The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-06-2020, 03:29 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Define murder...I understand that liberals with dunce caps have a hard time with the meanings of words they use these days. Do you really deserve to have a decent police force these days? I don't think so. Personally, I don't think a third rate group of people/politicians deserve to have a first rate police force these days.

In Massachusetts, I have seen the bad cops, drug dealers and prostitutes doing each other favors. I tend to believe this exists to some degree around the country.

Near the twin cities, you see where the bad cops are not sat on by the good cops, and the deep seated racism has resulted in a loss of faith in the official mechanisms that assure justice.

I can see both of these cultural problems being true to some extent in California. They have problems with both drugs and hate.

But under what conditions does someone deserve a bad police force?

If you are a racist, if you are part of the problem of the official police structure not giving justice equally to all, you are part of the problem. Perhaps you don’t deserve to have a solution if you are part of the problem.

If you are a bad cop who does favors to pushers and prostitutes, you had best leave the solid citizens alone. You can’t enforce a prohibition. The drug and prostitution gangs will find a place in the culture as long as their products are sought. But you have to expect to get burned if you turn your bad cop behavior onto solid citizens.

While Eric and I have sometimes bumped heads, I do not see him at all as a pusher, prostitute, bad cop or racist. What is your criteria for not deserving a working police force? Do you have to buy into Fox News?

[pbrower2a]

Does anyone have any remaining question that the Republican party has become, at least in the House and Senate, an authoritarian party capable of defending any misdeed of the President in the defense of its power? Does anyone doubt its willingness to lie, cheat, steal, and perhaps rig elections on behalf of the President and his Party?

No room remains for any judgment of right and wrong, of truth and falsehood, of integrity and venality, or shortsightedness and vision within the GOP.

The essence of fascism is Bolshevik methods in the service of a reactionary agenda. Mussolini learned much from Lenin.

[David Horn]

(02-06-2020, 03:29 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-05-2020, 08:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We hear about shootings of police by people as surely as we hear about police shootings of innocent people. Mostly people who shoot cops get the full brunt of the law while police who murder people get off scot free.

Define murder...I understand that liberals with dunce caps have a hard time with the meanings of words they use these days. Do you really deserve to have a decent police force these days? I don't think so. Personally, I don't think a third rate group of people/politicians deserve to have a first rate police force these days.

Let me jump in here, as someone who has worked with police and other first responders, but isn't one of them.  Everyone has good points.  Police are people, and the people attracted to that field are just as diverse as the populous as a whole.  It is particularly attractive to men (mostly men) who enjoy the power they get from their positions.  Are they the majority?  No, I'm quite sure they aren't, but they are a large minority.  It's the ultimate macho field, if you still want to go home at night and sleep in your own bed.  So yes, there are bad cops, because the raw material is there in abundance.

Then there are guns.  I've talked with cops at all levels, from small town to FBI, and all have one issue in common (and this crosses the line between the good cops and the rest too).  Cops are out there in a world overloaded with firearms, many with military capabilities.  The degree of wariness is much higher than it was before the massive influx of firearms began in earnest 20+ years ago.

Is it likely that shootings occur because the cop felt he could?  Yes, but how many is arguable.  Is it also likely that shootings occur because of good old fashioned fear?  Yes again.  There is no argument that the first category is, or certainly should be illegal.  The second category is a lot harder.  You 2nd Amendment types may wish to give that some thought.

[Eric the Green]

(02-06-2020, 07:19 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Does anyone have any remaining question that the Republican party has become, at least in the House and Senate, an authoritarian party capable of defending any misdeed of the President in the defense of its power? Does anyone doubt its willingness to lie, cheat, steal, and perhaps rig elections on behalf of the President and his Party?

No room remains for any judgment of right and wrong, of truth and falsehood, of integrity and venality, or shortsightedness and vision within the GOP.

The essence of fascism is Bolshevik methods in the service of a reactionary agenda. Mussolini learned much from Lenin.

Indeed. Our nation has been taken over by Mussolini re-incarnate. The people he leads and fools are fools who follow him because of his peculiar appeal. Americans, especially the redneck (red state and red county) kind, have always been an authoritarian lot, and for decades now they have had their own Party, and now they have their man like never before.

According to Kelly Ann Conway and TV news reports, Trump has announced that he is now exonerated, and now free to call on foreign powers to influence our US elections whenever he wishes, and to use any method of persuasion on them that he wishes. You can bet that the 2020 election will be rigged, and that the people will have no recourse if Trump is "re-elected," unless they elect a Democratic Senate. And maybe not even then.

And Drumpface Shithead also tweeted his intention to stay in office until 2040 and 2060. Once pundit just said that reactions to this show no sense of humor, as our guy John Xenakis accuses us Democrats of lacking. He's an entertainer, after all. I think it's been well proven that nothing he says in jest can be dismissed, and that he means every evil intention or crass insult that he utters.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-06-2020, 12:48 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-06-2020, 03:29 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-05-2020, 08:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We hear about shootings of police by people as surely as we hear about police shootings of innocent people. Mostly people who shoot cops get the full brunt of the law while police who murder people get off scot free.

Define murder...I understand that liberals with dunce caps have a hard time with the meanings of words they use these days. Do you really deserve to have a decent police force these days? I don't think so. Personally, I don't think a third rate group of people/politicians deserve to have a first rate police force these days.

Let me jump in here, as someone who has worked with police and other first responders, but isn't one of them.  Everyone has good points.  Police are people, and the people attracted to that field are just as diverse as the populous as a whole.  It is particularly attractive to men (mostly men) who enjoy the power they get from their positions.  Are they the majority?  No, I'm quite sure they aren't, but they are a large minority.  It's the ultimate macho field, if you still want to go home at night and sleep in your own bed.  So yes, there are bad cops, because the raw material is there in abundance.

Then there are guns.  I've talked with cops at all levels, from small town to FBI, and all have one issue in common (and this crosses the line between the good cops and the rest too).  Cops are out there in a world overloaded with firearms, many with military capabilities.  The degree of wariness is much higher than it was before the massive influx of firearms began in earnest 20+ years ago.

Is it likely that shootings occur because the cop felt he could?  Yes, but how many is arguable.  Is it also likely that shootings occur because of good old fashioned fear?  Yes again.  There is no argument that the first category is, or certainly should be illegal.  The second category is a lot harder.  You 2nd Amendment types may wish to give that some thought.

