Trump 2024?

[Phoenix_person]

3 hours ago, old said:

old school republicans would rather ally with D than the right; Congress right now is basically power-sharing between Rs and Ds, thanks to Mike Johnson. Literally he has given them control over Congress in exchange for him being Speaker.

Old school Republicans ARE the right. The Freedom Caucus is tainted with members who think it's okay to associate with white nationalists. If I were a Reagan Republican, I wouldn't give them the time of day either.

[Traveler]

6 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

Old school Republicans ARE the right. The Freedom Caucus is tainted with members who think it's okay to associate with white nationalists. If I were a Reagan Republican, I wouldn't give them the time of day either.

Name calling is (I think) the most undesirable outcome (result or proof) of corrupt politics.

 

The Traveler

[old]

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

MAGA Republicans in office are perpetually angry, abrasive, demanding, and refuse to listen to anyone who doesn’t agree with them. 

 

So..why do they get fussy and whiny when people refuse to work with them? Can’t have it both ways. 

I've been in political situations where we didn't have a majority, but had a very strong minority (like 40%) and the majority didn't want to work with us, so we got fussy and whiny.

One perspective is they are fussy and whiny and no one wants to work with them b/c of that.

OR another perspective is the majority side doesn't want to give any crumbs to the non-majority wing and therefore the non-majority wing becomes fussy and whiny.

[old]

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Yes, because the hard right can’t stand the old school moderates and refuse to work with them. So, like all reasonable people, the old school GOP got the message and would rather work with someone else.

The hard right fails to comprehend basic politics. They want it their way all the time, which not reality. 

You should look up Robert's Rules of Order.

The original system (which is effectively based off of Robert's Rules of Order), was not a strict majority. It was majority+.

Ultimately, any official business has to have AT LEAST 50+1 of the vote.  However, business cannot be closed or shut down unless at least 66%+1 say it can be shut down.

What this originally meant in practice is that in order to take an actual VOTE on whether to pass a bill, it required 66% of the body to say "yes we want to vote on the bill" and 50% to say "yes the bill should pass".

When adhered to what this actually generated were bills more likely to pass with a very strong majority. Changes in the bill would occur to get enough votes to shut down discussion of the bill (requiring 66%) and move it to an actual vote to pass (50%).

You do realize that Mike Johnson has passed bills that have not even garnered 50% of the Republican vote right!!!

That ain't 1-2 people complaining...that's a MAJORITY of the Republican Congressman saying, NO we shouldn't pass this bill .....and it gets passed anyways b/c Mike Johnson is power-sharing with the Democrats.

[LDSGator]

33 minutes ago, old said:

therefore the non-majority wing becomes fussy and whiny.

Okay. So if the hard right wants to act like petulant babies, they will be treated as such.  Send then to bed without supper until they behave like adults 

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

Old school Republicans ARE the right. The Freedom Caucus is tainted with members who think it's okay to associate with white nationalists. If I were a Reagan Republican, I wouldn't give them the time of day either.

Yup. And the best way to combat that silliness is to expose them for what they are. I’ll never lose faith in the common decency of the voters-they see it. 

[LDSGator]

I feel the same way about the voters as I do the LDS church. I have great respect for the church and how they let the average person “run” the wards. The bishop is a regular guy, just like the voters.

It’s beautiful really.

[LDSGator]

2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Old school Republicans ARE the right. The Freedom Caucus is tainted with members who think it's okay to associate with white nationalists. If I were a Reagan Republican, I wouldn't give them the time of day either.

Last thought-don’t you think the anger of the hard right will only take them so far? All it takes is one cheerful, optimistic person like a Bill Clinton or a Ronald Reagan and the anger of the hard right/hard left will be swept away. 
 

That, and anger always turns on itself. If you hate the other side, you’ll eventually hate your own too. It’s sad, but it’s also a little funny. I can’t help but laugh at their anger.

Edited June 6 by LDSGator

[Phoenix_person]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

Last thought-don’t you think the anger of the hard right will only take them so far? All it takes is one cheerful, optimistic person like a Bill Clinton or a Ronald Reagan and the anger of the hard right/hard left will be swept away. 
 

