Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism > The Fundamental Problem with Selling a Trump Impeachment to Voters

The Fundamental Problem with Selling a Trump Impeachment to Voters

Regular readers might have noticed that I did not post much last week. As it turns out, being on a couple of work-related cross country trips took much of my spare time. Anyway.. so now that I am back and rested, let us talk about the latest development in most recent pathetic attempt by democrats to impeach Trump. While I am no supporter or fan of the orange troll, it hard to deny that every stupid attempt by democrats and their deep-state allies to pull of a “legal” coup ends up making him look more sympathetic. Even worse, every failed attempt which ends with orange man retaining his presidency makes the democrats look desperate and impotent. I am sure that a few readers (MikeCA?) will write long comments about how the latest accusations against Trump are somehow the “real deal” which will create a groundswell of public opinion, finally resulting in his impeachment and removal from office. If wishes were horses..

Now let us get back to the real world and talk about how the voting public see the latest chapter of this three year long farce. As mentioned in the previous post on this topic, trying to impeach Trump in an election year is a really bad idea with multiple downsides and no realistic upsides. As mentioned in that post, we do not live in the 1970s or even 1990s. USA has been on a terminal downward spiral for most of its people during the past two decades. The ability of (white) people to be shocked by political malfeasance and abuse of power has irreversibly diminished, largely because they are now struggling to remain solvent and notionally ‘middle-class’. Only retards are still capable of believing that politicians (as a class) do not use their office to enrich themselves, their progeny, relatives and friends. CNN and MSNBC shouting from the rooftops that Joe Biden’s son did not benefit from his father’s position, if anything, makes him look more guilty.

And he is not alone. Chelsea Clinton seems to have gotten the boards of many corporations over the years in addition to “working” in highly paid sinecures in the lamestream media. A quick look at the Bush family tree shows many similar instances of family and relatives benefiting from the presidencies of Bush41 and Bush43. In fact, the progeny and relatives of almost every politician at the national, state and local level in this country keep getting plum jobs or contracts from the private sector. But.. but.. what about Trump using his position to get a “foreign” country to dig up dirt on the progeny of his potential opponent in the general election? Turns out, such behavior is as american as apple pie. Nixon’s election campaign sabotaged peace talks to end the Vietnam war to help him win in 1968 and he was not impeached for it. Reagan’s election campaign tried to delay resolution of hostage crisis with Iran in 1980 to help him win the general election.

My point is that presidents or presidential candidates colluding with foreign powers for help with winning elections is far too common in recent history to bother most voters. Let us not forget that Hillary’s 2016 campaign was one of the major funders of the so-called “Steele Dossier”. To make a long story short, even a recording of Trump making a request to investigate Joe Biden’s son to the Ukrainian president with an explicit linkage between it and future funding to that country will not make the orange man look any more guilty that Nixon, Reagan or Hillary Clinton. Most voters assume that their elected representative are greedy crooks. Trying to paint Trump as an abuser of power in 2019 is like trying to paint him as a serial pussy grabber and bad businessman in 2016. We know how that strategy worked in 2016.. don’t we. Then again, democrats seem to still have their heads up their asses. Old habits die hard, especially for incestuous circle-jerkers.

Now let us talk about the most obvious, but seldom mentioned, reason that trying to impeach is a hilariously bad idea. Let us travel back in time to the Bush43 presidency.. you know, the one that lasted from Jan 2001 to Jan 2009. While this country had many mediocre to bad presidents, the eight years of Dubya stand out as the worst in living memory. What began with a stolen election against a lackluster democrat progressed through ignoring the signals of 9/11, to that event, its aftermath, disastrous and failed invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, subsequent insurgency in Iraq, shoddy response to Hurricane Katina, the housing bubble and Global financial Crisis of 2008. It is no exaggeration to say that Bush43’s two terms in office started the final death spiral of american empire. The Trump presidency, even on its worse days, has not still anywhere close to equaling the colossal clusterfuck that was Bush43’s eight years as president.

And yet, Bush43 was not impeached inspite of more than a few of his actions being worthy of impeachment. We can start with dereliction of duty pre-9/11, manufacturing evidence to justify the failed occupation of Iraq, the massive levels of corruption and corporate kick-backs made possible by that misadventure, whatever went down in New Orleans after Katrina, the role of his administration’s policy in inflating the housing bubble which contributed to the GFC of 20008. The democrats had many valid reasons to impeach him after winning back the house and senate in 2006, and yet they did not. Instead they just allowed him to finish his second term and then retire in peace. Even worse, these same democrats have been trying to rehabilitate the image of Bush43 since 2016. Have a look of some photographs of establishment democrats and their media flunkies being extra chummy with Bush43 within the past two years.

If democrats could not get themselves to impeach Bush43, how can they demand that Trump be impeached. Bush43, more than any other modern american president, presented the strongest case for impeachment and removal for office. And yet.. democrats did nothing at that time. Even worse, establishment democrats such as Nancy Pelosi are busy rehabilitating the image of that idiot who presided over a eight year long nightmare. The Trump presidency, for all its warts and faults, has still not caused a fraction of long-term damage caused by the village idiot from Texas.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. P Ray
    October 14, 2019 at 7:48 am

    One reason why there are so many social justice warriors, trigger warnings and emphasis on preferred pronouns is to get people living in terror of the present and those around them, so that they can’t figure out that “in the past, the leader of the other political party did nasty stuff and got away with it … so why should we care about this one?”

    A case of permanent present emotional instability is a good way to get people to forget about history.

  2. Dru McD
    October 14, 2019 at 2:04 pm

    ”If democrats could not get themselves to impeach Bush43, how can they demand that Trump be impeached.”

