Results 1 to 30 of 2899

Thread: Trump Thread

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: Trump Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    This is elitism. You assume the natural state of the ordinary citizen is to not have strong political commitments, rather than that most people are confused, bored, enervated, or alienated by the political circus and lack the time or education to engage with it.
    I'm part of the intellectual elite, so are you, to pretend otherwise is just vanity. It would be like pretending I was working class just because I'm poor. In any case, this is my observation of actually going out and talking to people - most people don't care overmuch about politics, especially when there's no election going on.

    Again, this is something you would have to develop empirically. To say that people trend one way or another is not to say that it has always been so, or that it must always remain so. It wasn't like that in the US until our lifetimes, and not all at once. It depends on characteristics of the electorate, the parties, and the issues of the day. In the United States today, it is so. I can't claim to know what's going on in Chile or Lebanon - i haven't checked.
    One should always worry about Lebanon - it's one of the most important political loci in the world. Currently they're having a !quiet revolution" that cuts across sectarian boundaries.

    Meanwhile, in the UK it's generally accepted that after about 10-15 years you need to "get the other lot in" and only the most staunch supporters of a given party will argue otherwise. This is because people are less strognly wedded to any ideology than the parties are themselves.

    British Stoicism - it's even a national trait in Hearts of Iron IV.

    Lol no. It's more like Scientology.
    Scientology is actually a religion, sorry to tell you.

    Hatred of "populism," which entails minimizing democratic input in governance and institutions while maximizing the stability of established actors, especially business. Deregulation, privatization, tax cuts, reliance on conservative economic and sociological expertise. Hostility to criticism of elite persons from below. There's a reason why in the present day it is so frequently identified with intellectual libertarianism and small-c conservatism.
    You're just described a mish-mash of Right-Wing policies. Where's the social welfare? The neccesity for charity, both private and public? The provision of necessary regulation on (say) food standards and provision of basic infrastructure (which usually includes healthcare)?

    You're just demonstrated you don't know where the centre is outside the US, and that the centre in the US is quite a ways over to the right - not even the Centre-Right in the UK.

    The general theory of centrist governance is to advance minimally-disruptive (to stakeholders) policy and build out a bespoke coalition "from the center." I know it's what Bill Clinton and Obama explicitly maintained going into their administrations. It was a resounding failure. Practically what centrist intellectuals and policy makers are more concerned with than any policy agenda is neutralizing the influence of the "extremes." Look at Larry Summers telling us that high tax rates on the wealthy are bad because instead of donating to charity the wealthy will support fascism (more).
    Outside the US Obama and Clinton are Right-Wing politicians, Clinton less-so than Obama over all.




    Life-long ideology? As in, you think people outside the US don't tend to form and maintain political orientations durably? What is your evidence for this? I'd be surprised if the matter has even been studied in the English language.
    It's a lot less common.

    The realignment in the American party system (well, the 20th century realignment) took place over two generations, though of course it was immediately obvious to any observer by the end of the 1960s. I'm not prepared or equipped to assess early raw evidence in the UK. I'm sure the presence of national parties and the Liberal Democrats (whom I assume British voters interpret as "between" Labour and the Conservatives) complicates the picture. But don't be shocked if it turns out permanent shifts in voting behavior emerge in the medium-term.
    There has been something like it happening across the Western world (at least UK, US, France) however, as explored by Thomas Piketty in his latest work. I don't care to look it up for you, but basically the mainstream soc-dem/center-left parties have gradually absorbed the educated and professional classes from the conservative/center-right parties while losing some of their original "working class" base over that time period.

