Galfon wrote:Looks like the imbleachment is on the cards now, which will probably also block any aspiration to run in '24, which sounds bizarre even as a throw-away.
Only if they can get 17 Republican Senators to sign on in the trial. Still, at least this one the rules won't be set by Mitch McConnell, so there'll actually be evidence allowed this time.
Puja
I’m not sure if the democrats should want the Donald impeached or not. If he is, and therefore can’t run in 2024 in any form, does it make life easier for the republicans? Having Trump able to run as an independent must risk splitting the republican vote.
You say that, and the theory has merit, but that only works if you think he won't win the Republican nomination in 2024. I am worried about even the slightest possibility of him becoming President again - gods know what he'd do with a final term to get his vengeance in.
Besides, Trumpism needs to be repudiated and permanently linked to this insurrection, or else Trump Jr/Ivanka will carry on the dynasty. And I think a successful impeachment will also split the vote as the Trump fanatics will see it as a betrayal and turn away from the Republicans.
Puja wrote:
Only if they can get 17 Republican Senators to sign on in the trial. Still, at least this one the rules won't be set by Mitch McConnell, so there'll actually be evidence allowed this time.
Puja
I’m not sure if the democrats should want the Donald impeached or not. If he is, and therefore can’t run in 2024 in any form, does it make life easier for the republicans? Having Trump able to run as an independent must risk splitting the republican vote.
You say that, and the theory has merit, but that only works if you think he won't win the Republican nomination in 2024. I am worried about even the slightest possibility of him becoming President again - gods know what he'd do with a final term to get his vengeance in.
Besides, Trumpism needs to be repudiated and permanently linked to this insurrection, or else Trump Jr/Ivanka will carry on the dynasty. And I think a successful impeachment will also split the vote as the Trump fanatics will see it as a betrayal and turn away from the Republicans.
Puja
It's worth impeaching him just to indicate that there might be negative personal consequences (if not nearly enough) to inciting an attempt to overthrow democracy.
Puja wrote:
Only if they can get 17 Republican Senators to sign on in the trial. Still, at least this one the rules won't be set by Mitch McConnell, so there'll actually be evidence allowed this time.
Puja
I’m not sure if the democrats should want the Donald impeached or not. If he is, and therefore can’t run in 2024 in any form, does it make life easier for the republicans? Having Trump able to run as an independent must risk splitting the republican vote.
You say that, and the theory has merit, but that only works if you think he won't win the Republican nomination in 2024. I am worried about even the slightest possibility of him becoming President again - gods know what he'd do with a final term to get his vengeance in.
Besides, Trumpism needs to be repudiated and permanently linked to this insurrection, or else Trump Jr/Ivanka will carry on the dynasty. And I think a successful impeachment will also split the vote as the Trump fanatics will see it as a betrayal and turn away from the Republicans.
Puja
Sounds like the republicans have dug quite a hole for themselves. Which is nice.
Stom wrote:Why are there so many of them now? I use Facebook for business, so I'm on it often. My newsfeed is full of idiots talking about freedom of speech, how Facebook and Twitter are socialist constructs, how come governments can ban Parler but not child porn...
I mean, most of these people are intelligent people...
There was a comedy segment about how young men have stopped masturbating and that is causing them to get angry. Hell fucking yeah I believe that! Why the hell is the US comedy material so much more in depth than the actual fucking news?
I don't get it. Why have these people left their brains behind and are following this nonsense, screaming WAKE UP at people? I mean, what?
THE MEDIA ISN'T INDEPENDENT! So go on some random YouTube channel and believe that instead. YOU'RE TOO MAINSTREAM! THE VACCINE IS MIND CONTROL!
Fucking idiots.
And it means that any actual or real questions about things can get lost in the volley of nonsense. I mean, most of these conspiracy start with a grain of truth. Big Pharma is a real problem. The school system pretty much globally needs reform. And so on. But they just take it to some illogical insanity and then start screaming about waking up, ffs.
GAH!
The freedom of speech debate has been had on so many forums. Many Time readers (plus some columnists ) also highlight this as a bad thing.
My view is that Facebook etc are private companies. To make use of them, you abide by their terms and conditions. if you breach them, you get banned. In the old days, people used ot venture into pubs and you would always get someone who was a bit of a tit and had some odd views. When they got too annoying, the barman would throw them out. Same principle.
Freedom of speech is about being able to make any comment i wish (provided it doesn't cause harm to another) without fear of arrest and criminal prosecution. It doesn't include the right to incite a riot.
Puja wrote:
Only if they can get 17 Republican Senators to sign on in the trial. Still, at least this one the rules won't be set by Mitch McConnell, so there'll actually be evidence allowed this time.
