I am terrified

[Rasp]

I have to admit that Louise Mensch is getting pretty far out there these days. But I still don't think it's fair to equate the two sides. Are there a few leftie loonies that honestly believe that Jason Chaffetz was paid off by the Russians to ignore warning signs on the election, or that there's a secret New York grand jury that's about to crack Trump's money laundering scheme wide open? Well, probably. There's 330 million people in this country. It's a decent bet that a few thousand buy into any random bit of nonsense at a time.

But to the extent that there IS a sense of conspiracy on the left, it mostly manifests as...well, as this thread. A vague sense that there is something fundamentally WRONG going on. A deep, pervasive wrongness perpetrated by larger forces that requires immediate action. Personally, I think that's rather overblown, but honestly that's as bad as it really gets. This is in sharp contrast to what we see from the right, where a terrifying large percentage of Republicans voters honestly believe things that are easily demonstrably as factually wrong.

Of course, this is largely intentional. Certain players on the Right basically decided to weaponize their conspiracy theorists, and it has proven very successful at getting certain types of Republicans elected. But the Republican Party and the US government as a whole are paying a terrible price for this success, and it is not a tactic the Left has really embraced yet.

The problem with equating "both sides" is we're broadly talking about 4 different groups.

The Establishment wings of each party and the Independents. for the establishment side they are identical enough to equate the two - so watered down by corporate interests they have lost any sense of identity outside party denomination. they have no political ideology or goals other than remaining in power. Then you have the more independent parts of the right and the left - both of which actually have agendas - you have the right which put trump up thinking he would try and push forward their agenda and mostly failed at doing so - and on the left you have Sanders failing to try and reform the democratic party and push the conversation in a socialist direction.

You can compare the establishments easily enough they're just mouthpieces for the ultra rich and not worth discussing - the sides with actual goals could not be more different. The fearmongering the left side of the corporate media has been pushing lately is just as unhelpful as when the right side did it in the lead up to the iraq war. Just take a breath and look at things more calmly don't let them get you worked up into a lather.

[The Romulan Republic]

Could say the same about you when it comes to calling people "Rightists."

The other side is just as bad! That makes it okay!

Aside from being very egalitarian and secularist?

Egalitarian? When you spent multiple posts trying to convince us how repealing DACA isn't so bad, really?

Secularist... well, I'm honestly not sure secularism is an inherently Left-wing position, though it tends to break down that way these days. Rather strangely, since Jesus's message doesn't really mesh with Republican Party values except on maybe a couple points.

Ideological blinders will do that.

Yeah. So will you consistently arguing in defence of far Right policies and candidates.

Like what?

Portraying the Left's allegations against Trump as equally ridiculous as Birthirism in this thread, attempting to downplay the injustice of the DACA repeal... I could find other examples, but those are the most recent that come to mind.

Pretty much all the political posts you make seem to be some variant of attacking the Democrats, or defending/downplaying Trump.

You can call yourself whatever you want, but actions speak louder than words.

Are you not reading what I actually post, or is what I'm posting going some kind of weird filter that spits out something completely different for you? It's almost like you just plain aren't reading and are making assumptions based on your apparent perception of me as one of those evil conservatives or something.

I am reading your posts. At great psychological pain to myself. And then drawing conclusions based on those posts.

Because they are.

Because you say so? I gave examples of serious accusations which are public record, and in some cases outright admitted/boasted about by Trump. You ignored this to just repeat your false assertion.

Basically, you are arguing here that all the Left-wing allegations against Trump are as absurd as saying Obama was born in Kenya even when he has released his long-form birth certificate. In doing so, you are effectively denying allegations that Trump himself has admitted on tape.

That absolutely makes you a Trump apologist, and no amount of repeating "I'm not a Rightist, you're the guilty one!" will make it true.

Either you are suffering from a breach with reality, or are one of the most brazen liars that I've ever seen outside the White House.

Funny thing is it was started by opposition within his own party during his 2008 campaign.

And?

This doesn't contradict or disprove one single thing that I said here. Regardless of where the birther bullshit originated, it was primarily employed by the Right, and is not remotely comparable to the allegations made against Trump in its absurdity.

This is literally just another attempt to deflect the conversation back onto "The Democrats are just as bad/worse", which you do again and again, whenever I criticize the Republicans or Trump.

There is a pattern here. I have drawn my conclusions about your likely sympathies and agenda based on that pattern.