You people keep over looking known facts related to American law. Illegal gun purchase, illegal gun possession and illegal gun traffic are already viewed as against the law and the law/government already has to the right/power to take action and do something about them anytime it wants to these days. Why do you guys continue to overlook this? Is it your relationship with poor minorities and poor whites who are barely educated and primarily minority related communities that have a bad relationship with police and global crime organizations providing the bulk of the economics related to certain areas that's holding big city liberals back from doing their jobs and enforcing laws that are already on the books or what? Here's what I think, I don't think your liberal governments have the money or the facilities or the assets that it needs to protect itself and society from all the criminals that it has these days. Keep in mind, we don't live in Minneapolis or New York City or Chicago or Washington, DC or Baltimore or San Francisco or any other blue city that has all kinds of major problems. I'm not interested in having a liberal police chief or a liberal school administrator associated with a liberal movement who are afraid to address crime related issues or school related issues directly associated with groups of people who are affiliated with them. Like I said, I graduated from high school before the liberal double standards came into play.

Hint... A Mexican American Gen Xr my age of either sex is more likely to agree with my views and my views of them as equals than the views of a pampered liberal who was occupies an office for show or a liberal who obviously view of them as being inferior, incapable of learning and unworthy of having them doing the speaking for them and defending them these days. Funny, I hear a lot about racism and see a lot of finger pointing by those who don't seem able to understand what's driving their media or understands its obvious ties racist views that are still held by many liberals these days. Hint...Your racist speaker and her wealthy liberal contributor don't want them living any where near them. You can say what you want, but that's not going to change what we see or change what we are smart enough to pick up on or unfortunate enough to experience or learn first hand these day.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-06-2020, 07:19 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Does anyone have any remaining question that the Republican party has become, at least in the House and Senate, an authoritarian party capable of defending any misdeed of the President in the defense of its power? Does anyone doubt its willingness to lie, cheat, steal, and perhaps rig elections on behalf of the President and his Party?

No room remains for any judgment of right and wrong, of truth and falsehood, of integrity and venality, or shortsightedness and vision within the GOP.

The essence of fascism is Bolshevik methods in the service of a reactionary agenda. Mussolini learned much from Lenin.

I assume that you are the authority in matters that directly relate to you. I've already informed you that you are free to give up all your rights and go along with the liberals and continue believing whatever they want you to believe and continue believing in them and their goodness and all their promises too.  You are free to vote against us and free to talk bad about us and free to ignore a political system loaded with super delegates and free to ignore the crap a group of fellow liberals pulled in the House and free to agree with your so called President in liberal terms or The Speaker of the House in American terms and even agree with her petty/third rate liberal view of her worthless and despicable accomplishment and continue doing a good job of convincing us to let go you and cut all ties with people you like you that they want these days. Like I've said, a clear line of distinction between us and them is already being drawn between the two cultures these days.

In case you haven't been paying attention or your not up on current events, the reactionary agenda is squarely on your side these days and no longer hidden like it was 20 years ago. It's now obvious and impossible to deny these days. You have three choices, you can vote for the guy who is more than likely guilty of doing what Trump was accused and impeached for doing without actually proving it which is not the American way by any stretch of the LIBERAL imagination THESE DAYS. You can vote for the Quasi Socialist who won't have the American economy sticking around to support him or the folks who believe in him or socialism and learn what it was like to be a Russian or a German when their systems collapsed. You can vote for one of the two cult like figures/ folk hero's and whatever crap they come up with to make it seem to some that they're more capable and more powerful than either of them could ever dream or hope to be in their lifetime. Or, you can vote for a New York multi billionaire who is running to protect the fortune that he has invested in the global economy primarily related to China.

[Eric the Green]

(02-06-2020, 04:28 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-06-2020, 07:19 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Does anyone have any remaining question that the Republican party has become, at least in the House and Senate, an authoritarian party capable of defending any misdeed of the President in the defense of its power? Does anyone doubt its willingness to lie, cheat, steal, and perhaps rig elections on behalf of the President and his Party?

No room remains for any judgment of right and wrong, of truth and falsehood, of integrity and venality, or shortsightedness and vision within the GOP.

The essence of fascism is Bolshevik methods in the service of a reactionary agenda. Mussolini learned much from Lenin.

I assume that you are the authority in matters that directly relate to you. I'll already informed you that you are free to give up all your rights and go along with the liberals and continue believing whatever they want you to believe and continue believing in them and their goodness and all their promises too.  You are free to vote against us and free to talk bad about us and free to ignore a political system loaded with super delegates and free to ignore the crap a group of fellow liberals pulled in the House and free to agree with your so called President in liberal terms or The Speaker of the House in American terms and even agree with her petty/third rate liberal view of her worthless and despicable accomplishment and continue doing a good job of convincing us to let go you and cut all ties with you like they want these days. Like I've said, a clear line of distinction between us and them is already being drawn right now between the two societies. In case you haven't been paying attention or up on current events, the reactionary agenda is now squarely on your side and no longer hidden like it was 20 years ago.

"Give up all your rights" ha ha. = give up your "right" to own and carry weapons of war with which you can blow away hundreds of innocent people. I don't think Mr. Brower will miss that right too much if it goes away.

Our fellow liberals in the House did their duty.

Pelosi has passed more good legislation than Drumpface Shithead could ever dream of passing.

Yes, your reactionary agenda is no longer hidden. It's Mussolini uber alles. If the country must be split between you rednecks and we blues, so be it. You can have your authoritarian, polluting state dedicated to the desires of the oligarchs and the religious goons.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-06-2020, 03:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-06-2020, 07:19 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Does anyone have any remaining question that the Republican party has become, at least in the House and Senate, an authoritarian party capable of defending any misdeed of the President in the defense of its power? Does anyone doubt its willingness to lie, cheat, steal, and perhaps rig elections on behalf of the President and his Party?

No room remains for any judgment of right and wrong, of truth and falsehood, of integrity and venality, or shortsightedness and vision within the GOP.

The essence of fascism is Bolshevik methods in the service of a reactionary agenda. Mussolini learned much from Lenin.

Indeed. Our nation has been taken over by Mussolini re-incarnate. The people he leads and fools are fools who follow him because of his peculiar appeal. Americans, especially the redneck (red state and red county) kind, have always been an authoritarian lot, and for decades now they have had their own Party, and now they have their man like never before.

According to Kelly Ann Conway and TV news reports, Trump has announced that he is now exonerated, and now free to call on foreign powers to influence our US elections whenever he wishes, and to use any method of persuasion on them that he wishes. You can bet that the 2020 election will be rigged, and that the people will have no recourse if Trump is "re-elected," unless they elect a Democratic Senate. And maybe not even then.

And Drumpface Shithead also tweeted his intention to stay in office until 2040 and 2060. Once pundit just said that reactions to this show no sense of humor, as our guy John Xenakis accuses us Democrats of lacking. He's an entertainer, after all. I think it's been well proven that nothing he says in jest can be dismissed, and that he means every evil intention or crass insult that he utters.

I don't have an issue with a partisan court over ruling the unlawful decision of a partisan court. Why do you have a problem with it? Aren't you liberal enough to acknowledge and accept the impeachment thingy as being what it was these days? Man, the liberal partisans are sure seem to be very conservative these days.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-06-2020, 05:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't think Mr. Brower will miss that right too much if it goes away.