Puja
I’m not sure if the democrats should want the Donald impeached or not. If he is, and therefore can’t run in 2024 in any form, does it make life easier for the republicans? Having Trump able to run as an independent must risk splitting the republican vote.
You say that, and the theory has merit, but that only works if you think he won't win the Republican nomination in 2024. I am worried about even the slightest possibility of him becoming President again - gods know what he'd do with a final term to get his vengeance in.
Besides, Trumpism needs to be repudiated and permanently linked to this insurrection, or else Trump Jr/Ivanka will carry on the dynasty. And I think a successful impeachment will also split the vote as the Trump fanatics will see it as a betrayal and turn away from the Republicans.
Puja
The Republicans need to bite the bullet and evict their Tea Party/ Qanon nutters from their ranks. An impeachment gives them the opportunity to do that as many will split and maybe set up their own party that can be safely ignored in the margins. I suspect though that the big impetus will be the withholding of funding by sponsors.
canta_brian wrote:
I’m not sure if the democrats should want the Donald impeached or not. If he is, and therefore can’t run in 2024 in any form, does it make life easier for the republicans? Having Trump able to run as an independent must risk splitting the republican vote.
You say that, and the theory has merit, but that only works if you think he won't win the Republican nomination in 2024. I am worried about even the slightest possibility of him becoming President again - gods know what he'd do with a final term to get his vengeance in.
Besides, Trumpism needs to be repudiated and permanently linked to this insurrection, or else Trump Jr/Ivanka will carry on the dynasty. And I think a successful impeachment will also split the vote as the Trump fanatics will see it as a betrayal and turn away from the Republicans.
Puja
The Republicans need to bite the bullet and evict their Tea Party/ Qanon nutters from their ranks. An impeachment gives them the opportunity to do that as many will split and maybe set up their own party that can be safely ignored in the margins. I suspect though that the big impetus will be the withholding of funding by sponsors.
Their problem may be that even with these nutter on board they have only been able to hold the presidency due to some fairly close calls and a biased electoral college (and rampant voter suppression).
Both parties suffer from not knowing what their leadership will want and then being so locked into a successful leader. And both parties struggle with how they nominate candidates.
The parties as is are one way to get around the issue of consensus building, but in European terms they're both 3 if not 4 parties in one, which isn't surprising given the size of the country but does present some problems
Puja wrote:
You say that, and the theory has merit, but that only works if you think he won't win the Republican nomination in 2024. I am worried about even the slightest possibility of him becoming President again - gods know what he'd do with a final term to get his vengeance in.
Besides, Trumpism needs to be repudiated and permanently linked to this insurrection, or else Trump Jr/Ivanka will carry on the dynasty. And I think a successful impeachment will also split the vote as the Trump fanatics will see it as a betrayal and turn away from the Republicans.
Puja
The Republicans need to bite the bullet and evict their Tea Party/ Qanon nutters from their ranks. An impeachment gives them the opportunity to do that as many will split and maybe set up their own party that can be safely ignored in the margins. I suspect though that the big impetus will be the withholding of funding by sponsors.
Their problem may be that even with these nutter on board they have only been able to hold the presidency due to some fairly close calls and a biased electoral college (and rampant voter suppression).
There are some brave decisions to be made by the Republican leadership who have at least permitted the nutters within their party and encouraged them to a degree that a Trump like president (or at least candidate) was the outcome. They need to stop looking at elections as life and death matters and accept that Democrats are also trying to do their best for the country (the Democrats can do the same to be fair) and they need to accept a hit to their electoral chances whilst they try to realign away from the harder right elements in their midst.
In time, they can pick upvotes from Democrats, but their embracing of the harder right has led them into a dark place which they need to extract from.
Digby wrote:Both parties suffer from not knowing what their leadership will want and then being so locked into a successful leader. And both parties struggle with how they nominate candidates.
The parties as is are one way to get around the issue of consensus building, but in European terms they're both 3 if not 4 parties in one, which isn't surprising given the size of the country but does present some problems
They are both very broad churches, or at least they were. Its interesting reading how much Republicans and Democrats would often cooperate in government, but how polarised American politics has become in the last 30-40 years. I know a lot of Americans, some of who are life long Republican supports, none of whom are as hard to the right as the Tea Party and Qanon types. There are a couple who despise Trump and didn't vote in the last 2 elections, or did vote for Biden this time around. That centre ground is still there and its sizeable. Not all Democrats are in the same political position as Bernie Sanders and the left of the party, but given the choice between that and the Tea Party and they go for the Democrats or abstain.
I love how people talk about the "extreme left" in America and how they're causing division with their extremist politics and they're actually just asking for a national health service, actual employment rights, and for the police not to be able to abitrarily murder people without consequences.