    Because Bush43 didn’t run the presidency like a bad Mafia Organization, that’s why. He’s been giving the middle finger to Congress, daring them to impeach him. It was inevitable given his narcissism.

    And, be honest. Everyone knew Trump would do this to himself. No one should be the least surprised.

    Least of all, you.

    • Dru McD
      October 14, 2019 at 2:06 pm

      Correction… run the presidency like a horrible knockoff of a mafia family reality TV show…

  3. Gern Blandersong
    October 14, 2019 at 6:07 pm

    Impeachment is an easy selling to Democrats, but not Republicans and therefore the Senate will not remove Trump because it would be suicide to the Republicans. Remember, during the 2016 Republican primaries, the elites in the party were trying their hardest (along with National Review and all those cuckservative journalists) to get rid of Trump during the primary. It didn’t matter, the Republican base wanted Trump because they wanted a different president. It is interesting this past two weeks that many media pundits are calling Trump “abnormal”. Well….. The Republican voters wanted an abnormal Prez. They rejected the other 16 “normal” candidates and chose Trump. I thought that Trump’s presidency would end up being a disaster, but after 3 years, I am convinced that Trump’s presidency has been okay and the country is doing fine. Sure, he is obnoxious, but much of that is Trump playing with the media and steering them into hysteria.

  4. October 15, 2019 at 7:41 am

    It’s just so funny that Joe Biden is involved in this, because now this is a kamikaze attack from the Democrats that takes out their top dog.

    • doldrom
      October 15, 2019 at 2:44 pm

      They’ve clearly shown they have given up hope on his chances

  5. What time is it?
    October 15, 2019 at 11:23 am

    The democrats don’t have any real issues to run on and they certainly don’t have any candidates that give off normal and inviting vibes. Old Joe used to, but he’s too old now and he keeps forgetting his lines that he’s supposed to tell millennials. Most of the candidates hate normal Americans and some of them go as far as letting downtrodden working folk know that. Last time I checked, you don’t make a lot of friends behaving that way. The democrats only speak to their niche tribes and their (often gross) alternative lifestyles. Very few normal Americans identify with identity politics and feminism. Identity politics and feminism are central city phenomena. Most normal Americans live outside of the central city and don’t identify with its diversity and its credentialism/only-money-matters/liberal/family-last incentive system. The democrats have no choice but to run on fake issues and formalities like impeachment. Otherwise they really have nothing to talk about. It’s as if they really do believe their own fake narratives to the point that they believe everyone else does too.

    The economy is still humming along and historically it tends to be a bellwether for the incumbent.

  6. MikeCA
    October 15, 2019 at 12:03 pm

    If the impeachment is to be successful, what the Democrats need to focus on is Trump withheld military aid, approved by Congress and the Pentagon, to try to force Ukraine to start an investigation of obviously untrue alligation against a political opponent. That part of corruption resonates with some Republican leaning independents and even some Republicans.

    There is going to be a lot of pressure on Republican Senators. Trump is going to be amping up his rhetoric to get the base motivated and to scare Republican Senators out of voting to convict. Almost all of those Senators recognize that if they vote to acquit, then they are voting to approve almost limitless political corruption. Withholding military aid in return for fabricating political dirt on Trump’s opponent is so obviously corrupt that almost anyone outside the hysterical FOX News bubble can understand it and knows it is absolutely corrupt.

    Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Trump is claiming absolute power to do what ever he want for what ever absolutely corrupt purpose he wants.

    • doldrom
      October 15, 2019 at 2:50 pm

      Has it escaped your attention that the Ukrainians were not apprised of the fact that the funds were being held up? It’s like shouting “Your money” and fogetting to say “or your life”. What a moron you are.
      Furthermore, most aid (food, development, military, wahtever) by states all over the world comes with strings attached. It is the most normal thing in the world.
      And it’s not fabricating dirt, there is a lot of concrete evidence about the fabrication of dirt fabrication … that’s why the Dems and the intelligence community is so hysterical … they’re worried about anything that will come to light, you obtuse twat.

      • MikeCA
        October 16, 2019 at 9:50 am

        President Zelensky has said that he was not aware the security assistance package had been put on hold before the July call. Trump had just put the aid on hold a few weeks earlier, so perhaps no one had told the Ukrainians yet, since Trump had not said why he put the aid on hold. It is clear from the state department text messages in August that the Ukrainians were aware of it then.

        “And it’s not fabricating dirt, there is a lot of concrete evidence about the fabrication of dirt fabrication … that’s why the Dems and the intelligence community is so hysterical … they’re worried about anything that will come to light, you obtuse twat.”

        This is a good one, “concrete evidence about the fabrication of dirt fabrication”. Maybe it made more sense in the original Russian.

    • Yusef
      October 15, 2019 at 3:55 pm

      I think the Democrats focusing on Trump withholding military aid to force Ukrainian investigation of Trump’s political opponent is the strongest narrative the Democrats could construct from this lump they’ve chosen to mold and form. The problem is it is not strong enough, won’t succeed, and this is foreseeable. AD is simply right about that. What the Democrats could do is see the foreseeable, take its certain failure into consideration, and then come up with a strategy MORE LIKELY TO SUCCEED THAN THIS! They could do that, you know. It is within the realm of the possible. AD is simply right when he points to the possible alternative strategy of the Democrats actually paying attention to the serious economic problems of their constituency and addressing these in terms the average voter could see would be effective and would give them relief. You need to come to grips with why the Democrats absolutely refuse such a strategy. Here also I see AD as being simply correct. Please try to pay attention to what the Democratic party is in actuality and why.

