I dunno, his ‘Ron De-Sanctimonious’ jab was a big whiff, although I will admit that Trump has far stronger bulling tactics.

Additionally takeaways are that Beto and Abrams should stop running for senate, they do not have what it takes. — Maw

:up:

He seems to have been saying that a Democrat-led Senate would have affirmed Obama's Supreme Court nominee, and wouldn't have affirmed Kavanaugh or Barrett, only accepting more moderate nominees, and that such a Supreme Court wouldn't have overruled Roe and Casey. — Michael

Yes. This is what I meant.

Counterfactuals. Such speculation is fun, no doubt. — NOS4A2

Blow it off with a smirk if you want, but I can tell you with some certainty that if Hillary Clinton hadn't blown the 2016 election, there would be a 6 to 3 liberal majority on the Supreme Court and Roe vs. Wade would not have been overturned.

What if RBG didn’t die? Any speculations on what would have happened had she lived?

He's already got a cult following, and he'll embarrass DeSantis just as he did Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush -- and everyone else who's gotten in his way. But we'll see.... — Mikie

I've been predicting that Trump would fade away ever since November of 2020. We've all seen how that worked out. Early in 2016 he was given a 5% chance of winning the presidency. I think this election was the first one where the Republicans have had to face the consequences of what Trump and others have done to their party. My hope is that he will continue to be a monkey wrench in their machinery, but I am not confident that is what will happen.

What if RBG didn’t die? Any speculations on what would have happened had she lived? — NOS4A2

She was 147 years old. Of course she was going to die. But she thought her career as a SC justice was more important than maintaining balance. If she hadn't died until 2021, I guess the court would be 5 conservatives to 4 liberals. Perhaps Roe vs. Wade would still have been overturned, but Roberts' more moderate changes might have won out.

Fair enough. But, just to say, we can read the opinions of the highest court in the land to discover why in fact it was overturned.

The population of Scotland is less than the population of the state of Massachusetts, where I live. Given that, it makes a better test case for your reforms than a much larger country would. — T Clark

I agree. If Scotland does achieve independence, then the main goal of the political party (SNP, Scottish National Party) would have been achieved, so they would have to reconstruct themselves anyway. Perhaps that would offer a chance of major change.

In systems which don't use proportional representation that's how things technically work. Here in the UK you vote for an individual to represent your constituency.
It just happens to be that this individual has joined with like-minded others to pool their resources. — Michael

But that's not what happens in reality. You will be familiar with terms like 'safe tory seat.' or 'the red wall' etc, and you will have heard phrases like 'you could put a red rosette on a donkey, here, and it would get elected.' This is because many people vote blindly, for a party and not a candidate.
Many people don't scrutinise the candidate, they simply vote based on loyalty to the mission statements of a party. Often, these main party tenets, are not supported by the individual candidate wearing the correct colour of rosette for you. Tony Blair and Keir Starmer are absolute shades of tory blue (which is why Thatcher called Blair her greatest achievement) or liberal yellow. They are not socialists imo. I would not vote for either of them, if they stood in the constituency, I lived in.
People would be unable to be 'lazy minded' regarding their politics if they had to think a lot more about the individual independent candidates standing, instead of just voting for a traditional colour.
Many people/constituencies have demonstrated that they will change their traditional vote for a colour, due to being attracted to some clever sound bite-based, cult of personality that got a horror like Boris Johnstone elected in the UK, much of 'the red wall, turning blue.' Party politics is toxic in todays 'sound bite,' internet based political cult of personality, realpolitik.

I'm not really sure how you could take parties out of the political process. Perhaps by not having the party mentioned on the voting slip, just the candidate's name? I think in practical terms that will just reduce voter turnout as most people probably wouldn't know who the actual individuals are or what they plan to vote for, whereas they do understand parties. — Michael

It would require a countrywide political movement. I think an independent Scotland is a good candidate for such a change as the ruling party (SNP) would have to reinvent itself anyway, after independence.
Out of little acorns, big oak trees grow! I live in hope (not a forlorn hope imo.) that if enough people share my view that we need to get rid of party politics (It's a view held by a significant number of people.)
and if they say so and write so, whenever they/we can. Then I hope we can convince others and turn the idea into a movement for such change. Groups for progressive politics such as 'COMPASS' in the UK, may be a conduit. These are groups, interested in progressive politics rather that party politics and they could be a way forward. Getting the balance correct is crucial. I don't want a future government made up of independents that are all members (or a majority are members) of a group such as COMPASS.
So, I would suggest some 'cap' on how many members of 'particular groups' can stand as independent candidates for governance.
If a person agrees that party politics, produces too many governments, which run a country based on the interests of the party, much more than the interests of the people, then they should consider alternative systems which removes party politics from governance. I don't agree we can simply remove the rosettes and party ID from the ballot papers. I would replace political parties with a national political structure.
Everyone interested in politics can join this single group. Every area would have local branches. This is where all independent candidates would come from. I can go into the details of how I think this national institution would function at a local level, if you want me to.

