One of the rare times we've agreed on something so I figured I'd point it out. :) I know he's got no chance in hell but I want him to get as much visibility as possible to try to bring UBI more into the national conversation no matter who wins the nomination.

Like others have pointed out, I'd also be happy with more than two realistic choices but it's simply not feasible the way our government is currently constituted. Take a look at history. It was Democrats and Whigs until the Republicans emerged. New parties can emerge but they will just displace one of the old ones. The 'machines' behind the parties will migrate too. Other than some ideological shifting, it's right back to the same old system.

And then I wonder whether a two-party system is such a bad thing..... No wasted time trying to put together coalitions to form a government after elections. I'm breaking Godwin's Law here, but the Nazis never came close to a clear majority in a real election.

Personally I have no problem with the Democratic National Committee rigging the Democratic primary for the candidate who was actually a Democrat.

That sentence would sound a lot less ridiculous if the party wasn't named after the democratic process.

Make it Republican, make it Communist. A person shouldn't run for a party's nomination if they're not willing to join the party. And don't cry foul if the party you won't join won't play along with you.

Hillary won more votes and more pledged delegates. The only way Bernie could have won was if a lot of pledged delegates ignored the will of the voters or if the super-delegates broke mostly for Bernie.

Bernie lost, fair and square.

According to some of my FB friends, Maduro just may be the next leader of the Demoncratic party.

I agree with you. I also find the implication that policy positions are all that matter in political party to be interesting. Your original point was saying that our system enforces two political parties, but now we are concluding that a third party isn't necessary. Which sort of makes that original point moot, doesn't it?

We've had this discussion before - I think it was in this thread actually, a year ago roughly. Maybe a little more, maybe a little less. But basically, it's an interesting video that I don't really agree with. There's some unsound logic in it IMO along with some good points. I'll get into that if you wish, but what is more important is that I have a different perspective than you do on a fundamental philosophical level. I.e, as mentioned I don't think the problem is the system, it's the people operating in the system.

For example, it's been much-discussed the level of partisanship, polarization, etc. that exists in America. A generation ago, it wasn't even that uncommon for people as disparate as Dan Quayle and Ted Kennedy to get together and cosponsor legislation (that actually happened). Now it's pretty much unheard of. What changed? It's not the system. Basic system stayed the same. I know we're talking about electoral mechanics not legislation, but the fundamental point is still there; it's about the people. We don't really value bipartisanship as much as we used to. I don't care what we say, the facts speak for themselves.

From your description of things a few posts up, we agree on more policy questions than you might imagine. I'm pretty liberal on economic things, but I haven't lost sight (as some, not nearly all) have of the cost of liberty in doing them and I try to keep that in mind.

The baseline point that I always come back to is that it is impossible for a free society to not have the government it deserves. 100% impossible. It's simply the way things are. What I see going on nowadays is a lot of hand-wringing over the state of things in America and everyone wants to blame the politicians, who are simply a reflection of the electorate. We whine about the media, who is simply giving us what we want. Which is not in-depth investigative analysis of the inner workings of government, but celebrity news and scandals. It's hard to face up to the fact that this is who we are as a country - but it is. Poll after poll after poll shows that the electorate is hideously uninformed. For a typical example, two years ago only 26% of those surveyed could name the three branches of government. We aren't talking about the fine points of tax law, foreign policy, or complex agency interrelation issues here. This isn't the stuff of political junkies. Frankly, I'm amazed our government isn't far worse than it is. Speaking only of presidential elections, it should go without saying that you can't intelligently vote for president period if you don't know how that job relates to the rest of government in your nation's political system. And we don't have a bloody clue, in absolutely stupefying and tragically overwhelming numbers.

So basically, freedom is a messy thing. Sir Edmund Burke put it far better than I ever could:


Because of this reality, I believe we will continue to lose freedom in America (over the stringent objections of myself and a few other likeminded people). We want freedom but not the responsibility that goes with it, in general as a society. And that's just a fundamentally unsustainable thing.

.02

Vice President Pence Calls on Fed to Consider Cutting Interest Rates - WSJ

Money quote: "The economy is roaring. This is exactly the time not only to not raise interest rates, but we ought to consider cutting them."

