Good King Trump

[viscousmemories]

One of the things I've come to believe is that before Trump there were just Democrats and Republicans for 40 years, and what differences existed between them had little to nothing to do with who they chose as their presidential candidate. That changed with Trump because he didn't give a single shit about the party or what the old guard wanted, so he forced the party to accommodate him instead of vice versa. As a result the choice we have now is between the standard terrible neoliberal Democratic party fully bought and paid for by the military-industrial complex and the Israel lobby, and a party of fanatical sycophants, fully bought and paid for by the military-industrial complex and the Israel lobby. Neither is a good choice but one (still, today, to me) seems worse.

[256 colors]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

One of the things I've come to believe is that before Trump there were just Democrats and Republicans for 40 years, and what differences existed between them had little to nothing to do with who they chose as their presidential candidate.

Hey vm, I am truly not being rude, nor am I Sea Lioning. But, why do you think this?

Maybe you're busy? Career, family, other? No time to read?

idk, vm. I have nothing else to do but study history, and try to learn from it, and not be doomed to repeating my mistakes, due to a lack of knowledge of history.

But, that's just me, and, I'm crazy.

Having read so much material, having spent so much time, having heard the the tiniest details of crucial, say, law-related-stuff, I am a little jaded. Here are some of my insane opinions and/or questions.

How do "we" know so much about "history" - but not of the 20th Century?

How do "we" know so much about "history" - but never discovered White Supremacy?

"We" have yet to connect the "Red Summer of 1919" and the erasure of Black excellence in the 1920s with the 1929 crash of the US stock market, and the 1930s Depression, but, hey, it might be my crazy, autistic ass seeing patterns, again. Who cares.

"We" think "we" "ended World War II," and "liberated the Jews from the Nazis," but, even that is not true, vm. And I knew this before I ever joined , but, eh, who cares what I think I know.

As you can see, vm, I have emotions and opinions based on my lived experience and on what I read all day, every day, and click more URLs, read more, click more, read more, which results in more emotions and opinons. Some folks refer to it as "going down a rabbit hole." Most folks lack the time and opportunity to keep clicking URLs and keep reading.

Oh, and books, and pdf scans of books.

I want to know WHY about everything. If I want to know why a person has an opinion, or emotion, or circumstance, or actions, I ask why.

The reason why doesn't matter, I just want to know what the reason is, and why. It's cool.

Could you just tell me how you have arrived at your conclusion, vm?

Curiosity killed the cat. Satisfaction brought it back.

[viscousmemories]

No offense taken, but your whole argument against my claim seems to be that you believe you have read more than me. I don't really know how to respond to that.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

One of the things I've come to believe is that before Trump there were just Democrats and Republicans for 40 years, and what differences existed between them had little to nothing to do with who they chose as their presidential candidate. That changed with Trump because he didn't give a single shit about the party or what the old guard wanted, so he forced the party to accommodate him instead of vice versa. As a result the choice we have now is between the standard terrible neoliberal Democratic party fully bought and paid for by the military-industrial complex and the Israel lobby, and a party of fanatical sycophants, fully bought and paid for by the military-industrial complex and the Israel lobby. Neither is a good choice but one (still, today, to me) seems worse.

The Donald is actually the culmination of things that began almost 60 years ago, when the Southern Democrats began to lose their grip on the Democratic Party in The South.

[LarsMac]

The problem we see now really began with the fall of the Southern Democrats after desegregation began to take hold.

The Southern Democrats found Liberals invading their territory and the old line Southerners started losing ground.
George Wallace led the revolt in '68 by pulling a lot of conservative away from the Johnson Democrats. Yankee "Carpetbaggers" moved in and before long Democrats in the South were picking up the banner of Reason. Jesse Helms became the last bastion of Southern Democratic thought. (Is that an oxymoron?)

Nixon became a rallying point for them, but was still a Yankee "Intellectual" and not really to be trusted.
In 1980, Ronny Raygun came along, He was still a Yankee, but he talked like a Good Ol Boy. He knew how to set things straight.
HE brought a lot of the old line Southern Dems over to the Republican Party. They got settled in and started taking over the place.

By the time Baby Bush started running, they were well entrenched, and he was a natural. A Good Ol' Boy who went to college, he fit right in.
Now all we needs is a war. Along came Saddam, and Osama, and, "Lookie Here!" Let's go kick some Ass.

