American Politics VIII: Dancin' with Manchin

[Punished UMN]

Dude, there’s a lot more going on than one Republican Governor. Remember Curtis Sliwa of the Guardian Angels? He recently ran for Mayor of NYC on a platform indicating openness to a UBI. Little by little, Republicans are reaching out to working class voters abandoned by Democrats.

When Mussolini was freed from captivity by the Nazis and put in charge of the Italian Social Republic he changed his rhetoric to be more class-conscious in order to appeal to the rising Socialist bloc in Italy, claiming that "true Fascism" was rooted in class struggle and other Left-wing concepts. He hoped to turn the Socialist partisans against the Western Allies by appealing to their anti-Capitalism.

That, much like Republicans' attempts to appeal to the working class they've been stepping on for the past 40 years, was an act of desperation by a dying ideology. It failed before and it will fail again. The Democrats may have long ago abandoned the working class but that doesn't mean class conscious voters will instead turn to the GOP, which has proven time and again that it hates the working class and wants us to suffer. The answer to the Dems' apathy is not the GOP's deceptions but the total exodus from both parties en masse by working class Americans until only the wealthy and privileged remain. With so few voters the parties won't be able to survive and will fade into irrelevancy and minority while new parties can take their place, preferably ones based on Socialist principles.

I'm not particularly an expert on the Italian front, but I think you have it essentially backward. Mussolini prior to the Second World War, used class-conscious rhetoric quite a bit and deliberately attempted to be appealing to the left, it was after the war started and as Mussolini became more dependent on Hitler that his rhetoric became more and more anti-communist because he depended on the arch-anticommunist.

[The Jamesian Republic]

I thought Libertarians and Progressives didn’t like each other?

I apparently fit into both.

That’s interesting.

[Maineiacs]

Which raises the question of what meaningful things Trump offered.

Jobs.

That was something the Democrats couldn't offer, the best they could offer the growing unemployed Blue Collar Voter was more government support due to the fact of the matter that most of their jobs were gone either due to automation or offshoring.

Trump was able to lie to their face and said "I'll bring the jobs back."

And they have yet to figure out that he didn't.

[The Lone Alliance]

And they have yet to figure out that he didn't.

Some did, that's why he lost Michigan and Wisconsin.

[Caleonia]

I apparently fit into both.

That’s interesting.

Yeah it’s odd I know. Rehabilitative justice and scientific advancement are the way to go for me.

And they have yet to figure out that he didn't.

Some did, that's why he lost Michigan and Wisconsin.

My border states are typically smarter than my state. Then again, Lansing and Detroit typically decide who win Michigan as there is a huge rural community that leans Republican up there. I know this from personal experience living on the Indiana-Michigan border.

[The Jamesian Republic]

That’s interesting.

Yeah it’s odd I know. Rehabilitative justice and scientific advancement are the way to go for me.

Some did, that's why he lost Michigan and Wisconsin.

My border states are typically smarter than my state. Then again, Lansing and Detroit typically decide who win Michigan as there is a huge rural community that leans Republican up there. I know this from personal experience living on the Indiana-Michigan border.

Me too.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

Most of the base did 'like' Tim Kaine in that they were OK with him. Opposition was limited to progressives who probably wouldn't have been satisfied even if Hillary had gone for a staunchly progressive pick.

But with Pence there was no opposition among the base. That's what makes Pence safe and Kaine risky. You're taking a risk by assuming you won't lose any votes from picking a guy no one likes (being OK with someone is not the same thing as liking them).

Sanders' problems with Democrats would be far more wide-reaching than just Hillary supporters not voting for him. He was the candidate of a movement, an emerging (re-emerging) strain of thought within the Democratic Party. He had an activist base, outside of the conservatives who voted for him as a protest, while Hillary didn't. And there was no way Hillary would've been the one to solve his absolutely abysmal 2016 outreach to minorities, which ultimately would've doomed him regardless of how many establishment liberals were begrudgingly won over.

And Hillary's problems were far more wide-reaching than just Sanders supporters not voting for her. She was the candidate of the establishment, the dominant strain of thought within both parties that had screwed over the voters she needed for decades. But you refuse to analyze any of Hillary's weaknesses and instead focus solely on Bernie.