I hope you're right, but I don't share your optimism. I'm convinced that the far-right would label Reagan a RINO if he were in government today. 

2 hours ago, old said:

You do realize that Mike Johnson has passed bills that have not even garnered 50% of the Republican vote right!!!

Which ones? It's not a trick question, I promise. I'm pretty sure you're right, but I'm fuzzy on the details.

2 hours ago, old said:

That ain't 1-2 people complaining...that's a MAJORITY of the Republican Congressman saying, NO we shouldn't pass this bill .....and it gets passed anyways b/c Mike Johnson is power-sharing with the Democrats.

I don't follow the day-to-day business of Congress (hence my question above), but I know the House GOP has gotten a lot of flack from their own side about their inability to effectively govern with their majority. Ideally, yes, the party is on the same page and passes bills that they can brag about on the campaign trail. That hasn't been happening in this congress because a dozen or so Republicans want to throw temper tantrums, and they have a single-digit majority. Heck, they were handed the toughest immigration bill a Dem administration has offered in a very long time, and they turned their nose at it. So now Biden has toughened the border through EO and can campaign on that in swing states (like Arizona). 

I don't like Mike Johnson any more than I liked McCarthy, but I certainly don't envy him. He's in the impossible position of having to choose between getting bills passed or letting a minority wing of the GOP prevent the party from using their majority effectively, which could very well cost them their majority this fall. 

[LDSGator]

Just now, Phoenix_person said:

I hope you're right, but I don't share your optimism. I'm convinced that the far-right would label Reagan a RINO if he were in government today. 

3 hours ago, old said:

I totally agree with you on the Reagan part, but the grim truth is that the MAGA set is generally older. When they start fading away (I’m being polite, but it’s how time works) new leadership will surely come.  

[NeuroTypical]

13 hours ago, LDSGator said:

I totally agree with you on the Reagan part, but the grim truth is that the MAGA set is generally older. When they start fading away (I’m being polite, but it’s how time works) new leadership will surely come.  

I remember last decade, my hard left anarchist buddy was claiming victory about something.  We noticed the Rush Limbaugh radio show was keeping its listener numbers, but it was not adding younger listeners.  My buddy was happy because that meant that Limbaugh's politics was on it's way out.  He and his listeners would age and die, and life would be better without his brand of conservative thought and rhetoric.

Cough, cough JOE ROGAN TURNING POINT PRAEGER UNIVERSITY SALEM NEWS HANNITY SAVAGE cough cough.

Cough cough ANOTHER GEN Z CONSERVATIVE INFLUENCER EVERY TIME YOU OPEN TIKTOK cough. 

Yeah, AM radio might be sunsetting, but there'll always be patriots and influencers and opinion leaders.  Enduring conservative principles are enduring, and younger generations continue to come of age and adopt them as common sense. 

Unfortunately, ignorance, hatred, fear, and peddling outrage for likes and follows are also enduring. It's a human problem, not a MAGA problem. 

[Traveler]

@LDSGator, @oldand @Phoenix_person -  Greetings:

I would join your conversations but with a little twist.  I have learned that with politics one should avoid talking about labels.  Rather one ought to look first at efforts and accomplishments.  I believe that there is always enough common ground for those with different views to come together and accomplish things worthwhile and needed.  It seems to me that all the discord comes from labeling and blame.  There is another dimension and since this is an LDS religious site – it is the influence of Satan.

I believe Satan sticks with tactics that work for him and his purpose.  His main effort is to create divisions of hatred.  The very best of human governments have serious flaws.  Likewise, even the most totalitarian governments have things of benefit.  I have personally been involved and seen elements of our republic democracy bring horribly evil results and I am also aware of elements of Nazi Germany; that any country ought to emulate (such as a very low crime rate and a robust economy during a worldwide economic depression).  