      • MikeCA
        October 16, 2019 at 10:21 am

        Even Tulsi Gabbard has come around to support impeachment. Gabbard initially opposed impeachment after reading the transcript of the phone call, but when she learned all the information in the whistle-blower complaint, she said that Trump had to be impeached or the USA would just be seen as another banana republic. If the Democrats do not vote to impeach Trump for this, it means that Democrats agree that this obvious abuse of power is acceptable.

        It still seems unlikely that enough Republican Senators will turn on Trump to remove him, but those Republican Senators will be in a very difficult position. If they vote to acquit Trump, they are voting to allow unlimited abuse of presidential power and Democratic opponents in their next election can use that issue against them.

        If the Senate votes to acquit Trump, the impeachment process will have allowed a complete public airing of how Trump has abused power for his own corrupt benefit. Bush43 abused his power to generate fake evidence to justify his Iraq war, but Bush43 could argue (stupidly) that he was doing this to make America safer. Trump’s abuse of power in this case has no such defence.

        Elections to a great extent are about narratives. If the Senate votes to acquit, as I expect, the Democrats will have to create the narrative that Trump and the Republican party are absolutely corrupt and abusing their power for their own benefit and ignoring the people who elected them.

  7. October 16, 2019 at 1:16 pm

    Unrelated to this specific post but, there is a website (a forum essentially) called incels dot co, AD are you familiar with this site? I am not affiliated with it in any way, nor am I selling anything, but the posts over there are…. very interesting to say the least. A lot of what you have been saying about regular people having a darker worldview is seemingly being fulfilled over there (albeit in a small way… small today that is.) Wonder if that mindset will spread as more and more people wake up to certain things (or I guess how long it will take to spread).

    Have gotten a few hits from that site over the past year. Would be nice if someone posted more links to relevant posts on my site to that forum. Was considering doing it myself.. but that might be seen as spamming.

    • P Ray
      October 16, 2019 at 8:44 pm

      Incels.co (like the closed braincels and incels), to me they are just people who are aware that society only properly works for a select few people.

      The rest are neutered from being able to express themselves fully, as that will result in interrogation, incarceration, financial penalties and reduced employment prospects.

      They see it happen and comment on it, many of those getting ahead in society don’t like the idea that their achievements were “handed to them” being out in the open.

  8. October 16, 2019 at 1:36 pm

    I couldn’t have said it better – “Old habits die hard, especially for incestuous circle-jerkers.”

  9. Yusef
    October 16, 2019 at 2:32 pm

    “….but when she learned all the information in the whistle-blower complaint, she [ Tulsi Gabbard ]said that Trump had to be impeached or the USA would just be seen as another banana republic.”

    Mike, this is the kind statement I wish I could still regard with sympathy and credibility. The problem is, much of the world already sees the USA as another banana republic. They’ve seen the USA as another banana republic since the Bush family stole the 2000 elections from the Democrats. If the Democrats wanted to fight for the integrity of the American political system they HAD TO DO IT THEN. Many, many rank and file Democrats were appalled that the party sat there and did nothing. You’ve got to face this. The Democratic party was defining itself as okay with a blatant abuse of power (for that’s what it was…The frigging brother of the candidate who was given the election was governor of the state whose electoral votes put him into office. All the world’s press, excepting the USA’s press itself, covered the way the abuse happened, too. No one forgot or forgave. It was too damned important.) I’m just repeating what AD is saying, and hoping this will help you get the point.

    “If the Democrats do not vote to impeach Trump for this, it means that Democrats agree that this obvious abuse of power is acceptable.”

    They can vote to impeach Trump for this and attempt to register with the electorate the idea they do not agree with abuses of power and are in fact above that. The Democrats would be angling for a kind of appearance or illusion of propriety, using this as a public relations ploy, but if this kind of public relations ploy still worked, we wouldn’t be putting these two words together right now: “President” and “Trump.” There are substantive and important reforms to curb abuses of power the Democrats could easily begin promoting and these would garner popular support. They wouldn’t be seen as just politics of illusion and spectacle but would in the future clear up freaks like Trump being electable. I can only repeat myself and AD: they aren’t doing so. They won’t do so. Just as a final comment: sometime between 2000 and 2016 the Democrats might have been able to improve the electoral college system somehow to relieve the disparity of the loser of the popular vote winning the electoral college voting and thus winning the whole thing. Instead they sat there and lost 2016 even though the margin of victory of the popular vote was even larger than in 2000. It doesn’t appear to have been discussed in public very much at all. The Democrats are actually fine with the status quo. Probably the Democratic Party leadership are actually just fine with Trump, truth be told.

    • MikeCA
      October 16, 2019 at 4:17 pm

      This is just more whataboutism.

      The 2000 election was stolen by the US Supreme court, not by Bush’s brother.

      To do anything about the electoral college requires a constitutional amendment. To pass a constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 vote in both the House and Senate and ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures. Republicans like the electoral college because it gives them an advantage. There is no way any constitutional amendment to change or abolish the electoral college would have a chance of passing either house of congress much less 3/4 of the state legislators. Democrats have not proposed this because it would be a complete waste of time.

      • Yusef
        October 17, 2019 at 11:03 am

        “This is just more whataboutism.”

        Perhaps so, but explain just exactly why “whataboutism” deserves to be discredited as a way of trying to figure out what’s happening? I mean it kind of matters what happened in the past, doesn’t it, or did I miss the decree from on high it is no longer significant the Democrats have in the recent past passively allowed a lot of shit to go down, and allowed their party platforms and policies to be jockeyed ever more to the right, to ever more neglect the REAL concerns of what used to be their core constituency? (At least electorally. The core constituency of the Democrats has been a certain sector of the elite all along, it was just that serving this sector of the elite did match labors’ interests much better than now.)