Yep.  Americans have an individual right to own and carry weapons that the government cannot reduce in any way.  No attempt to legislate from the bench should be made to change the culture.  Any law that purports to limit this would be unconstitutional.

Now I believe a rational compromise could be reached.  A line between civilian and military weapons could be drawn using power, rate of fire and magazine size.  One could allow the states to institute limitations of military weapons, but not civilian arms.  One could say the US congress does not have such a power to limit this, to prevent attempts at cultural aggression.  You could give both sides much of what they want.

But I don’t anticipate compromise in the near future.  I also don't expect a prohibition to work.  It never has.  Both extremes are too rigid in their positions to compromise.  Maybe with the NRA imploding...

[Classic-Xer]

(02-06-2020, 05:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-06-2020, 04:28 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-06-2020, 07:19 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Does anyone have any remaining question that the Republican party has become, at least in the House and Senate, an authoritarian party capable of defending any misdeed of the President in the defense of its power? Does anyone doubt its willingness to lie, cheat, steal, and perhaps rig elections on behalf of the President and his Party?

No room remains for any judgment of right and wrong, of truth and falsehood, of integrity and venality, or shortsightedness and vision within the GOP.

The essence of fascism is Bolshevik methods in the service of a reactionary agenda. Mussolini learned much from Lenin.

I assume that you are the authority in matters that directly relate to you. I'll already informed you that you are free to give up all your rights and go along with the liberals and continue believing whatever they want you to believe and continue believing in them and their goodness and all their promises too.  You are free to vote against us and free to talk bad about us and free to ignore a political system loaded with super delegates and free to ignore the crap a group of fellow liberals pulled in the House and free to agree with your so called President in liberal terms or The Speaker of the House in American terms and even agree with her petty/third rate liberal view of her worthless and despicable accomplishment and continue doing a good job of convincing us to let go you and cut all ties with you like they want these days. Like I've said, a clear line of distinction between us and them is already being drawn right now between the two societies. In case you haven't been paying attention or up on current events, the reactionary agenda is now squarely on your side and no longer hidden like it was 20 years ago.

"Give up all your rights" ha ha. = give up your "right" to own and carry weapons of war with which you can blow away hundreds of innocent people. I don't think Mr. Brower will miss that right too much if it goes away.

Our fellow liberals in the House did their duty.

Pelosi has passed more good legislation than Drumpface Shithead could ever dream of passing.

Yes, your reactionary agenda is no longer hidden. It's Mussolini uber alles. If the country must be split between you rednecks and we blues, so be it. You can have your authoritarian, polluting state dedicated to the desires of the oligarchs and the religious goons.

I think you and many others will be amazed when you learn how rights that you and others have that are directly related to our 2A rights. Yes, we are free to use them against liberal troops wearing blue dunce caps and liberal officers wearing fancier blue dunce caps and liberal politicians legalizing illegal seizures and illegal trials and other illegal activity they need enrich themselves and enrich their failing states and social policies and so forth. Yep, it could end up being quite a blood bath or restricted to relatively small blood baths in some particular areas. You are familiar with the American way and the American preference pertaining to where it chooses to fight its wars?

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-06-2020, 06:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You are familiar with the American way and the American preference pertaining to where it chooses to fight its wars?

They shoot unarmed minorities in the back? That seems to be the most dominant use of violence lately if you watch the spiral of violence.

[Cynic Hero '86]

(01-30-2020, 10:16 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-30-2020, 11:12 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote:

(01-30-2020, 07:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-30-2020, 05:37 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Lots of liberal people are confused these days. Your speaker and the liberals in House seem to think they were born and raised in England. Does your speaker understand that she and her party members in the House alone do not represent the legislative branch of the United States government and therefore lack the Constitutional authority to dictate and accuse the President of the United State of America and impeaching him for not bowing and caving into their demands. WTF! You went to school like me, you're even supposed to be better educated and more knowledgeable and understanding than me but you don't seem to be these days. 

I suggest the liberals get together and get there shit straight before attempting to define what liberal means. Dude, you went overboard with your use of extreme and now you going over board with you use of demonization. My advice to you, grow up and find a pair because I'm getting sicked and tired of childaults.

When you try to characterize the Koch Brothers as liberal, you do discredit to your own perspective.  You would likely loose the bulk of the posters if you hadn’t lost them already.  Who do you think your garbage has fooled?

Pelosi knows full well how the Republican Establishment senators are not likely to do their duty by the Constitution.  They Establishment Republicans value personal power much more than they value the country.  The coastal media covers it the same way, predicting acquittal.  

I am less sure.  The Republican Establishment couldn’t get the people to back any of their own in 2016, so they had to go with Trump.  With his guilt becoming clearer by the day, will they take the chance to get one of their own in power?  Will the incumbency of a new guy be enough to hold the White House?  After pardoning Nixon, Ford lost his next election.  Will Pence walk that path?  Would he rather see Trump's chant of 'lock her up' be reversed?  Is he deep enough in the drug deal to get impeached himself, or share a cell with Trump?  If Trump has been unable to bring any of his recent candidates to electoral victory, does that mean it is safe for the Establishment Republicans to thumb their nose at him, or do they really need the votes he will bring?

By conventional standards the Democrats have no chance at removing Trump, but they have every chance of discrediting the Establishment Republicans.  That will be big come November.  That is likely what Pelosi is more likely working towards.  Trump will try to rally his supposedly loyal base, only to find the flip flop has flipped.  The principles of division of power and rule of law might well be more American than you think.

I personally see the hypocrisy, with both sides honoring the Constitution only when convenient, and wrapping themselves in the flag when it is.  The Republicans are generally all in favor of the Constitution when the 2nd Amendment comes up.  Both sides take turns speaking on how rare impeachment ought to be, depending on which party holds the White House.  Does congressional oversight of the executive mean anything if the executive branch disregards Congressional subpoenas?  Does anyone appreciate rule of law?

Your ‘I’m right the world is wrong’ approach is most confused.  Liberals know liberal values more than you.  They know what they are striving for, and it is nothing like the demonization you spew out.

Sorry But alot of us have actually watched the primaries and your scenario of election 2020 being based on the electing being about liking Trump vs Not Liking Trump  or his policies (or sensibilities) becomes by the day LESS and LESS likely. The DNC is clearly hell bent on nominating an Authoritarian SJW candidate. Its blatantly obvious that the Democratic Party elites are only considering Warren, Harris, and maybe Klobochar and Buttigieg as Candidates and are actively sabotaging all the others. Under Such circumstances Trump will likely win by a MUCH greater margin than in 2016. This is because the DNC by force-feeding such a candidate, would have eliminated any possibility of November 2020 being "a referendum on President Donald Trump" because they would have force fed basically a FREAK as the democratic Nominee. Instead Such and Election would effectively be decided on the Issue of "Freaks vs Non-Freaks" if the DNC continues on its current path. Last Time I Checked, there are A LOT more non-freaks than there are freaks. Ironically legions of outraged Millennials, Late-wave Xers, Northern Blacks, Hispanics and Asians (demographics that are normally decidedly Democrat leaning) would probably be what propels Trump to victory in 2020. And it would be fitting because the DNC would have brought the landslide defeat upon themselves.

