And the US is more or less alone in this predicament. No other well-off country's government has failed to the extent as Trump's
Boris Johnson’s conservatives are giving it a go (following in the great tradition established under David Cameron and continued under Theresa May).
The guy just made his own brother a lord as well as the guy who gives him free holidays. And achieved the double whammy of the worst death toll In Europe and the worst economic impact of the G7 countries. Whilst constantly spouting **** about how great he is and whining on about a tiny number of refugees trying to cross the Channel (because they’re the big threat apparently).
@Balrog99 "I'm just not sure it'll fire up anybody who wasn't going to vote Democrat anyway."
Here's the thing though, no Democratic candidate would be able to pull that off. The conservative movement is very much like a cult. What they will accept as true, is what they think should be true. That's the beginning and end of their thought process. They've picked their team, and their team is always right, no matter what anybody on any side does. Republican voters are Trump's to lose, not some theoretical Democratic candidate's to win. Which he has been doing.
As for Kamala Harris, she actually has TEETH, unlike 90% of Democratic Candidates. Its gonna be harder for Republicans to use her as a punching bag or to try and control any narrative around her because of this.
No one cares about Trump’s 35% cult except for Republicans that are afraid of being replaced in primaries.
It’s the gullible swing voters that the Democrats need to keep in check. The ones that will fall for the Venezuela crap come election
I prefer to think that as a 'swing' voter myself, I'm more open-minded than most folks and don't believe either sides' political dogma and fear-mongering. There may be 'gullible' swing-voters but there are also 'gullible' Democrats and 'gullible' Republicans...
I have to say, if you're unwilling to pull the lever for the only other candidate that has a chance of winning in a potentially competitive election, you may not be as open-minded as you believe. I know that sounds critical, but give the current circumstances, I think it's warranted. The US is in the midst of one of the worst crises of governance it has seen in a long, long time. Not since the Hoover administration have things seemed this bad.
If he is even willing to consider that his own party has ideological flaws, let alone vote for someone else, I'd call him orders of magnitude more open minded than the general tone of the group.
The idea that there is something else out there that could flip someone's vote at this point in mind-blowing to me. I think we've seen what we need to see. Are there Trump voters out there who are still with him at 170,000 deaths, but will jump off at 190,000?? Some ragtag scandal won't move the needle. Either Trump can somehow survive responsibility for a total catastrophe of historic proportions, or he can't.
And the US is more or less alone in this predicament. No other well-off country's government has failed to the extent as Trump's
Boris Johnson’s conservatives are giving it a go (following in the great tradition established under David Cameron and continued under Theresa May).
The guy just made his own brother a lord as well as the guy who gives him free holidays. And achieved the double whammy of the worst death toll In Europe and the worst economic impact of the G7 countries. Whilst constantly spouting **** about how great he is and whining on about a tiny number of refugees trying to cross the Channel (because they’re the big threat apparently).
A fair counterpoint. And further evidence that a particular kind of conservative populism just cannot handle the difficult work of governance.
@Balrog99 "I'm just not sure it'll fire up anybody who wasn't going to vote Democrat anyway."
Here's the thing though, no Democratic candidate would be able to pull that off. The conservative movement is very much like a cult. What they will accept as true, is what they think should be true. That's the beginning and end of their thought process. They've picked their team, and their team is always right, no matter what anybody on any side does. Republican voters are Trump's to lose, not some theoretical Democratic candidate's to win. Which he has been doing.
As for Kamala Harris, she actually has TEETH, unlike 90% of Democratic Candidates. Its gonna be harder for Republicans to use her as a punching bag or to try and control any narrative around her because of this.
No one cares about Trump’s 35% cult except for Republicans that are afraid of being replaced in primaries.
It’s the gullible swing voters that the Democrats need to keep in check. The ones that will fall for the Venezuela crap come election
I prefer to think that as a 'swing' voter myself, I'm more open-minded than most folks and don't believe either sides' political dogma and fear-mongering. There may be 'gullible' swing-voters but there are also 'gullible' Democrats and 'gullible' Republicans...
I have to say, if you're unwilling to pull the lever for the only other candidate that has a chance of winning in a potentially competitive election, you may not be as open-minded as you believe. I know that sounds critical, but give the current circumstances, I think it's warranted. The US is in the midst of one of the worst crises of governance it has seen in a long, long time. Not since the Hoover administration have things seemed this bad.
If he is even willing to consider that his own party has ideological flaws, let alone vote for someone else, I'd call him orders of magnitude more open minded than the general tone of the group.
How so? What I see is someone unwilling to be moved by real-world evidence. As JJ notes in the post right above, this a historic failure by the federal government. And it's an extraordinary number of Americans suffering right now.
As I noted in my post, there is compelling evidence that a normal, left-of-center party would tackle this crisis much much better, because in plenty of countries, normal left-of-center parties in power are doing just that. Or even a sane moderately conservative party would. But that's not what currently exists in the US.
I'm not saying people have to do the maximum in this upcoming election, and volunteer, donate money, etc. I'm only saying people ought to do the bare minimum. And that is to vote for the only other viable candidate on the ballot. The people have the power, Trump's miraculous 2016 victory should have made that clear, if nothing else. And if people don't want to use this power correctly when the real-world evidence cries out so unequivocally, then I think they are partially culpable for the bad circumstances that are sure to ensue.
Moreover, I don't think people who accurately warned of Trump's unfitness need to worry about being "open minded".
@Balrog99 "I'm just not sure it'll fire up anybody who wasn't going to vote Democrat anyway."
Here's the thing though, no Democratic candidate would be able to pull that off. The conservative movement is very much like a cult. What they will accept as true, is what they think should be true. That's the beginning and end of their thought process. They've picked their team, and their team is always right, no matter what anybody on any side does. Republican voters are Trump's to lose, not some theoretical Democratic candidate's to win. Which he has been doing.
