[Politics]Gerrymandering the cases and their impact on the 2020 elections.

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

tstorm823:
As a matter of policy, a lot of my claim that Trump's a democrat rests on him being a 20th century democrat. And ideologically, Democratic and Republican policy in the 20th century was largely similar, both parties were conservative and progressive and liberalism cried forgotten in the corner.

But as a matter of personal conduct, that's exactly where I'd call him a Democrat. Imagine a politician being creepy with women, it's a Democrat. Imagine a politician drumming up support through populism, it's a Democrat. Imagine a politician running their campaign through vicious personal attacks. It's a Democrat (and don't point at Obama and birthers because that was literally Trump, the Democrat). I've said it before and I'll say it again, 2016 was the most vicious election in living memory because it had two Democrats in it.

Like, my brother is a Democrat, and he likes Mayor Pete Buttigieg. He likes him because "he's a Democrat that talks like Republicans, he says progressive things without the yelling and insults." As a matter of personal conduct, Republicans are the party of soft-spoken civility. You may think that's just a front for bigotry, but you can't deny the stereotypical Republican politician does not behave like Donald Trump.

I think you're conflating policy with behaviour, and Democrats never had the monopoly on being creepy with women, using personal attacks, appealing to populism, or being loud and outspoken. That's politics, and you're viewing it through a very narrow lens if you think only the Democrats engage in such behaviour.

Sorry to say that you're brushing off anything negative about Trump as "Democrat behaviour". Only person you're gaslighting here is yourself.

tstorm823:

But as a matter of personal conduct, that's exactly where I'd call him a Democrat. Imagine a politician being creepy with women, it's a Democrat. Imagine a politician drumming up support through populism, it's a Democrat. Imagine a politician running their campaign through vicious personal attacks. It's a Democrat (and don't point at Obama and birthers because that was literally Trump, the Democrat). I've said it before and I'll say it again, 2016 was the most vicious election in living memory because it had two Democrats in it.

Like, my brother is a Democrat, and he likes Mayor Pete Buttigieg. He likes him because "he's a Democrat that talks like Republicans, he says progressive things without the yelling and insults." As a matter of personal conduct, Republicans are the party of soft-spoken civility. You may think that's just a front for bigotry, but you can't deny the stereotypical Republican politician does not behave like Donald Trump.

You basically call him a democrat because of all the negative biases you hold towards democrats... That really doesn't make him a democrat, it just says a lot about your own biases.

When it comes to populism for instance Republicans are quite the champions at it too. Just to take a couple of examples: complaining about the "elites" is a recurring populist method used across the globe. And one republicans and Donald Trump used too. The use of absurd terms like "Death Panels" reeks of populism as well. And when you look at the themes Trump used in his populist propaganda you'll note they tend to go in line with Republican populism: the elites, the swamp, dangerous immigration, obamacare, etc.
And I don't really see how democrats tend to be more vicious than republicans, both are. Maybe you give people on the "right" side more leeway than those on the "wrong" side.
And while you may associate "deviant" behavior towards women as a democratic trait due to a couple of cases I would attribute it to no one because the few cases among democratic ranks don't make a trend nor do they justify stereotyping.

generals3:

You basically call him a democrat because of all the negative biases you hold towards democrats... That really doesn't make him a democrat, it just says a lot about your own biases.

When it comes to populism for instance Republicans are quite the champions at it too. Just to take a couple of examples: complaining about the "elites" is a recurring populist method used across the globe. And one republicans and Donald Trump used too. The use of absurd terms like "Death Panels" reeks of populism as well. And when you look at the themes Trump used in his populist propaganda you'll note they tend to go in line with Republican populism: the elites, the swamp, dangerous immigration, obamacare, etc.
And I don't really see how democrats tend to be more vicious than republicans, both are. Maybe you give people on the "right" side more leeway than those on the "wrong" side.
And while you may associate "deviant" behavior towards women as a democratic trait due to a couple of cases I would attribute it to no one because the few cases among democratic ranks don't make a trend nor do they justify stereotyping.

Honestly, I'm not sure how the Democratic Party avoids being identified as populists. What is populism?

"a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups."

The Democratic Party is pro-unions, anti-corporate, and blames the elite rich for essentially all of the nation's problems. They've been trying to turn the people against anyone (but them) with power or influence for decades, and have been accusing Republicans of corrupt dealings with businesses since at least Grant's presidency. How do they dodge the "populist" label?

And yes, I do associate that behavior towards women as a democratic trait based on a few cases, namely a Clinton, a Kennedy, and a Roosevelt. And I don't think I'm wrong to suggest Republican politicians lean toward prudishness, like a Vice President that won't have dinner with a woman without his wife present.

tstorm823:
The Democratic Party is pro-unions, anti-corporate, and blames the elite rich for essentially all of the nation's problems.

Elements of the Democratic Party are those things, and its base certainly feels that way, but most of the officials in higher elected office are not that to a significant degree. Take a look at the record of someone like a Joe Biden and he's basically on the side of his corporate campaign contributors.

Seanchaidh:

Elements of the Democratic Party are those things, and its base certainly feels that way, but most of the officials in higher elected office are not that to a significant degree. Take a look at the record of someone like a Joe Biden and he's basically on the side of his corporate campaign contributors.

Yes, but Joe Biden doesn't say that on the campaign trail. Joe Biden says he's a good old union kinda guy.

tstorm823:

Honestly, I'm not sure how the Democratic Party avoids being identified as populists. What is populism?

"a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups."

The Democratic Party is pro-unions, anti-corporate, and blames the elite rich for essentially all of the nation's problems. They've been trying to turn the people against anyone (but them) with power or influence for decades, and have been accusing Republicans of corrupt dealings with businesses since at least Grant's presidency. How do they dodge the "populist" label?

And yes, I do associate that behavior towards women as a democratic trait based on a few cases, namely a Clinton, a Kennedy, and a Roosevelt. And I don't think I'm wrong to suggest Republican politicians lean toward prudishness, like a Vice President that won't have dinner with a woman without his wife present.

I'm not saying that democrats don't regularly use populism. I'm mearly pointing out that it isn't "typically" democrat.

Apparent prudishness doesn't necessarily mean free from scandals. Catholic Priests aren't supposed to have sex at all but despite that...
And heck here's a list of sex scandals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States . If you look at 2010-2018 (well, all periods for that matter) you'll notice that plenty of republicans have been involved in "sex scandals". Maybe the problem is that too few Republican scandals get enough media attention?

tstorm823:
Imagine a politician being creepy with women, it's a Democrat.

Oh really?

George H.W. Bush's dodgy fondling. Roy Moore liking young, even undrage girls. Herman Cain, presidential candidate and sexual harasser. That's just from memory. With some help from Wikipedia, ignoring extramarital affairs, homosexuality or child abuse since 2010 alone:
Chris Lee (R-IN): sending topless pics to women
Blake Farenthold (R-TX): sexual harassment
Joe Barton (R-TX): nude photos
Trent Franks (R-AZ): Unspecified; resigned before investigation complete
Pat Meehan (R-PA): sexual harassment
David Sorenson (White House Speechwriter): domestic violence / abuse

If we did add the impressive list of extramarital affairs, Republicans have had considerably more federal politicians caught than Democrats. In some of these affairs the individual was also careless and then supported or pressurised their inamoratas to have abortions (!).

