Random political thought thread.

[The Cat]

This was all Nancy Pelosi - who isn't going to piss on the GOP and old guard friends.

Why would she, they're so distracting and easy to hide behind while she day trades.

 

[Red Herring]

Presidents aren't dictators, or at least they are not supposed to be. The most progressive and effective ideas won't get implemented unless congress passes them. Too many voters have elected democratic/progressive presidents, but not the corresponding senators or representatives to support them. Divided government means not much gets done. Good if you just want to keep bad policy from being made; bad if you want real progress. Yes, this would affect Sanders as much as Obama, or anyone else.

As for over-hyped presidencies, I would give that designation to Ronald Reagan. So much of our current trouble started in his administration, if not at his instigation, then with his support. He was no more than a cheerleader for America who couldn't actually govern his way out of a paper bag, and was slipping into dementia toward the end of his time in office.

For what it's worth, over here - where Obama enjoyed immense popularity, especially after the serious disenchantment with America that took place under George W. Bush - the official narrative was mostly that Obama meant well but met with extreme opposition from the Republicans every step of the way (over here bipartisanship is still relatively normal) and that they sucessfully stopped him from getting stuff done.

Two negative aspects of his term come to mind though, from a German perspective. One was not closing Guantanamo and generally too much continuity after Bush regarding Iraq and the other was spying on the government of a close ally (us) as if it was a potential enemy rather than friend.

 

[Virtual ghost]

 

[Virtual ghost]

However the main problem with your logic is that you are kinda treating this as purely internal US thing. What in my book wouldn't be the case. The thing is that all right wing wins globally have got more and more people concerned around the world. Therefore counter push has basically already started. What means that Trump's moves will hit plenty of walls and that is going to hurt many in the US if he goes as far as he says. From what I understand: Mexico has recently inaugurated it's first female and quite left wing president. Also Canada should remain as it is for at least a year until elections. However it isn't impossible that Trump's crazy things will give Canadian liberals a realistic shot a year from now.

UK already has labor government. Last week center right PM lost vote of confidence in France. While the new one will be to the left of the removed one (and the left is expected to enter the coalition government). Italy's right lost some regional elections over the last couple of weeks. Germany is going to snap elections but center right just wouldn't have the seats and thus it will have to make a coalition government with one left wing party. Spain has left plus hard left government. The Romanian left should come on top in repeated elections. In Finland the right wing government is getting unpopular and left leads the polls. Denmark has labor government. My left wing president leads all polls and should get another term. In Austria the left entered the new coalition government a few weeks ago. In Lithuania left won general elections some 2 weeks ago. Same is in Iceland. Poland has coalition of the center and left in power.


The current conservative president of South Korea is under impeachment over what he did recently. In Japan the main conservative party lost the absolute majority quite recently (so they need a coalition partner). Australia has left wing government the last time I checked. So does Brazil and good chunks of Latin America. The current pope is also basically a leftists .... etc.



My point was simply that people underestimate into how many walls Trump will crash into. Especially since in many countries even the right doesn't like what he brings to the table. However these are countries that are friends or at least neutral to US. What in other words means that enemies can only add to the fire. Therefore as I said: the main show didn't even start at this point.

I see that people liked this post.
However you must be warned that even if all of that is correct at face value this isn't set in stone. Especially if the times are messy as current ones.


For example:

Just a day after this post was made things started to roll in Canada and that indicates fast snap elections and Conservatives taking over. UK has new left wing government. However it's approval is sinking quite fast. Plus various right wingers openly said that they will get help from US to make sure that PM resigns and that there are snap elections. After all with current polling trends there is no way that PM will last for the full term. Right did lost some regional elections in Italy, but the real question is will that even matter in the big picture. France is such a mess and free for all that in a sense I shouldn't have mentioned the country. In Germany main left wing and right wing parties will make a coalition as it seems but the right one will lead (and hard right should have record number of seats after election). Exactly the same is in Austria. What means that mainstream right can ditch the left for hard right at any moment. In Poland there is one very wide coalition government against the hard right (which is quite Trump friendly). However since the coalition is quite diverse it can fall apart at any moment, since it's only goal is basically to block hard right from taking over. In Spain left wing coalition is wobbling for years and that can fall part at any moment, since majority is dependent on Catalan separatists (only a few seat majority). In Finland left took clear lead in polls but there are no elections in sight. While what is going in Lithuania or Iceland is basically irrelevant .... etc.

