POTUS Donald Trump

[Mike Sixel]

Turkey is a wildly different situation that required several things to happen in a nation that has relied on the coup pretty regularly for about 100 years now.

 

Who cares if 30% of the nation loves this? Show me a period in time where 30% of the nation hasn't loved truly awful things.

 

Instead of screaming about the unfairness of rural voters and their impact on things (you won't get disagreement from me on that, really), figure out a way to win over enough of them that the point becomes moot.

 

Because that's where Democrats have failed over the past 30-40 years. Rural voters aren't inherently awful. By and large, they've been conned by one party and ignored by the other. Find a way to win over a few of them.

And Poland? Hungary? Maybe Italy? England where they voted to pull out of the European Union?

 

Where do you see democracy making headway right now?

 

I admit it, I'm pretty down right now.....

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Thity years from now, when no on has rights, there is no clean water, LGBT are in jail, and corporations do whatever they want with employees, our kids will be able to say we played by rules written hundreds of years ago, to ensure decorum in the Senate.

Yes, this is probably an exaggeration.

our kids will have the privilege of speech as long as they pay the bribe to the local jackboot

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

And Poland? Hungary? Maybe Italy? England where they voted to pull out of the European Union?

Where do you see democracy making headway right now?

I admit it, I'm pretty down right now.....

What about France, where Le Pen was soundly defeated?

 

As a collective, we need to stop acting as if this is Trump's country. The ****ing guy lost the popular vote and won via an Electoral College perfect storm. Now let's focus on making sure he loses by a larger margin this time around.

[D. Hocking]

He called his rally crowd last night the super elite.  Has a president ever so blatantly elevated his supporters while disparaging everyone else, not even pretending to be some unifying force where he represents everyone.

 

Then there is probably a more than a little subtext of calling a largely white crowd the "super elite" in the same speech where he implies there are people out there, not as white, who are going to come and slice up your beautiful daughters.

 

Anyone thing it might be a bit hypocritical that Trey "Benghazi" Gowdy is ranting about how long the Mueller investigation is taking.  The GOP is now having hearings trying to discredit the investigators and force them to hand documentation over to them rather than showing any concern or interest of possible Russian interference.  The country who the GOP considered the bogey man for decades,

 

Trump might have not won by the popular vote, but he is still in the position of power, and has both houses, and now the SCT in lockstep with him.  Between gerrymandering and techniques making it more difficult for people in democratic regions to vote, people really, really need to get out and vote to make it over these hurdles. 

 

The Democrats have been their own worst enemy with low mid-term turnouts which cost them in 2010 - resulting in some of the gerrymandering, and 2014 resulting in Mitch becoming majority leader helping the eventual lose of the Garland nomination.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I want your opinion, but I'm not going to agree with it.  And I'm not saying Woe is Democrats; I'm asking them to do whatever they can to gum up the process short of violence and illegality.   Your solution sounds like trying to win rural whites back--which I think is a horrible strategy destined to fail.  Trump supporters aren't rational actors--but there is a persuadable middle.   Honestly, your opinion seems like a bunch of things we shouldn't be doing, and your not offering any real solutions or any strategy at all.  (I see in a response to Mike that you do offer some ideas; which are fine, but not nearly enough IMO).

 

One solution is to win back rural votes, yes.  Clinton failed to deliver the black vote and the rural vote continued the hard right turn.  Had the Democrats not completely failed to appeal to rural voters, Hillary probably wins Wisconsin and Michigan or some other Midwest combo and we aren't having this conversation.  

 

Some Trump supporters aren't rational actors.  A good deal of them just hate liberals and the way the left treats them.  And here's the thing you may not want to hear but it's true - they're not wrong.  Hell, Marco Rubio was screaming from the rooftops the other day imploring liberals to stop saying and doing the kind of stupid **** that drives voters into the arms of Trump.  

 

You didn't lose the 2016 election because of cheating, Republican nefariousness, or gerrymandering.  You lost because of hubris.  And your post, I'm sorry, continues to demonstrate that you haven't learned from that mistake.

[TheLeviathan]

Just to make this point more clearly:

 

Wisconsin - lost by less than 1%

Pennsylvania - lost by less than 1%

Michigan - lostby less than 1%

 

Need I go on?  When the margins are so slim, maybe, just maybe, you should consider the idea of not writing off so much of the populace in so many key states.

[Badsmerf]

That all sounds good. I doubt it is enough to over come identity politics, but it might be enough to make a dent. But that all sounds good.

