US Politics Thread

[Moxie]

Of course there are real journalists. I'm specifically singling out mainstream political "journalists" in the USA. Sure, you get a few with some objectivity but they are few and far between. i.e. Chris Wallace asks Trump a few reasonable questions and he's labelled a shill for the Democrats. Shapiro quit an Andrew Neil interview, accusing him of being a leftist (which if you knew him, you'd find completely laughable). Then there are the likes of Hannity, Cuomo and Lemon who seem to have the sole purpose of causing complete division. As for the NYT, you're probably aware of longstanding staff members walking out. Most of the better investigative journalists are independent.

I think you should look at the difference between who some of them are, and what they get "labeled as," as you point out. I completely agree that there are those who are out there to sling opinions that are far from journalistic or in any way impartial. But you can't throw them all in together. News and Editorial are different things. Fox's news is differentiated from its opinion portion. So is the NYTimes and WaPo. I'm just saying folks tend, these days, to throw the baby out with the bath water. You may not like someone's editorial position, but let's not pretend that there isn't real news being reported out there.

 

[Kieran]

There’s very selective reporting of the news. The Guardian in the UK were so enamoured of Corbyn that the idea of anti semitism in his Labour Party wasn’t properly investigated or accepted by them, and now he’s actually been suspended by the party after an independent investigation into this, The Guardian have to stop pretending that it isn’t a problem. Not all Guardian writers, to be fair, but largely as an entity they’re so invested in a Labour Party win they ignore this stuff. If similar allegations are made against the Tories, they trumpet them loudly.

In the interests of fairness, the right wing media would act as a mirror image of this, reporting against the Labour Party negatively, and of course the problem for the discerning reader is, who can I believe?

I imagine in America you have a similar problem. I don’t know if sex allegations against Biden were ever reported on some channels, but I would say certainly not in the way the Kavanaugh ones were. I’m suspecting this was the case. These are editorial decisions based on ideology, not on what is the news...

 

[britbox]

I think you should look at the difference between who some of them are, and what they get "labeled as," as you point out. I completely agree that there are those who are out there to sling opinions that are far from journalistic or in any way impartial. But you can't throw them all in together. News and Editorial are different things. Fox's news is differentiated from its opinion portion. So is the NYTimes and WaPo. I'm just saying folks tend, these days, to throw the baby out with the bath water. You may not like someone's editorial position, but let's not pretend that there isn't real news being reported out there.

I think that line is very blurred now Moxie. The language used in many news articles is geared to mould opinion. i.e. "baseless claims", "debunked" etc... How do you know if something is baseless before an investigation? I'd be fine using such terminology after an investigation NOT before. We did touch on this back in 2016, when I mentioned CNN's coverage of Trump after he had been elected was beyond ridiculous.

Plus, I think Kieran made a valid point on what is actually being curated as headline "news" at any given time.

 

[Federberg]

Over 99% of the count done in Arizona, and Biden still leads by over 11,000. That implies there's only about 13,000 votes unaccounted for. Trump would have to win over 90% of what's left to bring the margin to less than 500. If my facts are right only +/-200 triggers a recount in Arizona. His goose is cooked. In any case he seems to know this. We're all in limbo because the GOP is trying to salve his ego. The entire world is in limbo because of his ego...

 

[Federberg]

I find the politics in a post-Trump Presidency fascinating. If Trump starts talking about a re-run in 2024, what happens to the likes of Rubio, Cruz, Cotton, Hawley, Pompeo and Hayley?? The smart play might actually be to force Trump to accept defeat sooner rather than later and then try to marginalise him. Otherwise he might end up owning their souls for the next few years. If that's the case, Trump might be able to force the obstruction of a Biden Administration, but only at the expense of destroying any chances for the GOP in 2022 and most importantly 2024. Particularly if Biden is ostentatious about compromise and has a competent team around him. That's how the Greeks were able to move on from populism... technocratic competence. It's going to be a gripping watch

 

[Kieran]

I find the politics in a post-Trump Presidency fascinating. If Trump starts talking about a re-run in 2024, what happens to the likes of Rubio, Cruz, Cotton, Hawley, Pompeo and Hayley?? The smart play might actually be to force Trump to accept defeat sooner rather than later and then try to marginalise him. Otherwise he might end up owning their souls for the next few years. If that's the case, Trump might be able to force the obstruction of a Biden Administration, but only at the expense of destroying any chances for the GOP in 2022 and most importantly 2024. Particularly if Biden is ostentatious about compromise and has a competent team around him. That's how the Greeks were able to move on from populism... technocratic competence. It's going to be a gripping watch

Trump has gotten 72m votes and counting, I think he’s not going to be marginalised. I think the GOP will run tandem fights for its soul over the next few years, to produce a credible candidate in 2028 who can accommodate the Trumpists and pay attention to the growing momentum of politics general that’s tired of predictable, corporate candidates on both wings, the entitled dynasty players, and yet still retain the GOP core...