Imagine a politician drumming up support through populism, it's a Democrat.

This claim should be ended by one name, perhaps the USA's quintessential populist: Joseph McCarthy (R-WI). How you manage to overlook a lot of modern Republican populism, reflected by the likes of Sarah Palin for instance, is beyond me.

Imagine a politician running their campaign through vicious personal attacks. It's a Democrat (and don't point at Obama and birthers because that was literally Trump, the Democrat). I've said it before and I'll say it again, 2016 was the most vicious election in living memory because it had two Democrats in it.

Even when you consider the rich tradition of Republican dirty tricks operators like Karl Rove and Roger Stone? The guy at the front may be civil in person, but when you look at the people they're employing and the tactics they use, it is a false morality because they are employing and endorsing a lot of people to do a great deal of mud-slinging for them. Personal attacks, fake rumours, slurs and so on have been endemic to American political campaigning for decades.

Trump of course was quite slow onto Birtherism, half-way through Obama's first term although Birtherism was a live issue even by the 2008 election. And indeed, look at what a lot of Republican politicians were saying, it was clearly designed to encourage birtherism, even if falling short of directly agreeing with it. They were agressively using it for fundraising before Trump uttered a peep. So please don't bullshit us that somehow the birther movement was Trump. McCain publicly repudiated it, but underneath that the reality was massive, Republican-supported backing to drum up votes and money.

* * *

Bluntly, the only reason I can think of that you believe all these things are "Democrat" things is cognitive bias.

Agema:

If we did add the impressive list of extramarital affairs, Republicans have had considerably more federal politicians caught than Democrats. In some of these affairs the individual was also careless and then supported or pressurised their inamoratas to have abortions (!).

List of examples is the key here. You've got a list of examples. Anthony Weiner also has a list of examples. More important are overarching trends. In the 20th century, there were 11 Republican presidents and 3 are credibly claimed to have had extramarital affairs. And there were 7 Democratic presidents of which 5 are credibly claimed to have extramarital affairs.

27% sleazeballs or 71% sleazeballs, take your pick.

I'm aware if you try and wikipedia political sex scandals, it leans Republican once you hit the internet age, but that's because morality is a weapon against Republicans. A Republican is caught with a porn tab open, it's a sex scandal. A Democrat is given political positions because of an affair with their boss, that's a perfectly acceptable pathway to becoming a presidential candidate from California. Republican affairs are written about as malicious hateful deviance because Republican voters care about personal morality. Democratic affairs are treated like an American Pie movie. Bill Clinton got blowjobs in the oval office and regained his popularity.

This claim should be ended by one name, perhaps the USA's quintessential populist: Joseph McCarthy (R-WI). How you manage to overlook a lot of modern Republican populism, reflected by the likes of Sarah Palin for instance, is beyond me.

I'm not overlooking Republican populists, but once again, you have individual examples. I don't need to pick specific examples, the common people uniting against the corrupt wealthy class is part of the Democratic Party platform. "Making the Wealthy pay their fair share" is a subheader in the actual current party platform. There's another whole section on protecting elections from the influence of the wealthy and powerful. Nobody ever labels these things populism.

Like, if you look up American Populism, the Occupy Movement gets a big mention. It's the 99% against the 1%, of course that's populism. The Democratic Party platform of 2016 references the wealth of the "top X%" as a problem to solve, borrowing rhetoric directly from Occupy, 5 separate times. But apparently Trump's populist rhetoric is going to destroy America. Who is getting overlooked here?

Even when you consider the rich tradition of Republican dirty tricks operators like Karl Rove and Roger Stone? The guy at the front may be civil in person, but when you look at the people they're employing and the tactics they use, it is a false morality because they are employing and endorsing a lot of people to do a great deal of mud-slinging for them. Personal attacks, fake rumours, slurs and so on have been endemic to American political campaigning for decades.

But whose dirty tricks got written into the history books? 60 years of presidential attacks ads leans Democrat 13-10 on that scoreboard, and that's only if you count Nancy Reagon complaining about attacks on her husband as equivalent to "if you vote for Republicans, this little girl will get nuked." They didn't even include the gem "confessions of a republican".

Bluntly, the only reason I can think of that you believe all these things are "Democrat" things is cognitive bias.

That and facts. The facts count too.

tstorm823:
That and facts. The facts count too.

Republicans use "alternative facts" Democrats use actual facts. Current Republicans = 95% sleazeballs is the primary issue here, they are running all the non sleazeball Republicans out of town as Trump and Mcconnell shape the party to their image. Those who were not sleazeballs are abandoning Republicans. You pretty much have to be a sleazeball to support Trump. Those who support sleazeballs become sleazeballs themselves for doing so.

Since 1969, Republican presidential administrations have 121 criminal indictments and 89 convictions, while Democrats have had 3 and 1 respectively. How do you feel about this?

image

Andy McKean, Iowa's Longest-Serving Republican, Switches Parties Because of Trump
Andy McKean represents a swing district in eastern Iowa where President Trump won convincingly.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/us/politics/andy-mckean-iowa-trump.html

Dems gain as GOP state lawmakers switch sides because of Trump extremism
"Those of us who were moderates are clearly not welcome," said one Republican official who switched parties.
Democrats' gains in state legislatures didn't end with last November's elections.

Over the past two months, as lawmakers were sworn in and this year's statehouse sessions got underway, Republicans in California, Kansas and New Jersey switched their party affiliations to become Democrats.

They cited various reasons, but the party-switchers have one thing in common: They say the GOP under President Donald Trump has become too extreme.

"The Republican Party, for all of its statements of having a big tent, continues to limit the tent," said Kansas state Sen. Barbara Bollier, of Mission Hills, one of the switchers. "Those of us who were moderates are clearly not welcome."

Bollier was one of four moderate Republicans from the Kansas City suburbs to switch parties.

The latest party-flip came this week in New Jersey. Republican state Sen. Dawn Marie Addiego, who represented a suburban Philadelphia district in southern New Jersey for nearly a decade, left the GOP, the minority party in both houses of the Legislature.

She cited the desire to "be a part of the discussion" in the Democratic majority but also hinted that the national Republican Party is no longer recognizable.

"My core values that originally drew me to the Republican Party have not changed, but the party which once echoed the vision of Ronald Reagan no longer exists," she said in a statement announcing the change.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/dems-gain-gop-state-lawmakers-switch-sides-because-trump-extremism-n965256

Lil devils x:

Since 1969, Republican presidential administrations have 121 criminal indictments and 89 convictions, while Democrats have had 3 and 1 respectively. How do you feel about this?

Democrats are the mafia, they take care of their own. Republicans are willing to send other Republicans to the gallows. This is a good thing. Neither party is lacking bad actors, only one party has the willingness to have them prosecuted.

