Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?
Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:43 pm
Well it's a good thing faith in our electoral system is rock solid heading into this, right?
That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
I think you're highly underestimating American's laziness, ignorance, and general malaise.
I'd change that to:
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy had barely finished presenting his party’s modest plan to fight climate change when conservatives began piling on in opposition...
...the Club for Growth vowed to not endorse any candidate who backs what it called the “liberal” Republican climate plan.
“Besides hurting our economy, these measures will not make a single environmentalist vote for a Republican and only alienate conservatives across the country,” said Club for Growth President David McIntosh.
The blowback illustrates the challenges facing those trying to shed the Republican party’s climate-denying reputation, which alienates many young voters and polls well for Democrats. The fierce criticism also illustrates the limits of pragmatism for a party long backed by groups that question climate change.
I saw something similar on international tv. Essentially climate expert Michael Mann debating with a conservative Australian politician. The pol essentially said that if I make these massive changes to address climate change I won't get re-elected to do them. It's a real problem. Ultimately we might need to lose democracy to save civilization but the people who are taking control don't seem to care about climate change either so it seem we might be boned either way.Pyperkub wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:30 pm This applies to many things, but illustrates the difficulties in getting the GOP to stop living in fantasyland:
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy had barely finished presenting his party’s modest plan to fight climate change when conservatives began piling on in opposition...
...the Club for Growth vowed to not endorse any candidate who backs what it called the “liberal” Republican climate plan.
“Besides hurting our economy, these measures will not make a single environmentalist vote for a Republican and only alienate conservatives across the country,” said Club for Growth President David McIntosh.
The blowback illustrates the challenges facing those trying to shed the Republican party’s climate-denying reputation, which alienates many young voters and polls well for Democrats. The fierce criticism also illustrates the limits of pragmatism for a party long backed by groups that question climate change.
IMHO, that's an argument which needs to be addressed via messaging. Moving to an economy which embraces Climate change fixes as a growth industry will have a lot of benefits, and the current Powers are too focused on costs only (with the climate change costs not included as a cost of doing business - the externalities are transferred to people and governments to fix - e.g. Big Oil asking Texas for 12 Billion + to protect its interests).malchior wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:15 pmI saw something similar on international tv. Essentially climate expert Michael Mann debating with a conservative Australian politician. The pol essentially said that if I make these massive changes to address climate change I won't get re-elected to do them. It's a real problem. Ultimately we might need to lose democracy to save civilization but the people who are taking control don't seem to care about climate change either so it seem we might be boned either way.Pyperkub wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:30 pm This applies to many things, but illustrates the difficulties in getting the GOP to stop living in fantasyland:
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy had barely finished presenting his party’s modest plan to fight climate change when conservatives began piling on in opposition...
...the Club for Growth vowed to not endorse any candidate who backs what it called the “liberal” Republican climate plan.
“Besides hurting our economy, these measures will not make a single environmentalist vote for a Republican and only alienate conservatives across the country,” said Club for Growth President David McIntosh.
The blowback illustrates the challenges facing those trying to shed the Republican party’s climate-denying reputation, which alienates many young voters and polls well for Democrats. The fierce criticism also illustrates the limits of pragmatism for a party long backed by groups that question climate change.
... wrong side of history ...Pyperkub wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:30 pm This applies to many things, but illustrates the difficulties in getting the GOP to stop living in fantasyland:
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy had barely finished presenting his party’s modest plan to fight climate change when conservatives began piling on in opposition...
...the Club for Growth vowed to not endorse any candidate who backs what it called the “liberal” Republican climate plan.
“Besides hurting our economy, these measures will not make a single environmentalist vote for a Republican and only alienate conservatives across the country,” said Club for Growth President David McIntosh.
The blowback illustrates the challenges facing those trying to shed the Republican party’s climate-denying reputation, which alienates many young voters and polls well for Democrats. The fierce criticism also illustrates the limits of pragmatism for a party long backed by groups that question climate change.
*cough* Altria *cough*Unagi wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:15 pm... wrong side of history ...Pyperkub wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:30 pm This applies to many things, but illustrates the difficulties in getting the GOP to stop living in fantasyland:
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy had barely finished presenting his party’s modest plan to fight climate change when conservatives began piling on in opposition...
...the Club for Growth vowed to not endorse any candidate who backs what it called the “liberal” Republican climate plan.