Also it can be said that Mexico is way too messy and weak country that it can stand to US if it gets unfriendly. Conservative president in South Korea is under process of impeachment, but from what I understand the legal process isn't fully concluded. Left wing president of Brazil is seriously sick and not too popular, so it is questionable what will happen in that story. Pope is also quite old and sick .... etc. Plus there are countries that are going right or where the right wing has stable majority as it is. Those I skipped due the the farming of my argument.



Therefore if Trump slams the table hard enough all the pieces on the board will flip over. Will he do that remains to be seen but that is evidently possible scenario. Even if that would basically lead to "brave new world".

 

[SensEye]

The more right wing keywords you use, the stupider you sound and so easily influenced by them.

Let me know who you are identifying as "hard left" US politicians. Then I'll laugh as none of them are.

Anyone who thought Harris would be a viable candidate. I may sound stupid to you, but if the Dems had taken my advice (I wanted Biden gone a long time ago, and an open primary) Trump might not be president right now.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Might ?

It probably wouldn't.
Actually, if Harris didn't run so generic campaign she could have won.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Presidents aren't dictators, or at least they are not supposed to be. The most progressive and effective ideas won't get implemented unless congress passes them. Too many voters have elected democratic/progressive presidents, but not the corresponding senators or representatives to support them. Divided government means not much gets done. Good if you just want to keep bad policy from being made; bad if you want real progress. Yes, this would affect Sanders as much as Obama, or anyone else.

I'll be fair and point out one thing: during the first half of Obama's first term, when he had the greatest capability of getting stuff done, I was out on the countryside for most of it. Most of the time I had no access to the internet or any other news source. So, there may be details of what went on that elude me, or there might be some good things that were done (or tried) that I don't know about. I do think an attempt to do something counts; some people think it doesn't and I don't quite agree with that.

As for over-hyped presidencies, I would give that designation to Ronald Reagan. So much of our current trouble started in his administration, if not at his instigation, then with his support. He was no more than a cheerleader for America who couldn't actually govern his way out of a paper bag, and was slipping into dementia toward the end of his time in office.

Ronald Reagan was quite awful, but I was so young at the time I have no memory of his presidency. The first president I remember was the older George Bush, and there was always this mystery in my head during that time about who was President before him. I couldn't read at this time so I couldn't look it up. I don't know why I didn't ask.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

For what it's worth, over here - where Obama enjoyed immense popularity, especially after the serious disenchantment with America that took place under George W. Bush - the official narrative was mostly that Obama meant well but met with extreme opposition from the Republicans every step of the way (over here bipartisanship is still relatively normal) and that they sucessfully stopped him from getting stuff done.

But what do you think?

Two negative aspects of his term come to mind though, from a German perspective. One was not closing Guantanamo and generally too much continuity after Bush regarding Iraq and the other was spying on the government of a close ally (us) as if it was a potential enemy rather than friend.

I'm under the impression that everyone is spying on everyone else. I mean IIRC, the big shock of those Wikileaks cables Assange released were just how many countries the U.S was spying on, but I would imagine other countries are secretly spying on everybody, too. It's an open secret, you're just not supposed to get caught doing it. At least, that's how I understood it.

I'm not excusing the behavior, I'm just saying that I'm under the impression that it's commonplace to spy on your friends as well as your enemies.

 

[Coriolis]

But what do you think?

I'm under the impression that everyone is spying on everyone else. I mean IIRC, the big shock of those Wikileaks cables Assange released were just how many countries the U.S was spying on, but I would imagine other countries are secretly spying on everybody, too. It's an open secret, you're just not supposed to get caught doing it. At least, that's how I understood it.

I'm not excusing the behavior, I'm just saying that I'm under the impression that it's commonplace to spy on your friends as well as your enemies.

There was incredible Republican pushback and even obstructionism during Obama's presidency. At the same time, there were periods - and I don't have time to look up exactly when - that Democrats had both a majority in congress and the presidency, and failed to make much progress on their agenda due to internal squabbling. No party/side gets an A for governance, or even perhaps a B. At the same time, a president can influence the whole tone of the country just using his bully pulpit, and a few well-placed executive orders. Rhetoric may just be words, but it empowers associated groups and factions to act, or limit their action. It signals whether official responses will be prompt and vigorous, or hesitant and muted.

I agree that one of my greatest disappointments in Obama is how much he continued from Bush's administration, particularly related to the Patriot Act and other impositions on civil liberties and privacy in the name of fighting terrorism. We don't need the government rivaling terrorists in making our citizens fearful, and intruding into their lives.

 

[ceecee]

Anyone who thought Harris would be a viable candidate. I may sound stupid to you, but if the Dems had taken my advice (I wanted Biden gone a long time ago, and an open primary) Trump might not be president right now.