Mind, it's nearly as bad here with Corbyn being the next thing to a communist for wanting natural monopolies like utilities and rail to be nationalised.
Puja wrote:I love how people talk about the "extreme left" in America and how they're causing division with their extremist politics and they're actually just asking for a national health service, actual employment rights, and for the police not to be able to abitrarily murder people without consequences.
Mind, it's nearly as bad here with Corbyn being the next thing to a communist for wanting natural monopolies like utilities and rail to be nationalised.
Puja
It's because there must be a bogeyman. And the far right has COMMUNISM! CHILD PORN!
What I don't get...they want freedom of speech and the ability to be in secure, private channels...and then talk about shutting down a child porn ring...
When those platforms they love seem perfectly setup to allow child porn rings and other illegal activities to grow.
Puja wrote:I love how people talk about the "extreme left" in America and how they're causing division with their extremist politics and they're actually just asking for a national health service, actual employment rights, and for the police not to be able to abitrarily murder people without consequences.
Mind, it's nearly as bad here with Corbyn being the next thing to a communist for wanting natural monopolies like utilities and rail to be nationalised.
Puja
Where someone is extreme depends on your own viewpoint. If you can only see one extreme, then its likely that you are an extremist yourself. Fro the centre, albeit slight to the right, its possible to see 2 clear extremes. Those who hold moderate positions need ot ensure they dont use the language of extremism and make the situation worse.
Puja wrote:I love how people talk about the "extreme left" in America and how they're causing division with their extremist politics and they're actually just asking for a national health service, actual employment rights, and for the police not to be able to abitrarily murder people without consequences.
Mind, it's nearly as bad here with Corbyn being the next thing to a communist for wanting natural monopolies like utilities and rail to be nationalised.
Puja
Where someone is extreme depends on your own viewpoint. If you can only see one extreme, then its likely that you are an extremist yourself. Fro the centre, albeit slight to the right, its possible to see 2 clear extremes. Those who hold moderate positions need ot ensure they dont use the language of extremism and make the situation worse.
And there is for all I think people should want a competent national health service, because it's cheaper, fairer and far more beneficial to society and the economy there is if people don't want it they are entitled to vote for what they want and indeed don't want. Unless someone has a better idea than allowing all adults (pretty much) the vote
Puja wrote:I love how people talk about the "extreme left" in America and how they're causing division with their extremist politics and they're actually just asking for a national health service, actual employment rights, and for the police not to be able to abitrarily murder people without consequences.
Mind, it's nearly as bad here with Corbyn being the next thing to a communist for wanting natural monopolies like utilities and rail to be nationalised.
Puja
Where someone is extreme depends on your own viewpoint. If you can only see one extreme, then its likely that you are an extremist yourself. Fro the centre, albeit slight to the right, its possible to see 2 clear extremes. Those who hold moderate positions need ot ensure they dont use the language of extremism and make the situation worse.
And there is for all I think people should want a competent national health service, because it's cheaper, fairer and far more beneficial to society and the economy there is if people don't want it they are entitled to vote for what they want and indeed don't want. Unless someone has a better idea than allowing all adults (pretty much) the vote
I really don't get the American view of health service provision and I'm glad I don't have to live with it.
Sandydragon wrote:
Where someone is extreme depends on your own viewpoint. If you can only see one extreme, then its likely that you are an extremist yourself. Fro the centre, albeit slight to the right, its possible to see 2 clear extremes. Those who hold moderate positions need ot ensure they dont use the language of extremism and make the situation worse.
And there is for all I think people should want a competent national health service, because it's cheaper, fairer and far more beneficial to society and the economy there is if people don't want it they are entitled to vote for what they want and indeed don't want. Unless someone has a better idea than allowing all adults (pretty much) the vote
I really don't get the American view of health service provision and I'm glad I don't have to live with it.
Unless you're in the top 5%, maybe top 1% and/or you're one of those in essence gaming the system it makes little to no sense. Nonetheless if that's what people want they should be entitled to vote for it, even if I happen to think many don't understand what they're voting for
Puja wrote:I love how people talk about the "extreme left" in America and how they're causing division with their extremist politics and they're actually just asking for a national health service, actual employment rights, and for the police not to be able to abitrarily murder people without consequences.
Mind, it's nearly as bad here with Corbyn being the next thing to a communist for wanting natural monopolies like utilities and rail to be nationalised.
Puja
Where someone is extreme depends on your own viewpoint. If you can only see one extreme, then its likely that you are an extremist yourself. Fro the centre, albeit slight to the right, its possible to see 2 clear extremes. Those who hold moderate positions need ot ensure they dont use the language of extremism and make the situation worse.
