Hey look, it's "both sides are the same" guy. People like this are the reason that Trump is president, not the people who actually call out his BS. A lot of people in this country like to pretend that the Democrats are somehow just as bad as the Republicans but in reality it's not even close, the Democrats have their issues but the Republicans have reached an even higher level of crazy with their reality TV star at the helm. Sweet blog though.
\ I wasn't trying to compete with you -- I wanted to refute the notion that anyone that is critical of the "Russia hacked the election" narrative is a Trump fan. I'm trying to make clear what I think and why I think it -- not shame people for not agreeing with me. I'm sincerely glad if you are paying attention, but we live in a democracy where the people who get their news from Facebook and late-night comedians also get to vote. There are serious discussion going on about Oprah or the Rock or Marc Cuban running for president in 2020. Corporate news is putting Russia at the top of the news cycle, rather than say the Medicare For All bill that has support from 2/3 of the electorate, and 1/3 of Democrats in the Senate or how Trump's proposed cuts in corporate tax will likely cost jobs rather than create them. This isn't a conversation most self-identified Democrats are having. Instead they are talking about how much they hate Trump, making sure their peers know how much they hate Trump, making sure everyone hears them laugh at the recycled Bush jokes by late-night talk hosts, and sharing poor journalism with anecdotal evidence that support the Russia claim and/or the idea that the 2016 election was illegitimate. It is, IMHO, cognitive dissonance that benefits the most oligarchical elements of the Republican Party who are able to conduct their affairs in the open without much fanfare. After all, Paul Ryan's budget cut ideas aren't nearly as interesting as Trump jokes. That it is a small minority that actually follows events outside the US or in their own legislative body (not pointing any fingers at you) and seem concerned about them is not a good sign and not responsible for either an opposition party or the media. It's all a show -- it's all about Trump, it's getting great ratings, people are winning Emmys, all the comic writers have jobs, and everyone is enjoying their hashtag resistance social media "activism." Conservatives are laughing their way to tax cuts and in this moment in time, they aren't the ones dumbing down the discourse.
If you are comparing me to Gore Vidal, I'm (seriously) humbled. He was a hell of a lot smarter than any of us, and certainly more eloquent. He wrote this in 1975, so it's not exactly a new idea, but even if I do think it's much truer now than it was then (except the part about the poor -- the Democrats haven't cared about them as a party since the 90s), there have always been principled Democrats in office I agreed with and have supported the candidacies of. If by sweet blog, you mean the Nation, I'm pretty sure that's where he published it. No one said it's easy to be an iconoclast, but if my political opinions put me in the same ballpark as people like Gore Vidal and Christopher Hitchens (who also wrote for the Nation), I'll happily take that.
I think your view of the Democratic Party and Democrats in general has become distorted by what you've read in D&D. Believe it or not, Democrats are quite capable of being concerned about several different issues. You may have the impression that all we're (I'm a Democrat) talking about is trump, the GOP and trump, and Russia's relationship with the trump campaign and this White House. That simply isn't the case. I've discussed a host of issues here, as have several others. It isn't "all about trump and Russia." Far from it. The women I know are livid at trump's on-going assault on women's rights. The LGBTQ community are livid about the administration's assault on their rights, and Democrats across the board are disgusted with trump's foreign policy, and that's putting aside Russia. We're upset about his immigration policies. We're concerned about domestic terrorism, as we've seen in Vegas. I could go on. Russia's possible connection to trump in the White House, and the trump campaign, are only part of a much broader concern with Democrats. That trump is busy running the country into a ditch, full speed, and that he is putting the country in danger. And we discuss healthcare. God knows, that's under assault by trump and his minions as well. Medicare for all? I think it's a great idea. Now tell us how it's going to be paid for.
I've read a few of Hitcens' books and a book about him, which was Hitch-22 (well worth a read) The guy was on a different level than most. I know much less about Gore Vidal.
Ah... another "i didn't vote for Trump". Amazing how many republicans/conservatives didn't vote for him. Maybe vote fraud was responsible for him getting so many votes in November and throughout the republican primaries. But OK, he is now president. And here he is doing all these other "bad" things and yet you don't take advantage of the larger D&D forum to post about any of them. Because there are many threads of discussion not about the Russian issue. Which by the way, I believe is a serious issue, since I believe actively colluding with Russia is a very serious act.
