Romney on Trump

[Starlight]

Oh, come on... they used to be the "God and Country" party --- now they're the "anything goes and open borders" party.

"anything goes" doesn't seem to make any sense as a label to attach to the Democratic party or the Republican one. What on earth makes you imagine that?

As for "open borders", as far as I am aware there have been precisely zero efforts by anyone in the Democratic party to submit any open borders bills or legislation whatsoever, nor put that in any of the party platform statements. If all you mean is that being humane to illegal immigrants is "open borders", okay, but in a modern international political context the term "open borders" has a very very specific meaning (i.e. the Eurozone has open borders) and you're using the term wrong.

[carpedm9587]

There's a reason it's become the norm for the US. One side is right and the other side is brainwashed.

I find your both-sides-ism tiring and boring.

You should seriously consider reading something else, then!

As a matter of basic factual reality, some people can be right about things and some people can be wrong about things. That's just how the world works.

When you are talking about simple things, like 2 + 2 and should a child be raped, yes - there is a right/wrong answer. When you talk abut political parties and platforms, things become more complex and "right/wrong" gets fuzzy fast. It depends on what you prioritize and find to be most of value. So who is right and who is wrong about free secondary education is not clear-cut.

And, in fact, someone who is right about one thing is more likely to be right about others, and someone who is wrong about one things is more likely to be wrong about others, because the underlying causes (level of education, competence in logical thinking, knowledge about the world, reliability of news sources followed by them, knowledgeably of people around them etc) are still in play. Thinking that everyone must be equally right just because it gives you warm fuzzies to think that, is silly.

Since I have never claimed everyone can be (or is) "equally right," I have no further response. I usually only defend positions I actually take.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Trump is against people therefore I'm not allowed to be? Trump didn't invent that concept, and I'm not under any obligation to be an exact mirror opposite of Trump.

Trump's stance is "us versus them." It is an adversarial model that has "friends" and "enemies" and pretty much nothing in between. It is a "win or lose" philosophy and he always has to be the winner. Anyone who is against him is "the enemy" and is painted as "them." This justifies any language, and pretty much any action, against them. Instead of looking for common ground on which to build, he sets the sides against one another as rabidly as he can.

I would say that when someone reaches the point where they can no longer say anything good about the opposition, they have lost objectivity and have slipped into adversarial thinking. I don't find that particularly productive. That doesn't mean we don't contend in the theater of ideas - and take issue with one another's positions. It just means we distinguish between a political adversary - and a true enemy. Trump does not make that distinction.

[Starlight]

When you are talking about simple things, like 2 + 2 and should a child be raped, yes - there is a right/wrong answer. When you talk abut political parties and platforms, things become more complex and "right/wrong" gets fuzzy fast. It depends on what you prioritize and find to be most of value. So who is right and who is wrong about free secondary education is not clear-cut.

Perhaps you mean free Tertiary education?

And, indeed, there are many interesting debates currently occurring within the Democratic party over things like what, if any, Tertiary education should be free and how, whether Medicare for All or modifications to Obamacare are the better approach etc. Those are valid and reasonable debates that in a normal country would be occurring between the two major political parties. But because the Republicans have exited the space of rational positions and discourse, the Democratic party is instead covering the entire space of rational politics and is hence having these debates internally.

Trump's stance is "us versus them." It is an adversarial model that has "friends" and "enemies" and pretty much nothing in between. It is a "win or lose" philosophy and he always has to be the winner. Anyone who is against him is "the enemy" and is painted as "them." This justifies any language, and pretty much any action, against them. Instead of looking for common ground on which to build, he sets the sides against one another as rabidly as he can.

Okay. I don't really disagree with any of this.

I would say that when someone reaches the point where they can no longer say anything good about the opposition, they have lost objectivity and have slipped into adversarial thinking. I don't find that particularly productive. That doesn't mean we don't contend in the theater of ideas - and take issue with one another's positions. It just means we distinguish between a political adversary - and a true enemy. Trump does not make that distinction.

I don't agree with any of this.

Opponents naturally exist on a spectrum. There are those closest to your views that you can work with more than not, those a bit further away who you can often find some common ground with, those further away still who you rarely find common ground with, and those further away still who you can never find common ground with and are simply opponents. If somewhat is sufficiently your opponent, you oppose them. It doesn't mean you don't try to find common ground if you can, but if they have particularly harmful ideas and actions, they need opposing.

[Cow Poke]

There are many elements to the Democratic message (which is part of the problem). Lately, some of the more prominent ones are:

- Universal healthcare
- Working to narrow the income and wealth gap
- Prioritizing the environment and addressing climate change
- Responsible American security (internal and external)
- Bringing control to gun proliferation and reduction in gun violence (this one they are less unified and consistent on)

You can find their entire list here.

As for who is preaching it, it's pretty much the entire slate of Democratic leaders (e.g., Shumer, Pelosi) as well as many existing government representatives (e.g., Sanders, Harris, Warren) and the growing field of 2020 candidates (e.g., O'Rourke, Biden) and former leaders (e.g., O'bama, Kerry).

Your unyielding blind loyalty to the Democratic party is duly noted.

[JimL]

Your unyielding blind loyalty to the Democratic party is duly noted.

You asked, CP. Carpe answered. You handwaved.

[Starlight]

Your unyielding blind loyalty to the Democratic party is duly noted.

Wait, wait... because he says the Democratic party has some polices, you think he's got "blind loyalty" to them?!?

Reality check here. The Republicans have been in control of all branches of government for the last 2 years, and they've done almost nothing. The only major piece of legislation has been tax cuts for the rich that even the majority of Republican voters disapproved of.

The Dems when they've controlled the House pass heaps of bills, and the Republican Senate just ignores them. For example, the Dems' first bill coming this week in the House covers heaps of stuff. Here's a few articles...

House Democrats Introduce Anti-Corruption Bill As Symbolic 1st Act:

It isn't your usual bill, the For The People Act introduced Friday by House Democrats. Also known as HR 1, symbolically their first legislation, it is a 571-page compendium of existing problems and proposed solutions in four political hot zones: voting, political money, redistricting and ethics...

Here's a rundown of the bill's major provisions:

Voting and election laws

• Voter registration would be made easier. Citizens could register online or get registered automatically, via data from driver's licenses or other government sources. For federal elections, states would have to provide same-day registration and at least 15 days of early voting. Election Day would be a federal holiday.
• The bill would crack down on efforts to take voters off the rolls or prevent them from casting ballots. Felons could regain their voting rights after finishing their sentences.
• Federal elections would require paper ballots to prevent computer tampering. State chief election officials couldn't get involved in federal campaigns.
• The bill would declare an intent to revive core anti-discrimination provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that were effectively shut down by the Supreme Court six years ago. It would also state that failing to vote isn't grounds for taking away a person's voter registration.

Campaign Finance

• Provisions from the Disclose Act would expand the prohibition on foreign political money and mandate the disclosure of the big donors behind politically active 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations.
• Digital companies, like Facebook and Google, would have to set up public databases cataloging political ad purchase requests of $500 or more and create new measures to block ad buys by foreign nationals.
• Presidential inaugural committees would have to disclose expenditures, in addition to the existing requirement for donor disclosure. This is a response to reports of unexplained spending by Trump's inaugural committee.
• A new matching-fund program would support House candidates who agree to raise only small-dollar contributions. (Similar provisions for Senate candidates would have to come from the Senate.) The public financing system for presidential candidates, largely irrelevant since 2012, would be updated.
• The bill would quash "sidecar" superPACs that support individual candidates.

Ethics

• Presidents and vice presidents would have to release their tax returns, something that happened routinely in past administrations but not in this one.
• Presidents-elect would need ethics plans for their transition teams and would have to file financial disclosures within 30 days of taking office. The bill would tell presidents and vice presidents they should act as if they are covered by the conflict-of-interest law, which actually exempts them. Again, this wasn't an issue in previous administrations because past presidents did not have the volume of business entanglements that Trump has.
• House members would be barred from serving on corporate boards. Rep. Chris Collins, R-N.Y., is under indictment for allegedly using inside information he gained as a corporate board member.
• House members would be forbidden to use taxpayer money to pay penalties for employment discrimination. Former Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, used $84,000 in federal funds to settle a sexual harassment claim by a former staffer, said he would repay it, but changed his mind after leaving office. Congress passed a bipartisan measure in December requiring members to pay out of their own pocket for some settlements and court judgments in sexual misconduct cases.
• The Supreme Court would have to get a code of ethics, something it has never had.
• The laws regulating foreign and domestic lobbying would be expanded.

House Dems' First Bill Would Dramatically Boost Election Security:

The first bill introduced by House Democrats is a whopping 570-page voting reform package that offers, in part, significant financial support to state election agencies seeking to shore up their security through use of risk-limiting audits and the timely exchange of threat information. It would also require an intelligence community assessment ahead of federal elections, accompanied by recommendations to address potential threats from multiple agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security.

Perhaps most important, the bill requires states to use paper ballots, long considered the only true bulwark against election interference.

:



...the bill is not expected to pass the Republican controlled senate, because, let's face it, improving elections, draining the swamp, and ethics, aren't subjects that the corrupt scumbag Republican politicians actually want to be helpful on. But the fact that Dems can pass it through the House they control gives the lie to your idea that Dems don't actually want to do stuff. They have a big list of things they'll vote for.

If you want to read up on a list of Democratic policies further, there's always the 2016 Democratic Party Platform, or you could have a look at the platform of the Justice Democrats which are a sub-group of Democrats I support to which Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez belongs. Have a good browse of both, because I expect you would actually see that you like lots of Democratic policies if you actually learned what they are. I will agree that Dems in general have a history of being terrible at marketing their policies to the US public.

[Cow Poke]

Wait, wait... because he says the Democratic party has some polices, you think he's got "blind loyalty" to them?!?

No, because he defends them at every turn, and always manages to find corruption and dishonor among the Republicans. Both parties are corrupt and misguided.

[Cow Poke]

You asked, CP. Carpe answered. You handwaved.

He's ALMOST as blindly loyal to the Democratic party as you are, except he can spell and uses good grammar and generally doesn't say really stupid stuff. Other than that, you guys are two peas in a pod.

[JimL]

No, because he defends them at every turn, and always manages to find corruption and dishonor among the Republicans. Both parties are corrupt and misguided.

False equivalency, CP, by a long shot. Republicans not only are riddled with more corruption (just look at the Administration itself) but they are also corrupt in their constant attempts at undermining the democratic process itself which is why that is one of the first things to be dealt with on the new majority democrat House agenda. Voting and election laws, Campaign Finance, and Ethics. Don't expect any Republican support!

[JimL]

He's ALMOST as blindly loyal to the Democratic party as you are, except he can spell and uses good grammar and generally doesn't say really stupid stuff. Other than that, you guys are two peas in a pod.

Look in the mirror brother. The only difference is that you are on the dark side

[Cow Poke]

Look in the mirror brother. The only difference is that you are on the dark side

No comparison -- I can spell and use goodly grammar!

[Starlight]

False equivalency, CP, by a long shot. Republicans not only are riddled with more corruption (just look at the Administration itself) but they are also corrupt in their constant attempts at undermining the democratic process itself which is why that is one of the first things to be dealt with on the new majority democrat House agenda. Voting and election laws, Campaign Finance, and Ethics. Don't expect any Republican support!

Saw this rather accurate cartoon today...

[rogue06]

No comparison -- I can spell and use goodly grammar!

Except in thread titles

[Charles]

Saw this rather accurate cartoon today...

[Cow Poke]

Except in thread titles

That is simply a gift to you to allow you to grumble.