        I think you charge me with “whataboutism” because there’s a lot about the Democrats you for some reason find inconvenient to consider just now. Instead of throwing this dubious terminology at me, at least give your reasons to think the past performance of the Democrats will not figure into how the public at large will perceive the Democrats suddenly acting as if the Ukraine business is exceptional and unacceptable.

        “The 2000 election was stolen by the US Supreme court, not by Bush’s brother.”

        The Supreme Court wouldn’t have had a role one way or the other without Jebbie’s dirty rotten finagling which among other things disenfranchised a disproportionate number of black voters who were pissed while meanwhile their “defenders” the Democrats stuffed their heads up their asses.

        It was a split decision and the dissenting opinion was as scathing as anything I’ve ever read from the SCOTUS. The gist was that though we’ll never know who won in Florida, we do now know who lost: the American citizen who can never ever expect the courts to adjudicate correctly in American elections. That, Mike, is exactly what happened. People know they can’t expect their system to adjudicate correctly. Yet you somehow think it is “whataboutism” to realize this and know the part this will play in the Democrats’ current gambit.

      • MikeCA
        October 17, 2019 at 12:15 pm

        Yusef, your comments read like the mindless drivel Russian bots spread on social media attacking Democrats in order to suppress Democratic turn out.

        Why has Trump treated working class people like dirt? Why has Trump tried to take health insurance away from the working poor and tried to raise premiums? Why has Trump changed overtime rules to reduce working wages by billions of dollars? Why did Trump cut billions of dollars in taxes from the top 1% and corporations?

        Trump and Republicans are screwing over the American working class right now. If you have a time machine, maybe you can go back and persuade Ralph Nader not to run in 2000 so Gore wins.

      • October 17, 2019 at 12:21 pm

        Mike Ca, you have been living in the two party bubble illusion for far to long, probably because you have been so thoroughly mind fucked by the media and pop culture social mores that you don’t know any better. Yes there are two parties. But why? is there some universal law of nature or reality mandating there is no alternative? Is there some law of nature maintaining the duplicity? Why does a two party “system” have to be an alternative at all anyway? Learn to think outside the two party bubble Mike.

        “Republicans like the electoral college because it gives them an advantage.”

        This statement manifests an extremely shallow frivolous minded misconception of why the electoral college phenomena is included in our election process. Our constitution is not founded upon a shallow minded dumbass paradigm that everything political and legal is actually or supposed to be based on the “democrat” vs “republican” soon to end political war. The current and long standing “two party system” façade was not the intent of the constitution. The “founding fathers” (for lack of a more asinine description of them) did not intend a two party system. They intended to form a contract that would allow the most amount of freedom possible without risking pure democracy. Pure democracy would be nothing more than mob rule and anarchy, survival of the fittest. Electoral college is only one of very many “checks and balances” implemented to level the playing field. Of course, at the time, only white men were allowed to participate, and mostly only property owners. Of course, over time, women and all men were allowed to participate. A few of the “founding fathers” foresaw and intended the eventual inclusion of all men and women. Read all their memorandums and letters. But my point is to focus on the fact that the contract is designed to provide the most amount of freedom of expression and personal industry within limits. If one READS The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, amendments, Gettysburg Address, and I Have A Dream, one will become abundantly aware that some wise good persons attempted to manage the struggle of human social issues for the benefit of all. Their wisdom is not based on what “republicans like” or what “democrats like”. Those who live inside that paradigm are living at the mercy of it and whatever happens to it. Maybe some people like having their heads so far up their asses and the view of the back of their teeth, but its far better to pull out, get out of the LIEberal vs CONservative bubble and take a look at the bigger real picture.

        The origination of the independent party rise and some others manifests a considerable social need for the abolition of this two party system. Mike, to hopefully help you think outside the bubble in which you allow yourself to be enslaved, understand, I am not abdicating a one party system. I think the field should be wide open. To hell with any party affiliation imperatives. Why are they necessary for anyone who desires freedom of thought anyway?

        In the not so distant past, democrats attracted and received the votes of rural land owners and residences. Today, their constituents are mostly white rich liberals and their idolizers, delusional hipsters who are the offspring of relatively well off whites mostly, and anyone who still buys into democrat lies about helping the oppressed or marginalized. Overwhelmingly their constituents are now urban and suburban inhabitants. In addition to those constituents imperatives (which were created by the democrats because their wealthy white overlords know its easier to brainwash those with the least initiative), democrat policy makers have no problem supporting (or at least condoning by willful ignorance), such things a sexual mutilation in denial that humans are dimorphic, publicly shaming persons for being uncomfortable with other persons sexual fetishes, endorsing fetal homicide to maintain female total power and total corruption over reproduction, and other personally and socially destructive imperatives. A very significant portion of the population is now aware of their strategies and the population does not like what it sees. The current field of democrat presidential candidates manifests a deterioration and loss of integrity in the democrat party. Over the past decade or so, they have morphed into a multi faction of loosely confederated groups including but not limited to abject socialists, extreme environmentalists, and the gender confused. Some, mistakenly think their strength can be established by all their different factions coming together and uniting. But this will never happen now because some of their different factions have become so extreme, they cannot accept each other. I think we are witnessing the disintegration of the democrat party and their whiners like you.

      • Yusef
        October 17, 2019 at 12:38 pm

        Mike, I’m a little disappointed with you.

        My criticism of the Democratic party is intended positively, for if they changed their tactics there would be some possibility for them to win in 2020. Continuing on in this futile manner, no matter how well intended, (if it is indeed well intended) will doom us to another Trump victory. No need for a time machine: I’m not thinking about the past. I’m worried about the future. It is you who is killing the Democrats by pretending they’re something they are not and will accomplish things they have no intention of accomplishing.