    OK fine, here it is. I've barely looked at it to be honest, who has the patience. You may want to skip to the graphs near the end. The ones simultaneously mapping 20 elections are visually hideous.[/QUOTE]

    You've just described New Labour - 24 years ago.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  2. #2

    Default Re: Trump Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    I'm part of the intellectual elite, so are you, to pretend otherwise is just vanity. It would be like pretending I was working class just because I'm poor. In any case, this is my observation of actually going out and talking to people - most people don't care overmuch about politics, especially when there's no election going on.
    Academics are workers too though (n.b. in the US the Trump admin wants to reclassify graduate students so they won't be considered primarily employees and therefore won't have enjoyment of collective bargaining protections). I'm not an academic btw, you are; you should have a keener awareness of these things than I.

    I agree that most people "don't care overmuch about politics" - didn't I say as much already? There's a difference between being a junkie or activist and having strong opinions, or durable ones. A component of Trump's base, for example, is uneducated white people who were disconnected from politics but nevertheless maintained strong opinions about what the problems with the United States were (immigrants) and what should be done about them ('remove taco') - all before Trump declared and captured their attention. On the other hand there are Sanders supporters who have long believed things like: politics is rigged; corporations have too much power; the government should do something. Just because many of them were not involved in politics or following politics for a long time (if ever) does not mean they didn't care about anything or that they were purely ambivalent.

    Even more broadly are millions of people who habitually vote for either major party but really don't think or talk much about politics besides voting at least half the time and arguing with family or coworkers. That's tens of millions of people for whom it would be wrong to translate a lack of engagement with process into an absence of reformist commitment (in any direction).

    One should always worry about Lebanon - it's one of the most important political loci in the world. Currently they're having a !quiet revolution" that cuts across sectarian boundaries.
    There have been quite a lot of large protest movements flaring up around the world this year. To the point where I searched, "why so many protests 2019" and it looks like other people have noticed the trend.

    I'm pretty sure some aren't mentioned in the linked articles that I've also heard of recently. Indonesia for example. It makes me think of this song as aspirational, juvenile as it sounds.

    Scientology is actually a religion, sorry to tell you.
    Yes. You said centrism is to ideology what agnosticism is to religion. I replaced agnosticism with Scientology. Think about the features of Scientology.

    You're just described a mish-mash of Right-Wing policies. Where's the social welfare? The neccesity for charity, both private and public? The provision of necessary regulation on (say) food standards and provision of basic infrastructure (which usually includes healthcare)?

    You're just demonstrated you don't know where the centre is outside the US, and that the centre in the US is quite a ways over to the right - not even the Centre-Right in the UK.

    Outside the US Obama and Clinton are Right-Wing politicians, Clinton less-so than Obama over all.
    We all know that US centrist and neoliberal political patterns have been exported around the world, as seen in the reprioritization of many center-left European parties away from major new programs and regulations and taxation in the past couple generations. You couldn't have your Mitterrands and Meidner Plans in 2000. (To paraphrase certain aggrieved comedians, "you can't do that anymore.") As also seen in the Latin American Pink Wave reacting against American-based ideologies in the first fifteen-ish years of the millennium. The center of received economic wisdom shifted decisively to the right after the 1980s, you know that. It's currently experiencing a reversion, possibly.

    Obama wasn't to the right of Clinton though, it's the other way around. I'm not closely familiar with all the tax changes under the two administrations (they're mostly pretty minor and technical), but AFAIK Obama injected more new taxation than Clinton, added more regulation to finance and business, did not cut welfare... and of course for all its limitations the Affordable Care Act was the largest downward transfer of wealth in America since Medicare (because ACA expanded* Medicaid and subsidized health insurance). It says a lot that about the baseline of our politics that this could be the case, but thereby alone Obama has to be ranked to the left of Mr. "Third Way" Clinton.

    What I quoted could be interpreted as unknowingly taking the piss out of centrism.

    It's a lot less common.
    Let's get our variables straight. There's political behavior, most easily but not solely measured in terms of votes cast. There's the characteristics of the parties themselves in a given system, which may or may not be divergent from one another in various ways or at various times (for example. the assimilation of mainstream parties in many countries to the postwar Keynesian consensus for a few cycles). Then there's people's political beliefs, which are about values and priorities and aren't simply subsumed by electoral politics as a practice. A political issue may be "should we refurbish this bridge or tear it down and build a new one?" A political belief might be that the government should do more to maintain infrastructure. A more detailed political belief might be that the central government should provide grants to local governments to help finance local infrastructure projects. When you talk about people's political beliefs I feel like you're trying to simplify by boiling it all down to one point, which you can't really do.