As for Kamala Harris, she actually has TEETH, unlike 90% of Democratic Candidates. Its gonna be harder for Republicans to use her as a punching bag or to try and control any narrative around her because of this.
No one cares about Trump’s 35% cult except for Republicans that are afraid of being replaced in primaries.
It’s the gullible swing voters that the Democrats need to keep in check. The ones that will fall for the Venezuela crap come election
I prefer to think that as a 'swing' voter myself, I'm more open-minded than most folks and don't believe either sides' political dogma and fear-mongering. There may be 'gullible' swing-voters but there are also 'gullible' Democrats and 'gullible' Republicans...
I have to say, if you're unwilling to pull the lever for the only other candidate that has a chance of winning in a potentially competitive election, you may not be as open-minded as you believe. I know that sounds critical, but give the current circumstances, I think it's warranted. The US is in the midst of one of the worst crises of governance it has seen in a long, long time. Not since the Hoover administration have things seemed this bad.
If he is even willing to consider that his own party has ideological flaws, let alone vote for someone else, I'd call him orders of magnitude more open minded than the general tone of the group.
How so? What I see is someone unwilling to be moved by real-world evidence. As JJ notes in the post right above, this a historic failure by the federal government. And it's an extraordinary number of Americans suffering right now.
As I noted in my post, there is compelling evidence that a normal, left-of-center party would tackle this crisis much much better, because in plenty of countries, normal left-of-center parties in power are doing just that. Or even a sane moderately conservative party would. But that's not what currently exists in the US.
I'm not saying people have to do the maximum in this upcoming election, and volunteer, donate money, etc. I'm only saying people ought to do the bare minimum. And that is to vote for the only other viable candidate on the ballot. The people have the power, Trump's miraculous 2016 victory should have made that clear, if nothing else. And if people don't want to use this power correctly when the real-world evidence cries out so unequivocally, then I think they are partially culpable for the bad circumstances that are sure to ensue.
Moreover, I don't think people who accurately warned of Trump's unfitness need to worry about being "open minded".
Whatever dude. My vote won't swing an election anyway so enjoy your high horse. I'm sure you had no problem with Obama when he was issuing his borderline Constitutional executive orders against the 'obstructionist' Republicans.
If I had to choose between Stalin and Hitler apparently I'd be responsible for the one that I voted for because, God knows, it's not an option NOT to vote for one of them. Yes I'm being deliberately satirical. Not voting for somebody who's closer to my viewpoint because I don't like them is not the same as voting for somebody on the opposite side of the spectrum. That vote would have to be earned, not given...
There is no more "debate" about what is going on with the Post Office. Trump just went on FOX News and flat-out admitted he is sabotaging it to steal the election.
I want people do understand something. Doing this just in the context of the election is the biggest betrayal imaginable against self-governance. But it's WAY more than that. People rely on the Post Office to do innumerable things, the most important of which are getting medications. Add some more deaths to that kill count that won't ever get put on the board.
He is sabotaging the fucking Post Office. You think this guy is leaving if that doesn't work?? I said from the beginning he would burn it to the ground rather than lose. We tried to tell everyone where this would go. And yeah, it's immensely frustrating it was shrugged off and not listened to. I wasn't saying it because he was another run-of-the-mill Republican I hated. I was saying it because scholars of authoritarian regimes recognized patterns of behavior and saw them in Trump from jump-street. Go listen to Adam Schiff's closing impeachment statement again. It's prophecy in hindsight.
There is no more "debate" about what is going on with the Post Office. Trump just went on FOX News and flat-out admitted he is sabotaging it to steal the election.
I want people do understand something. Doing this just in the context of the election is the biggest betrayal imaginable against self-governance. But it's WAY more than that. People rely on the Post Office to do innumerable things, the most important of which are getting medications. Add some more deaths to that kill count that won't ever get put on the board.
He is sabotaging the fucking Post Office. You think this guy is leaving if that doesn't work?? I said from the beginning he would burn it to the ground rather than lose. We tried to tell everyone where this would go. And yeah, it's immensely frustrating it was shrugged off and not listened to. I wasn't saying it because he was another run-of-the-mill Republican I hated. I was saying it because scholars of authoritarian regimes recognized patterns of behavior and saw them in Trump from jump-street. Go listen to Adam Schiff's closing impeachment statement again. It's prophecy in hindsight.
I must say that i didn't really believe you. But I also must say, what could I have done if I had believed you? Whether or not I agree with you is irrelevant if nothing can or will be done about it. I wrote both my Congresswoman and my Senator and told them to vote for impeachment. To me that's about the sum of the action I'm capable of. I do own a rifle and a shotgun if everybody wants to grab the pitchforks. Somehow I don't see that happening...
There is no more "debate" about what is going on with the Post Office. Trump just went on FOX News and flat-out admitted he is sabotaging it to steal the election.
I want people do understand something. Doing this just in the context of the election is the biggest betrayal imaginable against self-governance. But it's WAY more than that. People rely on the Post Office to do innumerable things, the most important of which are getting medications. Add some more deaths to that kill count that won't ever get put on the board.
He is sabotaging the fucking Post Office. You think this guy is leaving if that doesn't work?? I said from the beginning he would burn it to the ground rather than lose. We tried to tell everyone where this would go. And yeah, it's immensely frustrating it was shrugged off and not listened to. I wasn't saying it because he was another run-of-the-mill Republican I hated. I was saying it because scholars of authoritarian regimes recognized patterns of behavior and saw them in Trump from jump-street. Go listen to Adam Schiff's closing impeachment statement again. It's prophecy in hindsight.