In short, we ought to be able to incorporate the best of bad governments and political endeavors and discard the worst of the best governments and political endeavors.  The reality is that political ideas or not separated by some line of demarcation with good on one side and evil on the other.  Rather ideas are a spectrum of varying possibilities.  We ought to be intelligent.  The scientific definition of intelligent is the ability to learn and modify outcomes.   Governments are almost never capable of modifying anything it has started – mostly governments expand their mistakes rather than to correct them.

I will give one example:  During the US census taken in 1960 elements of our government discovered that if just 2% of our GNP was transferred to the poor sector – that we could eliminate poverty in the USA.  Under president Kennedy and Johnson, the political program of the “Great Society” was undertaken.  Its goal was to end poverty and environmental pollution (it was argued that if something was not done about pollution that we would cause an extension event within 15 years – that could possibly end humanity.

These political efforts were intrenched by the end of the 60’s decade.  It is now 50 years later, and our government is transferring almost 30% of the GNP into various poverty programs and increased environmental concerns significantly.  All the increases came about because spending a little more was seen as a way to make things better.  The aggregate result is that currently poverty is worse today than in 1960 and the claim is that current manmade pollution could destroy all life within 15 years.  We are unable to undo anything because everybody is convinced that undoing anything would be far worse than expanding bad ineffective programs.

I am not an economist by profession – but I have enough experience to know that when the largest single expenditure is paying down interest on debt – whatever the enterprise – it is in serious trouble.  First off, things of serious need are unaffordable, making standards of living to drop and the economy for the enterprise is seriously damaged – which is a definition of poverty.

The Book of Mormon highlights how turning away from covenants with G-d causes a society to devolve into “secret societies” (which BTW was the path that destroyed the Nephits) and that living covenants with G-d elevates a society – even to the point of ending poverty.  Another thing is that we ought to learn is that legislating divine covenants was the first effort of Lucifer in the pre-existence. 

I would be most interested in a thread like this to hear ideas of what ought to be legislated or un-legislated rather than who should be or who should not be in charge.

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

10 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

It's a human problem, not a MAGA problem. 

Agree in part, disagree in part. Ignorance, fear and hate are absolutely part of the human condition. However, I’ve yet to meet a friendly, non-confrontational, balanced and pleasant person who is a hardcore MAGA supporter. Do they exist l? Sure. But I have yet to meet one.  
 

We need Rush back. He was a friendly, funny, and overall pleasant conservative. When he announced he had cancer I had to pull over in the car because I was so shocked and upset by it. I thought he’d be here forever.  

[LDSGator]

12 minutes ago, Traveler said:

believe Satan sticks with tactics that work for him and his purpose.  His main effort is to create divisions of hatred. 

We agree totally there. I absolutely believe Satan laughs with glee when humans go to war with one another.

(I’m 99% sure @Vort said that that-correct me if I’m wrong)

[Carborendum]

Quote

Tolerance:

the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

I wonder how many examples we have of this on the left?

Cancel culture, anyone?

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I wonder how many examples we have of this on the left?

Cancel culture, anyone?

There is no such thing as tolerance – just a passive aggressive intolerance of other’s intolerance.  😎

 

The Traveler

[Ironhold]

Ok...

https://au.news.yahoo.com/trump-judge-alerts-lawyers-social-212549668.html

The judge in Trump's hush money case has issued a legal statement. 

Someone claiming to be a cousin of a juror in the case posted on Facebook that their cousin, one of the jurors, had contacted them and informed them that the plan was to find Trump guilty. 

This post was made the day before the verdict was read, and so counts as a significant breach. It's so significant, in fact, that if this is true and a juror did indeed talk then it all but guarantees Trump will get a new trial on appeal. 

[mordorbund]

On 6/5/2024 at 10:55 AM, Manners Matter said:

As far as voting for Trump - has anyone here asked yourselves *WHY* they're going after him so hard from any which way they can?

Your theory is as good as any other. I'll toss one out there that you can feel free to ignore. Back when Hillary was the DNC nominee their emails were leaked, including various strategies they were implementing. One piece of counsel Clinton was given was to elevate the voice of fringe candidates to dilute the shares of the the current frontrunners. They would either have to lean farther right win their base (giving Clinton fodder to win over centrists in the general election) or the fringe would actually win and Clinton would look that much better. Clinton ran against Trump because she chose him* (email here -- see attachment in the email).