“Besides hurting our economy, these measures will not make a single environmentalist vote for a Republican and only alienate conservatives across the country,” said Club for Growth President David McIntosh.
The blowback illustrates the challenges facing those trying to shed the Republican party’s climate-denying reputation, which alienates many young voters and polls well for Democrats. The fierce criticism also illustrates the limits of pragmatism for a party long backed by groups that question climate change.
Hope they enjoy it.
I didn't listen to the interview, but the edited-down transcript is good.It hasn’t been an easy journey to backing a Democrat, especially when she thinks about issues that she cares deeply about, such as limiting government spending and restricting abortion. But as she’s been working with her Unlocking Potential Foundation, which focuses on increasing diversity among corporate leadership, she’s also been watching how the coronavirus pandemic has exposed inequality in America. She needed to speak up, too. Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are right, she said: The structures of power have been bent too far toward corporate control. But if conservatives really want to do anything about it, she said, they need to start by standing up for their principles.
Noting that I hoped and thought the GOP would implode *before* 2015, my thought is that win or lose it moves right and shrinks, not necessarily losing its grip on power. The irony being more and more historical conservatives #walkingaway having diluting affect on the democrats and their "cohesion" and making it harder from them to govern a position where electoral system and Senate gut punch them at every turn.
That list is incomplete without a "We Hatessss the Clintonssessssss!"Skinypupy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 4:18 pm David Frum lays out the GOP platform that they're "too scared" to publish.
Thing is, I honestly can't tell if this is satire or if he's serious.
Here's a quick summary:
Spoiler:
It's serious. Frum's paragraphs are all accurate descriptions of the GOP's stance on the key issues of the day. It seems to me he tried hard to avoid hyperbole.Skinypupy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 4:18 pm David Frum lays out the GOP platform that they're "too scared" to publish.
Thing is, I honestly can't tell if this is satire or if he's serious.
The fact that someone could actually say these things with a straight face made me question it. It seems so ludicrously over-the-top and exaggerated for effect.Holman wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:32 pmIt's serious. Frum's paragraphs are all accurate descriptions of the GOP's stance on the key issues of the day. It seems to me he tried hard to avoid hyperbole.Skinypupy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 4:18 pm David Frum lays out the GOP platform that they're "too scared" to publish.
Thing is, I honestly can't tell if this is satire or if he's serious.
1) The most important mechanism of economic policy—not the only tool, but the most important—is adjusting the burden of taxation on society’s richest citizens. Lower this level, as Republicans did in 2017, and prosperity will follow. The economy has had a temporary setback, but thanks to the tax cut of 2017, recovery is ready to follow strongly. No further policy change is required, except possibly lower taxes still.
6) Health care is a purchase like any other. Individuals should make their own best deals in the insurance market with minimal government supervision. Those who pay more should get more. Those who cannot pay must either rely on Medicaid, accept charity, or go without.
7) Voting is a privilege. States should have wide latitude to regulate that privilege in such a way as to minimize voting fraud, which is rife among African Americans and new immigrant communities. The federal role in voting oversight should be limited to preventing Democrats from abusing the U.S. Postal Service to enable fraud by their voters.
I worry that the opposite will happen. Biden's a conciliator who'll believe his mandate is to heal the country. I'm afraid that his administration will forgo investigations and prosecution in favor of "turning the page" and "moving forward." I don't think it will extend to actual pardons, but it could, especially if that's trump's price for going peacefully in January.Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:23 pm To be fair. should Democrats prevail and elect Biden, and keep the House, you will see a LOT of vitriol for the next 4 years directed at Trump. I'm sure his name will be invoked just as much if not more. Hell, name that shit: "Patching up the Great Undoing" or something.
Frum in particular has had an interesting political journey, though. He was essentially branded a heretic and kicked out of the conservative movement in 2009 for arguing that the GOP should actually negotiate in good faith and strike a deal on the ACA, rather than go full rejectionist. So Frum's an establishment Republican (or at least of the former GOP establishment), but he has a history of pushing back on the extremist wing of the party.Holman wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 7:03 pm What's even more something is that Frum himself was part of the GOP establishment under Bush Jr. You probably know this, but he was the speechwriter responsible for "Axis of Evil."
That's why we should be careful of the NeverTrumpers. Right now they are our allies against Trump, but it's hard to believe that any of them would have revolted against a Rubio or Jeb or even a Cruz administration that pursued pretty similar policies enabled by the very same Mitch McConnell.