Vidal was considerably older Hitchens and was greatly admired by him,especially for his willingness to be intellectually honest enough to be critical of things that upset the consensus of Left opinion in the US. That's not an easy thing to do, especially if you want to keep getting published. I respect anyone that takes the time to articulate nuanced and principled opinions about politics and I try my best to do that here. The right had their own contrarian essayists as well -- William Safire comes to mind as a writer I greatly respected and I don't think the NY Times op/ed page has been the same since he left. Hitchens is the public intellectual I probably agreed with the most often in my adult life, and there is probably not a more persuasive speaker that challenged my notions about any given thing or managed to change my mind. It's a common conversation amongst his fans to speculate on who he would have voted for in the 2016 election -- he was very proud of American citizenship and took his privilege to vote in US elections very seriously. Hitchens supported Obama in both previous elections, despite his reasonable reservations and criticism of his tenure. He was one of the most vocal critics of the Clintons since the 90s and he never relented, and even wrote what might be the most critical non-wingnut book about them. But he was also a long time critic of Donald Trump and hated him. I think given the choices, he would have still voted for Hillary Clinton, as I did. He's unfortunately not around to tell us who he voted for or give us his take on this new era of American political life, and I think he is sorely missed.
I read the Greenwald piece you posted. I'm open to dismiss the issue but I want all the facts. If Mueller finds no wrongdoing then I'm good with moving on but certainly not until then. I agree with some of what you've said. It's not the job of comedians to focus on policy issues, they're supposed to be making fun of whoever is in power. I'm not surprised but I think self-identified Democrats are shocked at the sheer ignorance and bigotry of Trump supporters. They have been caught up in the culture wars and civil rights fights that Republicans have ignited and have not focused enough on economic, health, and tax policy. In a lot of ways this has been happening since Reagan, maybe since Nixon really. I think we're now starting to see some dramatic effects of this Republican policy in how the country is falling apart and there's been a trend of corporatist Democrats like Clinton and Obama that hasn't helped at all. Perhaps we need to hit rock bottom before we start to get our act together.
There were plenty that didn't, but yes, I don't think everyone that said they were for McMullin or Johnson voted for them in the end. If we can trust NBC's exit polls, 90% of Republicans voted for Trump and 89% of Democrats voted for Clinton. I registered Democrat and supported Sanders in the primaries and took him for his word when he urged his supporters to vote for Clinton to oppose Trump. I also think even by Green and Libertarians standards, their candidates were weak in 2016, and I couldn't see myself voting for them even as protest candidates. I think the GOP primaries were certainly more democratic that the Democratic Party's -- their voters picked the second worst candidate offered in a large field, but at least there is no evidence the GOP tried to tip the scales. I'm reasonably confident GOP Primary voters got the candidate they wanted. If anything, most of the establishment party was very much against Trump, even Fox News. And even as much as Republicans say they don't like Trump (and with his approval is in the shitter I think most of them are being honest), they are way less divided as a party than the Democrats are. As much as the Democratic faithful want to ignore it, the leaks showing the collusion between the DNC and their chosen candidate have eroded a lot of confidence between the party and their voters. Whether or not Russia was responsible for that (and I have yet to see credible evidence they were), doesn't change the fact the GOP is one election cycle away from taking enough state legislatures to edit the Constitution at will. He is president, and IMHO he quickly abandoned his populism and enacted some very bread and butter GOP policy. I don't think we'd be that different with another Republican administration at this point other than the histrionics. That isn't intended as an endorsement as much that I think there's too much talk about Trump and not enough about the GOPs unprecedented power. You don't have to be a Democrat to want a stronger opposition party. I haven't posted much in the recent past since I was in a really bad accident, but I have been here since the clutchcity.com days and I've posted more in D&D than the GARM. Life doesn't always permit me the privilege of time to post here, but I do like that I can hear a wide spectrum of voices here, which is why I frequent it. I also think it helps that they are Rockets fans. No matter whom I disagree with, I have that at least in common and I respect most of the people here.
You have that in common with a lot of people. I was myself persuaded at the time and was in favor of the invasion, but unlike him, I don't think it was ultimately good for the US or the world I do too and I have no issues with having an investigation. The truth matters more to me than anything else. The result of that is to self-select for whatever political bubble makes viewers most comfortable, and that's not good. It shouldn't be a surprise that bigots prefer Trump to Clinton, but it would be unreasonable to suggest every Trump voter is a bigot. His anemic popularity certainly attests to the fact that many of his voters didn't and don't like him very much at all. Oh, I think it's been there since the 60s. That's where we got the realignment post Civil Rights and the Southern Strategy that followed it. I very much agree that the Clintonian triangulation that gave the Democrats short term gains in the 90s have effectively hurt them now. I would like to think the Democratic Party has already hit rock-bottom. Most of its leadership have only survived in office because they benefit from states or districts with democratic super-majorities. Both Sanders and Trump show that there is more to winning elections than raising the most money and I think the more populist-minded within the Democratic Party are its likely future. It's not a "people's party" any longer and I think it will need to regain that identity if it hopes to win back the electorate. The one thing I am certain of is the same old people saying the same old things is not going to achieve different results.