I think the same thing played out again with DNC looking over the debate stage and figured their best bet at swinging "not Biden" voters is to run the same race again. This time, instead of just elevating him they needed to attack as well. Announcing the indictments when they did assured that Trump would be the RNC candidate. If anything actually sticks, all the better.

*As long as I'm dropping conspiracies, I don't think Trump was running with the intention to win. He had run before, and dropped out just in time for his Apprentice tv show. I suspect 2016 was a publicity bid to leverage something else, like his own station (like Oprah's O network).

[mordorbund]

On 6/5/2024 at 1:01 PM, NeuroTypical said:

7. Constitutional amendment for federal term limits.  Perhaps an individual cap on total years that can be spent as an elected official.  (This one has massive bipartisan support.  We could do it.)

My concern with term limits is that the power would shift from a visible figurehead to a hidden swamp monster. If I had money and influence on a Representative to craft laws in my favor I would be concerned about the loss of institutional knowledge. My guy that's been in there for 30+ years knows who to talk to get compromises in my favor, and knows the available rules of order to shut down the unfavorable ones. With term limits I'll have to find a way to compensate for that so instead I'll build out (possibly coordinate or collude) a semi-permanent brain trust. My influence would then be providing staff to onboard the new guy. Representatives come and go but my staff stick around. As far as the electorate is concerned, change happens more frequently now but it's really the same policies but with new faces.

Is this an unreasonable scenario? or would term limits need to be coupled with other changes?

Also, would you also want term limits for the judicial branch?

[NeuroTypical]

19 hours ago, mordorbund said:

My concern with term limits is that the power would shift from a visible figurehead to a hidden swamp monster.

There was a fun British Comedy on the subject, Yes, Minister, which showed the story of the new incoming Minster, and his civil servant assistant, who actually ran the govt with all the other civil servants.  (I think there was a spin-off series, Yes, Prime Minister.)  

19 hours ago, mordorbund said:

I would be concerned about the loss of institutional knowledge. My guy that's been in there for 30+ years knows who to talk to get compromises in my favor, and knows the available rules of order to shut down the unfavorable ones.

That's one way of looking at it.  Another way would be that the swamp monster loses it's longstanding ties to people who have become accustomed to manipulating power and favors in exchange for their own power and favors.  And the swamp monster would have to continually have to start over at square one with a constantly rotating crop of new fresh-faced idealistic kids, who are looking at the job as a short time gig, before they return to the private sector.

[Phoenix_person]

21 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

That's one way of looking at it.  Another way would be that the swamp monster loses it's longstanding ties to people who have become accustomed to manipulating power and favors in exchange for their own power and favors.  And the swamp monster would have to continually have to start over at square one with a constantly rotating crop of new fresh-faced idealistic kids, who are looking at the job as a short time gig, before they return to the private sector.

Imagine a government with 18-20 year term limits coupled with Jefferson's idea that the entire Constitution (and laws in general) should be completely revisited every 19 years. I honestly don't hate it, on paper. In practice, I feel like having such high stakes in every few elections would accelerate and intensify attempts to undermine our democratic systems, the same democratic systems that are being rewritten every generation. 

[NeuroTypical]

Yeah, I'm not down with Jefferson's idea. It would work only as long as every generation can field a set of mature and virtuous humans, who the country can identify and get them to accept the job.  

I mean, I believe humans are pretty much all good to a certain extent.  But I'm not going to roll the dice on another Miracle at Philadelphia ever happening again. 

