Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

Though I will say this. Part of why the Clinton impeachment hurt the Republicans but not Clinton so much, is that he went about his daily job, smiling, still worked with Republicans, seemed reasonable. Inside I'm sure he was seething, but to a majority of the public he seemed to be the one taking the high road while Republicans investigated blowjobs.

Trump won't behave anything like he did. Totally incapable keeping quiet like that. He'll fume publicly, insult everyone, go on long rants about 'treason", etc. I'm not so sure the sympathy vote that Clinton won over would ever fall Trump's way.

[Whitley]

Which is why Pelosi's been fighting the impeachment crowd. And possibly why they have started to really slow down the investigation side too -- she is nervous they'll actually uncover something bad.

Pelosi is on record as saying Trump is great for Democrat fundraising.

[froot loops]

Impeachment paid off big time for the GOP in 2000 and 2016. The US is still feeling the after effects of that slimy Starr/Kavanaugh production.

[lineygoblue]

There's plenty of hate being displayed, regardless of political labels.

Hate feeds on itself. The more its displayed, the more it spreads.

That's why a very famous man once said to turn the other cheek, when you enemy slaps you. In other words, don't return hate for hate.

He understood that the cycle of hatred can only be broken with peace.

Nowadays, if you turned the other cheek to your enemy, you'd probably come away with a broken jaw.

[Ghengis Jon]

True enough Liney, but I think any pull back, much less any healing, won't begin until 2021.



When they allocate a corner in the Smithsonian to Trump's presidency, this 40 second BBC clip should be on an endless loop as it perfectly exemplifies the man himself as well as his disregard for the office he holds.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us...ually-happened

[Jeff Buchanan]

The link below is worth a read. One of its points is that the two parties - both the Rs and the Ds - are choosing the divisive rhetoric purposefully .......

Some analysts think that broader trends have forced American politics to be inherently polarized today, so more than a few politicians have calculated that they gain the most from exacerbating polarization.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/trump-presidency-moderate-intensely-polarizing/

[Ghengis Jon]

That article makes some good points, despite an absurd foundational argument ("Trump was perceived by the electorate as more politically moderate than previous recent GOP nominees." No, he campaigned on being a Washington wrecking ball, a no-quarter fighter, a swamp drainer, etc. A very Trumpian premise.)

Right now, even issues like infrastructure are dead because of polarization. The grunting, chest pounding tribesmen on both sides will not co-operate on anything with "the other side"....just because. Nothing matters except "my team". On one side impeachment at any cost is the holy grail. The other side will blindly enable the president even if he sodomizes babies and bayonets puppies. Neither side looks at what is good for the country.

The bullshit we see today is a pretty strong argument for term limits, like one term with no post political bennies.

[Jeff Buchanan]

No question Trump campaigned on all those things you mention. He had been, nevertheless, widely characterized as center of the R party after his candidacy became certain and subsequently after his nomination then election to the office. For the most part, his tax policy, his trade policy (minus the theatrics of it) and his policy towards Iran and NK have been solidly right wing. Moderate with respect to those? Probably not but he is definitely a hawkish conservative that I could support if not for his continual buffoonery that routinely sets what he accomplishes under the conservative banner back ....... one step forward 5 steps back these days.

On that matter, I have read several articles in the last few days, including the one I linked to just up thread, that Trump purposely antagonized the D left with his attack on the squad. Most here would say that gives him too much credit and it might. While he might have been advised to do something like that, his wording of that idea, possibly from political advisers, was horrible. Nothing new there.

[froot loops]

Trump did campaign as a moderate though. Its hard to remember that after these last 3 years. The article points out the Yglesias article which details it more fully:

voters saw her as largely liberal on the issues. Trump was perceived as conservative, to be sure, but also as less uniformly conservative than Clinton was liberal.

?
Trump was, similarly, seen as much less conservative than Mitt Romney, John McCain, or George W. Bush, .

Note: Yglesias had a typo or is mistaken on the Iraq War proponent. He specifically campaigned that he was against the Iraq War even though there was more evidence that this was BS. Its safe to say his staff of C-list Bush era foreign policy appointees contrasts with his campaign.

Republicans have for decades talked about scaling back things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. They would mostly talk about it in non-election periods, they wouldn't outright campaign on it but they would talk about scaling back entitlements so anybody could think it was some other entitlement they were scaling back. As Yglesias mentioned Trump said nothing of the sort, he was an opponent of cutting any of it. Trump also said he would repeal Obamacare on day 1 and he would have a better system, that would be a left wing proposal in practice. He also said he could erase the national debt in 8 years.

Of course none of the moderate campaign positions had any follow through. It can be said that entitlement programs have not been scaled back but that has more to do with legislative inaction. The big talkers in the Congress are a lot braver about doing such a thing when it is only symbolic votes.

Outside of the issues, he campaigned as President Deals. He positioned himself as the mogul negotiator who could get things done. He could work with the Democrats better than Hilary could work with Republicans. In practice this was always going to be nonsense, Clinton would have been able to get some deals done better even as the GOP would have had numeorus investigations on day 1. In theory it was feasible though. Swing voters probably bought this. His performance and deportment since he's been in office renders the moderate strategy that helped him with undecideds is gone.

[Ghengis Jon]

Iran seizes Brit owned tanker in tit-for-tat.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49053383

[Ghengis Jon]

In the words of Jeff Foxworthy, "Here's your sign..."

https://www.apnews.com/e32a77acc6b64a6685e1ebfad9785928

[Dr. Strangelove]

The story Trump is angry about this morning and doesn't want you to read (It's based on interviews with 26 sources -- all of whom Trump says are fake)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/he-always-doubles-down-inside-the-political-crisis-caused-by-trumps-racist-tweets/2019/07/20/b342184c-aa2e-11e9-86dd-d7f0e60391e9_story.html?utm_term=.6dc692c79a5f

[Dr. Strangelove]

About a week after the current kerfuffle started and no discernible change in Trump's approval rating. Still at 42-43%. He's seen some mild improvement in the good ol' Rasmussen poll, but otherwise, no change across the board. And the last time even Rasmussen put him over 50% was mid-June. Interesting to note that when Rasmussen asks people to say if they strongly like or dislike him, more people have said strongly dislike for a long, long time.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...roval-ratings/

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._index_history

[Dr. Strangelove]

From Jonah Goldberg

EAABj77X4AAE-8m?format=jpg&name=small.jpg
EAABj79XkAAppty?format=jpg&name=small.jpg

[Jeff Buchanan]

Harsh but true ..... Goldberg is good with words. I particularly like, "....you can be sure he will return, like a dog to his vomit ......."

I think political analysts are in some level of agreement that candidates on both sides of the 2020 presidential race are purposely choosing statements that are inflammatory. First, it gets picked up by the media quickly and the bad implications of said statements get lost in the news cycle with little accountability for making them. But, fundamentally, it raises interest levels of voters across all political beliefs. Get's the extremes of the bases, along with the conservative or liberal middle, mobilized to vote.

Like I said up thread, Trump probably got some advice to bait the squad (representing the extreme left ideals of the Ds) with something that questioned their patriotism and, in general that of all the leftees. I think he fucked that up and went off script because of what Goldberg points out: "Donald Trump doesn't have the foggiest ideas about American Creeds. But he does have an instinctual appreciation of the emotional triggers of nationalism."