    You've just described New Labour - 24 years ago.
    The trend continues, it's worth talking about. One factor may be within the correlation between contemporary "young" people (under 40) and the left, where these age cohorts are also the most educated and professionalized. But it's been intensifying for decades in multiple countries, hence: realignment.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 10-30-2019 at 01:32.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  3. #3

    Default Re: Trump Thread



    https://www.newsweek.com/china-xi-ji...de-war-1470138
    TRUMP'S TRADE WAR WITH CHINA HAS 'DAMAGED BOTH ECONOMIES AND THE GLOBAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM' SAYS EXPERT
    Wooooo!!!

  4. #4

    Default Re: Trump Thread

    Yo, I'm all in on Mayor Pete. Not sure if Warren can win with her optics, but 2020 would be absolutely nuts with a Pete/Sanders ticket.
    Show me a more meme inducing ticket.


  5. #5

    Default Re: Trump Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    Yo, I'm all in on Mayor Pete. Not sure if Warren can win with her optics, but 2020 would be absolutely nuts with a Pete/Sanders ticket.
    Show me a more meme inducing ticket.
    I would have a lot of things to say about this development, but it's going to be obsolete within a few months so we might as well keep our powder dry.

    I'll drop this though, Peter Paul Montgomery Buttigieg's high school JFK Library contest-winning essay from 2000:

    In this new century, there are a daunting number of important issues which are to be confronted if we are to progress as a nation. Each must be addressed thoroughly and energetically. But in order to accomplish the collective goals of our society, we must first address how we deal with issues. We must re-examine the psychological and political climate of American politics. As it stands, our future is at risk due to a troubling tendency towards cynicism among voters and elected officials. The successful resolution of every issue before us depends on the fundamental question of public integrity.

    A new attitude has swept American politics. Candidates have discovered that is easier to be elected by not offending anyone rather than by impressing the voters. Politicians are rushing for the center, careful not to stick their necks out on issues. Most Democrats shy away from the word “liberal” like a horrid accusation. Republican presidential hopeful George W. Bush uses the centrist rhetoric of “compassionate conservatism” while Pat Buchanan, once considered a mainstream Republican, has been driven off the ideological edge of the G.O.P. Just as film producers shoot different endings and let test audiences select the most pleasing, some candidates run “test platforms” through sample groups to see which is most likely to win before they speak out on major issue. This disturbing trend reveals cynicism, a double-sided problem, which is perhaps, the greatest threat to the continued success of the American political system.

    Cynical candidates have developed an ability to outgrow their convictions in order to win power. Cynical citizens have given up on the election process, going to the polls at one of the lowest rates in the democratic world. Such an atmosphere inevitably distances our society from its leadership and is thus a fundamental threat to the principles of democracy. It also calls into question what motivates a run for office – in many cases, apparently, only the desire to occupy it. Fortunately for the political process, there remain a number of committed individuals who are steadfast enough in their beliefs to run for office to benefit their fellow Americans. Such people are willing to eschew political and personal comfort and convenience because they believe they can make a difference. One outstanding and inspiring example of such integrity is the country’s only Independent Congressman, Vermont’s Bernie Sanders.

    Sanders’ courage is evident in the first word he uses to describe himself: “Socialist”. In a country where Communism is still the dirtiest of ideological dirty words, in a climate where even liberalism is considered radical, and Socialism is immediately and perhaps willfully confused with Communism, a politician dares to call himself a socialist? He does indeed. Here is someone who has “looked into his own soul” and expressed an ideology, the endorsement of which, in today’s political atmosphere, is analogous to a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Even though he has lived through a time in which an admitted socialist could not act in a film, let alone hold a Congressional seat, Sanders is not afraid to be candid about his political persuasion.

