The problem with "anyone but Trump" is there isn't anyone "there"

[Buckeyes85]

That's about rightDeSantis and Biden are the best of the rest.

At least Trump has four years of quality work on his resume.





Hear this, you foolish and senseless people,
who have eyes but do not see,
who have ears but do not hear:
Jeremiah 5:21

Four years of quality work? That made me almost spit out my coffee.
How many 1 term presidents crow about how great they were after being kicked to the curb?
And as I've stated on several occasions, no matter what legislation you may get passed, or what achievements you claim, if your presidency causes the biggest, most bitter divide in America since perhaps the civil war- you are a failure as a leader. A concept Trumpers can't comprehend because it's all about how they feel. No one else matters.

 

[ataraxia]

That still comes down to a subjective (majority) opinion. That’s one (potentially) fatal flaw with a ‘democracy’ (whether direct or representative) as a form of government. The less affluent majority can demand their “fair share” of the income/wealth of the more affluent minority be taken by force of law from them and be ‘properly’ redistributed.

“Tax the rich, feed the poor, ‘til there are no rich no more”. The problem is then what - are the poor then forced to support their own consumption by their own production?

Socioeconomic/political stability and sustainability is just subjective opinion?

The free market generates a lot of money, but it has a natural, strong tendency for that money to keep accumulating in the hands of fewer and fewer people. So in that way, it's like a game of Monopoly: only a few people can win that game. Everyone else loses. And this is not because those few wealthy people are necessarily smarter, or harder working. It has a lot to do with the contingencies of which "Chance" or "Community Chest" cards you draw, which dice numbers you roll, etc... That is how the free market worked when it was most free: and you had the Gilded Age. They were generating a lot of money but it was all just ending up in the pockets of a handful of plutocrats. It was becoming politically unsustainable, with threats even of violent Marxist worker revolutions to overthrow everything.

The only thing that stopped all that were just a few small common sense measures, like child labor laws, unions, minimum wage laws, etc....

So you can thank liberals for saving capitalism from violent communism. And that in turn was due to some small, common sense measures.

Policies can make a difference. We are not THAT powerless to change the world. There are better and worse ways of doing things. Not sure why this should be a reason for fatalism and resignation to live in the freedom of the jungle. The reason we have modern civil societies and civilization is because humans were not happy with just the freedom of the jungle and didn't just resign themselves to never being able to change it.

 

[element94]

At least Trump has four years of quality work on his resume.

Committing crimes against the United States of America is what you call "quality work". That's exactly what I'd expect a confederate to say.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Socioeconomic/political stability and sustainability is just subjective opinion?

The free market generates a lot of money, but it has a natural, strong tendency for that money to keep accumulating in the hands of fewer and fewer people. So in that way, it's like a game of Monopoly: only a few people can win that game. Everyone else loses.

The easy fix is the estate (or death) tax, but the donor class has ensured that laws were created to avoid (evade?) that.

And this is not because those few wealthy people are necessarily smarter, or harder working. It has a lot to do with the contingencies of which "Chance" or "Community Chest" cards you draw, which dice numbers you roll, etc... That is how the free market worked when it was most free: and you had the Gilded Age. They were generating a lot of money but it was all just ending up in the pockets of a handful of plutocrats. It was becoming politically unsustainable, with threats even of violent Marxist worker revolutions to overthrow everything.

OK, but just having the government effectively establish a maximum wage/wealth limit doesn’t ‘fix’ that - it simply limits the production (and/or investment) by “the rich”. That renders ‘society’ overall less rich than it otherwise could be.

The only thing that stopped all that were just a few small common sense measures, like child labor laws, unions, minimum wage laws, etc....

So you can thank liberals for saving capitalism from violent communism. And that in turn was due to some small, common sense measures.

You obviously want to go well beyond that. Perhaps not all the way to “from each according to their ability (to pay more taxes), to each according to their need (for more public assistance)”, but far closer to that than I am willing to agree with.