Well there's that whole constantly accusing him of being a Nazi crap. Honestly, though, the OP speaks for itself. It makes me think of people freaking out over how Obama was going to make this a communist country and come take all our guns.

Except Obama never actually acted like an extremist. On the contrary, he far too often went out of his way to try to compromise with people who were calling him a secret Muslim, not a real America, a Nazi, a communist, etc.

Trump, on the other hand, has tried to ban people from entering the country on the basis of religion, fired the head of the FBI for investigating him, endorsed violence against protesters, boasted that he could publicly shoot someone and not lose a single vote, falsely claimed that millions of illegal immigrants voted against him and tried to use that to push further voter suppression, and used his position to harass critical reporters and deny them access. And if he did not personally collaborate with Russia to win the election (which remains to be seen), some top members of his campaign clearly did. All public record. People worry about him becoming a dictator because he acts like someone who's trying to become a dictator.

And of course, there's his trend of praising and openly admiring authoritarian leaders.

You can't say "The Right said horrible things about Obama, and the Left says horrible things about Trump, so they're just as bad", if one of those is based on the candidate's own words and actions, and the other is based on hating Democrats/black people. Not all allegations, even partisan allegations, are of equal merit. You are aware of this thing called "evidence", right?

Well Dubya is one of those evil Republicans, after all.

Well, yeah. And I do find some of the allegations leveled against W. unfair. He was a shit stain, of course, just not as big a one as some people make him out to be.

The Donald, unfortunately, is far worse. In a Bush II vs. Trump race, I wouldn't even have to think about which one to vote for.

[LittleRaven]

The Donald, unfortunately, is far worse. In a Bush II vs. Trump race, I wouldn't even have to think about which one to vote for.

I disagree. Strenuously. Trump will have to start (and lose) at least 2 wars before he can even get into W's league when it comes to damage inflicted on the country.

Trump is embarrassing in a way that even W managed to avoid. Government by senility is a humiliating experience for all involved. But he is also deeply unpopular and vigorously opposed by almost everyone...even those within his own party. This vastly limits the damage he can inflict. He says lots of stupid stuff - but he's accomplished almost nothing, and there's no sign of this changing any time soon.

Bush, by contrast, held the highest recorded approval rating ever for quite a decent amount of time, and was able to bend virtually everyone, even Democrats, to his will - which was almost universally terrible. We've still paying for his mistakes, and will be for the foreseeable future.

As cringe worthy as he is, I'd vote Trump in a heartbeat. At least from what we've seen so far.

[The Romulan Republic]

That "so far" is a big caveat. Trump has only had seven months to fuck with the country, to Bush's eight years.

You really want to see what Trump can manage in eight years? Hell, I'm half-expecting nuclear war with North Korea (and possibly China) before this year is out.

There is also the long-term consequence of seeing our legal and democratic institutions, and public trust in those institutions, systematically eroded. And of white supremacy being given a voice in the political mainstream again. Those may have less obvious and immediate negative effects than two lost wars, but not necessarily lesser ones, in the long run. And that's even without getting into the possibility that he may have colluded with America's enemies to steal the election.

I mean... the dubious manner of his election on the one hand, and his self-aggrandize, racist claims of mass voter fraud by illegal immigrants on the other, have basically (further) ensured that regardless of the outcome of the next election, the losing side with be primed to ensure that the losing side assumes the result is fraudulent, and invalid. That has terrifying implications for the long-term viability of American democracy.

Granted, some of that applies to Bush too, with stuff like Florida 2000 and the Patriot Act, but still not as blatantly as with Trump, in my opinion.

The brightest spot is that Trump is so obviously abhorrent that he tends to rally opposition against himself, even from his own party. And yet, their are still millions of people who can convince himself he's not that bad.

I mean, what will it take? How bad does he have to get?

[Rasp]

There is also the long-term consequence of seeing our legal and democratic institutions, and public trust in those institutions, systematically eroded. And of white supremacy being given a voice in the political mainstream again. Those may have less obvious and immediate negative effects than two lost wars, but not necessarily lesser ones, in the long run. And that's even without getting into the possibility that he may have colluded with America's enemies to steal the election.

