Quote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 04:35:48 PMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 04:32:40 PMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 04:16:10 PMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 03:55:13 PMQuote from: Travellin Dave on October 15, 2021, 02:44:59 PMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 02:31:26 PMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 02:01:02 PMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 01:47:55 PMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 01:20:57 PMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 12:16:26 PMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 11:32:46 AMQuote from: FloridaDean on October 15, 2021, 11:24:30 AMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 11:09:12 AMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 10:44:54 AMOn Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to. Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.Term limits, like Communism, is a fine idea in theory that is entirely inconsistent with human nature and the nature of civics in general, and won't accomplish what people think it will accomplish. This gets me into heated arguments with my fellow conservatives...heated, because I point out the obvious logical flaw in the notion. They think term limits will somehow mitigate the corrupting influence of power and self-interest. Some say "money," but money IS power, and all power is self-interest. Term limits cannot mitigate this reality, for two reasons: First, money moves faster than civics, always and inevitably. Second, the corrupting influence of power/money/self-interest begins long before a politician is elected, and by the time the politician assumes office, he or she already has a structure of monied interest to whom they are beholden. Ronald Reagan, for example, spent most of the 1950's on the payroll of GE to the tune of $125k a year ($1.3 million in 2021 dollars), getting educated in the realities of big business and big money from the most powerful business executives in the US. This was the period during which he transformed from a New-Deal Democrat to a Goldwater Republican. But he didn't first achieve elective office until 1967. Don't even get me started on Old Joe Kennedy and his boys. It is impossible to get to any national office without already having wealthy people behind you, so the money/power axis is already established before the politician arrives. If you impose term limits, all you achieve is more frequent turnover of the same power-driven, corporately subsidized egos with a talent for getting lots of people to vote for them. Because money moves faster than civics, the money will have zero trouble keeping up with the turnover.And this is what the electorate really wants, else no one would vote for these egos, and renegade fringe candidates would be more frequently elected. The reason Congress won't go along with term limits, other than they don't want them, is that they know most of the electorate doesn't really want term limits either. It's just talk.And that's definitely the other side of the coin. While technically, term limits don't exist, we have the power to enforce them ourselves every 2 or 4 years. Without having any solid data to back me up (though I'm sure some is out there, I just don't feel like looking it up), I would imagine a majority of people vote party line, regardless of the candidate. With everything being as gerrymandered as it is, that's one of the reasons only a handful of Congressional seats change party hands every election cycle. So short version is, we have the power to enforce term limits if we wanted, but more often than not, we don't.Having said that, I don't think that means we should dismiss Dean's ocean idea out of hand... "Just look at all the warlords, and they're talkin' on the TV, sellin' us blue sky that we're never gonna see. Forget all the ransoms, and I think we oughta pants them, and put 'em on a lead boat in the Salt Lake sea." -- John Stewart.Most of the electorate DO vote along party lines. But within that it's mostly a beauty contest, and then there are the "swing voters" who really decide elections - and they generally vote on personality, not issues. Joe Biden's plummeting approval numbers tend to suggest that the swing voters voted *against* Trump more than they voted *for* Biden, in much the same way they voted *against* Hilary more than *for* Trump in 2016. I thought Trump would narrowly win reelection, because the country has not really swung left as the Progressives think. He didn't, but it was really because the electorate had tired of Trump's obnoxious persona. The Left wants to see the election of Biden as evidence that their agenda is gaining ground, but I still contend it ain't so. Had Pete Buttigieg secured the nomination, Trump would have buried him. Swing voters, many of whom had voted for Trump, swung the election for Biden because Biden was seen not as a Progressive candidate, but a moderate Democrat - and that's true about Biden, regardless of attempts by the Right to paint him as a raging socialist. But the polling about Biden is heavily negative less than a year into his term, and the bulk of the negativity is backlash about foreign policy, vax mandates, and pandemic restrictions - all issues in which right-wing rage factors heavily, and gets sympathy from even the most moderate of swing voters. So the Democrats are running scared, and they'd better be, because grassroots Progressives are simply not as numerous as they would like to believe or would like us to believe.I don't think it was his persona, since that likely helped him get elected in 2016. I believe it was more outrage at his handling and dismissal of the pandemic. People were watching their loved ones die, and he and his cronies went on tv and mocked them, belittled them and acted like he couldn't give a shit about them. Which was true, he didn't, but you aren't supposed to say that part out loud. If the election had been held in 2019, he very likely would've be re-elected. Or if he'd handled that entire situation from the perspective of a relatively decent human being, he probably also would've won. But he is who he is, and he went down as such. The Trump persona that was elected in 2016 was pretty carefully crafted over decades. I think a lot of people who voted for him expected him to adapt some to the mythical gravitas of the office, just as he adapted to television years ago. He didn't, and in fact in the face of the extreme scrutiny, he seemed to become more petulant. Among my friends who voted for him, only the most hardcore Trumpists were unfatigued by his antics. Most of us tired of his public behavior. Just as I asserted that there aren't as many grassroots Progressives as the media and the left want the public to believe, there aren't as many conservatives who admire Trump's brand of renegade behavior as the media and Trump want the public to believe. But they continue to cow down to the increasingly bizarre behavior, which essentially enables more of it. He has managed to label the remaining mainstream Republicans as "RINO's" when in fact that's what Trumpers are. How many don't continue to support his tired tirade of stolen election? Always thought of Liz Cheney as a Conservative Traditionalist....now she's a semi-Democrat Commie.Attempts by the media to equate most Republicans to Trump are way overblown. It just isn't so. And while there is a vocal segment of Republicans still screaming about a stolen election, they are not the majority, no matter how much the media tries to make them out to be.The media fails, as it universally does, to capture the nuanced fact that Republicans support many of the policy decisions that Trump made because they are Republican policies. Trump, of course, claims them as his own because that's Trump's stock-in-trade, and the media aids and abets because they want to hang Trump like an albatross around the neck of the Republican party. It's a good story for them and suits their leftist politics. It's identity politics. Take Trump's bombast, political miscues, and all the political wrangling out of the equation, and his administration is a fairly straightforward moderate Republican administration, policywise. Tax cuts, business deregulation, protection of the Second Amendment (mostly), appointment of conservative justices, immigration enforcement, yadda, yadda, yadda. But the left and the media wants to discredit both the policies and the party, and Trump gives them a perfect means to attempt that. So they WANT to convince everyone that Trump controls the party, because they want the policies discredited as well, and if they can connect those to Trump, they will. Meanwhile the media wants to sell the Democrats as the savior of all decency, out to tax the rich and give it to the poor, and wildly lauded by the downtrodden masses. But here's an op-ed, straight off Liberal mouthpiece The Daily Beast, that exposes that nonsense.https://www.manhattan-institute.org/bernies-tax-the-rich-bluff-called-by-fellow-democratsThen there's the news that Biden is going to reimplement "Trump's Remain in Mexico" asylum policy next month.The other problem is the people aligned with Drumpf tend to be far louder than those who aren't. You don't see McConnell on Twitter ranting and raving about everything little thing, but you've got MGT and her particular brand of crazy on there all the time, spewing whatever the social media form of verbal diarrhea is.And the press loves verbal diarrhea, if it comes from Republicans. Joe Biden's verbal diarrhea - and his corruption - gets contextualized, excused, and "fact-checked" for nuance, in the same way Katie Couric edited RBG to protect her rep with Progressives. But Republican whack jobs don't get that courtesy from the national press, or Facebook.Oh...and it's MTG, not MGT.Didja hear the one about how Joe and his son Hunter shared a bank account? Probably just Joe trying to teach Hunter fiscal responsibility, with all that Russian money Hunter was getting.Hey, if she can say space lasers are controlled by Jews or whatever, I can get her initials in the wrong order. Truth.