Policies can make a difference. We are not THAT powerless to change the world. There are better and worse ways of doing things. Not sure why this should be a reason for fatalism and resignation to live in the freedom of the jungle. The reason we have modern civil societies and civilization is because humans were not happy with just the freedom of the jungle and didn't just resign themselves to never being able to change it.

While all progress resulted from change, not all change results in progress. That’s why we have public policy debates.

 

[ataraxia]

You obviously want to go well beyond that. Perhaps not all the way to “from each according to their ability (to pay more taxes), to each according to their need (for more public assistance)”, but far closer to that than I am willing to agree with.

It's clearly more than just about tastes and preferences. While there may be an element of that, there is also clearly a strong element of what is functional and sustainable in the long term. We know communism fell because it was a dysfunctional system. We also know that the pure laissez faire capitalism of the gilded age also failed- both in Europe and the US. All modern developed economies are some sort of hybrid economy. I am sure it's not because they all happened to have the same tastes and preferences. It was because that is necessary for a functional economy. I think we both seem to agree on that.

So maybe now we can narrow the discussion down a little more to: HOW MUCH of each- not which ONE is better and which one is wrong.

So as a starting point in discussing the functional aspects of what works best in practice: how about having a country which protects the basic human rights of its citizens, even if they hit hard times?

While all progress resulted from change, not all change results in progress. That’s why we have public policy debates.

Sure. So let's do it. I thought that's what we're doing now.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It's clearly more than just about tastes and preferences. While there may be an element of that, there is also clearly a strong element of what is functional and sustainable in the long term. We know communism fell because it was a dysfunctional system. We also know that the pure laissez faire capitalism of the gilded age also failed- both in Europe and the US. All modern developed economies are some sort of hybrid economy. I am sure it's not because they all happened to have the same tastes and preferences. It was because that is necessary for a functional economy. I think we both seem to agree on that.

So maybe now we can narrow the discussion down a little more to: HOW MUCH of each- not which ONE is better and which one is wrong.

So as a starting point in discussing the functional aspects of what works best in practice: how about having a country which protects the basic human rights of its citizens, even if they hit hard times?




Sure. So let's do it. I thought that's what we're doing now.

Nope, since we can’t seem to agree on the metrics involved.

We are constantly told that single-payer (public monopoly) systems are best, yet we can see that the single-payer DoD and MIC (defense contractors) system is super expensive and results in ‘successes’ like Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Expecting the same hoard of congress critters who manage (control?) the DoD/MIC system to do much better with UHC or M4A is wishful thinking while ignoring present reality.

 

[NWRatCon]

The GOP has no “bench” and they don’t seem to be developing one either.

If you look across the aisle, you can SEE that the DNC *is* developing their bench. They’re succession planning. They’re putting players in places for 2026, 2028, and beyond.

There’s nothing on the GOP side. There is no leadership within that party.

And that’s not good at all for America.

I think this boils down to the fundamental philosophies of the parties. The GOP is built on a foundation of "I, me, mine", whereas the Democrats tout "we, us, ours", and that includes party organization and behavior. Democrats genuinely see diversity as a strength, Republicans as a threat.

For decades the Democratic party has been building coalitions of disparate elements and encouraging cooperation. It's unwieldy and inefficient, but it works. For Republicans, it's always competition - usually between and among the desperate and disposable. They see enemies, not allies.

Imagine McConnell or McCarthy willingly giving up power to a successor.

Yes, both parties have fielded large fields of presidential candidates, but look at the nature of those candidates. McCain and Romney, though I agreed with neither, built their campaigns around what Americans could do together. Is there any of that left in the GOP? I certainly don't see it, except Will Hurd, and he essentially got jettisoned for promoting what was best for the country, rather than himself. The rest? Not a one.

And it's not new with Trump , he's just the most brazen about his narcissism.

 

[ataraxia]

Nope, since we can’t seem to agree on the metrics involved.

