This is the email sent out by the tump campaign today.


Outside of that email, it's been nothing but emails claiming the Democrat platform for 2020 is "full blown socialism".

If there are people out there that believe this nonsense then there's little reason to even try to run a center left candidate.

On top of that the official WH email that went out today was just a collection of editorials from the USA Today and NY Post that were supportive of trump, then posted some articles from the always balanced Washington Examiner about the same thing. Only 1 piece was actually about a WH policy process. The rest was all about the narrative.

Michigan GOP got their clocks cleaned in '18. Any vaguely competent D should be able to do it again in '20.

This. Both Obama and Clinton were close together. The two big issues were healthcare and Iraq, with Obama to the right on healthcare and to the left on Iraq.

The Hill on Twitter: "Sarah Sanders: "They literally accused the President of the United States of being an agent for a foreign government. That's equivalent to treason. Thats punishable by death in this country."… https://t.co/Dy1GfyZ7cc"

This is what proper governments do, suggest rivals should be killed. Totally normal.

How far out of whack are "what it takes to get elected/remain in office" and "what it takes to govern effectively"?

The DoJ is now arguing that the ACA is unconstitutional and the decision of the district court should be affirmed, meaning the end of the ACA and chaos in healthcare.

The Supreme Court will hear the NC gerrymandering case tomorrow. I don't agree with their reasoning, but the guys kind of have a point if the courts were arguing that political based gerrymandering is legal - Ralph Hise and David Lewis on N.C. Gerrymandering - The Atlantic

I'm not sure it's illegal, but the precision with which gerrymandering can now be done is without a doubt a threat to democratic stability.

That's begging the Democrats to rerun the 2018 healthcare campaigns that netted 40 seats in 2020.

I Think we can all agree that democracy does not work if people draw maps where 50+ percent of the vote gets you 35% of the seats.

Haven't you seen the maps? trump won nearly every county in the entire US. The fact that he lost the popular vote is irrelevant. I mean, the entire US was red! That alone proves that the R's are underrepped in both houses. It really should be a 90/10 split and even that may be too generous.


/s

I think this is an underlooked point. When the courts blessed gerrymandering, the tools to do it were pretty crude. "Let's try and put these two Polish neighborhoods together" kind of thing. There was a natural check to its effectiveness is subverting democracy because it just wasn't that effective.

If people 150 years ago had the tools and algorithms they do today where they can carve up votes street by street with a high degree of accuracy, I think that the courts would have stepped in and cut it off at the bud.

I'm in a bizarre situation where my street is the dividing line for a district. I literally am in a different district from my across the street neighbors. I vote at the church at the end of our street. They vote at an elementary school a mile or so away. Their district was hotly contested, mine was a laugher.

Agree. The courts and precedent have just messed this up with their blessing of minority majority districts etc. Probably necessary at the time to overcome entrenched racism, but has boxed the courts in unless they're willing to overturn prior precedent.

The easiest solution is taking the drawing of the electoral map out of partisan hands, but it's tough to get the party in power to agree to that.

I live in a tentacle of one of the (numerous) deeply offensive blue districts in Maryland. I think it's good that they have one red and one blue state being discussed at the same time, to lessen the sense that this is the exclusive province of one party. Rs are better at this than Ds but they both do it, and they both should get shut down.

My preference is: non-partisan redistricting > both parties gerrymandering > one party gerrymandering

I favor norms, but if there's a collapse in norms I think it's better that both sides do it rather than one side only. In a lot of instances, I think the only deterrent is mutual assured destruction.

A Play in three acts:

1. "The problem is how radical the Dems are. If they were less radical, and more moderate, we'd totally vote for them."

2. Obama continues light bulb energy efficiency program begun under George W. Bush.

3. "See, that's just the sort of radical communism that keeps me from ever voting for a Democrat. Trump might say the racist stuff out loud, but at least he's committed to stopping those radical Bush/Obama marginal improvements in light bulb efficiency. I guess the Dems just lost another 2020 voter."

Trump Administration Proposing More Exemptions To Efficient Lightbulb Standards | The Statehouse News Bureau

Big Lightbulb pushing around us plebes as usual!

Sorry if we went through this before, but I don't see why a third, centrist party wouldn't work. There's never been a better time; outside the R and D bases, people are disgusted with Trump but at the same time scared of far-left candidates. Why couldn't a centrist party come in and scoop up those in the middle, and maybe scrape off more moderate Rs and Ds? I've heard "electoral college" and yada yada, but isn't it that whomever has the most electoral college votes wins (plurality), and not a majority of votes? If you get the right person in leadership, get a lot of financial backing behind it, and maybe start off at the state level and build up (looking at the Midwest here), why wouldn't a centrist party work?

On a side note, I'm liking what I hear from Andrew Yang, although I doubt he'd win the D primary.

Maybe if such a party is led by somebody with money that people already like. I'm not underestimating any celebrity candidates again.

If no one reaches 270, the House selects the President with one vote per state delegation. Unless said centrist party can't grab some House delegations, they get nothing. A third party would have to grow naturally while not being subsumed by whatever party they're close to, and not waste everyone's time going straight for the Presidency like the Greens and Libertarians.

I see. I wasn't aware of that. Thank you!

[quote=bbgunn;3234426 There's never been a better time; outside the R and D bases, people are disgusted with Trump but at the same time scared of far-left candidates. [/quote]

In that case, the entire R and D must be "the base"

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245996/...arization.aspx

And that's why a centrist party is unlikely. The soft squishy center is considerably overstated AND lacks the concern to amount to a damned thing.

The primary thing the "center" does is annoy people who are paying attention or who have the sense or courage to take a damned stand.

Actually, the center is pretty much ignored by the idiot nut jobs on the extremes.

The country worked much better when the sides represented their people and not their party. When compromise got things accomplished for the betterment of the country.

For the Dems, who look like they could possibly wrangle total control of the government based on appealing to progressives and reaction to collective GOP lunacy, returning to the land of compromise seems like a totally defeatist strategy (which wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, given their history).

'Immediate compromise from a position of power' was the theme that drove the ACA into the clusterfuck of half-measures that it still is today.

I don't see why we can't just get to...

For the Dems, after ACA, trying to compromise, and dealing with McConnell and his cohorts for 8 years, I think they need to be ready to give it right back. I'm tired of the compromise for better decisions getting thrown back my face as weak, while the R's gloat and just take everything they can grab in the meantime. They can freely jam this fucker up like a toilet after a night of beer and cheeseburgers.



On a different note, I was in my bar in KY, which is still very, very red KY, and played Fuck Tha Police on the Touch Tunes box, and people were audibly accusing one another of playing it. Fit right in during the mix of country and whatever assorted mishmash that was getting played.

Precisely.

Do you guys really think of this as war on You? Really? Do you even talk to humans outside of your circle? Your post is sad not because of what you believe in politically, it’s sad because of what you believe of your fellow human, man. It ain’t all us against them, bro.

Not at all. That's not even close. If you really knew that google thinks I read conservative media non stop, and fb knows has me pegged as a solid centrist ( I would consider myself a solidly centrist, D).

It's not war. It's not even close. But what it is, and what I personally am tired of, is what drives us all. It's precisely about the common good. It's about doing what's right. I've held out hope, and still do, that the Mueller report is about the truth, is about the main goal of keeping us safe from foreign influence and danger, and making right, any issues that come out of that. Please tell me how anything that Fox, or the president, or the R's, have said anything regarding that? Sure doesn't seem like it.

It's that as long as the leaders are dead set against any sort of effort to actually sit down and make things work, and as long as the game is all about team A, I really don't care. It's straight prisoners gambit, and I feel like the side that is has been choosing to gain personally and then rubbing our noses, and the noses of everyone in it every time. The only win is working together. I'm willing to do it, but my patience has run out, and until they truly, like you know, been forced to deal with life as a minority for a decade or so, maybe we can actually work toward a good end.

Frankly, it's about trust. One side doesn't trust the other, and the groups that do try and get work done get crushed by the groups that only want to steamroll the other. Until new leadership is in place, and a feeling of mutual trust returns this game isn't ending anytime soon, and if we have to play it, we're both going to lose, but at least we do so on even terms, not as a solitary defeat.

Are you saying people don't like Mark Zuckerberg and Howard Schultz? :lol:

I'm waiting patiently to see what the Mueller report contains, the messaging about it from Barr seems somewhat at odds with reality and simply intended to dismiss further analysis of their findings. I'm hoping its made public enough to dissuade similar issues coming up in 2020, if it doesn't then its open season as far as manipulating voters and misinformation is concerned.

I fully understand the Republicans and Trump not wanting their win to be discredited potentially, but equally I'm disappointed that they appear to put that before the good of the country in terms of holding future elections.

PS - Then again one thing I respect the Republican party for is they play the 'game' far better than Democrats imho - when they gain power they push full force for their agenda and f*ck the Democrats, when Democrats get into power they try and find a mid-centralist point and compromise with the Republicans, until the Democrats pull hard left in the way that Republicans pull hard right the country will continue to go to hell in a hand basket as more and more social programs go to the wall* imho.

*Literally at the moment with funding for that being more important than helping citizens

Umm..it's not? Since when?

I think the discourse on many things is exactly that.

It is the question that is asked in form every election cycle. Are you voting for someone and their ideas (us) or against someone and their ideas? If there is even a mention of acknowledgement of a good idea from someone on one side by someone on the other, immediately claims of RINO and DINO ring out.

The US Ambassador Pete Hoekstra in the Netherlands was interviewed live on tv. He was asked what he thought of the big news in the USA (referring to the Mueller report). His response was some complete nonsense about college basketball in Michigan, as if anybody over here even cares about March Madness, I suspect maybe just 1% of the population here even knows what it is. I hope for his sake it was a failed attempt at humor...

That sounds like humor. He went to Michigan.

Again Schmidty, I am left questioning your viewpoint and sentimentality. I don't disagee with your sentiment at all, in a vacuum, but I think you'd have to be particularly tone-deaf and ignorant to suggest that this distaste for compromise is something that has blossomed whole cloth from progressive political beliefs in some sort of bubble, rather than a reaction to the *long* documented strategy of the GOP abusing and rejecting any attempts at compromise. That's not opinion, that's history based on my 'fellow man' deliberately rejecting compromise and abusing my trust any time they are given the chance, for literally the entirety of my life, and then having the folks ostensibly on 'my side' repeatedly and immediately try to compromise away any and all of my interests to those same obstructionists as soon as they get anything resembling power.

You're not offended, or affected in the slightest, by the GOP essentially upending the country's entire judicial system and deliberately obstructing the process for years, explicitly so that they can load the supreme court (and every other court) with conservative justices regardless of America's political balance and MASSIVE incarceration rate, and you're not offended by the fact that the GOP has deliberately used gerrymandering to carve the country's voting districts into a system that keeps the less popular party in power, or the fact that GOP representatives try to deliberately handicap those powers as soon as they are voted out of them, but you *do* think it's a sad, basic failure of humanity when progressive folks talk about not wanting to accept compromise any longer?

This is laughable.

For the Republicans it is ONLY us vs them. They literally do nothing that doesn't benefit their party and supporters, and you support a man who literally lashes out against anyone who doesn't bend the knee to him.

As just mentioned, Merrick Garland and gerrymandering. Voter suppression.
How about just today Trump lashing out against relief for Puerto Rico?
How about him threatening California with no funding for wildfires, and claiming they need to rake their forests?
How about just a couple days ago taking steps to remove health care from millions?
How about cutting education funding from low income people and special Olympics?
Massive tax cuts for the wealthy while the deficit balloons?
Rolling back regulations designed to protect the environment?
How about locking kids i cages?

Please show me example of how this administration has done anything to act in the best interest of ALL Americans, not just those who support their agenda. Explain to me how this administration has done anything that isn't us vs them?

The GOP, as it currently stands, is out to protect the interests of corporations first and foremost while producing policy to govern over roughly 35% of the people. That's not how democracy should work.

I'm not going to attack you, instead I'll show you examples of how the GOP has governed in a Us vs Them way that ignores the will of the people.


1.) The ACA grew into popular policy that republicans have done everything in their power to dismantle primarily because it's bad for corporations.

2.) Net neutrality is wildly popular for both Dems and the Republicans, but is bad for corporations. When the bills for net neutrality went before Congress a total of 2 republicans between both House and Senate voted for it while a total of 6 dems voted against it.

3.) Campaign Finance legislation that would make money going to politicians more transparent. 2 Bills went to senate without a single GOP vote for it and zero Dems voting against it.

4.) Backup paper ballot bills that would create a paper ballot as a receipt of your recorded vote. Popular on both sides and 20 GOP members of the house voted for it while 0 dems voted against it.

5.) 2 bills went before senate that would cap student loan interest rates along with other protections for student loans. Zero GOP senators voted for them while just 7 total Dems voted against the 2 bills.

6.) The minimum wage bill in '13 that would have increased minimum wage to $10.10 over a 2 year period. 1 GOP Senator was for it. 1 Dem Senator was against it.

7.) The Time between troop deployments bill that would have required a period between deployments equal to the soldier's last deployment. 6 GOP Senators were for it. 1 Dem Senator was against it.


The Lilly Ledbetter act, the court stacking, gerrymandering, consumer protections, environmental protections, affordable housing. I could go on and on with more examples of legislation that would be good for the people, is popular with the people, would be a benefit to the people, but are only supported by 1 side when it comes time to pass legislation.

I don't think GOP voters are evil or anything like that, but I do think the majority of them are misinformed when it comes to understanding what policies their representatives support.


EDIT: I want to add a special shoutout to Mitch McConnell for filibustering his own bill in '12 because he didn't expect it to get democrat support. If there ever was an example of Us vs Them this was it.

Eh, I don't exactly disagree with this headline.

The GOP’s answer to catastrophic climate change? Trolling the libs.


For a lot of people it IS us against them.

Frankly, I would feel a lot better about losing to a motivated, informed voter base that embraces evil vs. continually bouncing off of the uninformed masses of GOP voters who are apparently more than happy to willfully ignore the results of their own votes & any actions of the representatives they continue to keep in power, into eternity.

Sorry, Jon, I don't buy that at all.

First of all, that Gallup article in no way shows that the center is "soft and squishy", "considerably overstated", and "lacks the concern to amount to a damned thing." I think it's more that they hold their noses and are forced to choose a side.

Second of all, these days people in the center DO IN FACT take a damned stand.
They take a stand against extremism on both sides.
They take a stand against this whole US vs THEM crap that has divided this country. Everything is red and blue instead of red, white and blue.
They take a stand against MSM that's either hard left or hard right, and don't work for the people but rather their bottom line. The left AND the right are guilty of that.
They take a stand for compromise. If you are going to live in the same house, you always fight for what you absolutely need, but you have to find ways to work together with the people in your house so that you can live in harmony. That is a courageous stand in my humble opinion.
It takes loads of balls to say, "You know what, let's see what I can talk with my brother on the other side about, so that we can find a solution that works for both of us." That is the ultimate stand.

I definitely lean left when it comes to politics, but man, I hate all this fighting. I hate all this divisiveness. And hell, I don't even live in the U.S. anymore.

It sure seems like it should be easy to do something simple like have both sides write down their top 10 public priorities, find the ones that best match up and then work collectively towards correcting those issues. Somehow nothing close to that ever happens.

I like to believe that I too would absolutely support constructive compromise over divisive spit-fights, but the next time I see any indication that could possibly happen will also be the first, and I'm willing to admit time & my own cynicism have eroded any sort of confidence I ever had in that regard. Likewise, if I could remember even a single instance of a Republican graciously accepting compromise, and/or a Democrat not immediately conceding to the right's agenda, I'd probably be a lot more acceptable to the idea.

I do applaud your ability to stick to your core beliefs in today's political climate.

Wow. Not even willing to spend $18 million on Special Olympics?

That’s just another level of evil.

Watching DeVos *try* to defend that was truly maddening.

The fact that she couldn't understand why such a stink was being made, or couldn't predict this coming, shows how out of touch she is.

Just like everything else, it won't matter on bit to the base.

I guess I'm an evil person because why should the Federal government cover it? Where is the power to fund it in the Constitution? Why not just raise private funds. I'm sure you're willing to throw in a buck or two right?

Conversely, you could say the same thing about a million other programs, which only begs the question: why start with the Special Olympics?

I have no problem ending Federal funding to the regular Olympics as well.

Apparently such a thing doesn't exist, as it appears US National teams are privately funded, for whatever it's worth to you (tho I can't imagine that was always the case). That said, I think there is certainly some room for nuance when considering the associated TV & endorsement monies (or lack thereof), how our society handles our disabled and the relative costs involved.

It also seems worth noting that a fair number of Special Olypmpics athletes are there as a result of serving in our armed forces.

This is just a high minded way to say fuck them.

Taking care of the less fortunate makes us a moral society. Providing access to all lifts up not just the weak, but also the strong. Justice should come before charity.

Yeah, I mean it might not be in the constitution, but we *do* have a really big statue, that we labeled Liberty, proclaiming our unwavering support for the poor, tired and huddled masses. I practically agree it's time to knock that sucker down and replace it with the Statue of Self Interest, but we're going to need a new poem too.

Yes. It is a war on me. You know how I know this? It's precisely because I leave my bubble and listen to people outside my circle. I listen to Mitch McConnell openly say that his only goal during the Obama administration was to reject every single idea put forth by Obama no matter what it is, no matter how much partisan backing it had, because "fuck obama".

I've watched family members do nothing but share Trump memes on facebook and I've attempted to gently point out the places where we're not that different, only to be laughed at.

I listen to more and more people say the same things that Jon says, just a little less openly malicious about it - the idea that liberals in the United States are THE ENEMY of our government, our freedom and our way of life. Not China, not Russia, not Al Qaeda or ISIS, but democrats. Not many do what Jon does and state every time he feels it to be appropriate that the way forward for the US is to have as many liberals die as possible, but the idea that liberals are the enemy is openly put forth very frequently.

Again going to the "team sport" idea - look at republicans like Trump and his "grab em by the pussy" comments and a pedophile running for congress in Alabama. Republicans ignore that, they rally around those people to protect them from anyone calling for decency, they fight to prop up these people. When democrats have had abuse scandals, the call from other democrats is for them to resign because they don't deserve to hold their position anymore.

When Barack Obama made healthcare a priority, there was a dramatic shift in support for universal healthcare among white republicans. Because a black democrat supported it, many people who supported the idea of universal healthcare when it came up during the Clinton Administration changed their views. The same thing happened when Obama made Climate Change a focus of a State of the Union address. A black democrat made Climate Change a key point, and all of a sudden republicans were against it.


So yes, I do believe there is an active focus of the right wing media and the GOP in congress to make democrats the enemy. I believe they're very open about that and say it out loud on a daily basis. I believe this because I get out of my echo chamber from time to tie long enough to listen to those words, and I believe them. And so do millions of americans who only watch fox news and have done what Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and many others at Fox in general tell all their viewers - That everything but Fox is fake news, stop watching any other news source, only trust us. And then they lay on the propaganda.

dola, and I'll once again point out the same thing that I have 100 times here for Schmidty - I don't like Mike Pence, especially his open hatred of gay people. But Mike Pence could have been the GOP's president, he could have been a ruthlessly effective one. Instead, the party members in congress openly defend Trump time and time again in the face of some of the most horrible things ever said by a politician. Over a history of bias against blacks that he's been sued for and LOST. When the option isn't Hillary if Trump were to be gone. The option is Pence. A perfect ideologue for the right who can go 24 hours without making fun of deceased war heroes or retweeting literal nazi's or calling other countries shitholes, or praising dictators who murder their own people while making fun of democratic leaders for being weak.