I think my view of the Democratic Party was largely affected by the revelation that it has two kinds of members: those that have John Podesta's email, and those that don't. I think you are describing the ones that don't have John Podesta's email address The ones that do, the ones that control the party, have been keeping a singular in focus since November. You would be hard pressed to find Democrat sponsored legislation making the front page of any newspapers. Planned Parenthood needed my money before Trump was president. Women's health clinics were being closed long before Trump was president. Congressional Democrats did act decisively on the transgender enlistment ban and it continue to challenged with lawsuits, so I'm happy to concede on that, but I also have a good memory and so do many gay rights activists. I also won't forget how Obama was attacked in the 2008 primaries. Political expediency has always come before principle and I get that that's how the sausage is made, but I think there are limits. I don't want to support any politician or party that does this stuff. These things didn't suddenly start to trouble me when Trump became president. Those things didn't simply become problems when Donald Trump was elected and they aren't going to go away once he finishes his tenure in office. And if I hate Trump's foreign policy, why would I be cool with the Democratic Party suddenly being chummy with the likes of Max Boot, Bill Kristol, and David Frum? I think that's an order of magnitude worse. Me too. But why now? Where was the Democratic Party when Obama was deporting 2.5 million people? I mean, people complained, but not like they are now. It's reminds me of how Republicans were suddenly concerned about having a balanced budget when Obama was elected. Help me get elected to Congress, and I'll be happy to figure it out Deckard. But...there are so many false fallacies in the health care debate about how it can't be done, and the best ones are by those that are paid too much by health care lobbies to kill any discussion of it. The cost of medical care is so much higher here than it is anywhere in the world and it's because it's the only place in the world where being ill is an enterprise. It would mean higher taxes, but it would also mean not paying premiums or copays. I paid less for healthcare out of pocket without insurance in Israel than I do now with Blue Cross as a state employee. And trust me, after getting hit by a Lexus, my health care expenses could have otherwise bought me a Lexus (or two) of my own. I think there is a capitalist argument for single-payer that's being missed as well. It would mean employers could hire more people since the burden of supplying employees medical insurance won't be on them, and it will encourage entrepreneurial pursuits for people who currently aren't willing to leave their current jobs because the fear losing their insurance or not being to afford it if they were self-employed or start companies of their own. In my case, it is very unlikely I'll ever be self-employed again for this reason. I'm also pro-immigration (I'm from South Texas and some of my family is from further south), pro-choice (I donate to Planned Parenthood and have great respect for Cecille Richards), an advocate of equal rights for gay and trans people (even before it was politically popular), and I'm against interventionist wars (and very much against neo-con policy hawks and think they have been clearly discredited), but I also feel very much an outsider to the leadership of the Democratic Party, even though none of those positions are particularly radical. And that has nothing to do with Donald Trump.
This is why I don't post. It takes a lot of work to take people seriously and give thoughtful and honest replies
They were applauding Obama for bringing about DACA. They were cheering that Obama focused on deporting more illegal immigrants with a priority on those that were committing violent crimes. They were happy that their party had put forward that sensible plan. I don't think most Democrats want illegal immigrants to have free reign.
I'm not sure how you prevent that in a for profit media system. They're going to do what gets them the best ratings, not really what's in the best interest of the dialogue we have as a country. Of course. It is just shocking to some the number of white people who have this irrational Obama hatred and an irrational love for Trump, particularly when their economic/health interests lie more with Obama's views than Trump's. They can't articulate with much factual mastery why they hate Obama and why they love Trump but they will constantly assure you it's not about race. It's a delusion really. Yes, many would say Clinton was the best Republican President in generations. Of course Republicans castigate any Democrat as a fringe liberal regardless of the reality and it's been an effective tactic unfortunately. That's the surprising part of Trump's popularity. He's a fake populist. Nothing he advocates in policy is populist in nature. He's going to screw the poor, he's going to screw the middle class, and they're going to love him for it because he sticks it to minorities and immigrants. It's really a nightmare scenario. Unfortunately the continuation of tax cuts for the rich, a ceding of rights to corporations, and a reduction of entitlements for everyone is going to continue and our country will be worse off for it. We don't learn from our own history.