Your second point, the willingness to distance themselves from people who they feel are bad, is actually evidence of this. That the Democrats aren't indicted for their crimes is because Democrat party loyalty doesn't allow for such self-reflection.

tstorm823:

Lil devils x:

Since 1969, Republican presidential administrations have 121 criminal indictments and 89 convictions, while Democrats have had 3 and 1 respectively. How do you feel about this?

Democrats are the mafia, they take care of their own. Republicans are willing to send other Republicans to the gallows. This is a good thing. Neither party is lacking bad actors, only one party has the willingness to have them prosecuted.

Your second point, the willingness to distance themselves from people who they feel are bad, is actually evidence of this. That the Democrats aren't indicted for their crimes is because Democrat party loyalty doesn't allow for such self-reflection.

You have to be kidding. I don't even think you could write that with a straight face. The FBI is primarily run by Conservatives. Law enforcement is controlled by conservatives. They would prosecute Democrats for crimes if there was anything to prosecute, since there isn't, they just rant and make up nonsense instead.

We have Republicans with actual Mafia ties. We have Republicans convicted of money laundering and wire fraud. Most Democrats admit their faults and resign or are forced out. Republicans lie and dig in and still receive support no matter how bad their conduct is . Hell even Roy Moore wants to run again. GOP elects complete idiots like Robert Morrow and Jason Spencer and this is somehow okay. If the GOP was so willing to prosecute their own, where is the Impeachment for Trumps fake scam school? Him stealing from a children's cancer charity? His fraudulent charity? His persistent lying to the American Public about anything and everything? Lying under oath repeatedly? Good grief they impeached Clinton over lying about an affair, Trump has lied about numerous affairs and the GOP reaction is "so what?", including some of the very same people who impeached Clinton over his lying. No they only seem to care if it is anyone but the GOP doing it right? If a Republican tries to do something about it, they run them out of office by actually running attack ads against them in their own district. Their own party runs attack ads against anyone who tries to stand up for what is right while supporting racists and sex abusers. Hell even the former Republican speaker of the house and longest serving house republican was an admitted child molester. He got away with it for a pretty long time now didn't he to make it that far eh?

What you are claiming is a "democrat problem" is actually so much worse under Republicans. Yes, both parties have bad people, the Republicans just have so many more of them, and they protect them. If anything you said was even remotely true, AL Franken would never have resigned. Democrats care more about the actions of their representatives than Republicans do by far and know they have to act or risk losing the seat.

Lil devils x:

You have to be kidding. I don't even think you could write that with a straight face. The FBI is primarily run by Conservatives. Law enforcement is controlled by conservatives. They would prosecute Democrats for crimes if there was anything to prosecute, since there isn't, they just rant and make up nonsense instead.

The FBI and law enforcement are conservative relative to some people, but are generally committed to impartiality. That being said, the FBI and law enforcement agencies are not responsible for deciding who to prosecute. Prosecutors make that determination, and judges decide to hear it or not, judges and prosecutors who are not part of the FBI or necessarily committed to those same cause. The crimes we're talking about might not even be in DC, they might, for example, be prosecuted by the southern district of New York.

Democrats had an iron grip on the court system for the better part of a century before the big bad conservative boogeymen decided to retake some of those positions. Any sneeze by a Republican, there's still a Democrat prosecutor in the bluest cities of the bluest states waiting to shove them through the wringer, and unlike Democrats, Republicans are loath to employ executive privilege to protect one another.

We have Republicans with actual Mafia ties. We have Republicans convicted of money laundering and wire fraud. Most Democrats admit their faults and resign or are forced out. Republicans lie and dig in and still receive support no matter how bad their conduct is .

Chicago. New York. New Jersey. Case closed. You wanna talk about the most corrupt politics in American history, possibly up there in world history, there it is. These places were and are Democrat political machines dedicated to consolidating and retaining power. You wanna talk about mafia ties, every major city you would associate with the mafia is dark blue. That's not coincidence. Bernie got the shaft for not being part of the machine. Nancy Pelosi stays at the top for her famous "fundraising" ability. I use quotes because fundraising sounds like a better thing than bribe taking. These people are the mafia.

tstorm823:

Lil devils x:

You have to be kidding. I don't even think you could write that with a straight face. The FBI is primarily run by Conservatives. Law enforcement is controlled by conservatives. They would prosecute Democrats for crimes if there was anything to prosecute, since there isn't, they just rant and make up nonsense instead.

The FBI and law enforcement are conservative relative to some people, but are generally committed to impartiality. That being said, the FBI and law enforcement agencies are not responsible for deciding who to prosecute. Prosecutors make that determination, and judges decide to hear it or not, judges and prosecutors who are not part of the FBI or necessarily committed to those same cause. The crimes we're talking about might not even be in DC, they might, for example, be prosecuted by the southern district of New York.

Democrats had an iron grip on the court system for the better part of a century before the big bad conservative boogeymen decided to retake some of those positions. Any sneeze by a Republican, there's still a Democrat prosecutor in the bluest cities of the bluest states waiting to shove them through the wringer, and unlike Democrats, Republicans are loath to employ executive privilege to protect one another.

We have Republicans with actual Mafia ties. We have Republicans convicted of money laundering and wire fraud. Most Democrats admit their faults and resign or are forced out. Republicans lie and dig in and still receive support no matter how bad their conduct is .

Chicago. New York. New Jersey. Case closed. You wanna talk about the most corrupt politics in American history, possibly up there in world history, there it is. These places were and are Democrat political machines dedicated to consolidating and retaining power. You wanna talk about mafia ties, every major city you would associate with the mafia is dark blue. That's not coincidence. Bernie got the shaft for not being part of the machine. Nancy Pelosi stays at the top for her famous "fundraising" ability. I use quotes because fundraising sounds like a better thing than bribe taking. These people are the mafia.

The case is far from closed. Texas is corrupt Alabama is corrupt. Mississippi is corrupt. Missouri is corrupt. Heath for example ( where I live) is in two counties. Just in these two counties alone we have had a Republican judge murder the DA, his wife and the assistant DA. We have had a Republican DA who locked people up and stole their land convicted of fraud and embezzlement. We have had Republican sheriff's drug dealing from the evidence room, others raping prisoners and sexually harassing and assaulting underage girls all over town, Corrupt Judges, clerks and just about everything else you can think of here. Do you realize how many counties across Texas you will hear the same story? Alabama? Arkansas? Missouri? Mississippi? The entire Republican south is completely saturated with "good ol' boy" corruption at all levels. Trump's Casino buddies are all actual Mafia, not this imaginary mafia you have invented to deflect from the reality that makes up the GOP. Exactly who and where do we find these "good republicans" you speak of? Their voting records, staff, campaign contributions and conduct tell us otherwise.

It was Republican controlled corrupt NRC that was responsible for my family going into hiding as a child who blew up my father's coworkers car over the public finding out about an improperly installed leaking nuclear reactor, not democrats.