    After numerous political defeats in his traditionally Republican state, Sanders won the office of mayor of Burlington by ten votes. A successful and popular mayor, he went on to win Vermont’s one Congressional seat in 1990. Since then, he has taken many courageous and politically risky stands on issues facing the nation. He has come under fire from various conservative religious groups because of his support for same-sex marriages. His stance on gun control led to NRA-organized media campaigns against him. Sanders has also shown creativity in organizing drug-shopping trips to Canada for senior citizens to call attention to inflated drug prices in the United States.

    While impressive, Sanders’ candor does not itself represent political courage. The nation is teeming with outspoken radicals in one form or another. Most are sooner called crazy than courageous. It is the second half of Sanders’ political role that puts the first half into perspective: he is a powerful force for conciliation and bi-partisanship on Capitol Hill. In Profiles in Courage, John F. Kennedy wrote that “we should not be too hasty in condemning all compromise as bad morals. For politics and legislation are not matters for inflexible principles or unattainable ideals.” It may seem strange that someone so steadfast in his principles has a reputation as a peacemaker between divided forces in Washington, but this is what makes Sanders truly remarkable. He represents President Kennedy’s ideal of “compromises of issues, not of principles.”

    Sanders has used his unique position as the lone Independent Congressman to help Democrats and Republicans force hearings on the internal structure of the International Monetary Fund, which he sees as excessively powerful and unaccountable. He also succeeded in quietly persuading reluctant Republicans and President Clinton to ban the import of products made by under-age workers. Sanders drew some criticism from the far left when he chose to grudgingly endorse President Clinton’s bids for election and re-election as President. Sanders explained that while he disagreed with many of Clinton’s centrist policies, he felt that he was the best option for America’s working class.

    Sanders’ positions on many difficult issues are commendable, but his real impact has been as a reaction to the cynical climate which threatens the effectiveness of the democratic system. His energy, candor, conviction, and ability to bring people together stand against the current of opportunism, moral compromise, and partisanship which runs rampant on the American political scene. He and few others like him have the power to restore principle and leadership in Congress and to win back the faith of a voting public weary and wary of political opportunism. Above all, I commend Bernie Sanders for giving me an answer to those who say American young people see politics as a cesspool of corruption, beyond redemption. I have heard that no sensible young person today would want to give his or her life to public service. I can personally assure you this is untrue.
    memes
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  6. #6

    Default Re: Trump Thread

    The Attorney General, the Senate Majority leader, and the entire Federalist Society (including its co-founder Steve Calabresi) just reaffirmed that the purpose of the judiciary in their minds is to destroy the Democratic Party and enforce one-party rule. So far so normal - that's not the prompt. I have to write because of two reports this week. First that Trump finally did what he told us he would do since 2015 and retaliated against Jeff Bezos and the fake news Amazon Washington Post through improper interference in billion-dollar federal contracting. Second, those who have been wondering at the mainstream media's objectively pro-Trump slant all these years have yet more confirmation in the disgrace of The Hill owner Jimmy Finkelstein that the personal relationships and ideological affinity of the ownership class with Trump will invariably tell in coverage and commentary. State persecution of and editorial bias in the press is a one-two punch, see?

    Also, this is Trump, and should be a meme [EDIT: Oh my god, the corresponding video is a vital complement):

    Last edited by Montmorency; 11-21-2019 at 05:26.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  7. #7

    Default Re: Trump Thread

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/celadon...rters-of-2019/
    In the first three quarters of 2019, nearly 800 carriers went out of business, more than double the count of trucking failures in 2018, according to transportation industry data firm Broughton Capital.
    A number of factors are behind the pileup, including escalating insurance costs, tariffs impacting the ability to get cheaper products from China, and a decline in the spot market where shippers book last-minute transportation.
    Wooooo!!!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO