| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Iron Truth Walls do in fact work. The Wall that Israel built has cut down suicide bombings in by over 95%.
By itself a wall will not end our imagration problems but comined with a national Identity card that must be presented to get a job, vote and get government health care and other government services. BY using a National Identity Card it would allow the US to normalize the undocumented that are all ready here. We could even set up hiring centers in Central Mexico to get ID's for those who want to come to the US to work we could even build a railroad to bring them to the US or contract with a bus company to provide them safe transport to the US so they are not taken advantage by the Cartels.
Most undocumented workers have been here since 1995. How exactly does a wall prevent them from being here?
|
Most undocumented workers have been here since 1995. How exactly does a wall prevent them from being here?Iron Truth Walls do in fact work. The Wall that Israel built has cut down suicide bombings in by over 95%.
By itself a wall will not end our imagration problems but comined with a national Identity card that must be presented to get a job, vote and get government health care and other government services. BY using a National Identity Card it would allow the US to normalize the undocumented that are all ready here. We could even set up hiring centers in Central Mexico to get ID's for those who want to come to the US to work we could even build a railroad to bring them to the US or contract with a bus company to provide them safe transport to the US so they are not taken advantage by the Cartels.
Actually you will need new cheap illegals to build it
Hooray for employment. The New Deal Trump-style
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To say nothing of the laborers needed to dig underneath it.
Pfft, why bother digging? Ladders are a thing.
According to Pence at the debate it would reach a hundred feet in the air and patrolled by militias.
Really, now.
I think that's a little impractical, even if it was in sections and didn't cover the whole border.
Most undocumented workers have been here since 1995. How exactly does a wall prevent them from being here?Iron Truth Walls do in fact work. The Wall that Israel built has cut down suicide bombings in by over 95%.
By itself a wall will not end our imagration problems but comined with a national Identity card that must be presented to get a job, vote and get government health care and other government services. BY using a National Identity Card it would allow the US to normalize the undocumented that are all ready here. We could even set up hiring centers in Central Mexico to get ID's for those who want to come to the US to work we could even build a railroad to bring them to the US or contract with a bus company to provide them safe transport to the US so they are not taken advantage by the Cartels.
Actually you will need new cheap illegals to build it
Hooray for employment. The New Deal Trump-style
So in other words...this?
The Class Line in Elections Is the Principled Issue
In this series, Left Voice amplifies the voices of candidates who have undertaken the bold task of running as socialists. This time we interviewed presidential candidate for Socialist Action, Jeff Mackler.
Ummmmmmmmmm... Just a simple question... Mexico was going to be forced to build it, so aren't the new wall building jobs going to be in Mexico?
No, no, Mexico was going to be forced to pay for it.
Which is never gonna happen, of course, but that's what Trump claimed. Repeatedly. On camera. (...Which doesn't mean anything with him, but eh.)
Paraphrasing and taking liberties here (a lot of liberties)...
Trump: Its going to cost 4 billion...they say 10, but I know how to build walls, and if you are smart...4 billion...4 to 6 billion... 6 billion...maybe 8 billion...'bout 10 billion...10 to 12 billion.
Expert testimony and federal data: If you use the lowest figure, which is a 35 foot high wall, construction will cost *meticulous details*, adding up to 25 billion. Maintenance for 7 years will double that, and this isn't even including getting the property to build this wall on in the first place.
And, NYT on longtime Clinton aide-de-camp Cheryl Mills, Clinton Foundation relationships and sweatshops. Note: No smoking guns, just the usual imperialists-helping-companies-with-terrible-labor-records-exploit-the-Thir d-World.
Haiti and Africa Projects Shed Light on Clinton’s Public-Private Web
As an aside, something funny occurred to me recently.
If Trump fails to win the election and fails to burn down the world in the aftermath out of sheer spite, this whole thing might end up being a major boon for "far" left wing movements (American style "far" left wing i.e. about the same as the rest of the Western world). Let me run through my logic here.
A pretty significant chunk of Trump's base are...I am just going to go ahead and call them terrible people. I know that calling someone a terrible person is not something that should be done lightly, but I feel that Klan members, neo-nazis and sympathizers of similar movements manage to clear that hurdle pretty comfortably. Anyway, a pretty significant chunk of Trump's base are terrible people. People who aren't going to be satisfied unless they are voting for someone who promises them thinly veiled fascism (or naked fascism, they aren't picky). Any political movement that lines up any where near their part of the political spectrum is going to be seized and turned into the Trump Campaign 2.0. On the flip side, for any party that doesn't subscribe to enough right wing views, these people might as well not exist except as a pool of "bonus" voter for the other side, if such a side exists as a meaningful political entity (the GOP might very well never win another election if the elite can't take their party back).
In short, if your party is far away from these voters, you cannot appeal to them and should not appeal to them. They might as well not exist when you create your campaign platform. You can forget about trying to get their votes (because you won't), and go after more moderate and left wing voters instead. If your party even vaguely resembles the ideology of these people, your party will be co-opted and poisoned by the toxic fumes of ultra-right-wing fascism. In other words, the extreme right is likely to destroy any attempt at a more moderate right party. The only political entities who are likely to survive are ones with enough of a left wing leaning to keep these people away.
If the likes of Comrade Anklebiter manage to do their thing correctly, the next major American party might rise on the backs of the (hopefully) vast pool of potential votes that finds the current democratic political entity far too right wing for their tastes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the likes of Comrade Anklebiter manage to do their thing correctly, the next major American party might rise on the backs of the (hopefully) vast pool of potential votes that finds the current democratic political entity far too right wing for their tastes.
[Crosses fingers]
In short, if your party is far away from these voters, you cannot appeal to them and should not appeal to them. They might as well not exist when you create your campaign platform. You can forget about trying to get their votes (because you won't), and go after more moderate and left wing voters instead. If your party even vaguely resembles the ideology of these people, your party will be co-opted and poisoned by the toxic fumes of ultra-right-wing fascism.
I think this is overoptimistic for several reasons.
First, all parties attract negative elements. This, in and of itself, is not a problem unless the party actively embraces them. Normally, for example, Republicans will receive donations from active racist or fascist people and organizations, but this isn't ordinarily a problem; when this comes to light, the candidate will mouth appropriate platitudes, possibly return the donations, and publically state that, for example, the Grand Dragon of the KKK does not represent the candidate's view and is a reprehensible human being. the Democrats do the same thing on the other side. In this cycle, Trump is notable for NOT doing that (one of the many rules he broke that brought him the nomination but may cost him the general.)
Secondly, it's not clear that there are that many "far left" voters to win. The American population is actually pretty conservative by international standards and fairly centrist by its own (although that is changing somewhat). If a candidate runs to the left of the "silent majority" on a quest for Comrate Anklebiter's vote, she risks losing a much larger number of centrist votes.
From a tactical standpoint, Clinton is doing exactly the right thing, running what most people on this thread, even Clinton opponents, acknowledge to be to the right of her personal views. But because Trump is running so far to the right, she can steal moderate Republican voters as well as conservative Democrat voters. Against a more mainstream opponent (e.g., Mitt Romney) she wouldn't have that option, and the race would be much closer.
Speaking as a left-of-center but not extremist Democrat, I don't want Comrade Anklebiter's vote if the process of getting it cost us ten other votes in battleground states. The odds are too high that, instead of getting incremental progress towards things like addressing income inequality and civil rights for all, the entire election will swing the other way and the problems will be worsened. Failure due to overreach is a much more serious problem than partial success.
Speaking of chances... at the moment, 538 gives Clinton an 88% chance of winning, slightly below her peak of 89.2% on August 14th.
Yeah, I've been watching 538 pretty much every day since the post I called (some of) you a bunch of Chicken Littles and it looks to me like she's had it under lock for quite a while.
As far as my own neck of the woods goes, as I thought would happen, since Pussygate, the senatorial race in NH, according to 538, has swung from a slight lead for Kelly Ayotte* (R) to Maggie Hassan (D) leading 57.2% to 42.8%.
---
*Her latest ad features her intoning "I'm not perfect and neither is Trump." Not sure if she made tht pre- or post-Grabghazi, but it's funny nonetheless.
Speaking of chances... at the moment, 538 gives Clinton an 88% chance of winning, slightly below her peak of 89.2% on August 14th.Which model are you looking at? Polls-only?
Polls-only is at 88%, polls-plus is 84.9%.
In short, if your party is far away from these voters, you cannot appeal to them and should not appeal to them. They might as well not exist when you create your campaign platform. You can forget about trying to get their votes (because you won't), and go after more moderate and left wing voters instead. If your party even vaguely resembles the ideology of these people, your party will be co-opted and poisoned by the toxic fumes of ultra-right-wing fascism.I think this is overoptimistic for several reasons.
I would like to disagree with you there.
...
I'm not going to, but I would like to.
First, all parties attract negative elements. This, in and of itself, is not a problem unless the party actively embraces them. Normally, for example, Republicans will receive donations from active racist or fascist people and organizations, but this isn't ordinarily a problem; when this comes to light, the candidate will mouth appropriate platitudes, possibly return the donations, and publically state that, for example, the Grand Dragon of the KKK does not represent the candidate's view and is a reprehensible human being. the Democrats do the same thing on the other side. In this cycle, Trump is notable for NOT doing that (one of the many rules he broke that brought him the nomination but may cost him the general.)
I am not convinced that you can stuff this whole thing back in the bag and revert to the old ways. Donald Trump has shown the world that you can make it all the way to the elections for the presidency of the United States of America by saying insane things and blatantly courting to some of the worst people in America. The (semi)sane Republicans have to compete with &*%hats who are happy to (merely) get 40% of the country on their side. They have to beat people who are happy to sacrifice the election to win the primary, and they have to then go on and win the election. Oh, and they have to do all of this while the ultra-right is as emboldened as it has ever been. That is a real hurdle. I don't know if they can make it any time soon. I don't know if they can make it ever. They might, but I wouldn't put money on it.
Secondly, it's not clear that there are that many "far left" voters to win. The American population is actually pretty conservative by international standards and fairly centrist by its own (although that is changing somewhat). If a candidate runs to the left of the "silent majority" on a quest for Comrate Anklebiter's vote, she risks losing a much larger number of centrist votes.
Yeah, this is very much a valid concern. On the other hand, I would imagine (and hope) that Comrade Anklebiter will be willing to settle for a "merely" moderate party for a couple of election cycles. Shift that frame of political acceptability to the left a bit before really pushing it. A party that campaigns on the right issues and is just moderate enough to not alienate a large fraction of the normal voting base might make a name for itself, especially if competition from a hypothetical actually-left-wing party shifts the democrats to the right somewhat as a part of picking the bones of the GOP.
On the other hand, it might not happen. A lot needs to go right. But the GOP is creating an opportunity in its death throes. It's there. All that needs to happen is a little luck and for a whole bunch of people to put an enormous amount of effort in to seize the opportunity...did I say it might not happen?
From a tactical standpoint, Clinton is doing exactly the right thing, running what most people on this thread, even Clinton opponents, acknowledge to be to the right of her personal views. But because Trump is running so far to the right, she can steal moderate Republican voters as well as conservative Democrat voters. Against a more mainstream opponent (e.g., Mitt Romney) she wouldn't have that option, and the race would be much closer.
Oh, I don't deny that Clinton has done things smart. She hasn't been perfect, but she also hasn't made any serious blunders. Unlike her opponent...***sniggers***.
Speaking as a left-of-center but not extremist Democrat, I don't want Comrade Anklebiter's vote if the process of getting it cost us ten other votes in battleground states. The odds are too high that, instead of getting incremental progress towards things like addressing income inequality and civil rights for all, the entire election will swing the other way and the problems will be worsened. Failure due to overreach is a much more serious problem than partial success.
Yeah, this is totally reasonable - frankly, I don't see Comrade Anklebiter's political beliefs becoming acceptable in mainstream politics for a long time (if ever). I also don't expect the GOP to die off next month and for the Socialist-communist-marxist-pianist party to rise up and win an election any time soon. The GOP will probably be in the next election. There is just a serious chance that they won't be competing in the next election in any meaningful sense. Not if they elect a candidate anything like Trump again. From there, a lot of powerful people will have three options:
- Support the Democrats, and actually get serious benefits from their campaign donations.
- Throw good money onto a sinking, burning ship
- Pull out of the "buying campaigns" game
Many of them will take option 1, because most rich people aren't complete morons (everyone's favorite Oompa Loompa aside). The landscape of politics will hopefully start to slide left by quite a bit, especially if the ultra-right throws their weight around after being fired up by their herald, Donald Trump - it won't take too many armed milita protest getting "out of hand" in the worst possible sense to make the Right look completely toxic. It could take a couple of election cycles, but big change is a real possibility. "Mainstream" Democrats, now supported by these right wing backers who used to
Yeah, this is totally reasonable - frankly, I don't see Comrade Anklebiter's political beliefs becoming acceptable in mainstream politics for a long time (if ever).
I think the point of Revolutionary Socialism is that it is NOT supposed to be accepted by mainstream politics, but rather by the citizens, especially workers. Given that the majority of people "disapprove" of both candidates, and have approval rates in the teens for the legislative branch and federal government as a whole - I'm not sure what popular has to do with politics anymore. A candidate with a 52% "unfavorable" rating has a 90% chance of winning the election. For all our big willy talk, our country really sucks at the whole "democracy" thing.
If you want Socialism that is acceptable to the political mainstream, that would be Democratic Socialism. It is incredibly popular in the US, although most people don't like the term - "socialist". In the last 50 years, propaganda has falsely taught us that being a socialist is the same as being a Maoist or Stalinist. Only since Sanders has it become acceptable to be a socialist by the mainstream. I've talked to hundreds of people in NY and the mid-west, and Bernie Sanders was hands down the most popular candidate.
The million dollar question is where people with socialist values are going to go when it comes to voting. Socialist values are completely against the current leaders of the Democrat and Republican parties, so it remains to be seen how that is going to shake out, especially as the new generations of young voters replace the old.
EDIT:
On the other hand, I would imagine (and hope) that Comrade Anklebiter will be willing to settle for a "merely" moderate party for a couple of election cycles.
- Y'all aint frum round ere, are ye?
More seriously, I like that Comrade Anklebiter is the benchmark of Leftyism around here. High praise!
So, I was reading about Donald Trump's little echo chamber, and apparently some of his supporters are claiming Hillary had a "secret microphone" so people backstage could give her all the answers, and that's why she won the first debate.
Nevermind that she's an extremely experienced debater, publicly took time off to prepare for the debate, is self-described as a "policy wonk", and that Trump basically didn't prepare at all for it and has basically no ability to answer any question he's asked, eh?
And the whole drug thing, saying she was "worn down" at the end of the second debate? Maybe that was because, despite her impressive stamina, you'd just spent ninety minutes yelling over her and blaming her for anything and everything that had ever happened. o wo
I currently am working as an audio-video tech. I've seen at least 1 picture where they circled the device. It was the transmitter for the lapel microphone she was wearing. Trump had one too, which I believe was in his pocket. Since Hillary is a woman wearing clothes without pockets or a sturdy belt, the pack was clipped behind her at the waist and covered by her jacket. Women's clothing is absolutely terrible for audio techs, but we try hard to hide microphones and make them as unobtrusive as possible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Y'all aint frum round ere, are ye?
As a Texan (the kind of accent that normally accompanies that phrase), I'll have you know that not only do we not drop the "h" from words, we add h-extra.
This U.S. election season is vampirically eating the intelligence of every sentient on the planet. Exhibit A: NO! Pam Anderson (yes, of Baywatch) DID NOT murder Julian Assange with a vegan sandwich.
I am not convinced that you can stuff this whole thing back in the bag and revert to the old ways. Donald Trump has shown the world that you can make it all the way to the elections for the presidency of the United States of America by saying insane things and blatantly courting to some of the worst people in America. The (semi)sane Republicans have to compete with &*%hats who are happy to (merely) get 40% of the country on their side. They have to beat people who are happy to sacrifice the election to win the primary, and they have to then go on and win the election. Oh, and they have to do all of this while the ultra-right is as emboldened as it has ever been. That is a real hurdle. I don't know if they can make it any time soon. I don't know if they can make it ever. They might, but I wouldn't put money on it.
That's really up to the party, and more specifically, the rules committee.
They made a lot of rule changes in the wake of Romney's (unexpected) 2012 loss. Romney was basically in the position of someone with a strong plurality, but not an outright majority, and was weakened by the infighting that went more or less all the way up to the convention. So the rules were changed -- think, here, of generals re-fighting the last war -- to make it much easier for a nominee with a plurality to lock up a majority and prevent insurgents from being able to stop his candidacy.
... and then they got Trump. Who won almost entirely on the basis of the new rules, because he was exactly in Romney's position, and the rules did exactly what they were supposed to -- turned him into an unquestioned and unquestionable nominee.
I wrote upthread that the party elders were going to need to take control of the nomination process, and this is basically what I'm talking about. Yes, if the "(semi)sane Republicans have to compete with &*%hats," that will damage them and the Republican brand as well. But if the lunatic fringe aren't able to mount an effective campaign, then the same (semi)sane Republicans will be campaigning only against themselves -- and who would the fascists vote for, Clinton?
Extreme movements (both Far Right and Far Left) tap into the same wellspring of angry desperate people.
That sounds insightful, but isn't really true at all. You could argue that people being desperate pushes them to the extremes, but even that often is not true.
Yeah, this is totally reasonable - frankly, I don't see Comrade Anklebiter's political beliefs becoming acceptable in mainstream politics for a long time (if ever).I think the point of Revolutionary Socialism is that it is NOT supposed to be accepted by mainstream politics, but rather by the citizens, especially workers.
So what? If Comrade Anklebiter and Co. succeed at pulling of a revolution, they are just going to start gunning for a second revolution straight after?
Surely there is an endgame (a pie-in-the-sky one, but still) where their political views becomes politically acceptable? Otherwise that is implicit acknowledgement that they are forever doomed to failure. "I am a revolutionary because my beliefs will always be unacceptable in mainstream politics, presumably because I will never succeed at making my beliefs a part of the mainstream political landscape". It is a silly thing to think...but now that I think of it that would explain a few things about some revolutionary types...I don't know.
...
If you want Socialism that is acceptable to the political mainstream, that would be Democratic Socialism. It is incredibly popular in the US, although most people don't like the term - "socialist". In the last 50 years, propaganda has falsely taught us that being a socialist is the same as being a Maoist or Stalinist. Only since Sanders has it become acceptable to be a socialist by the mainstream. I've talked to hundreds of people in NY and the mid-west, and Bernie Sanders was hands down the most popular candidate.
The million dollar question is where people with socialist values are going to go when it comes to voting. Socialist values are completely against the current leaders of the Democrat and Republican parties, so it remains to be seen how that is going to shake out, especially as the new generations of young voters replace the old.
The views of the current leaders of the Democrats wouldn't matter nearly as much as they would like if Bernie Sanders (or someone similar to Bernie Sanders) managed to pull a Trump and hijack the Democratic party for their own ends. That would make the Democrats a snap pick for Socialist leaning voters. Besides, who else are they going to vote for? It's Sanders, Fascism, {insert waste of ballot paper space here} or stay home.
As an aside, what are the voting demographics like for younger Americans? Do they tend to have a Democratic leaning or what? I would have assumed that was the case, but I don't have a factual basis for that assumption.
...
On the other hand, I would imagine (and hope) that Comrade Anklebiter will be willing to settle for a "merely" moderate party for a couple of election cycles.- Y'all aint frum round ere, are ye?
More seriously, I like that Comrade Anklebiter is the benchmark of Leftyism around here. High praise!
When I say "settle", I mean "grudgingly ticking the box for a cycle or two just so that America can have a vaguely socialist President for the first time in forever (while kvetching about it to no end), before dropping the "moderate" for Redder pastures". Actually, would C.A. have voted for Sanders? Because a Sandersesque candidate is roughly along the lines of what I am thinking of when I say "vaguely socialist".
I take your point though. Maybe I am hoping for too much when I ask revolutionaries to work in small steps and give the system they hate a slow death by 1000 cuts, instead of trying to bring the whole thing tumbling down pronto, ignorant of the fact that great changes in the political landscape are almost always at the beginning or at the end of social upheaval, frequently with a lot of bloodshed involved.
...
In other news, how about them ultra-GOP militia campouts, eh?
I am not convinced that you can stuff this whole thing back in the bag and revert to the old ways. Donald Trump has shown the world that you can make it all the way to the elections for the presidency of the United States of America by saying insane things and blatantly courting to some of the worst people in America. The (semi)sane Republicans have to compete with &*%hats who are happy to (merely) get 40% of the country on their side. They have to beat people who are happy to sacrifice the election to win the primary, and they have to then go on and win the election. Oh, and they have to do all of this while the ultra-right is as emboldened as it has ever been. That is a real hurdle. I don't know if they can make it any time soon. I don't know if they can make it ever. They might, but I wouldn't put money on it.That's really up to the party, and more specifically, the rules committee.
They made a lot of rule changes in the wake of Romney's (unexpected) 2012 loss. Romney was basically in the position of someone with a strong plurality, but not an outright majority, and was weakened by the infighting that went more or less all the way up to the convention. So the rules were changed -- think, here, of generals re-fighting the last war -- to make it much easier for a nominee with a plurality to lock up a majority and prevent insurgents from being able to stop his candidacy.
... and then they got Trump. Who won almost entirely on the basis of the new rules, because he was exactly in Romney's position, and the rules did exactly what they were supposed to -- turned him into an unquestioned and unquestionable nominee.
I wrote upthread that the party elders were going to need to take control of the nomination process, and this is basically what I'm talking about. Yes, if the "(semi)sane Republicans have to compete with &*%hats," that will damage them and the Republican brand as well. But if the lunatic fringe aren't able to mount an effective campaign, then the same (semi)sane Republicans will be campaigning only against themselves -- and who would the fascists vote for, Clinton?
I have to ask - what would have the GOP nomination process looked like if the rules weren't changed from 2012. What would have happened if Trump had decided to keep causing problems for the GOP for as long as humanly possible out of a desire for attention and out of sheer spite? Would the GOP be looking pretty, or would they not?
Here's another question - how do you essentially trick a large chunk of your voter base into voting for you when you change the rules to prevent them from ever having an effective say in the party? Bear in mind that it would be entirely in the character of someone like Trump to blame the party rules for their loss (which is kind of true) and poison the GOP's relation with the ultra-right voter. A "Trump" candidate would be doing at the nominations what he is doing now at the election. Especially given that some of these voters seem happy to burn down the GOP if they don't get their way, and a Trump candidate would be happy to fuel the fire if they thought it would be in their interests to do so.
Post removed by Fergie, so as not to create extra work for the moderators.
because the the ticket meant $$$This skips all that "ticket" nonsense. To get a ticket means you've been charged with a crime. You may or may not be guilty and thus may (or may not) have to pay the fine.
Civil Forfeiture skips all that and just grabs what you have. They can take your cash, any of your belongings, your car, your house. All they have to do is stop you.
They don't even have to give you a ticket, just take your stuff. Even if you're not found guilty they get to keep your stuff. Even if they never charge you with anything they get to keep your stuff.
Because as this darkly funny and informative video from John Oliver relates, charges aren't made against you, but against your stuff. And in that case, by law, the presumption IS guilty until proven innocent.
@Snowblind: According to the Pew Research Center, Millennials are primarily independent but lean Democrat, and are the largest Democrat cohort.
|
|
Extreme movements (both Far Right and Far Left) tap into the same wellspring of angry desperate people.That sounds insightful, but isn't really true at all. You could argue that people being desperate pushes them to the extremes, but even that often is not true.