That's just it... They need to avoid identity politics and focus on ones that impact daily lives. There are 'people' that only care about some of these topics, but most aren't passionate. Talk around the subject and lead the conversation. Don't ever engage in identity politics. Let the liberal areas talk about it and allow members to vote against policies their constituents will disagree with. Nominate candidates that will win, not those that follow Nancy Pelosi. Elect a party leader from the middle of the country like Tom Ryan. Pretty simple.

 

Also, we'll never end up like turkey. We'd have another civil war before it got that bad. I don't think we'll end up like Nazi Germany either. We are too big to fail. I think.

[Mike Sixel]

 

That's just it... They need to avoid identity politics and focus on ones that impact daily lives. There are 'people' that only care about some of these topics, but most aren't passionate. Talk around the subject and lead the conversation. Don't ever engage in identity politics. Let the liberal areas talk about it and allow members to vote against policies their constituents will disagree with. Nominate candidates that will win, not those that follow Nancy Pelosi. Elect a party leader from the middle of the country like Tom Ryan. Pretty simple.

Also, we'll never end up like turkey. We'd have another civil war before it got that bad. I don't think we'll end up like Nazi Germany either. We are too big to fail. I think.

 

see, I don't want to abandon gay rights just to win votes.....is that your argument? Don't press for equality across the whole country? I'm genuinely asking if that is your argument here, not being mean, so I hope it's coming across that way.

[TheLeviathan]

Mike - what do you mean by identity politics?  I get the sense we're using the same term for different things.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Mike - what do you mean by identity politics?  I get the sense we're using the same term for different things.

 

culture and "they" aren't good people.....whether they are not white, or immigrants, or democrats.

 

I know people that literally believe democrats are evil. And that clinton killed people, but that Trump is a good person deep down.

 

So, stuff about culture and "them".

 

I also know good Republicans, but even they seem ok with what is happening. People I've known for years, that I thought would be bothered by Russian interference, and graft, and out and out lying.

[PseudoSABR]

"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

-Dr Martin Luther King, Jr

[TheLeviathan]

 

culture and "they" aren't good people.....whether they are not white, or immigrants, or democrats.

 

 

I just think the messaging on some Dem issues is unnecessarily divisive.  Of course gay marriage is about people who are gay.  And police violence is an issue for black americans.  

 

But does poverty have to be talked about in racial or gender terms?  Or social equity?  I mean, you can.  And maybe it's more accurate and makes you feel better.  But does it have to be?  And I think sometimes the Dems kick themselves by making issues that apply to many people into identity issues.  And, when they do so, they create lines of division that need not exist.

 

I think Obama was brilliant at avoiding that.  And, if I remember correctly, many on the hard left were critical of him not being more outspoken on identity issues.  Maybe those criticisms are valid, but you know what Obama also did?  Kicked a bunch of ass in elections.

[PseudoSABR]

 

You didn't lose the 2016 election because of cheating, Republican nefariousness, or gerrymandering.  You lost because of hubris.  And your post, I'm sorry, continues to demonstrate that you haven't learned from that mistake.

I didn't lose anything.  Again, I've hounded at the reasons why Democrats failed to motivate people to vote for them, and continue to advocate for authentic voices to lead us, and a platform that fits with that authenticity.  Clinton did lose--in part--because of her Hubris.  But we can't simply ignore the fact that she won the popular vote, that the Russian's meddled in the election, and  that Republicans seek repress the vote of the disenfranchised every where. 

 

I'm not sure if you like the taste of liberal tears; but your penchant for identifying the root cause of Trumpism as somehow the Democrats' fault is, well, non-rational. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

I just think the messaging on some Dem issues is unnecessarily divisive.  Of course gay marriage is about people who are gay.  And police violence is an issue for black americans.  

 

But does poverty have to be talked about in racial or gender terms?  Or social equity?  I mean, you can.  And maybe it's more accurate and makes you feel better.  But does it have to be?  And I think sometimes the Dems kick themselves by making issues that apply to many people into identity issues.  And, when they do so, they create lines of division that need not exist.

 

I think Obama was brilliant at avoiding that.  And, if I remember correctly, many on the hard left were critical of him not being more outspoken on identity issues.  Maybe those criticisms are valid, but you know what Obama also did?  Kicked a bunch of ass in elections.

 

none of which translated into the House, Senate, or that states. None of it. And he was so busy cuddling up to businesses that he helped the GoP move the goal posts. Lots to love about him, but he was no great change agent. 

 

He didn't just avoid saying it, he literally fought against gay marriage at first. Because he wanted to win elections, to do what, exactly? Other than healthcare, I am having a hard time figuring out what he actually did.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm not sure if you like the taste of liberal tears; but your penchant for identifying the root cause of Trumpism as somehow the Democrats' fault is, well, non-rational. 