I doubt she would've worked for him anyway, she didn't really for Obama in 2008, and after losing to activist candidates who would ultimately spell disaster for Democrats (Obama took two years, Sanders would've taken a few months) can/could you really blame her. Someone like Jeb Bush would've made mincemeat of him among Latinos. Forget Bush 2004 numbers, he would've won them outright.

You wouldn't blame Hillary for doing the exact same thing you're accusing Bernie of doing, because... Bernie's bad for the party? Does this mean I don't have to vote blue no matter who anymore?

You didn't though, not really.

I gave you an example of voters caring about something that had happened more than 4 years ago. Which means the fact that millions of them had voted for Obama is not irrelevant.

No VP wasn't going to be controversial. Any progressive - and honestly I have a hard time actually describing Sanders supporters as progressives per se, given that most of them seemed to be supporting him out of material concerns (college) or just a dislike of the Democratic establishment - who agreed to be Hillary's VP would've been instantly called a traitor by a good number of Sanders supporters.

It's a fact that if Bernie's supporters had voted for her, she would've won.

Green votes

Michigan 2012 0.46%, 2016 1.07% (+0.61 pp). Trump wins the state 47.25% to 47.03%. 47.03 + 0.61 = 47.64
Pennsylvania 2012 0.37%, 2016 0.81% (+0.44 pp). Trump wins the state 48.18% to 47.46%. 47.46 + 0.44 = 47.90
Wisconsin 2012 0.25%, 2016 1.04% (+0.79 pp). Trump wins the state 47.22% to 46.45%. 46.45 + 0.79 = 47.24

And that's before we get into Sanders supporters who protest voted for Gary Johnson instead, let alone Trump himself.

Hillary's support was of an entirely different nature to Bernie's support.

... and? I'm really not getting your point.

[Maricarland]

Which raises the question of what meaningful things Trump offered.

Jobs.

That was something the Democrats couldn't offer, the best they could offer the growing unemployed Blue Collar Voter was more government support due to the fact of the matter that most of their jobs were gone either due to automation or offshoring.

Trump was able to lie to their face and said "I'll bring the jobs back."

That's one thing I've come to see about a lot of the Blue Collar vote, part of their happiness is the sense of accomplishment of having a job, to them that's what separates them from the others in their economic class.

That is an unhealthy way of looking at society. Trying to have any kind of status so you are set apart or made better than others that you can then look down upon. No human being is any better or worse than any other human being.

Democrats, however could offer jobs by providing a federal job guarantee doing useful and customized work, or any job program (like the green new deal) even if it is not a job guarantee, or by having a public bank fund the creation of cooperatives (and I suppose other small businesses too), or by giving people ownership over automation if automation is going to replace a large amount of their jobs and labor in our economy.

[American Salvation]

No human being is any better or worse than any other human being.

Well, we both know that isn't true.

[Umeria]

No VP wasn't going to be controversial. Any progressive - and honestly I have a hard time actually describing Sanders supporters as progressives per se, given that most of them seemed to be supporting him out of material concerns (college) or just a dislike of the Democratic establishment - who agreed to be Hillary's VP would've been instantly called a traitor by a good number of Sanders supporters.

This is not a binary "progressives vote for you" versus "progressives don't vote for you". Picking a progressive VP would have gotten her more support from progressives, and moderate support wouldn't change much as Hillary herself is a moderate. Of course there are some progressives who would never vote Democrat, but that's not who we're talking about.

It's a fact that if Bernie's supporters had voted for her, she would've won.

Green votes

Putting aside the fact that not every Green voter supported Sanders, this analysis only works if you keep every other variable constant. What about Libertarian voters? Gary Johnson got more votes than Jill Stein in all three of those states. If you give all the Green votes to Clinton, you also have to give all the Libertarian votes to Trump, which means he wins by an even larger margin.

Hillary's support was of an entirely different nature to Bernie's support.

You didn't answer my question. If it's okay for Hillary to not support "candidates who would ultimately spell disaster for Democrats", can I do the same? Am I free from the vote blue no matter who rule?

... and? I'm really not getting your point.