:facepalm:

May 3rd Fools?

Without specifically saying it, a whole lot of conservatives are admitting that Keynes was right and that deficit spending can provide a short-term boost to the economy.

The GOP is now the party of hyper-cyclical economics. When the economy is good, make it gooder and when the economy is bad, make it badder!

FTFY

(though the first part is not really owned by anyone, all incumbents want economic growth under their watch, because the half-wits who make the political decisions on the margin in this country basically praise and blame the President for the economy)

Though I stopped believing imaginary beings in the sky that grants wishes. I will throw out a hallelujah on that post.

FWIW, I think I also agree with Radii's list in most ways.

Crucially, I do probably care less about climate change for purely and absolutely selfish reasons, in that I think I have a tiny footprint relative to most Americans, and I've grown to think I'm doing practically the best that I can on a personal level and I want to preserve my sanity by leaving it at that. It's certainly not based on any ethical/scientific belief, and I'd probably feel a bit different if I had kids and were invested in their future (or if I lived where my presidential vote mattered in even the slightest way)

This is what our president was busy retweeting last night

Retweet: The 'elite' proclaim America must submit to Islam or else!!! #Trump2020 pic.twitter.com/SK91xliCUQ

— Deep State Exposed® ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (@DeepStateExpose) May 3, 2019

We could dramatically reduce our fossil fuel usage by a shift to nuclear energy right now. The technology for safe nuclear power is there and has been for some time. It's just fear-mongered out of existence.

That said, the US is far from the worst as far as emissions go. Even if we had magic powers to go zero emission, it wouldn't matter.



If we're talking simply increasing tax revenue, I'd rather see the mega-corporations that are hiding their wealth off-shore pay first, second, and third. Fix THAT problem first. Oh, and corporations aren't people.

As far as income disparities go, that's gotta be a separate post.


Exactly how does a government do this? No one is barred from employment, operating businesses, or anything else. Everyone is afforded the same opportunities as anyone else. The government exists (or at least should) to provide a neutral playing field regardless of skin color/sex/who you're attracted to. You can't legislate away a person's intolerance, and as distasteful as some find it - you absolutely shouldn't. Freedom of expression has to include freedom to be an asshole.

Ran out of time. Covered the first three though. :)

Government can't fix ignorant, but I think his intent is more along the lines of improving inner city infrastructure and better educational opportunities to minorities and other marginalized classes.

We have had equal rights by law, but for many the level playing field has existed for just over 50 years and there are many who have been unable to advance because equal rights still do not equate to equal opportunity.

There will always be a segment of the population who is prejudiced against those that are different, but providing better opportunities in terms of education and business start ups will eventually marginalize them.

It's bizarre that Infowars went from being this laughingstock for crazy people to part of the GOP platform.

This is definitely a weird time for the GOP, who seemingly spent most of my life as the driving political force, if only for their loyalty to the party line, acting as a block and consistently appealing to conservative values of the past. As those bricks kind of fall out of place it's remarkable how far off the handle conservative politics has flown.

For all the fears of this being the absurd new normal it also seems like there's a fairly equal chance that we're suffering through something like the unavoidable death throes of that particular era of GOP politics and baby boomer's extended control, for better or worse.

Exactly. I also thing our political discourse can impact the culture as well.

Republican controlled states have been enacting laws designed to marginalize the voice of minorities - voter ID laws are so racist that even calling them "thinly veiled" feels like an insult. Gerrymandering is a huge overall problem but in many cases its done to split up black populations into different districts to marginalize their votes. Freaking bathroom bills. At a national level the "War on Drugs".

The progressive wave into congress has the potential to impact change on the national culture. Discussing bills and having an honest conversation about whether a new law would dis-proportionally impact LGBTQ/minorities, whether intentionally or not. I don't think there has been an increase in racist people in the US, but White Nationalism has certainly been empowered and extremely aggressive since we have our "on both sides" president and his utterly bizarre inability to call Nazis bad.

A lot of it probably falls under the "wealth gap" issue. There are a huge number of white families struggling with low-income/poverty but certainly lifting up our poorest people would help here too.