I must say that i didn't really believe you. But I also must say, what could I have done if I had believed you? Whether or not I agree with you is irrelevant if nothing can or will be done about it. I wrote both my Congresswoman and my Senator and told them to vote for impeachment. To me that's about the sum of the action I'm capable of. I do own a rifle and a shotgun if everybody wants to grab the pitchforks. Somehow I don't see that happening...
I'm not addressing any of these directly at you, even if it seems that way. There was a time when I was really looking forward to the "I told you so" moments, but that time is long past and in the rearview mirror for me. I lost any sense of potential satisfaction from it in March. I appreciate that you and @WarChiefZeke jumped off the train. I couldn't have said that a year ago. I would have been inclined to rub it in. Now I just want to live in a functioning country.
Going after the Post Office gets under my skin in the same way it does when people go after teachers. I have a visceral reaction to it that makes me enraged. These are tough, noble jobs that are being thrown to the wolves and defunded (respectively) for this man's megalomania, and it's obscene. Does Trump have any idea just how many elderly people rely on the Post Office for EVERYTHING?? And how that's magnified ten-fold in rural areas that are ostensibly full of his own supporters??
I think this more of my enemy is your enemy sort of deal with Iran being cast as the villain and it would have come to this point eventually. But kudos to the Trump administration for at least being the middleman and getting this done quickly.
It also seems slightly premature as it only takes one side reneging on what they promised to blow this up, and with the two characters involved it wouldn’t surprise me if this falls apart in a couple of months. But that’s just cynical me.
I think this more of my enemy is your enemy sort of deal with Iran being cast as the villain and it would have come to this point eventually. But kudos to the Trump administration for at least being the middleman and getting this done quickly.
It also seems slightly premature as it only takes one side reneging on what they promised to blow this up, and with the two characters involved it wouldn’t surprise me if this falls apart in a couple of months. But that’s just cynical me.
Because we definitely know that the two most trust-worthy leaders on Earth are Netanyahu and Trump. One of them is currently indicted on bribery charges and the other is attempting to prevent mail from reaching the citizens of his country. I wouldn't even use whatever agreement those two were part of to wipe my ass. My prediction is the continued annexation of the West Bank will happen before January.
I think this more of my enemy is your enemy sort of deal with Iran being cast as the villain and it would have come to this point eventually. But kudos to the Trump administration for at least being the middleman and getting this done quickly.
It also seems slightly premature as it only takes one side reneging on what they promised to blow this up, and with the two characters involved it wouldn’t surprise me if this falls apart in a couple of months. But that’s just cynical me.
Because we definitely know that the two most trust-worthy leaders on Earth are Netanyahu and Trump. One of them is currently indicted on bribery charges and the other is attempting to prevent mail from reaching the citizens of his country. I wouldn't even use whatever agreement those two were part of to wipe my ass. My prediction is the continued annexation of the West Bank will happen before January.
Not to mention the third player in this is journalist-chopping, Crown Prince, Mohammed Bin Zayed, who said on twitter "The UAE and Israel also agreed to cooperation and setting a roadmap towards establishing a bilateral relationship."
So they are at the roadmap stage and nothing really concrete is set.
Palestine has recalled its ambassador from the UAE after the announcement. They feel slighted especially since Netanyahu said the annexation is "temporarily (on) hold" and not completely off the table.
It seems to be a classic Trump promising more than what was actually delivered to get as much as the praise as possible. But as I said, if this actually sticks, kudos to his team getting it there.
I didn't realize that the UAE was a big player in the Middle East situation. I mean they're pretty much a US puppet state from what I know. How long would they exist if we pulled out our military? Trump probably threatened that very thing to get this minor victory...
I didn't realize that the UAE was a big player in the Middle East situation. I mean they're pretty much a US puppet state from what I know. How long would they exist if we pulled out our military? Trump probably threatened that very thing to get this minor victory...
Yeah, this really doesn't strike me as some kind of Camp David Accord. It's the equivalent of Trump's Executive Orders last week. A major announcement that means basically nothing in the short term, even less long term. Carter may have only had 4 years, but he legitimately worked hard to broker peace with Israel and Egypt. Trump sent his son-in-law to talk with Prince Bonesaw.
And here he goes with the Kamala birtherism. That didn't even take 48 hours. What a coincidence that this comes up again. Who would have thought?? This time, it relies on some imaginary version of the 14th Amendment that doesn't exist in any settled case law.
And here he goes with the Kamala birtherism. That didn't even take 48 hours. What a coincidence that this comes up again. Who would have thought?? This time, it relies on some imaginary version of the 14th Amendment that doesn't exist in any settled case law.
It's depressing isn't it. Only last year the Trump administration was floating the idea of changing the constitution so that people born in the US were not automatically citizens. That looked like being too difficult though, so they've moved on to the idea that the constitution does not in fact require that at the moment.
It's easy right now to say this interpretation is ridiculous and goes against settled judgments of the Supreme Court, but the position really is subject to change. The situation is analogous to the debate over second amendment requirements. Until recently (in the life of the US), both the commonly understood and legal interpretation was that the second amendment right to carry guns was subject to being in the context of a militia. That was changed by a long-running, well-funded campaign - both targeting the public at large and the legal profession.
The same sort of campaign could easily be mounted on the issue of citizenship. I'm sure there are already a large number of Americans who would agree that children of illegal immigrants should not be citizens, so there will already be a significant base to work with.
@Balrog99 "I'm just not sure it'll fire up anybody who wasn't going to vote Democrat anyway."
Here's the thing though, no Democratic candidate would be able to pull that off. The conservative movement is very much like a cult. What they will accept as true, is what they think should be true. That's the beginning and end of their thought process. They've picked their team, and their team is always right, no matter what anybody on any side does. Republican voters are Trump's to lose, not some theoretical Democratic candidate's to win. Which he has been doing.
As for Kamala Harris, she actually has TEETH, unlike 90% of Democratic Candidates. Its gonna be harder for Republicans to use her as a punching bag or to try and control any narrative around her because of this.
No one cares about Trump’s 35% cult except for Republicans that are afraid of being replaced in primaries.
It’s the gullible swing voters that the Democrats need to keep in check. The ones that will fall for the Venezuela crap come election
I prefer to think that as a 'swing' voter myself, I'm more open-minded than most folks and don't believe either sides' political dogma and fear-mongering. There may be 'gullible' swing-voters but there are also 'gullible' Democrats and 'gullible' Republicans...
I have to say, if you're unwilling to pull the lever for the only other candidate that has a chance of winning in a potentially competitive election, you may not be as open-minded as you believe. I know that sounds critical, but give the current circumstances, I think it's warranted. The US is in the midst of one of the worst crises of governance it has seen in a long, long time. Not since the Hoover administration have things seemed this bad.
If he is even willing to consider that his own party has ideological flaws, let alone vote for someone else, I'd call him orders of magnitude more open minded than the general tone of the group.
How so? What I see is someone unwilling to be moved by real-world evidence. As JJ notes in the post right above, this a historic failure by the federal government. And it's an extraordinary number of Americans suffering right now.
As I noted in my post, there is compelling evidence that a normal, left-of-center party would tackle this crisis much much better, because in plenty of countries, normal left-of-center parties in power are doing just that. Or even a sane moderately conservative party would. But that's not what currently exists in the US.
I'm not saying people have to do the maximum in this upcoming election, and volunteer, donate money, etc. I'm only saying people ought to do the bare minimum. And that is to vote for the only other viable candidate on the ballot. The people have the power, Trump's miraculous 2016 victory should have made that clear, if nothing else. And if people don't want to use this power correctly when the real-world evidence cries out so unequivocally, then I think they are partially culpable for the bad circumstances that are sure to ensue.
Moreover, I don't think people who accurately warned of Trump's unfitness need to worry about being "open minded".
Whatever dude. My vote won't swing an election anyway so enjoy your high horse. I'm sure you had no problem with Obama when he was issuing his borderline Constitutional executive orders against the 'obstructionist' Republicans.
If I had to choose between Stalin and Hitler apparently I'd be responsible for the one that I voted for because, God knows, it's not an option NOT to vote for one of them. Yes I'm being deliberately satirical. Not voting for somebody who's closer to my viewpoint because I don't like them is not the same as voting for somebody on the opposite side of the spectrum. That vote would have to be earned, not given...
I think the Hitler-Stalin example is unhelpful. It's just so far from reality.
But I'd be willing to vote for John Kasich, Ted Cruz, Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders if we lived in a political system where the choice was one of them or Trump. And without hesitation. And I think alot of left-of-center Americans share that sentiment. IMO, it shows that maybe you should question how relatively open minded you are.
I also think the "my vote doesn't really matter" is a lame cop out. And one that could be serviced for any election. And it's an excuse that actually was used in sufficient numbers to deliver a government thoroughly unable to tackle the current crisis.
The people complaining about Kasich speaking are really missing the point. Conventions aren't for the base, they're for (even though I hate this word) "normie" Americans who aren't swimming in this stuff 24/7. Democrats are casting a wide net. All indications are the RNC next week is going to be non-stop cultural grievance for the base.
As for last night, Michelle Obama's "it is what it is" line was pretty savage. Trump today was complaining she didn't get the COVID-19 death count right. That's because it was made two weeks ago, and 20,000 more people have died in the meantime. Not exactly what I'd be calling attention to. Then again, this is a guy with the unmitigated gall to say New Zealand having nine new CASES (not deaths) in their whole country is some kind of scandal when we have about 60,000 every day. This guy is selling nothing but make-believe at this point.
The people complaining about Kasich speaking are really missing the point. Conventions aren't for the base, they're for (even though I hate this word) "normie" Americans who aren't swimming in this stuff 24/7. Democrats are casting a wide net. All indications are the RNC next week is going to be non-stop cultural grievance for the base.
As for last night, Michelle Obama's "it is what it is" line was pretty savage. Trump today was complaining she didn't get the COVID-19 death count right. That's because it was made two weeks ago, and 20,000 more people have died in the meantime. Not exactly what I'd be calling attention to. Then again, this is a guy with the unmitigated gall to say New Zealand having nine new CASES (not deaths) in their whole country is some kind of scandal when we have about 60,000 every day. This guy is selling nothing but make-believe at this point.
I think this is exactly right. I will admit that I could have done without Kasich's pre nomination posturing that was anti AOC. That didnt really serve any purpose, and I think it's fair for progressives to be annoyed about *that*
but him speaking at the Convention? If it means a few more moderate Republicans go from not voting to voting for Biden in the Midwest, it's definitely worth it.
He was also sort of speaking right to the Fox News crowd. Fox News continually barrages their views with the idea that Joe is 5 seconds away from going full Bolshevik, when that's patently absurd. His attempt to reassure voters could be useful.
Of course - if those are the same viewers that are going to tune in to see the McCloskeys play the victim after pointing guns at a BLM march, they're probably beyond saving.
The people complaining about Kasich speaking are really missing the point. Conventions aren't for the base, they're for (even though I hate this word) "normie" Americans who aren't swimming in this stuff 24/7. Democrats are casting a wide net. All indications are the RNC next week is going to be non-stop cultural grievance for the base.
As for last night, Michelle Obama's "it is what it is" line was pretty savage. Trump today was complaining she didn't get the COVID-19 death count right. That's because it was made two weeks ago, and 20,000 more people have died in the meantime. Not exactly what I'd be calling attention to. Then again, this is a guy with the unmitigated gall to say New Zealand having nine new CASES (not deaths) in their whole country is some kind of scandal when we have about 60,000 every day. This guy is selling nothing but make-believe at this point.