Did any of the champion NeverTrumpers speak against the refusal to hold hearings on Merrick Garland?
Well...I think his Canadian sanity had to prevail.El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 11:31 amFrum in particular has had an interesting political journey, though. He was essentially branded a heretic and kicked out of the conservative movement in 2009 for arguing that the GOP should actually negotiate in good faith and strike a deal on the ACA, rather than go full rejectionist. So Frum's an establishment Republican (or at least of the former GOP establishment), but he has a history of pushing back on the extremist wing of the party.Holman wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 7:03 pm What's even more something is that Frum himself was part of the GOP establishment under Bush Jr. You probably know this, but he was the speechwriter responsible for "Axis of Evil."
That's why we should be careful of the NeverTrumpers. Right now they are our allies against Trump, but it's hard to believe that any of them would have revolted against a Rubio or Jeb or even a Cruz administration that pursued pretty similar policies enabled by the very same Mitch McConnell.
Did any of the champion NeverTrumpers speak against the refusal to hold hearings on Merrick Garland?
This is the only plank of Frum's platform that I actually agree with.China has become an economic and geopolitical adversary of the United States. Military spending should be invested with an eye to defeating China on the seas, in space, and in the cyber-realm. US economic policy should recognize that relations with China are increasingly zero-sum: when China wins, the US loses and vice-versa.
Democratic strategy is a mess because the Democratic Party is very wide. There are a LOT of factions in it, and many of them do not see eye to eye on much besides "Trump must go." By contrast, the Republican Party is SUPER narrow at this point. That means they can react with laser focus, but it also means they're constantly behind the 8-ball. Narrow parties can and often do punch well above their weight class, but that only takes you so far.coopasonic wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:00 pmIs the democratic strategy a mess simply because there is no big organizations behind it, funding it?
I heard James Carville in an interview describe it as this: Democratic Party is a coalition. They have different platforms among different groups, but they agree on some kind of bigger picture, so they can work together (for the most part). But they are not following a single ideology, which is the defining characteristic of the Republican Party. The Republicans have a party line that they are expected to follow, blindly or otherwise.Little Raven wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:33 pmDemocratic strategy is a mess because the Democratic Party is very wide. There are a LOT of factions in it, and many of them do not see eye to eye on much besides "Trump must go." By contrast, the Republican Party is SUPER narrow at this point. That means they can react with laser focus, but it also means they're constantly behind the 8-ball. Narrow parties can and often do punch well above their weight class, but that only takes you so far.coopasonic wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:00 pmIs the democratic strategy a mess simply because there is no big organizations behind it, funding it?
There are definitely a LOT of people that will vote R no matter what due to those single items (abortion and 2a). That's all they care about. All the other noise is just that. It's also those voters who Trump bragged would vote for him even if he murdered someone in Times Square. And he's right. They have such a massive case of tunnel vision surrounding their specific item, that literally nothing else matters. Lies? Pssh. Treason? He's not the first! Sexual assault? See: everyone's doing/done it. Stupid, bullying, dangerous douche-bag that might destroy America? Mmmmmm, ok, that's rough. BUT IS HE GOING TO SUPPORT (insert 2a or pro-life here)?!coopasonic wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:00 pm I think it basically boils down to winning (primarily for the elite) at any cost, with the caveat that black/brown, LGBTQ, etc lives and livelihoods hardly constitute a cost at all.
Things are only in the platform that support that goal. They don't give a damn about abortion or the second amendment. They give a damn about how they can use the ideas.
I would guess closer to 10%ers. I also think that 9.5+% of that 10% would probably be better off as his opposition but they won't come out of either direction hurting unless it all falls apart. Look at what the last six months has done for the trust fund populace. I barely squeak into the shrinking working middle class and the pandemic has been growing my 401k and I've been profiting in the small time stock trade.
Be careful now, there are a lot of 10%ers on this board. It's not a very high bar at our collective age.LordMortis wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 2:36 pmI would guess closer to 10%ers. I also think that 9.5+% of that 10% would probably be better off as his opposition but they won't come out of either direction hurting unless it all falls apart. Look at what the last six months has done for the trust fund populace. I barely squeak into the shrinking working middle class and the pandemic has been growing my 401k and I've been profiting in the small time stock trade.
