My current view of US politics

[Jayhawker Soule]

If it was possible I would be willing to compromise, ...

^ pretty much says it all

 

[Stevicus]

Democrats have a pattern of electing more decent candidates to manage our national affairs, but might not be tough enough to manage our global affairs. We need a soft touch at home and a pretty hard touch globally.

Well, it was a shift in national values. The anti-war idealism and bleeding-heart liberalism of the 60s was being attacked and discredited by Republicans - and Democrats pretty much just caved in to it.

I think Bill was a good compromise, as he was willing to compromise with republicans on a lot of policies,a nd republicans were willing to compromise with Bill. Gingrich changed all that and was the father of divisive politics that pretty much ruined our federal government since. We can't say 9-11 was an exception because the vote to invade Iraq was based on false intel that was likely the Bush administration. Clinton was savvy and a popular president. Let's be honest, Reagan is Republican Lite today. Would he stand a chance in many conservative parts of America? Hell no. Trump would tear him to shreds for working with democrats.

Clinton was definitely savvy, and his popularity was manufactured by the media. Jerry Brown would have been the better choice, though.

Reagan and Bush supported NAFTA, free trade, and outsourcing of American jobs - just as Clinton did. Trump's initial opposition to free trade broke ranks with the Republican establishment, and it seemed to bother Democrats immensely as well. That's why Trump got a lot of blue-collar support, as there have been large segments of the population desperate to support someone - anyone who would oppose free trade and outsourcing, in order to bring back manufacturing jobs and restore America's economy to what it once was. If there was no other candidate in either party who understood this or was willing to go along with the idea, then that's on both parties. They should have known better.

Really? Eisenhower and Nixon both passed legislation that would not be any platform priority for the GOP today. Eisenhower spent a huge amount of money (of course there was very high tax rates on the very wealthy) on the interstate highway system. Nixon had little pushback on signing Medicaid and expanding social security. In recent years republicans have floated the idea of privatizing SS and eliminating welfare programs. They moved from using high taxes to invest in infrastructure to the idea that cutting taxes will benefit all of society naturally (which is hasn't, it's only helped the wealthy). So I don't see much constant in their approach and policies. Reagan started the whole "government is the problem" attitude, and Gingrich started the whole "we won't cooperate with democrats" attitude. It's been getting more toxic ever since. I suggest it's been democrats who have been the constant, with the understanding that government are people hired to manage our local, state, federal, and global affairs. This is very serious work that requires serious and dedicated people. That Trump became a cult is the antithesis of what politics should be.

I look at Amy Klobuchar, Katie Porter, Sheldon Whitehouse, Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, etc. as examples of what our elected representatives should be, sober, ethical public servants working for the benefit of Americans, and not being political performers.

Nixon and Ike were warmongers and were capitalists, even if they were more Keynesian in their approach. In contrast, Democrats (at least some of them) supported a more peaceful platform and were decidedly pro-labor - two positions they would later abandon. Nixon's "silent majority" morphed into Reagan's "moral majority," so at least when looking at their support base, the Republicans were pretty constant. They toned down the McCarthyism a tad, and J. Edgar Hoover's antics died with him. They always had a reputation of being for the wealthy, and they've been in the industrialists' pockets since before the Civil War.

The Democrats were once the party of the Confederacy, but eventually, the working classes of the North saw them as an effective alternative to Republican industrialist rule. The Democrats became greater supporters of labor, and as capitalist economic mismanagement brought us the Depression, FDR came on the scene and made the Democrats even more friendly to the interests of the common people. They also eclipsed the power of the Dixiecrats and became supporters of civil rights (although a greater percentage of Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Democrats).

This is why I don't blame politicians solely. Vile politicians like Trump, and Greene, and Gaetz, and Desantis, etc. are selected and elected by the voters. I see a lot of complaints by voters who get elected, and it's the voters doing it. It's like someone buying a house they know is falling apart and then blames the house for falling apart.

I still think there needs to be serious consequences to the bad choices voters are making. Was Jan 6 bad enough to serve as a lesson? Was the overturning of Roe enough to serve as a lesson? Was the massive death tool from a bad response to the pandemic enough to serve as a lesson? I don't think so. I still see people complain and want something from politics they are NOT articulating, but also not willing to work for a better government and society. Talk about lazy and entitled society.

