Both parties are not willing to compromise. That's the fundamental problem. That's why we have seen extreme factions on both sides emerge in recent years - because they view compromise as a sign of weakness for their various causes.
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
Both parties are not willing to compromise. That's the fundamental problem. That's why we have seen extreme factions on both sides emerge in recent years - because they view compromise as a sign of weakness for their various causes.
That's factually untrue. The Democrats compromised far more than the Republicans throughout both Bush and Obama Presidencies. You only have to compare things like judicial nominations and then look at the major legislation to see that the Democrats compromised far more than Republicans (Bush Iraq War and Tax Cuts, Obama forced to move from universal healthcare to Heritage foundation based ACA, Obama Wall Street reform weaker than it should have been, Republicans stalling out a SC nominee, etc).
And historically speaking Liz Warren and Bernie are not close to extreme factions on the left.
Father Coughlin and the Kingfish Sen. Huey Long were far, far more extreme than anything the left has today.
Father Coughlin and the Kingfish Sen. Huey Long were far, far more extreme than anything the left has today.
The Iraq War was hardly a compromise. The Dems went along with it because there was an intense upswell of patriotism after 9/11 that nearly all politicians were swept away by. Obama was forced to give up Universal Health Care because he knew it wasn't properly sold to the public and had no chance of passing - even Dems had to have their arms twisted by fellow Dems in Congress to finally push Obamacare over the finish line (remember the Corkhusker kickback?). So the Dem cooperation you speak of wasn't done out of a sense of collaboration as much as necessity in order to advance various policies.
I don't think they are because I happen to agree with some of their policy positions, but you can imagine in a place like Lamb's district or Jones' state that the likes of Bernie, Pelosi et al are hardly viewed as centrist. There are a good number of people who are interested in their politicians leaning into the center whose voices are getting drowned out by the noise on the extremes. Just this morning, on another site where I argue politics with more conservative people, some guy posted the below....
Loads of progressive voters have two litmus tests for presidential candidates. First one is will they appoint SC judges who will vote against Citizens United? The SC has become very corporate over the years. Elena Kagan has received large amounts of money from private parties.
Second one is obviously single payer. What does Biden think of these two issues? Getting money and lobbyists and special interests out of national politics is crucial in the UK and the US. Corbyn has a vision, what about the Dems in USA? The Dems are a big tent with different factions. The primaries will be divisive, much much more than 2008.
Second one is obviously single payer. What does Biden think of these two issues? Getting money and lobbyists and special interests out of national politics is crucial in the UK and the US. Corbyn has a vision, what about the Dems in USA? The Dems are a big tent with different factions. The primaries will be divisive, much much more than 2008.
Afghanistan and AlQaeda in general yes. But Iraq? No that was Democrats like Hillary completely capitulating to the Bush admin agenda. The public knew as early as Nov. 2004 the whole WMD story was manufactured nonsense - it was literally based on a CIA junior analyst's report and there should have been Democrats that realized this and challenged it.
"This alarming assessment was immediately challenged by the Energy Department, which builds centrifuges and runs the government's nuclear weapons complex.
The next day, Energy Department officials ticked off a long list of reasons why the tubes did not appear well suited for centrifuges. Simply put, the analysis concluded that the tubes were the wrong size -- too narrow, too heavy, too long -- to be of much practical use in a centrifuge.
What was more, the analysis reasoned, if the tubes were part of a secret, high-risk venture to build a nuclear bomb, why were the Iraqis haggling over prices with suppliers all around the world? And why weren't they shopping for all the other sensitive equipment needed for centrifuges?
All fine questions. But if the tubes were not for a centrifuge, what were they for?
Within weeks, the Energy Department experts had an answer."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/w...aluminum-tube-story-a-special-report-how.html
And even the military knew Iraq was a massive mistake yet almost no Democrats stood up for the truth
"Let me tell you my gut feeling," a senior figure at one of America's military-sponsored think tanks told me recently, after we had talked for twenty minutes about details of the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. "If I can be blunt, the Administration is full of shit. In my view we are much, much worse off now than when we went into Iraq. That is not a partisan position. I voted for these guys. But I think they are incompetent, and I have had a very close perspective on what is happening. Certainly in the long run we have harmed ourselves. We are playing to the enemy's political advantage. Whatever tactical victories we may gain along the way, this will prove to be a strategic blunder."