My point was that the people who voted for Obama in 2012 and then Trump are Obama supporters who didn't back Clinton, and therefore Obama deserves as much of the blame under your analysis as Sanders.

[-Astoria-]

No human being is any better or worse than any other human being.

Well, we both know that isn't true.

Presumably they meant that in the "no one is born evil" sense.

[Lady Victory]

When Mussolini was freed from captivity by the Nazis and put in charge of the Italian Social Republic he changed his rhetoric to be more class-conscious in order to appeal to the rising Socialist bloc in Italy, claiming that "true Fascism" was rooted in class struggle and other Left-wing concepts. He hoped to turn the Socialist partisans against the Western Allies by appealing to their anti-Capitalism.

That, much like Republicans' attempts to appeal to the working class they've been stepping on for the past 40 years, was an act of desperation by a dying ideology. It failed before and it will fail again. The Democrats may have long ago abandoned the working class but that doesn't mean class conscious voters will instead turn to the GOP, which has proven time and again that it hates the working class and wants us to suffer. The answer to the Dems' apathy is not the GOP's deceptions but the total exodus from both parties en masse by working class Americans until only the wealthy and privileged remain. With so few voters the parties won't be able to survive and will fade into irrelevancy and minority while new parties can take their place, preferably ones based on Socialist principles.

I'm not particularly an expert on the Italian front, but I think you have it essentially backward. Mussolini prior to the Second World War, used class-conscious rhetoric quite a bit and deliberately attempted to be appealing to the left, it was after the war started and as Mussolini became more dependent on Hitler that his rhetoric became more and more anti-communist because he depended on the arch-anticommunist.

I don't have it backwards at all. Early Fascist rhetoric was similar to that of Socialist rhetoric, yes. Mussolini, after all, was a Socialist at one point. He did change his rhetoric to be more reactionary/conservative when he grew closer to Hitler and the Nazis at the outbreak of WWII.

But after he was arrested and then rescued by the Nazis and the ISR was set up, he returned to using Socialist rhetoric in a desperate attempt to appeal to Italian Leftists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Social_Republic#Economy_and_war_effort

[American Salvation]

Well, we both know that isn't true.

Presumably they meant that in the "no one is born evil" sense.

It didn't sound like that. It sounded like he was saying all humans are equal.

A lot of people i know are very amoral people, whereas i am of good moral character.

[Senkaku]

Btw how are the scolds who were berating people for calling January 6th a coup attempt feeling now that the PowerPoint outlining the plan to literally declare a national emergency and seize control of the government is publicly available? Still feeling good? Still want to try and quibble that it was just a disorganized, spontaneous event? (I’m assuming now it’ll just be waiting in silence till 2024 when it goes off for real and then gloating, but feel free to prove me wrong)

[Maineiacs]

And they have yet to figure out that he didn't.

Some did, that's why he lost Michigan and Wisconsin.

Good point.

[American Salvation]

Btw how are the scolds who were berating people for calling January 6th a coup attempt feeling now that the PowerPoint outlining the plan to literally declare a national emergency and seize control of the government is publicly available? Still feeling good? Still want to try and quibble that it was just a disorganized, spontaneous event? (I’m assuming now it’ll just be waiting in silence till 2024 when it goes off for real and then gloating, but feel free to prove me wrong)

So what, you think every single person who was part of the mob that stormed the capitol had been in briefings regarding this powerpoint?

Plans being drawn up to a coup do not actually equate to a coup or attempted coup. They equate for the plans of one.

[San Lumen]

Btw how are the scolds who were berating people for calling January 6th a coup attempt feeling now that the PowerPoint outlining the plan to literally declare a national emergency and seize control of the government is publicly available? Still feeling good? Still want to try and quibble that it was just a disorganized, spontaneous event? (I’m assuming now it’ll just be waiting in silence till 2024 when it goes off for real and then gloating, but feel free to prove me wrong)

So what, you think every single person who was part of the mob that stormed the capitol had been in briefings regarding this powerpoint?

Plans being drawn up to a coup do not actually equate to a coup or attempted coup. They equate for the plans of one.

Anyone who participated in any way is guilty of inciting an insurrection.

[American Salvation]

Anyone who participated in any way is guilty of inciting an insurrection.

I'd say the same about the BLM/Antifa rioters.

