JohnRoberts said:
Starting??? It's called TDS or Trump derangement syndrome... and going on the third year...So far they are raising money with it, but the career democrats in charge of the party are telling them to back off the impeachment nonsense, not sure they will. Impeachment made Pres Clinton even more popular and he actually committed crimes, and eww behavior in office. Nice to see the democrats shooting each other for a change... Nancy Pelosi had some unkind words for AOC, a thorn in her butt... Nancy said a glass of water running as democrat would have been elected in her district. Maybe lighten up on that kool ade... when the planet was actually threatened by the loss of the ozone layer, we did what was needed. Climate change (used to be called global warming, but change is safer rallying point). If/when action is needed I'm sure we can manage, right now its a power grab that will only have negative consequences for the larger world.Seriously? Tornados are because God hates trailer parks (half kidding).. Cheap energy has been dragging people out of poverty around the world... expensive energy will kill them off. Luckily we have friendly europeans to tell us. :
:
Do you believe your media is unbiased? If anything they need to stop winding up the yellow vests for ratings, that could end poorly for many.
JR
It's weird that you drop the "Trump Derangement Syndrome" canard & then chastise someone ELSE for buying media biases. "Trump Denial Syndrome" is also a widespread thing, and equally tiring. But both forms of TDS are prevalent only among those who can't see a bigger picture - victims of George Saunders' braindead megaphone, so to speak. Facts:
+ The president has some power, but not all of it. We have three branches of government. Congress introduces policy using, yes, politics. This includes the Green New Deal, which is more a conversation starter than an actual piece of legislation. People act like every bill is introduced for literal reasons, and that has - quite literally - never been how politics work. Often, bills are introduced to draw attention to a problem/issue, create a dialogue, or signify something to the base and/or rest of the congregants. When I mourn the death of civics classes, this point is the one I usually bring up: what ARE politics? What does it mean to be political? There is, at root, a bit of sleight of hand involved.
+ Unlike Mitch McConnell, Trump isn't necessarily ignoring norms maliciously - it seems likely, based on every report ever, that he simply doesn't know the norms. What he knows are global real estate norms, and they, unlike political norms, do not present the illusion of order, civility, and wisdom. (See also: that scene in the Rodney Dangerfield movie Back To School where he lists the palm-greasing realities of building construction to an architecture class.) The national conversation has, on some level, been an argument between the visionary philosophy of a representative democracy with checks, balances, and well-maintained international relationships and the bulldog realpolitik of business. Most debates spiral from there: Is that bulldog realpolitik authoritarian? Are a few minor (and arguable) gains worth the loss of our assumed values or our stature on the world stage? Is the playing field fair when one team doesn't seem to care about rules/norms?
(I'm aware that this last question is thrown around by anyone on the "losing team," which brings up a whole other point: why is politics so regularly a team sport? Your climate change comments, for example - they're bizarre to me, as their underlying message seems to be a reactionary "everything's fine the way it is." Sustainable energy would drag people back into poverty because it's too expensive? It feels like you're ignoring the "sustainable" part; those parts of the world would likely save tons of money in the long term. And, beyond that, why wait 'til the patient's in the emergency room? Ever try to treat late stage cancer? I assure you: you always wish that you'd caught it sooner.)
+ The economy's fine, but it's not like the guy made it better - it's been on an upturn since 2010. (And I'm not an Obama apologist. Like every president, he had his good points and bad points.)
+ Dems have been the masters of the circular firing squad for ages. It's nothing new. That said, there are fewer Al Franken casualties than Ilhan Omar wrist slaps nowadays, which speaks well of future solidarity. (Conservatives, as always, are great at closing ranks, even when it seems to go against their professed beliefs - e.g. Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, etc.)
+ AOC is neither as bad nor as good as people seem to think she is. She's just a) young, b) willing to go out on a limb, and c) somewhat representative of the concerns of a younger leftist generation. (I can attest to this... I've taught college for over a decade and, yes, students are far more broadly invested in social democracy, climate change, social justice, prison reform, fair tax laws, etc. today than they were in 2006.) In musical terms, she's a promising debut LP - not perfect, some filler, some groaners, but still winning enough to keep an eye on. Oh, and if you view politics as a conversation instead of a legion of discrete personalities, the conversation between AOC and Pelosi
is the Democratic Party at the moment. If AOC exists only to make that convo happen, then she's done something.
+ Most centrist Dems think impeachment isn't crazy - even if Trump hasn't been nailed for crimes, there's plenty of evidence of corruption, and that's all one needs to impeach. However, I'd say that the Must Impeach crowd is not the majority; they just happen to be on TV because they have a point to make and want airtime. Most Dems just want Trump voted out in 2020.
