tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post7302355112475205065..comments2024-03-28T20:50:49.311-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Gloom and doom scenariosDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-39168234585292803662017-08-20T12:58:58.967-07:002017-08-20T12:58:58.967-07:00Tim H, sorry but this is cockeyed: “We got The Don...Tim H, sorry but this is cockeyed: “We got The Donald because he made noises that could sound progressive, if one squinted just right,”<br /><br />No that is not what happened. What happened was a festival of hate. Not so much racism (though it was there) as hatred of university/city/smartypants elites and their “facts.” <br /><br /><br />Onward<br /><br />onward<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-2467239786028941692017-08-20T12:45:05.672-07:002017-08-20T12:45:05.672-07:00Hmmm... "Delay in confirmation of appointees ...Hmmm... "Delay in confirmation of appointees in non critical posts. We can manage pretty well without an undersecretary of Commerce. Sec of Defense, maybe not so much."<br /><br />What's the largest operating division in Commerce? NOAA. What government division studies climate change most directly? NOAA. Is that really noncritical? Sure, if you're a Republican...<br /><br />What's the second largest division? Patent & Trademark Office. Noncritical? Sure, if innovation and business malpractice isn't important.<br /><br />Third largest area of spending is the "Public Safety Broadband Network." That's only critical if there's a risk of hurricanes/tornadoes/earthquakes/terrorist attacks...<br /><br />Fourth comes the Census Bureau. Wanna lock in gerrymandering? Shut down the leadership there for a few years, and then select 'cheapest possible' census-taking tactics to ensure that the 2010 maps are mostly unaltered. It takes years to set up a proper census, but neglecting that will help keep things as they are...<br /><br />Commerce has a lot of important jobs to do, which need to be done by competent people. But it's probably necessary to remind Americans WHY these jobs are important from time to time - because we tend to forget, and when we do, we'll let horse traders take positions on a 'spoils' system, rather than insisting upon professionals who demonstrate competence.donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-50255128121634848892017-08-20T12:29:39.164-07:002017-08-20T12:29:39.164-07:00Midboss: "I hold the belief that it's not...Midboss: "I hold the belief that it's not the voter's job to force themselves to like a candidate any more than it's a customer's job to force himself to like a product. You want more voters: you.earn.them."<br /><br />We live in a world inundated with "Samsung v. Apple" ads (both make great products but have had some stinkers), or "GM v. Toyota v. X/Y/Z" - so we expect politics ought to work similarly: the 'product' needs to sell itself to me, therefore the candidates likewise need to 'sell' themselves. <br /><br />But whether you "like" politician X or Y or hate them all - someone will write the laws, someone will enforce them. For a decision about products, you have the choice 'none of the above.' For political decisions, that's not a valid choice. Opting out is conceding choices about how to allocate resources to someone else. And sadly, the fastest, easiest, and cheapest means of ensuring that a small pool of crazies dictates their choices to others involves convincing a large pool of non-crazies to stay home.donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-90189860089388411852017-08-20T12:27:16.408-07:002017-08-20T12:27:16.408-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-35048089923678678782017-08-20T11:42:20.530-07:002017-08-20T11:42:20.530-07:00Tim Wolter:
But my name is still not Tom.