Edited June 9 by NeuroTypical

[NeuroTypical]

Oof.  This is getting so little press, and it's so horrible.  Here's a list of politicians in Mexico that have been assassinated, just during the 2024 election cycle:

Name	Position
Javier Torres Barrera	Aspiring candidate for mayor of Chiautla de Tapia, Puebla
Wilman Monje Morales	Aspiring candidate for mayor of Gutiérrez Zamora, Veracruz
Alejandro Lanuza Hernández	Aspiring candidate for mayor of Salvatierra, Guanajuato
Miguel Ángel Cruz Robles	Aspiring candidate for mayor of Villa del Carbón, State of Mexico
Dagoberto García Rivera	Aspiring candidate for mayor of Maravatío, Michoacán
Jaime Dámaso Solís	Aspiring candidate for mayor of Zitala, Guerrero
Ricardo Taja Ramírez	Aspiring candidate for federal deputy
Giovanni Lezama Barrera	Precandidate for local deputy of Morelos
David Rey González Moreno	Aspiring candidate for mayor of Suchiate, Chiapas
Sergio Hueso	Aspiring candidate for mayor of Armería, Colima
Miriam Nohemí Ríos Ríos	Municipal commissioner of Citizens' Movement in Jacona, Michoacán
Samantha Gomes Fonseca	Precandidate for senator representing Mexico City
Marcelino Ruiz Esteban	Aspiring candidate for mayor of Atlixtac, Guerrero
Guadalupe Guzmán Cano	PRD state advisor of Guerrero
José Alejandro Naredo García	PRD municipal leader of Cuitláhuac, Veracruz
Jaime Vera Alanís	Precandidate for mayor of Mascota, Jalisco
Juan Pérez Guardado	Secretary of Social Development in Fresnillo, Zacatecas
Yair Martín Romero Segura	Precandidate for federal deputy
Miguel Ángel Zavala Reyes	Precandidate for mayor of Maravatío, Michoacán
Armando Pérez Luna	Precandidate for mayor of Maravatío, Michoacán
Alfredo González Díaz	Candidate for mayor of Atoyac de Álvarez, Guerrero
Tomás Morales Patrón	Candidate for mayor of Chilapa de Álvarez, Guerrero
Diego Pérez Méndez	Precandidate for mayor of San Juan Cancuc, Chiapas
Humberto Amezcua	Mayor of Pihuamo, Jalisco, seeking reelection
Joaquín Martínez López	Mayor of Chahuites, Oaxaca, seeking reelection
Jaime González Pérez	Precandidate for mayor of Acatzingo, Puebla
Gisela Gaytán	Candidate for mayor of Celaya, Guanajuato
Julián Bautista Gómez	Former mayor of Amatenango del Valle, Chiapas, seeking reelection
Noé Ramos Ferretiz	Mayor of El Mante, Tamaulipas, seeking reelection
Alberto Antonio García	Incumbent municipal treasurer of San José Independencia, Oaxaca, and mayoral candidate for the same municipality
Francisco Sánchez Gaeta	Candidate for síndico of Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco
Mauro Hernández Velin	Candidate for regidor of Benemérito de las Américas, Chiapas
Santos Moreno Cabada	Candidate for regidor in Choix, Sinaloa
Aníbal Zúñiga Cortés	Candidate for regidor of Coyuca de Benítez, Guerrero
Lucero López Maza	Mayoral candidate for the municipality of La Concordia, Chiapas
José Alfredo Cabrera Barrientos	Candidate for mayor of Coyuca de Benítez, Guerrero
Jorge Huerta	Candidate for regidor in Izúcar de Matamoros, Puebla
Israel Delgado Vega	Candidate for síndico in Cuitzeo, Michoacán
Yolanda Sánchez	Mayor in Cotija de la Paz, Michoacán
Esmeralda Garzón Campos	Regidora in Tixtla, Guerrero

 All of them, killed in the last 11 months.  

It's kind of important that our president be mature and strong regarding our southern border.  Vote accordingly.

 

[Phoenix_person]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

It's kind of important that our president be mature and strong regarding our southern border.  Vote accordingly.

I don't think Trump and Biden are terribly different on this, though Trump has the benefit of being in the party that is overall more supportive of tighter border security. Biden, OTOH, has seen some recent slips in his approval among Dems over the issue.

[Carborendum]

13 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I don't think Trump and Biden are terribly different on this