 

[Federberg]

So as we get to the end of the Trump Administration ( I wanted to say 'era' but that might be presumptuous), can we all come to a consensus about the things he has done, or affected that are positive or negative? I'll start... and this is by no means complete..

Positives

• Aggressively moved to end foreign adventures
• Brought the US relationship with China front and centre
• Forced a debate about global trade and it's consequences
• Forced a debate about what the appropriate level of immigration should be
• Women have increased their representation, MeToo
• Increased focus on the marginalised and forgotten

Negatives

• Rampant corruption
• Institutional damage
• International credibility
• Unilateralism

He may well end up forcing the United States to make changes for the better, even if that wasn't necessarily his intention. I long ago started to believe that all things considered it's possible (only possible as this can all go horribly wrong), that he might be the necessity that leads to a better future for the US, that a HRC Administration would only have delayed

 

[britbox]

So as we get to the end of the Trump Administration ( I wanted to say 'era' but that might be presumptuous), can we all come to a consensus about the things he has done, or affected that are positive or negative? I'll start... and this is by no means complete..

Positives

• Aggressively moved to end foreign adventures
• Brought the US relationship with China front and centre
• Forced a debate about global trade and it's consequences
• Forced a debate about what the appropriate level of immigration should be
• Women have increased their representation, MeToo
• Increased focus on the marginalised and forgotten

Negatives

• Rampant corruption
• Institutional damage
• International credibility
• Unilateralism

He may well end up forcing the United States to make changes for the better, even if that wasn't necessarily his intention. I long ago started to believe that all things considered it's possible (only possible as this can all go horribly wrong), that he might be the necessity that leads to a better future for the US, that a HRC Administration would only have delayed

Interesting post and well worth visiting. Here is my two-penneth one by one.

POSITIVES

• Aggressively moved to end foreign adventures

I'd agree with this and I really don't think Americans pay much consideration to American overseas "adventurism" or the mass carnage that ensues.

I was never remotely interested in US internal affairs until recently, it was all about foreign policy. The war on terror for Americans, is essentially a war of terror for many overseas.

While American airwaves are filled with domestic injustices at home (i.e. George Floyd etc), the populace seem totally oblivious to the carnage US causes abroad. I think it was Madeline Allbright who said the deaths of 500,000 children was an acceptable price to pay for removing Saddam Hussein... and then we had Killary Clinton rolling around laughing in her chair at the Libya situation that killed hundreds of thousands.

So maybe Trump saved lots of lives in a roundabout kind of way, while ignoring discussion about moronic pronouns. Who knows?

• Brought the US relationship with China front and centre

Difficult to say right now where this goes. I'm not sure I'd put it in the positive column.

• Forced a debate about global trade and it's consequences

Agreed.

• Forced a debate about what the appropriate level of immigration should be

I don't think he's done that. More like focusing on legal migration over illegal migration. I never understood this as a problem, more like common sense.

• Women have increased their representation, MeToo

I'm not sure how Trump contributed to this. Trump is a predatory alpha male.

• Increased focus on the marginalised and forgotten

Well, if the white picket fence Dad is forgotten, then I'd agree. I think Trump sold that middle America argument pretty well. The suburban family doing OK in middle America. It's a bit retro and factors in a long-gone Industrialized America... but it taps into an emotion. Reminds me of that movie Gran Torino with Clint Eastwood.

He clearly made some inroads into Latino and Black votes despite the torrent of white leftist media labelling him a racist.

NEGATIVES

• Rampant corruption

Probably no more than any other previous administration (but definitely under far greater scrutiny). Nearly all of his top-brass civic appointees are from traditional secret societies like Skull and Bones, Freemasons, family connections etc. So, for Trump to play the "Drain the swamp" card is ludicrous. He didn't drain any swamp, he continued it.

Unless Trump puts into practice some of the bizarre QAnon theories in the next couple of months, then he clearly is OF the swamp, not against it. If he scratches his nose at 5:01 of a press conference and Henry Kissinger goes down in a volley of machine gun fire then I might re-consider.

• Institutional damage

Yes, I'd probably agree.

• International credibility

Two polar opposites here - the middle east peace deals are something previous administrations couldn't get done. Outside of that, the status of the US with most longstanding allies is probably at an all time low.

• Unilateralism

Yes. As above, alienated most allies, other than Israel.

 

[Federberg]

I take on board, AOC's argument that Dem digital campaigning can be more effective. But progressives have got to understand that they are dreaming if they think their views are in the majority in a country which like the UK is conservative leaning in it's sensibilities. Take it from a conservative on this side of the water. Biden had it right, and some of the messaging about defunding the police and fracking... the country is not ready for it yet. Same over here

Conor Lamb slams AOC for not being a 'team player'

Rep. Conor Lamb slammed Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for not being a 'team player' and said progressives were pushing 'extremely unpopular' policy ideas.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Federberg]

Interesting post and well worth visiting. Here is my two-penneth one by one.

POSITIVES

• Aggressively moved to end foreign adventures

I'd agree with this and I really don't think Americans pay much consideration to American overseas "adventurism" or the mass carnage that ensues.

I was never remotely interested in US internal affairs until recently, it was all about foreign policy. The war on terror for Americans, is essentially a war of terror for many overseas.

While American airwaves are filled with domestic injustices at home (i.e. George Floyd etc), the populace seem totally oblivious to the carnage US causes abroad. I think it was Madeline Allbright who said the deaths of 500,000 children was an acceptable price to pay for removing Saddam Hussein... and then we had Killary Clinton rolling around laughing in her chair at the Libya situation that killed hundreds of thousands.

So maybe Trump saved lots of lives in a roundabout kind of way, while ignoring discussion about moronic pronouns. Who knows?

• Brought the US relationship with China front and centre

Difficult to say right now where this goes. I'm not sure I'd put it in the positive column.

• Forced a debate about global trade and it's consequences

Agreed.

• Forced a debate about what the appropriate level of immigration should be

I don't think he's done that. More like focusing on legal migration over illegal migration. I never understood this as a problem, more like common sense.

• Women have increased their representation, MeToo

I'm not sure how Trump contributed to this. Trump is a predatory alpha male.

• Increased focus on the marginalised and forgotten

Well, if the white picket fence Dad is forgotten, then I'd agree. I think Trump sold that middle America argument pretty well. The suburban family doing OK in middle America. It's a bit retro and factors in a long-gone Industrialized America... but it taps into an emotion. Reminds me of that movie Gran Torino with Clint Eastwood.

He clearly made some inroads into Latino and Black votes despite the torrent of white leftist media labelling him a racist.

NEGATIVES

• Rampant corruption

Probably no more than any other previous administration (but definitely under far greater scrutiny). Nearly all of his top-brass civic appointees are from traditional secret societies like Skull and Bones, Freemasons, family connections etc. So, for Trump to play the "Drain the swamp" card is ludicrous. He didn't drain any swamp, he continued it.

Unless Trump puts into practice some of the bizarre QAnon theories in the next couple of months, then he clearly is OF the swamp, not against it. If he scratches his nose at 5:01 of a press conference and Henry Kissinger goes down in a volley of machine fire then I might re-consider.

• Institutional damage

Yes, I'd probably agree.

• International credibility

Two polar opposites here - the middle east peace deals are something previous administrations couldn't get done. Outside of that, the status of the US with most longstanding allies is probably at an all time low.

• Unilateralism

Yes. As above, alienated most allies, other than Israel.

I wasn't necessarily crediting him to be clear. I'm saying that because of him these things are top of mind. For example regarding women, I don't think MeToo happens without the Trump Administration existing. I'm not crediting him for it, but it's a positive consequence of his term

 

[Federberg]

Two polar opposites here - the middle east peace deals are something previous administrations couldn't get done. Outside of that, the status of the US with most longstanding allies is probably at an all time low.

I wouldn't call what he's done a peace deal. He's certainly facilitated publicising a re-alignment that was known about behind the scenes. That said I don't see it as a bad thing

 

[britbox]

I wasn't necessarily crediting him to be clear. I'm saying that because of him these things are top of mind. For example regarding women, I don't think MeToo happens without the Trump Administration existing. I'm not crediting him for it, but it's a positive consequence of his term

Kind of petered out when a few high profile Dems came into the picture though didn't it?

 

[Federberg]

Kind of petered out when a few high profile Dems came into the picture though didn't it?

Not really. And I'm not sure why you're looking at this through the prism of partisan politics. All I"m saying is that women are becoming more engaged in the job of politics. In this recent electoral cycle we've seen Republican women coming to Congress too. This is fantastic. And a positive outcome of the Trump era

 

[tented]

Trump has gotten 72m votes and counting, I think he’s not going to be marginalised. I think the GOP will run tandem fights for its soul over the next few years, to produce a credible candidate in 2028 who can accommodate the Trumpists and pay attention to the growing momentum of politics general that’s tired of predictable, corporate candidates on both wings, the entitled dynasty players, and yet still retain the GOP core...