Quote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 04:32:40 PMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 04:16:10 PMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 03:55:13 PMQuote from: Travellin Dave on October 15, 2021, 02:44:59 PMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 02:31:26 PMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 02:01:02 PMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 01:47:55 PMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 01:20:57 PMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 12:16:26 PMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 11:32:46 AMQuote from: FloridaDean on October 15, 2021, 11:24:30 AMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 11:09:12 AMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 10:44:54 AMOn Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to. Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.Term limits, like Communism, is a fine idea in theory that is entirely inconsistent with human nature and the nature of civics in general, and won't accomplish what people think it will accomplish. This gets me into heated arguments with my fellow conservatives...heated, because I point out the obvious logical flaw in the notion. They think term limits will somehow mitigate the corrupting influence of power and self-interest. Some say "money," but money IS power, and all power is self-interest. Term limits cannot mitigate this reality, for two reasons: First, money moves faster than civics, always and inevitably. Second, the corrupting influence of power/money/self-interest begins long before a politician is elected, and by the time the politician assumes office, he or she already has a structure of monied interest to whom they are beholden. Ronald Reagan, for example, spent most of the 1950's on the payroll of GE to the tune of $125k a year ($1.3 million in 2021 dollars), getting educated in the realities of big business and big money from the most powerful business executives in the US. This was the period during which he transformed from a New-Deal Democrat to a Goldwater Republican. But he didn't first achieve elective office until 1967. Don't even get me started on Old Joe Kennedy and his boys. It is impossible to get to any national office without already having wealthy people behind you, so the money/power axis is already established before the politician arrives. If you impose term limits, all you achieve is more frequent turnover of the same power-driven, corporately subsidized egos with a talent for getting lots of people to vote for them. Because money moves faster than civics, the money will have zero trouble keeping up with the turnover.And this is what the electorate really wants, else no one would vote for these egos, and renegade fringe candidates would be more frequently elected. The reason Congress won't go along with term limits, other than they don't want them, is that they know most of the electorate doesn't really want term limits either. It's just talk.And that's definitely the other side of the coin. While technically, term limits don't exist, we have the power to enforce them ourselves every 2 or 4 years. Without having any solid data to back me up (though I'm sure some is out there, I just don't feel like looking it up), I would imagine a majority of people vote party line, regardless of the candidate. With everything being as gerrymandered as it is, that's one of the reasons only a handful of Congressional seats change party hands every election cycle. So short version is, we have the power to enforce term limits if we wanted, but more often than not, we don't.Having said that, I don't think that means we should dismiss Dean's ocean idea out of hand... "Just look at all the warlords, and they're talkin' on the TV, sellin' us blue sky that we're never gonna see. Forget all the ransoms, and I think we oughta pants them, and put 'em on a lead boat in the Salt Lake sea." -- John Stewart.Most of the electorate DO vote along party lines. But within that it's mostly a beauty contest, and then there are the "swing voters" who really decide elections - and they generally vote on personality, not issues. Joe Biden's plummeting approval numbers tend to suggest that the swing voters voted *against* Trump more than they voted *for* Biden, in much the same way they voted *against* Hilary more than *for* Trump in 2016. I thought Trump would narrowly win reelection, because the country has not really swung left as the Progressives think. He didn't, but it was really because the electorate had tired of Trump's obnoxious persona. The Left wants to see the election of Biden as evidence that their agenda is gaining ground, but I still contend it ain't so. Had Pete Buttigieg secured the nomination, Trump would have buried him. Swing voters, many of whom had voted for Trump, swung the election for Biden because Biden was seen not as a Progressive candidate, but a moderate Democrat - and that's true about Biden, regardless of attempts by the Right to paint him as a raging socialist. But the polling about Biden is heavily negative less than a year into his term, and the bulk of the negativity is backlash about foreign policy, vax mandates, and pandemic restrictions - all issues in which right-wing rage factors heavily, and gets sympathy from even the most moderate of swing voters. So the Democrats are running scared, and they'd better be, because grassroots Progressives are simply not as numerous as they would like to believe or would like us to believe.I don't think it was his persona, since that likely helped him get elected in 2016. I believe it was more outrage at his handling and dismissal of the pandemic. People were watching their loved ones die, and he and his cronies went on tv and mocked them, belittled them and acted like he couldn't give a shit about them. Which was true, he didn't, but you aren't supposed to say that part out loud. If the election had been held in 2019, he very likely would've be re-elected. Or if he'd handled that entire situation from the perspective of a relatively decent human being, he probably also would've won. But he is who he is, and he went down as such. The Trump persona that was elected in 2016 was pretty carefully crafted over decades. I think a lot of people who voted for him expected him to adapt some to the mythical gravitas of the office, just as he adapted to television years ago. He didn't, and in fact in the face of the extreme scrutiny, he seemed to become more petulant. Among my friends who voted for him, only the most hardcore Trumpists were unfatigued by his antics. Most of us tired of his public behavior. Just as I asserted that there aren't as many grassroots Progressives as the media and the left want the public to believe, there aren't as many conservatives who admire Trump's brand of renegade behavior as the media and Trump want the public to believe. But they continue to cow down to the increasingly bizarre behavior, which essentially enables more of it. He has managed to label the remaining mainstream Republicans as "RINO's" when in fact that's what Trumpers are. How many don't continue to support his tired tirade of stolen election? Always thought of Liz Cheney as a Conservative Traditionalist....now she's a semi-Democrat Commie.Attempts by the media to equate most Republicans to Trump are way overblown. It just isn't so. And while there is a vocal segment of Republicans still screaming about a stolen election, they are not the majority, no matter how much the media tries to make them out to be.The media fails, as it universally does, to capture the nuanced fact that Republicans support many of the policy decisions that Trump made because they are Republican policies. Trump, of course, claims them as his own because that's Trump's stock-in-trade, and the media aids and abets because they want to hang Trump like an albatross around the neck of the Republican party. It's a good story for them and suits their leftist politics. It's identity politics. Take Trump's bombast, political miscues, and all the political wrangling out of the equation, and his administration is a fairly straightforward moderate Republican administration, policywise. Tax cuts, business deregulation, protection of the Second Amendment (mostly), appointment of conservative justices, immigration enforcement, yadda, yadda, yadda. But the left and the media wants to discredit both the policies and the party, and Trump gives them a perfect means to attempt that. So they WANT to convince everyone that Trump controls the party, because they want the policies discredited as well, and if they can connect those to Trump, they will. Meanwhile the media wants to sell the Democrats as the savior of all decency, out to tax the rich and give it to the poor, and wildly lauded by the downtrodden masses. But here's an op-ed, straight off Liberal mouthpiece The Daily Beast, that exposes that nonsense.https://www.manhattan-institute.org/bernies-tax-the-rich-bluff-called-by-fellow-democratsThen there's the news that Biden is going to reimplement "Trump's Remain in Mexico" asylum policy next month.The other problem is the people aligned with Drumpf tend to be far louder than those who aren't. You don't see McConnell on Twitter ranting and raving about everything little thing, but you've got MGT and her particular brand of crazy on there all the time, spewing whatever the social media form of verbal diarrhea is.And the press loves verbal diarrhea, if it comes from Republicans. Joe Biden's verbal diarrhea - and his corruption - gets contextualized, excused, and "fact-checked" for nuance, in the same way Katie Couric edited RBG to protect her rep with Progressives. But Republican whack jobs don't get that courtesy from the national press, or Facebook.Oh...and it's MTG, not MGT.Didja hear the one about how Joe and his son Hunter shared a bank account? Probably just Joe trying to teach Hunter fiscal responsibility, with all that Russian money Hunter was getting.Hey, if she can say space lasers are controlled by Jews or whatever, I can get her initials in the wrong order.
