Not true in general, and a bit of a cop out. Electoral College and gerrymandering put the government in other people's hands. Taking away the input of the majority of the people means you can't blame them for any of this.
Don't forget private money in the electoral process.
Ultimately, that's it. The people get the gov they deserve.
Not true in general, and a bit of a cop out. Electoral College and gerrymandering put the government in other people's hands. Taking away the input of the majority of the people means you can't blame them for any of this.
and the democrats propped up Harris after all the bubble wrap (lazy8) fell off biden.
Knowing trump was likely to win the primary, they have themselves to blame.
and no, time has come to stop all the nonsense and for the grown ups to return to the room.
I'm just not with you on making this the democrats problem. Sure they could have done better, but so could all of the voters. Was biden problematic, sure. Was Harris - Sure. Was it plain to anyone being the slightest bit honest that either was a far better choice for governance - yes.
The democrats have tried appeasement for years. It doesn't work. Time to let the kids touch the stove. trump is doing exactly as he said he would. The blame all falls on those that voted for him regardless if they believed him or not. I voted for an adult, the slimmest of margins (0.015%) would have swung this the other way. There is no mandate. Our electoral system is as botched as our political one. Kurtster actually does have a point that we need some major institutional restructuring. But there are ways to do it without harming people. Sure, get some grown ups in there. I'm not sure what method you are going to use, but I'm for that. But the method we have for 'putting people in the room' is elections. And right now a lot of people are voting for people who are not serious about governing. Until that changes, not much else will.
No, it's not in anyone's best interest. But we have protected people from the consequences of their actions for a long time and they have come to think it doesn't matter. Trump shouldn't have been allowed to run, but congress refused to do it's job. People think it's fine to vote for a bomb thrower because they think they will be insulated from the bombs and they like the noise. So let them feel some of the pain and they may realize that bombs are not good. Not sure how else to get through to them. People who say 'keep your government out of my medicare' need some life lessons. Unfortunately it appears we may all have to suffer with it.
and the democrats propped up Harris after all the bubble wrap (lazy8) fell off biden.
Knowing trump was likely to win the primary, they have themselves to blame.
and no, time has come to stop all the nonsense and for the grown ups to return to the room.
Given what they are doing...that doesnt seem likely
and is it in the country's best interest for the democrats to sit this one out, especially since they contributed to getting us to where we are now (up until Jan 2025)?
Of course I prefer where things were pre-trump...but there were still mounting issues.
No, it's not in anyone's best interest. But we have protected people from the consequences of their actions for a long time and they have come to think it doesn't matter. Trump shouldn't have been allowed to run, but congress refused to do it's job. People think it's fine to vote for a bomb thrower because they think they will be insulated from the bombs and they like the noise. So let them feel some of the pain and they may realize that bombs are not good. Not sure how else to get through to them. People who say 'keep your government out of my medicare' need some life lessons. Unfortunately it appears we may all have to suffer with it.
The way I figure it, is when Republicans start fearing their own constituents more then Trump then maybe they will start trying to stop the madness. They are not there yet, but some small signs are there. Maybe when they figure out how heavily armed some of them are.....
The democrats have spent decades capitulating and enabling the bad behavior of the republicans. The republicans are now in control. They have the majorities, they have the guy in the big seat. They were told, repeatedly, that this would be the result of their actions. This is up to them to go fix.
Given what they are doing...that doesnt seem likely
and is it in the country's best interest for the democrats to sit this one out, especially since they contributed to getting us to where we are now (up until Jan 2025)?
Of course I prefer where things were pre-trump...but there were still mounting issues.
Believing in the ideal of "free trade" is as naive as believing in the Communist ideal of common ownership.
As long as the main goal of our trade policies is maximizing corp profit, they are doomed to fail society.
Back to the current issue...the trump tariffs are making an already bad situation worse...running the economy into the ground while deficits balloon.
Republicans appear to be providing tacit support,
and the democrats messaging of "tariffs are bad" is not enough...as they appear to be sitting back and letting the shit show unravel, which is not helping its constituents one bit.
What is the answer to our trade imbalances and other issues, eg, sourcing/manufacturing of key goods like pharmaceuticals...