In abstract discussions, maybe.

But when push comes to shove, even the most die-hard "free market" folks don't seem to have much trouble knowing what metrics matter. They just won't come out and admit it. I guess it's pride. That's OK. Dignity is on us.

We are constantly told that single-payer (public monopoly) systems are best, yet we can see that the single-payer DoD and MIC (defense contractors) system is super expensive and results in ‘successes’ like Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Sure. Let's avoid the things that they do. But can we then look and see if we can find what those who ARE happier and more successful are doing right?

The European Sting is Your democratic, independent and top quality political newspaper specialized in European Union News. Unique Features: iSting & Harry StingThe European Sting - Critical News & Insights on European Politics, Economy, Foreign Affai

This article is brought to you thanks to the collaboration of The European Sting with the World Economic Forum. Author: Charlotte Edmond, Formative Content You only have to look at the highly polit…

europeansting.com

Expecting the same hoard of congress critters who manage (control?) the DoD/MIC system to do much better with UHC or M4A is wishful thinking while ignoring present reality.

Does that mean we should just get rid of the DOD/MIC, congress, and all goverment, and we will all be better off and more free than countries which DO have government with laws/policies?

Wait, don't answer that. My suspicion is you will say yes.

 

[ttwtt78640]

In abstract discussions, maybe.

But when push comes to shove, even the most die-hard "free market" folks don't seem to have much trouble knowing what metrics matter. They just won't come out and admit it. I guess it's pride. That's OK. Dignity is on us.








Sure. Let's avoid the things that they do. But can we then look and see if we can find what those who ARE happier and more successful are doing right?

The European Sting is Your democratic, independent and top quality political newspaper specialized in European Union News. Unique Features: iSting & Harry StingThe European Sting - Critical News & Insights on European Politics, Economy, Foreign Affai

This article is brought to you thanks to the collaboration of The European Sting with the World Economic Forum. Author: Charlotte Edmond, Formative Content You only have to look at the highly polit…

europeansting.com

Does that mean we should just get rid of the DOD/MIC, congress, and all goverment, and we will all be better off and more free than countries which DO have government with laws/policies?

Wait, don't answer that. My suspicion is you will say yes.

Not at all. If you hired a painter and they did a lousy job, would that be reason to hire them again expecting better work on their next painting job?

I’m not willing to accept your ‘logic’ of: since country X did something and it worked well for them than we should let congress critters (try to) do something similar (at least in concept) here.

 

[BirdinHand]

Is there any of that left in the GOP? I certainly don't see it

I don't either.

In fact, the current version of GOP rarely even talks about what "they" want to do. It seems to be more about castigating "others"

 

[mike2810]

Too bad the GOP drove away Paul Ryan or even Colin Powell.
imo, both would have made good President options for the GOP.

 

[ataraxia]

Not at all. If you hired a painter and they did a lousy job, would that be reason to hire them again expecting better work on their next painting job?

First of all, the US government is not THAT bad. We have a pretty darn good system, compared to many other countries with very corrupt and dysfunctional governments. The few examples of dysfunction or corruption we have have been a natural consequences of the trial-and-error system that the founding fathers of this country set up. But the way our system works is we try a particular politician/politicians, particular policies or ways of doing things, and see how it works. Sometimes they work well. Sometimes they blow up in our face. That's fine. That's how it was designed to work. It's no different than how a science experiment or engineering project works. That's how they make advances and find better ways of doing things.

But you seem to think any failure means it's reason enough to just never paint the house or try anything ever again.

If you look at any government, there is going to be some corruption, or incompetence, failed policies, etc.... You seem to think that's good enough reason to not have ANY laws or government or helpful policies ever.

It doesn't seem like a fruitful approach to solving problems.

 

[Deuce]

Cowardly Mitch McConnell could have permanently removed this Trump nightmare from the Republican Party in Feb 2021, after the second impeachment trial. Now Trump gets to continue to be the entire country's nightmare for at least the next 15 months.

So much for McConnell being a "wise politician". All evidence to the contrary.

Like Frankenstein, they didn't understand the monster they created and wrongfully believed they could control it.

Now it's too late. They're held hostage by a rabid, hateful base they are responsible for creating and if they criticize the God Emperor they get excommunicated. Problem is, this base isn't enough to keep the GOP going on its own, and reasonable people are abandoning the party in droves. They're just gonna have to take the L until Trump goes away forever.

 

[ataraxia]

Too bad the GOP drove away Paul Ryan or even Colin Powell.
imo, both would have made good President options for the GOP.

Paul Ryan wanted to get rid of Medicare and SS. I don't know if even the most die-hard free market Republicans would really get behind that. The consequences would be catastrophic for them and their families. They just like the rhetoric and think it makes them sound cool and John Wayne-like and it helps them "own the libs".

But when it comes down to it, they are secretly downright afraid anyone will actually enact any of those crazy ideas.

 

[ttwtt78640]

First of all, the US government is not THAT bad. We have a pretty darn good system, compared to many other countries with very corrupt and dysfunctional governments. The few examples of dysfunction or corruption we have have been a natural consequences of the trial-and-error system that the founding fathers of this country set up. But the way our system works is we try a particular politician/politicians, particular policies or ways of doing things, and see how it works. Sometimes they work well. Sometimes they blow up in our face. That's fine. That's how it was designed to work. It's no different than how a science experiment or engineering project works. That's how they make advances and find better ways of doing things.

But you seem to think any failure means it's reason enough to just never paint the house or try anything ever again.

If you look at any government, there is going to be some corruption, or incompetence, failed policies, etc.... You seem to think that's good enough reason to not have ANY laws or government or helpful policies ever.

It doesn't seem like a fruitful approach to solving problems.

If UHC is a such good idea then have a big blue state (or two) implement it to prove the concept.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

Yeah, remember how they were all bumbling out the scripted nonsense about Trump's 2nd impeachment being all about removing Democrats' political rival?

Remind me again what McConnell's semantic rationale at the time was, something like "Trump clearly bears moral responsibility for provoking an attack on the seat of government, but he didn't incite an insurrection"?

Actually, it was lamer than that. McConnell stated unequivocally that Trump was responsible for inciting the Jan 6 insurrection. McConnell's argument basically was that Congress did not have the authority to bar Trump from office in Feb 2021 because he was no longer President at the time.

In other words...a President can basically do whatever the hell he wants his last few months in office, because there isn't enough time left in the President's term to hold that President accountable for any wrongdoing.

It was just a cowardly dodge by McConnell because he didn't want to face the wrath of imbecile MAGA voters.

 

[ataraxia]

If UHC is a such good idea then have a big blue state (or two) implement it to prove the concept.

It was actually first implemented at the state level by then-republican governor Romney. It worked pretty well. They still have it. They love it.

RomneyCare: It's Working (Mostly), And It's Popular (Largely)

Survey shows people like their health care in Massachusetts

www.theatlantic.com

In fact, one of the first blueprints for Obamacare at the federal level was first proposed by the Heritage foundation in 1989. But that was before the republican party had gone rabid.

How the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative Think Tank, Promoted the Individual Mandate

Jim Taranto, who writes the Wall Street Journal’s excellent “Best of the Web” column, put forth a lengthy and informative discussion yesterday on the conservative origins of the individual mandate, whose inclusion in Obamacare is today its most controversial feature on the Right.

www.forbes.com

It has been a good experiment- both at the state level here in the United States, as well as in other countries.

 

[Argent]

I read a short blurb yesterday that Tim Scott is gaining support. His conservative policies are in line with the Rs and he lacks all the drama of the others.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

Like Frankenstein, they didn't understand the monster they created and wrongfully believed they could control it.

Well said...I bet McConnell wishes he had his impeachment vote back.

