|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 5, 2020 0:40:38 GMT
About 24 hours after the Iowa caucus and we have, uh, 62% of the results so far. Not a good look for the party. There are some people saying that Donald Trump is the winner of the Iowa caucuses.
Well, that's true. I mean, literally: 97.1% of votes. (Gov. Weld with a massive 1.3%, Rep. Walsh with 1.1%.) But figuratively, yeah, he probably won the Dems' caucus, too.
I heard this afternoon that the latest Gallup poll has the president with his highest approval ratings of his presidency at 49%. That's the impeachment bump, and exactly why I didn't think it was such a good idea...
|
|
|
Post by The Cincinnati Kid on Feb 5, 2020 0:47:27 GMT
Agreed, none of it matters, except for a day or two of gloating from President Trump, as the Sheriff alluded to. I can only imagine what would happen if he mentioned the Beach Boys.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 5, 2020 0:50:56 GMT
I will say, on the electoral side of things (which increasingly is what annoys and doesn't interest me, comparatively speaking), Biden's apparent relatively low finish doesn't bode well for that campaign. If he ends up 4th in Iowa as it seems he did, and similarly in New Hampshire as it seems he might, he REALLY needs to win Nevada and South Caroline or he may well be done.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Feb 5, 2020 0:56:03 GMT
As we know, Trump sends out several tweets a day. Do you realize how wild it would be if Trump did send out a tweet about the infamous BB concert - and defended Mike Love! He might be impeached again.
It's a matter of right and wrong, and it just isn't the right thing to do!
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 5, 2020 0:59:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by The Cincinnati Kid on Feb 5, 2020 1:01:26 GMT
There are some people saying that Donald Trump is the winner of the Iowa caucuses.
Well, that's true. I mean, literally: 97.1% of votes. (Gov. Weld with a massive 1.3%, Rep. Walsh with 1.1%.) But figuratively, yeah, he probably won the Dems' caucus, too.
I heard this afternoon that the latest Gallup poll has the president with his highest approval ratings of his presidency at 49%. That's the impeachment bump, and exactly why I didn't think it was such a good idea...
The whole Impeachment situation has made me more of a believer in the idea of coastal elite Democrats who are very out of touch. I can't remember of Pelosi or Schumer said it, but he/she said something along the lines of your presidency will always have the stain of Impeachment on it. That comment didn't sit well with me. It made me feel like the whole process is just to do something they've been dying to do since day one of his presidency, instead of doing it because it's the right thing to do. Ultimately history will decide if he was a good president, not this Impeachment trial. I'm just so tired of the fear mongering from both sides. Unfortunately, I don't see it getting better or even staying status quo, apart from economic collapse, or some other catastrophic event. I think back to Obama and remember how a lot of people believed there would be meaningful change. I think the rise of social media and the color of his skin kept it from happening.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 5, 2020 1:06:44 GMT
I think back to Obama and remember how a lot of people believed there would be meaningful change. I think the rise of social media and the color of his skin kept it from happening. I think the issues with Obama were a little different. Just my opinion, obviously.
1) I think "hope and change" was brilliantly vague. It meant everything everyone wanted it to mean, including diametrically opposed things at times. Obama's actual politics, once you get outside of the partisan spin, were center-left, with a mind toward consensus. So any hope for some deep, dramatic change was probably misguided from the start. That isn't who he was. To put it in terms of today's election, he was a "public option" guy, not a "Medicare for all" guy.
2) The Republicans obviously, immediately chose to obstruct him entirely, as the famous McConnell "we're going to make sure he's a one-time president" statement makes clear. Granted, that's their prerogative as the opposition. But I do think it did a lot of harm. The ACA ended up being entirely partisan, and that just made politics hell ... really ever since.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 5, 2020 1:09:49 GMT
By the way, Cincinnati Kid, it's great having your participation in this thread and on the board overall. But here specifically, I know you've got thoughts and your perspectives are interesting. Knowing there will be no fireworks here, I hope you'll jump into this little territory more.
|
|
|
Post by The Cincinnati Kid on Feb 5, 2020 1:26:45 GMT
I think back to Obama and remember how a lot of people believed there would be meaningful change. I think the rise of social media and the color of his skin kept it from happening. I think the issues with Obama were a little different. Just my opinion, obviously. 1) I think "hope and change" was brilliantly vague. It meant everything everyone wanted it to mean, including diametrically opposed things at times. Obama's actual politics, once you get outside of the partisan spin, were center-left, with a mind toward consensus. So any hope for some deep, dramatic change was probably misguided from the start. That isn't who he was. To put it in terms of today's election, he was a "public option" guy, not a "Medicare for all" guy. 2) The Republicans obviously, immediately chose to obstruct him entirely, as the famous McConnell "we're going to make sure he's a one-time president" statement makes clear. Granted, that's their prerogative as the opposition. But I do think it did a lot of harm. The ACA ended up being entirely partisan, and that just made politics hell ... really ever since.