I kno...Tim Wolter:<br /><i><br />But my name is still not Tom.<br /></i><br /><br />I know, and I can only say that during 50+ years of marriage, my dad could never remember that my mom doesn't like orange juice for breakfast, and this might be the same sort of mental block.<br /><br />Maybe I just need to remember the mnemonic that the vowels in your first and last name are different. Hopefully, that will do the trick.<br /><br /><i><br />Fair Game:<br /><br />Delay in confirmation of appointees in non critical posts. We can manage pretty well without an undersecretary of Commerce. Sec of Defense, maybe not so much.<br /></i><br /><br />Delaying tactics are a good method of forcing some thought and public reaction into the process. The filibuster used to be like that--the old fashioned Jimmy Stewart type that involved someone actually talking for hours on the Senate floor. It couldn't block a vote forever, but it could delay one. I'm all for the minorities in congress having that sort of power.<br /><br />The Republicans under McConnell seemed to me to cross a line by turning delaying tactics into permanent veto power. I don't approve of it being common practice that a vote in the Senate "requires 60 votes". I also don't approve of the Senate claiming not to be in recess even as they conduct no business. <b>But</b>, I am not going to admit that since I was against such things before, I should be against them now. I was against such things <b>and lost the argument</b> before, so now I'm glad to see my Democrats making use of the rules of the game they have to play. We're not playing a game where the Republicans get to use a Designated Hitter while the Democrats have their pitchers bat.<br /><br /><i><br />Out of bounds<br /><br />Leaking information that could plausibly get people killed. Mostly this is in the intelligence/foreign affairs realm. Just leaking info that is politically embarrassing is in the borderline to inbounds range depending on the degree to which the leaker is prepared to pay the price. If you are motivated by a book deal and/or a nice job in a think tank you get less slack from me than if you are willing to face prosecution and do some jail time for your beliefs.<br /></i><br /><br />I can't tell here if you are condemning Democrats for leaking that Trump gave away Israeli secrets to Russia and Syria, or condemning Trump for doing so. Both pale in comparison to the Valerie Plame leak back in the Bush/Cheney years, both for the motivation and the damage done by the leaks. As long as you acknowledge that, we're probably in closer agreement here than you think.<br /><br /><i><br />Otherwise we sorta generally agree on a bunch of stuff.<br /></i><br /><br />Yeah, I think so too.<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-18708124788156294842017-08-20T11:17:20.614-07:002017-08-20T11:17:20.614-07:00Obama won the Romney debates but almost didn't...Obama won the Romney debates but almost didn't accept the gold ring at the end. He could have begun the job right then as far as I was concerned and without telegraphing future moves imprudently, start laying out some more vision. When you know you've got the job, don't act like you might not be getting it. That impulse at least I think he did mostly correct in his job once it became real. Obama seemed to know before it started it's the hardest job in the world, and whatever faint criticism I've made just seems to illustrate a certain humility which impressed me as well.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-77790667538782187192017-08-20T11:12:38.290-07:002017-08-20T11:12:38.290-07:00"Back during the Obamacare debate, you (yes, ..."Back during the Obamacare debate, you (yes, you personally) defended Mitch McConnell's obstructionism by rhetorically asking whether, if Senate Republicans really thought Obama was threatening the welfare of the nation, they shouldn't do anything Constitutionally allowed in order to keep that from happening? Now that the shoe is on the other foot, has your position evolved on that one?"<br /><br />Hmmmm. I do strive for consistency.<br /><br />If the Democrats take over the House of Rep in 18 months, they certainly could, Constitutionally, impeach Donald Trump. If they do my attitude would be similar to the Clinton proceedings, let the process play out. It ended badly for the party seeking impeachment then and would probably do so again. Politically one wonders if it is worth it.<br /><br />Now, as to the actual obstructionism (vs active measures). I don't know if my thinking has evolved but I'd be happy to clarify. Recall that there is often a political price to pay..one that may defeat your initial intentions.<br /><br />Fair Game:<br /><br />Delay in confirmation of appointees in non critical posts. We can manage pretty well without an undersecretary of Commerce. Sec of Defense, maybe not so much.<br /><br />Borderline<br /><br />adding poison amendments to important bills so that your opponents have to vote against things.<br /><br />Out of bounds<br /><br />Leaking information that could plausibly get people killed. Mostly this is in the intelligence/foreign affairs realm. Just leaking info that is politically embarrassing is in the borderline to inbounds range depending on the degree to which the leaker is prepared to pay the price. If you are motivated by a book deal and/or a nice job in a think tank you get less slack from me than if you are willing to face prosecution and do some jail time for your beliefs.<br /><br />Otherwise we sorta generally agree on a bunch of stuff.<br /><br />But my name is still not Tom.<br /><br />T.Wolter/TacitusTacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-23576515567932544792017-08-20T11:02:35.586-07:002017-08-20T11:02:35.586-07:00Aaargh, I mean "Tim Wolter".
