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

[tstorm823]

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.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

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.

 

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

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.

 

[Combustion Kevin]

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.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

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.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

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?

 

[Combustion Kevin]

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.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

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.

 

[tstorm823]

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.