As usual, You, Eric, Pbrower, Classic, Kinser and Warren Dew can all weigh in your thoughts on the above statement.

My only disagreement, I think the Southern blacks are more likely to jump ship and eventually join forces with the party of Lincoln these days. I do agree, the liberal Democrats who are bringing defeat upon themselves. The freaks vs non freaks sounds harsh but I get what you mean and basically agree with that too. I saw Buttigieg basically tell a Democratic woman that she and millions of others will have look/go else where if they're looking for promises and assurances from the Democratic party these days. I'm telling you, if those people ( I know those people) switch parties, the liberals can say goodbye to the American heartland.

I Think it would be Northern and western Blacks who switch for the most part. Remember that Minnesota's black communities demographic dynamics are atypical compared to the equivalent populations in most other states. Large Percentage of Minnesotas blacks are Muslim african immigrants mostly from the horn of Africa, this likely causes them to identify more with the pro-unchecked immigration policies of the DNC establishment. In most of the rest of the Midwest, as well as the Northeast, Mid-atlantic and western states (Florida and Texas blacks may be this category as well), Black voters are increasingly similar to non-elite white democrats. They Prefer economic reform like that proposed by Bernie, Tulsi, Yang and others as well as being increasingly swayed by president Trumps policies.

Blacks In the traditional south are still regarded by the DNC as the "establishment's firewall" they block-voted for Clinton in 2016. And Hillary pandered quite a bit to southern black voters in 2016. Bernie failed to make any headway there (he had quite a bit of success among blacks outside the south) Kamala tried to pander to them but failed miserably. Polls among their communities seem to place Biden and warren Ahead of the other candidates. Older voters also tend to have more influence there as well at least it appears so (probably due to gospel Church influence). These older Voters tend to block-vote for establishment democrats, and can be more easily scared into supporting establishment politics such as campaigning on identity politics. Although this is partially due to the legacy of the spoils system in the south but that is an entirely different subject altogether.

[Cynic Hero '86]

Regarding the DNC, they have just been caught rigging a Caucus in broad daylight. The Notion that an app that conveniently "glitches" changing votes from those for a disliked by the leadership candidate to a vote for a leadership approved candidate who just happens to also be a corporate donor for the company that made the app; and then the party leaders then assert that the process is being handled fairly. Such events and circumstances would be considered laughable and demand calls for UN monitors if this happened an another country with less trusted institutions. DNC would have us be like Algeria or Iran in terms of the honesty of the electoral process.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-06-2020, 08:24 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote:

(01-30-2020, 10:16 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-30-2020, 11:12 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote:

(01-30-2020, 07:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-30-2020, 05:37 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Lots of liberal people are confused these days. Your speaker and the liberals in House seem to think they were born and raised in England. Does your speaker understand that she and her party members in the House alone do not represent the legislative branch of the United States government and therefore lack the Constitutional authority to dictate and accuse the President of the United State of America and impeaching him for not bowing and caving into their demands. WTF! You went to school like me, you're even supposed to be better educated and more knowledgeable and understanding than me but you don't seem to be these days. 

I suggest the liberals get together and get there shit straight before attempting to define what liberal means. Dude, you went overboard with your use of extreme and now you going over board with you use of demonization. My advice to you, grow up and find a pair because I'm getting sicked and tired of childaults.

When you try to characterize the Koch Brothers as liberal, you do discredit to your own perspective.  You would likely loose the bulk of the posters if you hadn’t lost them already.  Who do you think your garbage has fooled?

Pelosi knows full well how the Republican Establishment senators are not likely to do their duty by the Constitution.  They Establishment Republicans value personal power much more than they value the country.  The coastal media covers it the same way, predicting acquittal.  

I am less sure.  The Republican Establishment couldn’t get the people to back any of their own in 2016, so they had to go with Trump.  With his guilt becoming clearer by the day, will they take the chance to get one of their own in power?  Will the incumbency of a new guy be enough to hold the White House?  After pardoning Nixon, Ford lost his next election.  Will Pence walk that path?  Would he rather see Trump's chant of 'lock her up' be reversed?  Is he deep enough in the drug deal to get impeached himself, or share a cell with Trump?  If Trump has been unable to bring any of his recent candidates to electoral victory, does that mean it is safe for the Establishment Republicans to thumb their nose at him, or do they really need the votes he will bring?

By conventional standards the Democrats have no chance at removing Trump, but they have every chance of discrediting the Establishment Republicans.  That will be big come November.  That is likely what Pelosi is more likely working towards.  Trump will try to rally his supposedly loyal base, only to find the flip flop has flipped.  The principles of division of power and rule of law might well be more American than you think.

I personally see the hypocrisy, with both sides honoring the Constitution only when convenient, and wrapping themselves in the flag when it is.  The Republicans are generally all in favor of the Constitution when the 2nd Amendment comes up.  Both sides take turns speaking on how rare impeachment ought to be, depending on which party holds the White House.  Does congressional oversight of the executive mean anything if the executive branch disregards Congressional subpoenas?  Does anyone appreciate rule of law?

Your ‘I’m right the world is wrong’ approach is most confused.  Liberals know liberal values more than you.  They know what they are striving for, and it is nothing like the demonization you spew out.

Sorry But alot of us have actually watched the primaries and your scenario of election 2020 being based on the electing being about liking Trump vs Not Liking Trump  or his policies (or sensibilities) becomes by the day LESS and LESS likely. The DNC is clearly hell bent on nominating an Authoritarian SJW candidate. Its blatantly obvious that the Democratic Party elites are only considering Warren, Harris, and maybe Klobochar and Buttigieg as Candidates and are actively sabotaging all the others. Under Such circumstances Trump will likely win by a MUCH greater margin than in 2016. This is because the DNC by force-feeding such a candidate, would have eliminated any possibility of November 2020 being "a referendum on President Donald Trump" because they would have force fed basically a FREAK as the democratic Nominee. Instead Such and Election would effectively be decided on the Issue of "Freaks vs Non-Freaks" if the DNC continues on its current path. Last Time I Checked, there are A LOT more non-freaks than there are freaks. Ironically legions of outraged Millennials, Late-wave Xers, Northern Blacks, Hispanics and Asians (demographics that are normally decidedly Democrat leaning) would probably be what propels Trump to victory in 2020. And it would be fitting because the DNC would have brought the landslide defeat upon themselves.

As usual, You, Eric, Pbrower, Classic, Kinser and Warren Dew can all weigh in your thoughts on the above statement.