I think this is exactly right. I will admit that I could have done without Kasich's pre nomination posturing that was anti AOC. That didnt really serve any purpose, and I think it's fair for progressives to be annoyed about *that*
but him speaking at the Convention? If it means a few more moderate Republicans go from not voting to voting for Biden in the Midwest, it's definitely worth it.
He was also sort of speaking right to the Fox News crowd. Fox News continually barrages their views with the idea that Joe is 5 seconds away from going full Bolshevik, when that's patently absurd. His attempt to reassure voters could be useful.
Of course - if those are the same viewers that are going to tune in to see the McCloskeys play the victim after pointing guns at a BLM march, they're probably beyond saving.
I just don't think a 4 day parade of talk-radio cause celebres is going result in a single net vote. If you care at all about them, there is almost zero chance you weren't voting for Trump anyway. Again, Biden has to net 80,000 votes in the Rust Belt compared to Hillary to win. That isn't even a fraction of a percentage point.
With Kasich speaking, one has to ask, 'what does he gain from it?'
He knew (or should have known) he was going to be vilified by the republicans for going against party lines and he should have known he wasn't going to be embraced with open arms by all democratic voters.
So if he personally gains nothing from speaking, what he says, IMO, is as close to an unbiased opinion on the state of America as you are going to get. And Kasich is right. Biden is the central candidate who the democrats put forward as he'll be easier to swallow for central right voters than a progressive candidate like Sanders and the 'democratic tent' is much bigger than the progressive voices the right wing media likes to focus on such as AOC.
The people complaining about Kasich speaking are really missing the point. Conventions aren't for the base, they're for (even though I hate this word) "normie" Americans who aren't swimming in this stuff 24/7. Democrats are casting a wide net. All indications are the RNC next week is going to be non-stop cultural grievance for the base.
Well said, I would add the caveat that they're for both. Sometimes I wish people (especially those who consume a lot of online politics) would step back and think about how large and diverse Democratic voters are. It's arguably one of the largest and most diverse group of voters of any democracy -- I suspect only parties in India or Brazil could compete.
Sanders spoke as well. The conventions aren't targeted for any one group, they're trying to cast a wide net!
With Kasich speaking, one has to ask, 'what does he gain from it?'
He knew (or should have known) he was going to be vilified by the republicans for going against party lines and he should have known he wasn't going to be embraced with open arms by all democratic voters.
So if he personally gains nothing from speaking, what he says, IMO, is as close to an unbiased opinion on the state of America as you are going to get. And Kasich is right. Biden is the central candidate who the democrats put forward as he'll be easier to swallow for central right voters than a progressive candidate like Sanders and the 'democratic tent' is much bigger than the progressive voices the right wing media likes to focus on such as AOC.
Also very well said, Kasich is speaking against self-interest. There are many of other avenues he could choose right now that would help his long term goals, including merely being silent like a number of moderate conservatives. And while in office he was staunchly pro-life and anti-union, so he is not going to gain from Democratic control, even on the issues he cares about, much less, personally.
I mean, an argument can be made Kasich came in 3rd behind Trump and Cruz last time. He was in the running for a long while. He does gain nothing from this. He has no avenue to power to in a Democratic-controlled Washington, and he is now an apostate among conservatives. The only logical conclusion is he actually believes Trump is an existential threat to the country.
The whole Trump campaign strategy is riding on conflicting realities. They want to paint the nominee as a socialist, but that doesn't work with Biden in any fashion. They want to call him "sleepy" and still insist he is a radical. They want to say the same thing about Kamala, while at the same time calling her a "cop". It's completely scattershot. There is no consistent messaging whatsoever. Say what you will about W., but he and Obama were ALWAYS on message, and to a certain extent, so was Trump in 2016. Now, like the state of the country, all he can project is chaos. Which is exactly what the former First Lady was conveying last night. Do you want boring normalcy, or whatever the fuck this is since March??
The people complaining about Kasich speaking are really missing the point. Conventions aren't for the base, they're for (even though I hate this word) "normie" Americans who aren't swimming in this stuff 24/7. Democrats are casting a wide net. All indications are the RNC next week is going to be non-stop cultural grievance for the base.
As for last night, Michelle Obama's "it is what it is" line was pretty savage. Trump today was complaining she didn't get the COVID-19 death count right. That's because it was made two weeks ago, and 20,000 more people have died in the meantime. Not exactly what I'd be calling attention to. Then again, this is a guy with the unmitigated gall to say New Zealand having nine new CASES (not deaths) in their whole country is some kind of scandal when we have about 60,000 every day. This guy is selling nothing but make-believe at this point.
I think this is exactly right. I will admit that I could have done without Kasich's pre nomination posturing that was anti AOC. That didnt really serve any purpose, and I think it's fair for progressives to be annoyed about *that*
but him speaking at the Convention? If it means a few more moderate Republicans go from not voting to voting for Biden in the Midwest, it's definitely worth it.
He was also sort of speaking right to the Fox News crowd. Fox News continually barrages their views with the idea that Joe is 5 seconds away from going full Bolshevik, when that's patently absurd. His attempt to reassure voters could be useful.
Of course - if those are the same viewers that are going to tune in to see the McCloskeys play the victim after pointing guns at a BLM march, they're probably beyond saving.
I just don't think a 4 day parade of talk-radio cause celebres is going result in a single net vote. If you care at all about them, there is almost zero chance you weren't voting for Trump anyway. Again, Biden has to net 80,000 votes in the Rust Belt compared to Hillary to win. That isn't even a fraction of a percentage point.
You may be right, but a LOT of people watch these events. Enough to warrant taking it seriously that it *could* change votes.