EDIT: You know as well as I do that Bernie got the shaft because he isn't even a Democrat and came in with the sole intention of taking over the party. He knew what he was getting himself in to and expected a fight. I support him doing this, though I do expect them to put up a fight, of course they would. No one in their right mind would just accept a takeover without a fight. It has nothing to do with a democrat "Mafia" it is just what is expected when an outsider comes in and tries to immediately take over everything when they are not even a member of the party. He was able to get farther than I thought possible to happen. If there was a democrat "Mafia", he would have never made it as far as he did. The thought of that is laughable it is so absurd.

tstorm823:

Lil devils x:

Since 1969, Republican presidential administrations have 121 criminal indictments and 89 convictions, while Democrats have had 3 and 1 respectively. How do you feel about this?

Democrats are the mafia, they take care of their own. Republicans are willing to send other Republicans to the gallows. This is a good thing. Neither party is lacking bad actors, only one party has the willingness to have them prosecuted.

Your second point, the willingness to distance themselves from people who they feel are bad, is actually evidence of this. That the Democrats aren't indicted for their crimes is because Democrat party loyalty doesn't allow for such self-reflection.

So basically as Agema mentioned, this does sound a lot like cognitive bias. The problem lies here: because you have a certain opinion of democrats and republicans you "analyze" all (new) data presented to you through that lens and distort reality doing so. A bit like how you decided to ignore the list of sex scandals among Republicans as " A Republican is caught with a porn tab open, it's a sex scandal." despite the fact the vast majority of the list on wikipedia provides scandals which do not involve going on pornhub... I mean there are cases of alleged sexual assaults, multiple affairs, sexual misconduct towards children and the ONE case you remember and bring forward is the one with someone posting a picture with porn tabs opened in the background. Even if you remove that one example the "R's" far outnumber the "D's" in the past decade.

If at least you could provide us with information which proves or suggests that maffia-like behaviors are indeed at the source of democrats having faced less procecutions we could consider that hypothesis credible. But here all you have done is provide us with your opinion and the consequential interpretation of data based on that opinion. All that does is further reduce the validity of your interpretation due to its lack of factual basis.
And would you describe the reaction of republicans towards the current investigations towards trump not indicative of this same maffia like behavior you accuses democrats of? Have they not been trying to block and sabotage all the investigations towards Trump and his staff? For a group of people that is willing to see their bad apples brought to justice they sure have done a very bad job at it with Trump.

tstorm823:
Nancy Pelosi stays at the top for her famous "fundraising" ability. I use quotes because fundraising sounds like a better thing than bribe taking. These people are the mafia.

Pretending the Republicans are any better about this is silly. The only reason an "outsider" like Trump made it through the Republican primary is because he ultimately would never follow through on any of the things that supposedly made him intolerable to the establishment. Democrats may have become a do-nothing NGO, but Republicans have remained the party of big business.

Is the Democratic establishment corrupt? Certainly. Does it represent its base very well? No. Must it essentially lie in order to serve two masters? Yes. Republicans, on the other hand, get their support from people who value their gun ownership rights more than human lives or have the perception that they'll be rewarded in the hereafter for supporting "the traditional family", and so will throw their vote at any old candidate on the 'right' side of those issues no matter what sort of pain it causes to anyone else, and no matter what that candidate might have done. Republican voters have basically no standards when it comes to their candidates. Why should they? Their politics are essentially detached from reality. Even the gun issue is mostly just alarmism in the service of increasing sales of firearms. When your supporters have no standards, why not try to get away with whatever you can? And so they often do.

Machine politics is an interesting example; do you honestly think Republicans would be better about that in a big city? Are you not aware of any cases of small town corruption? Is this really the trump card you seem to think it is? "Lacked the opportunity" is hardly worthy of moral praise.

(Some) Democratic voters, much to the disappointment and consternation of their elected officials, actually do have standards. This is why they ever lose nationwide elections. It is also, notably, why Democrats are typically not as bad as Republicans. Because the Democrats supposedly represent the poor and workers and so on and so forth, there is a tension between their funding and their voter appeals. It is not better for there to be no tension whatsoever because you haven't bothered to try to address the material needs of workers and the poor and so on-- because the most you've done on that front is to offer the very same lies and obfuscation and scapegoating and other defenses of capitalism that your donors want heard anyway. Yes, Nancy Pelosi is utterly beholden to her campaign donors. Her ability to take bribes is quite substantial. The same goes for Steve Scalise and Kevin McCarthy. Are the politics of any of these figures sincere? Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether they believe what they are saying: they serve their paymasters either way.

I'll criticize the Democrats all day long. But to assert that the Republican party is somehow better? No. Dead on arrival.

tstorm823:

List of examples is the key here. You've got a list of examples. Anthony Weiner also has a list of examples. More important are overarching trends. In the 20th century, there were 11 Republican presidents and 3 are credibly claimed to have had extramarital affairs. And there were 7 Democratic presidents of which 5 are credibly claimed to have extramarital affairs.

Yes, let's lok at those overarching trends. From Wikipedia, Federal sex scandals (and omitting justices):

1900-1969: D - 3, R - 3
1970-1979: D - 8, R - 0
1980-1989: D - 4, R - 7
1990-1999: D - 5, R - 11
2000-2009: D - 4, R - 11
2010-2019: D - 6, R - 16

There is no "overarching trend" of more Democratic sex sleaze at all. Not in the pre-internet age, and not after (although the modern world has led to much more discovery of misconduct). The more you want to limit your data set, the more you're just cherry-picking.

I'm aware if you try and wikipedia political sex scandals, it leans Republican once you hit the internet age, but that's because morality is a weapon against Republicans. A Republican is caught with a porn tab open, it's a sex scandal. A Democrat is given political positions because of an affair with their boss, that's a perfectly acceptable pathway to becoming a presidential candidate from California. Republican affairs are written about as malicious hateful deviance because Republican voters care about personal morality. Democratic affairs are treated like an American Pie movie. Bill Clinton got blowjobs in the oval office and regained his popularity.

That's not true: because identifying sexual immorality in Democrats shifts voters, even if just Republicans mobilising their own. Never mind that centre-left voters tend to disapprove of extramarital sex (and if you think otherwise, you have a very strange idea of the morality of the centre left). Nor do I think there's any significant evidence sexual misconduct by Democrats is just ignored on the argument it's somehow expected of them. Particularly in terms of, say, sexual harrassment, because that's something left-leaning voters tend to be much more harsh about. The centre-left is more tolerant of gays and so on, but at this point of society we shouldn't be viewing homosexuality as sexual misconduct.

Never mind that, but how do you say the Republicans hold stronger feelings about sexual misconduct when they happily put Donald Trump - multiple time marital cheat, consorter with porn stars and strongly alleged sex attacker and easily the worst reputed presidential candidate on that score - up as their chosen and voted for him en masse? They just proved it doesn't really matter to them: Trump turns moralities the Republican Party was supposed to hold dear into big, fat, empty lies.

I'm not overlooking Republican populists, but once again, you have individual examples. I don't need to pick specific examples, the common people uniting against the corrupt wealthy class is part of the Democratic Party platform. "Making the Wealthy pay their fair share" is a subheader in the actual current party platform. There's another whole section on protecting elections from the influence of the wealthy and powerful. Nobody ever labels these things populism.

It is populist - but so are aspects of the right. When Reagan made a case for deregulation, he did it through populist-style appeals by shifting the elites under attack from the economic and social elites to political elites. Ultimately, some degree of populism has been employed extremely commonly politicians and parties, the difference often being which elites are being picked on.