Trump feels more like a symptom of the american goverment falling apart than the actual cause. things have been eroding at a steady pace since Regan got into office and the Democrats threw unions under the bus for good. The system has been getting progressively worse ever since and not one president has managed to hold back this tide in any way. The democrats may not be as bad as the far right but the certainly haven't been helping - going around trying to neuter any substantive efforts at reform and near universally supporting the cycle of endless war and never asking how the hell we pay for such things - just rubber stamping the next defense budget increase in a show of 'bipartisanship'.

You cant say trump is to blame for all of failing goverment systems it's that a vast majority of elected officials on both sides of the aisle were instructed to stall out reforms and further aide in mass deregulation. When things finally got bad enough trump got thrown through the window simply because he pretended he wasn't one of the same establishment clowns who broke everything in the first place.

[LittleRaven]

That "so far" is a big caveat.

It absolutely is. Trump's story is not yet finished. He may yet succeed in doing more harm than Bush. But he has a long, long way to go.

It's worth noting that by this time in his first term, Bush had pushed through his first major legislative package - his massive tax cut, which (among other things) killed the estate tax and insured that wealth distribution in this country would get steadily worse. He also created the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, (remember that gem?) issued a federal ban on abortion aid, and rejected the Kyoto protocol. Trump's so-called 'accomplishments' thus far are pretty meager by comparison.

But of course, the real test will come in about a year. Bush, you remember, accomplished the near-impossible in 2002 - he expanded his own party's grip on power during the midterms. Republicans managed to take the Senate and expand their House majority. Will Trump be able to replicate that feat? Maybe...but right now he's busy stumping for Republicans against other, even crazier Republicans. This does not exactly inspire confidence.

I mean, what will it take? How bad does he have to get?

Ironically, this conversation leads right to the answer.

Trump is currently sitting at about ~38% approval rating. That's...really quite bad. Polling history suggests that 25% is about as low as it's reasonably possible to go, and only one president has ever managed that particularly impressive feat. That president being - you guessed it - George W Bush. This was near the end of his term, so at this point, he had launched 2 unsuccessful and arguably unnecessary wars, been exposed as utterly incompetent with Katrina, and mismanaged his way into the biggest financial crisis since the 30s. And he STILL managed to get 25% in his corner. Never underestimate just how partisan Americans are.

So in order for Trump to fall even lower than he already is, he'll have to demonstrate that he's just as bad as Bush was. That's a very tall order, even for Trump.

[The Romulan Republic]

There is also the long-term consequence of seeing our legal and democratic institutions, and public trust in those institutions, systematically eroded. And of white supremacy being given a voice in the political mainstream again. Those may have less obvious and immediate negative effects than two lost wars, but not necessarily lesser ones, in the long run. And that's even without getting into the possibility that he may have colluded with America's enemies to steal the election.

Trump feels more like a symptom of the american goverment falling apart than the actual cause. things have been eroding at a steady pace since Regan got into office and the Democrats threw unions under the bus for good. The system has been getting progressively worse ever since and not one president has managed to hold back this tide in any way. The democrats may not be as bad as the far right but the certainly haven't been helping - going around trying to neuter any substantive efforts at reform and near universally supporting the cycle of endless war and never asking how the hell we pay for such things - just rubber stamping the next defense budget increase in a show of 'bipartisanship'.

I think you're exaggerating somewhat, and that its a mistake to treat the Democratic Party as a homogenous block.

I do think, though, that the Centre-establishment wing of the party, personified by the Clintons, learned and unfortunate lesson from defeat, which is that the only way to win is to be more "Centrist" and compromise, and they've never really grown past that, even when times changed. The post-9/11 atmosphere of rallying behind the (Republican) President, and "You're with us or you're with the terrorists", as well as Gore 2000 and Kerry 2004, probably heavily reinforced that defeatist mindset.

It took a combination of winning under Obama, the disaster of Trump, and Bernie Sanders to start breaking them out of that way of thinking, and its still a slow process.

You cant say trump is to blame for all of failing goverment systems it's that a vast majority of elected officials on both sides of the aisle were instructed to stall out reforms and further aide in mass deregulation. When things finally got bad enough trump got thrown through the window simply because he pretended he wasn't one of the same establishment clowns who broke everything in the first place.

I don't claim Trump is soley responsible, but I don't think he's just a symptom either. Existing flaws in our system enabled him to take power, but he is now exacerbating and deepening those problems, and adding new ones. Its a self-perpetuating cycle.

Which is why any solution has to begin with Trump going, but will not end with Trump going.