In France the Extreme Right party basically stole the proletariat's votes from the ruins of the Communist party to fuel their recent growth. They very strongly avocate championing the little people, the working class against the cosmopolitan Establishment
Sounds familiar ?
I have to ask - what would have the GOP nomination process looked like if the rules weren't changed from 2012. What would have happened if Trump had decided to keep causing problems for the GOP for as long as humanly possible out of a desire for attention and out of sheer spite? Would the GOP be looking pretty, or would they not?
I think they would have looked more pretty. One of the big issues was that a lot of the states in 2012 had awarded their delegates proportionately; if you got 30% of the votes, you got 30% of the delegates. (This is how, by rule, all Democratic primaries happen.) This was changed for 2016 for a lot of states into a winner-take-all rule, so if you get 25% of the vote, but no one else gets more than 20%, you automatically get 100% of the delegates.
Absent that change, Trump would have received a plurality of votes in the early contests, but not necessarily enough to make the more mainstream candidates drop out, and would have rolled into the national convention with roughly 40% of the votes, perhaps less.
Given how poor his campaign is/was at horsetrading, he then would have lost first round of ballots convincingly, 40% to 60%. At this point, the grownups in the room would have started striking bargains, and Ted Cruz would probably have ended up playing kingmaker between Rubio and Bush.
Here's another question - how do you essentially trick a large chunk of your voter base into voting for you when you change the rules to prevent them from ever having an effective say in the party?
Give them something shiny to distract them, like gay marriage or abortion-on-demand. The Republicans have been doing that for years.
So what? If Comrade Anklebiter and Co. succeed at pulling of a revolution, they are just going to start gunning for a second revolution straight after?
I should probably let my dear Comrade speak for himself, but...
I was merely pointing out that Revolutionary Socialism specifically seeks to overthrow the current system, not co-opt it or slowly reform it."More specifically, it is the view that revolution is a necessary precondition for a transition from capitalism to socialism. Revolution is not necessarily defined as a violent insurrection; it is defined as seizure of political power by mass movements of the working class so that the state is directly controlled by the working class as opposed to the capitalist class and its interests.[1] Revolutionary socialists believe such a state of affairs is a precondition for establishing socialism."
...
"Revolutionary socialism also exists in contrast to the concept of small revolutionary groups seizing power without first achieving mass support, termed Blanquism."
Once you have the revolution part, then you can implement a variety of different types of Socialism. I'm partial to a Democracy at Work type of Socialism. I will allow Anklebiter to fill you in on his specific beliefs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Extreme movements (both Far Right and Far Left) tap into the same wellspring of angry desperate people.That sounds insightful, but isn't really true at all. You could argue that people being desperate pushes them to the extremes, but even that often is not true.In France the Extreme Right party basically stole the proletariat's votes from the ruins of the Communist party to fuel their recent growth. They very strongly avocate championing the little people, the working class against the cosmopolitan Establishment
The classic example is, of course, the use of the word "Socialist" (a left-wing term) to describe what may be the single most recognizable right-wing party in history, Germany's National Socialist (Nazi) party. Note that the Nazis never actually incorporated traditional aspects of "socialist" politics, such as workers' control over production.
The idea is that by calling themselves "socialist," they would expand their appeal among the disaffected. It seemed to work.
I am not convinced that you can stuff this whole thing back in the bag and revert to the old ways. Donald Trump has shown the world that you can make it all the way to the elections for the presidency of the United States of America by saying insane things and blatantly courting to some of the worst people in America. The (semi)sane Republicans have to compete with &*%hats who are happy to (merely) get 40% of the country on their side. They have to beat people who are happy to sacrifice the election to win the primary, and they have to then go on and win the election. Oh, and they have to do all of this while the ultra-right is as emboldened as it has ever been. That is a real hurdle. I don't know if they can make it any time soon. I don't know if they can make it ever. They might, but I wouldn't put money on it.
Trump has gone as far as he has because there is a strong Authoritianism element in the American electorate. As this study shows Trump isn't so much a new element but is simply the person who has tapped into it more succesfully than ever before. And it's not going away after he loses, and presumably we're not in violent civil war the day after Election Day. The movement behind Trump will remain even after his candidacy becomes a footnote. And odds are that in 2020, we'll be facing an even nastier replacement.
The real question is where will the movement go? IF it continues to grow, we may see an authoritarian wave drown our democratic institutions.
Because that's always been the danger of democracy... that one day the people will vote in a dictator.
Given that the majority of people "disapprove" of both candidates, and have approval rates in the teens for the legislative branch and federal government as a whole - I'm not sure what popular has to do with politics anymore. A candidate with a 52% "unfavorable" rating has a 90% chance of winning the election. For all our big willy talk, our country really sucks at the whole "democracy" thing.