My only disagreement, I think the Southern blacks are more likely to jump ship and eventually join forces with the party of Lincoln these days. I do agree, the liberal Democrats who are bringing defeat upon themselves. The freaks vs non freaks sounds harsh but I get what you mean and basically agree with that too. I saw Buttigieg basically tell a Democratic woman that she and millions of others will have look/go else where if they're looking for promises and assurances from the Democratic party these days. I'm telling you, if those people ( I know those people) switch parties, the liberals can say goodbye to the American heartland.

I Think it would be Northern and western Blacks who switch for the most part. Remember that Minnesota's black communities demographic dynamics are atypical compared to the equivalent populations in most other states. Large Percentage of Minnesotas blacks are Muslim african immigrants mostly from the horn of Africa, this likely causes them to identify more with the pro-unchecked immigration policies of the DNC establishment. In most of the rest of the Midwest, as well as the Northeast, Mid-atlantic and western states (Florida and Texas blacks may be this category as well), Black voters are increasingly similar to non-elite white democrats. They Prefer economic reform like that proposed by Bernie, Tulsi, Yang and others as well as being increasingly swayed by president Trumps policies.

Blacks In the traditional south are still regarded by the DNC as the "establishment's firewall" they block-voted for Clinton in 2016. And Hillary pandered quite a bit to southern black voters in 2016. Bernie failed to make any headway there (he had quite a bit of success among blacks outside the south) Kamala tried to pander to them but failed miserably. Polls among their communities seem to place Biden and warren Ahead of the other candidates. Older voters also tend to have more influence there as well at least it appears so (probably due to gospel Church influence). These older Voters tend to block-vote for establishment democrats, and can be more easily scared into supporting establishment politics such as campaigning on identity politics. Although this is partially due to the legacy of the spoils system in the south but that is an entirely different subject altogether.

So, what happens when the spoils system can no longer be guaranteed to future generations of American blacks?

[pbrower2a]

(02-06-2020, 08:24 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote:

(01-30-2020, 10:16 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-30-2020, 11:12 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote:

(01-30-2020, 07:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-30-2020, 05:37 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Lots of liberal people are confused these days. Your speaker and the liberals in House seem to think they were born and raised in England. Does your speaker understand that she and her party members in the House alone do not represent the legislative branch of the United States government and therefore lack the Constitutional authority to dictate and accuse the President of the United State of America and impeaching him for not bowing and caving into their demands. WTF! You went to school like me, you're even supposed to be better educated and more knowledgeable and understanding than me but you don't seem to be these days. 

I suggest the liberals get together and get there shit straight before attempting to define what liberal means. Dude, you went overboard with your use of extreme and now you going over board with you use of demonization. My advice to you, grow up and find a pair because I'm getting sicked and tired of childaults.

When you try to characterize the Koch Brothers as liberal, you do discredit to your own perspective.  You would likely loose the bulk of the posters if you hadn’t lost them already.  Who do you think your garbage has fooled?

Pelosi knows full well how the Republican Establishment senators are not likely to do their duty by the Constitution.  They Establishment Republicans value personal power much more than they value the country.  The coastal media covers it the same way, predicting acquittal.  

I am less sure.  The Republican Establishment couldn’t get the people to back any of their own in 2016, so they had to go with Trump.  With his guilt becoming clearer by the day, will they take the chance to get one of their own in power?  Will the incumbency of a new guy be enough to hold the White House?  After pardoning Nixon, Ford lost his next election.  Will Pence walk that path?  Would he rather see Trump's chant of 'lock her up' be reversed?  Is he deep enough in the drug deal to get impeached himself, or share a cell with Trump?  If Trump has been unable to bring any of his recent candidates to electoral victory, does that mean it is safe for the Establishment Republicans to thumb their nose at him, or do they really need the votes he will bring?

By conventional standards the Democrats have no chance at removing Trump, but they have every chance of discrediting the Establishment Republicans.  That will be big come November.  That is likely what Pelosi is more likely working towards.  Trump will try to rally his supposedly loyal base, only to find the flip flop has flipped.  The principles of division of power and rule of law might well be more American than you think.

I personally see the hypocrisy, with both sides honoring the Constitution only when convenient, and wrapping themselves in the flag when it is.  The Republicans are generally all in favor of the Constitution when the 2nd Amendment comes up.  Both sides take turns speaking on how rare impeachment ought to be, depending on which party holds the White House.  Does congressional oversight of the executive mean anything if the executive branch disregards Congressional subpoenas?  Does anyone appreciate rule of law?

Your ‘I’m right the world is wrong’ approach is most confused.  Liberals know liberal values more than you.  They know what they are striving for, and it is nothing like the demonization you spew out.

Sorry But alot of us have actually watched the primaries and your scenario of election 2020 being based on the electing being about liking Trump vs Not Liking Trump  or his policies (or sensibilities) becomes by the day LESS and LESS likely. The DNC is clearly hell bent on nominating an Authoritarian SJW candidate. Its blatantly obvious that the Democratic Party elites are only considering Warren, Harris, and maybe Klobochar and Buttigieg as Candidates and are actively sabotaging all the others. Under Such circumstances Trump will likely win by a MUCH greater margin than in 2016. This is because the DNC by force-feeding such a candidate, would have eliminated any possibility of November 2020 being "a referendum on President Donald Trump" because they would have force fed basically a FREAK as the democratic Nominee. Instead Such and Election would effectively be decided on the Issue of "Freaks vs Non-Freaks" if the DNC continues on its current path. Last Time I Checked, there are A LOT more non-freaks than there are freaks. Ironically legions of outraged Millennials, Late-wave Xers, Northern Blacks, Hispanics and Asians (demographics that are normally decidedly Democrat leaning) would probably be what propels Trump to victory in 2020. And it would be fitting because the DNC would have brought the landslide defeat upon themselves.

As usual, You, Eric, Pbrower, Classic, Kinser and Warren Dew can all weigh in your thoughts on the above statement.

My only disagreement, I think the Southern blacks are more likely to jump ship and eventually join forces with the party of Lincoln these days. I do agree, the liberal Democrats who are bringing defeat upon themselves. The freaks vs non freaks sounds harsh but I get what you mean and basically agree with that too. I saw Buttigieg basically tell a Democratic woman that she and millions of others will have look/go else where if they're looking for promises and assurances from the Democratic party these days. I'm telling you, if those people ( I know those people) switch parties, the liberals can say goodbye to the American heartland.

I Think it would be Northern and western Blacks who switch for the most part. Remember that Minnesota's black communities demographic dynamics are atypical compared to the equivalent populations in most other states. Large Percentage of Minnesotas blacks are Muslim african immigrants mostly from the horn of Africa, this likely causes them to identify more with the pro-unchecked immigration policies of the DNC establishment. In most of the rest of the Midwest, as well as the Northeast, Mid-atlantic and western states (Florida and Texas blacks may be this category as well), Black voters are increasingly similar to non-elite white democrats. They Prefer economic reform like that proposed by Bernie, Tulsi, Yang and others as well as being increasingly swayed by president Trumps policies.