When it was time for George to go, the Democrats went full Liberal, and well, we know how THAT turned out.

Meanwhile, the Republicans tried to find some good conservative guys to take over the reins, and a whole bunch of ninnies showed up for the audition. The Clown Car was loaded, and ready to roll.
Well, the wheels fell if November and "that guy" was reelected. A lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth went on in the Rethuglican camp.
"Next time, we'll do better", says they.
Well, next time came along and they were ready. All the Clowns started lining up. In the first "Debate", The Donald rode in, and took over.
He could out talk the whole lot of them, and he was sort of entertaining.
The Crowd roared, and he marched over and gave that clown car a kick. The wheels fell off and Donald claimed victory.
From then on, it was The Donald's show. The Crowd went wild, and reason left the building.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

One of the things I've come to believe is that before Trump there were just Democrats and Republicans for 40 years, and what differences existed between them had little to nothing to do with who they chose as their presidential candidate.

I'm not 100% sure what this is supposed to mean.

Is the point here that the presidential candidate for either party mostly endorsed their party's platform and did not have a strong influence on it?

Is it that rank-and-file voters don't pay a ton of attention to policy/don't understand it, so a large part of their decision relates to personal characteristics?

Because I think that is true to a fair degree, but it's not the entirety of things. I think Bill Clinton was nominated because he was moving the party towards moderation/the right on some issues (welfare, for example). But he wasn't on all issues. Is it the case that every other presidential candidate he defeated was similar on policy? Or is it that the only factor in his win is that he was a charismatic orator and that's why voters chose him, not policy? I don't think that his charisma was the only factor in how his campaign went - I'm sure that policy views influenced endorsements within the party, which in turn influenced voters.

ETA: I hope you didn't mean that there were no real policy differences between the parties, because that is very much not true, although listing out all the differences between them would take quite a while.

As a result the choice we have now is between the standard terrible neoliberal Democratic party fully bought and paid for by the military-industrial complex and the Israel lobby

"fully" bought and paid for

Can you tell me what percentage of donations to the Democratic Party are from the Israel lobby? How much does that vary among candidates? Is your evidence for this pretty much exclusively that the government takes a position you disagree with?

There are indeed some Democrats who are backed by the Israel lobby to a exceptional degree, although for the most part this is more of a case of the Israel lobby picking people who were already supportive of them. The Israel lobby may help them stay in office with their funding, of course. But for the most part, I think that claims like this are just cope for the fact that Americans overall are much more supportive of Israel than they are of Palestine.

I get that that sucks, but the idea that it's all a shadowy cabal corrupting our government (which does unfortunately dovetail strongly with traditional anti-Semitic conspiracy theories) rather than that Americans are simply, for the most part, more culturally and religiously aligned with Israel and sympathetic to Israel for historical reasons. Then there are, of course, the evangelical end-times beliefs that also influence opinions there. I'm not saying Americans' reasons are good.

Personally, I would prefer that America simply cut off Israel and for the most part just washed our hands of the situation aside from making statements, humanitarian aid or participating in broader international actions. I think our relationship is one-sided and we get more trouble than benefit out of it, and meanwhile, I don't think that cutting them off or threatening to do so will solve the problem, so it's a lot of grief for not a lot of benefit on any side. But my position is very much not in agreement with the majority of Americans.

As for the MIC, there is indeed a bipartisan consensus on the US having the most powerful military and both parties are willing to use force. But one party invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and one party withdrew from both. Biden has stopped most drone strikes, while Trump expanded their use, loosened restrictions for civilian safety and stopped even counting civilian deaths. One party is talking about launching hellfire missiles at Mexico or invading its northern regions, and one party is absolutely not talking about that.

But to the extent that Democrats are more militaristic than you would prefer, this is again, largely a reflection of most Americans being more militaristic than you or me. To some degree, military contractors and manufacturers are also used as a jobs program in a country that is generally skeptical of jobs programs, but not when they're military-related.

In any case, the prerequisite for any politicians doing anything to improve these issues is getting elected. Public opinion constrains how far Democrats can go without putting the Republicans in power, who don't even really include civilians abroad in their calculations at all. And for diplomacy, Americans aren't the only ones with agency, and trying to shape outcomes rather than score rhetorical points may require you to hold your tongue.