        Why has Trump treated working class people like dirt? Um, this is an interesting question and an important one but it does not relate directly to the subject under discussion HERE unless you want to make the case that the Democrats make a better case for themselves that they won’t treat working class people like dirt too. Sorry, but the working class remembers all too well what happened under Democrats and are not as dumb or amnesiac as you would like to believe.

      • doldrom
        October 17, 2019 at 2:43 pm

        Russian bot Yusef-ski ?

      • MikeCA
        October 17, 2019 at 2:51 pm

        Not Born This Morning were you born yesterday?

        The USA has been a two party state since the very beginning. The two parties have not always been the Republicans and Democrats.

        The Democrats have always been a diverse party and the Republican party use to be more diverse than it is now. In the 1950s the Southern Democrats were pro-segregation while the Northern Democrats supported the civil rights movement. Many Republicans also supported the civil rights movement while some opposed it. If you look at the votes for mid 60s landmark civil rights and voting rights legislation you will find that the support for those laws was bi-partisan and the opposition was also bi-partisan.

        Since the mid 60s, the conservative Southern Democrats have moved to the Republican party and the Republican party has mostly purged moderates from the party. The Democratic party continues to be a diverse party, but without the very conservative Southern members of the 60s.

        You may think the Democratic party is on the verge of breaking apart, but the Republican party is under extreme tension. Trump has hijacked the pro-business Republican party and turned it into an anti immigrant, anti free trade party. It seem quite likely that post-Trump the Republican party is going to split into a re-incarnation of the No Nothing Party (anti immigrant) and a conservative, pro business, pro free trade party.

        Remember that it was the 3rd party candidate Ralph Nader that handed the 2000 election to Bush and 3rd party candidates probably helped Trump win in 2016. In 2016 Trump and Clinton only received 94.3% of the vote. This compares to 98.6% and 98.3% for the Republican and Democratic candidates.

        The idea of supporting 3rd parties is Russian propaganda. In addition to supporting Trump, Russia also supported Jill Stein. Voting for 3rd party candidates is throwing your vote away. That is how we ended up with Trump.

      • MikeCA
        October 17, 2019 at 2:53 pm

        “compares to 98.6% and 98.3% for the Republican and Democratic candidates. ”

        That was in 2008 and 2012.

      • MikeCA
        October 17, 2019 at 3:14 pm

        “My criticism of the Democratic party is intended positively, …”

        LOL. Why is all your criticism directed at past failures to win elections?

        “Why has Trump treated working class people like dirt? Um, this is an interesting question and an important one but it does not relate directly to the subject under discussion HERE …”

        Wake up and smell the coffee. Trump is screwing the working class. Democratic candidates are running on improving the USA health care system, providing health coverage for all. Doing something about growing inequality by large increases in taxes on the wealthy and corporations to fund an improved safety net. Of course it will be very difficult for a Democratic president to completely deliver on those campaign promises, but a Democrat will do a far better job for the working class than Trump or any Republican president.

    • doldrom
      October 16, 2019 at 6:08 pm

      I figured in 2000 there was a good chance the Americans would amend something about their electoral system. I soon became convinced that they will never adapt even one iota of their sacred constitution anymore, relying on verbal gymnastics by legal wranglers to make the text say things it doesn’t. However, I may be wrong, b/c there is now a lot of animus against the rather ridiculous electoral college system.
      Ridiculous particularly for the non-constitutional part that makes every block of State votes “unanimous”, bar Maine/Nebraska; this defeats the whole point of having an electoral college, institutionalizes the single red/blue team game, making any change to the political system impossible, enables the rigged elections and manipulation of slim demographics of marginal swing voters, disenfranchises the popular vote, and gives some blocks of voters permanent preponderance.

  10. bonzo
    October 16, 2019 at 11:12 pm

    Elections are always about how the masses are feeling economically, and they are feeling good now and good times should last another year. Therefore Trump will win in 2020.

    Of course, President has essentially zero control of the economy and what control he does have (signing/vetoing bills of Congress) usually only affects economy after lag of many years. President gets elected by being more telegenic than opponents of same party and then relies on luck regarding economic situation to beat opponent of other party. For re-election, first part of equation doesn’t apply, since no same party opposition to incumbents. It’s only a matter of time before this idiotic system puts someone crazier than Trump in power (Idiocracy predicts this like all its other true predictions), at which point we probably get a military takeover of some sort, then some electoral changes to give the plutocrats more control over elections.

  11. Yusef
    October 17, 2019 at 6:32 pm

    LOL. Why is all your criticism directed at past failures to win elections?

    The past failures to win elections will have a bearing on the coming failure in 2020 unless the Democrats persuasively showed they’d learned from those failures. The evidence they haven’t is precisely because they think the best way to win 2020 is to go into the election year trying to impeach Trump.

    You’re stupid if you think the Democrats are running on the issues you enumerated. If they were running on those things they wouldn’t let impeachment of Trump be center stage, which obviously it is and will be. They might continue to show the working class the way Trump is screwing them while at the same time highlighting how they would do better. It would be a difficult because the Democrats would have to make it convincing and their track record makes that hard.

    Past performance is the best way, and perhaps the only way, of predicting future performance. It’s not infallible, but nothing is. I can show the features of past performance and argue it is these features the electorate perceives and calculates from. You can chose to think it’s drivel and LOL. “Whataboutism.” I don’t know what’s going to happen or who will win in 2020, It well may be the Democrats. I am certain if it is the Democrats, that will not be a triumph for the working classes.

    Go back and look at the landslide victory “the working class” provided the Democrats in 2008.

    In the House of Representatives, the working classes erased all the Republicans had gained since 1994. The Democrats had not enjoyed the margin of popular voting support they had in 2008 since 1982.

