Trump number 8

[Twed]

The key here is that this isn't policy change, this is probing. The object of a probe isn't to change something, it's to litigate it and then punish somebody. If Democrats cared about addressing immigration inequalities for instance, maybe they'd actually help vote to abolish ICE: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2018/h337

I remember a lot of complaining about what a waste of time it was for Clinton to constantly be subject to a probe. It works both ways.

[manticore]

I'm content to let the history play out the way it will, as it's going in one direction.

Wow, to look at how things are and feel able to say something like that. Such rhetoric, with such certainty.

Are we moving towards a better world?

[mothman]

How does any of that serve the general public? It's just a massive waste of resources for the benefit of the party politics game. No. Fucks to that. It's no better than the Republicans getting excited over Hillary's email server.

"It's my ball, I'm going home!" This is the right being quite happy to play the old politics when it works for them, but as soon as it stops working in their favour, suddenly they're all for the new politics. They were quite happy to pull this bullshit when it was (e.g.) stopping Obama's Supreme Court nomination.

It also plays into the right's belief that only they are the true believers, while the left are merely kneejerk cynical opportunists intent on petty revenge against their ideological betters. Worse, this is a blatant scare tactic to keep congressional Republicans in line - not what the Dems might do for the benefit of the nation (depending on how you look at it), but what they have in store for Rep lawmakers who might be (or regard themselves to be) complicit in something or other.

Plus it could all be bullshit. This is just an GOP extrapolation of Dem requests, and as I said above it could be cynically intended to scare congressmen & Senators into compliance.

And it's terribly, terribly dangerous. This isn't the natural ebb and flow of politics, the idea that you're going to be in favour or not. This is one party believing only they should be in power, and any opposition being made out as a threat to the very country as well as the Dear Leader. I don't really believe the Dem party as a whole us any better than the Reps, the whole system IS corrupt; but at least it's notionally democratic; this kind of behaviour is a threat to that.

[Dog Botherer]

My main problem with most of that stuff is it's the Democrats running on a platform of "PLEASE VOTE FOR US WE'RE NOT TRUMP WE'RE VERY POLITE AND DON'T FORGET THE NORMS". It's a shit thing to run on when so much of the country is impoverished and Medicare For All is polling at 70% approval. It's the exact same trap Clinto dived head first into: We're not that horrible guy, but we're also going to do nothing to make your life better in any way, because America is already great.

Call me cynical if you like, but the last 30 years or so of electoral politics in the USA supports it.

[Twed]

I don't really believe the Dem party as a whole us any better than the Reps, the whole system IS corrupt; but at least it's notionally democratic

https://twitter.com/donnabrazile/status/1033442716380803072

https://www.yahoo.com/news/eye-bernie-sanders-democratic-national-committee-adopts-new-restrictions-2020-presidential-candidates-225841348.html

It is grim.

[manticore]

I don't know, but I wonder if it's possible given that Trump is an imbecile egotist opportunist who doesn't really believe in anything apart from some gut predudices, that a Democratic run House could get him to think that everyone might love him if he made moves towards something like universal healthcare. He used to 'believe' in it, and if you believe that crappy 'Fire and Fury' book he had to be convinced out of it by his party advisors.

This is a pipe dream I realise, partly because the Democrats are just  machine operators who don't give a damn about people, but I think the question of how Trump would behave when detatched from his party is interesting.

[Twed]

He'd do whatever a regularly-excluded child would do (change the rules of any game he's involved with to make himself look like THE BEST BOY).

[Howj Begg]

Twed, are you aware how many letters, calls and demands Democrat reps and senators get from their constituents, and potential Democrat voters, about all the things in those list? How much pressure has been applied on them? They have been deluged. As well as calls for medicare, drug reform and whatever else. Democrats would be betraying their voters, and their base if they ignored all the illegal shit the Trump admin has done - arguably in the same way Obama betrayed Democrat voters by not prosecuting any bankers.  It's not just power games, it's holding the powerful accountable, and Dem voters overwhelmingly want that. And Democrats can do both. They can work on policy too, and also change party voting. Your last link about the DMC was from back in June, but since then:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/democrats-scale-back-superdelegate-powers-in-nod-to-bernie-supporters?ref=wrap

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/dnc-approves-historic-reforms-strips-superdelegates-power_us_5b8165d0e4b034858600dcff

I mean, we should also talk about this stuff too:

- Bernie Sanders recent medicare plan https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/17631240/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-32-trillion-cost-voxcare
- Beto O' Rourke being neck and neck in Texas with Ted Cruz
- Medicare for all rising in public esteem, it even won the Fox poll and was shown by the Koch brothers own research to be the least expensive choice compared to private insurance which was widely publicised
- The DMC just now voting to curtail the power of superdelegates
- Elizabeth Warren's proposed legislation https://www.gq.com/story/elizabeth-warren-bill-eat-the-rich?mbid=social_twitter
- Several high profile candidates including Gillibrand announcing they are not accepting any PAC funding

This idea that white collar crime shouldn't be prosecuted because it might interfere with progressive causes... makes zero sense, and is absolutely wrong*. I think Democrats should "play the game", but play it much better. Don't give an inch when it's your turn to nominate a judge. Don't let Republicans get away with campaign finance violations. SHOUT BACK. MAKE A FUCKING NOISE. Dems have "taken the high road" for far too long, frankly. Be ruthless and make those fuckers pay.

I do agree with you that the Democratic party needs to change, and it looks like this is slowly happening.
Again though, this is not the right thread for it, and I'd like to post about that. How's about we go ahead and start one, for progressive politics in the US?  Or any NON-TRUMP politics chat, for that matter?





*I'm reminded of people like my dad, who say that the crimes of Saville, or even Stuart Hall, shouldn't be dredged up and prosecuted or even publicised, because "what good is it going to do, who is it going to help?" The analogy is not precise, I'll give you that, but it's close enough.

[Twed]

Twed, are you aware how many letters, calls and demands Democrat reps and senators get from their constituents, and potential Democrat voters, about all the things in those list? How much pressure has been applied on them? They have been deluged. As well as calls for medicare, drug reform and whatever else. Democrats would be betraying their voters, and their base if they ignored all the illegal shit the Trump admin has done - arguably in the same way Obama betrayed Democrat voters by not prosecuting any bankers.  It's not just power games, it's holding the powerful accountable. And Democrats can do both. They can work on policy too, and also change voting. Your last link about the DMC was from back in June, but since then:

Holding the powerful accountable in any effective way would require condemning themselves. I don't buy your argument when they can go full-throttle on pettiness but can't do any better than a lukewarm "we'll look into it" promise on single payer, obviously with no intention to actually do that.

[Howj Begg]

The key here is that this isn't policy change, this is probing. The object of a probe isn't to change something, it's to litigate it and then punish somebody. If Democrats cared about addressing immigration inequalities for instance, maybe they'd actually help vote to abolish ICE: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2018/h337

I remember a lot of complaining about what a waste of time it was for Clinton to constantly be subject to a probe. It works both ways.

I certainly agree with you about ICE. Fucking disgusting the Dem yea votes there.

I also remember a lot of complaining about Clinton, but she was investigated numerous times for the emails and Benghazi nonetheless,and was not subject to any charges, ultimately. That process went through, my god did it go through. The same should apply for Republicans and Trump. But it won't until the Dems control the House.

Holding the powerful accountable in any effective way would require condemning themselves. I don't buy your argument when they can go full-throttle on pettiness but can't do any better than a lukewarm "we'll look into it" promise on single payer, obviously with no intention to actually do that.

Obama had no specific intention to push through gay marriage in November 2008, but he ending up doing it in his term because the mood of the country changed, and political pressure was applied from below. Exactly the same can happen with medicare for all.

I feel like you are absurdly biased not to notice on or comment on any progress?

[Zetetic]

What were the financials on the maintaining-homosexuals-in-a-state-of-not-being-married industry again?

[Howj Begg]

What were the financials on the maintaining-homosexuals-in-a-state-of-not-being-married industry again?

... Are you suggesting there was no public or political opposition to same sex marriage legislation? Do you have amnesia about the prevalence of culture war politics in American society again? Or are you saying that wasn't/isn't an important social/political issue?

Who knows, frankly

[Twed]

I certainly agree with you about ICE. Fucking disgusting the Dem yea votes there.

I'm more disgusted by the abstains. At least the yeas are honest.

I also remember a lot of complaining about Clinton, but she was investigated numerous times for the emails and Benghazi nonetheless,and was not subject to any charges, ultimately. That process went through, my god did it go through. The same should apply for Republicans and Trump. But it won't until the Dems control the House.

None of it should be celebrated. Law should be written for transparency and accountability if we want those things to actually change.

Obama had no specific intention to push through gay marriage in November 2008, but he ending up doing it in his term because the mood of the country changed, and political pressure was applied from below. Exactly the same can happen with medicare for all.

Yes, I agree. As long as the Democrats can't fix things against a populist candidate again, a leading figure making the right noises might be able to topple their gravy train.

I feel like you are absurdly biased not to notice on or comment on any progress?