Your use of "DEI candidate" comes straight from the right. Yes it sounds stupid when anyone says it. It makes anyone in agreement with you about Harris being a viable candidate, complete dismiss anything else you have to say. So, stop using idiot right wing vocabulary and you'll have better political conversations.

 

[SensEye]

Your use of "DEI candidate" comes straight from the right. Yes it sounds stupid when anyone says it. It makes anyone in agreement with you about Harris being a viable candidate, complete dismiss anything else you have to say. So, stop using idiot right wing vocabulary and you'll have better political conversations.

You really believe Harris race and gender had nothing to do with her appointment to VP? Please. It was 100 percent an identity politics appointment to counter balance the 'old white guy' (Biden). And then she just fell into being the nominee when Biden got ousted. Then she quickly appointed another 'old white guy' (Walz) as VP who was jokingly referred to as the first white male DEI appointment. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. The right certainly does a better job of that than the left.

Harris then performed about as well as expected, which wasn't well at all.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Trump’s 7 most eye-opening European ambassador picks

 

[The Cat]

If you imagine Ron Howard narrating it takes some of the sting out:

"And now the story of a wealthy country who lost everything, and the average inhabitants, who had no choice but try to keep it all together...It's Arrested Development.

 

[Red Herring]

Trump’s 7 most eye-opening European ambassador picks

This list shows how little he cares both about his international partners in particular and qualification in general (not that this is anything new). I am curious whom he'll send to Germany. The last one - Richard Grenell - was really hated by Germans and his nomination considered an insult to the country.

Germans demand U.S. ambassador, a ‘biased propaganda machine,’ be replaced

And the Dutch got sent this guy:

Trump's ambassador to Netherlands in 'fake news' blunder​

The new US ambassador to the Netherlands has been caught out on Dutch television after a journalist quizzed him about comments he had made about Islamic extremism in the country.
Pete Hoekstra denied he had ever said there were "no-go zones" in the Netherlands, calling it "fake news".
But the Dutch journalist showed him a clip of the comments from 2015.
The Trump appointee then appeared to deny the "fake news" term he had used earlier in the interview.
The exchange left Wouter Zwart, US correspondent for Dutch broadcaster NOS, visibly confused in the short clip that has been widely shared on social media.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42460055

Not sure how many Americans are aware that they were - and likely will again be -represented in the world by a bunch of unqualified personal friends of the president getting paid off for their campaign donations (other countries often have highly qualified career diplomats). The US is not alone in this practice but Trumps choices tend to be in a league of their own. He often picks people who don't speak the local language, have little knowledge about the place they are sent to and frequently openly insult their host countries.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

This list shows how little he cares both about his international partners in particular and qualification in general (not that this is anything new). I am curious whom he'll send to Germany. The last one - Richard Grenell - was really hated by Germans and his nomination considered an insult to the country.

Germans demand U.S. ambassador, a ‘biased propaganda machine,’ be replaced

And the Dutch got sent this guy:



https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42460055

Not sure how many Americans are aware that they were - and likely will again be -represented in the world by a bunch of unqualified personal friends of the president getting paid off for their campaign donations (other countries often have highly qualified career diplomats). The US is not alone in this practice but Trumps choices tend to be in a league of their own. He often picks people who don't speak the local language, have little knowledge about the place they are sent to and frequently openly insult their host countries.

Meh, he had Carla Sands from Deathstalker and the Warriors from Hell as ambassador to Denmark. He's continuing his tendencies from his first term.

 

[Virtual ghost]

This list shows how little he cares both about his international partners in particular and qualification in general (not that this is anything new). I am curious whom he'll send to Germany. The last one - Richard Grenell - was really hated by Germans and his nomination considered an insult to the country.

This is exactly why I placed my bet on the scenario that he will probably hit so many walls internationally that he will not be able to deliver his vision. Because at the end of the day US is only 4% of the world's population. Therefore without reliable allies you can't stay on top in economic sense. However if you can't do that all the debts will become quite serious problem. His vision for the most part isn't even that bad but there just doesn't seem to be the basic understanding of the world to make it work.


Therefore based on these picks it is evident that we are going straight for drama.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

There was incredible Republican pushback and even obstructionism during Obama's presidency. At the same time, there were periods - and I don't have time to look up exactly when - that Democrats had both a majority in congress and the presidency, and failed to make much progress on their agenda due to internal squabbling. No party/side gets an A for governance, or even perhaps a B. At the same time, a president can influence the whole tone of the country just using his bully pulpit, and a few well-placed executive orders. Rhetoric may just be words, but it empowers associated groups and factions to act, or limit their action. It signals whether official responses will be prompt and vigorous, or hesitant and muted.