    In the Senate, the 2008 elections marked the first time since 1964 a Democratic presidential candidate won the White House along with large senatorial victories accompanying. There were initially 58 Democratic Senators against 41 Republicans. That’s the power and respect the “working class” conferred on the Democratic party. It was massive and decisive and if the Democrats had performed as the “working class” had hoped, the lot of the “working class” would have improved substantially and Republican party dominance, no matter how buttressed with privilege and systematically-organized advantage wouldn’t have mattered.

    There are too many examples of how the Democrats squandered this opportunity, but for one, if you were to actually look at the numbers and look at your previously-mentioned idea it would have been a waste of time for Democrats to have sought electoral reform between 2000 and 2016 , it seems to me you would need to question your understanding of what’s going on.

    • MikeCA
      October 18, 2019 at 10:21 am

      “The past failures to win elections will have a bearing on the coming failure in 2020 unless the Democrats persuasively showed they’d learned from those failures. The evidence they haven’t is precisely because they think the best way to win 2020 is to go into the election year trying to impeach Trump.”

      If you have been paying attention you would know that the Democratic leadership did not want to start an impeachment investigation. The facts in the Ukraine case are so egregious that the Democrats decided they had to impeach Trump now to show that Democrats firmly agree that that kind of conduct by the President is totally corrupt. If the Republicans in the Senate vote to acquit, then they will be saying that kind of corruption is ok with them. This will be an issue Democrats can use against Trump and all the Republicans in the Senate that vote to acquit.

      Interestingly, Trump seems to be cracking under the pressure. His decision to pull US forces out of Syria without warning or any plan and his decision to announce now the G-7 summit would be held next year at one of his golf courses are both signs Trump is losing it. He has just given the Democrats two more major issues to use against him in 2020 and two more reasons for Republican Senators to prefer President Pence.

      “That’s the power and respect the “working class” conferred on the Democratic party. It was massive and decisive and if the Democrats had performed as the “working class” had hoped, the lot of the “working class” would have improved substantially and Republican party dominance, no matter how buttressed with privilege and systematically-organized advantage wouldn’t have mattered.”

      In 2009 the economy was in a free fall collapse, the worst since the great depression. That situation was the top priority. Working class people were losing their jobs rapidly. The first thing Democrats did was pass a $1 Trillion dollar stimulus package, which help turn the economy around. Now this stimulus package was too small, but it helped none the less. It saved jobs for working class that would have otherwise been lost. The big failure of the Democrats was one of messaging. They let Republicans lie to the press and on TV claiming the stimulus package was not working without vocal push back.

      The second thing Democrats did was to pass legislation design to prevent the kind of financial folly that caused the 2008 crash. This included creating the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, which has saved working class people billions of dollars until Trump effective shut it down. Trump gave financial institutions the green light to steal money from the working class.

      The third thing that was done was to pass the ACA. The ACA expanded Medicaid to cover many more working class families and allowed many working class families to purchase subsided insurance on the exchanges. You can point out this did not go far enough, but Congress can always expand it to cover more people and provide better coverage. Republicans have made destroying the ACA one of their main political goals. In fact when they tried to repeal the ACA they not only proposed eliminating the Medicaid expansion, they wanted to cut Medicaid by another 25%, taking health coverage away from even more working class people.

      You can claim that Democrats did not do enough for the working class in 2009-2010, but look at why that happened. Republicans adopted a scorched earth policy to totally oppose everything making it very difficult to pass legislation and Republicans have since tried to undo almost everything that Democrats did do to help the working class. The Republican party has shown that the only things they are interested in is cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporation and eliminating the safety net to pay for the tax cuts. Republicans don’t care about the working class. The reason that the working class has done so poorly for the last 50 years is because they continue to fall for the race baiting issues and vote against their only finical interest.

      • October 18, 2019 at 1:36 pm

        MikeCA, I now understand you better. I wrongly thought you live in what I described as the two party bubble. I was in error. You in fact live in the one party bubble… the current and likely soon the be destroyed democrat party bubble.

      • Yusef
        October 18, 2019 at 2:22 pm

        I think your comments deserve a thorough response, Mike, but before I try, I need to ask a simple question. Do you think the USA is a democracy or a plutocracy? If you think we live in a democracy, I will attempt to address that before attempting anything else.

      • MikeCA
        October 18, 2019 at 5:02 pm

        “Do you think the USA is a democracy or a plutocracy?”

        The USA is not a plutocracy in the way Russia is. Any oligarch in Russia who opposes Putin will find himself charged with some crime, stripped of all his wealth and put in jail. In fact all the Russian oligarchs are breaking laws all the time, but as long as they support Putin and do as he asks, the government looks the other way.

        The USA is different. There are many very wealthy plutocrats who seek to influence the political system, but they don’t all work for a single boss or single cause. They are sort of competing plutocrats trying to influence people to vote for candidates. Robert Mercer and Sheldon Adelson have been big supporters of Trump. Rupert Murdoch of course has also been a big Trump supporter through Fox News. The Koch brothers have been huge Republican supporters, but the Koch brothers do not support Trump. Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer and George Soros have been huge donors to Democratic candidates.

        In the end the people get to vote. The big money donors mostly control who has enough money to make a serious run for office. Bernie Sanders showed that you can run for president without taking big money donations and more Democratic candidates are focusing on small dollar donations.

        Big money donors have way too much influence in the political system. Given the supreme court rulings that money equals speech, it is hard to reduce the influence of big money. It will require a constitutional amendment or a large change in the supreme court to make those changes. That is not going to be easy, but the only people I have seen talking about this issue or a constitutional amendment to limit the influence of money are Democrats.

      • doldrom
        October 19, 2019 at 3:01 pm

        Get to vote ?!

        The get to vote in Russia and many other countries, even in the neo-Fascist Ukraine where they just turned things upside down.

