Trump's America

[TGHusker]

41 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I think you quoted the wrong post. But this is something I've been noticing for years now. I think as the district demographics have gotten more extreme, the candidates have lost more of the requirement to try to reach moderate voters. So you get more candidates and winners that are on the extremes.

 

And in my opinion you can't be smart and at the same time be gungho in support of every last thing one of the 2 political parties does.

We see that in Okla.  There is a long list of 'Conservative credentials' one has to have to get elected. The 1st district repub primary is full of 5 guys who look alike, sound alike, have basically the same conservative street cred that it is getting pretty boring and unimaginative.  We won't fix the old problems if we keep electing clones.

[ZRod]

46 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I think you quoted the wrong post. But this is something I've been noticing for years now. I think as the district demographics have gotten more extreme, the candidates have lost more of the requirement to try to reach moderate voters. So you get more candidates and winners that are on the extremes.

 

And in my opinion you can't be smart and at the same time be gungho in support of every last thing one of the 2 political parties does.

I think you're right lol

 

Is it that demographics have gotten more extreme, or that the extreme has just been able to yell louder than everyone else?

[Moiraine]

24 minutes ago, ZRod said:

I think you're right lol

 

Is it that demographics have gotten more extreme, or that the extreme has just been able to yell louder than everyone else?

 

 

Well, probably both.

 

But I've seen charts showing the split in demographics (some of it due to gerrymandering). In this case by demographics (might be the wrong word) I just mean Republican and Democrat. You've got more districts now with high % of one party, and less where it's more even.

[Danny Bateman]

2 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Well, probably both.

 

But I've seen charts showing the split in demographics (some of it due to gerrymandering). In this case by demographics (might be the wrong word) I just mean Republican and Democrat. You've got more districts now with high % of one party, and less where it's more even.

 

This is pretty much the concept of packing (high percentage of R or D voters in a district) and cracking (low percentage in other districts) that was heavily featured in the Wisconsin gerrymandering case SCOTUS just decided not to rule on. 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[knapplc]

The Democrats continue to get it wrong.

 

One does not affect change by sitting by and allowing evil to triumph.  One affects change by opposing it. 

 

Protesting - albeit peacefully - is a key element to getting America motivated and moving forward.

 

The Republicans are doing an excellent job of demonizing all forms of protest. And the Democrats are, typically, ineptly bumbling along in the wake of Republican branding, reacting rather than leading.

[BigRedBuster]

 

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

The Democrats continue to get it wrong.

 

One does not affect change by sitting by and allowing evil to triumph.  One affects change by opposing it. 

 

Protesting - albeit peacefully - is a key element to getting America motivated and moving forward.

 

The Republicans are doing an excellent job of demonizing all forms of protest. And the Democrats are, typically, ineptly bumbling along in the wake of Republican branding, reacting rather than leading.

Kind of like how the Republicans were battling evil with Hillary so they needed to vote into office the most outrageous candidate they could find to confront her in the campaign and make America great again.

[knapplc]

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Kind of like how the Republicans were battling evil with Hillary so they needed to vote into office the most outrageous candidate they could find to confront her in the campaign and make America great again.

 

There are as many ways to protest things as there are things to protest.  Protests do not inevitably lead to another Trump.

 

[BigRedBuster]

5 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

There are as many ways to protest things as there are things to protest.  Protests do not inevitably lead to another Trump.

 

I have a fear that the left will counter Trump with the left wing version.  It might not be the Presidency, but maybe it's the people they put into congress.

 

Politics in the US for Decades has been one party upping the other party with outrageous rhetoric and media storms to the point we are at where we are with Trump.  The madness has to stop somewhere.

 

I am in no way shape or form saying the left needs to stay quiet.  Just the opposite.  But...they need to come out of this looking like the adults in the room and not like the other side of the same coin.

[knapplc]

It's a great concept.  Gandhi overthrew British colonial rule through peaceful protest. MLK evinced change in America through peaceful protest.  It takes a great, charismatic leader to accomplish those things, and there isn't one currently in power in the Democratic ranks.  Until they produce someone like that (or a Republican shows up and does so from inside their machine), I think we're going to continue to see these kinds of protests. 

 

It also doesn't help that the press doesn't focus on anything, but allows themselves to be pulled in whatever direction pops up in the news cycle, meaning no messages from the Democrat camp come to the fore for very long.  The Republicans are great at manipulating the press, like right now with their "open borders" thing, which Mitch McConnell just accused Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of favoring less than 24 hours after her upset win over Crowley.  She's, obviously, run on no such platform. But the messaging is constant and gets injected into each day's news cycle. 