Do you think he was good at using his bully pulpit? I can remember one time when it royally angered me, because of the bothsidesism involved; it seemed like he was treating two actions as equivalent when they really weren't. It seemed to me that everyone changed their opinions to accommodate this, although that may have been in reaction to the inciting incident and Obama's role in that was actually rather minor.

I agree that one of my greatest disappointments in Obama is how much he continued from Bush's administration, particularly related to the Patriot Act and other impositions on civil liberties and privacy in the name of fighting terrorism. We don't need the government rivaling terrorists in making our citizens fearful, and intruding into their lives.

I get the feeling that people saw me going on about that in those days as the ravings of a lunatic. It would have been fine to do it back when Bush was the president, but once Obama took office I wasn't supposed to care about it anymore. (There were many things like that, really)

I guess we'll begin to see how much it really matters shortly.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I agree that Democrats try to pander to Republicans too often. Put another way, they are timid about embracing and promoting their strongest policies that distinguish themselves from Republicans in ways that provide tangible benefit to voters. Health care is a great example. Had Trump been able to repeal the ACA during his first term, lots of Republican voters would have been dropped or overcharged for pre-existing conditions, and Republican young adult children would have lost coverage, too. Unfortunately Republicans, especially those who support Trump, have a disappointing capacity to vote against their own self-interests. People smarter and more savvy than me will have to figure out how to break through that. I'm sure - or at least I hope - they are working on it.

Every candidate except Obama has adopted this strategy of trying to present themselves as a party that believes in many of the same things as Republicans, but will be more competent at implementing those things. Thus, the critique of Republicans becomes limited to the issue of competency; morals, consequences, analysis, and logical coherence must all be thrown under the bus because of this "winning" strategy. I'm really tired of seeing that. Yet, it has persisted for at least 20 years.

 

[Coriolis]

Every candidate except Obama has adopted this strategy of trying to present themselves as a party that believes in many of the same things as Republicans, but will be more competent at implementing those things. Thus, the critique of Republicans becomes limited to the issue of competency; morals, consequences, analysis, and logical coherence must all be thrown under the bus because of this "winning" strategy. I'm really tired of seeing that. Yet, it has persisted for at least 20 years.

On one level, we all do believe in the same things, or at least want the same things, just differ in how to get them. For example, I don't think Republicans are in favor of going without health care, they just want it addressed through some free market system where we each pay our own way. They are willing for people to go without, in order to preserve a system that suits their ideology. Many Republicans are very generous to charities, also a private way of addressing problems. Democrats tend to favor systemic solutions rather than individual charity, as it applies across the board. The scope, though, requires administration at a higher, usually federal, level which is more likely to run afoul of red tape, waste, and other "big government" ailments. I have long wondered if the best way was for the federal government to set the mandate (e.g. everyone has health insurance), but let each state implement and manage it in its own way, keeping things on a smaller and more local scale. But then I am no political expert. Maybe this wouldn't work as well as I wish.

 

[Coriolis]

Do you think he was good at using his bully pulpit? I can remember one time when it royally angered me, because of the bothsidesism involved; it seemed like he was treating two actions as equivalent when they really weren't. It seemed to me that everyone changed their opinions to accommodate this, although that may have been in reaction to the inciting incident and Obama's role in that was actually rather minor.

From what I have seen, there has simply been a more tolerant attitude in the country when we have had a Democratic president. It is more noticeable what changed when Trump was in office. Racists, misogynists, and other bigots felt more empowered. They knew the national leadership looked kindly on their views, and likely suspected or at least hoped that any official response would be muted at best.

Witness the texts sent to young black people, many still in middle school, on the day after this recent election, telling them to report to buses that would take them to work on plantations in a throwback to slavery days. Biden is still in office, and those texts are being investigated as the hate-based harassment they are. What do you think Trump would say and do? "Surely you didn't think they meant it. It was just a joke - no harm done." Misogynistic statements on social media and elsewhere are also on the rise. Trump's attitude signals that this sort of thing, and worse, is OK.

I get the feeling that people saw me going on about that in those days as the ravings of a lunatic. It would have been fine to do it back when Bush was the president, but once Obama took office I wasn't supposed to care about it anymore. (There were many things like that, really)

I guess we'll begin to see how much it really matters shortly.

I complained about it then, too. You weren't alone.