Are you talking about all the Congressmen who campaigned on the promise that they would refuse to do their jobs (but still collect their checks and pensions from the government), and in fact have done just that? Literally refusing to do the work they were hired for, and which is required for the functioning of the country? That kind of picking and choosing with regard to rules?
19 Likes
Misspelled since english is not my native tounge, even thou I´d like it if all of this was a horrible fairytale. I still feel like I have been transported into an evil alternative reality.
17 Likes
I’m just wondering where in time that asshole with a Delorian went back with that book.
10 Likes
Is this guy worth reading?
He was mentioned in https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/our-sovereign-father-donald-trump/
Maybe he keeps popping up on my list of “books I might read” because the Brexit folks kept mentioning “Sovereignty”, because of Guantanamo, because of so many bizarre developments in the war on terror,
(Homo Sacer refers to a person not entitled to be treated as a human)
3 Likes
I wonder what Thomas F. Wilson, the guy who played Biff, thinks of this shit.
9 Likes
Good thing Trump doesn’t play Civilization, otherwise he might consider this a roadmap for his presidency:
A brief pro-con analysis for the concerned citizen:
Pros: Universal healthcare
Cons: ‘Universal’ as in predatory, for-profit, fish-in-barrel consumer model with insurance mandates and crap coverage. Also, everything else.
10 Likes
Romney didn’t win.
1 Like
Well, you’re right about that.
My point was that it’s a little weird that “we all” describe Donald Trump as this magnetic, phenomenally popular candidate. He might have whipped up large audiences into a froth, but he wasn’t exactly breaking records when it came to receiving votes. Hillary—hated by everyone, even the people who love her, or so I’m always told—received more votes than Trump. So I guess she’s more popular. And so was Mitt Romney.
That’s all I meant.
7 Likes
Right now I’d rather learn how to head off an autocracy.
Like, raising bloody hell with your federal representatives and state governments to every proposal to register Muslims or round up Mexicans.
16 Likes
And also any proposals to increase police numbers in Black neighborhoods, or bringing back ‘Stop and Frisk’…
And raising bloody fucking hell about Roe v Wade when they try to overturn it.
26 Likes
He got the rat cage.
2 Likes
If he had a speech writer I would have to assume they are using the “cut-up” technique. I await Trump coming clean and calling, “Hail, Eris! Hail, Discordia!”
3 Likes
If anything, this shows that deep down, everyone is basically the same and we need to start finding common ground.
Starting with the premise that it’s premature to assume that Americans will vote Republicans into the presidency forever, any further Democratic wins will require that people who voted Trump switch their vote.
This means that measures against a presumed autocracy that permanently alienate Trump voters are doing substantial harm to future Democrat ambitions.
I’m not saying complacency is the order of the day, but I think in cases like this electoral disaster, it’s easy to let fear, uncertainty and rhetoric drive one into a smaller, like-minded group whose actions and policies drive out anyone less than 100% committed to the narrative.
This behaviour can fill a powerful social need and at the same time prevent the true long-term success: persuading complacent, less-committed, non-culturally-aligned, low information voters that our policies are superior, which usually entails not screaming at them about their their previous choices…
Admittedly, it’s pretty tempting to prefer a second Trump presidency over having to actually socialize, be civil, and sympathetically address the concerns of the people who voted Trump. I prefer to keep muttering “You maniacs! You blew it up!”
(Even if I was American, I’d have been useless politically - I interacted with precisely zero people who voted Trump - my bubble was perfect. I felt like Romney in 2012 - How could this have occurred? No-one was voting Trump!)
3 Likes
For those of you who are lucky enough to live in a city that has two (or more) political parties somewhat evenly representing you, or even representatives capable of independent thought, here are a few insights into what One-Party rule is like:
One-party rule exists in an echo chamber. The party in power spends all of their time talking to and listening to like minds, deaf to concerns from anyone they perceive as an “other”, no matter how obvious or urgent their needs.
One-party rule is constantly looking for ways to reinforce and cement their positions of authority. These methods include playing the “insider game” where appointments to key positions and influential commissions are only given to others who have the approval of the party leaders, or are sufficiently obsequious to party leaders, and whose vote can be counted on to support the party platform. Then these people are held out as “experienced in government” when they need to flip a representative seat. In my city the one-party ruling majority floated a ballot initiative to go from 2-year terms to 4-year terms, and canceling all elections on even years, which was sold to gullible voters as a means of increasing voter participation. (!?) It passed. There is constant behind the scenes scrambling to make sure the ruling party stays in power, a shadow government of unelected but appointed sympathetic minds has grown up and through majority rule-making is given control over large portions of the budget to be spent on any whim.
One-party rule means determined control of public funds. All spending is weighed not against the needs of the community, but how it can advance the one-party agenda, enrich business friend of the party leaders, or give “policy cred” to party leaders for later advancement up the ladder to state and federal seats of power. For example a recent road and sidewalk repairs millage was floated and passed because we have terrible roads; what was not on the ballot was “Attachment A”, a piece of adjoining legislation that stipulates that any or all of the money from the millage could be used for any other purpose as long as it was somehow related to transportation. In the past we have seen millions flow to friends consulting companies, studies, fleet vehicle leasing contracts to business cronies where the vehicles are left idle in a lot, etc.
One-party rule is so sure it is acting in the best interests of those who voted for them (even if it is not a majority of voters) that they are happy to break state and federal laws with the creation of local laws that are in direct violation of the rule of law. Since the entrenched single party is “duly elected” this is done in the name of all members of the community, making everyone culpable to these violation of higher authorities (the State and Feds)
Any ideas outside of the ruling parties agenda are rejected and ridiculed. Those who speak for the disenfranchised are given lip service to ensure them that “they have been heard” but no action is taken to consider the points being made and nothing ever comes from it. Those who have the audacity to protest the one-party rule are belittled in the local press, smeared with name calling even from the highest offices, and generally treated like second class (or worse) citizens.
I share this because I want to know not how can one live under autocratic or one-party rule, as I have been doing so here for the past 20 years and getting by as a voice of protest and reason with a few victories against the ruling party; for instance we have managed to keep one or two seats on council that are willing to speak up despite having no hope of influencing outcomes. I would like to know what readers think is the best way to fight such an entrenched authority, when the majority of eligible voters don’t even show up? I just can’t imagine what fours years (or more) under this one-party rule is going to be like (locally and nationally). Thanks in advance for your thoughts on the matter.
11 Likes
That simply is not true. All the Democrats need is for their own members and independents to vote for them.
The last three elections have had flat Republican number at around $60 million. There was not a surge of support for Trump, he got the same votes as ho-hum Romney.
What Hillary DID NOT get were the 10 million votes Obama got in 2008 and the 6 million he got in 2012. Trump won because not enough people liked Hillary, not that Trump was super popular.
So there doesn’t need to be any vote switching, just less apathy.
It would be nice to have a different representative system though, so we don’t have to be locked into two parties.
21 Likes
This is the problem with politics in general. Both parties do this, further alienating each other. One would think from the divisiveness that the party platforms have become more radical, but the really haven’t changed much. It is the people who have become more radical.
2 Likes