Quote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 04:16:10 PMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 03:55:13 PMQuote from: Travellin Dave on October 15, 2021, 02:44:59 PMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 02:31:26 PMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 02:01:02 PMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 01:47:55 PMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 01:20:57 PMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 12:16:26 PMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 11:32:46 AMQuote from: FloridaDean on October 15, 2021, 11:24:30 AMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 11:09:12 AMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 10:44:54 AMOn Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to. Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.Term limits, like Communism, is a fine idea in theory that is entirely inconsistent with human nature and the nature of civics in general, and won't accomplish what people think it will accomplish. This gets me into heated arguments with my fellow conservatives...heated, because I point out the obvious logical flaw in the notion. They think term limits will somehow mitigate the corrupting influence of power and self-interest. Some say "money," but money IS power, and all power is self-interest. Term limits cannot mitigate this reality, for two reasons: First, money moves faster than civics, always and inevitably. Second, the corrupting influence of power/money/self-interest begins long before a politician is elected, and by the time the politician assumes office, he or she already has a structure of monied interest to whom they are beholden. Ronald Reagan, for example, spent most of the 1950's on the payroll of GE to the tune of $125k a year ($1.3 million in 2021 dollars), getting educated in the realities of big business and big money from the most powerful business executives in the US. This was the period during which he transformed from a New-Deal Democrat to a Goldwater Republican. But he didn't first achieve elective office until 1967. Don't even get me started on Old Joe Kennedy and his boys. It is impossible to get to any national office without already having wealthy people behind you, so the money/power axis is already established before the politician arrives. If you impose term limits, all you achieve is more frequent turnover of the same power-driven, corporately subsidized egos with a talent for getting lots of people to vote for them. Because money moves faster than civics, the money will have zero trouble keeping up with the turnover.And this is what the electorate really wants, else no one would vote for these egos, and renegade fringe candidates would be more frequently elected. The reason Congress won't go along with term limits, other than they don't want them, is that they know most of the electorate doesn't really want term limits either. It's just talk.And that's definitely the other side of the coin. While technically, term limits don't exist, we have the power to enforce them ourselves every 2 or 4 years. Without having any solid data to back me up (though I'm sure some is out there, I just don't feel like looking it up), I would imagine a majority of people vote party line, regardless of the candidate. With everything being as gerrymandered as it is, that's one of the reasons only a handful of Congressional seats change party hands every election cycle. So short version is, we have the power to enforce term limits if we wanted, but more often than not, we don't.Having said that, I don't think that means we should dismiss Dean's ocean idea out of hand... "Just look at all the warlords, and they're talkin' on the TV, sellin' us blue sky that we're never gonna see. Forget all the ransoms, and I think we oughta pants them, and put 'em on a lead boat in the Salt Lake sea." -- John Stewart.Most of the electorate DO vote along party lines. But within that it's mostly a beauty contest, and then there are the "swing voters" who really decide elections - and they generally vote on personality, not issues. Joe Biden's plummeting approval numbers tend to suggest that the swing voters voted *against* Trump more than they voted *for* Biden, in much the same way they voted *against* Hilary more than *for* Trump in 2016. I thought Trump would narrowly win reelection, because the country has not really swung left as the Progressives think. He didn't, but it was really because the electorate had tired of Trump's obnoxious persona. The Left wants to see the election of Biden as evidence that their agenda is gaining ground, but I still contend it ain't so. Had Pete Buttigieg secured the nomination, Trump would have buried him. Swing voters, many of whom had voted for Trump, swung the election for Biden because Biden was seen not as a Progressive candidate, but a moderate Democrat - and that's true about Biden, regardless of attempts by the Right to paint him as a raging socialist. But the polling about Biden is heavily negative less than a year into his term, and the bulk of the negativity is backlash about foreign policy, vax mandates, and pandemic restrictions - all issues in which right-wing rage factors heavily, and gets sympathy from even the most moderate of swing voters. So the Democrats are running scared, and they'd better be, because grassroots Progressives are simply not as numerous as they would like to believe or would like us to believe.I don't think it was his persona, since that likely helped him get elected in 2016. I believe it was more outrage at his handling and dismissal of the pandemic. People were watching their loved ones die, and he and his cronies went on tv and mocked them, belittled them and acted like he couldn't give a shit about them. Which was true, he didn't, but you aren't supposed to say that part out loud. If the election had been held in 2019, he very likely would've be re-elected. Or if he'd handled that entire situation from the perspective of a relatively decent human being, he probably also would've won. But he is who he is, and he went down as such. The Trump persona that was elected in 2016 was pretty carefully crafted over decades. I think a lot of people who voted for him expected him to adapt some to the mythical gravitas of the office, just as he adapted to television years ago. He didn't, and in fact in the face of the extreme scrutiny, he seemed to become more petulant. Among my friends who voted for him, only the most hardcore Trumpists were unfatigued by his antics. Most of us tired of his public behavior. Just as I asserted that there aren't as many grassroots Progressives as the media and the left want the public to believe, there aren't as many conservatives who admire Trump's brand of renegade behavior as the media and Trump want the public to believe. But they continue to cow down to the increasingly bizarre behavior, which essentially enables more of it. He has managed to label the remaining mainstream Republicans as "RINO's" when in fact that's what Trumpers are. How many don't continue to support his tired tirade of stolen election? Always thought of Liz Cheney as a Conservative Traditionalist....now she's a semi-Democrat Commie.Attempts by the media to equate most Republicans to Trump are way overblown. It just isn't so. And while there is a vocal segment of Republicans still screaming about a stolen election, they are not the majority, no matter how much the media tries to make them out to be.The media fails, as it universally does, to capture the nuanced fact that Republicans support many of the policy decisions that Trump made because they are Republican policies. Trump, of course, claims them as his own because that's Trump's stock-in-trade, and the media aids and abets because they want to hang Trump like an albatross around the neck of the Republican party. It's a good story for them and suits their leftist politics. It's identity politics. Take Trump's bombast, political miscues, and all the political wrangling out of the equation, and his administration is a fairly straightforward moderate Republican administration, policywise. Tax cuts, business deregulation, protection of the Second Amendment (mostly), appointment of conservative justices, immigration enforcement, yadda, yadda, yadda. But the left and the media wants to discredit both the policies and the party, and Trump gives them a perfect means to attempt that. So they WANT to convince everyone that Trump controls the party, because they want the policies discredited as well, and if they can connect those to Trump, they will. Meanwhile the media wants to sell the Democrats as the savior of all decency, out to tax the rich and give it to the poor, and wildly lauded by the downtrodden masses. But here's an op-ed, straight off Liberal mouthpiece The Daily Beast, that exposes that nonsense.https://www.manhattan-institute.org/bernies-tax-the-rich-bluff-called-by-fellow-democratsThen there's the news that Biden is going to reimplement "Trump's Remain in Mexico" asylum policy next month.The other problem is the people aligned with Drumpf tend to be far louder than those who aren't. You don't see McConnell on Twitter ranting and raving about everything little thing, but you've got MGT and her particular brand of crazy on there all the time, spewing whatever the social media form of verbal diarrhea is.And the press loves verbal diarrhea, if it comes from Republicans. Joe Biden's verbal diarrhea - and his corruption - gets contextualized, excused, and "fact-checked" for nuance, in the same way Katie Couric edited RBG to protect her rep with Progressives. But Republican whack jobs don't get that courtesy from the national press, or Facebook.Oh...and it's MTG, not MGT.Didja hear the one about how Joe and his son Hunter shared a bank account? Probably just Joe trying to teach Hunter fiscal responsibility, with all that Russian money Hunter was getting.