I suppose I can spell it out for you. Once upon a time, decades ago, I had a disagreement with someone about philosophy, politics, or religion (can't remember) and they called me a bitter crank. The irony is that I was not / am not bitter, and in my opinion, not a crank either. I thought it a novel and amusing brickbat to turn into a bouquet. — Bitter Crank

Yes, I accept, you are in fact in reality, the opposite of what your chosen handle suggests. (Hence my use of 'Ironic.') I don't think it was a wise choice for an internet discussion forum. People make assumptions based on your chosen identifier and you are then left with the choice to dispell the assumption that you are bitter and cranky (as you are choosing to do right now) or decide to 'not care' about the assumptions of others. I do care about such incorrect assumptions, so I don't invite them unnecessarily, by using an ill-chosen handle.

If you still don't get it, or don't like it, then... too bad. — Bitter Crank

I do get it, I still don't like it, but I have no choice but to accept your 'too bad' :smile:

Thanks for your description of the remit of the US civil service .

I do not like the conduct of politics, but it is absurd to suppose that it can be done away with. Given the reality of politics, the best policy is to stay alert to what is going on above and below the table. That's what a free press is supposed to help us do. An eviscerated press can't perform it's vital functions. — Bitter Crank

I agree that a free press is essential to any democratic governance system. I accept your opinion that getting rid of governance based on an elected political party majority or by coalition is absurd. My only response to your opinion is to accept that the burden lies with me, and those who agree with me, that it can be done, and that governance via elected independents, would benefit the human race far more than current governance based on an elected political party. I hope for a future, where example nations can be pointed to combat your current opinion. Neither of us are likely to be around at the time but, hey ho, who knows.
Btw, even in our current party-political system in the UK, you can stand as an independent.

Politics exists because people have an appetite for power and preferences for particular policies.

The way to make politics really dangerous is to deny it exists. Some people apparently suppose that people conduct election campaigns, get elected, and then sit in legislatures or congress and engage in pristine impartial procedures to produce laws for the equitable good of all. Horse shit, of course. It's also dangerous to under rate the intensity of partisan motivation. There really are very ambitious people who covet power most greedily. — Bitter Crank

I think politics exists because people see the wisdom of living and working as a collective, driven by common cause. It's ruined due to the existence of a powerful, well established dynastic history of a nefarious few and the residue of such horrors as religion and the divine right of kings/messiahs/aristocracies/plutocracies etc to rule or govern. I certainly don't advocate for denying politics exist. Your quote above, 'concentrates' on those in politics who are nefarious. It just seems that everyone in politics is nefarious. But that is actually not true, at all! Do you accept that? or do you really think every politician is nefarious?

Do you accept that? or do you really think every politician is nefarious? — universeness

I accept that. No, I do not think most politicians are nefarious. Many politicians are well-motivated, with the intention to perform good public service.

That said, economic interests modify what "good public service" means. The United States is a big country with 300,000,000+ people. It is easier to judge politicians on a state and local level than the national level. That's probably true in the UK, too.

As for bitter crankery, it is just a handle, not a summation. It could be ishkabibble just as easily. Or universeness.

In addition to all that can be said about Trump causing the weak performance in the midterms, I think we can also credit/blame the Supreme Court. Having an entire branch of government sympathetic to Republican causes for the next few decades likely has taken some of the urgency of Republicans to elect representatives. That is, they're happy with the way things are, so it would follow that they have no motivation to shake up the status quo.

I say this to make Democrats sad, by telling them that the reason they won the mid-terms is because the Republicans don't care because they didn't matter. They already won something much bigger.

I say this to make Democrats sad, by telling them that the reason they won the mid-terms is because the Republicans don't care because they didn't matter. They already won something much bigger. — Hanover

Congress still makes the laws, though

It is easier to judge politicians on a state and local level than the national level. That's probably true in the UK, too. — Bitter Crank

I agree and I think it's such local level judgement that can best bring them down if they do prove to be nefarious. This is why I want to remove the current 'party protections' they have.

As for bitter crankery, it is just a handle, not a summation. It could be ishkabibble just as easily. Or universeness. — Bitter Crank

Now Ishkabibble would be at least comedic. Pistols at dawn if you try to steal my handle! :lol:
How about NotaBitterCrank?

My sense of U.S. politics is it's kind of like WWE where your guy taking a beating / the other guy winning is always very painful. This is borne out by my (limited) experience on U.S. politics forums, which are dominated by "Fuck you, we're gonna kick your ass" type posturing, likely supercharged in recent years by Trumpism. Also, from a practical viewpoint, with the Senate in his hands, Biden can continue to nominate Dem judges to the lower courts and pretty much ignore the House which, with a wafer thin majority, will mostly consist of Republican factions eating each other alive and nothing getting done. That's a big win for Dems. So, maybe at the margins wavering Republicans may have not bothered voting out of complacency, but wouldn't the type that care a lot about having a red Supreme Court also probably be team players that are going to vote pro-red / anti-blue every chance they get both to get the boot into the other side and due to hot-button issues like abortion etc? Like, if you're cheering that abortion rights have been curtailed by the SC, you really don't want a pro-choicer representing you at local level, correct?