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/10/bushs-lost-year/303507/
Semantics. Fact is these are all issues that the Democrats backed down on from their principles. Can't think of a single major issue the Republicans have compromised in 30 years.
Your comments just show me how far the Republicans Southern Strategy has shifted the center to the right in the US.
Historically speaking Trump and Pence are extreme right who would have no place in Eisenhower's Republican party. You'd have to go back to pre-Depression era laissez-faire politicians like Calvin Coolidge to even find comparables. Both are far more extreme than Richard Nixon who even supported pretty close to a universal healthcare system for US citizens. A 1970 Republican President's health care proposal was actually more progressive than Obama's 2009 Democrat proposal.
And let's look at some actual extreme left positions, like the Kingfish's Share Our Wealth speech (from 1934 so these amounts would be adjusted upward):
- No person would be allowed to accumulate a personal net worth of more than 300 times the average family fortune, which would limit personal assets to between $5 million and $8 million. A graduated capital levy tax would be assessed on all persons with a net worth exceeding $1 million.
- Annual incomes would be limited to $1 million and inheritances would be capped at $5.1 million.
It's pretty telling that what is currently deemed "extreme left" in America is nowhere near as leftist as historical extreme left while the right wing in America is approaching the most extreme right its been since the robber baron-Jim Crow era.
The left in the US has compromised enough over the past 40 yrs. So its time progressives in the US start combating the Southern Strategy.
Public views shift after all, sometimes even within 10 years.
Last edited:
I don't think anyone disputes the idiocy of the Bush Administration. The point is the Dems went along with it because the political climate in the country following 9/11 was one of intense rage, fear, and revenge, and it was perceived as unpatriotic to not seek some sort of redemption at the time (however misguided we know it to be in retrospect).
Its not Semantics. We literally wouldn't have the ACA now had Obama not compromised to get something through Congress. People had tried for 70 years before and failed, to accomplish what he did in the first couple of years of his administration. The case hadn't been made for Universal Healthcare at the time, and as such, the Republicans used the fear of socialism to back Obama into a corner where he was forced to capitulate. Had he not compromised, we would still be in the pre-Obama care system where there were no safeguards against pre-existing conditions and millions would be without coverage.
Not sure if I can agree that Trump can be viewed as an extreme right wing candidate under most US definitions. He's been pro-choice and amenable to LGBT causes for much of his professional life and he is advocating for the same anti-free trade type policies that Sanders supports (anti-TPP etc). Personality wise, he's obviously a nutjob, but policy wise, there is a lot of overlap between traditional establishment Republican and Blue Dog Dems, which is one of the reasons he managed to clean Hillary's clock in the rust belt states. If not for that blue collar crossover appeal, she would be President today.
Last edited:
This is mostly besides the point I made - that the Democrats are the ones capitulating and compromising on traditional liberal views while Republicans are not compromising on anything and in fact getting more hard right than they were in the 50s-70s.
You are bringing up an example that proves my point. Obama compromised. Bush did not. Trump has not. Many of Clinton's policies were right slanted to begin with (welfare reform, tough on crime, deregulating financial products, defense of marriage act).
For Trump the politician we have to judge him on the policies he does not something he might have said on Twitter 10 years ago. Has he actually done anything as President for pro-choice or LGBT? All I see are pretty far right / outdated nationalistic policies.
The point is no one cooperated because it was the collaborative thing to do. They did so because they had to, where not having done so would've resulted in them taking a hit on their own political agenda. Obama was forced to do it otherwise be perceived as a failure on healthcare.
Depends how left the observer is. Many of these issues are fairly routine in the political center.
The broader point is he is not some right wing lunatic as some may like to portray him. He has over his lifetime supported policies that are fairly in sync with both the Dem and Republican parties. He is simply an opportunist who is currently riding various policies to conform to a political base (in this case the Republicans) who can undergird his Presidency. Trump's two primary motivations - power and self-aggrandizement - always take precednce over random political positions, which can't be said of any historical right wing ideologues.
Oh man, Trump did not even have the decency to speak to Tillerson face to face when he got back from Africa or even ring him up to tell him that he wants to replace him. Firing a person via a tweet?! He was the CEO of Exxon Mobil and then the US SS. Shameful behaviour by the Trump administration. Disgraceful. Feel sorry for Tillerson.