What are Republicans doing if not populism when raging against media elites, intellectual elites, political elites, and metropolitan liberals? Again, start thinking Tea Party appeals to "real" America, all that conservative talk radio. That's been going on over 30 years. Trump is not an aberration: he's the latest and most exaggerated expression of a right wing populism that the Republicans have been nurturing and nourishing for a long time.

But whose dirty tricks got written into the history books? 60 years of presidential attacks ads leans Democrat 13-10 on that scoreboard,

If 13-10 were a sports score, you'd call it a close game with little to separate the teams. How on earth can you imagine that a party runs presidential attack ads that much and not think it's a standard and acceptable tactic to them?

That and facts. The facts count too.

The facts, including many of your own, don't look good for the Republicans at all.

Agema:

Yes, let's lok at those overarching trends. From Wikipedia, Federal sex scandals (and omitting justices):

1900-1969: D - 3, R - 3
1970-1979: D - 8, R - 0
1980-1989: D - 4, R - 7
1990-1999: D - 5, R - 11
2000-2009: D - 4, R - 11
2010-2019: D - 6, R - 16

There is no "overarching trend" of more Democratic sex sleaze at all. Not in the pre-internet age, and not after (although the modern world has led to much more discovery of misconduct). The more you want to limit your data set, the more you're just cherry-picking.

But now you have to question the validity of that data as well. FDR had a famous affair, not mentioned on that page. Lyndon Johnson might have had 1000 affairs, but there was at least 1, and it's not mentioned on that page. What qualifies an event for inclusion on that page? If the answer is "people have to be upset by it" than I think we have our explanation.

That's not true: because identifying sexual immorality in Democrats shifts voters, even if just Republicans mobilising their own. Never mind that centre-left voters tend to disapprove of extramarital sex (and if you think otherwise, you have a very strange idea of the morality of the centre left). Nor do I think there's any significant evidence sexual misconduct by Democrats is just ignored on the argument it's somehow expected of them. Particularly in terms of, say, sexual harrassment, because that's something left-leaning voters tend to be much more harsh about. The centre-left is more tolerant of gays and so on, but at this point of society we shouldn't be viewing homosexuality as sexual misconduct.

Never mind that, but how do you say the Republicans hold stronger feelings about sexual misconduct when they happily put Donald Trump - multiple time marital cheat, consorter with porn stars and strongly alleged sex attacker and easily the worst reputed presidential candidate on that score - up as their chosen and voted for him en masse? They just proved it doesn't really matter to them: Trump turns moralities the Republican Party was supposed to hold dear into big, fat, empty lies.

Because, as always, Donald Trump isn't a Republican, at least not traditionally. His behavior, his personal politics, and his base of support are all aberrant from traditional Republicanism. You're wondering how these people ever voted for Donald Trump, but a lot of them didn't. "Never Trump" was a thing. Regular people like me didn't vote for him at either opportunity. Some previous Obama voters did vote for him. And I guarantee that a huge percentage of the general election vote wasn't so much for him as it was against Hillary Clinton. Suggesting Donald Trump is an A+ representative of Republicans is either ignorance or slander. We shake our heads at his nonsense daily.

It is populist - but so are aspects of the right. When Reagan made a case for deregulation, he did it through populist-style appeals by shifting the elites under attack from the economic and social elites to political elites. Ultimately, some degree of populism has been employed extremely commonly politicians and parties, the difference often being which elites are being picked on.

What are Republicans doing if not populism when raging against media elites, intellectual elites, political elites, and metropolitan liberals? Again, start thinking Tea Party appeals to "real" America, all that conservative talk radio. That's been going on over 30 years. Trump is not an aberration: he's the latest and most exaggerated expression of a right wing populism that the Republicans have been nurturing and nourishing for a long time.

My point is not to say there isn't Republican populism. My point is "media elites" isn't written into the party platform. "The 1%" is. Most Republican politicians don't talk like Rush Limbaugh. Most Republicans wouldn't vote for Rush Limbaugh. Right wing populism is a thing that happens, certainly, but left-wing populism is the Democratic Party. It's a party that runs almost exclusively on the lie that they're the sole protectors of the poor and middle class.

If 13-10 were a sports score, you'd call it a close game with little to separate the teams. How on earth can you imagine that a party runs presidential attack ads that much and not think it's a standard and acceptable tactic to them?

Because, as I said, the content counts for something. The Republican attack ads included have things like Nancy Reagan being upset at attacks against her husband. It had a list of John Kerry changing his own opinion as an attack ad. It has talking about the hypothetical difference in the price of groceries as an attack ad. Democrat attack ads involve incinerating children in a nuclear holocaust, the baseless suggestion that the economy will just crash precipitously under Republicans, and aguy just laughing at Spiro Agnew's name. Republican attack ads are not only less frequent, they're largely focused on questioning Democrat's judgment. Democrat attack ads are more frequent, and reasonably often dedicate themselves to inspiring fear and loathing. Hell, Hillary Clinton did it running against Obama, it's 3AM, who do you want answering the phone in this dangeous world. Fearmongering.

Also, Johnson's campaign really was incomparably sleazy. Actual ad he ran, in addition to "Daisy" and "Confessions of a Republican".

tstorm823:
As a matter of personal conduct, Republicans are the party of soft-spoken civility. You may think that's just a front for bigotry, but you can't deny the stereotypical Republican politician does not behave like Donald Trump.


If you genuinely believe this then I legitimately don't know what to say, and I'm not sure I can actually hold a discussion with someone so blind to reality.

Dr. Thrax:

tstorm823:
As a matter of personal conduct, Republicans are the party of soft-spoken civility. You may think that's just a front for bigotry, but you can't deny the stereotypical Republican politician does not behave like Donald Trump.


If you genuinely believe this then I legitimately don't know what to say, and I'm not sure I can actually hold a discussion with someone so blind to reality.

Traditional " soft Spoken" Republicans like Rush Limbaugh for example right? Dick Cheney, Jan Mickelson, Chuck Grassley all must be "demoncrats" according to Tstorm because they are not soft spoken enough too. Good ol' Boys are only quite when it comes time to answer for their horrendous actions, just like Trump.

tstorm823:
If the answer is "people have to be upset by it" than I think we have our explanation.

That you are satisfied with such an extremely speculative explanation is... interesting.

Lil devils x:

Traditional " soft Spoken" Republicans like Rush Limbaugh for example right? Dick Cheney, Jan Mickelson, Chuck Grassley all must be "demoncrats" according to Tstorm because they are not soft spoken enough too. Good ol' Boys are only quite when it comes time to answer for their horrendous actions, just like Trump.

Man, I wish that "demoncrats" was more phonetically satisfying, cause that's pretty good. Might have to save that for a rainy day.