Honestly 52% isn't bad given that various divides across our country right now, and the fact that Hillary has been a punching bag in the media for 30 years. You act as if the 52% would magically disappear if Bernie or a similar candidate was running, but given the percentage of the population that are diehard republican voters...you would still have at most a 60% favorable rating for Bernie Sanders. It's pretty much impossible to find a candidate that will make all the various segments of the population happy.
EDIT: ^^^ MMCJawa ^^^
Please note that the 52% is not approval rating, it is DISAPPROVAL rating. Trump is at something like 60% I think these are pathetic numbers for a so called democracy.
I think Clinton's approval rate is somewhere in the 40-45% range, and Trumps is somewhere around 30-35%. People know these candidates well, it isn't some media bias. The majority of people don't approve of either candidate.
They very strongly avocate championing the little people, the working class against the cosmopolitan Establishment
Sounds familiar ?
Sounds like virtually every single US Politician from Reagan to Clinton & Trump.
It is my understanding that terms like Populist and "Far Left" might be a little different in the US then they are in Europe and probably the rest of the world. I think the most "Far Left" candidate in national politics was probably... uh... FDR? Carter? I honestly can't think of anyone.
For example, "Americas #1 Populist" is Jim Hightower.
Europe's most prominent populist is probably Marine Le Pen.
VERY VERY different!
Sounds like virtually every single US Politician from Reagan to Clinton & Trump.They very strongly avocate championing the little people, the working class against the cosmopolitan Establishment
Sounds familiar ?
Yes, that's because empty rhetoric is an easy way to win votes from the disaffected.
It's very easy to advocate something. It's much harder to make it into policy, especially if you don't actually want to. But there are a number of idiots out there who are very strongly into "revolutionary change" and don't actually care much what the change is, because their expectation is that any change at all will be for the better.
It may make sense in Scrabble, where you can throw your hand in and hope for seven new tiles. It makes less sense in an American election, because, frankly, almost everyone in the United States has it pretty good by world standards.
|
Please note that the 52% is not approval rating, it is DISAPPROVAL rating. Trump is at something like 60% I think these are pathetic numbers for a so called democracy.
I think Clinton's approval rate is somewhere in the 40-45% range, and Trumps is somewhere around 30-35%. People know these candidates well, it isn't some media bias. The majority of people don't approve of either candidate.
What do you think the implications are of the racial breakdown between approval/disapproval ratings of the candidates?
Specifically, a majority of minority respondents rated Clinton favorably, but white respondents put her over 50% disapproval.
BUT, it is dangerous to someone like me. There is something called white privilege. I'd say there is something else that I would call non-Asian or non-Arabic privilege. I've repeatedly stated, much to many who mock me, that Asians are the most discriminated race in the US today. People don't realize that because the same reason whites don't realize white privilege.How many unarmed Asians have been shot by police? Or hanged by Klansman? Is there discrimination against Asians, hell yes. But if you're going to argue a competition about who gets s*+#-canned the most, you'll need to come up with some statistics.
ALOT more than you would think.
Did you know, that an Asian can be kicked off a plane simply for looking like...an Asian.
Did you know, and Asian can be put on a no fly list because people are afraid of what they look like before they board a plane!?
And that's just those from South West Asia.
Did you know, less than 100 years ago, there was an attempt to put everyone of Japanese descent (including citizens) into internment camps like the Nazi's did to the Jews? That's even MORE recent than slavery for African Americans. They didn't have gas chambers, but a majority of the Nazi camps didn't either.
Do you know how many of those Japanese Americans died there?
Did you know that until 17 years ago in some states it was ILLEGAL for an Asian (of any sort) to own land?
Did you know that up to the beginning of the 20th century in some states it was ILLEGAL for an asian to marry someone of another race?
Luckily, most of those laws were not enforced, and were tossed out AFTER lawsuits came up around the turn of the century trying to enforce them.
However, they were there, and people did try to enforce them.
Did you know that in my town, even if I'm in the right, I will lose a lawsuit if I'm not white. There aren't that many Blacks here, which leaves the NON-White hispanics (if you are a white instead of mestizo or other background, it's different) and those like me.
That is today, currently, not yesterday or last year or last decade or last century.
Did you know, that East Asians are targetted specifically for theft, murder and other activities in Southern California right now? That when that happens, normally their cases are NOT pursued? (as opposed to the whites, blacks, and others...which is probably WHY the Asians are targetted). How many of those deaths do you want counted...they aren't by the Klan, and they aren't just done by whites, they are by Blacks as well.
Did you know that several of the Republican Candidates, targetted at stopping immigration from Asia. Did you know it that the desire to stop any child being born in the US being a citizen as from those candidates was NOT the hispanic children, but the Asians (which Jeb Bush had to make absolutely clear...his wife is hispanic and he had to make clear it was NOT to restict Hispanics...but specifically asians). Did you know those same candidates had proposals of laws specifically targetting the legalization of out and out blatant racism towards Asians?