Now it's too late. They're held hostage by a rabid, hateful base they are responsible for creating and if they criticize the God Emperor they get excommunicated. Problem is, this base isn't enough to keep the GOP going on its own, and reasonable people are abandoning the party in droves. They're just gonna have to take the L until Trump goes away forever.

I hope they take the "L" a lot longer than that. Because the Republican Party has sucked shit basically my entire lifetime.

They should not be allowed to sweep Trump's fat ass under the rug when this nightmare is over and pretend they don't remember him, just like they tried to do with Nixon and idiot, incompetent Dubya.

History is going to crucify the Republican Party for allowing Trump to take over the party and they need to suffer the electoral consequences for at least the next 20 years. Permanently would be my preference.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It was actually first implemented at the state level by then-republican governor Romney. It worked pretty well. They still have it. They love it.

RomneyCare: It's Working (Mostly), And It's Popular (Largely)

Survey shows people like their health care in Massachusetts

www.theatlantic.com

In fact, one of the first blueprints for Obamacare at the federal level was first proposed by the Heritage foundation in 1989. But that was before the republican party had gone rabid.

How the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative Think Tank, Promoted the Individual Mandate

Jim Taranto, who writes the Wall Street Journal’s excellent “Best of the Web” column, put forth a lengthy and informative discussion yesterday on the conservative origins of the individual mandate, whose inclusion in Obamacare is today its most controversial feature on the Right.

www.forbes.com

It has been a good experiment- both at the state level here in the United States, as well as in other countries.

RomneyCare was (and remains) an ’evolving‘ policy.

https://www.cato.org/policy-report/january/february-2008/lessons-fall-romneycare

Obamacare's Future, Romneycare's Past

The Affordable Care Act is full of compromises—the subsidies aren’t as generous as they could be, for example, and there’s no public plan. But, for those of us who believe in the law, no compromise may be more threatening to the law’s success than its timing. In 2014, everybody making less than...

newrepublic.com

Romney: Obamacare grew out of Romneycare

Mitt Romney said he wanted to kill Obamacare. Now thinks his own state-based health-care law led to that national program.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Argent]

They should not be allowed to sweep Trump's fat ass under the rug when this nightmare is over and pretend they don't remember him, just like they tried to do with Nixon and idiot, incompetent Dubya.

The bolded part would be the worst punishment from tRump's perspective. His humiliation would be total. The Rs may never recover from their time with tRump as they have a whole basket of wanna bes and current clowns with the same ideology, especially on abortion/trans issues, that are being rejected by increasing numbers of Ds, Rs, and Indies.

 

[NWRatCon]

Too bad the GOP drove away Paul Ryan or even Colin Powell.
imo, both would have made good President options for the GOP.

Especially Powell. Ryan was always too much of a faker to me, but he talked the right talk. His budget plan was a piece of garbage, and he knew it. But he got out when the getting was good. He'd never make it back into this party.

 

[ataraxia]

RomneyCare was (and remains) an ’evolving‘ policy.

... like every other policy, and like life in general. " Live and learn", right?

That doesn't mean there aren't objectively better and worse ways of doing things, or that everything works out for the best if just left free, or that all policies are just a matter of taste and preference, or that government is always stupid, etc....

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

The bolded part would be the worst punishment from tRump's perspective. His humiliation would be total. The Rs may never recover from their time with tRump as they have a whole basket of wanna bes and current clowns with the same ideology, especially on abortion/trans issues, that are being rejected by increasing numbers of Ds, Rs, and Indies.

I would agree, but Trump will probably be long dead before the Republican Party becomes un-glued from his ass.

 

[mike2810]

Especially Powell. Ryan was always too much of a faker to me, but he talked the right talk. His budget plan was a piece of garbage, and he knew it. But he got out when the getting was good. He'd never make it back into this party.

and I also will not make it back into this party. After a lifetime being a registered Republican I left. imo, both Parties are going in the wrong direction.