Understood, but even if the narrative was changed to “the GOP did and/or supported” all of those things, would that change my thesis at all?
The whole thing is frustrating and frightening.
I’d prefer a narrative more along the lines of what the GOP wants to do to or take away from you:
- Republicans want more mass shootings.
- Republicans want to take away the value of your vote.
- Republicans want to take away control over your own body.
- Republicans want to deny civil rights to anyone who isn’t straight, white and Christian.
Etc.
The fight against Trumpism is existential for the country. The fight against conservatism is not. If the Republicans repudiate Trumpism, which includes the efforts to overturn our election system, we will have won.
A battle or a front. Not the “war”.
What is this conservatism that you speak? Why do we continue to use the term when referring to Republicans when they have clearly not shown that they care about being fiscally conservative. They have routed conservatives from there party at every chance they get, just ask Lynne Cheney.
As a white, straight, Christian male gun owner, I approve of this message
Right now the Republicans are a Trumpist party. If they repudiate Trump and become a conservative party, then we will have won.
Why can’t the Democrats take up a fiscally responsible stance and take over the conservative label. Who says progressive issues can’t be done with fiscal responsibility, like paying for things as you go. The definition of conservative needs to be re-evaluated since they have forsaken it. Things get turned around all the time in politics. Like the Republican’s freed the slaves, now they want to enslave us.
Fine with me.
Holy cow! Scroll down to the following and read on to see their strategy. I think Sanders would have been creamed.
So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal.
And that’s where I have trouble, I think; I fail to see how a fascist takeover of the government doesn’t hurt them, perhaps even physically. Having been through 1/6, they know this.
There must some term for this psychological phenomenon, but I don’t know what it would be. It’s like the Boy Who Cried Wolf, except that there was actually, in fact, a wolf each time.
For instance, the Republicans could do a thousand fascist things, and Democrats each time shout “Fascist!” but then the population starts to roll eyes at Democrats and tune them out and say, “Let me guess…you’re going to say “Fascist” again, aren’t you?”
In other words, you can say a truthful thing 100 times, but people start to tune you out because they’re tired of it.
This article is insightful. The views of Americans in almost everything (except perhaps guns) are in line with every other country. Mainstream. Their political dysfunction is not.
Well, to be sure, we should be careful about generalizations since some Democrats have indeed been very outspoken about the threat of a fascist takeover.
I just think there are enough who think “I’ll just get out of town as fast as I can”, or “Jan 6th was a one-time event, and our committees are taking care of it now.”
Or, in fairness, there’s also the thinking that the best way to fix this situation is to get re-elected and build bigger majorities. And many of those Democrats are from districts that want their representative to bring home pork, who are perfectly happy to believe there’s no existential threat.
It’s an uncomfortable truth to contemplate, but a great many Americans are fairly ignorant of the US political situation, and are happy to continue rewarding politicians who help them feel that there’s no real cause for alarm. So there’s probably another unspecified poll item that should say “they behave like sheep because their constituents prefer it.”
Part of it is also that there’s more than one boy.
It’s pointed out that people were saying the same about Bush and Cheney. But that’s disingenuous, as it’s not the same people.
I didn’t like Bush and Cheney, and I saw the damage they did to our country and to the world, but I didn’t think they were fascist.
So when I say that the Trump admin is fascist, a rejoinder pointing out that people said the same about Bush and Cheney is a complete fallacy.
Then there’s the alternate wolf story I came up with much earlier on in Trump’s career, where the boy cries that he sees wolves in the distance, and the village people say, “Don’t worry, it’s far away, and we have fences to protect us.” As the wolves grow closer, the boy keeps warning the villagers, and they keep admonishing him that the wolves aren’t bothering them right now, and besides, they’d never had problems with wolves before, it can’t happen here. When the wolves finally attack and kill the boy, the villagers learn that they shouldn’t put up an alarm, or they may be targeted themselves.
It ultimately might hurt them. Right now people complained about how they are hurting the wrong people (not enough slavery I suppose).
But these people doing the hurting, are not going to hurt. They will die long before that. All of them with golden parachutes will pass that parachute on.
Rinse and repeat.
Yep.
In any case, after the 2016, 538 listed the top reasons why Hillary lost:
- The Comey memo
- Poor election strategy , focusing too mush on winning the popular vote, not on electors.
- Negative campaigning.
538 said that if any of those three had not happened, Hillary would have won. Now sure, “Bernie-bros” are #3 on the list, but why did not Sanders concede when mathematically he had lost? Why did not Sanders appeal to his supporters to stop the lies, half lies and negative shit vs Hillary?
From your cite:
A certain kind of liberal makes me sick. These people traffic in false equivalencies, always pretending that both nominees are the same, justifying their apathy and not voting or preening about their narcissistic purity as they cast their ballot for a person they know cannot win. … I have an enormous problem with anyone who voted for Trump or Stein or Johnson—or who didn’t vote at all—and who now expresses horror about the outcome of this election. If you don’t like the consequences of your own actions, shut the hell up… If they opposed Trump while refusing to do what they could to keep him out of office—that is, vote for the only other candidate who could win —then they need to go perform sex with themselves. And I mean that in much cruder terms… 2. The Myth That Sanders Would Have Won Against Trump
It is impossible to say what would have happened under a fictional scenario, but Sanders supporters often dangle polls from early summer showing he would have performed better than Clinton against Trump. They ignored the fact that Sanders had not yet faced a real campaign against him.
Tax fraud would work. But if trump relied upon his CPA’s, (as he will claim) that gets harder. His CPAs would have to testify against him.
I do NPR, and Google News.
Right. America needs a Opposition party. Just a sane one, please.
Actually, economist say a balanced budget is bad for the economy. You want a negative in %, about the same % as the growth in GDP.
And the GOP is by no means fiscally responsibility, they like to call the Dems “tax and spend” but the GOP is now “the borrow and spend party… then blame it on the Democrats”.
Yep. The kremlin & GOP were holding off attacking Bernie, as he was proving a big thorn in the side of Hillary.
You also need to cover trade imbalance.
Basically, if the budget were perfectly balanced, the only way for the GDP to grow would be to export more than we import, and since we import more than we export, the GDP, under a balanced budget, would actually shrink.
One thing to remember when comparing the US budget to a household budget is that it is nothing like a household budget.
How would that model be financially viable for the broadcasters?