And just in general, if this administration can have such a large impact on open White Nationalism, I'd like to believe that a more progressive government speaking in a more progressive way - just speaking, I'm not even talking about social programs in this moment - I'd like to think could bring more privileged people to think about that and to think about the insane number of marginalized people in this country.

The potential social programs wouldn't hurt either ;)

Looks like chances of this ever passing are rather slim and diminishing.

https://www.businessinsider.com/chuc...tariffs-2019-4

Grassley isn't wrong here. Unilateral tariffs run completely counter to the USMCA.

Michael Cohen starts his 3 year prison sentence today

Good riddance

Are we on the verge of war or something?

?

Iran, probably.

The boy who cried wolf has wars all the time. What's new?

Way too early for it to matter in the 2020 elections but still interesting how the Mueller probe hasn't done much.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/06/polit...omy/index.html

Don't pay attention to a single poll.

Hmm, it is a Gallup poll, though. Not being done by a conservative organization.

That said, as someone who wants Trump out of office, I'm not more or less concerned about his re-electability based on this. We are too far out from election day for job approval rates to really matter.

Besides he'll do plenty of new stupid things to incite opposition.

Doesn't mean it can't be an outlier. Sometimes you get a very different population than you usually do on a poll. Now if 3 or 4 polls show similar...

Yup. A reputable pollster is going to have some outlier polls. If they don't, that's actually a sign that they might be cooking the books.

That said, if it does turn out to be a trend, then I could see the theory that a group of Trump-tolerant independents and democrats were disapproving of Trump because they had baked into their assumptions that the Mueller Report would destroy Trump. And when it came out, and it didn't, they fell back into Trump's camp.

Yeah, it might be accurate, but without some confirmation, it's impossible to know. In a couple of weeks, we'll have a much clearer picture. My guess is we'll stay where we've been since he took office, but maybe things will change.

His polling has sat around 40-42% since taking office. He says something incredibly stupid, it drops to 38-39% and if he keeps his mouth shut, it ticks up to 43-44% before returning to mean. There will be studies on how it stayed this stable in the future

I think it's the 'we've made up our mind, don't confuse us with the facts' factor. Events, positive or negative, just don't move the needle like they used to. It can't help but be stable given the degree to which hyperpartisanship has taken hold in modern America. That's not a take against or for Trump - to this point in their respective administrations, Obama was the most stable among modern presidents and Trump has been even more so.

In other words, nothing much matters.

NY Times got a hold of Trump's older tax returns. He is bad at business.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...mid=tw-nytimes

Like this is pretty remarkable.

“In fact, year after year, Mr. Trump appears to have lost more money than nearly any other individual American taxpayer...

His core business losses in 1990 and 1991 — more than $250 million each year — were more than double those of the nearest taxpayers https://t.co/vwGo8EGnYI

— Jonathan Martin (@jmartNYT) May 7, 2019

I remember that being a huge news story in the early 90s, and a subject of comedy skits. Broke Trump. NYC real estate was always his bread and butter, and he was able to ride those booms in the 80s and late 90s. Everything else beyond NYC real estate was super shaky.

Game of chicken continues.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/08/chin...l-sources.html

I'm amused that trump's big idea this week to look at possibly allowing service academies to defer commitments for athletes to go pro, and how he touted it as a great idea, was already approved and on the books as a rule in 2016, but because Obama did it, trump rescinded the rule in 2017 via Mattis.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ing-full-time/

Now it's his big idea and his big gift to the world.

He's like EA sports. Remove a feature, then re-add it later and tout it as new and exciting!

Trump's reaction to the NYT story is great.

Everybody did that because it was smart and it never happened, fake news.

You mean like I'm sorry for what I said, then I was framed, then it was not my voice, fake news?

Trump asserts executive privilege to block Congress from seeing the unredacted report or the underlying evidence.

Exactly what you do when you've been fully exonerated and there's nothing to hide, right?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/08/u...empt-barr.html

IS this a constitutional crisis yet?

Only if enough people are willing to do something about it. Which I have increasing doubt there are enough.

I think the constitutional crisis is in that the Congress has oversight and the president doesn't want it. So now what? Doesn't it go to court?

You're wrong, it's a coup. Haven't you heard?