The democrats have spent decades capitulating and enabling the bad behavior of the republicans. The republicans are now in control. They have the majorities, they have the guy in the big seat. They were told, repeatedly, that this would be the result of their actions. This is up to them to go fix.
Trump I's tarrifs (and trade policies in general) were bad. They started the undoing of decades of work by people who actually knew what they were doing to reduce trade barriers around the world. And more generally, by breaking those agreements, damaged the trust anyone could have had in any agreement we ever make, on any subject. His second term, by doubling down on that strategy, has absolutely wrecked the world's confidence in our ability to keep a promise. But I digress.
Trump's first term trade policies provoked retaliation against US agricultural products. This was felt so deeply and immediately that the Trump administration created additonal farm subsidies to offset that impact. We raised prices on ourselves and provoked a boycott on our goods, then borrowed more money to pay off the constituency that was most immediately affected.
I'm not looking for intellectual consistency, that's not going to happen in American politics. The incumbent parties are not driven by political philosophy or principles, they are coalitions of interests and grievances that are driven by expediency and appeasement. I'm looking for adults to enter the room and rein in the toddlers. And despairing.
WWGJD*? He first and foremost would recognize that the executive branch has constitutional restraints that need to be respected. One of the many problems of our democracy is that the legislative branch has ceded too much power to the executive. That's a problem one man, in one election, cannot fix. With that power we now have ample evidence that the problem is not symmetrical: one man in one election can make it much, much worse.
Believing in the ideal of "free trade" is as naive as believing in the Communist ideal of common ownership.
As long as the main goal of our trade policies is maximizing corp profit, they are doomed to fail society.
Back to the current issue...the trump tariffs are making an already bad situation worse...running the economy into the ground while deficits balloon.
Republicans appear to be providing tacit support,
and the democrats messaging of "tariffs are bad" is not enough...as they appear to be sitting back and letting the shit show unravel, which is not helping its constituents one bit.
What is the answer to our trade imbalances and other issues, eg, sourcing/manufacturing of key goods like pharmaceuticals...
You tell me whether Trump I's tariffs were good/bad. Or rather, provide evidence of their effects.
You seem to look for intellectual purity in presidents' positions and policies. What I'm saying is that presidents and Congress face pressures at home that often dictate or influence the breadth and depth of protectionism. Free trade is a nice notion until your domestic industry gets wiped out by competition and/or export dumping. You'll then face very angry voters.
Love your deep and penetrating analysis of international trade policy. Yes, it all sucks. Tell us how Gary Johnson would have been so, so better.
Seriously, provide some evidence and perspective in your posts. Please.
Trump I's tarrifs (and trade policies in general) were bad. They started the undoing of decades of work by people who actually knew what they were doing to reduce trade barriers around the world. And more generally, by breaking those agreements, damaged the trust anyone could have had in any agreement we ever make, on any subject. His second term, by doubling down on that strategy, has absolutely wrecked the world's confidence in our ability to keep a promise. But I digress.
Trump's first term trade policies provoked retaliation against US agricultural products. This was felt so deeply and immediately that the Trump administration created additonal farm subsidies to offset that impact. We raised prices on ourselves and provoked a boycott on our goods, then borrowed more money to pay off the constituency that was most immediately affected.
I'm not looking for intellectual consistency, that's not going to happen in American politics. The incumbent parties are not driven by political philosophy or principles, they are coalitions of interests and grievances that are driven by expediency and appeasement. I'm looking for adults to enter the room and rein in the toddlers. And despairing.
WWGJD*? He first and foremost would recognize that the executive branch has constitutional restraints that need to be respected. One of the many problems of our democracy is that the legislative branch has ceded too much power to the executive. That's a problem one man, in one election, cannot fix. With that power we now have ample evidence that the problem is not symmetrical: one man in one election can make it much, much worse.
Trump really really wants to be seen as the smartet guy in the room, and this term he has selected people to make that true.
A terrifying thought.
This is pretty much the MAGA approach to most things - Sink all the boats and hope we can keep our nose above water! As long as the people they dislike are hurting more than they are, it's all good.
There were some serious people in the room during trump v1. trump burned them out and didn't like their impact. There are no serious people in the room in trump v2.
Trump really really wants to be seen as the smartet guy in the room, and this term he has selected people to make that true.