Quote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 03:55:13 PMQuote from: Travellin Dave on October 15, 2021, 02:44:59 PMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 02:31:26 PMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 02:01:02 PMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 01:47:55 PMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 01:20:57 PMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 12:16:26 PMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 11:32:46 AMQuote from: FloridaDean on October 15, 2021, 11:24:30 AMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 11:09:12 AMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 10:44:54 AMOn Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to. Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.Term limits, like Communism, is a fine idea in theory that is entirely inconsistent with human nature and the nature of civics in general, and won't accomplish what people think it will accomplish. This gets me into heated arguments with my fellow conservatives...heated, because I point out the obvious logical flaw in the notion. They think term limits will somehow mitigate the corrupting influence of power and self-interest. Some say "money," but money IS power, and all power is self-interest. Term limits cannot mitigate this reality, for two reasons: First, money moves faster than civics, always and inevitably. Second, the corrupting influence of power/money/self-interest begins long before a politician is elected, and by the time the politician assumes office, he or she already has a structure of monied interest to whom they are beholden. Ronald Reagan, for example, spent most of the 1950's on the payroll of GE to the tune of $125k a year ($1.3 million in 2021 dollars), getting educated in the realities of big business and big money from the most powerful business executives in the US. This was the period during which he transformed from a New-Deal Democrat to a Goldwater Republican. But he didn't first achieve elective office until 1967. Don't even get me started on Old Joe Kennedy and his boys. It is impossible to get to any national office without already having wealthy people behind you, so the money/power axis is already established before the politician arrives. If you impose term limits, all you achieve is more frequent turnover of the same power-driven, corporately subsidized egos with a talent for getting lots of people to vote for them. Because money moves faster than civics, the money will have zero trouble keeping up with the turnover.And this is what the electorate really wants, else no one would vote for these egos, and renegade fringe candidates would be more frequently elected. The reason Congress won't go along with term limits, other than they don't want them, is that they know most of the electorate doesn't really want term limits either. It's just talk.And that's definitely the other side of the coin. While technically, term limits don't exist, we have the power to enforce them ourselves every 2 or 4 years. Without having any solid data to back me up (though I'm sure some is out there, I just don't feel like looking it up), I would imagine a majority of people vote party line, regardless of the candidate. With everything being as gerrymandered as it is, that's one of the reasons only a handful of Congressional seats change party hands every election cycle. So short version is, we have the power to enforce term limits if we wanted, but more often than not, we don't.Having said that, I don't think that means we should dismiss Dean's ocean idea out of hand... "Just look at all the warlords, and they're talkin' on the TV, sellin' us blue sky that we're never gonna see. Forget all the ransoms, and I think we oughta pants them, and put 'em on a lead boat in the Salt Lake sea." -- John Stewart.Most of the electorate DO vote along party lines. But within that it's mostly a beauty contest, and then there are the "swing voters" who really decide elections - and they generally vote on personality, not issues. Joe Biden's plummeting approval numbers tend to suggest that the swing voters voted *against* Trump more than they voted *for* Biden, in much the same way they voted *against* Hilary more than *for* Trump in 2016. I thought Trump would narrowly win reelection, because the country has not really swung left as the Progressives think. He didn't, but it was really because the electorate had tired of Trump's obnoxious persona. The Left wants to see the election of Biden as evidence that their agenda is gaining ground, but I still contend it ain't so. Had Pete Buttigieg secured the nomination, Trump would have buried him. Swing voters, many of whom had voted for Trump, swung the election for Biden because Biden was seen not as a Progressive candidate, but a moderate Democrat - and that's true about Biden, regardless of attempts by the Right to paint him as a raging socialist. But the polling about Biden is heavily negative less than a year into his term, and the bulk of the negativity is backlash about foreign policy, vax mandates, and pandemic restrictions - all issues in which right-wing rage factors heavily, and gets sympathy from even the most moderate of swing voters. So the Democrats are running scared, and they'd better be, because grassroots Progressives are simply not as numerous as they would like to believe or would like us to believe.I don't think it was his persona, since that likely helped him get elected in 2016. I believe it was more outrage at his handling and dismissal of the pandemic. People were watching their loved ones die, and he and his cronies went on tv and mocked them, belittled them and acted like he couldn't give a shit about them. Which was true, he didn't, but you aren't supposed to say that part out loud. If the election had been held in 2019, he very likely would've be re-elected. Or if he'd handled that entire situation from the perspective of a relatively decent human being, he probably also would've won. But he is who he is, and he went down as such. The Trump persona that was elected in 2016 was pretty carefully crafted over decades. I think a lot of people who voted for him expected him to adapt some to the mythical gravitas of the office, just as he adapted to television years ago. He didn't, and in fact in the face of the extreme scrutiny, he seemed to become more petulant. Among my friends who voted for him, only the most hardcore Trumpists were unfatigued by his antics. Most of us tired of his public behavior. Just as I asserted that there aren't as many grassroots Progressives as the media and the left want the public to believe, there aren't as many conservatives who admire Trump's brand of renegade behavior as the media and Trump want the public to believe. But they continue to cow down to the increasingly bizarre behavior, which essentially enables more of it. He has managed to label the remaining mainstream Republicans as "RINO's" when in fact that's what Trumpers are. How many don't continue to support his tired tirade of stolen election? Always thought of Liz Cheney as a Conservative Traditionalist....now she's a semi-Democrat Commie.Attempts by the media to equate most Republicans to Trump are way overblown. It just isn't so. And while there is a vocal segment of Republicans still screaming about a stolen election, they are not the majority, no matter how much the media tries to make them out to be.The media fails, as it universally does, to capture the nuanced fact that Republicans support many of the policy decisions that Trump made because they are Republican policies. Trump, of course, claims them as his own because that's Trump's stock-in-trade, and the media aids and abets because they want to hang Trump like an albatross around the neck of the Republican party. It's a good story for them and suits their leftist politics. It's identity politics. Take Trump's bombast, political miscues, and all the political wrangling out of the equation, and his administration is a fairly straightforward moderate Republican administration, policywise. Tax cuts, business deregulation, protection of the Second Amendment (mostly), appointment of conservative justices, immigration enforcement, yadda, yadda, yadda. But the left and the media wants to discredit both the policies and the party, and Trump gives them a perfect means to attempt that. So they WANT to convince everyone that Trump controls the party, because they want the policies discredited as well, and if they can connect those to Trump, they will. Meanwhile the media wants to sell the Democrats as the savior of all decency, out to tax the rich and give it to the poor, and wildly lauded by the downtrodden masses. But here's an op-ed, straight off Liberal mouthpiece The Daily Beast, that exposes that nonsense.https://www.manhattan-institute.org/bernies-tax-the-rich-bluff-called-by-fellow-democratsThen there's the news that Biden is going to reimplement "Trump's Remain in Mexico" asylum policy next month.The other problem is the people aligned with Drumpf tend to be far louder than those who aren't. You don't see McConnell on Twitter ranting and raving about everything little thing, but you've got MGT and her particular brand of crazy on there all the time, spewing whatever the social media form of verbal diarrhea is.