Uhhh...the black bourgeoisie is still strongly D. First, unlike the white middle class that has little empathy for poor whites especially out of the regions in which the white middle class lives, it cares about poor blacks. The black bourgeoisie has been more adept into assimilating white people into its fold (through marriage and childhood -- the kids will be black bourgeoisie, of course) than finding its way into the Republican Party. The black bourgeoisie is more likely than whites of similar social-economic status (SES) to be government employees (so they have a stake in Big Government and are not going to fall for anti-tax rhetoric); if they are in business they are likely to get much of their income from welfare recipients or from government contracts. Second, the black bourgeoisie is much less likely to be homeowners because it is more urban or suburban than the white middle class (which includes many farmers). If your landlord is a big drain upon your income you are less likely to support unbridled free enterprise.         

Quote:Blacks In the traditional south are still regarded by the DNC as the "establishment's firewall" they block-voted for Clinton in 2016. And Hillary pandered quite a bit to southern black voters in 2016. Bernie failed to make any headway there (he had quite a bit of success among blacks outside the south) Kamala tried to pander to them but failed miserably. Polls among their communities seem to place Biden and warren Ahead of the other candidates. Older voters also tend to have more influence there as well at least it appears so (probably due to gospel Church influence). These older Voters tend to block-vote for establishment democrats, and can be more easily scared into supporting establishment politics such as campaigning on identity politics. Although this is partially due to the legacy of the spoils system in the south but that is an entirely different subject altogether.

...except that blacks do not make a difference in the states in which they are the largest parts of state populations compared to the rest of the United States. Virginia would, Delaware, and Maryland (now that one might be a surprise, but it has lots of middle-class blacks) night still be voting R in Presidential elections except for large black populations. This said, the black vote is not going to swing Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, or South Carolina D.The Hispanic vote is about as large as the black vote in Texas, and rarely enough to swing a statewide election. To be sure, neither Florida nor North Carolina could ever be close without the black vote, and if the Democrats win any statewide vote in Georgia, then the black vote will make a difference. 

So why does Trump do unusually badly among blacks? 

1. He is a racist and a religious bigot, and that scares blacks. I do not see him as particularly anti-black in the sense of a segregationist pol of the old days; his bigotry is more anti-Muslim and anti-Hispanic. If the direction of his bigotry were toward Asians , then that would still scare blacks. Among ethnic and religious minorities, the common wisdom well known in practice is that bigots usually end up turning against other targets. (Even if Donald Trump has a Jewish daughter he scares Jews with his weak-to-non-existent condemnation of neo-Nazi violence. His type is more likely to turn against Jews -- even his daughter -- than people who show no "racial" consciousness).

2. He made his money as a landlord. Americans have more sympathy for capitalists who make their money as technological innovators or creators of intellectual property. If the 2020 election proves to be between media mogul Mike Bloomberg and real-estate profiteer Donald Trump, then Bloomberg will have the edge (if he were an oilman he would have that edge) among people who do not have an unqualified love for capitalism. Trump reminds too many people of a slumlord -- which may not be so much of a problem in rural areas and small towns.

3. He is anti-intellectual, and that hurts him among Jews (even with a daughter who converted), the black bourgeoisie, middle-class Hispanics, and the bulk of Asians who are more educated than whites of similar SES. Anti-intellectualism offends the well-educated, people who depend upon education for getting their jobs, and people who aspire to education as the only means that they have for escaping poverty. The Republican Party has been going blatantly anti-intellectual for several decades; consider that Eisenhower won 80% of the college-educated vote in the 1950's. On the other side, Donald Trump does well among ill-educated white people who see educated people more as exploiters (there are the people who correct their kids' grammar in school) than distant city-slickers. Trump is little-better educated than the typical high-school graduate with which he has affinity.  He said "I love low-information voters", something that Republicans used to cavil about saying.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-06-2020, 10:23 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: ...except that blacks do not make a difference in the states in which they are the largest parts of state populations compared to the rest of the United States. Virginia would, Delaware, and Maryland (now that one might be a surprise, but it has lots of middle-class blacks) night still be voting R in Presidential elections except for large black populations. This said, the black vote is not going to swing Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, or South Carolina D.The Hispanic vote is about as large as the black vote in Texas, and rarely enough to swing a statewide election. To be sure, neither Florida nor North Carolina could ever be close without the black vote, and if the Democrats win any statewide vote in Georgia, then the black vote will make a difference. 

So why does Trump do unusually badly among blacks? 

1. He is a racist and a religious bigot, and that scares blacks. I do not see him as particularly anti-black in the sense of a segregationist pol of the old days; his bigotry is more anti-Muslim and anti-Hispanic. If the direction of his bigotry were toward Asians , then that would still scare blacks. Among ethnic and religious minorities, the common wisdom well known in practice is that bigots usually end up turning against other targets. (Even if Donald Trump has a Jewish daughter he scares Jews with his weak-to-non-existent condemnation of neo-Nazi violence. His type is more likely to turn against Jews -- even his daughter -- than people who show no "racial" consciousness).

2. He made his money as a landlord. Americans have more sympathy for capitalists who make their money as technological innovators or creators of intellectual property. If the 2020 election proves to be between media mogul Mike Bloomberg and real-estate profiteer Donald Trump, then Bloomberg will have the edge (if he were an oilman he would have that edge) among people who do not have an unqualified love for capitalism. Trump reminds too many people of a slumlord -- which may not be so much of a problem in rural areas and small towns.

3. He is anti-intellectual, and that hurts him among Jews (even with a daughter who converted), the black bourgeoisie, middle-class Hispanics, and the bulk of Asians who are more educated than whites of similar SES. Anti-intellectualism offends the well-educated, people who depend upon education for getting their jobs, and people who aspire to education as the only means that they have for escaping poverty. The Republican Party has been going blatantly anti-intellectual for several decades; consider that Eisenhower won 80% of the college-educated vote in the 1950's. On the other side, Donald Trump does well among ill-educated white people who see educated people more as exploiters (there are the people who correct their kids' grammar in school) than distant city-slickers. Trump is little-better educated than the typical high-school graduate with which he has affinity.  He said "I love low-information voters", something that Republicans used to cavil about saying.

How many Jews are intellectuals? I've met quite a few Jews but very few were so called intellectuals. Trump made his fortune building luxury condo's and apartments for rich people. The slumlords that you speak of are some how or another related to a Democratic bureaucrat or politician connected to the government of some blue city. Yeah, I've been in those shit holes and wonder why their tenants don't string those greedy people up. But then I remember that those greedy people are most likely related to the bureaucrats running the police force too. I forget that there system isn't like our system.

[Cynic Hero '86]

(02-06-2020, 10:15 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-06-2020, 08:24 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote:

(01-30-2020, 10:16 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-30-2020, 11:12 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote:

(01-30-2020, 07:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: When you try to characterize the Koch Brothers as liberal, you do discredit to your own perspective.  You would likely loose the bulk of the posters if you hadn’t lost them already.  Who do you think your garbage has fooled?

Pelosi knows full well how the Republican Establishment senators are not likely to do their duty by the Constitution.  They Establishment Republicans value personal power much more than they value the country.  The coastal media covers it the same way, predicting acquittal.  

I am less sure.  The Republican Establishment couldn’t get the people to back any of their own in 2016, so they had to go with Trump.  With his guilt becoming clearer by the day, will they take the chance to get one of their own in power?  Will the incumbency of a new guy be enough to hold the White House?  After pardoning Nixon, Ford lost his next election.  Will Pence walk that path?  Would he rather see Trump's chant of 'lock her up' be reversed?  Is he deep enough in the drug deal to get impeached himself, or share a cell with Trump?  If Trump has been unable to bring any of his recent candidates to electoral victory, does that mean it is safe for the Establishment Republicans to thumb their nose at him, or do they really need the votes he will bring?

By conventional standards the Democrats have no chance at removing Trump, but they have every chance of discrediting the Establishment Republicans.  That will be big come November.  That is likely what Pelosi is more likely working towards.  Trump will try to rally his supposedly loyal base, only to find the flip flop has flipped.  The principles of division of power and rule of law might well be more American than you think.

I personally see the hypocrisy, with both sides honoring the Constitution only when convenient, and wrapping themselves in the flag when it is.  The Republicans are generally all in favor of the Constitution when the 2nd Amendment comes up.  Both sides take turns speaking on how rare impeachment ought to be, depending on which party holds the White House.  Does congressional oversight of the executive mean anything if the executive branch disregards Congressional subpoenas?  Does anyone appreciate rule of law?

Your ‘I’m right the world is wrong’ approach is most confused.  Liberals know liberal values more than you.  They know what they are striving for, and it is nothing like the demonization you spew out.

Sorry But alot of us have actually watched the primaries and your scenario of election 2020 being based on the electing being about liking Trump vs Not Liking Trump  or his policies (or sensibilities) becomes by the day LESS and LESS likely. The DNC is clearly hell bent on nominating an Authoritarian SJW candidate. Its blatantly obvious that the Democratic Party elites are only considering Warren, Harris, and maybe Klobochar and Buttigieg as Candidates and are actively sabotaging all the others. Under Such circumstances Trump will likely win by a MUCH greater margin than in 2016. This is because the DNC by force-feeding such a candidate, would have eliminated any possibility of November 2020 being "a referendum on President Donald Trump" because they would have force fed basically a FREAK as the democratic Nominee. Instead Such and Election would effectively be decided on the Issue of "Freaks vs Non-Freaks" if the DNC continues on its current path. Last Time I Checked, there are A LOT more non-freaks than there are freaks. Ironically legions of outraged Millennials, Late-wave Xers, Northern Blacks, Hispanics and Asians (demographics that are normally decidedly Democrat leaning) would probably be what propels Trump to victory in 2020. And it would be fitting because the DNC would have brought the landslide defeat upon themselves.

As usual, You, Eric, Pbrower, Classic, Kinser and Warren Dew can all weigh in your thoughts on the above statement.

My only disagreement, I think the Southern blacks are more likely to jump ship and eventually join forces with the party of Lincoln these days. I do agree, the liberal Democrats who are bringing defeat upon themselves. The freaks vs non freaks sounds harsh but I get what you mean and basically agree with that too. I saw Buttigieg basically tell a Democratic woman that she and millions of others will have look/go else where if they're looking for promises and assurances from the Democratic party these days. I'm telling you, if those people ( I know those people) switch parties, the liberals can say goodbye to the American heartland.

I Think it would be Northern and western Blacks who switch for the most part. Remember that Minnesota's black communities demographic dynamics are atypical compared to the equivalent populations in most other states. Large Percentage of Minnesotas blacks are Muslim african immigrants mostly from the horn of Africa, this likely causes them to identify more with the pro-unchecked immigration policies of the DNC establishment. In most of the rest of the Midwest, as well as the Northeast, Mid-atlantic and western states (Florida and Texas blacks may be this category as well), Black voters are increasingly similar to non-elite white democrats. They Prefer economic reform like that proposed by Bernie, Tulsi, Yang and others as well as being increasingly swayed by president Trumps policies.

Blacks In the traditional south are still regarded by the DNC as the "establishment's firewall" they block-voted for Clinton in 2016. And Hillary pandered quite a bit to southern black voters in 2016. Bernie failed to make any headway there (he had quite a bit of success among blacks outside the south) Kamala tried to pander to them but failed miserably. Polls among their communities seem to place Biden and warren Ahead of the other candidates. Older voters also tend to have more influence there as well at least it appears so (probably due to gospel Church influence). These older Voters tend to block-vote for establishment democrats, and can be more easily scared into supporting establishment politics such as campaigning on identity politics. Although this is partially due to the legacy of the spoils system in the south but that is an entirely different subject altogether.

So, what happens when the spoils system can no longer be guaranteed to future generations of American blacks?

More likely the south's politics would increasingly resemble that of the rest of the country. Since about 1975 there was an unspoken "gentleman's agreement" Between DNC and RNC elites in which whole sections of the political sphere in some states were parceled out into exclusive provinces, This resulted in Racial Block Voting being the norm in some regions. That was the Status Quo Prior to the Rise of Trump and Sanders in the run up to 2016.

Most likely the establishment DNC would continue trying to ramp up pandering in order to keep Southern Blacks "in the fold". The Gradual Decline of the DNC hold on Blacks would occur nationwide, but it would likely occur quite a bit faster outside of the south where depending on whether the realignment simply shifts allegiances among the existing parties OR creates a 3-Party or even a 4-party system: Northern Blacks would either join non-elite democrats in forming a separate progressive party OR they could simply switch in ever larger numbers to the GOP. Most likely blacks would be a political swing constituency 30 years from now.

More likely the DNC would continue being completely aligned with Neoliberalism (they show no signs of acknowledging the populist mood of the people) and be a minority party of the elites w/immigrants and southern blacks for the time being. The Rest of the electorate would be aligned with a conservative populist GOP, probably joined by a third more leftish populist party consisting of the political descendants of the segments of the democrats who opposed Hillary's nomination in 2016 in the first place.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-06-2020, 05:50 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Well, once the Republicans of Lincoln’s time were the party of industrial development and the abolitionists.  The Democrats were the party of slavers and the agricultural land owners.  At that point, the Whiggish arrow of progress was clearly pointing in the direction of the Republicans.  So, no, the Republican position has been in flux for as long as there were Republicans.  They went all the way from abolitionists to the Southern Strategy, from isolationists to the party of military strength, from what is good for General Motors is good for America, to refusing General Motors a loan.  Both parties changed significantly over the years.

Perhaps the Machine Democrats of the north were a major step in the evolution of the parties.  As I said, Tammany Hall used to send people to meet the immigrants, to tell them where they could find a place to live, where they could find a job, and tell them who to vote for.   The Democrats thus began representing the common laborer, the Republicans the establishment factory owners.  

The New Deal was another such milestone.  The war on poverty was another.  The civi rights efforts of the 1950s and 1960s was another.

If you asked me if by LBJ’s time the Democrats had held the Congress so long that it began to become inefficient and corrupt, you would find me agreeing.  If when the jobs were being shipped overseas someone pointed out that the robber barons were donating to both Republicans and Democrats, and the politicians who agreed on how wonderful globalism was are still viewed with skepticism and suspicion, I would agree with you.  It is not that one side was always good, the other always bad.

But today the elite and racist elements have created a Fox Fiction, a way of selling the middle of the country that government for the elites and racists is best.  A lot of people from the middle of the country buy into the propaganda, do not let themselves see what is going on.

I don’t see this as lasting indefinitely.  Every time the Republicans get in power they ruin the economy.  (It's the economy, stupid.  The Great Recession.)  They persistently attack things like benefits, jobs, labor unions and voting rights which give the working man a chance.  The elite / racist elements are obvious enough to be seen.

But if you buy into the Fox alternate reality, if you do not look for the obvious links, you fall into their trap.  If you lie as long and as much as Trump, folks will become very skeptical of what you say.  It has not happened enough yet.

One of the more interesting parts of the impeachment inquiry was the glimpse into the myth of the deep state.  You got to see some of the establishment pros of the Ukraine experts, and of the politicians common in the administration.  If you are familiar with the testimony, you found the established pros of the deep state were heroic, loyal to US policy, and responded to subpoena.  It was the politicians who were corrupt, in the loop, trying to work a ‘drug deal’, and part of the cover up.  This, the constant lies, the ‘OK Boomer’ meme, leave me hopeful the the moderates and independents that have driven the see saw might abandon the Fox vision and a new progressive era will result.

That does not imply that I am rooting for a corrupt or inefficient government.  Keep an eye towards that.  It has always happened before, and I expect it will happen again if you leave any group in power for too long.

But you have to know a difference between a government for the racists and elitists and a government for the people.  You have to let go of the false reality.

I know the difference between the liberal version of government and the American government.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-06-2020, 10:57 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: [quote pid='49342' dateline='1581045306']

[quote pid='49340' dateline='1581038667']
I Think it would be Northern and western Blacks who switch for the most part. Remember that Minnesota's black communities demographic dynamics are atypical compared to the equivalent populations in most other states. Large Percentage of Minnesotas blacks are Muslim african immigrants mostly from the horn of Africa, this likely causes them to identify more with the pro-unchecked immigration policies of the DNC establishment. In most of the rest of the Midwest, as well as the Northeast, Mid-atlantic and western states (Florida and Texas blacks may be this category as well), Black voters are increasingly similar to non-elite white democrats. They Prefer economic reform like that proposed by Bernie, Tulsi, Yang and others as well as being increasingly swayed by president Trumps policies.

Blacks In the traditional south are still regarded by the DNC as the "establishment's firewall" they block-voted for Clinton in 2016. And Hillary pandered quite a bit to southern black voters in 2016. Bernie failed to make any headway there (he had quite a bit of success among blacks outside the south) Kamala tried to pander to them but failed miserably. Polls among their communities seem to place Biden and warren Ahead of the other candidates. Older voters also tend to have more influence there as well at least it appears so (probably due to gospel Church influence). These older Voters tend to block-vote for establishment democrats, and can be more easily scared into supporting establishment politics such as campaigning on identity politics. Although this is partially due to the legacy of the spoils system in the south but that is an entirely different subject altogether.

So, what happens when the spoils system can no longer be guaranteed to future generations of American blacks?
[/quote]

More likely the south's politics would increasingly resemble that of the rest of the country. Since about 1975 there was an unspoken "gentleman's agreement" Between DNC and RNC elites in which whole sections of the political sphere in some states were parceled out into exclusive provinces, This resulted in Racial Block Voting being the norm in some regions. That was the Status Quo Prior to the Rise of Trump and Sanders in the run up to 2016.

Most likely the establishment DNC would continue trying to ramp up pandering in order to keep Southern Blacks "in the fold". The Gradual Decline of the DNC hold on Blacks would occur nationwide, but it would likely occur quite a bit faster outside of the south where depending on whether the realignment simply shifts allegiances among the existing parties OR creates a 3-Party or even a 4-party system: Northern Blacks would either join non-elite democrats in forming a separate progressive party OR they could simply switch in ever larger numbers to the GOP. Most likely blacks would be a political swing constituency 30 years from now.

More likely the DNC would continue being completely aligned with Neoliberalism (they show no signs of acknowledging the populist mood of the people) and be a minority party of the elites w/immigrants and southern blacks for the time being. The Rest of the electorate would be aligned with a conservative populist GOP, probably joined by a third more leftish populist party consisting of the political descendants of the segments of the democrats who opposed Hillary's nomination in 2016 in the first place.
[/quote]
In your opinion, does Romney represent the last of the politicians related to the old "gentleman's agreement" as it pertains to the GOP. Would you say that the GOP has control over us or would you say that we have control over it these days?

[Cynic Hero '86]

(02-07-2020, 12:23 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: In your opinion, does Romney represent the last of the politicians related to the old "gentleman's agreement" as it pertains to the GOP. Would you say that the GOP has control over us or would you say that  we have control over it these days?

Romney and the Bushes, etc would eventually go to their new home in the Rump DNC. Currently there is much more popular control of the RNC (GOP elites conceded that Trump won the primary in 2016 and later the election). The DNC elites are currently actively sabotaging populists in their party thus the likelyhood that there would be a complete party Collapse becomes more likely by the day. The Current DNC probably won't exist after the current election cycle, if they continue on the course they have been so far regarding the primary and the eventual general election in November.

Regarding the election itself, Trump is increasingly likely to win by a sizable margin. While I don't think the outcome is completely set in stone yet (who wins the primary would be a major factor). We should know the likely outcome of the 2020 election by August. The outcome would be determined quite awhile before November, and probably a Trump win. The only chance of a typical close election where we find out who the winner is on election day night; would be in the currently unlikely event if the DNC concedes the bankruptcy of its current policies and allows one of the populist candidates be the nominee. A populist winning the primary would be an interesting conjecture because the election would be based on debating prospective policy options and proposals, but the current DNC would probably not allow this scenario the occur. More likely the DNC force feeds a candidate who plays on identity issues and being some kind of "first" candidate leading to A Trump Win than can be called as early as the beginning of August.