It depends on what he plans to do. There have been rumors for a while now that what he really wants to do is start some kind of media outlet — Trump TV (remember, this is someone who was most happy when hosting a reality TV show). If that’s the case, then that will put him at odds with Fox. Their numbers are the best among the American news outlets, so they’re not going to cave in and let Trump take over their audience. They’ll turn on him in a second if they think he’s going to compromise their finances.

 

[Federberg]

comedy....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/11/trump-lawyers-suffer-embarrassing-rebukes-judges-over-voter-fraud-claims/

 

[Jelenafan]

Trump has gotten 72m votes and counting, I think he’s not going to be marginalised. I think the GOP will run tandem fights for its soul over the next few years, to produce a credible candidate in 2028 who can accommodate the Trumpists and pay attention to the growing momentum of politics general that’s tired of predictable, corporate candidates on both wings, the entitled dynasty players, and yet still retain the GOP core...

Trump had brand recognition as a celebrity/name for over 30+ years and was perceived as an outsider; the “non politician” candidate.

Both he and Bernie Sanders tapped into a genuine resentment/anger with the status quo, a sense that for a sizeable segment of the population the American dream had left them behind. Regardless of what some people thought of Trump, i think that simmering populist sentiment was real , and he tapped on to it. He rode it all the way into office. His lack of political experience , what his detractors mocked, is what appealed to many.

I think he was underestimated because traditional politicians overestimated the goodwill some of the populace had with them.

The role of the US as World leader, which both parties embraced preTrump, well, post recession and the never ending quagmire of the middle East, lets just say again he tapped into many’s fatigue with that role. ( Its fascinating to hear non Americans POV on US interventionist policies around the globe)

So Trump built his persona as brash & outspoken and someone who could cut through the BS.

Whether a “politician” on the Repub side can be the face of that now and appease also to the traditional Repub base, many of who it seems were never completely confortable with Trump remains to be seen

 

[tented]

comedy....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/11/trump-lawyers-suffer-embarrassing-rebukes-judges-over-voter-fraud-claims/

From the court transcript:

Judge: “Are your observers in the counting room?”
Trump lawyer: “There’s a non-zero number of people in the room.”

Comedy, indeed.

 

[Kieran]

Trump had brand recognition as a celebrity/name for over 30+ years and was perceived as an outsider; the “non politician” candidate.

Both he and Bernie Sanders tapped into a genuine resentment/anger with the status quo, a sense that for a sizeable segment of the population the American dream had left them behind. Regardless of what some people thought of Trump, i think that simmering populist sentiment was real , and he tapped on to it. He rode it all the way into office. His lack of political experience , what his detractors mocked, is what appealed to many.

I think he was underestimated because traditional politicians overestimated the goodwill some of the populace had with them.

The role of the US as World leader, which both parties embraced preTrump, well, post recession and the never ending quagmire of the middle East, lets just say again he tapped into many’s fatigue with that role. ( Its fascinating to hear non Americans POV on US interventionist policies around the globe)

So Trump built his persona as brash & outspoken and someone who could cut through the BS.

Whether a “politician” on the Repub side can be the face of that now and appease also to the traditional Repub base, many of who it seems were never completely confortable with Trump remains to be seen

That's how it seems to me. I watched him plough through all the worthy the Republican candidates 4 years ago and I found it hilarious, and I could readily see the appeal of an unfiltered, brash bloke who cut through the highly groomed, carefully coded, elitist, entitled, exclusive shop talk. There's a healthy suspicion of careerist politicians in the west, at the best of times - and that's growing - and the fact that he was an outsider, relatively speaking, was riveting to see. He broke into their house and created an unprecedented clamour. I suppose the next republican challenger will not be as brash as Trump, but they won't need to be - they'll just need to show that they understand the public mood, and genuine concerns people have. They won't even have to be a populist, but they'll definitely have to appeal to the 72m.

I think if Covid hadn't happened, Trump would have easily been re-elected. I agree wholeheartedly about the appeal of Bernie too. The status quo in American politics has stagnated, maybe because the two-party system is dysfunctional and too accommodating to careerists? In some ways, Biden has a bigger task convincing the left that he's the right man for the job, than convincing the huge numbers of Trump-voters...

 

[Federberg]

Trump wins North Carolina and Biden wins Georgia. Taking Biden to 306

 

[Moxie]

Trump wins North Carolina and Biden wins Georgia. Taking Biden to 306

There will be a recount in GA, which is right, as it was very close. There will be no recount in PA, because there is no race there, including the Presidential one, that was close enough to trigger a recount. I have no problem with Trump asking for a recount in states that were/are very close, (though all have been declared,) but I have a big problem with him insisting on widespread election fraud. This undermines confidence in our election process, despite there being no evidence.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/us/politics/voting-fraud.html