So kill it by not funding it for the macro group, then revive it and fund it for micro group? Got it.
i think it was some mega-church in texas. probably evangelical. ****** people.
if this country actually held politicians accountable, Trump would be forced to resign by the summer.
The same way it worked on NT. We got fed up with Methodical Management or Meth as I call him, and we held an impeachment inquiry.jrose5 was installed as our new ADMINISTRATOR ELECT and da rest is history.
I am catching up on General after a roughly two-week hiatus and I’ve seen the Meth impeachment thing twice. Going to have to look into the origins and outcomes of this one
Is The Official Political Discussion Thread In-House Council and Fry Cook still around?
politicians are not afraid of the people or of consequences anymore
they don’t really have any incentive at all to function in a way that benefits us, particularly republicans as they’ve turned the sliders all the way up and put the game on rookie
fear of consequences, skin in the game, call it what you want. you're exactly right. with that lacking, things won't change.
The parliamentary system also plays a role. Though as you can see in Belgium's case, a parliamentary system can also cause complete gridlock in attempts to form a coalition government. We hold the Guinness world record for longest time without a functioning federal government. A whole 542 days and we beat a war-torn Iraq on our way to that record.
Obama's elections and successful terms unveiled the rot at the heart of American society. For Trump to be so impervious to scandals and for him to openly misuse of the power of the office, he HAS to have the backing of his entire party and its base.
I will respond to this later, famb. Haven't forgotten, just so tied up with doing other stuff on the computer that I haven't had the time to read and response in detail to anything lenghty.@rexanglorum, I tagged you because you're evidently one of if not the biggest Bernie supporter in here so I'd like to hear your thoughts.
RustyShackleford , Your posts are often long and you've had a bit of a love/hate relationship with Bernie so I'd like to hear your thoughts as well.
In light of Bernie’s second defeat, I have a theory. I could be completely off the mark of course.
What my theory comes down to is that I believe US progressive voters tend to vastly overstate the electability of their candidates in elections in general.
I underlined those 2 words because I make a vital distinction in this theory. I do believe that progressive idea(l)s generally tend to be popular throughout the country, as seen in polls where the ideas are presented without being attached to a politician or political ideology. The idea of ‘Medicare for all’ is a quite popular for example.
According to my theory however, the popularity of those ideas and ideals are often detached from the electability of a candidate pushing those ideas and policies. There is a gap there, and Bernie is a prime example of it. If you want to win, vote for a progressive, is often said.
Politicians all tend to have low approval ratings but Bernie was amongst the most popular, at some points the most popular.
Yet when the strongest progressive candidate sought the Democratic nomination, Bernie was resoundingly defeated both times. In the first instance by a universally strongly disliked candidate who was perceived as more of a moderate and had decades of baggage on top of that. In the second instance, Bernie's campaign was once again wiped out convincingly. This time by a candidate often perceived as weak and whose campaign's coffin was already prepared before South Carolina. Super Tuesday ended up becoming a complete blowout for Joe Biden.
To summarize, I believe it is clear that the popularity of progressive ideas and the electability of self-described progressive candidates only intersect and boost eachother to a small extent. If anything, it is the progressive candidate that boosts the popularity of those ideas, not the other way around for the most part.
Some progressives tend to ignore that clear gap and thus have a view of a progressive's electability that does not match with reality.
I have not given a whole lot of thought on what explains this clear gap but I presume it mainly has to do with how a progressive candidate is perceived by voters. The stigma of the word 'socialist' is still alive and well, including anything perceived to be related to that term.
For voters, there is a disconnect between the ideas and the candidate, and I presume what lies at the heart of that disconnect is general tribalism, the stigmatization of 'socialism' and trying to conduct effective messaging with that stigma hanging over one's head.