I'm generally a believer in taking small steps rather than giant leaps, so that was fine with me. I think trying to make big sweeping changes just makes people who are opposed angry and less likely to compromise. Although some people would argue you propose big sweeping changes to get the small changes that you actually want. I think it's just a lot of extra work to get to the same result, but ego is always involved, even more so today. Your second point is why I wish we could do away with parties all together. Why should anyone want to make someone a one term president? I want my president to have two terms and wish he could be president forever. It's been 10 years and I was only in 7th/8th grade, but I seem to remember thinking the original version of the ACA was actually pretty good. Once it got watered down so much, it was almost like, why bother?
|
|
|
Post by The Cincinnati Kid on Feb 5, 2020 1:35:15 GMT
By the way, Cincinnati Kid, it's great having your participation in this thread and on the board overall. But here specifically, I know you've got thoughts and your perspectives are interesting. Knowing there will be no fireworks here, I hope you'll jump into this little territory more. Thanks, after I created this site, it was a bit of a bummer to see so little activity. There were a number of people who were supposedly going to post here, but it pretty much ended up only being you, kds, and the Sheriff. I thought about pulling the plug a few times, but I'm glad I didn't. Traffic has very slowly been picking up and we're in a not so distant third in terms of how many posts we've had since our inception. I'll try to participate more!
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 5, 2020 1:49:33 GMT
I think the issues with Obama were a little different. Just my opinion, obviously. 1) I think "hope and change" was brilliantly vague. It meant everything everyone wanted it to mean, including diametrically opposed things at times. Obama's actual politics, once you get outside of the partisan spin, were center-left, with a mind toward consensus. So any hope for some deep, dramatic change was probably misguided from the start. That isn't who he was. To put it in terms of today's election, he was a "public option" guy, not a "Medicare for all" guy. 2) The Republicans obviously, immediately chose to obstruct him entirely, as the famous McConnell "we're going to make sure he's a one-time president" statement makes clear. Granted, that's their prerogative as the opposition. But I do think it did a lot of harm. The ACA ended up being entirely partisan, and that just made politics hell ... really ever since.
I'm generally a believer in taking small steps rather than giant leaps, so that was fine with me. I think trying to make big sweeping changes just makes people who are opposed angry and less likely to compromise. Although some people would argue you propose big sweeping changes to get the small changes that you actually want. I think it's just a lot of extra work to get to the same result, but ego is always involved, even more so today. Your second point is why I wish we could do away with parties all together. Why should anyone want to make someone a one term president? I want my president to have two terms and wish he could be president forever. It's been 10 years and I was only in 7th/8th grade, but I seem to remember thinking the original version of the ACA was actually pretty good. Once it got watered down so much, it was almost like, why bother? I couldn't agree more on both points.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Feb 5, 2020 20:31:34 GMT
Mitt Romney!!!
At this moment, I’m proud to say i voted for him for President.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Feb 6, 2020 3:06:55 GMT
Romney's full speech:
Upon 2nd viewing, this line really got to me, surprisingly.
"With my vote, I will tell my children, and their children, that I did my duty to the best of my ability, believing that my country expected it of me."
That might seem underwhelming to some, but think about what that means in the context of our current political landscape. I'm not sure following one's conscience, especially when it requires putting country above party, is truly expected (or respected) anymore. (I assume it once was, though maybe I'm naïve.)
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 6, 2020 13:49:12 GMT
I appreciated Sen. Romney's courage: standing against your party isn't easy. One of Minnesota's congressmen, Rep. Collin Peterson, did the inverse in the House by opposing the articles of impeachment. Peterson is not my congressman and I don't agree with his position, but I do respect individual votes of conscience. Although Peterson voted in line with his constituents, as he represents a very conservative, rural area; Romney voted against his constituents and now has a lower approval rating than the president. There have been some calls to remove him from the party, which is absurd and would be the very definition of a cult of personality (which to me is one of the worst things that can happen in politics, whether I like the object of the adoration or not).
It's going to be interesting watching Sen. Romney going forward. The media and Democrats are going to worship him for about 20 minutes, until he votes conservative positions in the future ... which he will do, because he's a conservative! The Republicans have shown how they'll treat him, which isn't good. He's in no-man's land, at the moment. He might have had Sen. McCain for company there, had he lived.
But speaking of Sen. McCain, he and Romney share another piece of history beyond taking tough votes of conscience. They were both inherently moderate conservatives, too far right to be Democrats but increasingly out of step with Republicans. And both, when they ran for president, were painted broadly by the Obama campaigns and the media as terrible people, evil men who would bring Republican hatred and racism and sexism and homophobia down onto us all. ("He wants to put y'all back in chains," VP Biden said of Romney to black voters; or "binders of women," proof of sexism as opposed to the obvious little gaffe of speech that it was.)
There is no incentive for people to moderate or take tough positions because their own parties will reject them as heretics, and their opposition parties might shower them with praise for 15 seconds, but they're going to still reject them harshly and paint them as just as bad as their more radical co-partisans as soon as they revert to their more conservative natures. There is no room for people to take pride in their shared positions individually, one vote at a time; it's full compliance or excommunication and demonization.
The whole system is depressing. But I do appreciate what Sen. Romney did. I didn't vote for him, but I said then and think now that he's a decent man who would have been a fine president.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 8, 2020 14:30:45 GMT
I am very disappointed in the president's firing of Lt. Col. Vindman and Amb. Sondlund. It was a small, weak man's move.
|
|