I'm not expecting everyone to become a liberal like me. I'm just still baffled to see people I thought were truly caring people stand behind trump no matter how much he marginalizes women, minorities, LGBT people. We've been through this before. Its just amazing to me to hear someone shit on me for playing an "us against them" game.

This country is just fucked, that's all I can say.

Hah, FWIW I consider myself centrist and you Left of me (but would guess many of you would view me as Right of center).

I think this is a good example of what is corrosive in our current environment. First of all, one obvious answer is Trump pushing the criminal justice bill that passed with broad bipartisan support. Even in the current environment. So as bad as things are, stuff like that still happens and doesn't get celebrated enough.

Some other things fall under the groupthink category. I.e., the natural assumption of liberals in general is going to be that liberal policies are better for all Americans - but it's worth pointing out that on many issues at least conservatives aren't going to agree. For example, policies that I personally disagree with but that it is possible to rationally believe are best for the country would include a wall for securing the border, the Trump tax cuts, tariffs, etc. I think there are better answers to those concerns, and many others, but the point is that doesn't give me a justification to assume that everyone who supports them doesn't believe they are good for all Americans.


It was only a decade ago that this type of rhetoric was going in the other direction. Not as badly or virulently, I'm not going for bothsidesism here, but the point I'm trying to make is we can come back from this. We have come back from worse. People of good will should not give up on the country yet. The mostly-justified anger against Trumpism is I think blinding many who should know better - I'm not targeting this against specific people here, as that's something only they can determine for themselves - to how things look to those on the other side of the debate.

Another FWIW. I do think its a "war on Dems/Lib". I don't necessarily agree with all the examples provided but do think there is plenty of examples to show it is a "war".

I would point out that plenty of GOP can probably cite different examples "war against Reps/Conservatives" during the Obama years.

So yeah, its a war.

Again, let me say that I agree it is a war (albeit not just against Dems/Libs, the other side can view it the same way when the opposite party was in power).

With that said "ALL Americans" is way too high of a standard and don't think that can be used as a criteria/example. How has any Administration done anything to act in the best interest of ALL (or even close to all) Americans?

I do see you point of where does it stop but I do think this is a special cause and IMO furthers our strategic interest (e.g. world opinion).

The government funds (or subsidizes) plenty of private interests, why not cut from them and redirect the $18M to a "worthy" cause.

How about ensuring everyone who needs it has health care?

Instead this administration is trying to roll back that policy, with the feeble promise they will come up with a better plan.

I'm obviously being a bit hyperbolic with my wording, but I would hope people get the point that this administration only cares about their supporters, and fuck off to everyone else. That was in response to Schmidty, who seems to think the opposite.

I don't think you mean to say US is a bad country but want to say that as an immigrant who appreciates the opportunities this country has provided me, its still the greatest country in the world.

(Okay, okay maybe the top 5 when you factor in the Nordic countries if you are a white person :) )

I am a supporter of single-payer healthcare for the "basics" with optional private insurance. Some sort of Medicare for all would be great.

But did the ACA even break 60 in support ever? All, 80-20 rule etc. is just too high of a standard.

Except that to paint what was going on as the exact same thing only the other way isn't accurate at all. A lot of the complaints about Fox are exactly the same then as they are now. You had birtherism, you had every single thing and person that Obama put in place blown up to a hair-raising, angry decibel that talk radio could just go on and on about.

The only difference is that a D was in the White House. The things that Obama and trump are being asked and accused of are 2 very different things. First Obama was black. Attacks on him personally were based on that, that he was born in Kenya, that he is a Muslim, that he "has a deep-seated hatred for white people", that he is actually anti-American. These kinds of attacks, and the rationalization that it takes to understand them and put them together focuses purely on speculation and not on any current actions that he made. The latte salute was, according to Fox, one of the most shocking things any president had ever done. They spent days, and days on it. It was an effort to bring the man down, but spreading as much anger about who they wanted people to think that he is, and those things I mentioned? Lies. Simply lies, based on race, designed to get white supporters very angry. Ted Nugent was the face of it. Lynching comment and all. That's it.

