid for by the way with your taxes, for free, at all tax brackets?
The correct redistributionary policy is to eliminate the need for the tax preparation industry outside of business administration, i.e. authorize the IRS to estimate your full liability and mail the documents for your verification.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
A lot of lower-income people don't know that you can adjust withholding on the W4, which leads to many of them overpaying taxes that they are not liable for and not recovering it in refunds. Government-1, working class-0.
Meanwhile, the IRS audits poor people over EITC as much as it audits the 1%, because the Republicans have for a generation been progressively cutting their budget and the IRS literally admits it has no personnel and funding to do complicated audits so it has no choice but to do simpler EITC audits terrorizing the poor as a revenue-generating strategy. Government-0, rich people-1, poor people--1.
I wonder what Phil would make of that last one.
Because they paid the politicians to keep it that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
[damn double post]
What you said is not a refutation to what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
It gives you an economic explanation of why people clamor so much for Democrat policies, particularly those of Bernie Sanders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
When even government services like the tax filings, which should be something free because why am I paying my taxes then, are taken up by the private enterprise, that's why you have such strong support for Democratic policies. Also on the topic of healthcare - another strong Democratic point which is at serious loggerheads with Republican voters - why does a simple appendictomy cost 40.000 USD? Insane.
I thought we were talking about the economically successful, to whome income inequality is a marginal concern at best in the face of seeing a marked drop in livelihood.