I'm not posting in the Trump thread because I want to stay away from it. Don't want to read about all the shite that Trump and his geezers are doing.
I'm not posting in the Trump thread because I want to stay away from it. Don't want to read about all the shite that Trump and his geezers are doing.
Last edited:
And don't forget the reason why Tillerson was in Africa in the first place - to do damage control after Trump's shithole comments.
In case anyone needs a refresher on John Bolton...
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/12...ational-security-adviser-war-iran-north-korea
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/12...ational-security-adviser-war-iran-north-korea
We can agree to disagree there as I think many Democrats from places from California, Oregon to Wisconsin and Illinois to New York would have received a huge amount of support perhaps even more than they did if they exposed the provably false WMD claims sooner. A large amount of the alleged support for invading Iraq was manufactured astroturfing and not people's real views. The majority just cared about Al Qaeda not Iraq.
I think you are a bit revisionist in how much actual support existed for the Iraq war as the quotes I linked prove there wasn't nearly the support for the Iraq War even among the Republican military as the Bush Admin portrayed.
You think Clinton's massive increase in locking up non-violent drug users and use of private prisons to greater levels than any other 1st world country and the increase to extreme pre-1929 levels of financial deregulation are centrist views?
So you believe he is less right wing than Bush, Jr as a President (whatever his public statements he made as some reality tv star are irrelevant)?
How about Nixon? Eisenhower?
Absolutely. He's non-interventionist, has spent most of his life being pro-choice, anti-free trade, and socially centrist. There's little to paint him as a right winger on those policies. He is cynically using various right wing tropes to advance his political base during this past cycle, but I seriously doubt he actually believes half of the drivel he spouts in their support.
If Bolton gets the job there's a very good chance Trump will get tired of him within a couple of months after Bolton attempts to pressure Trump on some neo-con type position and Trump humiliates him via a public tweet.
But one thing you are forgetting is that Obama is a centre-right person. ACA is essentially a Republican plan of the past. Romney had passed a version of that as Governor of Massachusetts. Obama's SC nominees like Kagan are not some uber progressives justices. She has received heaps of money from corporations and groups. The SC, which moving in this direction for the couple of decades, became even more corporate during his presidency as a result of his nominees. These were not compromises with the opposition, this is the politican Obama is and these are the positions he held.
You say Obama didn't pass reform to put more regulation on Wall Street. He received crazy amounts in campaign contributions from Wall Street and filled his administration to the brim with Wall Street guys. Even the NYT and Wash Post, which are centrist establishment fish wrappers, criticised him for it. He bailed out the auto industry because that's what needed to be done. They wouldn't have allowed that many number of jobs to be lost. Anyone would have done it.
He's a centre right person when you put him on the Western political spectrum. He would be considered right of centre in Europe. Which is centrist or left of centre in the US, as the political environment in the US is so right wing.
I'd say Theodore Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson had a lot of progressive ideals. LJ was a solid president with a great legacy. Nixon believed single payer could work.
Yup, he's a distinguished person with a very successful career. CEO of one of the largest energy companies there is and then the SS. Not even a school kid who has a part time job waiting tables at a restaurant or working as a cashier deserves to be fired like that, never mind the SoS. Trump is truly a person bereft of compassion towards his colleagues. Good God.
Tillerson is better off away from Trump.
Another reason I'm glad the likes of Romney and Petreaus didn't get involved with Trump. They are far too good at what they do to have to deal with this sort of thing.
Have you seen the four-part Channel 4 documentary on Trump and the documentary Get Me Roger Stone? Trump has used cyncial right wing tactics to profit his entire life.
Trump's original political mentor and private advisor and attorney in the 1970s was Roy Cohn. Cohn was a big McCarthyite and earlier practitioner of dark politics with the association with starting in 1971 when Cohn defended Trump for violating the Fair Housing Act. He was known for excluding based on race.
In the 1980s Trump was associating with the infamous Stone, Manafort, Black firm famous for lobbying on behalf of dictators and murderers. At the 1988 Republican National Convention Roger Stone is on camera literally saying that Trump should be President.
I guess if you call manipulating bankruptcy and public sector support for people "supporting welfare" then Trump's six bankruptcies and additional backroom deals that were bad for taxpayers of NY could be termed that but really its just manipulating the system.