The things that trump has been criticized for are actually based on his past choices, actions, tweets. The "grab 'em by the pussy" comment was actually caught on an open mic. You heard him say it. trump has held virtually every position he can on any topic. You can dig and find hundreds of places where he contradicts himself. He has a long history of race baiting, just like Fox did with Obama. He can't spell. I mean the list of shit that he's done goes on. The official WH comments day 1 about the inauguration being the very biggest, ever, don't question my authoritai', were where it all began. That is something that can be factually challenged. Criticizing the man, the policies, and the endless amount of bullshit and documented lies can't even begin to compare with the actual smear tactics that Fox used on a regular basis. They loved that McConnell's mail goal was to say "NO" to every single thing, and made of of Obama for everything they could. Again, a deep internet research doesn't need to be done. Fact checking and pointing out where the president has lied isn't on the same field as lying about a birth certificate and encouraging others to not believe it.

trump created some national parks, but he also took away over a million acres from another, that had been returned to Native Americans. One good, does not outweigh, one bad.

I will concede that yes, there are people on the left, who are more than willing to do the very same thing. There's a lot of speculation that goes on, doesn't lead anywhere, and wastes a lot of time. But far and away, the actual fact based, verifiable checking is done on the left. The fact, that actual facts, and science, and our entire process of what is decided as right and wrong is brought into question more and more each day has me severely alarmed. How can we come to a point to begin a discussion on a way forward, if we can't begin on where to start? Or what the initial facts are? Or on if climate change is happening and what can be done, or if mandatory vaccines are a good thing or not? If the accepted science and studies are thrown out as some sort of devil worship then we will severely regress as a society.

The US is not a dynamic economy any longer. The government has underfunded R&D (of all kinds from disease prevention, cures, scientific studies), not taken care of it's infrastructure, and continues to believe that the profit dollar is the only, and best way to generate value and wealth in the country. R&D, science, infrastructure, may not be pretty today, but the value they give back over time makes them one of the biggest, and best ways to spend money, and it's been proven time and time again.

I digress, but back on my original point, I don't think that the case we have now, even remotely resembles the situation we saw in 2009 regarding the WH and the media. Obama excluding Fox from a briefing is not the same as the endless attacks from trump that any other media is an ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE! (See, it's the same thing all over again, it's just anger stoking. It's just what can I say that is going to really get my side riled up). Keith Olberman's 176 reasons report before the election got me riled up. But every single one of those things was factual. It wasn't just hyperbole. Those were verifiable. Same is not the same.

Yep. I'd peg you as center-right, Republican moderate in US terms.

I am going to waste as much time on 2020 speculation as anyone. But taking a step back, I think that we all could forgo all of the analysis because it really is just going to come down to one question. Was Hillary Clinton that unlikable because she was Hillary Clinton, or is the GOP apparatus sophisticated enough to make any Democratic challenger that highly unlikable?

I think Hillary's biggest issue wasn't necessarily her general lack of appeal to coservative/swing voters, but particularly the lack of appeal she generated for a significant amount of the folks that were supposed to be her base. IMO Joe Biden seems like the only one of the biggest names in the current running that could inspire that same level of fatigue.

I absolutely don't want to take that from you and completely respect your experience. I'm incredibly happy to know that you found a better life coming to this country, that's truly awesome!

My own perspective - which I know is extreme - is that I do not believe there is any recovering or coming back from where we are given the lows our political climate and discourse has reached. That it will only get worse as we ignore worse and worse problems, most importantly climate change, as things fall apart around us all.

I believe a democrat wins in 2020, and that's *really* when Fox News and folks like Mitch McConnell thrive, getting to employ scare tactics that the next president (even if its the most moderate candidates like Beto or Biden) is a straight up socialist hell bent on repealing the second amendment. The backlash is immense and we elect someone worse than Trump, repeat this cycle for awhile and we just spiral straight down.

I just don't see what could possibly happen to rein this back in. What could happen to return to a point where our debates involve facts and differing opinions on what to do about those facts, instead of everyone just blatantly making shit up and dying (or thriving) around a completely false narrative about what "the other side" is doing? How do we reach a point where we can have honest disagreements about policy but with an honest desire from everyone to move us forward? How do we return from a place where we no longer blatantly dismiss universally accepted science? The fate of the earth is literally at stake and our government is incapable of saying "you know what, we might disagree on how to approach this but here are a large set of facts that are just simply true, so we have to find a solution and compromise and work together".


I have literally zero hope of this ever happening :(

I will say, I know I'm not perfect and that I'm capable of being wrong. I refuse to just go limp and accept this fate. I'll continue to vote for what I believe is the best interest of our nation, I'm seriously considering volunteering for the democratic campaign for 2020 (though my natural laziness may win out there). So I'm not quitting. I want to be wrong very badly. I just can't see how it happens in my mind and I feel no hope.

I like to hope that American political culture is more like a pendulum swing, rather than an unavoidable cycle that drains down the toilet. It seems worth remembering that 4 years ago we had just as many folks telling ourselves that we were in the middle of a post-racist utopia.

These days remind me of the crazy stories about the Tammany Hall era and Boss Tweed, with competing fire departments that would axe fight eachother for the right to fight the fire in your house, that one of them may have started. I like to think that sometimes we have to display our worst qualities before we can recover from them, and I would like to hope we're in the middle of the death throes of boomer-styled judgment based politics, and things might actually improve in the long run from airing *so much* of our dirty laundry. Wishful thinking, I know.

