A Deeply Fractured US

[RangerRay]

When you elect people who want to burn down the system and destroy the institutions, this is what it looks like.

 

[Brad Sallows]

When you elect people who want to burn down the system and destroy the institutions, this is what it looks like.

They're a long ways from that. The establishment tried to stonewall Porkbusters, then the TEA Party, and then went all in to sabotage Trump's - legitimately elected, Hillary Clinton's opinion notwithstanding - administration.

At some point, it might have been a good idea to give the little people some of what they wanted. There's still plenty of time before it gets to the "burn the system" level. But for now the people trying to restore regular order and proper appropriations bills are not the ones undermining institutions.

 

[KevinB]

By the establishment you mean both the GOP as a party, and the Democrats.

The GOP was quite willing to fund counter Tea Party candidates, or redistrict to squeeze out Tea Party Representatives. We’ve been doing internal sabotage for the last 14 years quite well on our own without Democratic help.

 

[KevinB]

Interesting documentary.
Probably proof ‘the mob rules’

“A lot of people lost their sanity,” says an insurrectionist named Ronnie Sandlin, who worked as an internet marketer in Tennessee.

The Insurrectionist Next Door

A new film shows that cops and courts are the answer to political violence

open.substack.com

 

[Brad Sallows]

By the establishment you mean both the GOP as a party, and the Democrats.

Yes, the parts of both parties that have (mostly) held long-running control of who advances and what gets done. Trump's gang and some of the Sanders supporters (and the people further left of them) are somewhat in the nature of insurgents.

By paying attention to stated political objectives of the various factions rather than the characterizations assigned by "personalities", it should be easy to determine who is trying to change institutions and who is not. A few easy questions:

• who wants to change the USSC in some way whenever they think they've "lost" a case?
• who would like to specifically pack the USSC?
• who is OK with protestors showing up at USSC justice's houses?
• who wants to change the composition of the Senate or the manner in which members are elected?
• who wants to change the Electoral College?
• who wants regular order and the traditional 12 annual appropriations bills in Congress?
• who is compliant with executive overreach (when it suits their purposes), and who objects regardless who holds the White House?
• who wants to change the 1A or the 2A?
• who excuses and who criticizes the FBI for breaching customary protocols and practices in the course of politically-charged investigations?
• who thinks government ought keep its nose entirely out of what people communicate?

 

[KevinB]

Yes, the parts of both parties that have (mostly) held long-running control of who advances and what gets done. Trump's gang and some of the Sanders supporters (and the people further left of them) are somewhat in the nature of insurgents.

By paying attention to stated political objectives of the various factions rather than the characterizations assigned by "personalities", it should be easy to determine who is trying to change institutions and who is not. A few easy questions:

• who wants to change the USSC in some way whenever they think they've "lost" a case?
• who would like to specifically pack the USSC?
• who is OK with protestors showing up at USSC justice's houses?
• who wants to change the composition of the Senate or the manner in which members are elected?
• who wants to change the Electoral College?
• who wants regular order and the traditional 12 annual appropriations bills in Congress?
• who is compliant with executive overreach (when it suits their purposes), and who objects regardless who holds the White House?
• who wants to change the 1A or the 2A?
• who excuses and who criticizes the FBI for breaching customary protocols and practices in the course of politically-charged investigations?
• who thinks government ought keep its nose entirely out of what people communicate?

Your ‘easy questions’ are actually a minefield.
As you can put a lot of both parties into that area.

Arguably l’d suggest that answering Yes to the first 4, 8 and 9 should be a bar to holding office.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Interesting documentary.
Probably proof ‘the mob rules’

Sure. Nothing there that hasn't been known for centuries. What's changed is that the poles have flipped. Now it's the progressives inviting members of the security establishment into the newsroom and the conservatives on the outside hating on "The Man".

 

[KevinB]

Sure. Nothing there that hasn't been known for centuries. What's changed is that the poles have flipped. Now it's the progressives inviting members of the security establishment into the newsroom and the conservatives on the outside hating on "The Man".

Trumpist’s - the Hippies of 2020…
Except with a much higher chance of violence.

But it sort of does prove the extremes on either side really do derail the train.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Your ‘easy questions’ are actually a minefield.
As you can put a lot of both parties into that area.

Correct. The Republican establishment seems happy to go along with the way Congress currently conducts itself, with executive overreach, and with suggestions that public communications could be improved if only the right people could put the stamp of approval/disapproval on information.

My point is that the last people to blame for "destroying institutions" (or "democracy in danger") are the people on the right throwing up roadblocks with demands that things go back to being done the way they were not that long ago.

Obviously the Jan 6 riots are an outlier, but it makes a great deal of difference whether a participant believed at the time that the election result was compromised by fraud, or believed that the result was correct and wanted to overthrow it anyways.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Trumpist’s - the Hippies of 2020…
Except with a much higher chance of violence.

But it sort of does prove the extremes on either side really do derail the train.

Agree with your second statement, but how many times does the political left have to undertake widespread rioting - some of it very prolonged - in the wake of something it doesn't like before everyone concedes that they are the ones prone to violence?

 

[KevinB]

Agree with your second statement, but how many times does the political left have to undertake widespread rioting - some of it very prolonged - in the wake of something it doesn't like before everyone concedes that they are the ones prone to violence?

I’d suggest that while elements of the Left are highly prone to violence, it’s generally more focused and while more scripted, it doesn’t have the same mass that we saw on Jan 6th.

Furthermore I’m much more highly critical of Republicans, as historically we’ve been the law and order party.

I don’t expect the same from Democrats

 

[Brad Sallows]

I’d suggest that while elements of the Left are highly prone to violence, it’s generally more focused and while more scripted, it doesn’t have the same mass that we saw on Jan 6th.