But like, I'm not a crazy person here. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" is likely the most famous quote of a Republican icon. It was only a few months ago there was a wave of stories about how "civility" was a tool of the white patriarchy (*wink* *nudge* Republicans). The party of law and order is naturally inclined to be, you know, more orderly. I'm not saying every Republican fits the mold, it would be silly to suggest that believing Republican things transforms you into a stereotype. But to look at those stereotypes, an ideal Democratic politician is like a impassioned preacher who speaks to your personal beliefs and an ideal Republican politician is a resolute statesman who commands your respect. A Republican speech has the dryness of a bible verse, a Democratic speech has the fervor of the sermon. I promise, this isn't just an arbitrary construction in my mind.

tstorm823:
A Republican speech has the dryness of a bible verse, a Democratic speech has the fervor of the sermon. I promise, this isn't just an arbitrary construction in my mind.

Yes, it is an arbitrary construction in your mind, that's the problem. At best, you're 40 years out of date.

(I challenge anyone to read the Gettysburg Address, for instance, and claim it has the dryness of a Bible verse.)

tstorm823:
But now you have to question the validity of that data as well.

I don't really care, that sort of precision isn't important. There merely needs to be adequate evidence plenty of Republicans have been fornicating and fondling their way through women, men and children they shouldn't have. There is such evidence, and you just don't want to admit it.

Because, as always, Donald Trump isn't a Republican, at least not traditionally. His behavior, his personal politics, and his base of support are all aberrant from traditional Republicanism.

[sigh] Sure... as long as you ignore all the stuff that's inconvenient to such a claim.

Part of what you're trying to do here is make some appeal to a mythic, 40+ year old Republicanism. However, apart from the fact you are ignoring stuff that doesn't suit you (e.g. McCarthy, Nixon), it's just anachronism anyway. No-one would have been elected acting like Trump 40 years ago, not a Republican or Democrat. But anachronism... you're just pretending like the last decades haven't happened, and the Republican hasn't voluntarily made a long march from the party of Eisenhower to the party of Trump. But it has, it really has. You can see, step by step how it's evolved.

My point is not to say there isn't Republican populism. My point is "media elites" isn't written into the party platform. "The 1%" is.

No, I'm sorry. One line in a many-page policy document in support of taxing the rich is not the last word in populism. It's absurd to pretend it is.

Because, as I said, the content counts for something.

You're still just picking and choosing here. Does the term "Tricky Dick" mean anything to you? He got that nick about 20 years before he became president. How do you feel about deliberately lying to smear a veteran's war record?

Agema:

Yes, it is an arbitrary construction in your mind, that's the problem. At best, you're 40 years out of date.

(I challenge anyone to read the Gettysburg Address, for instance, and claim it has the dryness of a Bible verse.)

Abraham Lincoln is literally the textbook example of writing a speech like the bible. To quote this random website that came up when I googled "Abraham Lincoln the Bible", "An aura of prophetic authority has accrued to his own words, heightened by his skillful use of literary devices that are also characteristic of biblical texts."

Or this one: "the whole of the speech is really suffused with the Bible in terms of both the content and the cadence". Abraham Lincoln literally imitated Biblical rhetoric in his speeches.

Part of what you're trying to do here is make some appeal to a mythic, 40+ year old Republicanism. However, apart from the fact you are ignoring stuff that doesn't suit you (e.g. McCarthy, Nixon), it's just anachronism anyway. No-one would have been elected acting like Trump 40 years ago, not a Republican or Democrat. But anachronism... you're just pretending like the last decades haven't happened, and the Republican hasn't voluntarily made a long march from the party of Eisenhower to the party of Trump. But it has, it really has. You can see, step by step how it's evolved.

Literally Lyndon Johnson. I know I've been picking on Johnson repeatedly in this conversation, but the man sucked. Literally any dirty trick he could find was used in his campaign, he was notoriously racist and sexist, in response to Kennedy's rumored affairs, he claimed to have had sex with more women by accident than Kennedy ever did on purpose. Trump is Lyndon Johnson with Twitter.

And there is no party of Trump.

tstorm823:

Abraham Lincoln is literally the textbook example of writing a speech like the bible. To quote this random website that came up when I googled "Abraham Lincoln the Bible", "An aura of prophetic authority has accrued to his own words, heightened by his skillful use of literary devices that are also characteristic of biblical texts."

Or this one: "the whole of the speech is really suffused with the Bible in terms of both the content and the cadence". Abraham Lincoln literally imitated Biblical rhetoric in his speeches.

So it's your contention that Republicans don't give speeches with the dryness of a Bible verse after all, then?

Literally Lyndon Johnson. I know I've been picking on Johnson repeatedly in this conversation, but the man sucked. Literally any dirty trick he could find was used in his campaign, he was notoriously racist and sexist, in response to Kennedy's rumored affairs, he claimed to have had sex with more women by accident than Kennedy ever did on purpose.

I'm not defending Democrats, specifically or generally. I'm saying that the sorts of people who attain high office in the USA are the same sorts of people, with the same sorts of vices, who use the same sorts of tactics, no matter which party they represent.

And there is no party of Trump.

Trump's 85-90% approval rating with Republicans suggests otherwise. Mitt Romney's pretty recogisable as traditional Republican, and polls suggest he'd be down to Trump ~70-20 with Republicans. So too why Congressional Republicans are so plainly loath to challenge him politically - instead McConnell, Lindsay Graham etc. are toadying up. They've made it plain they don't want a primary challenger to him, hence why there's only a relative no-mark with no big name backers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/26/gop-is-party-trump-not-reasons-anti-trump-conservatives-think/?utm_term=.b79f4d5c679b
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/us/politics/trump-republican-party.html

To Joe Gruters, who was co-chairman of Mr. Trump's campaign in Florida and now leads the state party, the local Republican Party is effectively a regional arm of the president's re-election effort.

"I've had probably 10 conversations with the Trump team about the delegate selection process in Florida," Mr. Gruters said, adding of a potential Republican primary battle, "The base of the party loves our president, and if anybody runs against him, they are going to get absolutely smashed."

"There is no challenge to the president," declared John Watson, a former supporter of Mr. Kasich who now leads the Georgia Republican Party. "The party is in near-unanimous lock step in support of him, certainly at the activist and delegate level."

You did have a few guys in Washington who didn't approve, but they've all died or resigned from politics.

Agema:

So it's your contention that Republicans don't give speeches with the dryness of a Bible verse after all, then?

No, it is my contention that they, notably including Abraham Lincoln, absolutely do that. I'm not sure why you would think I was saying otherwise.

I'm not defending Democrats, specifically or generally. I'm saying that the sorts of people who attain high office in the USA are the same sorts of people, with the same sorts of vices, who use the same sorts of tactics, no matter which party they represent.

That is not what you said though. You said "No-one would have been elected acting like Trump 40 years ago, not a Republican or Democrat." I'm telling you someone, at least one, did before Trump. Now you're suggesting everyone sucks as much as Trump? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Trump's 85-90% approval rating with Republicans suggests otherwise. Mitt Romney's pretty recogisable as traditional Republican, and polls suggest he'd be down to Trump ~70-20 with Republicans. So too why Congressional Republicans are so plainly loath to challenge him politically - instead McConnell, Lindsay Graham etc. are toadying up. They've made it plain they don't want a primary challenger to him, hence why there's only a relative no-mark with no big name backers.