Oh and he was involved in the Stone scheme to destroy Perot's Reform party from within in 2000 (while obviously they were already long past their prime then, destroying any semi-viable third party was an important part of Stone's long term strategy).
Then there was Trump charging in front of the whole Obama is not a US citizen birther movement. That's not socially centrist, its pandering to very white nationalist support.
So how you call a complete view of pre-candidate Trump "socially centrist" is beyond me. Maybe if we cherry pick his quotes he sounds socially centrist but his actual actions speak otherwise.
Add:
I'd say he earned the support of older white working class in blue states not because of any centrist policies but just because they liked his character on The Apprentice.
Last edited:
Yes these are typical dirty trick tactics that have nothing to do with conservative policies and everything to do with the fact that the people involved are shady and willing to cheat in the pursuit of power and wealth.
No one that partakes in the dark arts to his level can be called socially centrist.
What has he actually done to benefit pro-choice and LGBT? Anything other than some random public comment (that costs him nothing)?
He didn't run on those policies, but he has been generally favorable to them over his entire professional life.
No, but you ran on the claim that pre-President Trump wasn't very right wing and was socially centrist despite the fact he has associated with far right political operators since the 1970s, had numerous troubles with racist policies throughout his career, was the self-inserted leader of the white nationalist Birther movement and has never actually done anything for progressive policy.
But your counter is just saying Trump said some of variation "I am the best at being pro-Choice, I am the best on being pro LGBT" at some point in his career?
Yes, I am sure Trump has claimed to be the best at liberal policies at various points in his career. But his words mean nothing. His actions prove otherwise.
Rand Paul will oppose nominations of Pompeo and Haspel
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) says he will oppose the nominations of Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State and Gina Haspel as CIA Director, citing specific concerns with Haspel’s participation in torture. Paul sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which Pompeo will have to clear for confirmation.
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) says he will oppose the nominations of Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State and Gina Haspel as CIA Director, citing specific concerns with Haspel’s participation in torture. Paul sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which Pompeo will have to clear for confirmation.
He's going to pivot any day now.
He's quite happily interventionist when he wants to be - he's regularly been heightening tensions with North Korea on Twitter, and bombed Assad last year after chemical attacks. This comes along with his constant rhetoric regarding eliminating ISIS.
We can't really judge his social views on the basis of what he's said in the past because he's highly modified those views and now appeals to a far-right base. Irrespective of whether he actually believes what he's saying he's stirred up a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment and has shown extraordinarily poor attitudes towards other races/groups of people as well. All that with the added fact he questioned whether Obama was born in America due to his skin colour.
That's not an Iraq style intervention though. Most US Presidents would retaliate massively if anyone launched an attack on an area where 200k Americans are living (not to mention the 50m South Koreans).
Some views were right wing and some routine Democrat views. The bottom line is he is not a political ideologue who can be tidily vilified as a right wing person because he doesn't actually believe half the positions he takes. He simply takes them as leverage to consolidate his own power.
Oh taking a strong stance against NK is fine (and much needed) but there's a difference between taking a firm, hard but well-measured stance and constantly insulting their leader in Twitter. And that doesn't negate from the fact that he randomly decided to bomb Assad when he felt like it last year, or that he's been regularly drumming up a lot of negative rhetoric against Iran.
How he has tried to present himself at times and what his actions prove are very different things.
I reckon it's the flip side. Pre election he was more of a centrist, but then his political affiliation means next to nothing as seen by his associations for power. He doesn't let his political views get in way of making money.
I love that this comment keeps reappearing.This gets better with every word:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/matth...ned-trailer-brawl?source=facebook&via=desktop
https://www.thedailybeast.com/matth...ned-trailer-brawl?source=facebook&via=desktop
There's a lot of racial purity going on there.
If the courts get rid of the gerrymandering, can the Dems win 250+ seats in the house of reps?
And get 60 in the senate? That would be a true wave election.
And get 60 in the senate? That would be a true wave election.
Senate has nothing to do with gerrymandering, it's statewide. Dems will have a hard time there primarily because only a third of seats come up for election every 2 years, and the batch in November happens to be pretty good territory for the GOP.
No on both counts, especially the Senate. They might win the house but not by a huge margin.