I enjoyed your post! I don't post that way, but I certainly enjoy it when someone intelligent does. Some points. My significant other knew Ann casually, and has met Cecille. She was a state executive for a very long time, and retired recently because the job required her to work closely with the Lege, and she simply couldn't stand working with the increasingly far-right members of that body. I appreciated your comment about state health insurance, since we both, along with our kids, have had it for years. At least the kid that has a year left of college is still on our plan. Planned Parenthood? Yes, PP has been under attack for seemingly forever. I used to take girlfriends there for contraception back in the late 60's and early 70's. Trump isn't doing anything to stop those attacks. He put a 49 year old far-right (in my opinion) Justice on the SC after Obama's last nominee was outrageously denied even a hearing. I have literally nothing good to say about trump. Heck, I don't think he's a good businessman. He is a good conman, however. I'm glad we agree about LGBTQ rights. I'm confused about your comment regarding 2008, though. Clinton attacked Obama, Obama attacked Clinton, Edwards attacked Clinton, etc., and so on. It's politics. I know you didn't mention him, but I will. Neither Hillary or Barack are Bernie Sanders. Both made the calculation, which I disagreed with when I saw what Obama got passed regarding healthcare, that single payer couldn't get passed, even with a Democratic majority in both houses. I support single payer. I would support Bernie's "plan" if he could describe how he's going to pay for it. If I have to pay more taxes to enable a system like that, I'm willing to pay them. I have yet to hear how Bernie expects to. I like your point that it would actually be cheaper and easier for employers if there were a single payer system. I've heard that before, but it was worth repeating. The supposed "Dems getting chummy with Neo-Cons" meme makes a good line, but I don't see it. Get back to me when there is evidence of real influence from that quarter. As for immigration, I thought FB answered that well. Obama tried, and trump is busy overturning, literally every thing Obama accomplished, if he can, and that clearly includes immigration. Not crazy about Obama's record? Show me an elected Republican in Congress that supports Obama's record on immigration. Even Collins fudges on giving clear opinions on a lot of progressive issues. One last thing. I have a very difficult time understanding why you made this comment, "You would be hard pressed to find Democrat sponsored legislation making the front page of any newspapers." Are you kidding me? How in the heck would they get anything passed? They've been shut out of discussions about every major GOP bill. John McCain keeps "yelling," "regular order!" There hasn't been any. If you honestly think Democrats have had a chance to do anything in this Congress, I guess I have to describe myself as speechless!
This I do agree with but I do see discussions on this very message board outside of Trump. When the Vegas shooting happened, CHIP fell through the cracks. When the Hurricanes hit, Graham-Cassidy healthcare bill which would put 21 million Americans uninsured was almost passed. That's potentially 30 million Americans (9 million from CHIP) without health insurance for the benefit of who? The last time I checked, 59 people died in Vegas and over 500 have sustained injuries. It's a horrible tragedy worth discussing many times over. But we're talking about potentially tens of millions of American citizens affected by this. And it barely gets as much attention as two threads on the Vegas shooting in such a short amount of time. I feel like I see a pattern where a controversial tweet erupts, a news headline worthy shooting or natural disaster occurs and more garbage legislation attempts to get pushed through Congress. Sometimes they fail like with healthcare. Other times, not so much. Some cabinet selections have enacted policies that are going to affect the bottom dollar of many Americans that are probably already on a tight budget. The thread JuanValdez started pertaining the DOE's coal subsidies is another good example. How it's going to increase the bottom dollar of the wealthy elite in the coal industry by a few hundred million but at the cost of billions to those dependent on coal to provide electricity to their home. Those most dependent on coal electricity are likely the communities pushing for coal to remain a workforce option and are ultimately shooting themselves in the foot because of it. Because coal jobs aren't coming back, but because of their lobbying, will be footed a higher monthly electricity bill as unemployment in the coal industry continues to rise. That's worth more discussions than a lot of Trump tweets. Then you get tweets about Trump threatening to genocide North Korea and you can't gloss over that. His tweets DO matter.
Republicans are struggling with connect the dots. We need to move to something simpler, like color by numbers, maybe tic tac toe? Maybe then they will see the apparent connection.
The only dots I can connect so far are between naivety and the previous admin. I watch this 5 years later and I cringe.