Quote from: Travellin Dave on October 15, 2021, 02:44:59 PMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 02:31:26 PMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 02:01:02 PMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 01:47:55 PMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 01:20:57 PMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 12:16:26 PMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 11:32:46 AMQuote from: FloridaDean on October 15, 2021, 11:24:30 AMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 11:09:12 AMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 10:44:54 AMOn Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to. Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.Term limits, like Communism, is a fine idea in theory that is entirely inconsistent with human nature and the nature of civics in general, and won't accomplish what people think it will accomplish. This gets me into heated arguments with my fellow conservatives...heated, because I point out the obvious logical flaw in the notion. They think term limits will somehow mitigate the corrupting influence of power and self-interest. Some say "money," but money IS power, and all power is self-interest. Term limits cannot mitigate this reality, for two reasons: First, money moves faster than civics, always and inevitably. Second, the corrupting influence of power/money/self-interest begins long before a politician is elected, and by the time the politician assumes office, he or she already has a structure of monied interest to whom they are beholden. Ronald Reagan, for example, spent most of the 1950's on the payroll of GE to the tune of $125k a year ($1.3 million in 2021 dollars), getting educated in the realities of big business and big money from the most powerful business executives in the US. This was the period during which he transformed from a New-Deal Democrat to a Goldwater Republican. But he didn't first achieve elective office until 1967. Don't even get me started on Old Joe Kennedy and his boys. It is impossible to get to any national office without already having wealthy people behind you, so the money/power axis is already established before the politician arrives. If you impose term limits, all you achieve is more frequent turnover of the same power-driven, corporately subsidized egos with a talent for getting lots of people to vote for them. Because money moves faster than civics, the money will have zero trouble keeping up with the turnover.And this is what the electorate really wants, else no one would vote for these egos, and renegade fringe candidates would be more frequently elected. The reason Congress won't go along with term limits, other than they don't want them, is that they know most of the electorate doesn't really want term limits either. It's just talk.And that's definitely the other side of the coin. While technically, term limits don't exist, we have the power to enforce them ourselves every 2 or 4 years. Without having any solid data to back me up (though I'm sure some is out there, I just don't feel like looking it up), I would imagine a majority of people vote party line, regardless of the candidate. With everything being as gerrymandered as it is, that's one of the reasons only a handful of Congressional seats change party hands every election cycle. So short version is, we have the power to enforce term limits if we wanted, but more often than not, we don't.Having said that, I don't think that means we should dismiss Dean's ocean idea out of hand... "Just look at all the warlords, and they're talkin' on the TV, sellin' us blue sky that we're never gonna see. Forget all the ransoms, and I think we oughta pants them, and put 'em on a lead boat in the Salt Lake sea." -- John Stewart.Most of the electorate DO vote along party lines. But within that it's mostly a beauty contest, and then there are the "swing voters" who really decide elections - and they generally vote on personality, not issues. Joe Biden's plummeting approval numbers tend to suggest that the swing voters voted *against* Trump more than they voted *for* Biden, in much the same way they voted *against* Hilary more than *for* Trump in 2016. I thought Trump would narrowly win reelection, because the country has not really swung left as the Progressives think. He didn't, but it was really because the electorate had tired of Trump's obnoxious persona. The Left wants to see the election of Biden as evidence that their agenda is gaining ground, but I still contend it ain't so. Had Pete Buttigieg secured the nomination, Trump would have buried him. Swing voters, many of whom had voted for Trump, swung the election for Biden because Biden was seen not as a Progressive candidate, but a moderate Democrat - and that's true about Biden, regardless of attempts by the Right to paint him as a raging socialist. But the polling about Biden is heavily negative less than a year into his term, and the bulk of the negativity is backlash about foreign policy, vax mandates, and pandemic restrictions - all issues in which right-wing rage factors heavily, and gets sympathy from even the most moderate of swing voters. So the Democrats are running scared, and they'd better be, because grassroots Progressives are simply not as numerous as they would like to believe or would like us to believe.I don't think it was his persona, since that likely helped him get elected in 2016. I believe it was more outrage at his handling and dismissal of the pandemic. People were watching their loved ones die, and he and his cronies went on tv and mocked them, belittled them and acted like he couldn't give a shit about them. Which was true, he didn't, but you aren't supposed to say that part out loud. If the election had been held in 2019, he very likely would've be re-elected. Or if he'd handled that entire situation from the perspective of a relatively decent human being, he probably also would've won. But he is who he is, and he went down as such. The Trump persona that was elected in 2016 was pretty carefully crafted over decades. I think a lot of people who voted for him expected him to adapt some to the mythical gravitas of the office, just as he adapted to television years ago. He didn't, and in fact in the face of the extreme scrutiny, he seemed to become more petulant. Among my friends who voted for him, only the most hardcore Trumpists were unfatigued by his antics. Most of us tired of his public behavior. Just as I asserted that there aren't as many grassroots Progressives as the media and the left want the public to believe, there aren't as many conservatives who admire Trump's brand of renegade behavior as the media and Trump want the public to believe. But they continue to cow down to the increasingly bizarre behavior, which essentially enables more of it. He has managed to label the remaining mainstream Republicans as "RINO's" when in fact that's what Trumpers are. How many don't continue to support his tired tirade of stolen election? Always thought of Liz Cheney as a Conservative Traditionalist....now she's a semi-Democrat Commie.Attempts by the media to equate most Republicans to Trump are way overblown. It just isn't so. And while there is a vocal segment of Republicans still screaming about a stolen election, they are not the majority, no matter how much the media tries to make them out to be.The media fails, as it universally does, to capture the nuanced fact that Republicans support many of the policy decisions that Trump made because they are Republican policies. Trump, of course, claims them as his own because that's Trump's stock-in-trade, and the media aids and abets because they want to hang Trump like an albatross around the neck of the Republican party. It's a good story for them and suits their leftist politics. It's identity politics. Take Trump's bombast, political miscues, and all the political wrangling out of the equation, and his administration is a fairly straightforward moderate Republican administration, policywise. Tax cuts, business deregulation, protection of the Second Amendment (mostly), appointment of conservative justices, immigration enforcement, yadda, yadda, yadda. But the left and the media wants to discredit both the policies and the party, and Trump gives them a perfect means to attempt that. So they WANT to convince everyone that Trump controls the party, because they want the policies discredited as well, and if they can connect those to Trump, they will. Meanwhile the media wants to sell the Democrats as the savior of all decency, out to tax the rich and give it to the poor, and wildly lauded by the downtrodden masses. But here's an op-ed, straight off Liberal mouthpiece The Daily Beast, that exposes that nonsense.https://www.manhattan-institute.org/bernies-tax-the-rich-bluff-called-by-fellow-democratsThen there's the news that Biden is going to reimplement "Trump's Remain in Mexico" asylum policy next month.