I don'...Aaargh, I mean "Tim Wolter".<br /><br />I don't know how "Tom" got stuck in my head, but it's there.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-21313882535266254032017-08-20T11:00:23.925-07:002017-08-20T11:00:23.925-07:00Tom Wolter, formerly known as Tacitus2:
Legalisti...Tom Wolter, formerly known as Tacitus2:<br /><i><br />Legalistic schemes to remove a President, any President, from office are dangerous in the extreme... If you endevour to remove a President by any means not clearly spelled out in the Constitution you will incur the incandescent wrath of a small segment of the populace. Another small segment would sing Hosannas of Praise. But a much, much larger group would take umbrage at setting aside an election result, even one that they may not have cared for. Count me in that group. <br /></i><br /><br />I have to agree with you, especially in light of the recall attempt against your own state's Scott Walker. If poll respondents weren't lying, then even those who didn't like Walker were not anxious to overturn a legitimate election.<br /><br />Me personally, I consider Trump's victory illegitimate for many reasons, but I acknowledge that overturning the result without poisoning the country would involve a whole lot of persuasion--getting a super-majority of my fellow voters to agree with that position. There is a threshold above which the process of removal would happen as it did with Nixon, but that threshold is a high one and might not happen inside of four years. Trump himself might help move it along. When Alfred Differ agrees with me on this, then I'll know I've won. :)<br /><i><br />I doubt the 25th Amendment will prove any more fruitful an avenue than Faithless Electors, the Emoulments Clause or any of the several other convoluted schemes put forward.<br /></i><br /><br />I take issue with your characterization of the Emoluments clause as a scheme to undermine Trump. It's right there in the Constitution, not even in an amendment, but in the version Jesus handed down in that painting (sorry). Trump was in violation as soon as he took office. If he can be president and do that, why would a Kenyan-born Muslim be ineligible?<br /><br /><i><br />And even if you follow established rules there is peril to your party/world view. To impeach a President because some of what he or she does is repulsive to you....yes, it is "in bounds" Constitutionally. But look how it rebounded against the Republicans when they tried this against B. Clinton. It got ugly fast.<br /></i><br /><br />In a perfect world, this would not be true. In the real world, yes, to successfully remove a president by impeachment, he has to be seen to have done something so bad that his own party and/or his supporters have had enough. If it's just the opposition that wants him removed, the process will always have the stink of partisanship, even if the partisans happen to be correct. A Democratic congress pursued Nixon, but he had lost the support of Republicans by the time he resigned. That last bit is crucial.<br /><br />Back during the Obamacare debate, you (yes, you personally) defended Mitch McConnell's obstructionism by rhetorically asking whether, if Senate Republicans really thought Obama was threatening the welfare of the nation, they shouldn't do anything Constitutionally allowed in order to keep that from happening? Now that the shoe is on the other foot, has your position evolved on that one?LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-86101063259174876442017-08-20T10:28:58.044-07:002017-08-20T10:28:58.044-07:00Jumper:
Obama was good at selling but sometimes h...Jumper:<br /><i><br />Obama was good at selling but sometimes he didn't know how to close the sale in his early days. Every time a Democrat really tells a noble vision people will get out and vote.<br /></i><br /><br />Obama had me sold at the 2004 Democratic convention. Back then, I already knew that it was Hillary's "turn" next, and I also knew that there was no way in hell a black candidate would be nominated (or would win if he was). But I wanted that guy to be the next president.<br /><br />You're right that the effect somehow didn't survive his being actually elevated to office. With hindsight, while Republicans were busy accusing President Obama of being Neville Chamberlain toward Islamic terrorists, the fact is that he was focused on "peace in our time" with <b>Republicans</b>, with predictable result.<br /><br /><i><br />"Eat oatmeal" is good sound and even caring advice but you won't win elections with it.<br /></i><br /><br />"Can't we all get along?" is also good, sound, caring advice, especially after the polarizing years of Bush/Cheney. But when the other side is actively trying to destroy you, sometimes the answer to the question is "No."<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-54708765520845082402017-08-20T10:13:30.422-07:002017-08-20T10:13:30.422-07:00I like the one about "preventing," Larry...I like the one about "preventing," Larry. <br />i guess it's cheaper to get voters to stay home sometimes. Obama was good at selling but sometimes he didn't know how to close the sale in his early days. Every time a Democrat really tells a noble vision people will get out and vote. "Eat oatmeal" is good sound and even caring advice but you won't win elections with it.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-72592444255082177082017-08-20T10:11:40.404-07:002017-08-20T10:11:40.404-07:00"....even sensible people like Tacitus don..."....even sensible people like Tacitus don't seem to have lifted their heads"<br /><br />Duncan<br /><br />There are two possible answers to that. They are not mutually exclusive.<br /><br />1. I have lifted my head. And I am looking past the current mess to what might lie beyond. Or, and in addition:<br /><br />2. I am looking down and seeing some important things that you are missing. Taking your eyes off the ground makes it much easier to trip and fall on your face.<br /><br />Each of these could be expanded upon, but I think a couple of other thoughts first.<br /><br />Legalistic schemes to remove a President, any President, from office are dangerous in the extreme. The percentage of the populace who are highly politically engaged is probably 10 to 20%, with the split being perhaps 45/45/10 (Prog/Conserv/Libertarian-Other). If you endevour to remove a President by any means not clearly spelled out in the Constitution you will incur the incandescent wrath of a small segment of the populace. Another small segment would sing Hosannas of Praise. But a much, much larger group would take umbrage at setting aside an election result, even one that they may not have cared for. Count me in that group. I doubt the 25th Amendment will prove any more fruitful an avenue than Faithless Electors, the Emoulments Clause or any of the several other convoluted schemes put forward.<br /><br />And even if you follow established rules there is peril to your party/world view. To impeach a President because some of what he or she does is repulsive to you....yes, it is "in bounds" Constitutionally. But look how it rebounded against the Republicans when they tried this against B. Clinton. It got ugly fast.<br /><br />Jumper's suggestions for engaging marginal voters have considerable merit. Whatever your political affiliations our voter turnout rate is an embarrassment, and especially at the primary level encourages politically extreme (vs centrist) candidates. If I might add one or two?<br /><br />Why should I bother to vote?<br /><br />"It might be much closer than you think. Pollsters and the media are not always telling the true story".<br /><br />"If your candidate does not win, the fact that you voted makes any criticism you have of the outcome way more valid".<br /><br />"Hey, if you are happy enough with how our politicians are running things...stay home. If not...get out there and vote!"<br /><br />Tim Wolter/Tacitus2 <br /><br />Tacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-89036628365119339472017-08-20T09:29:43.588-07:002017-08-20T09:29:43.588-07:00Midboss57:
I hold the belief that it's not th...Midboss57:<br /><i><br />I hold the belief that it's not the voter's job to force themselves to like a candidate any more than it's a customer's job to force himself to like a product. You want more voters: you.earn.them.<br /></i><br /><br />I don't entirely discount that, but the problem with such an attitude is that democracy should be about the voters electing people who will best perform the functions of government, not the parties "winning" by having the best campaigns. When your abstention allows Donald Trump to be president, the loser isn't just Hillary or the Democratic Party. It's the country who loses--the voters themselves.<br /><br />Maybe that's the problem of voter disaffectedness--that voters see the party celebrities as the ones with a stake in the elections rather than seeing <b>themselves</b> with that stake.<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-45382926791168209912017-08-20T09:23:55.343-07:002017-08-20T09:23:55.343-07:00Paul451:
(Say the President is kidnapped, VP/Cabi...Paul451:<br /><i><br />(Say the President is kidnapped, VP/Cabinet invoke the 25th to preserve the chain of command, an hour latter POTUS shoots his way out, in a scene not unlike a badly written Hollywood movie, he still has to wait four days before resuming office.)<br /></i><br /><br />Remember the movie "Air Force One"? The POV of the movie got this part completely <b>wrong</b>. The President is unaccounted for, and his family is being held hostage for specific terrorist demands--exactly the sort of situation that the 25th Amendment is meant to cover. The cabinet (rightly) tries to invoke the 25th, making VP Glenn Close the acting president, but in a demonstration of "stand by your man" loyalty (which the movie clearly intends the viewer to admire), she refuses to sign on to the proceedings and leaves Harrison Ford as the one to decide whether to pressure the Russians to release a dangerous terrorist leader while under unimaginable duress.<br /><br />No matter what else was happening in the action plot, the cabinet was right and Glenn Close was wrong. I don't even get what her defiance was supposed to accomplish--for anybody.<br /><br />In a more trivial observation about the same film, the movie uses as a punchline the cliche about how <b>any</b> airplane which finds itself with the president on board is designated as "Air Force One". Is the opposite true? Had Glenn Close signed the order and Harrison Ford was no longer president, would the presidential bird have had to take on a different designation? Or if he had successfully parachuted off? Same question.<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-64207066307637179912017-08-20T09:13:32.523-07:002017-08-20T09:13:32.523-07:00Jumper:
3. My one vote won't change anything....Jumper:<br /><i><br />3. My one vote won't change anything. Why should I bother? (Collective action, Baby!)<br />[That last one needs some variants.]<br /></i><br /><br />"Why do you think you don't hear <b>Republicans</b> asking that?"<br /><br />"<b>Preventing</b> your one vote won't change anything. Why do Republicans work so hard to prevent you from voting?"<br /><br />"Think about who put that idea into your head."<br /><br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-23975019020414610382017-08-20T09:08:24.043-07:002017-08-20T09:08:24.043-07:00dennisd:
The 2016 national election should have b...dennisd:<br /><i><br />The 2016 national election should have been a blowout. The choice between competence and a dangerous, incompetent fool was starkly clear. Once Trump got the nomination it became a no brainer choice. Our lazy-ass, whiny, selfish, childish, complaining non-voting Americans could have delivered 65-70% win for either Clinton or Sanders over Trump. But, no, they stayed home. <br /></i><br /><br />The blowout factor might have worked against us. Liberals who were unhappy with Hillary felt safe in casting a protest vote or staying home, comfortably secure that Donald Trump could not possibly win no matter what they did.<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-52535236710973872792017-08-20T09:06:56.553-07:002017-08-20T09:06:56.553-07:00%Dennisd
Maybe this should be taken as a sign tha...%Dennisd<br /><br />Maybe this should be taken as a sign that the political class urgently needs to get its act together. If abstention is at such a level within a democracy, it means that a lot of people have lost faith in the mainstream parties. <br /><br />I hold the belief that it's not the voter's job to force themselves to like a candidate any more than it's a customer's job to force himself to like a product. You want more voters: you.earn.them. You find out what they want, you meet them, you offer a program they want. Not a program you think they should want. Not a program the lobbyists and think-tanks claim they should want. Not empty platitudes and promises you intend to drop. A program they want. <br /><br />If the democrat party can't even understand that most basic lesson, then maybe the creative destruction the liberals keep praising should also be applied to politics. Midboss57noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-72248403436390033252017-08-20T07:49:01.171-07:002017-08-20T07:49:01.171-07:00David,
"The 25th Amendment. Trump and Pence ...David,<br /><i>"The 25th Amendment. Trump and Pence would send "letters" back and forth at an ever-accelerating rate until the email servers melt."</i><br /><br />I don't think so. My reading of the 25th is that, once section 4 is invoked, the VP becomes acting-President, even if the President immediately sends a counter-letter. The phrasing of the section strongly implies that the VP remains acting-President for the four-day window he and Cabinet have to send a counter-counter-letter. Reasoning: The first part says that the VP "immediately" assumes the duties of acting President. The following section about the President's counter-notice doesn't say "immediately", only that he resumes his duties "unless ... within four days..." Being that the exception proves the rule, this contrast in language strongly implies that the VP remains acting-President during those four days. Hence, if 25s4 is invoked, for any reason, there's actually no mechanism by which the President can resume his duties within 4 days, even if the VP changes his mind or if the "incapacity" was temporary. (Say the President is kidnapped, VP/Cabinet invoke the 25th to preserve the chain of command, an hour latter POTUS shoots his way out, in a scene not unlike a badly written Hollywood movie, he still has to wait four days before resuming office.) OTOH, section 3 can be switched on and off like a light.<br /><br />Similarly, if the VP (et al) send the counter-counter-letter during that 4 day window, there's no provision for the President to send a counter³-letter, instead the 21 to 23 day deliberation process happens. And it's strongly implied that the VP remains acting-President during that deliberation.<br /><br />And even after the deliberation process, the constitution doesn't explicitly say that President can send a "Nah, I'm all good now, promise" letter and start the process over again. That has been one interpretation. But I suspect that if Congress agrees that the incapacity is a permanent condition, then Congress may refuse to accept additional letters from the President. Ie, it would be up to Congress to decide, in their vote, whether the condition causing incapacity is permanent or temporary. Only in the latter case is the duelling letters option open.<br /><br /><br />[Aside: It was interesting, while re-checking the words, to read about Reagan's apparent near-miss. Senior WH staff had become distressed that Reagan had become bored, lazy, inattentive; Cabinet and advisors met in full specifically to assess this, which Reagan (not being aware of the situation) found stimulating. What's interesting to me is that Trump <i>started</i> in the condition that Reagan nearly lost his Presidency over.]<br /><br />--<br /><br />Re: The burqa stunt.<br /><br />Minor aside: It's actually a violation of Parliamentary protocol to clap, let alone offer a standing ovation. (By traditionally, you're supposed to just say "Hear hear", but even that is behaviour "out of order".) IIRC, they have to vote on temporary change of rules when they know that they are inviting a guest speaker (AKA a "stranger on the floor", who also needs a special vote) for whom they know they it would be weird/impolite to not applaud.Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-65287254953644182342017-08-20T07:14:39.179-07:002017-08-20T07:14:39.179-07:00"Blue dog" could be a name a few call yo..."Blue dog" could be a name a few call you. I doubt it's a good idea for you or your campaign to call yourself that. Other things need saying for Democrats to gain backers in those places.<br /><br />Some people shouldn't vote, or rather, they allow themselves to be unready. I would run a series of short infomercials on the voting process directed towards the some-time voter, to increase confidence along with knowledge. I've got a million of them.<br />1. I didn't study the judges. Can I leave them blank in the voting booth? (Yes. All your other votes will count.)<br />2. I studied all of it! Can I take my notes in with me? (Yes.)<br />3. My one vote won't change anything. Why should I bother? (Collective action, Baby!)<br />[That last one needs some variants.]<br />4. My one vote won't change anything. Why should I bother? (If the candidate you want wins by one vote you'll be a hero. Hey, so will everyone who voted for them!)<br /><br />Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-60719949198994236162017-08-20T05:52:57.446-07:002017-08-20T05:52:57.446-07:00@Duncan Cairncross
Far too many Americans--of any ...@Duncan Cairncross<br />Far too many Americans--of any age or generation---don't vote. Some are prevented from voting but far more simply choose not to vote. Their reasons for not voting are legion but the most common one I hear is a selfish complaint: 'She's not/He's not my candidate' or 'I don't like her'. Few people talk about compromise, consensus or strategy with regard to politics and government.<br /><br />The 2016 national election should have been a blowout. The choice between competence and a dangerous, incompetent fool was starkly clear. Once Trump got the nomination it became a no brainer choice. Our lazy-ass, whiny, selfish, childish, complaining non-voting Americans could have delivered 65-70% win for either Clinton or Sanders over Trump. But, no, they stayed home. <br /><br />Of course, that fantasy win would've been a bandaid. And I've no doubt that a losing Trump would have stirred up civil unrest from outside the gov't. Yet our work remains at rebuilding a vigorous and engaged civic culture from the ground up. our house is on fire. We can bicker about colonels, bluedogs, liberals and leftists after we douse the fire. Dennis M Davidsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13861850532281473798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-7085991009194647202017-08-20T04:52:52.836-07:002017-08-20T04:52:52.836-07:00 Dr. Brin, have you considered that the apparent s... Dr. Brin, have you considered that the apparent swing of U.S. politics to the right may be largely the inability of progressive candidates to secure funding? That party hierarchies have lost touch with the 99%? I fear that the longer we go on our current path the more disruptive the correction will be. We got The Donald because he made noises that could sound progressive, if one squinted just right, imagine what dubious joys are in store for us if we continue to optimize our democracy for the mental comfort of the .001%?Tim H.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-8579453685304675922017-08-20T02:47:45.774-07:002017-08-20T02:47:45.774-07:00@J.L. McC re the Burqha stunt, two things:
1. what...@J.L. McC re the Burqha stunt, two things:<br />1. what amazed a number of commentators was the passionate censure of Hanson by the last person you'd expect: Lib. Senate Leader Sen. George Brandis.<br />2. Brandis' response drew a standing ovation... from the Greens, followed by the Opposition. Brandis' own party were curiously muted, which is the really chilling thing.<br /><br />Those US residents wanting a break from their crazies can <a href="https://twitter.com/JoshButler/status/898042283697754112" rel="nofollow">view the full response here.</a>Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-32316239696378935862017-08-20T02:15:03.786-07:002017-08-20T02:15:03.786-07:00Dr Brin
I can definitely see a "mixed" s...Dr Brin<br />I can definitely see a "mixed" strategy<br />And I can see that you may well be perfectly correct about the Colonels<br /><br />BUT I simply do NOT see that it is a "slam dunk" -<br />I did NOT expect Corbyn to do as well as he did - but he did!<br /><br />And all of the "common wisdom" that he was going to fail was simply WRONG<br /><br />This is too important to simply go ahead with the "Colonel's Strategy" without doing some very serious study about the alternative strategies <br /><br />It may well be (almost certainly is) "horses for courses" - but the "lefty horse" may well be be the best on a lot of your courses<br /><br />I can see a lot of people being persuaded by your military democrat - and also a lot of people seeing him/her as GOP light <br /><br />People who vote for the "person" may change their vote <br />But how many people actually do that these days? - and how many simply vote for their side?<br /><br />Your strategy depends on peeling off the "Ostrich Republicans" <br /><br />The Corbyn/Bernie strategy depends on getting the non voters to the polls<br /><br />Unfortunately both strategies tend to interfere with each other <br /><br />I believe that you overestimate the effectiveness of the "ostrich strategy" - mainly because you have been pushing it for a long time and even sensible people like Tacitus don't seem to have lifted their heads<br /><br /><br /><br /> duncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-21472092984337160362017-08-20T01:00:50.867-07:002017-08-20T01:00:50.867-07:00Duncan, I keep telling you and you simply will not...Duncan, I keep telling you and you simply will not listen:<br /><br />"You are saying EXACTLY what everybody said about Corbyn I know it was the UK and not the USA but everybody said that going left would lose votes and "the only way" was to tack to the center"<br /><br />You are not paying the slightest attention to anything I said about districts and regions. You have your polemical rant and there is clearly nothing I can do to get you out of it. <br /><br />At the end you almost hinted you could see a mixed strategy, choosing the right weapons for different conditions. But I have little confidence that you understood or meant what you said then. Sorry, man.<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-66086751317878228332017-08-19T23:49:25.176-07:002017-08-19T23:49:25.176-07:00Dr Brin
You are saying EXACTLY what everybody said...Dr Brin<br />You are saying EXACTLY what everybody said about Corbyn<br /><br />I know it was the UK and not the USA but everybody said that going left would lose votes and "the only way" was to tack to the center<br /><br />By going left millions of young people voted who had never voted before - not quite enough for victory but a huge amount forwards <br /><br />The issue (or a large part) is that the young and minorities do NOT VOTE<br /><br />Are they likely to turn up for your Democratic Colonel or for somebody who more closely represents their own aims?<br /><br />Will the "lefty" get more additional votes from the young and minorities?<br />Or will your Colonel take more votes from Republicans?<br /><br />Your Colonel does have an advantage as every vote he/she gets is a double whammy!<br /><br />I don't think the answer is as clear cut as you do - and I do take your point that the results will vary district by district<br /><br />I just have this horrible worry that you guys will go down the Colonels path and not win your "crushing victory over right wing madness" <br /><br />When a Corbyn/Bernie approach would have <br /><br />Corbyn won some seats that had been Tory for nearly a century - <br />If the Labour Party had had <br />(1) Got behind him and not spent all of their time obstructing him<br />(2) Had the courage to actually go for winning a few seats rather than concentrating on "Not Losing"<br /><br />Then the UK would have a Labour government now<br /><br />And NO I did NOT predict that Corbyn would win! or even do as well as he did!<br />And I am NOT sure that I am correct - I just think that you need to keep it in mind <br /><br />As I said if I was in charge of Democrat Strategy then I would follow both paths - some lefties - some Colonels <br />And I would expect to be having spirited discussions with my team on which to apply where plus I would be getting my team to log their predictions and reasoning - so that we could do an analysis - how could we do better - afterwards duncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.com