When I think upon the depths this country has gone to in its history, and how truly terrible it was for the majority of people for most of the past two hundred and fifty years, I laugh at anyone who looks at what is happening now and bemoans that we won't ever go back to "nornal."

Things will get better. They always do, in the long run. There are heights and valleys, of course. We seem to be at a nadir currently from the perspective of the political culture. But the trend is still up. Anyone thinking otherwise probably needs to just go off the grid for a bit, or not let themselves get caught up in the day to day or even year to year swings.

There's always time for a chocolate malt and watching the birds.

Dear WH,

You can't keep going back to the caravan well. Each time it's less effective.

Maybe try boat people or an invasion of Maine to keep things fresh.

Good luck!

dola

Watched some video of the crowd from last night's Trump rally and it sure seems like QAnon is getting mainstreamed.

Schiff's speech yesterday was as clear of a dividing line as any I've seen. Either you think this stuff is ok or you don't. And his speech was only about Russia.

On top of that you have Trump's race rhetoric, his healthcare nonsense, his North Korean love affair, his disparagement of allies, his payoffs of mistresses, his incessant lying, etc.

Either you think this is ok, or you don't.

I don't think it's ok.

I feel you, that's fair. I'm reminded of all of Bucc's posts leading up to the election, how the results weren't even worth watching, that there was no way our nation was messed up enough to elect a moron like Trump, and then...

so, you're right until you're not, and once you realize you're not, it'll be too late. I hope you're right :)

I've had a number of times where I've pulled away from reading any stories for a week or so just to re-center myself - or whatever you want to call it. Most of the time it doesn't effect my day to day life, just the moments where I am keeping myself engaged and involved in what's going on in the world.

I want to be wrong, so its all good. In fact, on the day that we pass major climate change legislation in a bi-partisan fashion, I will be the first person to come here and happily say "you guys were right, we're gonna be okay"

What I would give to see the reaction to Obama leading a McConnell Sucks chant.

I want to put this out there merely as a statistical analysis on this topic and the overall topic of echo chambers, snowflakes, propaganda, and overall effect of Sociology and social psychology. It's a lot to do with the effect Russian influence had on the election.



I know it's a little heavy, and I don't really want to comment on it a lot, but what are your thoughts takeaways, and where is this eventually leading us to?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/29/why-an-anti-ocasio-cortez-chant-trump-rally-was-all-inevitable/

WTF.... did Trump just threaten Mexico with shutting down the border next week?

He did.

WTF does that even mean?

No idea. This could get interesting, though.

That article is all about the influence that Fox News has, it didn't mention Russia influence any. Was there a different one?

I think it speaks deeper to the way that people perceive the news they receive and the larger way they are influenced. It may not address the past influence, however, it does speak to the way that people can be influenced and how any foreign power can manipulate the narrative, not simply the way the hyper partisan outlets do.



Basically, given this, what direction are we going? Will media be open? Will it be restricted, turned into propaganda? Will that be tolerated? And if it remains as it is, how do we set the standard for separating the wheat from the chaff so to speak. You can't have government control of free press, but if the narrative that the free press can so easily be manipulated and amplified, how do you get the masses to buy into the fact that they are the ones that need to be smarter? And what if they simply refuse.


I know it's a lot of what ifs, but it is a tough thought game.

"turned into propaganda" would imply that in its current state it isn't already there.

Maybe that's cynical, but it's damned hard to find an unbiased opinion in the world of today's news.

I think there's a difference between what Russia, CHina, NK have where the news is only what you see from the single sided governmental point of view. There is no opposing view. Of course, Putin gets 90% of the vote, because there's no real opposition and what news that comes out is flattering and paints him only in the light and the success of the country.



You don't have that here, but you could. The current president, in my opinion, would love it if that were the case with him. I guess it's the whole red/blue pill argument. Fact based reporting is alive and well, but there are plenty of places where it gets completely shit on in favor of taking a fact and adding 5 opinions to go along with it.

Goodbye Joe Biden's Presidential aspirations.

Ex-Nevada Assemblywoman Says Joe Biden Inappropriately Kissed Her

I can't imagine anybody is shocked by this news.

But Grab her by the pussy is totally cool

I'd be shocked if there aren't 50 of these kinds of stories.

I guess it's only okay for the party of the evangelicals...

Now you get it!

Dola,

In all seriousness I think the Democrats could learn something from Trump. For example Beto began his campaign with apologizing for something he wrote when he was 15. He should've focused on his core policy issues and attacking the media that wanted to make an issue of his writings.

What’s the point of shutting the border? I thought everybody just crossed illegally because there’s no wall?