Quote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 02:31:26 PMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 02:01:02 PMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 01:47:55 PMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 01:20:57 PMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 12:16:26 PMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 11:32:46 AMQuote from: FloridaDean on October 15, 2021, 11:24:30 AMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 11:09:12 AMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 10:44:54 AMOn Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to. Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.Term limits, like Communism, is a fine idea in theory that is entirely inconsistent with human nature and the nature of civics in general, and won't accomplish what people think it will accomplish. This gets me into heated arguments with my fellow conservatives...heated, because I point out the obvious logical flaw in the notion. They think term limits will somehow mitigate the corrupting influence of power and self-interest. Some say "money," but money IS power, and all power is self-interest. Term limits cannot mitigate this reality, for two reasons: First, money moves faster than civics, always and inevitably. Second, the corrupting influence of power/money/self-interest begins long before a politician is elected, and by the time the politician assumes office, he or she already has a structure of monied interest to whom they are beholden. Ronald Reagan, for example, spent most of the 1950's on the payroll of GE to the tune of $125k a year ($1.3 million in 2021 dollars), getting educated in the realities of big business and big money from the most powerful business executives in the US. This was the period during which he transformed from a New-Deal Democrat to a Goldwater Republican. But he didn't first achieve elective office until 1967. Don't even get me started on Old Joe Kennedy and his boys. It is impossible to get to any national office without already having wealthy people behind you, so the money/power axis is already established before the politician arrives. If you impose term limits, all you achieve is more frequent turnover of the same power-driven, corporately subsidized egos with a talent for getting lots of people to vote for them. Because money moves faster than civics, the money will have zero trouble keeping up with the turnover.And this is what the electorate really wants, else no one would vote for these egos, and renegade fringe candidates would be more frequently elected. The reason Congress won't go along with term limits, other than they don't want them, is that they know most of the electorate doesn't really want term limits either. It's just talk.And that's definitely the other side of the coin. While technically, term limits don't exist, we have the power to enforce them ourselves every 2 or 4 years. Without having any solid data to back me up (though I'm sure some is out there, I just don't feel like looking it up), I would imagine a majority of people vote party line, regardless of the candidate. With everything being as gerrymandered as it is, that's one of the reasons only a handful of Congressional seats change party hands every election cycle. So short version is, we have the power to enforce term limits if we wanted, but more often than not, we don't.Having said that, I don't think that means we should dismiss Dean's ocean idea out of hand... "Just look at all the warlords, and they're talkin' on the TV, sellin' us blue sky that we're never gonna see. Forget all the ransoms, and I think we oughta pants them, and put 'em on a lead boat in the Salt Lake sea." -- John Stewart.Most of the electorate DO vote along party lines. But within that it's mostly a beauty contest, and then there are the "swing voters" who really decide elections - and they generally vote on personality, not issues. Joe Biden's plummeting approval numbers tend to suggest that the swing voters voted *against* Trump more than they voted *for* Biden, in much the same way they voted *against* Hilary more than *for* Trump in 2016. I thought Trump would narrowly win reelection, because the country has not really swung left as the Progressives think. He didn't, but it was really because the electorate had tired of Trump's obnoxious persona. The Left wants to see the election of Biden as evidence that their agenda is gaining ground, but I still contend it ain't so. Had Pete Buttigieg secured the nomination, Trump would have buried him. Swing voters, many of whom had voted for Trump, swung the election for Biden because Biden was seen not as a Progressive candidate, but a moderate Democrat - and that's true about Biden, regardless of attempts by the Right to paint him as a raging socialist. But the polling about Biden is heavily negative less than a year into his term, and the bulk of the negativity is backlash about foreign policy, vax mandates, and pandemic restrictions - all issues in which right-wing rage factors heavily, and gets sympathy from even the most moderate of swing voters. So the Democrats are running scared, and they'd better be, because grassroots Progressives are simply not as numerous as they would like to believe or would like us to believe.I don't think it was his persona, since that likely helped him get elected in 2016. I believe it was more outrage at his handling and dismissal of the pandemic. People were watching their loved ones die, and he and his cronies went on tv and mocked them, belittled them and acted like he couldn't give a shit about them. Which was true, he didn't, but you aren't supposed to say that part out loud. If the election had been held in 2019, he very likely would've be re-elected. Or if he'd handled that entire situation from the perspective of a relatively decent human being, he probably also would've won. But he is who he is, and he went down as such. The Trump persona that was elected in 2016 was pretty carefully crafted over decades. I think a lot of people who voted for him expected him to adapt some to the mythical gravitas of the office, just as he adapted to television years ago. He didn't, and in fact in the face of the extreme scrutiny, he seemed to become more petulant. Among my friends who voted for him, only the most hardcore Trumpists were unfatigued by his antics. Most of us tired of his public behavior. Just as I asserted that there aren't as many grassroots Progressives as the media and the left want the public to believe, there aren't as many conservatives who admire Trump's brand of renegade behavior as the media and Trump want the public to believe. But they continue to cow down to the increasingly bizarre behavior, which essentially enables more of it. He has managed to label the remaining mainstream Republicans as "RINO's" when in fact that's what Trumpers are. How many don't continue to support his tired tirade of stolen election? Always thought of Liz Cheney as a Conservative Traditionalist....now she's a semi-Democrat Commie.
Quote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 02:01:02 PMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 01:47:55 PMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 01:20:57 PMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 12:16:26 PMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 11:32:46 AMQuote from: FloridaDean on October 15, 2021, 11:24:30 AMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 11:09:12 AMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 10:44:54 AMOn Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to. Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.Term limits, like Communism, is a fine idea in theory that is entirely inconsistent with human nature and the nature of civics in general, and won't accomplish what people think it will accomplish. This gets me into heated arguments with my fellow conservatives...heated, because I point out the obvious logical flaw in the notion. They think term limits will somehow mitigate the corrupting influence of power and self-interest. Some say "money," but money IS power, and all power is self-interest. Term limits cannot mitigate this reality, for two reasons: First, money moves faster than civics, always and inevitably. Second, the corrupting influence of power/money/self-interest begins long before a politician is elected, and by the time the politician assumes office, he or she already has a structure of monied interest to whom they are beholden. Ronald Reagan, for example, spent most of the 1950's on the payroll of GE to the tune of $125k a year ($1.3 million in 2021 dollars), getting educated in the realities of big business and big money from the most powerful business executives in the US. This was the period during which he transformed from a New-Deal Democrat to a Goldwater Republican. But he didn't first achieve elective office until 1967. Don't even get me started on Old Joe Kennedy and his boys. It is impossible to get to any national office without already having wealthy people behind you, so the money/power axis is already established before the politician arrives. If you impose term limits, all you achieve is more frequent turnover of the same power-driven, corporately subsidized egos with a talent for getting lots of people to vote for them. Because money moves faster than civics, the money will have zero trouble keeping up with the turnover.And this is what the electorate really wants, else no one would vote for these egos, and renegade fringe candidates would be more frequently elected. The reason Congress won't go along with term limits, other than they don't want them, is that they know most of the electorate doesn't really want term limits either. It's just talk.And that's definitely the other side of the coin. While technically, term limits don't exist, we have the power to enforce them ourselves every 2 or 4 years. Without having any solid data to back me up (though I'm sure some is out there, I just don't feel like looking it up), I would imagine a majority of people vote party line, regardless of the candidate. With everything being as gerrymandered as it is, that's one of the reasons only a handful of Congressional seats change party hands every election cycle. So short version is, we have the power to enforce term limits if we wanted, but more often than not, we don't.Having said that, I don't think that means we should dismiss Dean's ocean idea out of hand... "Just look at all the warlords, and they're talkin' on the TV, sellin' us blue sky that we're never gonna see. Forget all the ransoms, and I think we oughta pants them, and put 'em on a lead boat in the Salt Lake sea." -- John Stewart.Most of the electorate DO vote along party lines. But within that it's mostly a beauty contest, and then there are the "swing voters" who really decide elections - and they generally vote on personality, not issues. Joe Biden's plummeting approval numbers tend to suggest that the swing voters voted *against* Trump more than they voted *for* Biden, in much the same way they voted *against* Hilary more than *for* Trump in 2016. I thought Trump would narrowly win reelection, because the country has not really swung left as the Progressives think. He didn't, but it was really because the electorate had tired of Trump's obnoxious persona. The Left wants to see the election of Biden as evidence that their agenda is gaining ground, but I still contend it ain't so. Had Pete Buttigieg secured the nomination, Trump would have buried him. Swing voters, many of whom had voted for Trump, swung the election for Biden because Biden was seen not as a Progressive candidate, but a moderate Democrat - and that's true about Biden, regardless of attempts by the Right to paint him as a raging socialist. But the polling about Biden is heavily negative less than a year into his term, and the bulk of the negativity is backlash about foreign policy, vax mandates, and pandemic restrictions - all issues in which right-wing rage factors heavily, and gets sympathy from even the most moderate of swing voters. So the Democrats are running scared, and they'd better be, because grassroots Progressives are simply not as numerous as they would like to believe or would like us to believe.I don't think it was his persona, since that likely helped him get elected in 2016. I believe it was more outrage at his handling and dismissal of the pandemic. People were watching their loved ones die, and he and his cronies went on tv and mocked them, belittled them and acted like he couldn't give a shit about them. Which was true, he didn't, but you aren't supposed to say that part out loud. If the election had been held in 2019, he very likely would've be re-elected. Or if he'd handled that entire situation from the perspective of a relatively decent human being, he probably also would've won. But he is who he is, and he went down as such. The Trump persona that was elected in 2016 was pretty carefully crafted over decades. I think a lot of people who voted for him expected him to adapt some to the mythical gravitas of the office, just as he adapted to television years ago. He didn't, and in fact in the face of the extreme scrutiny, he seemed to become more petulant. Among my friends who voted for him, only the most hardcore Trumpists were unfatigued by his antics. Most of us tired of his public behavior. Just as I asserted that there aren't as many grassroots Progressives as the media and the left want the public to believe, there aren't as many conservatives who admire Trump's brand of renegade behavior as the media and Trump want the public to believe.