All's this to say that imo the election result wasn't so much about your average Republican or Dem voters but independents who were put off by the raft of shitty Republican candidates Trump successfully pushed for and thought the Dems the lesser of two evils, i.e. moderates that would normally lean Republican in mid-terms set against a backdrop of serious economic uncertainty and an unpopular President but were given reason not to this time. And if that's the case, the absolute last red ticket you want is Orange Man redux, especially seeing as for some unfathomable reason, the equally awful De Santis seems acceptable to most Americans and would probably have an excellent chance against sleepy Joe (who seems intent on ignoring his curtain call). So, the danger here is you hand Biden a second term and the House back to the Dems without them having to do anything but sit back and watch Trump implode. Maybe a really bad recession saves you, but that's your only Hail Mary.

Are you sad yet? I'm really trying to make you sad here... :halo:

I read your post by skimming down the middle of it, so if I say something that doesn't really respond to it, it has to do with my reading style.

I think the win for Trump here is that with a Republican majority in the House, the investigative committee against him will be disbanded and then they can go about the important business of investigating Hunter Biden's computer or some such shit.

Trump rules from fear, which he uses only against his own party to keep them from challenging him, leaving a bunch of battered opponents waiting for the chance to destroy him once he's been weakened, which seems to be about now.

I need to go vote in a few days. It's between Warnock and Walker. It's a difficult choice. I sort of like the idea of a pro-life candidate who has paid for a few of his girlfriends' abortions. Something just rings true about that.

Leaving that aside, the guy seems to be a scumbag from just about every angle. If you do vote for him, for the love of Yahweh at least have the decency to lie about it afterwards.

I need to go vote in a few days. It's between Warnock and Walker. It's a difficult choice. I sort of like the idea of a pro-life candidate who has paid for a few of his girlfriends' abortions. Something just rings true about that. — Hanover

Yes, a form of demonstrated honesty about the nature of politics. I wonder how many ex-professional athletes have served in congress in the last few years? Walker is from my alma mater. :sad:

I need to go vote in a few days. It's between Warnock and Walker. It's a difficult choice. I sort of like the idea of a pro-life candidate who has paid for a few of his girlfriends' abortions. Something just rings true about that. — Hanover

:lol:

Leaving that aside, the guy seems to be a scumbag from just about every angle. If you do vote for him, for the love of Yahweh at least have the decency to lie about it afterwards. — Baden

Herschel was a hell of a running back, which usually translates into an equally amazing upper legislative chamber member.



BTW them Dawgs is #1 right now, probably will win the national title. Coinkidink? I think not.

I sort of like the idea of a pro-life candidate who has paid for a few of his girlfriends' abortions. Something just rings true about that. — Hanover

I get what you're talking about. It would be a shame not to recognize such an accomplishment. There is something profound, sublime, in the shamelessness.

Walker is from my alma mater — jgill

A long line of Hanovers went to UGA. One's now in Colorado. Son, is that you?

A long line of Hanovers went to UGA. One's now in Colorado. Son, is that you? — Hanover

Not me, dad. I flew off the campus into the USAF back in 1958, when your daddy was in diapers. :smile:

My dad was in diapers when he was 20?

Now I know where I inherited my pervyness.

↪jgill
My dad was in diapers when he was 20? — Hanover

Is that a question? I hope he wasn't. But he could be now, being about my age!

I need to go vote in a few days. It's between Warnock and Walker. It's a difficult choice. I sort of like the idea of a pro-life candidate who has paid for a few of his girlfriends' abortions. Something just rings true about that. — Hanover

But he'd rather be a werewolf than a vampire, and everyone knows that werewolves are lame.

So, in the video Herp-a-durp stepped on another dude's head and that counts `as a score, I get it. As for the connection to politics, is this how you decide which laws get passed in 'Murica? Party members step on each other's heads and those with the least brain damage get to make the laws? ...Plausible.

I sort of like the idea of a pro-life candidate who has paid for a few of his girlfriends' abortions. Something just rings true about that. — Hanover

And an enthusiastic cocaine and meth user who is for harsher jail terms.

Well, Canada had a mayor who indulged in crack....

Nevertheless, onto the thread here, it is a tribute to Republican fanaticism that they could not pick up a single senate sit. Not that this makes it a ride for Biden, given Sinema and Manchin - those two are Republicans too.

But these right wingers fucked up with the abortion issue and not wanting to consider student loan forgiveness and on and on.

Sadly, no change in FP from either party, which is alarming given how many dangerous conflicts are waiting for a spark.

, in the video Herp-a-durp stepped on another dude's head and that counts `as a score, I get it. As for the connection to politics, is this how you decide which laws get passed in 'Murica? Party members step on each other's heads and those with the least brain damage get to make the laws? ...Plausible — Baden

Now you've put me on a mission to find a crazy Irish politician so I can retaliate and divert. Let me get to Googling and I'll be back in a few.