Thanks for the long reply. I agree with most of what you said, but there's a disconnect here and it's partly my fault for getting the timeline wrong and not being more specific. WH-media relations wasn't my point, I was replying to what Radii's said about democrats being called the enemy. What I had in mind as one example of how this is nothing new was the '04 campaign. Specifically, the fact that all but one candidate in the opposition party primary referred to Dubya specifically and pointedly as the enemy, and showed far greater outrage with him than they ever did with al Qaeda. We could dig deeper than that and talk about how the coarseness in general political climate helps create those who drag it down further. Convinced that 'their side' will never get a fair shake, they resort to total war/bloodsport and throw caution to the winds. This is specifically true of multiple bad actors who have sadly gained notoriety. Ann Coulter is one of the most famous but hardly the only one, though a very useful example as I consider one of the worst examples of how bad partisan politics can get. Based on the reaction to the Paula Jones accusations, who she represented, and the various ways in which Clinton was defended more largely, she chose to became … well, the destructive force of rhetoric she became. I don't blame anyone other than Coulter for what she chose to do, but at the same time the toxic environment does contribute here.


Partly true, but at the same time every study I've seen says coverage of Trump has been far more negative than that of any other president. He deserves far worse than criticism, he deserves impeachment at a minimum. At the same time, the complicated situation vis a vis racism and Obama has a lot more involved in it than was alluded to in your post. There were also the factors of any criticism of the man being labeled racism by many quarters regardless of validity, the pro-Obama racism contributing to his support, and so on.

Anyway back to the main point, the idea of referring to the party you disagree with as being the greatest enemy of America isn't new, and it isn't the sole province of the right. What D candidates said in '04 is far worse than anything Trump or anyone else since said as a candidate, and by skippy that's a low bar. On the other hand you are absolutely correct that in terms of volume of wingnuts just flat-out making stuff up, particularly in the last 15-20 years the conservative side has been clearly the worst. We do need to recognize that #NotMyPresident, calling on people to not merely oppose but resist the current government, and other extremes just don't help. You don't defeat the unprincipled demagogues by throwing your own standards out the window. As much as it disgusts me, Trump is my President and my duty is to spend more time praying for him than preying on him. But we can recover from all of this stuff. We're not even close to civil war yet, and we survived one of those. Maybe the only reason we don't do it again is because keyboard warrioring has become more fashionable than the real kind and we're too cowardly, but still - things could be a lot worse than they are and it is 100% reversible. If BS populism in the Trump vein is still just as popular or more so in 20 years ... yeah, then start worrying. But it's a bit early - we ought to let the electorate correct itself and if '18 results are any indication, that process has already begun.

Appreciate your note.

FWIW, I think demographics and time are on the side of the Dems/Liberals and against the more white conservative base.

I can remember in the 80's in the south were interracial dating was different, where women weren't in military, where gays were truly in the shadows other than in large cities, women/minority professionals etc.

There's been tremendous changes albeit not as fast (or complete) as some would like. But it will come. Three steps forward, two steps back ... we are just in the two steps back right now.

Says the guy with 20 miles of water to protect your homeland from the "horde" :)

Just rhetoric I'm sure. He's not going to lose any support from this, it reinforces/fires up his base etc. and it may (unlikely) help him get what he wants. He's currently on a win streak, the Dems/Liberals are licking their wounds from the recent defeat, let down etc. so why not kick them a little more when they are down.

2020 is going to be absolutely fascinating and can't wait for it to get here (has it only been 2 years?). It will tell us a lot about the US as a nation if Trump is re-elected or if he is not.

Unlikely I would vote for Trump in 2020 but sure hopes he gets the wall-like built which probably won't happen unless he gets a second-term.

Very much so. If Trump wins the same percentage of the vote based on age, race, gender and education in 2020, he loses. It's a shrinking demographic.

There's a lot here that I don't object to, but the highlighted portion is bullshit. That didn't happen.

Yeah, it actually did. I remember it well, as it was one of the two primary factors that kept me in Bush's camp - the other being Kerry's stated approach to terrorism during the campaign. At that point in time I was beginning my journey away from conservatism and considering voting democrat for the first time. That journey continued, but didn't end up with me in D camp and this kind of thing is a big part of why. There were nine democratic candidates in the primary debates I watched. Eight of them spoke that way, repeatedly. I don't remember who the one was who didn't, but at that point it didn't matter. It was pretty clear they were doing what was expected of them - racing to see who could denounce Bush the loudest and fastest, and to heck with everything else.

Quotes, then.

Maybe Sharpton and Kucinich, but show me where the people that could have actually won were more outraged with Bush than AQ. All of the ones in Congress in 2001 voted for military action and all but Kucinich voted for the Iraq War.

To be clear, y'all are talking about the 2004 election AKA Swiftboatfest as if *Bush* somehow got remarkably & unfairly smeared by the Dems??

I mean if you're saying they attacked Bush more than AQ, well no shit. He was the opposition party candidate. If you're saying they thought Bush was a bigger enemy than AQ, well that's not a defensible position at all.