Senate The US Politics discussion

The drinks-Starbucks-and-has-two-iPhones "progressive"

 

I would honestly advise everyone not to put much thought into the 2020 race. There are marches and protests ensuing in most cities and townships across America; a virile movement is absolutely essential to countering both the far-right Republicans and the corporatist Democrats. (Extra kudos to those who have been shouting down congressmembers at town hall meetings this past week. My own scumbag rep. has yet to commit to holding one.)

 

My representative is Ed Royce, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and one of like two dozen Republicans whose districts went to Clinton. The latter is probably the reason he won't hold a town hall, though I think his office blubbered something about protesters hurting one of his aides or whatever.

 

This seems to be under-talked about right now. There's talk of gerrymandering, and rightfully so, but I didn't know until this past week that so many Republican representatives are serving in districts that went to HRC, and that she narrowly lost. If Democrats take back the House in 2018, or come close, it seems reasonable to believe that most (if not all) of those representatives would have to be defeated. Avoiding any semblance of public accountability seems like a good way to lay the groundwork for that outcome, or perhaps just to give future opponents something to run on.

If you count the number of seats held by Republicans that only narrowly went to Trump, the number rises to well over 30. That's more than enough to give Democrats the House back, assuming only a few losses of their own.

 

I don't know, look at the fire in her eyes:

 

In the mix

 

She doesn't look real.

 

They need to win 24 seats to retake the house and Hillary won 23 districts that have a GOP representatives that are up for reelection in 2018. They can definitely take the house if things break right for them.

 

You don't see her as a Thatcherite, but Clinton supports the economic system which Thatcher created. Neoliberalism and expansion of free markets was a fundamental platform for Thatcherism; both Republicans and Democrats do not question the 1980s liberal market reforms. In the United Kingdom, Clinton and most Democrats (including voters) would be considered conservative. The GOP are more akin to an ultra nationalist party like Front National. But, yes, Democrats are the main conservative party in the United States.

In fact, Clinton is more right wing than the current British Prime Minister. Especially on fiscal policy; May is a state interventionist compared to Clinton's free market approach. Even Macron, liberal President candidate in France, is more liberal than all elected Democrats.

There is no US definition of liberalism or the Left; political philosophies don't get new definitions based on geographical location. Liberalism, conservatism, socialism, et al have universal meanings. That's the point Ender Sai and Lord Vivec have made in this thread long before me.

As for NHS. Yes, Thatcher did defund it - but supported the principle of it. Free, universal health care for all. Clinton supported ACA, which is based on free markets within health care. Something Thatcher never believed in; health, the post office and rail network were the areas she was dead against privatising.

 

I can see why Trump doesn't think it's a big deal to ask immigrants and visitors to our country to hand over their smart phones. He's asking his own staff to do it: Sean-Spicer-searching-his-staff-s-personal-phones-in-attempt-to-find-White-House-leakers

Turns out the media learned about this by way of, guess what, another leak!

That's the way to keep up morale, Trumpster!

 

This is '97 -- must have been a few years after she was mugged and beaten where she "sustained broken ribs, facial bruises, several fractures, a brain hemorrhage, and permanent damage to her sight and hearing."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Anne_MacLeod_Trump

 

Mmmmm.... i love the smell of police state in the morning. Smells like... fascism.

 

I'm not sure Thatcher was against rail privatisation (or any other state run organisation/infrastructure), I think she just knew that it would be unpopular and politically imprudent at the time. Plans to privatise British Rail/Railtrack were drawn up by her cabinet, intentions to privatise the railways were presented to Conservative Party Conference during her tenure, she just delayed implementing them.

Any lip-service paid to the NHS or any British institution from her was worthless at the time and remains so.

I suspect Thatcher was to the left of 1990s HRC in terms of voting/campaigning record economically/pragmatically speaking, but maybe not socially/ideologically. Tories were just as nasty to minorities in the 80s and 90s as the Republicans and Democrats were, they all capitalised on fearmongering over 'black thugs', all attacked homosexual rights, etc. 2010s HRC is very different to 90s HRC, though.

Political terms do require tailoring to suit geography in general parlance, btw. Libertarian, republican, nationalist, try to use these words in the British sense in a US discussion and you will confuse people, and vice versa. It's important for Americans to understand that their left is our centre-right, and it's important for TRotW to realise how Americans use those words in order to understand what they're trying to say.

 

So how long before Trump sets up a Imperial National Security Bureau to suffocate the free press and ensure the citizens of America remain loyal to their Executive Branch?

 

The only good thing about Trump winning is that it feels like anyone can win. I wish somebody completely out of left field would run for the Democrats, Mick Foley or somebody. But I think if they have any sort of chance against Trump, it will require for Trump to be such a disaster that people would decide we need a pro, which would open it up for a typical center-right Dem like Booker or any white guy that's not Bernie.

I don't see any good candidates from the Democrats. I'm sure anyone would be better than Trump, but if anyone can lose to an idiot like him, it's the Democratic Party.

Yeah, I try to tell people that there is no left in America. Those same people tell me Hillary Clinton is a Marxist.

 

Double Post, sorry

 

Well this is who's speculated about so far, or has been asked but says they're not thinking about it yet (which means nothing at this point).

There has to be at least one good candidate from this bunch:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2020#Democratic_Party

 

That's the worst compiled list I've ever seen, on any number of reasons (the least of which is it's wrong).

EDIT: In other, actual, news... 45's nominee for Navy Secretary has withdrawn, making him the second to do so (Army Sec dropped out too).

http://jezebel.com/philip-bilden-trumps-choice-for-navy-secretary-withdr-1792771510

 

i'd vote for katy perry

 

Nobody on that list could ever get elected President.

I doubt there ever will be another Democratic President.

 

I think tomorrow may be the make or break moment for Trump. If he comes off as unhinged or out of touch with the facts and he doesn't stick to the script, that may enough to push some Republicans towards investigating him. A press conference during the day is one thing. Prime time speaking in front of the country? That is something else. And we also know how Trump needs an enthusiastic audience. If Republicans sit on their hands too long he'll be agitated. And should he get his own "you lie!" from a Democrat or their guests, I doubt he'll react as calmly as President Obama did. That said, I'll be waiting for the news report after. I won't watch it live because 1) I can't stomach his lies and 2) I want to hit him where it hurts most: ratings.