There's an interview with Bernie Sanders being asked three times whether Israel is committing "genocide" and he refuses to answer the question. Instead, his response is to say that what Israel is doing is horrible and he's focused on building a coalition to push for a ceasefire and cut off future aid to Israel. This was posted as evidence that he's a horrible sell out. Of course, the entire point of what Bernie was saying is that he's trying to achieve an outcome not make a rhetorical point. He emphasized that he is a senator, unlike the interviewer, and he actually could have an effect on policy and outcomes here because of that. The politics of the issue are such that Bernie would pay little to no price in saying that Israel is not committing genocide, so if that were his view, he could have expressed it without concern. So he probably thinks it is genocide, or it's plausibly genocide, or at least, that it's a technical distinction and not the thing to focus on (crimes against humanity don't have to be genocide! things can be extremely bad without being genocide!). Either way, as a politician with real power and who has to deal with people who are far more supportive of Israel, up to and including Israeli officials, he has to watch what he says if he wants to persuade others.

I thought this was instructive though. Sanders is trying to do something, and others just want him to express himself, consequences be damned.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by erimir

I thought this was instructive though. Sanders is trying to do something, and others just want him to express himself, consequences be damned.

[256 colors]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

No offense taken, but your whole argument against my claim seems to be that you believe you have read more than me. I don't really know how to respond to that.

H vm, I apologize for making claims. I was wrong to make claims at all about anything. I have never been right about anything. Why start now.

I apologize for beleving things, and reading things, and for saying that I have read things, or for imagining that you or other users have interest in reading things. It was a galling assumption on my part. I regret it now. I will continue to regret reading and believing things, thank you.

I fully understand that my bizarre beliefs and bullshit claims necessarily require a complete dismissal of all of the rest of any and/or every word in my post, and/or anything I have ever typed or said at any time, and/or whatever ridiculous garbage I may have thought I meant as I typed the stupid useless words, nonsense statements, and absolutely worthless pixels, bits, and bytes, here at .

I am sorry, vm, and all.

[Crumb]

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Trump Tries to Change NY Business Addresses to FL in Fraud Judgment - meidastouch.com

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by 256 colors

H vm, I apologize for making claims. I was wrong to make claims at all about anything. I have never been right about anything. Why start now.

I apologize for beleving things, and reading things, and for saying that I have read things, or for imagining that you or other users have interest in reading things. It was a galling assumption on my part. I regret it now. I will continue to regret reading and believing things, thank you.

I fully understand that my bizarre beliefs and bullshit claims necessarily require a complete dismissal of all of the rest of any and/or every word in my post, and/or anything I have ever typed or said at any time, and/or whatever ridiculous garbage I may have thought I meant as I typed the stupid useless words, nonsense statements, and absolutely worthless pixels, bits, and bytes, here at .

I am sorry, vm, and all.

You're weird. I like that. But a narcissistic temper tantrum? Was this supposed to be funny?

[seebs]

that's not a narcissistic temper tantrum. it does seem a bit like splitting, which is a fairly common trait in highly stressed people with some amount of trauma in their history, which a lot of people are these days.

[JoeP]

I don't think I've heard of "splitting" as a behaviour (except to leave as in "let's split").

[seebs]

I think I mostly originally saw it in the context of Borderline Personality Disorder, which is a sort of problematic diagnosis sometimes, or these days C-PTSD. Basically, black-and-white thinking, everything is all good or all bad. My position is totally right, or if it's not totally right, it's worthless and I was wrong to say it. This person is a great friend that I love and trust, or if not that, a deadly enemy who wants nothing but harm for me. Either you agree with what I'm saying, or everything I say is worthless to you.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Trump sparks fury by claiming Black people like him because of his mugshot: Live | The Independent

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by seebs

I think I mostly originally saw it in the context of Borderline Personality Disorder, which is a sort of problematic diagnosis sometimes, or these days C-PTSD. Basically, black-and-white thinking, everything is all good or all bad. My position is totally right, or if it's not totally right, it's worthless and I was wrong to say it. This person is a great friend that I love and trust, or if not that, a deadly enemy who wants nothing but harm for me. Either you agree with what I'm saying, or everything I say is worthless to you.

That makes sense. I think there's some overlap between borderline personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder (... there's bound to be since the psychiatrists don't really know what they're talking about, and "borderline" is an admission of this).

[fragment]

Hey guys, maybe throwing potential diagnoses around based on someone's posts without them asking for it is kinda shitty.

[JoeP]

True. I was trying to criticise the behaviour, not to categorise it.