But as a matter of actual enacted policy, Republicans haven't been doing whatever Trump wants. The opposite, Trump has been doing whatever Republicans want. Trump ran on a wall, we don't have one. Trump wanted to pull from Syria, they made him leave people there. Trump planned to repeal Obamacare, didn't happen. All while Trump doesn't turn down Republican initiatives. The support Trump has gained since being elected is not because people like his rhetoric or his politics any more than they used to, it's that Trump will sign whatever they put on his desk and then take the heat himself on any backlash. With the exception of tariffs and trade wars, Trump has coincidentally been one of the most conservative presidents, but that's over now. The Republicans don't have both houses, and Democrats are free to choose between 2 years of gridlock or appeal to liberal Trump.

Like, there are lots of things Democrats could be working with Trump on (and some are, credit where due), but a lot of them are embracing being the opposition, and I think that's a mistake. There are a lot of Republicans who could be persuaded to vote for a Democrat by virtue of that Democrat being... well, virtuous. And instead they're being angry and confrontational. There are a lot of conservatives who wouldn't vote for a Democrat, but would be hesitant to vote for Trump either if he started working with Democrats as much as Republicans (which would take like 13 seconds of brown-nosing to get him to do). Just be reasonable and competent and sweep the election. But I genuinely think they're still resting all their hopes on impeachment. They're keeping distance between themselves and the president waiting for the right dirt to disqualify him, and then they win the presidency cause the Republicans have no candidate ready. I think that's really the plan. It's not cause the enthusiastic Democrat base think Trump's Hitler, they've thought every Republican was Hitler for my entire life, but this is the first time a lot of actual politicians have played along with that, and I think it's cause they're still planning on Trump being criminally indicted.

Edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_2016_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign

There are still a lot of "current"s and "-present"s on that page. They aren't all dead or retired.

tstorm823:
but a lot of them are embracing being the opposition, and I think that's a mistake. There are a lot of Republicans who could be persuaded to vote for a Democrat by virtue of that Democrat being... well, virtuous. And instead they're being angry and confrontational

Let's be real here. Republicans have been far more " angry and confrontational" and Democrats not being confrontational enough is what got there into the rut they have been in. They have tried entirely too hard to be "bipartisan" and it allowed for things to get entirely out of hand, as has been seen with voting on nominations to the court and administration positions. Barr, for example should have never been allowed through with his previous public comments. Geeze republicans would not even allow Obama to replace justices that died during his term as was required by law, yet Democrats have been allowing them to stack the bench with fringe.

The biggest complaint about Obama and the previous Democrat majority in Congress was they wasted too much time trying to appease Republicans which allowed Republicans to screw everything up so bad. You see, Democrats, unlike Republicans had the idea that if they made bills with both Democrats and Republicans writing and supporting them that those bills would not be repealed and undone later. That is the only reason why Republicans did not have the votes to repeal Obamacare in congress and had to underhandedly try to set up a case with a judge who publicly opposed Obamacare and medicaid and then have Trump's DOJ refuse to defend it. Regardless of how " bipartisan" democrats try to be it always backfires on them anyways because the Republicans will still go behind their backs and do underhanded shat to get what they want regardless. If anything Democrats need to grow a spine and pass bills to put a stop to the underhanded shat all together when they do finally gain control again. They lost control because people accused them of not doing enough to solve these problems, that ONLY happened due to them trying to appease Republicans. Hopefully democrats learn a lesson at some point and just do it right instead of trying to cater to people whose only agenda is to screw shat up instead.

tstorm823:

Agema:

So it's your contention that Republicans don't give speeches with the dryness of a Bible verse after all, then?

No, it is my contention that they, notably including Abraham Lincoln, absolutely do that. I'm not sure why you would think I was saying otherwise.

I have no idea what you are trying to say then. Dryness, commonly, means dull or uninteresting. I don't quite get it as the Bible is often really not dry at all (although it does have moments where it's exhaustively listed genealogy, which could put someone who's drunk 5 coffees to sleep). But you cannot possibly argue that the Republicans have lacked moving and emotional speeches; for instance, the Gettysburg address.[1]

That is not what you said though. You said "No-one would have been elected acting like Trump 40 years ago, not a Republican or Democrat." I'm telling you someone, at least one, did before Trump. Now you're suggesting everyone sucks as much as Trump? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

No president probably ever has been like Trump, certainly not postwar (although campaigning was pretty vicious back at the start). Not in the routine public abuse, mendacity, and complete lack of gravity and dignity that they have comported themselves in the highest office in the land.

But as a matter of actual enacted policy, Republicans haven't been doing whatever Trump wants...

True, Trump has been enacting a mostly typical Republican agenda. But any Republican president would have pursued a Republican agenda: and probably got a lot more done whilst the party controlled both houses of the legislature. All then that is left is the excuses for and embrace of his crassness, racial hatred, lies and abuse. That's what's being excused and endorsed when he's sent up for re-election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_2016_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign

There are still a lot of "current"s and "-present"s on that page. They aren't all dead or retired.

They don't still oppose him now though, do they? Lindsey Graham, for instance, seems to have morphed from Trump-hater to first class presidental brown-nose in the last two years. At best, they're conspicuously quiet.

[1] although the language is a bit starchy by modern standards, but that's just the 19th century

Lil devils x:
I honestly don't think it can be truly democratic as long as $= voice due to the 1% being the only ones to be heard as they have all the $. Having all the $ = having all the voice. We cannot even get " middle class" candidates due to them not being able to afford to run in the first place. How we finance this and provide publicity needs to be overhauled to actually be able to have a democracy ruled by the people rather than a plutocracy ruled by the wealthy. Citizens United adds an additional flavor of Corporatism, but in the end it is still the 1% who control everything. Sadly though I do not see this changing anytime soon.

Could I interest you in the Dutch model of campaigning regulations?

Basically, political content is restricted to designated programming slots on government funded channels, exposure time divided equally among all participating parties that submit their promotional clips to get their message across, likewise, each and every village and town has a billboard that can also be used for political posters, but there are restrictions on how much space any one party may occupy on that billboard.

As wealthy as the big parties may be, they'll be restricted to the same amount of time as any other rival, their content will have higher production value and you will probably find more of heir stuff online if you look for it, but the general public will have a much more balanced exposure to alternatives, it may actually help you to dismantle this two-party grave American democracy has found itself in.

tstorm823:
The Democratic Party is pro-unions, anti-corporate, and blames the elite rich for essentially all of the nation's problems.

Campaign rhetoric != policy. Anyone who pays the remotest attention to American politics should realize this first and foremost; if you don't, you're either lying your pants off out of raw, unadulterated partisanship, or are a LIV of the lowest order.

Democrats talk a big game on the campaign trail, or when they know they're backing a legislatively DOA proposal to trump up support and/or two minutes' hate for the opposing team. Any time a policy issue comes around for which Democrats just might get traction, all of the sudden Democrats become the "party of compromise" with a redoubled focus on "negotiation" and "bargaining for what 'really' matters". Key bargaining chips and aces in the hole hit the bargaining table first, if they even make it past "consensus building within the party" at all, and the Democratic position folds faster than a lawn chair in a hurricane at first sign of Republican unwillingness to negotiate.