 

I'm responding to a thread full of liberals trying to find scapegoats.  When we had a right-winger in the thread the other day, I took him to task on his misstatements too.  

 

But part of the root cause of Trumpism IS the Democrats.  In particular, the farther left you go the more toxic the viewpoints are on how to win.  There are a host of other reasons, but since we agree on those it doesn't seem to warrant a lot of discussion.  Do you want to quickly agree on right wing propaganda, gerry mandering, and other things so it makes you feel better?  Then can we get to the problems on the left?

[Mike Sixel]

 

  And I think sometimes the Dems kick themselves by making issues that apply to many people into identity issues.  And, when they do so, they create lines of division that need not exist.

 

 

I strongly agree with this part, btw.....they Dems stink at messaging. Partly because they don't have a coherent message. Partly because it's harder to have a message about change and the future that has actual meaning, versus fear and conservatism (resistance to change).

[TheLeviathan]

 

none of which translated into the House, Senate, or that states. None of it. And he was so busy cuddling up to businesses that he helped the GoP move the goal posts. Lots to love about him, but he was no great change agent. 

 

He didn't just avoid saying it, he literally fought against gay marriage at first. Because he wanted to win elections, to do what, exactly? Other than healthcare, I am having a hard time figuring out what he actually did.

 

True, but is that Obama's fault or a long-standing issue on the left with mid-term turnout?

 

I would say his economic policies saved us from the brink, but even if you don't love his governance once he got elected....that's a better problem to fix than not getting elected at all right?

[PseudoSABR]

 

I'm responding to a thread full of liberals trying to find scapegoats.  When we had a right-winger in the thread the other day, I took him to task on his misstatements too.  

 

But part of the root cause of Trumpism IS the Democrats.  In particular, the farther left you go the more toxic the viewpoints are on how to win.  There are a host of other reasons, but since we agree on those it doesn't seem to warrant a lot of discussion.  Do you want to quickly agree on right wing propaganda, gerry mandering, and other things so it makes you feel better?  Then can we get to the problems on the left?

No one's trying to find a scapegoat, Levi.  Some are advocating for using procedural tomfoolery to block the SCOTUS nominee -- your response to that has been to say: well it's your own fault, Democrats, so you should still play by the rules or something. 

 

The notion that the more left you go the more toxic your methods is a baseless accusation.  Pretty sure Mike has argued that he is moderate for years.  Both Bernie and people like Schumer are arguing for civility. 

 

The problem isn't the left; the problem is Clinton/Gore/Kerry trying to appeal to everyone and taking no authentic positions on policy, so they appeal to no-one.   The Dems will continue to lose by appealing to the centrist.   Clinton lost because of a lack of enthusiasm and risk-aversion, not because she was too far left. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

none of which translated into the House, Senate, or that states. None of it. And he was so busy cuddling up to businesses that he helped the GoP move the goal posts. Lots to love about him, but he was no great change agent. 

 

He didn't just avoid saying it, he literally fought against gay marriage at first. Because he wanted to win elections, to do what, exactly? Other than healthcare, I am having a hard time figuring out what he actually did.

So much this.  As hard as it is to admit, Obama, and the Democrats, have little to show for their power in Washington.

[TheLeviathan]

 

No one's trying to find a scapegoat, Levi.  Some are advocating for using procedural tomfoolery to block the SCOTUS nominee -- your response to that has been to say: well it's your own fault, Democrats, so you should still play by the rules or something. 

 

Yes, much of the issue with the SCOTUS lies at the feet of Dem incompetence or past tomfoolery. (Tomfoolery the Republicans later weaponize to help create this situation)  Sorry.  

 

Doubling down on past mistakes to get out of the situation you're in now sounds like a bad idea.  I've been to Vegas.  I know this.

[Mike Sixel]

 

No one's trying to find a scapegoat, Levi.  Some are advocating for using procedural tomfoolery to block the SCOTUS nominee -- your response to that has been to say: well it's your own fault, Democrats, so you should still play by the rules or something. 

 

The notion that the more left you go the more toxic your methods is a baseless accusation.  Pretty sure Mike has argued that he is moderate for years.  Both Bernie and people like Schumer are arguing for civility. 

 

The problem isn't the left; the problem is Clinton/Gore/Kerry trying to appeal to everyone and taking no authentic positions on policy, so they appeal to no-one.   The Dems will continue to lose by appealing to the centrist.   Clinton lost because of a lack of enthusiasm and risk-aversion, not because she was too far left. 