I think a large part of the problem is deep in the culture. Our society may be lazy and entitled, but what I've noticed over the course of my lifetime is a society which wants to have its cake and eat it, too. Much of the electorate's attitude comes from the kind of dreck most of us were taught from birth - the idea of American exceptionalism, the American Dream, and various other quasi-patriotic notions which have been floating around for generations and have become part and parcel of people's self-image of America. We want to think of ourselves and our country as nobly dedicated to freedom and democracy, and that our role as the leader of the free world remains pure and righteous. But the culture is also very consumeristic, greedy, violent, hateful, militaristic, and hypocritical, for the most part.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's interesting how different perspectives of the same situation can be. It's hard to imagine Obama being less of a compromiser. His 'legacy' was able to be damaged as much by Trump as it was because his refusal to compromise with a congress he didn't control led him to rule by "pen and phone".




Off the top of my head: 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 10th.

I think that you might be rather mistaken. Odds are that you do not fully understand those rights.

 

[esmith]

^ pretty much says it all

Since I do not have any direct input to the laws then how could I compromise my opinion with yours.
That is what I meant when I said "if it would be possible"
We all have opinions about everything, do I respect your opinion? Yes, though on many issues we disagree.

 

[Quetzal]

It's interesting how different perspectives of the same situation can be. It's hard to imagine Obama being less of a compromiser. His 'legacy' was able to be damaged as much by Trump as it was because his refusal to compromise with a congress he didn't control led him to rule by "pen and phone".




Off the top of my head: 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 10th.

Gotta do better than that, in what instance and when? We can start with the first. When have you been under government pressure or threat of legal action because of something you have said or worshiped?

 

[Mister Emu]

Gotta do better than that, in what instance and when? We can start with the first. When have you been under government pressure or threat of legal action because of something you have said or worshiped?

Supreme Court just ruled that a school violated 1st amendment rights; do I need to bring up the various court battles over attempted compulsed service despite religious convictions?

2nd Amendment explicitly exists to allow individuals to be prepared for military action, yet we can't even get military small arms. It's already gutted and dems want to burn the carcas.

4th. PRISM.

Do I have to go on?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Supreme Court just ruled that a school violated 1st amendment rights; do I need to bring up the various court battles over attempted compulsed service despite religious convictions?

And the Supreme Court has been flooded with fundamentalists. They were not following the Constitution. Not quite Dred Scott territory, but bad enough.

2nd Amendment explicitly exists to allow individuals to be prepared for military action, yet we can't even get military small arms. It's already gutted and dems want to burn the carcas.

There is no indication that means that one should be able to get the same arms as an army. And in the 1930's they had already banned automatic weapons, unless one was willing to go through various checks and licensing.

4th. PRISM.

Do I have to go on?

What the heck is "PRISM"? And yes, you do. Your first two were abject failures. I have no idea what the third was.

EDIT: Hoo boy! PRISM is an offshoot of the Patriot Act. You have to blame the Bush administration for that:

PRISM's Legal Basis: How We Got Here, and What We Can Do to Get Back

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

We all have opinions about everything, do I respect your opinion? Yes, though on many issues we disagree.

1. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan
2. Do I respect your opinion. Not in the slightest, simply your right to voice one no matter how despicable.

 

[Mister Emu]

And the Supreme Court has been flooded with fundamentalists. They were not following the Constitution.

Or, stay with me here, the modern invention that is the left's concept of the constitution doesn't and never has existed.

There is no indication that means that one should be able to get the same arms as an army.

There wasn't even supposed to be a standing army, just militias that could if necessary best any standing army, especially one raised by the government itself. You are woefully uninformed on the context of the 2nd Amendment. The people are supposed to be more powerful in every respect than the government, enough that they strike fear into would be tyrants.

You have to blame the Bush administration for that:

No, I don't have to blame Bush for Obama's actions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or, stay with me here, the modern invention that is the left's concept of the constitution doesn't and never has existed.

No, it seems to always have been the case. Earlier there was just a total unawareness that there were other beliefs out there. Until recently the court has been quite reasonable and followed the founders better than many in between have.