I don't know what you want. I am commenting on the specific badness of this thing. I don't agree with all of your points (I believe some of them are concessions made by rank Dems and they come with a fix) and hearing that Sanders or Warren are proposing things has never been a sign of the party about to do good things, it just means that the interlopers are stirring the pot nicely.

[manticore]

I'm remindeed of people like my dad, who say that the crimes of Saville, or even Stuart Hall, shouldn't be dredged up and prosecuted or even publicised, because "what good is it going to do, who is it going to help?" The analogy is not precise, I'll give you that, but it's close enough.

One of the good things of the publicising of Savile's and others' crimes was the way they made people think about male sex crime in general, and how much of it is hidden annd unacknowledged.

If investigation into Republican corruption caused people to look at how almost every polititian on both sides, every election, every president is bought, then it would have more value.

[Howj Begg]

None of it should be celebrated. Law should be written for transparency and accountability if we want those things to actually change.

Ok. Can you be specific about which laws shouldn't currently be obeyed and prosecuted because they aren't transparent enough and should be changed? I take it you're referring to campaign finance violations or something? Do you imagine they would be obeyed by people who try their best to skirt the rules, otherwise known as Republicans? Again, we should start a thread for that, instead of carping in here endlessly about the current laws that Trump and Trump accomplices have wilfully broken?

I don't know what you want. I am commenting on the specific badness of this thing. I don't agree with all of your points (I believe some of them are concessions made by rank Dems and they come with a fix) and hearing that Sanders or Warren are proposing things has never been a sign of the party about to do good things, it just means that the interlopers are stirring the pot nicely.

I don't want anything from you. I'm pointing out the obvious in your posts. You continue to do you, and I'll do me.

Warren and Sanders proposing legislation is a big enough deal, because it  influences the wider party, and those who are running on similar platforms and have obviously taken their cue from the Sanders/Warren side of the party:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-and-the-legacy-of-the-bernie-sanders-movement

This is not nothing, and you are disingenuously cynical to imply so.

[Zetetic]

Are you suggesting there was no public or political opposition to same sex marriage legislation?

No, but that the nature of this opposition was very different, and the work to be done to make the change is far greater to go from the American healthcare system to a single-payer system.

(Most crudely, abandoning DOMA was a change that was overwhelmingly restricted to the practice of the government, really. Overhauling healthcare funding in the states involves killing one industry and - at the very least - massively expanding one part of the business of government. It is an undertaking on a far grander scale, and with greater and much more embedded opposition.)

[Howj Begg]

No, but that the nature of this opposition was very different, and the work to be done to make the change is far greater to go from the American healthcare system to a single-payer system.

I think that's absolutely wrong, and really does show a profound ignorance of the protracted battle that  same sex marriage advocates had to fight for years, and especially  judicial and state legislature battles in key states in Obama's second term.
But I wouldn't disagree that the fight for medicare-for-all will be momentous. You still haven't made your original post make sense, tbh.

[Zetetic]

I don't deny that there were battles to enable same-sex marriage.

I think that those battles pale in comparison to the battles against - at least - an actual industry with huge economic investment in the status quo, rather than just the attachment to particular mingling of religion and state.

[Twed]

Warren and Sanders proposing legislation is a big enough deal, because it  influences the wider party, and those who are running on similar platforms and have obviously taken their cue from the Sanders/Warren side of the party:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-and-the-legacy-of-the-bernie-sanders-movement

This is not nothing, and you are disingenuously cynical to imply so.

I'm not. I've been putting as much weight as possible behind that stuff, because I want it to take over. As I said earlier, I want them to topple the establishment. My point is that this does not represent current Dem action, most powerful Dems resent the interlopers and don't consider them Real Democrats.

The party has also just advised itself not to talk about single payer in campaigns. I don't buy what you're saying as some kind of victory, just evidence of a fight. It does not make me feel any better about the waste of time you documented above.

We broadly agree Howj Begg, I'm just not mollified by the things you feel I should be mollified by.

[Howj Begg]

I don't deny that there were battles to enable same-sex marriage.

I think that those battles pale in comparison to the battles against - at least - an actual industry with huge economic investment in the status quo, rather than just the attachment to particular mingling of religion and state.

It's a different kind of battle, I agree, against entrenched corporate economic forces rather than plastic cultural forces. But it's not different in degree.  But if there is a vote for adoption on a state level, for example California, New York, which Democratic senates might have the power to enact, that creates the same level of popular will and solidarity across the country, it could happen on a  federal level too. Your pessimism is entirely warranted, but I don't think the comparison to same-sex marriage is fair to the latter.