I mean, an argument can be made Kasich came in 3rd behind Trump and Cruz last time. He was in the running for a long while. He does gain nothing from this. He has no avenue to power to in a Democratic-controlled Washington, and he is now an apostate among conservatives. The only logical conclusion is he actually believes Trump is an existential threat to the country.
The whole Trump campaign strategy is riding on conflicting realities. They want to paint the nominee as a socialist, but that doesn't work with Biden in any fashion. They want to call him "sleepy" and still insist he is a radical. They want to say the same thing about Kamala, while at the same time calling her a "cop". It's completely scattershot. There is no consistent messaging whatsoever. Say what you will about W., but he and Obama were ALWAYS on message, and to a certain extent, so was Trump in 2016. Now, like the state of the country, all he can project is chaos. Which is exactly what the former First Lady was conveying last night. Do you want boring normalcy, or whatever the fuck this is since March??
I agree that this is likely to be a principled stand from someone who has always wanted to seek consensus across party lines - but that doesn't mean that he's not hoping to get something out of it. At 68, he's potentially got at least 1 more shot at running for President. At this point in time he wouldn't have a hope of doing that running against a Trump agenda, but that won't necessarily always be the case. Kasich is a traditional conservative, believing in things like:
- maintaining family values
- valuing stability, organised religion and cultural heritage
- disliking corruption
- desiring a unified society
There are a lot of people like him that Trump successfully got behind him, but from thousands of miles distance it's utterly baffling how he managed that. Trump's record in life up to 2016 would not have led you to believe he would support any of that list and his record in office is pretty much what you would expect based on his earlier life. Some of his policies have provided support to organised religion, but that's about it (unless you want to count the cultural wars rhetoric as supporting cultural heritage - I don't). Otherwise he's been almost the antithesis of what you would look for in a traditional conservative.
It seems to me to be at least conceivable that there will be a major backlash against Trump at some point. Right now emotions are running too high for that to happen, but (if Trump loses) over the next few years it seems plausible that the steady drip, drip of legal cases and revelations of how corrupt he's been could have sufficient impact for Republicans to wish for someone more traditional to represent them - that sort of reasoning has arguably been one factor in the choice of Biden this time.
In that situation, being an early opponent of Trump could benefit him with many Republican voters. It could also play well with party organisations - who are likely to be concerned that Republicans chasing an increasing share of a reducing demographic is not a good long-term strategy. If he did become the Republican nominee, being known as someone who wants to work across party lines would also help him get moderate Democrats to vote for him, rather than relying on the shrinking base that Trump rode into power.
Call me crazy, but this virtual convention is.....better. It's more condensed, it features real people, it's more purposeful, it's easier to control the narrative and message.
And I think it's because the Dems have been assuming this would always be the case for months. This has been in planning and production the entire time. Trump was still insisting he give a speech to a huge crowd as recently as a few weeks ago. Maybe I'm wrong, but something tells me next week won't be anything like this. It will again illustrate the core dynamic. Do you want competence (which this production surely conveys) or chaos??
I wish the backlash had happened sooner. It wasn't just Republicans that lost out because of a Trump presidency. Nominating the wrong candidate in the primaries can hurt everyone.
I hope it prompts a genuine reconsideration of what conservatism in America is supposed to be about. Trump just flat-out isn't any of the things that American conservatives as a group have aspired to be; his only notable Republican credential is being opposed to the Democratic party. I'm not really convinced the backlash will produce a reconsideration, though, because the backlash against Bush junior didn't. There was no point at which the GOP decided that Bush didn't represent them, and I don't think there will be a point at which the GOP decides that Trump doesn't represent them.
It's not like Bush is still particularly loved by Republicans, as far as I can tell. I haven't heard a conservative speak positively of George W. Bush since he left office, 12 years ago. I think that Trump, like Bush, will just be ignored and forgotten by the GOP.
I think in 2024 the GOP position on Trumpism will just be a "never mind all that."
I really don't know what the 2024 Republican candidate might look like. I don't know what the party leadership intends to stand for when Trump is finally gone.
Comments
Boris Johnson’s conservatives are giving it a go (following in the great tradition established under David Cameron and continued under Theresa May).
The guy just made his own brother a lord as well as the guy who gives him free holidays. And achieved the double whammy of the worst death toll In Europe and the worst economic impact of the G7 countries. Whilst constantly spouting **** about how great he is and whining on about a tiny number of refugees trying to cross the Channel (because they’re the big threat apparently).
If he is even willing to consider that his own party has ideological flaws, let alone vote for someone else, I'd call him orders of magnitude more open minded than the general tone of the group.
A fair counterpoint. And further evidence that a particular kind of conservative populism just cannot handle the difficult work of governance.
How so? What I see is someone unwilling to be moved by real-world evidence. As JJ notes in the post right above, this a historic failure by the federal government. And it's an extraordinary number of Americans suffering right now.
As I noted in my post, there is compelling evidence that a normal, left-of-center party would tackle this crisis much much better, because in plenty of countries, normal left-of-center parties in power are doing just that. Or even a sane moderately conservative party would. But that's not what currently exists in the US.
I'm not saying people have to do the maximum in this upcoming election, and volunteer, donate money, etc. I'm only saying people ought to do the bare minimum. And that is to vote for the only other viable candidate on the ballot. The people have the power, Trump's miraculous 2016 victory should have made that clear, if nothing else. And if people don't want to use this power correctly when the real-world evidence cries out so unequivocally, then I think they are partially culpable for the bad circumstances that are sure to ensue.
Moreover, I don't think people who accurately warned of Trump's unfitness need to worry about being "open minded".
Whatever dude. My vote won't swing an election anyway so enjoy your high horse. I'm sure you had no problem with Obama when he was issuing his borderline Constitutional executive orders against the 'obstructionist' Republicans.