 

Until the Democrats learn to manipulate the news like the Republicans and until they find a leader like that can focus them into peaceful protest, you're going to see the gamut of protests from peacefully asking the Press Secretary to leave an establishment to confronting Mitch McConnell with crying children.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

It's a great concept.  Gandhi overthrew British colonial rule through peaceful protest. MLK evinced change in America through peaceful protest.  It takes a great, charismatic leader to accomplish those things, and there isn't one currently in power in the Democratic ranks.  Until they produce someone like that (or a Republican shows up and does so from inside their machine), I think we're going to continue to see these kinds of protests. 

 

It also doesn't help that the press doesn't focus on anything, but allows themselves to be pulled in whatever direction pops up in the news cycle, meaning no messages from the Democrat camp come to the fore for very long.  The Republicans are great at manipulating the press, like right now with their "open borders" thing, which Mitch McConnell just accused Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of favoring less than 24 hours after her upset win over Crowley.  She's, obviously, run on no such platform. But the messaging is constant and gets injected into each day's news cycle. 

 

Until the Democrats learn to manipulate the news like the Republicans and until they find a leader like that can focus them into peaceful protest, you're going to see the gamut of protests from peacefully asking the Press Secretary to leave an establishment to confronting Mitch McConnell with crying children.

 

 

 

[Moiraine]

Opinion piece that America (and other countries) are in trial runs for fascism. One thought that entered my head while reading is, if Republicans will defend family separation, what else will they accept?

 

I know there are Russians who are 100% in support of Putin. My friend has met Russians visiting their relatives. They have state run media, but how much different is that from the situation we're in, where people don't see the truth because they're told it's fake news? If a "fake news" reporter was killed, how many would decide it doesn't matter?

 

 

Quote

Fascism doesn’t arise suddenly in an existing democracy. It is not easy to get people to give up their ideas of freedom and civility. You have to do trial runs that, if they are done well, serve two purposes. They get people used to something they may initially recoil from; and they allow you to refine and calibrate. This is what is happening now and we would be fools not to see it.

 

 

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-trial-runs-for-fascism-are-in-full-flow-1.3543375?mode=amp#.WzH9Me5V6vY.facebook

[knapplc]

10 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

Opinion piece that America (and other countries) are in trial runs for fascism. One thought that entered my head while reading is, if Republicans will defend family separation, what else will they accept?

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-trial-runs-for-fascism-are-in-full-flow-1.3543375?mode=amp#.WzH9Me5V6vY.facebook

 

This opinion piece has some hyperbole to it.  Best read with your thinking cap firmly in place.

 

Having said that, I have thought this for a while. Look at the rise of far-right politics across the globe. It's not an accident it's happening everywhere at the same time.  The US, Australia, France, England... there are a lot of far-right people popping up in governments all over the world.

[Moiraine]

10 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

This opinion piece has some hyperbole to it.  Best read with your thinking cap firmly in place.

 

Having said that, I have thought this for a while. Look at the rise of far-right politics across the globe. It's not an accident it's happening everywhere at the same time.  The US, Australia, France, England... there are a lot of far-right people popping up in governments all over the world.

 

 

 

I know, but sometimes it's good to consider the worst case scenario. There are many reasons to be worried, especially with the House not being a check on the president.

[TGHusker]

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

It's a great concept.  Gandhi overthrew British colonial rule through peaceful protest. MLK evinced change in America through peaceful protest.  It takes a great, charismatic leader to accomplish those things, and there isn't one currently in power in the Democratic ranks.  Until they produce someone like that (or a Republican shows up and does so from inside their machine), I think we're going to continue to see these kinds of protests. 

 

It also doesn't help that the press doesn't focus on anything, but allows themselves to be pulled in whatever direction pops up in the news cycle, meaning no messages from the Democrat camp come to the fore for very long.  The Republicans are great at manipulating the press, like right now with their "open borders" thing, which Mitch McConnell just accused Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of favoring less than 24 hours after her upset win over Crowley.  She's, obviously, run on no such platform. But the messaging is constant and gets injected into each day's news cycle. 

 

Until the Democrats learn to manipulate the news like the Republicans and until they find a leader like that can focus them into peaceful protest, you're going to see the gamut of protests from peacefully asking the Press Secretary to leave an establishment to confronting Mitch McConnell with crying children.

 

 

Regarding the bold - with the weak knee response of Repubs in Congress and their thirst to retain power, I see non-arising out of that party.  The Dems don't have one that can gain the lion's share of the vote.  So instead of a Gandhi type, I fear we will end up wt a Trump.2, then a Trump.3  which will lead us to fascism. And it may not require a Trump.2 or .3 - Trump's re-election with congressional control by 'get along' Republicans could remove all congressional checks.