Quote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 01:47:55 PMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 01:20:57 PMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 12:16:26 PMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 11:32:46 AMQuote from: FloridaDean on October 15, 2021, 11:24:30 AMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 11:09:12 AMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 10:44:54 AMOn Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to. Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.Term limits, like Communism, is a fine idea in theory that is entirely inconsistent with human nature and the nature of civics in general, and won't accomplish what people think it will accomplish. This gets me into heated arguments with my fellow conservatives...heated, because I point out the obvious logical flaw in the notion. They think term limits will somehow mitigate the corrupting influence of power and self-interest. Some say "money," but money IS power, and all power is self-interest. Term limits cannot mitigate this reality, for two reasons: First, money moves faster than civics, always and inevitably. Second, the corrupting influence of power/money/self-interest begins long before a politician is elected, and by the time the politician assumes office, he or she already has a structure of monied interest to whom they are beholden. Ronald Reagan, for example, spent most of the 1950's on the payroll of GE to the tune of $125k a year ($1.3 million in 2021 dollars), getting educated in the realities of big business and big money from the most powerful business executives in the US. This was the period during which he transformed from a New-Deal Democrat to a Goldwater Republican. But he didn't first achieve elective office until 1967. Don't even get me started on Old Joe Kennedy and his boys. It is impossible to get to any national office without already having wealthy people behind you, so the money/power axis is already established before the politician arrives. If you impose term limits, all you achieve is more frequent turnover of the same power-driven, corporately subsidized egos with a talent for getting lots of people to vote for them. Because money moves faster than civics, the money will have zero trouble keeping up with the turnover.And this is what the electorate really wants, else no one would vote for these egos, and renegade fringe candidates would be more frequently elected. The reason Congress won't go along with term limits, other than they don't want them, is that they know most of the electorate doesn't really want term limits either. It's just talk.And that's definitely the other side of the coin. While technically, term limits don't exist, we have the power to enforce them ourselves every 2 or 4 years. Without having any solid data to back me up (though I'm sure some is out there, I just don't feel like looking it up), I would imagine a majority of people vote party line, regardless of the candidate. With everything being as gerrymandered as it is, that's one of the reasons only a handful of Congressional seats change party hands every election cycle. So short version is, we have the power to enforce term limits if we wanted, but more often than not, we don't.Having said that, I don't think that means we should dismiss Dean's ocean idea out of hand... "Just look at all the warlords, and they're talkin' on the TV, sellin' us blue sky that we're never gonna see. Forget all the ransoms, and I think we oughta pants them, and put 'em on a lead boat in the Salt Lake sea." -- John Stewart.Most of the electorate DO vote along party lines. But within that it's mostly a beauty contest, and then there are the "swing voters" who really decide elections - and they generally vote on personality, not issues. Joe Biden's plummeting approval numbers tend to suggest that the swing voters voted *against* Trump more than they voted *for* Biden, in much the same way they voted *against* Hilary more than *for* Trump in 2016. I thought Trump would narrowly win reelection, because the country has not really swung left as the Progressives think. He didn't, but it was really because the electorate had tired of Trump's obnoxious persona. The Left wants to see the election of Biden as evidence that their agenda is gaining ground, but I still contend it ain't so. Had Pete Buttigieg secured the nomination, Trump would have buried him. Swing voters, many of whom had voted for Trump, swung the election for Biden because Biden was seen not as a Progressive candidate, but a moderate Democrat - and that's true about Biden, regardless of attempts by the Right to paint him as a raging socialist. But the polling about Biden is heavily negative less than a year into his term, and the bulk of the negativity is backlash about foreign policy, vax mandates, and pandemic restrictions - all issues in which right-wing rage factors heavily, and gets sympathy from even the most moderate of swing voters. So the Democrats are running scared, and they'd better be, because grassroots Progressives are simply not as numerous as they would like to believe or would like us to believe.I don't think it was his persona, since that likely helped him get elected in 2016. I believe it was more outrage at his handling and dismissal of the pandemic. People were watching their loved ones die, and he and his cronies went on tv and mocked them, belittled them and acted like he couldn't give a shit about them. Which was true, he didn't, but you aren't supposed to say that part out loud. If the election had been held in 2019, he very likely would've be re-elected. Or if he'd handled that entire situation from the perspective of a relatively decent human being, he probably also would've won. But he is who he is, and he went down as such.