If I had to choose between Stalin and Hitler apparently I'd be responsible for the one that I voted for because, God knows, it's not an option NOT to vote for one of them. Yes I'm being deliberately satirical. Not voting for somebody who's closer to my viewpoint because I don't like them is not the same as voting for somebody on the opposite side of the spectrum. That vote would have to be earned, not given...
I want people do understand something. Doing this just in the context of the election is the biggest betrayal imaginable against self-governance. But it's WAY more than that. People rely on the Post Office to do innumerable things, the most important of which are getting medications. Add some more deaths to that kill count that won't ever get put on the board.
He is sabotaging the fucking Post Office. You think this guy is leaving if that doesn't work?? I said from the beginning he would burn it to the ground rather than lose. We tried to tell everyone where this would go. And yeah, it's immensely frustrating it was shrugged off and not listened to. I wasn't saying it because he was another run-of-the-mill Republican I hated. I was saying it because scholars of authoritarian regimes recognized patterns of behavior and saw them in Trump from jump-street. Go listen to Adam Schiff's closing impeachment statement again. It's prophecy in hindsight.
I must say that i didn't really believe you. But I also must say, what could I have done if I had believed you? Whether or not I agree with you is irrelevant if nothing can or will be done about it. I wrote both my Congresswoman and my Senator and told them to vote for impeachment. To me that's about the sum of the action I'm capable of. I do own a rifle and a shotgun if everybody wants to grab the pitchforks. Somehow I don't see that happening...
I'm not addressing any of these directly at you, even if it seems that way. There was a time when I was really looking forward to the "I told you so" moments, but that time is long past and in the rearview mirror for me. I lost any sense of potential satisfaction from it in March. I appreciate that you and @WarChiefZeke jumped off the train. I couldn't have said that a year ago. I would have been inclined to rub it in. Now I just want to live in a functioning country.
Going after the Post Office gets under my skin in the same way it does when people go after teachers. I have a visceral reaction to it that makes me enraged. These are tough, noble jobs that are being thrown to the wolves and defunded (respectively) for this man's megalomania, and it's obscene. Does Trump have any idea just how many elderly people rely on the Post Office for EVERYTHING?? And how that's magnified ten-fold in rural areas that are ostensibly full of his own supporters??
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/13/politics/israel-united-arab-emirates-normalization-trump/index.html
I think this more of my enemy is your enemy sort of deal with Iran being cast as the villain and it would have come to this point eventually. But kudos to the Trump administration for at least being the middleman and getting this done quickly.
It also seems slightly premature as it only takes one side reneging on what they promised to blow this up, and with the two characters involved it wouldn’t surprise me if this falls apart in a couple of months. But that’s just cynical me.
Because we definitely know that the two most trust-worthy leaders on Earth are Netanyahu and Trump. One of them is currently indicted on bribery charges and the other is attempting to prevent mail from reaching the citizens of his country. I wouldn't even use whatever agreement those two were part of to wipe my ass. My prediction is the continued annexation of the West Bank will happen before January.
Not to mention the third player in this is journalist-chopping, Crown Prince, Mohammed Bin Zayed, who said on twitter "The UAE and Israel also agreed to cooperation and setting a roadmap towards establishing a bilateral relationship."
So they are at the roadmap stage and nothing really concrete is set.
Palestine has recalled its ambassador from the UAE after the announcement. They feel slighted especially since Netanyahu said the annexation is "temporarily (on) hold" and not completely off the table.
It seems to be a classic Trump promising more than what was actually delivered to get as much as the praise as possible. But as I said, if this actually sticks, kudos to his team getting it there.
Yeah, this really doesn't strike me as some kind of Camp David Accord. It's the equivalent of Trump's Executive Orders last week. A major announcement that means basically nothing in the short term, even less long term. Carter may have only had 4 years, but he legitimately worked hard to broker peace with Israel and Egypt. Trump sent his son-in-law to talk with Prince Bonesaw.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/13/politics/pentagon-ufo-task-force/index.html
More illegal aliens for Trump to contend with?
(cue Twilight Zone music)
It's depressing isn't it. Only last year the Trump administration was floating the idea of changing the constitution so that people born in the US were not automatically citizens. That looked like being too difficult though, so they've moved on to the idea that the constitution does not in fact require that at the moment.
It's easy right now to say this interpretation is ridiculous and goes against settled judgments of the Supreme Court, but the position really is subject to change. The situation is analogous to the debate over second amendment requirements. Until recently (in the life of the US), both the commonly understood and legal interpretation was that the second amendment right to carry guns was subject to being in the context of a militia. That was changed by a long-running, well-funded campaign - both targeting the public at large and the legal profession.
The same sort of campaign could easily be mounted on the issue of citizenship. I'm sure there are already a large number of Americans who would agree that children of illegal immigrants should not be citizens, so there will already be a significant base to work with.
I think the Hitler-Stalin example is unhelpful. It's just so far from reality.
But I'd be willing to vote for John Kasich, Ted Cruz, Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders if we lived in a political system where the choice was one of them or Trump. And without hesitation. And I think alot of left-of-center Americans share that sentiment. IMO, it shows that maybe you should question how relatively open minded you are.
I also think the "my vote doesn't really matter" is a lame cop out. And one that could be serviced for any election. And it's an excuse that actually was used in sufficient numbers to deliver a government thoroughly unable to tackle the current crisis.
As for last night, Michelle Obama's "it is what it is" line was pretty savage. Trump today was complaining she didn't get the COVID-19 death count right. That's because it was made two weeks ago, and 20,000 more people have died in the meantime. Not exactly what I'd be calling attention to. Then again, this is a guy with the unmitigated gall to say New Zealand having nine new CASES (not deaths) in their whole country is some kind of scandal when we have about 60,000 every day. This guy is selling nothing but make-believe at this point.