[LittleRaven]

It took a combination of winning under Obama, the disaster of Trump, and Bernie Sanders to start breaking them out of that way of thinking, and its still a slow process.

Let's be fair here. When you try something over and over again and get tanned every single time, eventually, people get wary. The Democrats have tried being the party of the hard left plenty of times. We did it in 1972. We tried again in '84. Both times we limped away with the taste of our own testicles in our mouths. Bernie tried to twist the party that way just last year, and he couldn't even beat Hillary in the land of fruits and nuts. If there's an actual hard left constituency out there....man, I wish they'd actually vote once in a while.

[Rasp]

I do think, though, that the Centre-establishment wing of the party, personified by the Clintons, learned and unfortunate lesson from defeat, which is that the only way to win is to be more "Centrist" and compromise, and they've never really grown past that, even when times changed. The post-9/11 atmosphere of rallying behind the (Republican) President, and "You're with us or you're with the terrorists", as well as Gore 2000 and Kerry 2004, probably heavily reinforced that defeatist mindset.

It took a combination of winning under Obama, the disaster of Trump, and Bernie Sanders to start breaking them out of that way of thinking, and its still a slow process.

I do not see any evidence to suggest they learned a damn thing and their movements and the media outlets that routinely support them suggest to me that they are all for continuing to double down on their mistakes. They cannot hope to defeat trump like this. They need to be ousted - as many as we can get - start with Pelosi and work our way down. We need more primary threats across ALL districts - the only way to beat this infestation is to surgically remove each maggot while it's vulnerable. Each one we remove is another stubborn beachhead we can use against both the democrats and the republicans.

The democratic party cannot be allowed continue as it is. Dismantle and rebuild seems like the best option- failing that we can establish a justice caucus to obstruct.

[The Romulan Republic]

I do think, though, that the Centre-establishment wing of the party, personified by the Clintons, learned and unfortunate lesson from defeat, which is that the only way to win is to be more "Centrist" and compromise, and they've never really grown past that, even when times changed. The post-9/11 atmosphere of rallying behind the (Republican) President, and "You're with us or you're with the terrorists", as well as Gore 2000 and Kerry 2004, probably heavily reinforced that defeatist mindset.

It took a combination of winning under Obama, the disaster of Trump, and Bernie Sanders to start breaking them out of that way of thinking, and its still a slow process.

I do not see any evidence to suggest they learned a damn thing and their movements and the media outlets that routinely support them suggest to me that they are all for continuing to double down on their mistakes. They cannot hope to defeat trump like this. They need to be ousted - as many as we can get - start with Pelosi and work our way down. We need more primary threats across ALL districts - the only way to beat this infestation is to surgically remove each maggot while it's vulnerable. Each one we remove is another stubborn beachhead we can use against both the democrats and the republicans.

The democratic party cannot be allowed continue as it is. Dismantle and rebuild seems like the best option- failing that we can establish a justice caucus to obstruct.

We just had a whole bunch of Democratic Senators, including a number of likely 2020 Presidential candidates, endorse Medicare for all. Even the ostensibly Wall Street-friendly Corey Booker. When Bernie Sanders first introduced it several years ago, do you know how many backers it had?

One.

That's not change?

Yet you have apparently decided, as a matter of ideology, that the Democratic Party is inherently bad, and any counter-evidence will be ignored. Not only that, but you have apparently decided that they are so bad that handing the country to the Republicans indefinitely on a silver platter is the better alternative.

Now, I'm all for primary challenges against overly cautious, conservative, or corrupt Democrats. The primaries are, in some respects, are where voters get the greatest range of choices, and I believe that our politics would benefit greatly from greater public involvement in them.

However, seeking to primary every Democrat simply because they're a Democrat is overly-broad, and obstructing them simply because they're Democrats is to actively harm the many causes where you and many prominent Democrats would otherwise be in accord.

I will vote progressive in the primaries, and Democrat in the general election. Because I actually want to accomplish something besides basking in the purity of my hatred.

With all due respect, your single-minded hatred of the Democratic Party makes you actively counter-productive to actually implementing progressive policy.

Oppose Democrats where they deserve to be opposed. Work with them where you have common ground. Learn to distinguish between the two, and between individual Democrats (a Clinton is not a Booker is not a Warren is not a Sanders).

Only then will you cease to be an active impediment to the causes you claim to support.