[Miss Shelby]

Originally Posted by fragment

Hey guys, maybe throwing potential diagnoses around based on someone's posts without them asking for it is kinda shitty.

It’s also kinda shitty to accuse someone of being drunk or high but that hasn’t stopped a few people.

[mickthinks]

Trump supporters target black voters with faked AI images

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

I dunno, that malformed baby hand could easily be a real Trump hand.

[JoeP]

It's much too big.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by 256 colors

H vm, I apologize for making claims. I was wrong to make claims at all about anything. I have never been right about anything. Why start now.

Hi, I’m chiming in, I’m not trying to pile on, and I mean this post constructively.

I’m going to set aside most of your post, as I think you start out from an incorrect position. You really didn’t make any factual claims that about 20th century American politics that would have had impact on the conversation.

No point in apologizing for something you didn’t do.

Also, I used to go off a lot which is why my avatar is what is, I don’t anymore. I’m not saying you will outgrow this or anything like that, I’m just saying I have some sympathy for blowing up in a not so neurotypical way.

You do ask pointed questions based on 20th century history, but that’s not the same thing.

Look at erimir’s post addressing VM’s post and compare contrast with your own.

It’s more substantive and isn’t just a long claim of expertise.

I get that you read and know history, but most uckers around here are fairly knowledgable.

Also, fwiw, don’t feel embarrassed by the blow up. This could be me projecting, but when my blood is up, I can say shit that I find embarrassing later.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

The problem we see now really began with the fall of the Southern Democrats after desegregation began to take hold.

The Southern Democrats found Liberals invading their territory and the old line Southerners started losing ground.
George Wallace led the revolt in '68 by pulling a lot of conservative away from the Johnson Democrats. Yankee "Carpetbaggers" moved in and before long Democrats in the South were picking up the banner of Reason. Jesse Helms became the last bastion of Southern Democratic thought. (Is that an oxymoron?)

Nixon became a rallying point for them, but was still a Yankee "Intellectual" and not really to be trusted.
In 1980, Ronny Raygun came along, He was still a Yankee, but he talked like a Good Ol Boy. He knew how to set things straight.
HE brought a lot of the old line Southern Dems over to the Republican Party. They got settled in and started taking over the place.

By the time Baby Bush started running, they were well entrenched, and he was a natural. A Good Ol' Boy who went to college, he fit right in.
Now all we needs is a war. Along came Saddam, and Osama, and, "Lookie Here!" Let's go kick some Ass.

When it was time for George to go, the Democrats went full Liberal, and well, we know how THAT turned out.

Meanwhile, the Republicans tried to find some good conservative guys to take over the reins, and a whole bunch of ninnies showed up for the audition. The Clown Car was loaded, and ready to roll.
Well, the wheels fell if November and "that guy" was reelected. A lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth went on in the Rethuglican camp.
"Next time, we'll do better", says they.
Well, next time came along and they were ready. All the Clowns started lining up. In the first "Debate", The Donald rode in, and took over.
He could out talk the whole lot of them, and he was sort of entertaining.
The Crowd roared, and he marched over and gave that clown car a kick. The wheels fell off and Donald claimed victory.
From then on, it was The Donald's show. The Crowd went wild, and reason left the building.

I find the realignment pretty interesting, in part because if you follow the conservatives they were pretty much always wrong about everything when they were Democrats and when they became Republicans like Strom Thurmond writ large.

The problem of partisanship is odd to me, because before realignment the problem was lack of partisanship.

In 1950, the American Political Science Association’s Committee on Political Parties issued a clarion call, “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System,” that today sounds quaint. The committee worried about insufficient party discipline and undue tolerance of dissent from the party line, arguing that the country needed political parties with “sufficient internal cohesion” to carry out their legislative agendas. The report urged the minority party to draw starker policy contrasts with the majority, and to act “as the critic of the party in power.”

I read this article some years ago and googled it up for this post, so it has been awhile since I read it in full.

Anyway, back when the conservatives were spread between the two parties, it was very hard to get anything done,

Now the Conservative Party blocks things.

I’m beginning to think the problem any partisanship or the lack thereof, but rather it’s the existence of conservatives.

And touching on Erimir’s post just a bit, conservatives are a problem because many Americans are conservative (with gerrymandering and various forms of voter suppression on top amplifying).

[beyelzu]

Looks like I can’t edit the above post, can that be fixed?