I think this is exactly right. I will admit that I could have done without Kasich's pre nomination posturing that was anti AOC. That didnt really serve any purpose, and I think it's fair for progressives to be annoyed about *that*
but him speaking at the Convention? If it means a few more moderate Republicans go from not voting to voting for Biden in the Midwest, it's definitely worth it.
He was also sort of speaking right to the Fox News crowd. Fox News continually barrages their views with the idea that Joe is 5 seconds away from going full Bolshevik, when that's patently absurd. His attempt to reassure voters could be useful.
Of course - if those are the same viewers that are going to tune in to see the McCloskeys play the victim after pointing guns at a BLM march, they're probably beyond saving.
I just don't think a 4 day parade of talk-radio cause celebres is going result in a single net vote. If you care at all about them, there is almost zero chance you weren't voting for Trump anyway. Again, Biden has to net 80,000 votes in the Rust Belt compared to Hillary to win. That isn't even a fraction of a percentage point.
He knew (or should have known) he was going to be vilified by the republicans for going against party lines and he should have known he wasn't going to be embraced with open arms by all democratic voters.
So if he personally gains nothing from speaking, what he says, IMO, is as close to an unbiased opinion on the state of America as you are going to get. And Kasich is right. Biden is the central candidate who the democrats put forward as he'll be easier to swallow for central right voters than a progressive candidate like Sanders and the 'democratic tent' is much bigger than the progressive voices the right wing media likes to focus on such as AOC.
Well said, I would add the caveat that they're for both. Sometimes I wish people (especially those who consume a lot of online politics) would step back and think about how large and diverse Democratic voters are. It's arguably one of the largest and most diverse group of voters of any democracy -- I suspect only parties in India or Brazil could compete.
Sanders spoke as well. The conventions aren't targeted for any one group, they're trying to cast a wide net!
Also very well said, Kasich is speaking against self-interest. There are many of other avenues he could choose right now that would help his long term goals, including merely being silent like a number of moderate conservatives. And while in office he was staunchly pro-life and anti-union, so he is not going to gain from Democratic control, even on the issues he cares about, much less, personally.
The whole Trump campaign strategy is riding on conflicting realities. They want to paint the nominee as a socialist, but that doesn't work with Biden in any fashion. They want to call him "sleepy" and still insist he is a radical. They want to say the same thing about Kamala, while at the same time calling her a "cop". It's completely scattershot. There is no consistent messaging whatsoever. Say what you will about W., but he and Obama were ALWAYS on message, and to a certain extent, so was Trump in 2016. Now, like the state of the country, all he can project is chaos. Which is exactly what the former First Lady was conveying last night. Do you want boring normalcy, or whatever the fuck this is since March??
You may be right, but a LOT of people watch these events. Enough to warrant taking it seriously that it *could* change votes.
I agree that this is likely to be a principled stand from someone who has always wanted to seek consensus across party lines - but that doesn't mean that he's not hoping to get something out of it. At 68, he's potentially got at least 1 more shot at running for President. At this point in time he wouldn't have a hope of doing that running against a Trump agenda, but that won't necessarily always be the case. Kasich is a traditional conservative, believing in things like:
- maintaining family values
- valuing stability, organised religion and cultural heritage
- disliking corruption
- desiring a unified society
There are a lot of people like him that Trump successfully got behind him, but from thousands of miles distance it's utterly baffling how he managed that. Trump's record in life up to 2016 would not have led you to believe he would support any of that list and his record in office is pretty much what you would expect based on his earlier life. Some of his policies have provided support to organised religion, but that's about it (unless you want to count the cultural wars rhetoric as supporting cultural heritage - I don't). Otherwise he's been almost the antithesis of what you would look for in a traditional conservative.
It seems to me to be at least conceivable that there will be a major backlash against Trump at some point. Right now emotions are running too high for that to happen, but (if Trump loses) over the next few years it seems plausible that the steady drip, drip of legal cases and revelations of how corrupt he's been could have sufficient impact for Republicans to wish for someone more traditional to represent them - that sort of reasoning has arguably been one factor in the choice of Biden this time.
In that situation, being an early opponent of Trump could benefit him with many Republican voters. It could also play well with party organisations - who are likely to be concerned that Republicans chasing an increasing share of a reducing demographic is not a good long-term strategy. If he did become the Republican nominee, being known as someone who wants to work across party lines would also help him get moderate Democrats to vote for him, rather than relying on the shrinking base that Trump rode into power.
And I think it's because the Dems have been assuming this would always be the case for months. This has been in planning and production the entire time. Trump was still insisting he give a speech to a huge crowd as recently as a few weeks ago. Maybe I'm wrong, but something tells me next week won't be anything like this. It will again illustrate the core dynamic. Do you want competence (which this production surely conveys) or chaos??
I hope it prompts a genuine reconsideration of what conservatism in America is supposed to be about. Trump just flat-out isn't any of the things that American conservatives as a group have aspired to be; his only notable Republican credential is being opposed to the Democratic party. I'm not really convinced the backlash will produce a reconsideration, though, because the backlash against Bush junior didn't. There was no point at which the GOP decided that Bush didn't represent them, and I don't think there will be a point at which the GOP decides that Trump doesn't represent them.
It's not like Bush is still particularly loved by Republicans, as far as I can tell. I haven't heard a conservative speak positively of George W. Bush since he left office, 12 years ago. I think that Trump, like Bush, will just be ignored and forgotten by the GOP.
I think in 2024 the GOP position on Trumpism will just be a "never mind all that."
I really don't know what the 2024 Republican candidate might look like. I don't know what the party leadership intends to stand for when Trump is finally gone.