And there is for all I think people should want a competent national health service, because it's cheaper, fairer and far more beneficial to society and the economy there is if people don't want it they are entitled to vote for what they want and indeed don't want. Unless someone has a better idea than allowing all adults (pretty much) the vote
Doesn't polling show a majority of Americans support a Medicare for All program? It's the weird electoral system that gives more importance to Iowa voters than California voters which means it doesn't get enacted.
Sandydragon wrote:
Where someone is extreme depends on your own viewpoint. If you can only see one extreme, then its likely that you are an extremist yourself. Fro the centre, albeit slight to the right, its possible to see 2 clear extremes. Those who hold moderate positions need ot ensure they dont use the language of extremism and make the situation worse.
And there is for all I think people should want a competent national health service, because it's cheaper, fairer and far more beneficial to society and the economy there is if people don't want it they are entitled to vote for what they want and indeed don't want. Unless someone has a better idea than allowing all adults (pretty much) the vote
Doesn't polling show a majority of Americans support a Medicare for All program? It's the weird electoral system that gives more importance to Iowa voters than California voters which means it doesn't get enacted.
Puja
Depends a bit on wording and when you conduct the survey, but basically yes. But it's not a single issue, and a lot of people even if supporting M4A in isolation will vote taxes, or guns/abortion
And the electoral college doesn't do too much to the debate of California Vs Iowa, the Senate is a much bigger influencer, and that does skew wildly in favour of the smaller states, which in part is as intended.
Digby wrote:
And there is for all I think people should want a competent national health service, because it's cheaper, fairer and far more beneficial to society and the economy there is if people don't want it they are entitled to vote for what they want and indeed don't want. Unless someone has a better idea than allowing all adults (pretty much) the vote
Doesn't polling show a majority of Americans support a Medicare for All program? It's the weird electoral system that gives more importance to Iowa voters than California voters which means it doesn't get enacted.
Puja
Depends a bit on wording and when you conduct the survey, but basically yes. But it's not a single issue, and a lot of people even if supporting M4A in isolation will vote taxes, or guns/abortion
And the electoral college doesn't do too much to the debate of California Vs Iowa, the Senate is a much bigger influencer, and that does skew wildly in favour of the smaller states, which in part is as intended.
You say that like the Republicans haven't lost 8 out of the last 9 popular votes for President while still ending up with 4 presidential victories.
Puja wrote:
Doesn't polling show a majority of Americans support a Medicare for All program? It's the weird electoral system that gives more importance to Iowa voters than California voters which means it doesn't get enacted.
Puja
Depends a bit on wording and when you conduct the survey, but basically yes. But it's not a single issue, and a lot of people even if supporting M4A in isolation will vote taxes, or guns/abortion
And the electoral college doesn't do too much to the debate of California Vs Iowa, the Senate is a much bigger influencer, and that does skew wildly in favour of the smaller states, which in part is as intended.
You say that like the Republicans haven't lost 8 out of the last 9 popular votes for President while still ending up with 4 presidential victories.
Puja
True, but the flip side to that is an awful lot more GOP voters in California have their votes count for nothing than do Dems in Iowa. Also people know in many instances their vote doesn't count because the winner takes all the votes for each state, so I tend to be guarded around claims of winning the popular vote.
Congress is as close as we get to a 'fair' vote and that is quite close. Though whilst both sides cheat somewhat the gerrymandering by the GOP has been breathtaking in getting their girls and boys into Congress. Additionally if one looks down ballot the GOP have been filling an awful lot of local positions, partly they've been better organised and realised they can address many of their concerns from multiple local instances, but also there are an awful lot of GOP voters when taking the range of election positions into account.
Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, and Steve Bannon, the racist cunt trifecta, are actively recruiting and stirring up a culture war, and all have Trump's ear right now. They are drumming up violent responses to a non-existent conspiracy designed to mask the armed white supremacist hate fest. There are now over 20 000 troops in DC.
Organised hate groups are allowed for white people are they?
Sandydragon wrote:
Where someone is extreme depends on your own viewpoint. If you can only see one extreme, then its likely that you are an extremist yourself. Fro the centre, albeit slight to the right, its possible to see 2 clear extremes. Those who hold moderate positions need ot ensure they dont use the language of extremism and make the situation worse.
And there is for all I think people should want a competent national health service, because it's cheaper, fairer and far more beneficial to society and the economy there is if people don't want it they are entitled to vote for what they want and indeed don't want. Unless someone has a better idea than allowing all adults (pretty much) the vote
Doesn't polling show a majority of Americans support a Medicare for All program? It's the weird electoral system that gives more importance to Iowa voters than California voters which means it doesn't get enacted.
Puja
I have vague recollections that Americans pay more in tax for the Public Health Service they don’t have than Brits do for the NHS.