Case example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu-VzZ45MwI

If only Feinstein followed her own advice on gun control...

Here's the problem. Everyone loves to trumpet how the parties switched it up and how Things Really Changed, Seriously! between the New Deal and the civil rights movement. And they did...but the people saying this shit are only telling half the story.

Southern Democrats never actually went away, they just learned the hard way opposing civil rights directly is touching the third rail, and they had to figure out how to sneak opposition to civil rights through the back door. Which is how we got the Clinton crime bill and welfare-to-work, just in case anyone's not paying attention. Meanwhile, the Democratic party was more than happy to gobble up Rockefeller Republicans left without a party thanks to Buckley's and Goldwater's "paleoconservative" purge, triggering a slow, but massive, rightward shift to accommodate their politics moving into the 1968 election and beyond.

Which is the year everything went off the rails for the Democratic party, and it still has yet to confront its five-decade-old demons let alone acknowledge their mere presence. The slow but steady evolution of "civil rights leader" to "career politician" only exacerbates the issue to the point that, frankly, the center will not hold.

Combustion Kevin:

Lil devils x:
I honestly don't think it can be truly democratic as long as $= voice due to the 1% being the only ones to be heard as they have all the $. Having all the $ = having all the voice. We cannot even get " middle class" candidates due to them not being able to afford to run in the first place. How we finance this and provide publicity needs to be overhauled to actually be able to have a democracy ruled by the people rather than a plutocracy ruled by the wealthy. Citizens United adds an additional flavor of Corporatism, but in the end it is still the 1% who control everything. Sadly though I do not see this changing anytime soon.

Could I interest you in the Dutch model of campaigning regulations?

Basically, political content is restricted to designated programming slots on government funded channels, exposure time divided equally among all participating parties that submit their promotional clips to get their message across, likewise, each and every village and town has a billboard that can also be used for political posters, but there are restrictions on how much space any one party may occupy on that billboard.

As wealthy as the big parties may be, they'll be restricted to the same amount of time as any other rival, their content will have higher production value and you will probably find more of heir stuff online if you look for it, but the general public will have a much more balanced exposure to alternatives, it may actually help you to dismantle this two-party grave American democracy has found itself in.

I rather like that idea, though in the US, you would have to have a constitutional amendment to accomplish this due to the howling about " free speech". Also how do they limit coverage of news on this, as this is where the biggest coverage disparity exists in the US. News agencies are privately owned in the US and will either ignore or talk about a candidate nonstop and put a spin on all the news to show candidates in negative or favorable light. How do they balance that? Also how would they balance social media coverage as well?

Lil devils x:
I rather like that idea, though in the US, you would have to have a constitutional amendment to accomplish this due to the howling about " free speech". Also how do they limit coverage of news on this, as this is where the biggest coverage disparity exists in the US. News agencies are privately owned in the US and will either ignore or talk about a candidate nonstop and put a spin on all the news to show candidates in negative or favorable light. How do they balance that? Also how would they balance social media coverage as well?

I think the first issue is the lack of government channels, or rather, the complete absence of government-funded media that does not have to live or die by it's ratings.
Over here, we have three government channels that broadcast things like news and PSA's, as well as police programming, political debates and promotions as well as programs they deem culturally and/or socially significant.
Their ratings are quite a bit lower than private networks are, true, but they also have things you'll not find on private channels as well, politics aside, you'll not find documentaries on loneliness among seniors, our history in the world wars or teenage pregnancy on private channels, it's too dry, too uncomfortable and too niche to appeal to a broad demographic, likewise, its news is just as down-to-business and most of all impartial as a result, prioritizing clarity above watchability.

We are also not restricted in talking about politics on private channels, neither should we be aside from the actual campaign material, however, we are too much talk and not enough flash for showbiz, we don't have campaign rallies that rival pop concerts, our debates are not covered like boxing matches, in other words, Dutch politics don't bring in the ratings, showbiz gossip, gameshows and reality TV do.

The lack of impartial coverage in the US leaves people unaware of what that would even look like.

As for social media, leave it unrestricted, instead, build a properly representative site for voters to view every eligible candidate and their stated standpoints and vision.

Combustion Kevin:

Lil devils x:
I rather like that idea, though in the US, you would have to have a constitutional amendment to accomplish this due to the howling about " free speech". Also how do they limit coverage of news on this, as this is where the biggest coverage disparity exists in the US. News agencies are privately owned in the US and will either ignore or talk about a candidate nonstop and put a spin on all the news to show candidates in negative or favorable light. How do they balance that? Also how would they balance social media coverage as well?

I think the first issue is the lack of government channels, or rather, the complete absence of government-funded media that does not have to live or die by it's ratings.
Over here, we have three government channels that broadcast things like news and PSA's, as well as police programming, political debates and promotions as well as programs they deem culturally and/or socially significant.
Their ratings are quite a bit lower than private networks are, true, but they also have things you'll not find on private channels as well, politics aside, you'll not find documentaries on loneliness among seniors, our history in the world wars or teenage pregnancy on private channels, it's too dry, too uncomfortable and too niche to appeal to a broad demographic, likewise, its news is just as down-to-business and most of all impartial as a result, prioritizing clarity above watchability.

We are also not restricted in talking about politics on private channels, neither should we be aside from the actual campaign material, however, we are too much talk and not enough flash for showbiz, we don't have campaign rallies that rival pop concerts, our debates are not covered like boxing matches, in other words, Dutch politics don't bring in the ratings, showbiz gossip, gameshows and reality TV do.

The lack of impartial coverage in the US leaves people unaware of what that would even look like.

As for social media, leave it unrestricted, instead, build a properly representative site for voters to view every eligible candidate and their stated standpoints and vision.

I think in the US in the 2016 election, that people paid to promote a party/ candidate or slander their opposition on social media was far more effective than billboards, commercials, debates and signs. If they fail to address social media campaigns, especially those by 3rd party wealthy backers and not the campaigns themselves, any campaign financing caps and restrictions placed on promotion will be ineffective. It is the corporations and wealthy backers that pay for these things out of pocket bypassing the actual campaigns themselves that are the primary issue in the US. They can pay for whatever they want to do and since they are not actually going through the campaigns themselves, their funding is not even restricted or count against caps.

During the US 2016 elections they had thousands of paid trolls on social media promoting their agenda, they had wealthy corporations and individuals foreign and domestic running their own ads and campaigns promoting their candidates and agendas and running disinformation campaigns against their opponents. None of this was regulated in any way or even covered by campaign finance laws because they didn't go through the campaigns, they just acted on their own instead. If we cannot do anything to really address that, there is no way to balance coverage and give other candidates a chance. The wealthy will still be the only one's with a voice.

Eacaraxe:

Campaign rhetoric != policy. Anyone who pays the remotest attention to American politics should realize this first and foremost; if you don't, you're either lying your pants off out of raw, unadulterated partisanship, or are a LIV of the lowest order.

I'm aware that campaign rhetoric and policy are not the same thing, but this particular point was about who qualifies as "populist", and that moniker is determined 100% by campaign rhetoric and 0% by actual policy.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here