Did you know it's common to walk down many streets in major cities in the US and be harrassed with very UNACCEPTABLE terms if you are Asian and no one blinks an eye. No one even cares...except for the other Asians. That it is acceptable to call Asians all sorts of slanderous names in public...things which no one could do towards almost any other race (though it also happens to Hispanics as well) and be socially acceptable?
Did you know it was legal to discriminate against Asians Americans in College applications. It's so bad that many Asians choose not to indicate that they ARE Asian simply because it can be a one way ticket to not getting accepted to that college!
Did you know it was legal to discriminate against Asians in Housing and they are NOT protected by AA or any other measure in regards to employment? That unlike a Black, or Hispanic, and Asian can actually simply be fired because they are Asian in most states (AA and other laws that protect Blacks and other minorities do NOT protect Asians...the only recourse is utilizing the same laws that would protect a white person from discrimination...and you know how successful using those laws are....)?
Most people who are not from Asia (and that can be South West Asia, as with an Arabic Background...or East Asian) do not even realize this racism exists. A lot of what I pointed above deals with SouthWest and South East Asians...but some of it applies to all of them.
However, I'll stop on that note as the JEFF asked me NOT to continue such discussions in this thread.
Just because you are privileged not be born so that you don't deal with this type of discrimination, does NOT mean others are so lucky.
What do you think the implications are of the racial breakdown between approval/disapproval ratings of the candidates?
Specifically, a majority of minority respondents rated Clinton favorably, but white respondents put her over 50% disapproval.
I'm a white guy from a white town in a fairly white, or at least segregated state. If you want the minority view, ask Cornel West, Kshama Sawant, or Tavis Smiley, not me.
I would say that many, many white people are racist. This is true for all income brackets and regions. Racism has been driving democratic and republican politics for decades. The "war on drugs", and "getting tough on crime" are just dog whistles for throwing black and brown people in jail. I give the democrats credit for adopting a more inclusive public approach among us citizens since around 2000, while the republicans have done the opposite. Both parties love to turn the screws on immigrants, and bomb black and brown people overseas. I don't think either party has minority voters interests in the policy they accomplish, but democrats reach out to minorities and unions and other traditional "Democrat" groups when they need votes, while republicans attack them consistently.
My main impression is that most voters are voting against the other candidate, not for their candidate.
Finally, I think religion generally plays a larger roll in how minorities vote, so that is two things that I'm not really qualified to speak about.
Paraphrasing and taking liberties here (a lot of liberties)...
Trump: Its going to cost 4 billion...they say 10, but I know how to build walls, and if you are smart...4 billion...4 to 6 billion... 6 billion...maybe 8 billion...'bout 10 billion...10 to 12 billion.
Expert testimony and federal data: If you use the lowest figure, which is a 35 foot high wall, construction will cost *meticulous details*, adding up to 25 billion. Maintenance for 7 years will double that, and this isn't even including getting the property to build this wall on in the first place.
Far more effective than walls are towers and machine gun nests. Even North Korea doesn't have a specific Wall it's entire border. It has a fence, a mine field, and lots of people with guns.
Probably be far more effective simply to put towers with machine gun nexts every mile to two miles. Add in a minefield and you'd have illegals going the same way they do on the Korean border. It probably would cut down a LOT more than a wall would.
Of course, you'd have to live with the thousands of deaths you caused (especially for the first one or two years) as you'd probably kill a lot of people.
The question would be how many would be Americans simply crossing over the Mexico/US border to other way as well?
Other thoughts, the most memorable wall along the border is the One China built...it's pretty well known. How well did that do to stopping invasions?
Also, if the US built a wall, would it be visible from Space. I think it would be longer then the Great Wall of China...though I'm not positive on that aspect.
Paraphrasing and taking liberties here (a lot of liberties)...
Trump: Its going to cost 4 billion...they say 10, but I know how to build walls, and if you are smart...4 billion...4 to 6 billion... 6 billion...maybe 8 billion...'bout 10 billion...10 to 12 billion.
Expert testimony and federal data: If you use the lowest figure, which is a 35 foot high wall, construction will cost *meticulous details*, adding up to 25 billion. Maintenance for 7 years will double that, and this isn't even including getting the property to build this wall on in the first place.
Far more effective than walls are towers and machine gun nests. Even North Korea doesn't have a specific Wall it's entire border. It has a fence, a mine field, and lots of people with guns.
Probably be far more effective simply to put towers with machine gun nexts every mile to two miles. Add in a minefield and you'd have illegals going the same way they do on the Korean border. It probably would cut down a LOT more than a wall would.
Of course, you'd have to live with the thousands of deaths you caused (especially for the first one or two years) as you'd probably kill a lot of people.
The question would be how many would be Americans simply crossing over the Mexico/US border to other way as well?
I'm sure all the ranchers in Texas along the boarder would love to be playing Unexploded Cow