I am finding there are a lot of people at our collective age who seem to be trying to protect theirs and think that Trump's America is protecting theirs. Far more of them than I am comfortable with. And they aren't all 2A Pro-Life Qanon following uneducated Fox TV watchers. They are largely people who grew up "privileged" in the 21st century use of the word, meaning they did what they were supposed to do, got to live "the college lifestyle" and then eased in to an office job with some sort of kick start from their family, allowing them start preparing for their financial future at a younger age. And they're all voters. They may not be vocal Trump supporters, but they are voters and they don't mind where the country is.coopasonic wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 3:05 pm Be careful now, there are a lot of 10%ers on this board. It's not a very high bar at our collective age.
Well I'm done here. That precisely sums up my feelings about my Trump-voting peers. I know a crap ton of people that fit that description. Too embarrassed to verbally admit they will vote for him (including to pollsters, who would probably never get a chance to talk to them anyway), and maybe some of them feel guilty for voting for him, knowing how selfish it is.LordMortis wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:36 pmI am finding there are a lot of people at our collective age who seem to be trying to protect theirs and think that Trump's America is protecting theirs. Far more of them than I am comfortable with. And they aren't all 2A Pro-Life Qanon following uneducated Fox TV watchers. They are largely people who grew up "privileged" in the 21st century use of the word, meaning they did what they were supposed to do, got to live "the college lifestyle" and then eased in to an office job with some sort of kick start from their family, allowing them start preparing for their financial future at a younger age. And they're all voters. They may not be vocal Trump supporters, but they are voters and they don't mind where the country is.coopasonic wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 3:05 pm Be careful now, there are a lot of 10%ers on this board. It's not a very high bar at our collective age.
I don't doubt your description for a moment, but I am super confused by that perspective.LordMortis wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:36 pmThey may not be vocal Trump supporters, but they are voters and they don't mind where the country is.
I had a conversation with a co-worker the other day about this. This is someone whose household has made at least $500K every year for the entire time I've been working here (she's one of the top salespeople here, and her husband is a DC lawyer). They own properties in both Northern VA and Hawaii, they both drive brand new Jaguars, they spend a month every year skiing throughout Europe, etc., etc.Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 5:04 pmWell I'm done here. That precisely sums up my feelings about my Trump-voting peers. I know a crap ton of people that fit that description. Too embarrassed to verbally admit they will vote for him (including to pollsters, who would probably never get a chance to talk to them anyway), and maybe some of them feel guilty for voting for him, knowing how selfish it is.LordMortis wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:36 pmI am finding there are a lot of people at our collective age who seem to be trying to protect theirs and think that Trump's America is protecting theirs. Far more of them than I am comfortable with. And they aren't all 2A Pro-Life Qanon following uneducated Fox TV watchers. They are largely people who grew up "privileged" in the 21st century use of the word, meaning they did what they were supposed to do, got to live "the college lifestyle" and then eased in to an office job with some sort of kick start from their family, allowing them start preparing for their financial future at a younger age. And they're all voters. They may not be vocal Trump supporters, but they are voters and they don't mind where the country is.coopasonic wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 3:05 pm Be careful now, there are a lot of 10%ers on this board. It's not a very high bar at our collective age.
In terms of "minding where the country is", I doubt that is much of a thought. Certainly not nearly as important as which candidate will likely benefit them personally (or the reverse, which candidate won't rock the very steady, safe boat.(taxes, schools, etc).
One thing that continues to bug me is that in the midst of this national peril, really, I STILL hear and read about people being interviewed that only talk about how they have or haven't or would be affected under President X. And it's like journalists (even NPR), lead to that question, first. What about the fucking country, people? Think outside your own personal got damn backyards and pocket books for once, for fuck's sake. Just today I heard a radio show on NPR, and the interviewer was asking this guy (surprisingly) what he would like to see for the country in the next 3-6 years. Where would he like to see us as a country. He answered by talking about how his personal life was great, he was doing great financially under Obama's presidency (this is someone who voted for Trump in 2016 but will not be in 2020). And just went on and on about how he personally was affected. Same for another person she talked to. It's like there's some blinder preventing people from realizing that like it or not, we are a society, a GROUP, a collective. I know individualism is deep in our DNA, but I think we may have gone too far, honestly, and fallen off the cliff into the Pit of Selfishness.