        In fact, US elections (going by the word of institutions that monitor elections internationally) are so deplorably organized with so few auditable controls, that they are not even susceptible to monitoring. Rigging in important counties has been absolutely proved by decades of scholarly analysis, as well as by direct physical evidence. Not to talk about the fact that there is basically nothing to choose, except for teamA or teamB to continue down the same pathway.

    • Gern Blandersong
      October 18, 2019 at 11:05 am

      It was massive and decisive and if the Democrats had performed as the “working class” had hoped, the lot of the “working class” would have improved substantially and Republican party dominance, no matter how buttressed with privilege and systematically-organized advantage wouldn’t have mattered.

      You said it best Yusef. I recall that Americans were seething with hatred about the Wall Street bankers and there was also the occupy wall-street movement. This would have been the opportune time for the Obama administration to send many of those executives to jail and break up the big banks or at least strip away the bonuses and stock options of those executives. Instead, we go one major conviction with Bernie Madoff and toothless Dodd/Frank bill and all of those other executives got off. And then it continued later on when Wells-Fargo was ripping off consumers and stealing their information to create fake accounts and fees, and still, the executives got-off and never went to jail. All of this proved that the Democrats are tied to big money just as much as the Republicans are.

      • October 18, 2019 at 1:26 pm

        “…..and still, the executives got-off and never went to jail”

        And wrote themselves big fat bonus checks.

      • MikeCA
        October 18, 2019 at 2:38 pm

        I agree that there should have been some prosecutions, they would have been much more complicated than you realize. The defendants would have had good lawyers. While much of the behaviour on Wall Street certainly seem unethical, to get a conviction you have to show that a specific law was violated. In many cases there are not laws against the specific thing they were doing other than very broad fraud or misrepresentation laws. Those cases would have been very difficult to prosecute. Still I think they should have tried in the worst one or two cases.

        Much of what went on in the lead up to the 2008 crash was just really stupid business decisions based on wishful thinking. That is not a crime, but it should have been grounds for firing. Why didn’t the board of directors of the big Wall Street banks demand more of the people responsible for those bad decisions lose their jobs.

        A fundamental issue is that the Wall Street banks are just too profitable. They make those profits by skimming money off corporations that are actually producing products and providing services. Right after the crash of 2008 may have seemed like a good time to go after that problem, but I suspect that in 2009 our whole financial system was so fragile that would have been a bad idea. The remaining big banks had been forced by the federal reserve to take over many of the failing banks so that the Federal Government did not have to step in and print money to bail them out. The Federal Reserve either implicitly or perhaps explicitly told those banks they could continue to make outrageous profits as a way of re-capitalizing the banking system after the huge losses of 2008. The banking system is now re-capitalized, so now would be a good time to try to break up the big banks, make them more competitive and reduce the tax the financial system places on the rest of the economy. I know Trump would never do that. No other Republican would ever think of doing that. There are Democrats that understand that is a problem, but even if one of them were elected president it would be a really hard to achieve because of the political power of Wall Street.

  12. Yusef
    October 19, 2019 at 8:11 am

    MikeCA, commenting October 18, 2019 at 5:02 pm/b>

    That’s a good answer, Mike. Perhaps I’d hoped for a more knee jerk response which would have been easier to have disposed with.

    Whatever the form and reach of the American plutocracy, my intention was to get at the way what appears purely democratic in the American political system actually cannot be that way. Similarly for our “freedoms” and “rights.” “In the end the people get to vote.”Yes, they do, and in exasperation in 2016 the people threw a curve ball at the establishment, threw a monkey wrench into plutocrats’ schemes. There’s simply no doubt the plutocrats don’t like it when that happens. No one likes it when their plans get messed with. There’s still a question whether this fly in the ointment is more inconvenient than the plutocrats can stand or will tolerate. The professionals can deal with the ball however it hops. What is actually at question here is not whether in the end the people get to vote, but whether in the end the vote of the people changes things very much or at all.

    The most important change the people would require now would be a reversal of the redistribution of economic, and following that, political, power in the USA. Your own comments outline quite well the futility of believing this. The American political system as it has now screwed itself into being simply is not going to be altered by it being the case the American people get to vote. Even you don’t believe it. (I assume you read your own comments. “There are Democrats that understand that is a problem, but even if one of them were elected president it would be a really hard to achieve because of the political power of Wall Street.” What the HELL is that kind of decisive and determinative political power doing concentrated on Wall Street, Mike? Have you got the word that the business men on Wall Street are not subject to “the vote”?)

    I want to get at some of these plutocratic effects on the political system of the USA because without them a lot of the most important and prominent concepts of this blog and the system of ideas of which it is a part probably do sound like drivel. Just one of the key concepts is of a “controlled opposition.” The idea here is that the opposition of the Democrats to the Republicans, and of the Republicans to the Democrats, provides a kind of readymade excuse for both to never get the peoples’ work accomplished. It is not an antagonistic, oppositional system at all, but primarily a smoke screen for the small number of people whose work does get done by the Republicans and Democrats.

    As just one example, you pointed to the Democrats getting a stimulus package passed in the wake of the 2008 fiasco, against the opposition of the Republicans. So it is sort of like you see that as an accomplishment for which the Democrats deserve our gratitude; the opposition of the Republicans being from this perspective deserving our scorn. Yet there’s little doubt in my mind that if McCain and Palin had been elected instead of Obama and Biden, there would have been a stimulus package. (Just as McCain/Palin supported the big bailout even though if every word of their fevered and consistently trumpeted ideology would insist otherwise.) Particulars would have been different, and maybe somewhat important here and there. The status quo, and that’s what we’re discussing, and along with more and more Americans decrying, would have rolled on.