Whilst they did spend most of the time looting stores, burning police cars and burning down restaurants, they also attacked some federal buildings too. That could probably fall under the term "insurrection".

[Maineiacs]

Btw how are the scolds who were berating people for calling January 6th a coup attempt feeling now that the PowerPoint outlining the plan to literally declare a national emergency and seize control of the government is publicly available? Still feeling good? Still want to try and quibble that it was just a disorganized, spontaneous event? (I’m assuming now it’ll just be waiting in silence till 2024 when it goes off for real and then gloating, but feel free to prove me wrong)

So what, you think every single person who was part of the mob that stormed the capitol had been in briefings regarding this powerpoint?

Plans being drawn up to a coup do not actually equate to a coup or attempted coup. They equate for the plans of one.

I sincerely hope I misunderstood you. Are you actually suggesting it's alright to plot a coup so long as you don't actively participate?

[Diahon]

So what, you think every single person who was part of the mob that stormed the capitol had been in briefings regarding this powerpoint?

Plans being drawn up to a coup do not actually equate to a coup or attempted coup. They equate for the plans of one.

I sincerely hope I misunderstood you. Are you actually suggesting it's alright to plot a coup so long as you don't actively participate?

ex parte bollman says so

the treason clause of the us constitution is unfortunately really strict

[Kowani]

Washington would have hated both parties equally.
He would have hated how imperialistic the US became.

Correct on both counts. He hated political parties

not really
wahington was a strident federalist partisan, he just avoided actually joining the party and put a few anti-federalists in his cabinet (who he then ignored) because his wartime experience taught him the value of propaganda

Separately, the Supreme Court dismisses as improvidently granted the Justice Department's challenge to S.B. 8 on behalf of the United States (8-1)
Dissent: Sotomayor

a pyrrhic victory in legalese

wow

it's not a victory at all

[American Salvation]

I sincerely hope I misunderstood you. Are you actually suggesting it's alright to plot a coup so long as you don't actively participate?

The long and short of what i said is this;

Planning a coup is not a coup.

It's just planning one.

[Diahon]

it's a victory in the sense that people can still sue

a pyrrhic one in that judicial review will be closed off very shortly, and state laws copying texas' own will be in line for passage in short order

i must admire the cleverness in gaming procedurals, if nothing else -- gutting roe without overturning it

[Maricarland]

Presumably they meant that in the "no one is born evil" sense.

It didn't sound like that. It sounded like he was saying all humans are equal.

A lot of people i know are very amoral people, whereas i am of good moral character.

Every human being is capable of the worst sins of humanity and of being the devil at any point in their lives (you never know when something will go wrong in someone's mind or what will cause it), and every human being is capable of the best of humanity and of being a saint, every human being is capable of falling and every human being is capable of redemption.

Every human being is equal regardless of their ability or willingness to work.

Elon Musk is not better than any other human being just because he is wealthy. The office worker is not any worse than Elon Musk, nor are they any better than the unemployed homeless immigrant.

P.S. I do not believe in free will, and I do not believe that human nature is good or evil. I believe human nature is neutral and extremely adaptable to the environment it finds itself in, and humans become more greedy and selfish and hateful when systems like capitalism rewards that behavior, teaches that behavior, and punishes deviance from that behavior.

[Lady Victory]

So what, you think every single person who was part of the mob that stormed the capitol had been in briefings regarding this powerpoint?

Plans being drawn up to a coup do not actually equate to a coup or attempted coup. They equate for the plans of one.

I sincerely hope I misunderstood you. Are you actually suggesting it's alright to plot a coup so long as you don't actively participate?

There's nothing necessarily wrong with plotting a coup. The 'wrongness' of it comes from the ideology and intentions of the coup plotters.

For example, the Jan. 6th terrorists wanted to install Donald Trump as a dictator. This is bad because Trump is a bigoted, imbecilic, and vainglorious authoritarian caudillo who would have created a conservative corporate police state. The only people who would benefit from such a thing would be the wealthiest few, something many of the coup participants were too ignorant to realize. Thus the people who organized the coup were bad, the people who participated in the coup were bad, and the people who would have benefited from the success of the coup were bad. Ergo, the coup was bad.