If that's representative of most of us, we are fucked. If we can't (or worse, maybe, choose not to) think outside our little personal sphere, we have no hope to continue to be great as a COUNTRY. (cue some nationalistic music here)
That knee jerk reaction to Socialism! is successful propaganda. She needs to see somehow that the GOP is just corporate Socialism, while the Dems Socialism she is so afraid of is pretty much in play in every single other first world economy. Ask her if Great Britain is socialist, or Japan, or Germany.Skinypupy wrote:I had a conversation with a co-worker the other day about this. This is someone whose household has made at least $500K every year for the entire time I've been working here (she's one of the top salespeople here, and her husband is a DC lawyer). They own properties in both Northern VA and Hawaii, they both drive brand new Jaguars, they spend a month every year skiing throughout Europe, etc., etc.Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 5:04 pmWell I'm done here. That precisely sums up my feelings about my Trump-voting peers. I know a crap ton of people that fit that description. Too embarrassed to verbally admit they will vote for him (including to pollsters, who would probably never get a chance to talk to them anyway), and maybe some of them feel guilty for voting for him, knowing how selfish it is.LordMortis wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:36 pmI am finding there are a lot of people at our collective age who seem to be trying to protect theirs and think that Trump's America is protecting theirs. Far more of them than I am comfortable with. And they aren't all 2A Pro-Life Qanon following uneducated Fox TV watchers. They are largely people who grew up "privileged" in the 21st century use of the word, meaning they did what they were supposed to do, got to live "the college lifestyle" and then eased in to an office job with some sort of kick start from their family, allowing them start preparing for their financial future at a younger age. And they're all voters. They may not be vocal Trump supporters, but they are voters and they don't mind where the country is.coopasonic wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 3:05 pm Be careful now, there are a lot of 10%ers on this board. It's not a very high bar at our collective age.
In terms of "minding where the country is", I doubt that is much of a thought. Certainly not nearly as important as which candidate will likely benefit them personally (or the reverse, which candidate won't rock the very steady, safe boat.(taxes, schools, etc).
One thing that continues to bug me is that in the midst of this national peril, really, I STILL hear and read about people being interviewed that only talk about how they have or haven't or would be affected under President X. And it's like journalists (even NPR), lead to that question, first. What about the fucking country, people? Think outside your own personal got damn backyards and pocket books for once, for fuck's sake. Just today I heard a radio show on NPR, and the interviewer was asking this guy (surprisingly) what he would like to see for the country in the next 3-6 years. Where would he like to see us as a country. He answered by talking about how his personal life was great, he was doing great financially under Obama's presidency (this is someone who voted for Trump in 2016 but will not be in 2020). And just went on and on about how he personally was affected. Same for another person she talked to. It's like there's some blinder preventing people from realizing that like it or not, we are a society, a GROUP, a collective. I know individualism is deep in our DNA, but I think we may have gone too far, honestly, and fallen off the cliff into the Pit of Selfishness.
If that's representative of most of us, we are fucked. If we can't (or worse, maybe, choose not to) think outside our little personal sphere, we have no hope to continue to be great as a COUNTRY. (cue some nationalistic music here)
Her comment was that while she despises Trump, thinks he's a horrible person, and is very concerned about the damage he is doing to the country, she just couldn't bring herself to vote for Biden because of "what it would do to my taxes" and because she "doesn't support socialism". She'll be "plugging her nose and voting for him again" because she absolutely could not bear the thought of making marginally less money as a trade off for restoring sanity and decency.
I fear there are lots of people out there like her. They are completely unwilling to make even slightly less money, no matter the consequences. It feels remarkably selfish and short-sighted. Of course, they will all likely be fine if everything comes crashing down, so why should they care?
The US census estimates that only 3% of American households make over $300K+ a year. I can't find stats for $500K+ but it's got to be even smaller...and most of those people live in very wealthy, very Democratic states. So as grating as I'm sure she is, rest assured...there aren't very many people like her, and even fewer of them live in swing states.
You can cut that wage by 80% in my neck of the woods, be a minor trust fund baby climbing the fiscal ladder through a portfolio and upgrading to a bigger mausoleum every five years, believing in and living a suburban life of "America First." That's the 10% I'm talking about.
I meant that there are lots of people with her same attitude of "I will vote against anything that may cause me to pay one single cent more in taxes, even if it means the world burns as a result".Little Raven wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:19 pmThe US census estimates that only 3% of American households make over $300K+ a year. I can't find stats for $500K+ but it's got to be even smaller...and most of those people live in very wealthy, very Democratic states. So as grating as I'm sure she is, rest assured...there aren't very many people like her, and even fewer of them live in swing states.