 

I used to be moderate. I'm not sure if I've changed, but now I'm considered liberal. Well, I've changed on healthcare, but that can happen when you:

 

1. are on the inside

2. own two businesses, making it impossible to get healthcare (how is this pro-entrepreneur)

3. See other people go broke for no good reason

4. See other people go w/o services, so they can feed their kid 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Yes, much of the issue with the SCOTUS lies at the feet of Dem incompetence.  Sorry.  

 

Doubling down on past mistakes to get out of the situation you're in now sounds like a bad idea.  I've been to Vegas.  I know this.

 

I don't know if you are right or wrong, btw....I just don't know.

 

And, I'd rather take the chance you are wrong, and try to stop SCOTUS from being even worse. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

The problem isn't the left; the problem is Clinton/Gore/Kerry trying to appeal to everyone and taking no authentic positions on policy, so they appeal to no-one.   The Dems will continue to lose by appealing to the centrist.   Clinton lost because of a lack of enthusiasm and risk-aversion, not because she was too far left. 

 

By the way, I agree with this paragraph.  It wasn't that Hillary was too far left, I was suggesting those analyzing her loss on the far left are reaching for the wrong solutions.  Yes, avoid milk-toast candidates for sure, but many other things I hear still sound like the same recipe to lose a half dozen states by 1% because "screw those hicks".

 

There are areas I think the party should move harder left (health care and other POLICY matters) but there are others they need to move more central (messaging.  So much with messaging).  

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't know if you are right or wrong, btw....I just don't know.

 

And, I'd rather take the chance you are wrong, and try to stop SCOTUS from being even worse. 

 

Totally fair.  I agree....the risks are high.  Which is why I really liked the idea of pushing Flake, Corker, and Collins should be Plan A, B, and C.

[Craig Arko]

Also, we'll never end up like turkey. We'd have another civil war before it got that bad. I don't think we'll end up like Nazi Germany either. We are too big to fail. I think.

The Persians, Romans, Aztecs, Mongols, Ottomans, French, British, Czarists, Japanese, Soviets, and plenty of others called and said they’d like their empires back, because they were too big to fail.

[Mike Sixel]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85 and Justice Stephen Breyer turns 80 in August

 

If I believed in God, I'd be praying....

 

I wonder.....what should we feel about these people NOT retiring while Obama was POTUS, say in year 2 of his second term?

[Squirrel]

 

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85 and Justice Stephen Breyer turns 80 in August

 

If I believed in God, I'd be praying....

 

I wonder.....what should we feel about these people NOT retiring while Obama was POTUS, say in year 2 of his second term?

In hindsight plenty should have been done.

[PseudoSABR]

 

By the way, I agree with this paragraph.  It wasn't that Hillary was too far left, I was suggesting those analyzing her loss on the far left are reaching for the wrong solutions.  Yes, avoid milk-toast candidates for sure, but many other things I hear still sound like the same recipe to lose a half dozen states by 1% because "screw those hicks".

 

There are areas I think the party should move harder left (health care and other POLICY matters) but there are others they need to move more central (messaging.  So much with messaging).  

I actually think the left can make the economic and healthcare argument pretty convincingly to rural, white Americans.  And I also agree, that largely, the Dems should not run on identity politics, but they shouldn't run away from it either (like Obama kind of seemed to do on gay marriage). 

 

I actually think Ocasio-Cortez's platform should have a lot of appeal to poor rural whites (with some clear exceptions, e.g. guns, immigration).

[TheLeviathan]

 

I actually think the left can make the economic and healthcare argument pretty convincingly to rural, white Americans.  And I also agree, that largely, the Dems should not run on identity politics, but they shouldn't run away from it either (like Obama kind of seemed to do on gay marriage). 

 

I actually think Ocasio-Cortez's platform should have a lot of appeal to poor rural whites (with some clear exceptions, e.g. guns, immigration)

 

 

Oh I agree completely, they don't have to run away from the needs of LGBTQ individuals, or racial issues,or any other political issues of that nature...but they need to talk more intelligently about them.  Many of the issues that plague blacks economically are shared by rural whites.  The Healthcare policy could be a gold mine with the right person, with enough courage, to sell the hell out of it.  These should be unifying issues.  It's maddening they can't find a way to capitalize on that.

 

They're not that far away from winning back rural whites....just be aware you need them.  Message with that in mind because left leaning policies are needed and could be very appealing to many people.  Just cut out the parts that sound elitist or white trash bashing or urban vs. rural superiority.  It's doable.

[PseudoSABR]

Some thoughtful political analysis about why the Dems should resist dying on the hill of this SCOTUS appointment.