There wasn't even supposed to be a standing army, just militias that could if necessary best any standing army, especially one raised by the government itself. You are woefully uninformed on the context of the 2nd Amendment. The people are supposed to be more powerful in every respect than the government, enough that they strike fear into would be tyrants.

And that was foolish idealism. We needed a standing army for the Revolution and then we needed them again for the War of 1812. Has the army been abused over the year? Yes, but it was also key for world freedom in both the First World War, where we only tipped the scales, and definitely for the Second World War. The world might be a much sadder place if we had never developed our armies.

No, I don't have to blame Bush for Obama's actions.

Just because PRISM may have arisen during Obamas term it was still a result of the Patriot Act. That makes it Bush's baby. Quite a few people do not realize that the works of a President quite often extend past his official term.

 

[F1fan]

Or, stay with me here, the modern invention that is the left's concept of the constitution doesn't and never has existed.

Then the constitution is largely irrelevant in the 21st century, because a a lot has changed.

Can we amend the constitution to reflect modernity? Yes. But we don't have a consistent body politic that can agree enough. So we've left it to courts to make our functional and moral decisions. But now the supreme court has been filled with far right activist justices who have an agenda.

 

[Mister Emu]

The world might be a much sadder place if we had never developed our armies.

I'm not against regulars. I'm for the people being armed such that the army would find it difficult/impossible to control.

We shouldn't have government officials, like the congressman from California, smug about the idea of the people rising up. They are supposed to be afraid.

Just because PRISM may have arisen during Obamas term it was still a result of the Patriot Act.

Don't get me wrong, conservatives aren't, to my knowledge better. It's a team effort.

 

[Mister Emu]

Can we amend the constitution to reflect modernity? Yes. But we don't have a consistent body politic that can agree enough. So we've left it to courts to make our functional and moral decisions. But now the supreme court has been filled with far right activist justices who have an agenda.

Changing the constitution to fit the times is not the prerogative of the Supreme Court. Your own desire to make an end run on the protections that leave those decisions to the people means you have no ground to stand on when others do the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not against regulars. I'm for the people being armed such that the army would find it difficult/impossible to control.

We shouldn't have government officials, like the congressman from California, smug about the idea of the people rising up. They are supposed to be afraid.


Don't get me wrong, conservatives aren't, to my knowledge better. It's a team effort.

Do you really think that the army is going to go amuck? Luckily that did not happen. Trump failed.

And no, Congressmen are not supposed to be afraid. Dang! I think that you might be taking some of the conspiracy nonsense out there too seriously.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Changing the constitution to fit the times is not the prerogative of the Supreme Court. Your own desire to make an end run on the protections that leave those decisions to the people means you have no ground to stand on when others do the same.

But it is only your opinion that they have changed the Constitution. That only happened recently. For example the totally immoral and reprehensible finding tor the teacher from my state.

 

[Mister Emu]

Do you really think that the army is going to go amuck?

In the near future? No. You're talking about decisions that will impact an indeterminant number of years in the future. You have to have the foresight to see today's conditions are not guaranteed to maintain.

 

[Mister Emu]

But it is only your opinion that they have changed the Constitution.

Did you read the post I responded to?

 

[F1fan]

Changing the constitution to fit the times is not the prerogative of the Supreme Court.

Correct. I said we have been relying on the supreme court to fill in the ambiguities of the constistituion, especially since much of it was written in the 18th century, and our nation and the world has progressed in ways these writers couldn't foresee. The GOP saw that they could get their poiltical agenda fulfilled if they put far right justices on the court. These are not moderate judges who see the constitution in a more fluid way that adjusts to modernity. These are religious zealots. They are serving the minority of citizens, not the nation.

Your own desire to make an end run on the protections that leave those decisions to the people means you have no ground to stand on when others do the same.

Republicans wrote the Roe opinion. They did so in response to the reality of the world in 1970's, and the reality has not changed very much. The end run was McConnell using unethical tricks to get the justices he wanted onto the court to make rulings the GOP wanted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you read the post I responded to?

Yes, and I disagree on F1fan on that particular claim. The only "differences" are one that have been forced on it.

 

[F1fan]

In the near future? No. You're talking about decisions that will impact an indeterminant number of years in the future. You have to have the foresight to see today's conditions are not guaranteed to maintain.

I take it you're not referring to the many tens of thousands of women who no longer have access to the reproductive care they need.