Quote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 01:20:57 PMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 12:16:26 PMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 11:32:46 AMQuote from: FloridaDean on October 15, 2021, 11:24:30 AMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 11:09:12 AMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 10:44:54 AMOn Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to. Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.Term limits, like Communism, is a fine idea in theory that is entirely inconsistent with human nature and the nature of civics in general, and won't accomplish what people think it will accomplish. This gets me into heated arguments with my fellow conservatives...heated, because I point out the obvious logical flaw in the notion. They think term limits will somehow mitigate the corrupting influence of power and self-interest. Some say "money," but money IS power, and all power is self-interest. Term limits cannot mitigate this reality, for two reasons: First, money moves faster than civics, always and inevitably. Second, the corrupting influence of power/money/self-interest begins long before a politician is elected, and by the time the politician assumes office, he or she already has a structure of monied interest to whom they are beholden. Ronald Reagan, for example, spent most of the 1950's on the payroll of GE to the tune of $125k a year ($1.3 million in 2021 dollars), getting educated in the realities of big business and big money from the most powerful business executives in the US. This was the period during which he transformed from a New-Deal Democrat to a Goldwater Republican. But he didn't first achieve elective office until 1967. Don't even get me started on Old Joe Kennedy and his boys. It is impossible to get to any national office without already having wealthy people behind you, so the money/power axis is already established before the politician arrives. If you impose term limits, all you achieve is more frequent turnover of the same power-driven, corporately subsidized egos with a talent for getting lots of people to vote for them. Because money moves faster than civics, the money will have zero trouble keeping up with the turnover.And this is what the electorate really wants, else no one would vote for these egos, and renegade fringe candidates would be more frequently elected. The reason Congress won't go along with term limits, other than they don't want them, is that they know most of the electorate doesn't really want term limits either. It's just talk.And that's definitely the other side of the coin. While technically, term limits don't exist, we have the power to enforce them ourselves every 2 or 4 years. Without having any solid data to back me up (though I'm sure some is out there, I just don't feel like looking it up), I would imagine a majority of people vote party line, regardless of the candidate. With everything being as gerrymandered as it is, that's one of the reasons only a handful of Congressional seats change party hands every election cycle. So short version is, we have the power to enforce term limits if we wanted, but more often than not, we don't.Having said that, I don't think that means we should dismiss Dean's ocean idea out of hand... "Just look at all the warlords, and they're talkin' on the TV, sellin' us blue sky that we're never gonna see. Forget all the ransoms, and I think we oughta pants them, and put 'em on a lead boat in the Salt Lake sea." -- John Stewart.Most of the electorate DO vote along party lines. But within that it's mostly a beauty contest, and then there are the "swing voters" who really decide elections - and they generally vote on personality, not issues. Joe Biden's plummeting approval numbers tend to suggest that the swing voters voted *against* Trump more than they voted *for* Biden, in much the same way they voted *against* Hilary more than *for* Trump in 2016. I thought Trump would narrowly win reelection, because the country has not really swung left as the Progressives think. He didn't, but it was really because the electorate had tired of Trump's obnoxious persona. The Left wants to see the election of Biden as evidence that their agenda is gaining ground, but I still contend it ain't so. Had Pete Buttigieg secured the nomination, Trump would have buried him. Swing voters, many of whom had voted for Trump, swung the election for Biden because Biden was seen not as a Progressive candidate, but a moderate Democrat - and that's true about Biden, regardless of attempts by the Right to paint him as a raging socialist. But the polling about Biden is heavily negative less than a year into his term, and the bulk of the negativity is backlash about foreign policy, vax mandates, and pandemic restrictions - all issues in which right-wing rage factors heavily, and gets sympathy from even the most moderate of swing voters. So the Democrats are running scared, and they'd better be, because grassroots Progressives are simply not as numerous as they would like to believe or would like us to believe.
Quote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 12:16:26 PMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 11:32:46 AMQuote from: FloridaDean on October 15, 2021, 11:24:30 AMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 11:09:12 AMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 10:44:54 AMOn Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to. Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.Term limits, like Communism, is a fine idea in theory that is entirely inconsistent with human nature and the nature of civics in general, and won't accomplish what people think it will accomplish. This gets me into heated arguments with my fellow conservatives...heated, because I point out the obvious logical flaw in the notion. They think term limits will somehow mitigate the corrupting influence of power and self-interest. Some say "money," but money IS power, and all power is self-interest. Term limits cannot mitigate this reality, for two reasons: First, money moves faster than civics, always and inevitably. Second, the corrupting influence of power/money/self-interest begins long before a politician is elected, and by the time the politician assumes office, he or she already has a structure of monied interest to whom they are beholden. Ronald Reagan, for example, spent most of the 1950's on the payroll of GE to the tune of $125k a year ($1.3 million in 2021 dollars), getting educated in the realities of big business and big money from the most powerful business executives in the US. This was the period during which he transformed from a New-Deal Democrat to a Goldwater Republican. But he didn't first achieve elective office until 1967. Don't even get me started on Old Joe Kennedy and his boys. It is impossible to get to any national office without already having wealthy people behind you, so the money/power axis is already established before the politician arrives. If you impose term limits, all you achieve is more frequent turnover of the same power-driven, corporately subsidized egos with a talent for getting lots of people to vote for them. Because money moves faster than civics, the money will have zero trouble keeping up with the turnover.And this is what the electorate really wants, else no one would vote for these egos, and renegade fringe candidates would be more frequently elected. The reason Congress won't go along with term limits, other than they don't want them, is that they know most of the electorate doesn't really want term limits either. It's just talk.And that's definitely the other side of the coin. While technically, term limits don't exist, we have the power to enforce them ourselves every 2 or 4 years. Without having any solid data to back me up (though I'm sure some is out there, I just don't feel like looking it up), I would imagine a majority of people vote party line, regardless of the candidate. With everything being as gerrymandered as it is, that's one of the reasons only a handful of Congressional seats change party hands every election cycle. So short version is, we have the power to enforce term limits if we wanted, but more often than not, we don't.Having said that, I don't think that means we should dismiss Dean's ocean idea out of hand...
Quote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 11:32:46 AMQuote from: FloridaDean on October 15, 2021, 11:24:30 AMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 11:09:12 AMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 10:44:54 AMOn Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to. Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.Term limits, like Communism, is a fine idea in theory that is entirely inconsistent with human nature and the nature of civics in general, and won't accomplish what people think it will accomplish. This gets me into heated arguments with my fellow conservatives...heated, because I point out the obvious logical flaw in the notion. They think term limits will somehow mitigate the corrupting influence of power and self-interest. Some say "money," but money IS power, and all power is self-interest. Term limits cannot mitigate this reality, for two reasons: First, money moves faster than civics, always and inevitably. Second, the corrupting influence of power/money/self-interest begins long before a politician is elected, and by the time the politician assumes office, he or she already has a structure of monied interest to whom they are beholden. Ronald Reagan, for example, spent most of the 1950's on the payroll of GE to the tune of $125k a year ($1.3 million in 2021 dollars), getting educated in the realities of big business and big money from the most powerful business executives in the US. This was the period during which he transformed from a New-Deal Democrat to a Goldwater Republican. But he didn't first achieve elective office until 1967. Don't even get me started on Old Joe Kennedy and his boys. It is impossible to get to any national office without already having wealthy people behind you, so the money/power axis is already established before the politician arrives. If you impose term limits, all you achieve is more frequent turnover of the same power-driven, corporately subsidized egos with a talent for getting lots of people to vote for them. Because money moves faster than civics, the money will have zero trouble keeping up with the turnover.And this is what the electorate really wants, else no one would vote for these egos, and renegade fringe candidates would be more frequently elected. The reason Congress won't go along with term limits, other than they don't want them, is that they know most of the electorate doesn't really want term limits either. It's just talk.
Quote from: FloridaDean on October 15, 2021, 11:24:30 AMQuote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 11:09:12 AMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 10:44:54 AMOn Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to. Term limits is a fine idea in theory, however, I doubt you'll get many in Congress to agree and make it happen.
Quote from: razgueado on October 15, 2021, 11:09:12 AMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 10:44:54 AMOn Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.with all the past and present talk about term limits. why don't we restrict political service to every politician to two four year terms and once they are done serving we take them all out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and dump them out. if anyone makes it back to shore alive they will be allowed to serve another set of terms if they want to.
Quote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 10:44:54 AMOn Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.History is always consistent. Joe Biden is as corrupt and dishonest now as when he and Ted Kennedy - also corrupt - led the resistance to the Thomas nomination.
On Oct. 15, 1991, despite sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill, the Senate narrowly confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, 52-48.Five years ago: Republican Donald Trump sought to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. presidential election, pressing unsubstantiated claims that the contest was “rigged” against him.At least the last couple of years were historically consistent.
New World
Tony. I'd be rooting for the Brewers if they were still in it. I can't get behind any of these teams left.
Quote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 09:22:33 PMNew World I hope you lit it
Quote from: bluecollar on October 15, 2021, 10:19:36 PMQuote from: LuvTooGolf on October 15, 2021, 09:22:33 PMNew World I hope you lit it I knew I forgot something!
Quote from: bluecollar on October 15, 2021, 07:26:16 PMTony. I'd be rooting for the Brewers if they were still in it. I can't get behind any of these teams left.Red Sox / Dodgers ?