(Most crudely, abandoning DOMA was a change that was overwhelmingly restricted to the practice of the government, really. Overhauling healthcare funding in the states involves killing one industry and - at the very least - massively expanding one part of the business of government. It is an undertaking on a far grander scale, and with greater and much more embedded opposition.)

I didn't see this after the edit before (I edited my first post today many times thoguh, so no complaints) but I see what you're saying now; government has limited power against corporations (not to mention possible corporate cheerleading for gay marriage). But as I say, if states take the lead through their own programs, this will provide a route to the federal level, an example, as has happened with other reforms.

[Zetetic]

Point taken about the relevance of state-level politics.

(And apologies for the editing - I've tried to cut down.)

[Dog Botherer]

We broadly agree Howj Begg, I'm just not mollified by the things you feel I should be mollified by.

This sums it up really, I think.

People are crying out for many good things, healthcare, infrastructure investment, minimum wage increases, reigning in massive corporations who make billions in profit while profiting off underpaid labour. All of these are wildly popular programs that the Dems could run on and win comfortably on, but they won't, because they're terrified of losing the big money donations. So instead they do the bare minimum of, er, promising to look into the very obviously shady shit that Trump is doing. We're not saying that they shouldn't do that, but fuck me, it's hardly inspiring, is it? They already fucked the last election by saying "at least we're not the other guy", they don't seem to understand that they actually have to give the voters something.

[Howj Begg]

I'm not mollified, but I do have hope. I have hope about UK politics too, despite feeling bitter anger and cynicism about it too. I can't write about it because my heart is in my mouth most of the time.  But I think I can be more objective about US politics. I hope. 

If you don't have and nurture hope, I fundamentally disagree with you on an ideological level. But it seems I also fundamentally disagree about the necessary prosecution of white collar crime, too. Trump and his cronies did their best to obstruct justice, besides committing the original crimes, so that's why they've attracted this much judicial attention. It doesn't mean they should be treated with less fairness and equality to the way the system treats the poorest in society. This bending over backwards to let government-level criminals off because of some misguided purism masquerading as progressivism is completely ethically ass-backwards to me.

[ajsmith2]

I don't know, but I wonder if it's possible given that Trump is an imbecile egotist opportunist who doesn't really believe in anything apart from some gut predudices, that a Democratic run House could get him to think that everyone might love him if he made moves towards something like universal healthcare. He used to 'believe' in it, and if you believe that crappy 'Fire and Fury' book he had to be convinced out of it by his party advisors.

This is a pipe dream I realise, partly because the Democrats are just  machine operators who don't give a damn about people, but I think the question of how Trump would behave when detatched from his party is interesting.

This is my ideal outcome for the immediate future. I want Trump to slump into centrism and then even further left so the new people around him still say 'great job'. I want to see how long it takes before the penny drops for his base.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

If Trump stood for universal healthcare we would probably discover the Democrats decided to vote against it.

[Howj Begg]

This sums it up really, I think.

People are crying out for many good things, healthcare, infrastructure investment, minimum wage increases, reigning in massive corporations who make billions in profit while profiting off underpaid labour. All of these are wildly popular programs that the Dems could run on and win comfortably on, but they won't, because they're terrified of losing the big money donations.

Change is happening across the board.  let's see what they do run on, yeah?

So instead they do the bare minimum of, er, promising to look into the very obviously shady shit that Trump is doing. We're not saying that they shouldn't do that, but fuck me, it's hardly inspiring, is it?

Did you read the story about the spreadsheet? You think moving forward with all that - at the only point they can, because they are currently in a minority in the House - is the bare minimum? What?

They already fucked the last election by saying "at least we're not the other guy"

The last thing I want to do is talk about the last election, or defend Clinton, but that's not what happened no, though it became increasingly about Trump, because of what he said and did - and had said and done  - because how could it be otherwise at that point? I agree Hilary was not good enough and didn't offer enough mind you.

[mojo filters]

That spreadsheet really does illustrate the moral bankruptcy and intellectual dishonesty of Trump enablers, like House committee chairmen Nunes, Goodlatte and Trey "3 fucking years & zero indictments for Benghazi" Gowdy!

[manticore]

Sorry that this an excerpt from the Jimmy Dore Show, but here is a former worker for the Sanders campaign talking about the institutional power of the Democrats to neutralise left of centre people who come into the party.

https://youtu.be/m-s8nvKlm54?t=771

[Twed]

https://twitter.com/Tim_Canova/status/1034093673452056576

Now THIS is awesome.

[Blue Jam]

MERRY CHRISTMAS:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45340275

Well, it will be a merry Christmas if you lose in November, Donny.