Add up the actual lives, injuries, and property.

It's reasonable to have different expectations for the parties. Your comment exposes the heart of the problem: a fix has to come from people working within a group. That's why I dismiss the Republicans who abandoned the party when Trump was elected. Republicans are struggling to choose a Speaker because the margin of control in the House is tiny and Democrats are unwilling to simply acknowledge that they are the minority and go along with (ie. vote for) whichever Republican speaker candidate has the most supporters. The solution is to elect more Republicans, unless the country is simply to be given over to essentially untrammeled Democratic stewardship. Obviously Trump's interference and the striking of Roe v Wade influenced the last election, but there is also the problem of "Republicans" sitting on the sidelines at best and supporting Democrats at worst. Winning elections matters more than ideological purity. Win big enough, and the fringe doesn't matter, and control by the centre is restored.

 

[KevinB]

Add up the actual lives, injuries, and property.

Yes, but at the end of the day the actions on Jan 6 were more destructive to the Republic as a whole.
The whole Election integrity issue has cause more Republicans to back away, not become more involved.

It's reasonable to have different expectations for the parties. Your comment exposes the heart of the problem: a fix has to come from people working within a group. That's why I dismiss the Republicans who abandoned the party when Trump was elected. Republicans are struggling to choose a Speaker because the margin of control in the House is tiny and Democrats are unwilling to simply acknowledge that they are the minority and go along with (ie. vote for) whichever Republican speaker candidate has the most supporters. The solution is to elect more Republicans, unless the country is simply to be given over to essentially untrammeled Democratic stewardship. Obviously Trump's interference and the striking of Roe v Wade influenced the last election, but there is also the problem of "Republicans" sitting on the sidelines at best and supporting Democrats at worst. Winning elections matters more than ideological purity. Win big enough, and the fringe doesn't matter, and control by the centre is restored.

I’d argue the bigger issue in the Republican Party currently is the fact that the MAGA portion is hijacking the rest of the Party.
67% of Republicans support increasing aid to Ukraine.
But some of the more extreme MAGA clowns want to die on that hill.
So what do you do then?

Right now the issue is even with a Republican majority the extreme right is trying to Force the entire party past a point of comfort that the majority of the party is at.
So instead of simply accepting a moderate Speaker they do Trumps bidding to bring the entire system down.

So I don’t see a win here, and we will continue to splinter and shit away the majority. Which in turn makes us look like clowns, and the Democrats look more appealing to more voters.

Honestly if we could just dump Trump and his ilk, we could get back to a better state and be a viable party again.

 

[Lumber]

Yes, but at the end of the day the actions on Jan 6 were more destructive to the Republic as a whole.
The whole Election integrity issue has cause more Republicans to back away, not become more involved.


I’d argue the bigger issue in the Republican Party currently is the fact that the MAGA portion is hijacking the rest of the Party.
67% of Republicans support increasing aid to Ukraine.
But some of the more extreme MAGA clowns want to die on that hill.
So what do you do then?

Right now the issue is even with a Republican majority the extreme right is trying to Force the entire party past a point of comfort that the majority of the party is at.
So instead of simply accepting a moderate Speaker they do Trumps bidding to bring the entire system down.

So I don’t see a win here, and we will continue to splinter and shit away the majority. Which in turn makes us look like clowns, and the Democrats look more appealing to more voters.

Honestly if we could just dump Trump and his ilk, we could get back to a better state and be a viable party again.

A win here for both the party and the republic (IMO) would be them nominating a moderate republican that a large majority of the GOP and the Dems vote for.

A win for the republic (but not the party) would be a small number of republicans saying f*** it and voting for Jeffries. But that would be political suicide, and given the current political climate, might be actual suicide.

 

[Blackadder1916]

A win here for both the party and the republic (IMO) would be them nominating a moderate republican that a large majority of the GOP and the Dems vote for.

A win for the republic (but not the party) would be a small number of republicans saying f*** it and voting for Jeffries. But that would be political suicide, and given the current political climate, might be actual suicide.

With those criteria the election of Rep. Mike Johnson as Speaker is a "lose-lose".

Mike Johnson House speaker: Louisiana Republican in the spotlight

 

[KevinB]

With those criteria the election of Rep. Mike Johnson as Speaker is a "lose-lose".

Mike Johnson House speaker: Louisiana Republican in the spotlight

It will be interesting to see what sort of backdoor deals got everyone to agree.
He definitely would not have been my choice - he's got a lot of bag that is probably going to get even heavier in the upcoming weeks.

 

[Blackadder1916]

It will be interesting to see what sort of backdoor deals got everyone to agree.
He definitely would not have been my choice - he's got a lot of bag that is probably going to get even heavier in the upcoming weeks.

My assumption is it was less about deals and more about exhaustion on the part of moderate Republicants.

 

[KevinB]

My assumption is it was less about deals and more about exhaustion on the part of moderate Republicants.

There where several Never Trumper's who voted yes - so I tend to think there must have been some promises made - and I suspect that some of the promises collide with promises to others - as the Pro and Anti Ukraine Republicans have been at odds for a while.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Trumpist’s - the Hippies counter culture of 2020…
Except with a much higher chance of violence.

But it sort of does prove the extremes on either side really do derail the train.

Just a thought, I wont say FTFY.

I’d suggest that while elements of the Left are highly prone to violence, it’s generally more focused and while more scripted, it doesn’t have the same mass that we saw on Jan 6th.

Furthermore I’m much more highly critical of Republicans, as historically we’ve been the law and order party.

I don’t expect the same from Democrats

Some times you need violence to restore law and order.

Again just food for thought. Or to just toss in the bin.

 

[Lumber]

Again just food for thought. Or to just toss in the bin.

BUT YOU NEVER LET US JUST TOSS IT IN THE BIN!