    The Democrats are backed into a corner now because they have to pretend they challenge the status quo in order to get elected. It is exactly as AD and many other commenters are saying: they have no real ammunition.

    • MikeCA
      October 20, 2019 at 8:13 pm

      I’ve been traveling, so slow to respond.

      ” “In the end the people get to vote.”Yes, they do, and in exasperation in 2016 the people threw a curve ball at the establishment, threw a monkey wrench into plutocrats’ schemes.”

      It depends on which plutocrats you are talking about. Robert Mercer, Sheldon Adelson and Rupert Murdoch among others were very happy with Trump’s victory.

      “What the HELL is that kind of decisive and determinative political power doing concentrated on Wall Street, Mike? Have you got the word that the business men on Wall Street are not subject to “the vote”?)”

      Of course that is a problem, but it is a problem only Democrats see.

      “As just one example, you pointed to the Democrats getting a stimulus package passed in the wake of the 2008 fiasco, against the opposition of the Republicans. So it is sort of like you see that as an accomplishment for which the Democrats deserve our gratitude; the opposition of the Republicans being from this perspective deserving our scorn. Yet there’s little doubt in my mind that if McCain and Palin had been elected instead of Obama and Biden, there would have been a stimulus package. ”

      This may be true, but would of McCain then taken up health care reform? I don’t think so.

      “The Democrats are backed into a corner now because they have to pretend they challenge the status quo in order to get elected.”

      A number or Democratic Presidential candidates are challenging the status quo. Trump promised in 2016 to do that, but has failed to deliver on those promises.

  13. Yusef
    October 22, 2019 at 12:33 pm

    “It depends on which plutocrats you are talking about. Robert Mercer, Sheldon Adelson and Rupert Murdoch among others were very happy with Trump’s victory.”

    I strongly suspect the other plutocrats while perhaps not wildly enthusiastic about Trump’s victory, were nevertheless content they’d be okay under his administration. Of course that’s the way it has turned out. They’re doing jus’ fine. At the same time, it was obvious the Republican Party had chosen Jeb Bush as the anointed one. They emptied their coffers entirely into Jeb’s campaign. They had no idea how unhappy their rank and file were with the status quo. (Over there on the so-called “right” are many, many malcontents. They understand they are not represented by the Republican establishment, but have their reasons for preferring it to the Democrats’ establishment.) Mr. Jebbie went into the Republican convention with a grand total of 4 delegates, one hell of a flop. My interpretation is that if HRC had been as unviable as JB, the Democratic establishment would have had to yield their anointed to an outsider, too. HRC cheated to win, but it was close enough to be finagled in her favor.

    “Of course that [concentration of power on Wall Street] is a problem, but it is a problem only Democrats see.”

    I don’t quite agree. If you pay attention to the Republican rank and file as it exists out there in Flyoverville, they’ve seen the light of day. Also, there’s always been a libertarian wing in the Republican party represented by such men as Ron Paul (Rand, unfortunately, is not a chip off the old block) who were voicing considerable opposition to the neoliberal economic and globalization policies of the Republican party. (An alliance between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich was not inconceivable at one point.)

    It is very important to remember the Democrats are not socialist and they aren’t even “to the left of center.” Whatever they see or do not see is not going to affect their performance in office, even if they wanted it to, which most of the time they really do not. They’re petted and privileged lap dogs and they like it that way.

    “This may be true [there would have been a McCain stimulus], but would of McCain then taken up health care reform? I don’t think so.”

    In my opinion there would have been a McCain health care reform. I believe this because I believe it is American big business behind the effective call for health care reform in the first place. The cost of the American health care system is so egregiously out of control that it affects the competitiveness of American big business globally. American big business would need to either eliminate the health care perks it provides its employees or find another way of shifting the expense so it was alleviating the burden on itself. That, by the way, is what happened, as it has happened so damned often in the past. The reform, if such it was (I think it has helped some people) involves the taxpayer or the individual shouldering costs business might have been forced to shoulder in a more progressive society, with stronger unions and labor force in general. It is preferable to business to have satisfactory health care for employees. Please examine the fate of businesses allowing recently urbanized labor forces to live in squalor. Also, just three brief observations: 1) why did Obama criticize and tone down what he called “the Cadillac plans” labor unions secured for employees? 2) Obama’s plan does not control health care costs; 3) Obama’s plan was very careful not to regulate pharma’s “your money or your life” slash and burn pricing for pharmaceuticals.

    “A number or Democratic Presidential candidates are challenging the status quo. Trump promised in 2016 to do that, but has failed to deliver on those promises.”

    Whoever wins will fail. It isn’t only Trump who promised to challenge the status quo and then didn’t. Don’t you see? They all fail. Candidates don’t get in if there’s any chance they would slip the controls of the people who really run the show. That’s the point. And it isn’t that they are all bad people and inveterate liars. You could like a person such as Elizabeth Warren. I would like to outline her political trajectory better, but time limits permits me to say only: note the modifications of EW’s criticism of HRC over time. What these people do, say, or can be expected to accomplish can only be modified for the better coming somehow from outside our democratic institutions as they somehow now stand too corrupted and co-opted. (Having said this, I strongly suspect Elizabeth Warren, a former Harvard professor, was pre-selected for political and potential presidential candidacy based on her compliance to the unwritten rules of the ruling class. This is the way it works and has for a very, very long time.)

  14. P Ray
    February 5, 2020 at 8:52 pm

    Congratulations to Trump on acquittal for impeachment.

    Everyone now understands the US is a “mature democracy”.

    “Mature” from the realisation that that is the final stage before decay … since now, both political parties effectively do not serve the public.

    I’m predicting he will also win the next elections, too bad for the social justice warriors.

  1. October 27, 2019 at 7:25 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: