Capitol Hill Blue
Posted By: jgw National Commission to Investigate the January 6 - 05/22/21 05:08 PM
The National Commission to Investigate the January 6 attack is filling up the news. The problem seems to be to create this commission by assigned congress folk to do the job. As far as I am concerned this is simply not going to happen, pure and simple. It has been completely politicized by, I think, both parties.

I also think that this really needs to be done and Biden can do it. Create this thing with the best people he can find that will stick to the subject and get the answers. We have, amongst others for instance, universities filled with experts in the entire thing, lock, stock and barrel. Such commissions have been created before and, now, its time to get this done so we can all learn just what, exactly happened! (maybe even find out what to actually do about it and responsibilities).

Makes sense to me. Right now I am just really tired of the politics surrounding this one. The Republicans have their marching orders from their Lord and Master and the Dems have made all the points available so, again, create the commission as politically neutral as possible, get it done, and move on!
These are the same folks who investigated Benghazi and Hillary's emails to death.

If the commission is allowed to move forward the results will be devastating for Republicans in the midterms. That's the crux of the biscuit.

And that's among the many factors it I think which is going to make the midterms fairly kind to the Democrat's.
First they need a commission and that is simply not going to happen if the Republicans have anything to say about it. So, I stick to creating a civilian commission of experts to delve into 1/6.

Enough with the politics - on both sides. Just get on with it!

Oh, I just heard that Mike Pense has a brother. That brother was involved with 1/6 as a participant. I can only wonder if he was one of those wanting to hang him!
Is creation of the commission dependent on Congress doing it? Is that subject to a filibuster? I'm not sure it is, since it doesn't require a bill to become a law. Could be that a simple majority is enough. But it could be done as a House investigation. The Senate has no say over House investigations. That could be totally controlled by Democrats, so maybe a threat to do a House investigation will get Republicans on a non-partisan non-congressperson commission.
I think that the president can establish a commission. I cannot understand why Biden hasn't already done it! It simply needs being done and presidential commissions have a pretty good record (Hoover commission was one by Harry Truman). There is now suggestions being floated about appointing 'retired' politicians to be appointed. I think the entire thing, so far, is just another political grab by one side or the other. I also think its silly.

Biden should be doing this right now. He has, in his appointments so far (he still is waiting for the congress to complete his appointments) done pretty good. Its obvious that he listens to his people and they seem competent so get on with appointing a1/6 commission and skip the congressional self embarrassment!

As a matter of fact I am going to drop a note to Biden on this one right now!
I think all it would take is an executive order. Previous presidents have done this, the latest I think was by Trump to investigate law enforcement. The independent counsel law expired in 1999.
Strategically Democrats need a bi-partisan commission. I think they're stalling it hoping to shame some Republicans into voting for it.

Aint gonna work. Republicans won't flinch.

Do we really need the commission? I think everybody knows the truth already.
This is, exactly, what Obama did, ie. wasted a LOT of time trying to get bi-partisan legislation. He failed with most legislation and so will Biden. Biden's problem is his history of bi-partisan work and he is under the impression that the Republican loons will do that. They haven't, and they won't, and Mitch has made that very, very clear from the getgo.

The Dems must get off their collective butts and start doing stuff. Given the huge amounts Biden plans to spend he really needs to have the congress so he can tax the rich. If he can't do that he just doesn't and that sinks his ship. To do that he has to win big-time next year and his problems will lessen support and then the Dems won't come out in 202 which means he will lose all the way down the line.

I, for one, would love to see him get a lot of his stuff done but, I fear, its just not gonna happen. He can get the spending through but, without the ability to tax the rich he won't be able to pay for anything, and he will surely fail and that is not gonna happen without winning in 2022.

He can, however, get a 1/6 commission up and running and, I suspect, whatever they can come up with before the 2022 elections should seriously help. That being said I don't even see that happening. The Dems need to have common messages of interest - and they don't even have that! As far as I can tell them in charge, of the Dems, have absolutely no plan to win a damned thing!
Any commission, be it bi-partisan or solely Democrat appointed, if anyone speaks ill of Mr. Trump then it is nothing but fake news and a witch hunt.

Will the commission change any hearts or minds or is it just political theater. Personally I'd rather never hear Trump's name again and I believe that most of the voting age public feels much the same way. To put him on trial again with the same jury and judge will just be more free press, more headlines and more red meat for the base.

I'd rather they go down on the books as blocking any investigation into the crimes committed that day, essentially obstruction. The FBI is continuing to gather information and it appears the attack might have been planned in advance...which advances the charges somewhat. We can do that commission any time. I'm not against it by any means but Republicans seem dead set on blocking it. They might not be good at governing but they are experts in preventing anyone else from governing either.
Yeah, changing hearts and minds, no, regardless of who is on the commission or whether it bipartisan or just Democrats. I've always been in favor of letting the DOJ do its thing by rounding up, charging, prosecuting those involved. Also of letting the New York and Atlanta AG's work through grand juries they both have impaneled.

You know Democrats and Republicans have their minds made up already. Regardless of the type or what the commission finds, they aren't about to change their minds. Who would the commission be playing to then? Independents, not really, for quite a lot of them, 6 Jan is ancient history. Too many new problems for them to worry about. I say this as 31% of independents strongly want the commission, 25% strongly oppose, the rest basically shrug. Political theater sums it up nicely.

It's like I said during the impeachments of Trump, it won't be in the political arena Trump is held accountable, it will be in the legal arena. Give it time, the legal process is slow, but the day of reckoning will eventually come.
Asking the Republiclowns to help investigate the 1/6 Insurrection is like asking the dog to help investigate who pooped on the carpet.

Hmm
Talkin’ ‘Bout A Revolution

The unanimous Declaration of the Trumpian Dogs of America, When in the Course of pooping events, it becomes necessary for the Dogs to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with reason, truth, and honesty, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them to poop upon the carpet, a decent respect to the opinions of canine-kind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

To wit: We don’t like that Biden won, so insurrection is hereby declared to be a noble and Constitutional act, and it wasn’t us who pooped on the carpet - nobody knows who did it (probably Auntie Faw...).
I don't think it matters whether congress investigates or not. Public trust in congress is down to 13%, those who think congress is honest is down to 10%. So who's going to believe their results unless their results are what one wants to believe? Minds are already made up way ahead of any potential investigation.

No need to go into the reasons why so many folks distrust congress or think they completely dishonest. everyone will have different opinions on that.

What will happen if congress does investigate, their report will be big news for a few days after they release it, the polls will probably spike in the Democrats favor. Then a couple of weeks later it will all be forgotten by the public as a whole, the numbers will return to the pre-release figures. It will be as if the investigation never took place.

The only congressional investigation that meant anything was the Watergate one, it resulted in the resignation of Nixon and huge gains in congress in the midterm elections of 1974. A gain of 49 house seats giving the Democrats 291 and 5 senate seats to 61.

I can't remember any high profile congressional investigations since that had any lasting effects. Not even Iran-contra. Shortly after that investigation, Bush I easily defeated Dukakis.

Most Americans have short memories and even a shorter attention span. I'm not saying having a investigation is the wrong thing to do, quite the contrary, it's the right thing. What I'm saying is 2 weeks to a month after, it'll be ancient history like it never happened to most Americans. Some other hot issue or major event will have taken its place. That's the way these things work.

Things taking place in the political arena usually have little lasting effect. Now the legal arena is different. This is why I say let the DOJ, the AG"s of New York and Atlanta continue their work. Their work will have a more lasting effect than any investigation which will be written off as a political side show. A partisan event which means nothing except for those of one party or the other.

Am I a cynic, you betcha. I became one way back in the 1990's.
Originally Posted by perotista
I don't think it matters whether congress investigates or not. Public trust in congress is down to 13%, those who think congress is honest is down to 10%. So who's going to believe their results unless their results are what one wants to believe? Minds are already made up way ahead of any potential investigation.

No need to go into the reasons why so many folks distrust congress or think they completely dishonest. everyone will have different opinions on that.
THAT is exactly what Donald Trump and the GQP want.


Originally Posted by perotista
Am I a cynic, you betcha. I became one way back in the 1990's.
Newt Gingrich's work is done.
Originally Posted by logtroll
Talkin’ ‘Bout A Revolution

The unanimous Declaration of the Trumpian Dogs of America, When in the Course of pooping events, it becomes necessary for the Dogs to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with reason, truth, and honesty, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them to poop upon the carpet, a decent respect to the opinions of canine-kind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

To wit: We don’t like that Biden won, so insurrection is hereby declared to be a noble and Constitutional act, and it wasn’t us who pooped on the carpet - nobody knows who did it (probably Auntie Faw...).


laugh
Quote
Most Americans have short memories and even a shorter attention span. I'm not saying having a investigation is the wrong thing to do, quite the contrary, it's the right thing. What I'm saying is 2 weeks to a month after, it'll be ancient history like it never happened to most Americans. Some other hot issue or major event will have taken its place. That's the way these things work.
ahhhh .... nope

for most things you are correct but not on this issue. Typically you could name an issue or scandal, and you would be right, but one should recognize the fact it may not apply to ALL situations. This is one of those.

THE BASE. I don't know how many times I can say the words, it apparently does not sink in. The base is moving the narrative, and THE BASE is not forgetting an iota of anything. Read the latest polling. Huge % of Republicans believe/know the election was stolen. No amount of auditing or hand counting by anyone will persuade them otherwise. They believe/know the insurrectionists were right to attempt to overthrow an illegal, invalid, stolen election. Why would you believe or think these folks would change their mind????

Republican Senators do not care whether you or anyone else believes they are doing it out of politically duplicitous considerations. What they care about is THE BASE which will turn them out in favor of even more radical extremists and if necessary will resort to violence to achieve their goal. With the help of a compliant media, these leaders have turned THE BASE into a savage mob of ignorant bigots.

Who is going to stop them? Not Trump and certainly not the people who have been elected already. I sounded the alarm of just how crazy these folks are before 1/6 .... should I now consider myself a voice crying out in the wilderness?
That's true with both major party's bases. The base of each party remembers everything. The thing is the Republican base won't ever vote Democratic and the Democratic base won't ever vote Republican regardless of what happens. They've become mindless robots for their party. Nothing else matters.

Am I being cynical, certainly. What I'm saying whatever happens with the commission isn't about to change anyone's mind. Knowing this, I would assume all of this is for or playing to independents or swing voters, the non-affiliated. But it is those swing voters, the non-affiliated who have the shortest memories. Republican base will remember the impeachments, remember this commission and get out and vote. Democrats will forever remember Trump and the Republican obstruction of their goals and they'll get out and vote.

When asked have you heard about the 1-6 commission and the amount of attention they have given to it. 32% of independents answered a lot. They're paying attention to what is going with this. 50% said they heard a little about it, tid bids in the news, not paying much attention to it. 18% responded they heard nothing at all about it, since they haven't heard a word about the commission, you know they're not paying attention.

Perhaps, I don't know, is why independents, the non-affiliated aren't pay that much attention is that to them 1-6 is ancient news. Replaced by hotter issues and more recent news and events. Perhaps another reason is Trump is no longer president, they wanted him gone, he's gone, mission accomplished. Time to move on to other things and problems.

Now those non-affiliated who are paying a lot of attention to what is happening with the commission, 31% strongly want it, 21% somewhat want it, 10% somewhat don't want it and 25% strongly oppose having the commission. I'm still trying to figure out what somewhat favor and somewhat oppose means. Probably they don't care all that much either way. My SWAG.

You're absolutely correct in that both major party's base will remember everything. Everyone knows exactly how they'll vote and who'll they'll support. Boring. What perks me up is the study of independents, swing voters, the non-affiliate who decide national elections.
I think we really need a commission into 1-6 We need it now because it pertinent, right now. When its done then I doubt very much that many will read the report but the findings will be covered by the press. Factual coverage of something that should not have happened and why it shouldn't have happened. A lot of things went wrong with that one as well. It was a Trump effort and he might have pulled it off except that it was another Trump failure for all to see because Trump himself is, basically a loser supported by other losers. I think one of the problems is that the Dems don't seem to get it.

I believe now is the time because its now. I also think that Biden should get off his wishful butt and get it done. The Dems, as far as I can tell, have no message and no discipline, and can't seem to get off their collective butts and get on with it. If they lose as bad in 2022 as they did in 2020 they, and the rest of us, are well and truly screwed. They have a slight majority and they would do well to start using it because, if they don't, its gonna get a LOT worse!
Quote
The base of each party remembers everything
ok ... you missed the point.

you're thinking low level issues ... not what I am typing about nor is it what the Trump Base is believing/thinking/knowing. I am talking 1860. Yes 1860 .... irreconcilable differences with the additional flavor they don't like the America you live in. Elections are for the elites who cheat and steal ballots. When push comes to shove, they are talking civil war.

I am surrounded by these clowns. They are politically delusional. I know your response ... yeah sure but you havent seen anything like it before so it aint happening now. Yeah but you said that before 1/6 .... and still you are in denial. I think you are so cynical and skeptical of the powder keg youre sitting on, you believe it is a strange chair, but Republican leaders know the dangers of THE BASE and are scared they can not control their own people.

Mr Trump is a narcissist .... sorry if you don't believe it, and THE BASE is politically delusional and reside in Mr Trump narcissistic delusions.

You may not think, even if you should consider it true and valid, it is a problem, but it may be worse than I think it is. We live in politically dangerous times and I believe a heightened state of awareness and readiness, if called to action, is necessary for our Democracy to survive.
In furtherance of this at the Patriot Roundup for God and Country Kraken Lady Powell and Gen Flynn both stated the sentiments of the crowd .... Mr Trump is still president .... the election was stolen ... etc etc

If you don't think these folks are delusional weeeeellllll ....

America .... we got a problem
The problem as I see it, is this modern political era we've entered into. The polarization, the great divide and the mega, ultra high partisanship. In my opinion Trump is nothing more than an end result of that. Not the cause.

What was so appealing to the Republicans of Trump. He was a fighter, he wouldn't take any lip from anyone. He had no political ideology, no philosophy, he stood for nothing except himself. But he was a fighter among so many other things. Republicans were mad at their own congressional critters, for not standing up to Obama. For some unknown reason when the GOP recaptured the house in 2010, they expected them to run the government. Stupid, insane, but that was what they expected. Never mind Obama was still president, the Democrats still controlled the senate, they expected the GOP house to run the government which was impossible.

Trump, the 7 time party switcher believe in nothing or everything political depending on how one looked at him. He'd switch his positions, his political views to whichever party he belonged to at the time. He was no more than an egotistical opportunist among with a thousand other adjectives with no political beliefs. His loyalty extends no further than to just himself, no one else, nothing else.

These angry Republicans revolted against the GOP establishment, against life long, conservative ideological Republicans in favor of a man who had been a Republican for a less than 3 years when he announced his bid for the GOP nomination. For the third time being a Republican I'll add.

These angry revolter's in my opinion aren't interested in any conservative cause, although they say they are. Is Trump a danger to democracy, a threat, but not a real threat in overturning democracy. He's too unrefined, too obnoxious, too uncouth, too rude, too much like the schoolyard bully which no one likes or wants outside of his gang.

The real danger would come from a smooth talker able to take more folks in than just his gang. Granted, Trump's gang probably makes up 30-35% of America. But a more suave individual able to charm his way into more than half of America's heart would be the real danger. Not a coarse, blunt, gruff man like Trump. One who was too easy to dislike by a majority of Americans.
Seems like lies, bullying, and fear are big players in the overthrow of sensible governments. Trump's gang may 'only' be 30-35% of Americans, but his power associated with lies, bullying, and fear affect a much larger group.
I wonder. I wonder that the United States is the third largest nation, in population, in the entire world! The first is China and the Second is India. China is pure authoritarian and India has an ongoing religious war going. The current leader of India tend to authoritarian and is pro-hindi (the religion). The United States, on the other hand thinks of itself as a small country trying, very hard, to be almost liberal and free from all that bad stuff that China and India indulges in.

If you have read the above I am sure most have have a problem with it. I suspect that main thought is that its just wrong and just not us. We also tend to think, a lot, about us. Most of us think of the United States as a single country that has freedom for everybody. I also suspect that all of us are wrong and its pretty necessary that we all start a kindofa educational effort to actually understand ourselves - ALL OF US! We got problems and the problems are, quite possibly, worse rather than better.

All I am saying is that there is a whole lot of us and we are, more and more, at each other's throats. My thought is that we had better start figuring out just why that is before we have serious problems! The pandemic is also of interest. The pandemic is a medical problem which has killed, I think, over 500,000 people! That's pretty serious. We also know how to control it and deal with it. All that being said there are, right now, millions of people who don't believe what I just said. They have turned the pandemic into a political thing which you get to vote for or against and, somehow, that will fix the problem. One of the ways to control the problem is to wear a face mask. In American these millions of non-believers actually believe that masks are somehow the tools of the evil beings that invented the fake pandemic to enslave them (really!). It even gets better! The side that believes in the pandemic think that its so obvious nobody has bothered to actually explain to non-believers why their belief is killing others! Killing others! I am on the side that believes in the pandemic and prefers not to die. The other side doesn't care and that tends to make me a bit nervous.

I suspect that the real problem is that there is simply too many of us to live under the present system with any kind of comfort. The non-believers have a solution - authoritarianism! They want a dictator to figure it all out and then we can have freedom! This is serious stuff! The other side understands that the pandemic is real and dangerous and are trying to fix it with almost authoritarian methods without really explaining anything! They think they have but - they haven't (its SO obvious - there is no need).

So, again, we have two sides and that's the problem. Neither side is interested in the beliefs of others as they are flat out right. One side believes nothing is real, when it comes to pandemic, and the other believes in the pandemic - its almost that simple! (and crazy) Hell, nobody can even win a fight like this, its like we all live in a very strange place which nobody really understands.

It dawns on me that it is actually possible to list the differences between sides as they are stark. Perhaps somebody should do that one - it would be interesting.

Sorry, on reflection I apologize for going on, and on, and on, and on.......
No problem, I find it quite interesting. But I'm not sure how to reflect on it. I think one problem is our great ideological divide that has become a political party divide. At one time both major parties had their conservative and liberal wings. The Republicans had their liberal Rockefeller Republicans in in the Northeast which was basically solid republican at that time while the Democrats had their solid conservative south. The Midwestern conservatives were republican, very different from the southern democratic conservatives. Both parties had their own ideological divide with the two major parties themselves. Then the Democrats discarded it's conservatives and the GOP got rid of its liberals leaving us not only with an ideological divide which was always there, but with that ideological divide is now a huge party divide. A divide not within factions of both parties, but a united ideological divide of one party vs. the other.

This is something that can't be corrected as long as each party views the other as this nation's number one enemy.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/pu...voters_see_each_other_as_america_s_enemy

As long was neither will listen to the other, as long as each is out to destroy the other, as long as each paints the other as the epitome of evil, as long as both sides fail to cooperate and compromise like they use to, the polarization, the mega, ultra high partisanship will continue and the great divide will only grow.

What has been forgotten that was there in the past when both parties has their liberal, conservative wings along with moderates is the notion that the goal of each party was a secure, free and prosperous America. It seems to me that hate for the other party has replaced respect. We live in a 100% purely negative political world. So things aren't about to change, no change is possible until the rancorous and vitriol rhetoric, speech of both parties for the other ceases.

That I think is impossible in our polarized political word of today where if one has a different political point of view, that person becomes the enemy.
I don't really recall those Halcyon days when the two parties were friends and jovial colleagues....

From the very beginning there have been fisticuffs and shootings and duels to the death.

We didn't make it 100 years as a nation before we fell into a devastating civil war.

I maintain that it is now as it has always been,
Quote
Trump is nothing more than an end result ... Not the cause.
Yes ... you started out ok with the obvious and then ....

Rationalizations, one after another. Look I get it. We havent had a coup in this country, so why would anyone think it could happen here? But there was an attempt on 1/6. You never imagined it could happen all the while I was warning this forum of the very real possibility.

Quote
The real danger would come from a smooth talker able to take more folks in than just his gang
Let's see .... so smooth talking Trump .... wait a sec .... Trump never in life was a smooth talker .... he is a narcissistic bully who speaks like a bowl of garden vegetables ... and yet ... he was able to harness the Republican base with idiotic promises of making white people masters .... what imaginary real danger of which you type??? You need look no further, we already have a real danger and his name is Donald Trump. .

You are correct about the delusional Trump supporters. They account for about 1/3 of voters in last election. So what makes you believe that is not enough people to participate in a coup??? Lenin did it with far fewer people. Hitler managed to gain power with a similar number of elected officials.

Gen Flynn at the same Patriot Roundup for God and Country alluded to gaining power through a coup. Imagine that!!!! .... a former general in the US Army willing to overthrow the government. It is well known there are many Trump supporters in the military, including a list of crazy ex generals who believe the election was stolen.

Just how many clues does it take for someone to suspect something is happening ....

Heads up ...
Originally Posted by perotista
As long was neither will listen to the other, as long as each is out to destroy the other, as long as each paints the other as the epitome of evil, as long as both sides fail to cooperate and compromise like they use to, the polarization, the mega, ultra high partisanship will continue and the great divide will only grow.
It’s the “both sides” dead end again.

Are there really only two sides, and are they really symmetric?

Are they even stable and consistent in what they represent?

Are “both sides” responsible for a growing political divide when one side is staying on the job while the other sides sails off in a ragtag fleet of pirate ships loaded with assault weapons that they claim the Constitution wants them to have so they can overthrow a government that won’t allow them to rule as a minority?

Is there any utility in the “both sides” postulate? This particular topic is about establishing a commission to fully investigate an insurrection to overthrow the U.S. government. It is connected to a refusal to accept the results of national elections, which have been diligently conducted and audited. “Both sides” are not doing this. It portends total chaos for American government, which is already suffering from chaos resulting from decades of escalating and intentional lying and dishonesty directed at undermining trust in government - “both sides” are not doing this.

Perhaps the investigation would be more properly named the “Commission to Figure Out How To Stop America From Going To Sh!t”?

It doesn’t feel right to me that we should ignore this just because “independents” won’t remember the insurrection by the time the next election rolls around, therefore there won’t be any political benefit to be had from it.
Are there really only two sides, and are they really symmetric? They are in the sense that in our political system, a 2 party system there are only two choices. One can say you do have multiple choices when third party candidates are considered, but most of those only get on a couple of state ballots and on average only receive 1.5% of the the total vote and none of the big money financing from corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, mega money donors etc.

There's no doubt we have a great ideological divide regardless of how both sides act. Although recently I would say one side isn't that ideological anymore, worshiping a man instead of promoting their party's ideology. The other side remained constant with ideology. So in that sense things are out of skelter. In the other sense, republicans opposing any proposal made by the democrats and the democrats opposing any proposal made by the republicans, not based on any merits or lack of merit of the proposal, only who proposed goes on. At least since what I term the beginning of our modern political era of polarization, divisiveness and mega, ultra high partisanship.

Trump is a result of the modern era of our politics, not the cause. Political escalation and payback of things done is normal in our modern political era. In 2006 Schumer said the Democratic controlled congress wouldn't consider any Bush SCOTUS nominations if an opening occurred. Payback for than was McConnell not allowing a vote on Garland, escalation. Reid first used the nuclear option for all presidential appointments but excluded the SCOTUS, as payback McConnell then used the nuclear option, escalated it to include the SCOTUS, hence Kavanaugh and Barrett.

Perhaps it's today's party's political leaders we have to thank. Party firsters. Lott and Daschle would never have even dreamed of the nuclear option or denying a vote on a SCOTUS nominee. Neither would have Mitchell and Dole or Baker and Byrd going back further. Straight party line votes never happened under their senate leadership. They do all the time under Reid, Schumer and McConnell. Just using the senate as an example.

Of course, in today's modern political era it is always the other party's fault, the other party is always to blame, not my party. I do however think Trump has thrown a twist into that whereas one party has become fixated on a man, not ideology while as I stated earlier, the other remained constant. Hence you have a valid point in my opinion.

I don't think there is any fixing that can be done until Trump disappears. Then maybe a complete change in party leadership to get back to a previous political era where cooperation between parties is possible, where compromise is more the norm than thinking it is total surrender to the other side. To where each party respects the other and is willing to work with the other where ever possible. We need to get back to where both sides of the aisle respect and acknowledge the others political point of view.

If Reagan and Tip O'Neill can work together to get things done, political leaders of entirely different political philosophies, I don't see why it isn't possible today. Except each party today views the other as this nation's number one enemy instead of a political opponent with a different political point of view.

When Trump goes, completely disappears, perhaps that may be possible. But I highly doubt it. Not without a complete change of both parties leadership. Perhaps the base of each party doesn't want to go back to compromise and working together where possible. Perhaps their present view of the other party being public enemy number one is now too ingrained to change. I have little to no hope of this changing, Trump or no Trump.
Quote
the democrats opposing any proposal made by the republicans, not based on any merits or lack of merit of the proposal,

Perhaps you'd like to take a stab at mentioning an instance where this happened.|

Perhaps you could list a few Republican Proposals with some merit...any merit.

Or an instance where the Democrats used the filibuster to kill popular Republican proposals...

I'll wait.
Quote
I have little to no hope of this changing, Trump or no Trump.

Me and my peeps have every intention of changing it over the next 20-50 years. I think we hit the bottom with Trump and we have nowhere to go but up from here.

There isn't another McConnell waiting in the wings.

DeSantis(or whomever) is not Donald Trump.

Reid is gone, Pelosi's days are numbered. We are at the end of a political era.

The silver lining to this is that a new political era is about to begin.
I have suggested, in another subject that Trump is exactly and precisely just like a TV preacher who has been able to harangue his believers for years by the TV industry itself who loves him because he makes them money.

Remember too, the south has been building statues, naming schools, and building museums to their fallen in the civil war which they continue to support to this very day! If you don't understand then go down to the southern states and take a look. Its blatant and obvious. When Nazi Germany lost we tried, with the help of many anti-Nazi Germans to erase their presence. All the statues, places, etc. have been destroyed. They were bad people doing bad things and treated accordingly.

Here however that was the plan but it never happened. Instead we have people in the South delighted with the thought of another run at the "Republic", with the full support of their teachers, politicians and government! Hell, many of the same people are actually professing admiration of Adolph Hitler! The current on that one is "Adolph Hitler was right!". At the same time our TV industry, greedy and powerful, love the new Hitler (Trump) because they can make money off him (right up until they get taken over by them)

In other words the United States of America did a really lousy job of winning the civil war and, now, we may have to do it all over! As far as I can tell the Trump thing is just an extension of the civil war AND Nazism AND religion and the rest of us still think its politics! It isn't - its worse. If we don't do something its gonna get a LOT worse whilst we continue being fooling around with folks who are, basically at war with devil worshiping monsters. Parties, etc have absolutely nothing to do with it!

We have, I think, a serious problem..........
Political wise maybe. But I'll remind you that in today's all volunteer military 40% comes from the south. The south provides much more than its share when it comes to defending this country. More than any other region of the country. But most in the military are apolitical or non-partisan. At least they don't show their political leanings on their sleeves.

Now active duty, retired, veterans tend to vote Republican more than Democratic, but there's a long history as to why.

I'll add this, as a Georgian I know of no one that wants another run at the Republic as you put it. Fact is we've been too busy defending her and defending her with more than our share of folks.
You are right about the military and how they vote and, I suspect, not just southern military vote that way as most think that Republicans support the military better than the Dems (and may be right!). I wasn't referring to those so much as I was referring to the militias. On reflection, however, most of those are northern. What I was basing it on was all the little confederate museums down there and they too might be gone too. I hitchhiked through the south two times. In each case we ended up sleeping in the some the houses of them that picked us up (there was two of us). That was pretty interesting. We slept in both white and black homes and about 70% of those homes were seriously ready for whatever and had guns all over the place. This was true of both white and black homes. The general feeling seemed to be "that if anybody messes with us we will destroy them." This was in the middle 50's. I have always thought that the civil rights that came, down there, was to cool it all down because folks were ready. The small museums I refer to were those run by things like (and this will not be all that accurate) "Confederate" which would be followed by "Wives", "Veterans", etc. we went to a lot of those because they were interesting, both the museums and the folks that ran them, usually older women who were seriously enthusiastic about the confederacy.

What I also remember was that many in the south were not exactly delighted when they referred to "the north" as well and suspect that too remains. In other words the South is not exactly fans of the North. On the other hand folks in the north just really don't care and many retire in the south as well (mostly for the weather).

On reflection I suspect some of my thoughts were probably not right and for that I apologize. Most of my experience was over 60 years ago! I don't apologize talking about statues and how they spoke about the confederacy though. I still think the north did a terrible job at dealing with the remains of the confederacy and we are dealing with the remains right now.

Then there are folks like the current governor of Texas who actually called up the Texas National Guard to stop the American Army for taking over Texas (they were on an annual exercise but the governor was convinced they were being invaded). This was close to after he took office. I had a good friend living in Texas and he was seriously embarrassed by that one. His incredible ignorance, and obvious hatred of the north, also has something to do with my attitude towards the south as well.
The military voting Republican goes back to the Vietnam era. LBJ in 1964 was the last democratic presidential candidate to win the military's vote. Many in the military during Vietnam point to McGovern and his what they say was the U.S.'s unconditional surrender to North Vietnam campaign pledges. That was probably the real turning point. The military mind is different than a civilian mind. Not better, but different. Most of us who served just wanted to accomplish our mission of Keeping South Vietnam free. Mission orientated More to it than that. But as history unfolded, Carter came around after Vietnam and shrank the military big time. If you remember a lot of people were talking about Carter's hollow military. Reagan rebuilt the military, then Bill Clinton downsized it again by 500,000 personnel. Downsizing is always a four letter word when it comes to the military. Obama cut another 300,000 out of the military and pulled the military out of Iraq preventing what I refer to as mission accomplishment This is just a short synopsis, but beginning with McGovern the democratic party in military circles for a very long time was known as the peace dove party.

This certainly isn't the south of the 1950's. You'll see very few bumper stickers or licence plates with the confederate battle flag on it. You'll see perhaps ten times as many old Obama/Biden bumper stickers still on cars than the confederate flag. No one celebrates Confederate Memorial day anymore, heck we don't even know when it is if it still is. Atlanta has the slogan, The city too busy to hate. Georgia took the confederate stars and bars off it's state flag in 2003. It was done with approval of a majority vote of Georgians, 70% or so if I recall. I can't remember when was the last time I seen a confederate statue. Although Stone Mountain still has it carving.

Alabama and Mississippi always lag behind, so I can't say about them. Texas is always reflecting on when they were a nation and at times still acts as if they were. As for statues and the like, if northerners let us be, we'll take care of these thing ourselves. One last quickie, we can also get our southern hackles up. Back in 1998 when Zell Miller was governor, we were all set them to take the stars and bars off Georgia'ls state flag. But we were invaded by tons of folks from the north, protesting and marching, telling us to remove it. Well, that got our hackles up, instead of voting to remove which probably would have passed easily, it was defeated soundly. We weren't going to let all those protesters from out of state tell us what to do. In 2003, with no influx of millions of folks from out of state trying to tell us what to do, we took it off ourselves. It was all done rather quietly. Don't underestimate southern hackles.

Interesting to note Zell Miller was a Democrat who first tried to get our flag changed, Sonny Perdue a Republican accomplished it.
I guess you have to be southern to understand our ties to the civil war.

It wasn't entirely about slavery. It was the industrial north vs the agricultural south.

The cities vs the rural areas. Factories vs farms.

It wasn't wealthy slave owners who fought and died in it, just stupid rednecks like me and my friends.

Farmers mostly. It's still felt deeply here, but it's not really on display much. Those flags are rare, but each generation learns of it anew and come to their own conclusions. If Lincoln had been worth his salary he would have stopped that war in it's tracks.

But he began a longstanding Republican tradition of wrecking things every time they get elected.
Speaking of Lincoln, here's what he had to say to Horace Greeley.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

For the whole letter.

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

The first couple of years of the civil war was all about saving the union. Slavery didn't really become the issue until Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation when England was threatening to enter the war on the south's side. It work and the rest is history.

What is strange to me is it always seems someone from the North is always the first to bring up the Civil War as if nothing has changed in 165 or so years. But it is what it is. Besides slavery which certainly played a major role, it was the north demanding that the South sell is cotton and other raw materials only to the factories in the north, rather than to other countries. The north set the price for the cotton and all extra would then be sold by the north and shipped by the north to other countries. There's many other reasons, but they get totally ignored and untaught.

I don't know, perhaps that is for the best. It is said winners write the history and that history is reinvented and changed some by each succeeding generation.

I have an article written by who and where I got it, I don't remember. I saved the article, but it was certainly written by a civil war buff, historian. I'll post it as this one here is long enough.
Just for those interested, here is the article. Take it however you want. I found it interesting and fact based.

Real reasons for the Civil War:
This is well-reasoned document concerning the reasons the Civil War occurred.

Many people think the Civil War of 1860-1865 was fought over one issue alone, slavery. Nothing could actually be further from the truth. The War Between the States began because the South demanded States' rights and were not getting them.

The Congress at that time heavily favored the industrialized northern states to the point of demanding that the South sell is cotton and other raw materials only to the factories in the north, rather than to other countries. The Congress also taxed the finished materials that the northern industries produced heavily, making finished products that the South wanted, unaffordable. The Civil War should not have occurred. If the Northern States and their representatives in Congress had only listened to the problems of the South, and stopped these practices that were almost like the taxation without representation of Great Britain, then the Southern states would not have seceded and the war would not have occurred.

I know for many years, we have been taught that the Civil War was all about the abolition of slavery, but this truly did not become a major issue, with the exception of John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry, until after the Battle of Antietam in September 1862, when Abraham Lincoln decided to free the slaves in the Confederate States in order to punish those states for continuing the war effort. The war had been in progress for two years by that time.

Most southerners did not even own slaves nor did they own plantations. Most of them were small farmers who worked their farms with their families. They were fighting for their rights. They were fighting to maintain their lifestyle and their independence the way they wanted to without the United States Government dictating to them how they should behave.

Why are we frequently taught then, that the Civil War, War of Northern Aggression, War Between the States, or whatever you want to call it, was solely about slavery? That is because the history books are usually written by the winners of a war and this war was won by the Union. However, after following my family around since I was just a year old to Civil War Living History scenarios in Gettysburg and elsewhere, I have listened to both sides of the story, from those portraying historical figures, both Union and Confederate. Through listening to these people and also reading many different books, including some of the volumes of The Official Records of the Civil War, Death in September, The Insanity of It All, Every Day Life During the Civil War, and many others, I have come to the conclusion that the Civil War was about much more than abolishing the institution of slavery.

It was more about preserving the United States and protecting the rights of the individual, the very tenets upon which this country was founded. I personally think that the people who profess that the Civil War was only fought about slavery have not read their history books. I really am glad that slavery was abolished, but I don't think it should be glorified as being the sole reason the Civil War was fought. There are so many more issues that people were intensely passionate about at the time. Slavery was one of them, but it was not the primary cause of the war. The primary causes of the war were economics and states' rights.

Slavery was a part of those greater issues, but it was not the reason the Southern States seceded from the Union, nor fought the Civil War. It certainly was a Southern institution that was part of the economic system of the plantations, and because of that, it was part and parcel of the economic reasons that the South formed the Confederacy. The economic issue was one of taxation and being able to sell cotton and other raw materials where the producers wanted to, rather than where they were forced to, and at under inflated prices. Funny, it sounds very much like the reason we broke from Great Britain to begin with. The South was within their rights, but there should have been another way to solve the problem. If they had been willing to listen to Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the war could have been avoided. Lincoln had a plan to gradually free the slaves without it further hurting the plantation owners. He also had a plan to allow them to sell their products anywhere they wanted to and at a fair price. They did not choose to listen to the President, however, so they formed the Confederacy and the Civil War began.
The Republican party was founded by members of the Whig party over slavery - they were against it. Economies based on slavery are also dependent on slavery as it becomes the basis of the economy itself. A threat against slavery therefore threatens any economy which has slavery.

I don't deny anything you said but there is an underlayment here that, basically threatened the entire economy of the South. This, in turn .............

Right now, incidentally, we have seen a Republican party get taken over by a man who has pretty well laid out where he is at. All soldiers, especially those who got killed in one of our wars are "suckers", he likes to grab women by their (you know), he lies even when the truth is better, he was a TV star, he has failed at virtually anything he has ever done. All this is true and verifiable, He also has millions of followers. The civil war happened for very specific reasons beginning with the creation of the Republican party. We now have a situation where we seem to be moving onto another civil war and I think that the Trump takeover of one of our main political parties is just the beginning.

Unless?
The slavery of child laborers in the north didn't end until many years after the slaves were freed.

Neither side was lily white and there was a lot more to it than slavery.

Never shoulda happened. Just the first of many grievances I have against the republican party.

The billionaire class of the day just flexing their muscles to the detriment of everyone else.
Quote
We now have a situation where we seem to be moving onto another civil war and I think that the Trump takeover of one of our main political parties is just the beginning.

We most certainly are NOT moving towards another civil war.

Just because a handful of of discontents are using the word does not make it a part of the future.

There is no force on the planet capable of taking on the US Government in any sort of "war".

Political parties do not maintain standing armies and cannot go to war against each other.
I've always said that both major parties owe their hearts and souls to corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, special interests, mega money donors etc. That we, the voter are nothing more than a necessary evil. Pawns moved around by the moneyed elite who with the two party system along with voting make it look like we, the people have a say, determine who's in charge.

Who received most of the money from these moneyed folks over the last 12 years, the Democratic Party. Lawyers and Lobbyist 62 million to Biden 8 million to Trump, Finance, insurance and real estate, 252 million to Biden 103 million to Trump. You can scroll through the money and from whom here.

https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/sector-totals?sector=F

Election spending
2020 Democrats 6.9 billion, Republicans 3.8 billion
2016 Democrats 2.3 billion, Republicans 2.5 billion
2012 Democrats 2.2 billion, Republicans 2.5 billion
2008 Democrats 2.2 billion, Republicans 1.5 billion

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/10/cost-of-2020-election-14billion-update/

The thing here is these moneyed elites are smart businessmen, if they didn't get a better return for their investment, er donations into our political system and parties, they wouldn't invest, er, donate.

Here's the history of political party spending from 1960-2016. Take a look

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/56-y...ding-how-2016_b_5820bf9ce4b0334571e09fc1

The candidate with the most money won with the exceptions of 1964 and 2016. The graph basically shows not that much disparity until 2008,2012 and 2016 when one party had a huge money advantage.

One last thing, you'll find a lot of these moneyed elites be they corporations, wall street firms etc. donating to both parties and their candidates. Always much more to the candidate and party they think will win. But they also give to the other candidates and party. This way even if their number one candidate loses, the loser still owes them.

Now am I being cynical or not?
The writer was a bit more than disingenuous in their analysis.

One can not simply write about slavery or economic systems independently. In this case the Southern Economic System was predicated solely on the institution of slavery. In other words one can not talk about one without the other. Like taking one leg of a triangle away .... it is no longer a triangle.

However in an analysis of actual real reasons for session, Southern legislatures provided an insight to the reasons. First and foremost was the Southern Economic System, and second was States Rights, and third was the election of an abolitionist, Pres A Lincoln.

Of course on the converse side for cause of hostilities, first and foremost was the Constitutional issue of dissolution of the Union. One can not simply write that we are shooting at you because we want you to end slavery, but we can if there is an overriding legal principle, fundamental to the Union. (Note the similarity to the talk of Trump supporters, who believe they can at will overthrow the government simply because they don't like America ... sounds dangerously close to what Southerners were saying in 1860). Once the principle was invoked, secondary issues could and did come into play, even if political in nature.
Quote
I know of no one that wants another run at the Republic as you put it. Fact is we've been too busy defending her and defending her with more than our share of folks
so you have actually provided the very reason these folks are ready for the "storm". They have in their mind been fighting for an America which they can no longer recognize. The only alternative the the Trump Solution.

Yes so for these nuts we have Mr Trump proclaiming he will be "reinstated" in August, and we have all manner of clowns from the Kraken Lady, Powell, to Gen "The Coup is what is needed" Flynn, to more than a little crazy Rep Gohmert, saying the election was stolen.

Ready for a run? Damn right they are!!!!

Now for the bonus. These same crazies are implementing the machinery for a general takeover of the entire system through "legal" means. Please note Pres Biden was elected on slim margins in 6 battleground states. If those same legislatures disenfranchise just a few voters .... you should be able to figure out the rest. Imagine a coup right before your eyes and you wont know it until the elected inmates of the Congressional asylum start talking crazy.
Quote
One can not simply write about slavery or economic systems independently. In this case the Southern Economic System was predicated solely on the institution of slavery.

Indeed. But economic systems generally are designed to benefit the wealthy. And the wealthy have this funny way of convincing the poors that we can't live without them....that our success depends on their success.

Trickle down economics was alive even then.

There's no denying the major role that slavery had in the war, no denying that it needed to be abolished.

But I can't think of a single worse way to fix the problem than to have a war over it and if the slavery issue had been erased from the picture I'm pretty sure the war would have happened anyway.

If the war had been erased from the picture I'm pretty sure that slavery would have been abolished anyway.

Northern industrialists had already mechanized. Southern agriculturalists still depended solely on manpower. Industry was pulling ahead economically and thus pulling ahead in controlling congress.

Back in those days there was a clear geographic divide, a clear cultural divide, and a clear political divide. Two separate economies.

All that clearly exists today are two right wing parties that keep us fighting among ourselves while they loot the nations wealth.
I totally agree Greger. I view it all the same way. Voters have become the pawns of the moneyed elites who make us think we're deciding things when we're not.
I think you mean; "Takes two to tango"?
what I find really interesting here, is how much Greger, a self avowed socialist and myself, a right leaning swing voter tend to agree. That is except when it comes to slogans meaning what the slogan says. That plus the fact I would bend to win elections whereas I don't think Greger would. Perhaps that would make me the ultimate politician or strategist depending on how one looks at these things.

Perhaps it may be that we both dislike both major parties along with disliking Trump.
Quote
slogans meaning what the slogan says.

Defund the Police means exactly what it says. Defund them. Spend that money to prevent crime. I dunno why you keep choking on this slogan.

They have become a racist lynch mob and need to be rebuilt from the bottom up.

Y'hear about them white kids shooting at officers for over two hours with a shotgun and an AK47?

One was wounded, the other was taken peacefully.

Real guns, not toys. Two hours. Not ten seconds. Kids taken alive.

White kids.

No rain of bullets. No SWAT team, no armored vehicles. Just some brave officers showing restraint. The kid was walking toward them firing a shotgun and saying she was going to kill them. Sounded like the officer felt really bad about having to return fire.

It should always be this way, not just for white kids. Defund them.
Hmm, no more police. Defund them all, then some of those funds can go to my vigilante group I'd have to raise.

Defund -prevent from continuing to receive funds.

Yep, with no police, we retired military might be quite good doing vigilante work. Now we'd want to get our fair share of the defunding funds from defunding the police.If not, I'm sure we'd find a way to get them, especially with no police around.

Sure glad you didn't mean Reform the police. That's not what defund means.
Originally Posted by Brookings Institute
“Defund the police” means reallocating or redirecting funding away from the police department to other government agencies funded by the local municipality. ... Defund does not mean abolish policing.


I guess the words got in the way of understanding.

a common problem.
The tower of babble being what it is, and all...
Angela Davis is responible for the slogan and when she said it she meant de fund the f*cking police. The population would be better off without them.

It's the slogan of an anarchist. Someone who believes that we could rule ourselves better without rulers at all and that we could police ourselves better without police at all.

But slogans are not policy. They are hyperbole meant to shock people into action. Apparently it worked, you centrists have been figuring out the best ways to reform the police and changes are already underway.....

The slogan cost democrats nothing in the election and may have saved some lives already. That's why we have activists, slogans, and demonstrations, because y'all would sit on your thumbs forever unless someone demands action.
You could be right, I never checked into where the slogan began. I'll disagree on the cost, the numbers, the political pundits, even democratic strategist and after action folks clearly show and admit the slogan cost the Democrats 13 house seats. Now the cost of losing 13 house seats may be well worth it with the reforms implemented. I suppose that is in the eyes of the beholder. But election result wise, I'd have to say no. Reform wise, perhaps it was.

The slogan probably cost Biden some votes. What it showed was the GOP was able to tag the Democrats with that slogan and convince a certain amount of voters that was exactly what the Democrats wanted to do, to do away with the police. The polls show this clearly.

Now losing 13 house seats is something the Democrats could afford. Not something they wanted since every poll was showing the Democrats would gain seats, some estimating their gain at 20 plus. Big difference from a 20 plus gain and a 13 seat loss.

What changed, congressional elections are more local, folks like their local police and don't want to see them done away with. Nationally, the exit polls show that defund the police added 3 points to Trump's popular vote total. Again something the Democrats and Biden could afford.

What I never understood, still don't is why the Democrats let the Republicans tag them and convince folks that doing away with the police is what the democrats want. The only thing I can come up with, nothing to back it up, just a shot in the dark, is Biden and the democrats didn't want to do anything to make their most loyal voting block, blacks mad at them. Especially since it was them who lead the charge with Defund the police.

I may be completely all wet there. But trying to come up with reasons is something I do. As it was, 12% of blacks voted for Trump, the most any Republican candidate since Ford back in 1976 received. Ford received 15% of the black vote. So perhaps, some blacks didn't want the police defunded and done away with. History is interesting in this and the after effects. But I won't get into that. This is getting much longer than I intended.
Most voters never even heard that slogan.

Those that did saw it on signs at protests and demonstrations(on teevee}.

None at all heard it as Democratic campaign rhetoric.

Every single candidate denied that they supported the slogan.

And yet it cost them 13 seats?

We might as well give up and hand it all to the Republicans, reelect Trump and shut down the Democratic Party. Because republican's get to define everything that Dems stand for anyway.
All I can give you is what the numbers say. The republicans made defund the police a campaign issue especially at the local level. As I stated earlier, it didn't stick to Biden, but it did to other Democrats at the congressional level. The circumstances, the situation and who's running has to be right for it to stick. If those candidates didn't come out and tell the voters that they are against defunding the police, but all in favor of reforming the police, who's fault is that?

Nationally, only 18% support the Defund the police movement, 58% oppose. So if one is a political strategist, trying to tie your political opponent to that movement is a no brainier.

Now when asked about redirecting funds to social services from the police, 43% supported that. If defund actually means redirecting and reforming, you can see the huge difference. 43 vs.18. Still in the minority, but redirect some funding and reforming the police has about two and one half times more support than defunding.

Words, phrases and slogans have meaning. You take your average independent, non-partisan, non-affiliated voter who doesn't pay much if any attention to politics, they'll tend to take words, phrases and slogans to mean what they say.

These folks are more interested if the Braves or Lakers won last night than whether or not the 1-6 has a commission. They're too busy with their regular lives to give politics much thought until an election nears. They have no skin in the political game since they aren't members of either major party. They're standbyer's. What was it, 49% of independents don't care if the commission happens or not. They're much more interested in the NBA playoffs or the next episode of the Walking Dead or Twilight or NCIS or American Idol.

The bottom line is one has to be specific with these folks or they'll take whatever is said as actually being fact. Yet, it is these types of people who decide most elections.
Reams of specific information was published by Democrats in answer to Republican claims.

Only Republican claims mattered.

Like I said...if that's how it works we might as well hand it over to them now, re-instate Trump and go full fascist.

People like you and me, who have publicly come out against Trump, we gonna have to go to Washington, break some windows and smear sh*t on the walls to prove we are patriots or we'll be deported.
LOL, I got you. Now here's a report I just received about the 2020 election and the ability of the GOP to tar the Democrats. What's needs to be done in the future, especially for 2022.

Democratic Report Raises 2022 Alarms on Messaging and Voter Outreach

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democratic-report-raises-2022-alarms-153751948.html

It's important to recognize what went wrong and correct it. The Republicans aren't recognizing anything or doing any research into why they lost in 2020. They're too scard of what they might find. from the article.

There has been no comparable self-review on the Republican side after the party’s setbacks last year, mainly because GOP leaders have no appetite for a debate about Trump’s impact.

The Republican Party faces serious political obstacles arising from Trump’s unpopularity, the growing liberalism of young voters and the country’s growing diversity. Many of the party’s policies are unpopular, including cutting social welfare and retirement security programs and keeping taxes low for the wealthy and big corporations.

If the democrats make a few corrections, 2022 should be a good year for them. Especially if the GOP sits on their butt too afraid to admit that Trump is their problem and the reason they're losing. I always thought the Democrats were blind to the realities of politics and winning elections. But it seems more and more the democrats at least seem willing to learn, the GOP, no way. They don't want to admit they're tied to the tail of a loser.
Now here is more on what I was talking about or trying to get across to no avail. Remember last Nov when Trump received 32% of the Hispanic vote nationally, but 41% in Texas. Now you have this.

GOP Sweeps in Texas Races Signal Growing Hispanic Support for the Party

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021...-growing-hispanic-support-for-the-party/

The border state area last Nov, Texas Trump 41% of Hispanic, New Mexico, Trump 39% Arizona Trump 37%. Compared to a state far away from the border, New York where Trump received 22% of the Hispanic vote.

This from a border city that is 85% Hispanic where a Republican won. From the article.

But it was the victory of Javier Villalobos in the overwhelmingly Democratic Rio Grande Valley bordering Mexico that shook political observers.


Villalobos, a former chairman of the Hidalgo County Republican Party, defeated Democrat Veronica Vega Whitacre, a fellow McAllen city council member, to become mayor. He campaigned as a conservative and said he wanted to cut water and sewage fees. He called for compassion for undocumented migrants but said the safety of local citizens had to be the first concern.

and

Whitacre’s loss was only the latest sign for Democrats that the Rio Grande Valley is slipping away from them. Biden won the region by 15 points last November, a far cry from Hillary Clinton’s 39-point margin in 2016. At the same time, Congressman Vicente Gonzalez won reelection by only 51 percent to 48 percent over Republican Monica De La Cruz-Hernandez in a district Democrats always carry.

“Democrats have a big problem in Texas,” Rio Grande Valley congressman Filemon Vela told the Texas Tribune in January, shortly after he became vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee. “For the first time in generations, or maybe ever, we lost . . . South Texas counties with significant Hispanic populations,” he said. “And we are going to have to . . . wrap our arms around exactly why that happened. It may be a difficult issue to reconcile.”

Which brings me back to the question, do the democrats really want to know why they lost in several areas, border areas where whites make up only 10-40% of the population? Then if they find out why, will the Democrats be willing to make changes to rectify it?
The reason Hispanics voted for Villalobos is obvious: He ran against a woman named Whitacre. Hispanics have a deep cultural prejudice against women running things. Especially an older non-Hispanic White lady. If Democrats want to win the Hispanic vote, they should run Hispanic men. In South Texas mostly they do.
Originally Posted by pondering_it_all
The reason Hispanics voted for Villalobos is obvious: He ran against a woman named Whitacre. Hispanics have a deep cultural prejudice against women running things. Especially an older non-Hispanic White lady. If Democrats want to win the Hispanic vote, they should run Hispanic men. In South Texas mostly they do.
That right there does trump party affiliation in that demographic, fer sure.
That might explain one race, not the numerous others. But I doubt it. It also doesn't explain Trump getting 41% of the Hispanic vote in Texas, 39% in New Mexico, 37% in Arizona way above his national average of 32%.
It doesn't surprise me a bit that the border state Mexicans went for Trump.

They've been assimilated longer and don't vote racial issues as much as idealogically. Hispanics are pretty conservative as a people. Once assimilated they're voting for lower taxes and less government interference in their often shady business dealings. Democrats might force them to hire legitimate workers at a fair rate.
Originally Posted by Greger
...[o]nce assimilated they're voting for lower taxes and less government interference in their often shady business dealings. Democrats might force them to hire legitimate workers at a fair rate.
Exactly...it's the caste system with immigrants. Once they become legit, they treat other new immigrants how they were treated. Hmm
There is an inherent assumption/stereotype regarding Hispanics and their politic choices. First it has been noted by many writers, commentators, and other knowledgeable pundits the Hispanic block is not monolithic. Second the assumption is since there is high correlation between ethnicity of illegals from southern border and Hispanics, Hispanics should be .... would be empathetic, but that is not the case. Hispanics turn out to be a lot like the broad general population on many issues, immigration being one.
The Hispanic vote or group certainly isn't monolithic. History shows them voting Democratic 60-70% in presidential races going back to 1980. 2004 was an exception, Kerry won Hispanic 58-40 over G.W. Bush. Bush's 40% was the highest percentage any Republican candidate received since 1980.

Hispanics from Cuba are overwhelmingly Republican, Hispanics from Mexico, Central America are usually overwhelmingly Democratic as a general rule. What's different here is the movement of Mexican and central American Hispanic toward the GOP, away from the Democratic Party in the border states. Something that hasn't happened from 1980-the presidential election of 2016.Nationwide, Clinton received 66% of the Hispanic vote, Biden 65%. Perhaps it's Biden's and the democratic party's illegal immigration policy which is viewed as welcoming illegals.

Being a numbers man, I set out to find out if that could be true. Biden's nationwide approval on immigration as of 7 June is 40%, way below his overall approval rating of 54%. Hispanics nationwide give Biden a 56% approval on immigration, But in Texas, Biden's approval rating on immigration is 40% from Hispanics. New Mexico and Arizona, no figures were available. I think what this means is other states away from the Border, not effected by illegals that much must be higher than the 56% approval given Biden nationwide.

which give credence to all three of you and your points. I don't see Biden and the Democrats changing their immigration policy regardless of Hispanics in Texas, Arizona and New Mexico might think of it. What this may mean in the future is Texas stays Red regardless of changes in demographics, Arizona will probably return to being red and New Mexico is moving that way.

Texas Hispanics have already moved away from being called Hispanics or Latino to wanting to be called Tejano's. Especially along the border area.
Donald Trump, I think is he answer to this little mystery as well.

He appealed to bigoted misogynistic racist assh*les.

Mexicans were not immune to his nonsense and a lot of them just happen to be the sort of people who would definitely be Trumpers if they weren't Mexican....maybe enough to skew the numbers

I'm going to guess that once he's gone the Hispanic vote will return to its former balance.
Time will tell, so we'll see. I think it goes beyond Trump especially in the border states.
Certainly it goes beyond Trump, he's old and will be gone soon. But the party still appeals to the bigoted misogynist racist assh*les in every demographic.

The party appeals to the wealthy too, who often fall into one or more of the above listed categories. As more people of color become more financially independent they also become more sensitive to having to pay taxes...The Republican Party feels their pain and agrees that taxes are for the poors!
That doesn't explain the huge gap the wealthy have given to the Democrats since 2008 through 2020 over the Republicans. A 4 billion dollar gap. It may be these moneyed elites don't care who wins, as long as the winner owes them for their election. That 4 billion dollar gap in favor of the Democrats is for both presidential and congressional.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/10/cost-of-2020-election-14billion-update/

Presidential for 2020, Biden 1.6 billion, Trump 1.1 billion

https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race

Presidential for 2016, Clinton 1.2 billion, Trump 648 million

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

2012 presidential Obama 722 million, Romney 450 million

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/

2008 presidential Obama 730 million, McCain 333 million

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/
Giving money to the Dems is like flushing it down the toilet. They continue to run their mouths and destroy their chances at getting the independents. Their message is also trash and is not a single message but multiple messages, some of which don't seem to make any more sense than Republican claims.

Without getting some discipline and common messages they will fail. If they don't start to actually attack the Republicans, at a very basic level they will fail. Its as if they want to lose so they can whine! I am, incidentally not alone on this one.

Its really necessary for them to just stop it, grow a pair, and actually go after the Republicans on their lies, their semi-authoritarian crap, their racist stances, and their legislation. Up here we hear nothing about that. Instead its all, pretty much, about themselves!

Then throw in the simple fact that Biden has big plans but no way to actually pass legislation to get it done. Instead he believes, apparently, that the Dems and the Republicans will gather together, sing a little song, and then agree on everything. He can shove some of his stuff through but still can't pay for it. His apparent solution is to goto Europe and be a star. Then, to top it all off the, progressive wing of the dems, are upset that he Hasn't produced any legislation are are starting to yell a lot.

Its getting flat out strange!
Biden has done his share of EO's. Obama really began the EO kick his last six years as that was the only way he could get things accomplished. The problem with that is a new president from the other party can repeal, revoke any and all EO's his little pea picking heart so desires. With legislation, it at least you have to get congress to agree. Trump in his last two years used EO's, but even when the GOP controlled both chambers, the only legislation he got passed was his tax cuts.

If the filibuster goes, then all it will take is the president and both chambers being controlled by the same party, then all legislation can be easily undone from any prior administration, congress. I think one should take a look at the ACA and how the filibuster saved it in Trump's first year. His repeal attempt was denied.

I would wager everyone has forgotten that.

As for money, I usually do not donate to political candidates. First I don't trust them, second, they always seem to be cash flushed from the moneyed elites. Although I did donate some to Richard Ray when he was my congressman, to Sam Nunn when he was our senator.

As for independents, they switch back and forth. That's why I prefer swing voters to independents. Right now, independents are with the Democrats only because of their dislike of Trump. In short, Biden not being Trump has been enough for now to keep the swing voters happy. No million tweets per day, no name calling, no temper tantrums, no schoolyard bullying, I'll be dang, we have a president who knows how to act presidential. How refreshing.

As for Biden's policies that he's under water with swing voters, independents give Biden 41/45 job approval/disapproval on jobs and the economy, probably because inflation is beginning to bite, taxes and government spending, 36/51 approve/disapprove, immigration 34/51 approve disapprove. But Biden is above water and doing good on all other issues. Swing voters give Biden an overall job approval of 50/44 approval/disapproval. Just slightly below his national average of 53/41. Pretty darn good in today's modern political era of polarization, the great divide and the mega, ultra high partisanship.

The only question left is how long Biden not being Trump will keep swing voters on his side and happy?
Quote
I think one should take a look at the ACA and how the filibuster saved it in Trump's first year. His repeal attempt was denied.

I would wager everyone has forgotten that.

By golly you're right! Democrats HAVE used the filibuster to block popular Republican legislation! I knew that, given time you could come up with an example!

Republicans NEED the filibuster. Democrats don't. Very simply because there is NO popular Republican legislation that needs to be blocked. The party is bereft of any actual policies beyond power and greed. They only exist to prevent government from doing anything besides funneling money into the pockets of the wealthy. They don't write legislation...certainly not popular legislation...they seek only to remove laws, regulation, and popular legislation put in place by Democrats.

Democrats at least PRETEND to care about the hundreds of millions of workers who depend on them to survive. They at least WRITE legislation aimed at helping the 90% working their asses off to keep the rest atop their mounds of gold.
Quote
The only question left is how long Biden not being Trump will keep swing voters on his side and happy?

I'm betting it could be a pretty long time.

Under normal circumstances about 8 years. Then some other shiny bauble will mesmerize the masses into picking the prettiest and most talented, most charming and handsome whomever to be the next whatever.

All things being equal, Biden is well on his way to a second term.
Originally Posted by perotista
No million tweets per day, no name calling, no temper tantrums, no schoolyard bullying, I'll be dang, we have a president who knows how to act presidential.

I'm curious as to why you left massive lying and chronic blatant dishonesty off of the list of Trump's annoying personality traits.
Quote
Obama really began the EO kick his last six years as that was the only way he could get things accomplished.
ahhh .... welll .... I don't think that is accurate

Look at the stats
William J. Clinton (D) Total 364 46
I 200 50
II 164 41
George W. Bush (R) Total 291 36
I 173 43
II 118 30
Barack Obama (D) Total 276 35
I 147 37
II 129 32
Donald J. Trump (R) Total 220 55

from The American Presidency Project

And remember EO's only apply to the Executive Branch and typically are used in modifying regulations, not introducing new law.
There are some things that continue to confuse. one is the filibuster thing. As far as I can tell the party in charge of the senate can stop it, once or as long as they are in power, or turn it on - same way. The Republicans are threatening to keep it on if they take power and that scares the the other side. I just don't get it. The constitution doesn't even bother to mention it as they figured that the party with the votes gets to do the legislative thing and, as far as I can tell the filibuster thing seems to be that turning it on, or off, is a big deal even though any side in party can either do it or not. Then there is the little fact that filibuster used to be when one senator decided to speak about whatever forever or as long as they could which meant nothing else could happen and the senator speaking got to "filibuster". I guess what I am trying to say (with too many words) is "who gives a sh*t?" Nothing changes and, if you have even a one point majority then, I think, screw it, get rid of it and have a good time! I am equally sure that the Republicans will have no trouble doing the same thing when their turn comes. I just don't get the sacredness of the filibuster and BOTH sides have used and not used it!

The other option, for the Dems, is to tell Biden he is going to have to rule with mandates. That too is the way that both sides have used, forever. When one side does it they are bad and ruling by mandate and the other side uses that as their main whine.

These things simply make no sense to me. Its the way it is, nothing has changed, both sides do it and get attacked for doing it but its done, with regularity by everybody! WTF!!!

I guess I should mention, as I am no authority on this stuff, that I could be dead wrong. If so point it out and I will, immediately, post a long, wordy, apology whilst dropping tears on my keyboard and being VERY sorry!
Okay, let's see if I can make this quick and dirty. Although not explicitly mandated, the Constitution and its framers clearly envisioned that simple majority voting would be used to conduct normal business. The Constitution spelled out what would take a super majority such as impeachment. expelling a members, overriding presidential vetoes, proposing constitutional amendments etc.

In 1806, the filibuster became possible through an accident.by removing the rule that allowed to end debate by a simple majority since it had been used only once since 1789. After the removal of that senate rule, there was mechanism to end debate on any issue. The filibuster became a possibility which was first used in 1837.

It wasn't until 1917 that the senate passed the cloture rule as a means to end debate that up until that time was impossible. It took 2/3rds of the senate to invoke cloture and end debate on any proposed legislation.

1970 saw the 2/3rds rule lowed to 3/5ths.

It has been a long standing policy that once the rules of the senate are agreed on by both parties prior to the beginning of a session, they can't be changed during the session or until the beginning of the next session. Reid violated this with his rule change involving the nuclear option during the middle of the session.

Thus setting a precedence that the majority party can change the rules of the senate any time they darn well please. That you referred to. But until Reid, changing rules in mid session had never been done. At least not that I can find or ever heard of.

The cloture rule was a way to end debate on any issue or legislation. Without the cloture rule, debate could continue until Hades froze over or into the next century or two. What is being proposed by the Democrats is an adjustment to the cloture rule, the only way to end debate from it present 3/5ths down to a simple majority.

Without Reid, ending the filibuster, bringing debate to an end by simple majority would have to be agreed on by both parties at the beginning of the session. But Reid broke that with his nuclear option or changing the rules after they'd been agreed to by one and all senators. So there is a precedence now for breaking or changing the rules everyone agreed to in mid session which it seems that is exactly what the Democrats want to do now.

So why have any rules if the majority party can change them anytime they want or like?
Let me clarify a bit. The super majority, the 60 votes for cloture is to end debate. It's isn't to pass legislation which still only requires a simple majority. There really hasn't been a means to end debate which the filibuster is, continuing debate and thus avoiding a vote on the legislation until 1917.

To pass legislation in the senate has always and still does need only a simple majority. It was in 1837 that senators found that continuing the debate without end is a method of avoiding voting on legislation or confirmation or anything else for that matter.

Reid's use of the nuclear option is just a means of ending debate. Going on to vote on the confirmation of presidential appointees which has also required only a simple majority. The nuclear option was just a means of ending debate on nominees.
Actual debate used to be required to continue the debate.

Republicans don't use it to continue the debate...they use it to block legislation.

They use it to go against the will of the people. They use it to maintain power when they are out of power.

Much like the Electoral College the, filibuster benefits primarily Republicans. If it ever gets in the way, you can be sure they will mow it down in their path to absolute power and absolute greed.

Democrats are naïve to imagine there is any hope of good faith negotiations with the minority party or its leaders.
One of the big differences between Dems and Reeps is that when the Reeps have power they use it. The Dems spend most of their effort on worrying about what the Reeps will do when they get power again, instead of using the power when they have it.

As you already pointed out, Reeps are for dismantling government for the benefit of the wealthy, while Dems are generally more for equality.

Not that the Dems are 100% pure or infallible, mind you.
Quote
Not that the Dems are 100% pure or infallible, mind you.

They aren't worth a flying f*ck at a rolling doughnut.

But, any port in a storm, ya know?
To topic...
I wonder what the runup to the Benghazi investigation was? Did Democrats naively vote to let that kangaroo court take place?

Did it make a difference that the attackers just happened to be supporters of the dying regime?

What if a lawmaker had been killed? Instead of just a cop? Would it have been worth investigating then?

Can we have a House investigation? Or are Democrats happy to just move on and sweep the whole ugly thing under the rug in the name of bi-partisanship?

So many questions...yet no investigation.
I remain confused. Why, for instance, is it such a big deal to get rid of the filibuster? If you are the majority then you can just get rid of it and carry on. It seems that easy! its true regardless of party - if they are a majority then they can do what they damn well please and that's exactly the way it is! The only thing it seems to be good for is shutting up the opposing party. Both parties have done this. The party not in power gets to whine how unfair it is and the other forges ahead. The only difference between the two parties is that the Republicans use it and the Dems, in their infinite wisdom, thinks is an incredibly evil thing and only done under extreme situations. I don't even know what 'extreme' means! The Republicans, for instance, started a couple of years ago simply not passing ANY legislation! This isn't really surprising given they no longer have any beliefs or planks. its not that they have some and they are ignoring them, they simply don't have any!

On the other hand the Dems seem to have all kinds of legislation to pass but don't want to upset anybody so their legislation dies on a regular basis. This makes approximately the same amount of sense as the Republican no legislation thing. It also means that we now have two political parties who, for reasons unknown, can't pass any legislation!

Since the Dems currently have a one member majority in congress they are in charge, according to the constitution (which the Republicans seem to be determined to ignore). So, the Dems are a party with many messages, many of which tend to offend those in the center and even the majority of the Dems sometimes. They also have many pieces of legislation. Even that gets interesting. The Dems have one piece, which is to fix voting in America. Its ONLY. It is 800 pages long! I doubt if ANYBODY has actually read the entire thing. I tried and gave up on the second page! If I were a member of the senate, in either party, I would vote against it just for that reason alone! Here is what th NYT thinks about it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/us/politics/voting-rights-law.html
The Dems have other pieces, some of which have even more than 800 pages, some with less (but not much).
The Dems have simply lost their mind I fear. In the case of their "for the people" thing they have thrown everything but the kitchen sink at it. I suspect that they couldn't even get their own people to all vote for it.

800 PAGES!
Curiosity got this cat. I knew a filibuster was was like a mercenary or someone engaging in unauthorized warfare against a foreign country. The military context of filibuster. So I was wondering how filibuster became associated with the U.S. Senate as a way to prolong debate, avoiding a vote on legislation. Here's what I found.

Using the filibuster to delay debate or block legislation has a long history. The term filibuster, from a Dutch word meaning "pirate," became popular in the United States during the 1850s when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent action on a bill.

https://www.senate.gov/reference/Index/Filibuster.htm

And here for JGW.

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture.htm

So it seems unlimited debate was allowed in the senate from 1789 until 1917 when the cloture rule was established as a means to end debate and move to a vote.Actually the filibuster is nothing more than a right for unlimited debate.

Interesting also in the United States House of Representatives, the filibuster (the right to unlimited debate) was used until 1842, when a permanent rule limiting the duration of debate was created.

I didn't know that.
If the purpose of the filibuster is to make sure the minority's concerns are heard, it would be totally reasonable to limit the debate to two or three days. Or to establish timed vote requirements for cloture, like 55 votes on the second day, and 51 votes on the third day. Extending the debate beyond that has never resulted in more minority views being expressed. Instead most talking filibusters consisted of reading from cookbooks, the telephone book, and such. Manchin's concerns are BS.
Minds are usually made up prior to any debate taking place. Usually along party lines and not on the merits of the proposed legislation. Especially in today's modern political era of polarization, the great divide and the mega, ultra high partisanship. No one listens to the other side anyway.

My only concern about doing away with the filibuster for legislation is that legislation will become like executive orders. Any new president can repeal, revoke, change any EO of any previous president. Without the filibuster, legislation could become just like EO's. A new president comes into power with his party in control of congress, he can repeal any and all legislation his little pea picking heart so desires.

You could see the Democrats pass their infrastructure bill, their voting rights bill, you name it. Then come 2024 if the Republicans come into power, all those could easily be repealed replaced by whatever the GOP wanted. The filibuster does or did have a steadying influence. No lurches left and then right. The survival of the ACA can be attributed to the filibuster. Without it, the ACA would be long gone.

Normally, in a previous political era I'd be adamant against ending the filibuster. But in today's modern political era, why not. Perhaps this would be what is needed to get some common sense back into the two parties. Let the Dems pass whatever they want, then when the GOP comes back into power, let them repeal whatever they want and pass what they want. Then when the Dems return, it would be their turn.

We've seen what the nuclear led to, Barrett, Kavanaugh. Without the nuclear option to end all debate, filibuster, it would have taken 60 votes and neither one of them would have been confirmed. These things have a habit of coming back around and biting one in the butt.

The sad thing is if a couple of senators from your party were going to vote against a bill your party wanted, chances were in the past you could find 4 or 5 senators from, the other party to climb aboard. But not in today's modern political era. Every thing is pretty much straight party line. 20 years ago, straight party line votes were very rare if at all. Not today.

One thing to remember, Manchin represents the state of West Virginia, the most conservative state in the nation. You can't expect him to act like he represents New York or California. He may be a democrat, but he represent the folks of West Virginia. He has to take their wants and wishes into consideration.
Quote
One thing to remember, Manchin represents the state of West Virginia, the most conservative state in the nation. You can't expect him to act like he represents New York or California. He may be a democrat, but he represents the folks of West Virginia. He has to take their wants and wishes into consideration.

If West Virginia was the most conservative state in the nation they would never have elected a Democrat in the first place. I'm going to assume that Democrats elected him, and I'm going to assume they generally approve of the Democratic platform.

If indeed Manchin is opposed to the Democratic platform then he needs to change parties. As things stand he is no ally to Democrats and appears to be playing McConnell's game and Not Schumer's or Biden's, or the people who elected him to represent them.


Quote
Mon, June 14, 2021,
Joe Manchin
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — Hundreds of demonstrators outraged with Sen. Joe Manchin's opposition to a sweeping overhaul of U.S. election law marched through West Virginia's capital city on Monday evening...

Manchin isn't doing what the people want him to do...he's doing what his corporate sponsors want him to do.

Gridlock serves their needs and no one else's.
It is. Up and until the early 2000's West Virginia was one of the most democratic states in the nation. Manchin was a very popular governor from 2005-10. That carried over to his run for the senate. West Virginia had a very long history as reliable democratic until recently. Presidential wise, West Virginia has gone Republican six straight times. Trump won WV 68.6% to 29.7% for Biden, in 2016 WV went to Trump 68.5% to 28.4% over Clinton.

Kind of like Georgia until 2002, WV continued to elect very conservative Democrats to statewide and local offices. Georgia elected its first ever Republican Governor in 2002 along with its first ever Republican state legislature. WV was the same. We sent Democrats Richard Russell, Sam Nunn, Zell Miller, Max Cleland as senators to Washington while WV was sending Manchin, Rockefeller, Goodwin and Byrd. What they all had in common was they were conservative democrats, a dead bird democratic party wise these days except Manchin.

According to PVI, West Virginia is plus 35.5 Republican over the national average. Okay, maybe not the reddest state, but close.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-red-or-blue-is-your-state-your-congressional-district/

Once Manchin is gone, you can bet a Republican will replace him. He barely won his last election 49-46. All three of WV congressmen are Republicans who swamp their Democratic opponents, 69-31, 63-36 and 71-29 in 2020. You have the last two presidential election results. In 2020 Republican senate candidate Capito defeated her democratic opponent 70-27.

I'd say it safe to say that Manchin will be the last Democrat to come out of West Virginia for a long time to come. You're talking about a state that elects Republicans these days by an average of around 70-30.
"Let the Dems pass whatever they want, then when the GOP comes back into power, let them repeal whatever they want and pass what they want. Then when the Dems return, it would be their turn."

I think this is, exactly how its designed. The senate can do exactly that! The constitution was quite clear about what a majority is and it can be a majority of 1 or more to do the job. The party in power (majority) gets to do what they damned well want. So, to stop the Dems the GOP gets to call filibuster. My main objection to that is that it used to be that you didn't just get to claim it you DID IT! I have seen one guy stand up and just do it until he couldn't any longer. I have always thought that it was a one man sort of thing. Apparently that's not the case but I'm not sure. Anyway, apparently this is how its always been but, now, nobody has to stand up and do it as they have made it a 'rule'. I am also not really sure just how rules come to pass and who sets them. The whole system seem pretty complex.

The difference between legislation and Executive Orders is that one comes from the president and doesn't have the bump that legislation, signed by the president, has. They can also be backed out by another president and legislation is the law of the land and Executive Orders don't (I assume). The first thing is the rule that changed the filibuster from what it was (standing up and making the point as long as you could) to just claiming its all happened and has stopped it all. My other problem is the 'debate' thing. I am not sure that there are actual debates where two sides stand up and 'debate'. We used to have a governor who later because a senator. He said he wanted to join the place where the great debates took place. After one term he quit - said there were no debates and was disappointed. As far as I can tell there are still no debates. As far as I can tell no Democratic Senator has stood up and even bothered to explain their 800 page legislation! Same with the GOP folk! I am not really sure what the Senate actually does but it sure as hell is not debate as I know it. Its also, I suspect, not what the founders had designed. Rules have changed. Now, for instance, one side can stand up, lie their heads off and nobody even calls them out and shuts them down!

Debate - my ass! Somehow, as far as I can tell, we now have legislative bodies that run their mouths about whatever but I don't think its debate - in either house. What really happens, now, is that one side isn't so interested in doing what we think they should but, instead, spend all their time 'winning' and my problem with that is that winning is about power to beat up the other side and little else.

Basically, again as far as I can tell, we depend on our legislative bodies to decide, AS A GROUP, how we are to be governed, safe and free. Does anybody here believe that's really the case? Hell, does anybody here believe that anybody has actually even read all 800 pages of "For The People" legislation? I sincerely doubt it.
West Virginia is in for a rocky future. Coal is dead.

If they think republican policy is going to rescue them from joblessness, opiate addiction, black lung, and poverty, then as the old saying goes...

they got another think comin'.

I ain't saying they're gonna flip blue anytime soon but it could be that in the next decade republican voters might begin to ask something of their representatives besides owning the libs.
I don't know Greger. If anyone told me 20 years ago that West Virginia would be solid Republican in 10 years, I would have told them they're crazier than bat doo doo.

You couldn't find a more solid Democratic state. But that was a very conservative Democratic state. Perhaps the Democrats they were electing were only in name Democrats as we know them today.

I know here in Georgia we continued to elect Democratic governors, state legislatures, senators and house members until 2002. But they were for the most party conservative to moderate, no progressives among them. But they all counted as members of the Democratic Party when it came to control of the House and Senate.

You could be right, time will tell. Now there's a big difference between the two states, Georgia is around 35% black, West Virginia is just 3%. It's much easier to a Democrat to win here in Georgia as the Democrat can count on 90-95% of the black vote. While the Republican candidates must get around 70% of the white vote. Getting 90-95% of the black vote in West Virginia is basically meaningless. Democrats must first find a way to attract white voters there. Which means the Democrats in West Virginia must come up with some very conservative candidates, no progressive like they had done in the past.
Poor white people need the same things that poor black people need.

Republican policy will never deliver those things.

It will never deliver a living wage. It will never deliver healthcare. It will never guarantee education.

It WILL snatch your unemployment check to force you back to a job with bad pay and no benefits.

It's entirely up to West Virginians to choose their future. From my viewpoint pretty much all Democrats are fairly conservative. West Virginians likely more than most.

It's really just a waiting game until these dumbasses realize they've been had.
Perhaps, but voting against one's own interest is a very common occurrence. I'd say at least 60% vote based on the letter behind a candidates name and not whether that vote will help or hurt the individual voting.

From your point of view Democrats are fairly conservative. I place them as far left. Now those are individual opinions. The GOP is totally off track and stands for nothing these days outside of being for Trump. At least the Democrats have an ideology they're trying to adhere too. Score a point for the Democrats.
You're pretty much right. There is, however, a problem. The Dems just don't want to upset the GOP by saying that kind of stuff. Last night I was watching Lindsey Graham talk about how Trump would have put Putin in his place over messing with our major company's software hacks. Then somebody else pointed out how poorly he did with Putin when he had a chance - basically he said Russia just wouldn't do that because he said so.

This is the kind of stuff that needs to be fed to the GOP base every hour or so. Just hammer it into their thick heads! Oh, I know, the kindly Dems wouldn't do anything like that. That would be just pure mean and they are terribly concerned about that? The Dems should create a book of GOP lies, all of them, and then distribute that to their Dem candidates - just for starters. I know, not gonna happen!
The solid base of either party won't be persuaded no matter what one does, points out, says, proves or anything else. They'll continue to vote the letter, not necessarily the candidate or even the party's ideology, you name it.

The battle comes down to convincing the swing voters. Independents. Those who don't adhere to either party's political philosophy and aren't absolute loyalist to either party as their bases are.

A lot of folks think swing voters, independents fall in-between the two major parties political philosophy and agenda. They're centrist or moderates. That's not really the case. They support one party's agenda and philosophy on some issues, but oppose them on others. They're not cut and dried robots willing to accept everything one party or the other stand for. But they do have hard feelings on the issues they're for and on the issues they're totally against.

Where does an individual fall party wise if they're pro-choice and pro-2nd amendment? Have hard, solid feelings about both. They can't be Republicans because they're pro-choice and they can't be Democrats because they're pro-2nd Amendment. They don't pass either party's litmus tests. Hence they become swing voters, voting for one party one election, the other party the next.

Trump has done an excellent job of getting swing voters to vote Democratic the last two elections, 2018, 2020. Hammering the GOP will only work so far, for an election, for maybe two before differences in the issues arise again.

Perhaps the Democratic Party needs to say to these swing voters, it's okay to be pro-life or pro-2nd amendment, you can disagree with us on those issues, but back us on the issues you agree with. Come home to us, we won't make you feel like an outcast because you differ with us on a few issues.

That may work better than hammering the GOP. The Republicans aren't going to try to make anyone feels at home. Perhaps go back to the idea of the big tent tent party that was the democratic party pre-Reagan. when an average of 45% of the electorate identified or affiliated themselves with the Democratic Party. It's been the democratic Party that folks have left, they're down to a bit over 30% these days. The GOP has rarely ever rose to 30% since FDR. Try making folks feel they have a political home even if they disagree with you on a few issues. Do away with the litmus tests. The Republican Party won't.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/interactives/party-id-trend/
I have been wondering. I wonder if it would be possible to restrict lying on TV. WE own the wavelengths and I think that them that broadcast on TV can be controlled. So, making a rule that said something to the effect that lies that are flat out lies shouldn't. I know, right to say anything. So, how about forcing them that lie to have a running stream, at the bottom simply saying "lies, lies, lies, lies"? They get to run their mouths and the state can force them to state what they are doing? How about forcing TV stations, all of them, to do that?

If they are on the news, if they are claiming to be telling the truth, etc. nail 'em! We, for instance, see somebody on TV talking about losing a brother, husband, etc. to Covid because they believed in what some idiot said. One would think that the ambulance chasers would be on that one like stink on sh*t?

There's gotta be a way!
Quote
Perhaps the Democratic Party needs to say to these swing voters, it's okay to be pro-life or pro-2nd amendment, you can disagree with us on those issues, but back us on the issues you agree with. Come home to us, we won't make you feel like an outcast because you differ with us on a few issues.

Yes they should reach out to the rightwingers....welcome them into the fold...like they have the lefties.

Then shoot 'em down anytime they express those beliefs...

I'm okay if you don't like abortion...don't get one if you don't like them.

I'm okay with guns too. I don't own any but I don't mind if you do. As long as you don't shoot up a school with it.

So what is it exactly makes you think the dems are far left...the far left is where the socialists live and they aint no dems over here...
I'm not talking about reaching out to right wingers. I'm not talking about reaching out to Republicans in general. I'm talking about swing voters, independents. Those who ideology is either in-between the two major parties or the ones who support the GOP sometimes and the democrats sometimes depending on the issue. Some folks will call these people moderates, some centrist.

Reaching out to right wingers or republicans in general is a total waste of time. The Democratic Party got rid of their conservative wing a long time ago, the GOP did the same for its liberal wing. Then both parties started to get rid of their moderates.

Do you really believe if I said I was pro-life I could run for office as a Democrat? I think two 2020 democratic primaries proved the answer is no. Two incumbent pro-life Democratic congressmen were primaried out. Payback was the democrats then lost both of those seats in the general election. Not a smart move election wise. But I would wager the democrats in those districts where happy as hogs in slop they got rid of two pro-life incumbent democrats even though their candidates lost in the general.

Even as a rank and file member, I'd probably be treated as an outcast. Not trusted. By the way, I'm not pro-life, that's just an example. A good one since two incumbent pro-life Democratic congressmen were primaried out only because they were pro-life. No other reason.

Wouldn't it ironic if in 2022 the GOP picks up say, 7 seats for a 219-216 majority, take control of the house. Do you think the democrats would wish they had those two incumbent house members back? Probably not, I imagine those democrats in those two districts are saying good riddance to them.

Regardless, I see nothing wrong in an outreach program for the non-affiliated in an effort to get them to become Democrats for the first time or rejoin the democratic party if they left. But this is me, not you. Frankly, as a swing voter, non-affiliated, I really don't care if the democrats reach out or not. I imagine the democratic party isn't interested in attracting the non-affiliate swing voter into their party anyway.
Quote
they should reach out to the rightwingers....welcome them into the fold
There is no universe imaginable in which reaching out to the right would be worthwhile. What meme would they use ... Mr Trump is coming after all the satanic Democrat pedophile baby eaters? Their political delusions are so strong they would believe it is a liberal conspiracy if you said the world is not flat.

Better to save reaching for the rational folks out there
would you consider swing voters, the non-affiliated rational folks, rational? After all they make up the largest group, independents 40% followed by Democrats 31% with republicans 26% of the electorate bringing up the rear.

when I brought up an outreach program, I wasn't talking about right wingers or Republicans. A total waste of time as I stated in a previous post. But a lot of today's non-affiliate or swing voters or independents were once Democrats.As late as 2006 the Democrats had the advantage of 37% vs. 29% for the GOP vs. 30% for independents.

But then again, come to think about it. The democrats don't have to get these folks back into the party fold. All they have to do get the swing voters, the non-affiliated to vote Democratic. Which in 2018 and 2020 is what a majority of them did.
Quote
would you consider swing voters, the non-affiliated rational folks, rational? After all, they make up the largest group, independents 40%

Actually, I suspect the number of swing voters among independents is probably quite low. You've told me they never research anything and just go with whatever they see on TV.

Not what I'd consider a rational group at all and I'd mostly avoid them. Independents to me are people like Bernie Sanders and myself.
Quote
would you consider swing voters, the non-affiliated rational folks, rational? After all they make up the largest group, independents 40%
I dunno know. see below

Originally Posted by Spectrum News NY1
Thirteen percent of independents and 7% of Democrats said they agree that there is a cabal of Satanists who control the government, media and financial worlds and also run a child sex ring. Eighteen percent of independents an 14% of Democrats believe there is a coming “storm.” And 14% of independents and 8% of Democrats agree that violence might be necessary to put the country back on track.

Looks like we have a lot of political delusions being passed around.
I think the phrase in general applies. Like the old saying, you always going to have your 10%.
I don't think that reaching out to Trumpites makes any sense at all. I also suspect that there are some that are not Trumpites but fear his wrath because they would lose their jobs. I guess those that are not have already left but not before they built a huge pile of money to run again (then changed their minds are are stuck with the money - surprise!)

Last night I heard a guy talk about how the Republicans swept the Hispanics in southern Texas. The Democratic candidates were against all the jobs that they had and they didn't like that! What was really being said is that the Democratic candidates, in southern Texas were absolutely clueless about the Hispanic majority of voters in
Southern Texas. That is, I suspect, a little problem. Many Dems are so busy talking to each other that they don't take time out to learn just who, exactly, might vote for them if they control their mouths.

I know, not likely!
I was talking swing voters, the non-affiliated which a good many had been Democrats at one time. But because of an issue or two, they felt like outcasts, rejects. I already said reaching out to the right wing and Republicans was a total waste of time. That waste of time includes Trumpers.

Now I would assume many of those who deserted the Democratic Party are now independents lean Democrat. But there a big difference in how they vote. History shows that those who identify, affiliate themselves with the Democratic Party will vote for democratic party's candidates 92% of the time. Independent democratic leaners drop to roughly 70% of the time. The same percentages apply to Republicans.

So feeling part of a political party can make a difference in an elections outcome depending which election that 30% of democratic leaners decide to vote for the opposing party's candidates. Of course they all won't do it in the same election, some will this election, others the next and other the next election after that. But 30% is the average for any one election.

Swing voters are very susceptible to what they hear and are very likely to run with it if it sound plausible. Nothing way out there, but something with a grain of truth. They aren't political junkies like us here. They don't pay much if any attention to politics for the most part. They'll hear someone saying something, they'll liable to believe whichever party that someone belongs to, their party believes exactly what that someone said.

They're impressionable, susceptible to political propaganda if it fits into what they heard someone say. This is where a coherent message, having everyone on the same page comes in. This is where a Greene, AOC, Omar can be very dangerous to their party's election chances. Keep in mind, swing voters, the non-affiliated aren't ideologues, they don't care about most issues, only those which effect them or may effect them in the future. Most don't care what happens in other places or to other people as long as it doesn't happen where they live and to them.
We're arguing semantics here, but you struck on some common ground.

They don't always vote....you and me, we always vote.

Sometimes they sit on the couch. 40% of eligible voters sit on the couch in every election. To the politically ignorant, one party is the same as the other...so registration will likely be whatever their parents were registered as. It means nothing to me because it means nothing to them.

It's a vast pool of uninterested voters. Sometimes something catches their fancy and gets them off the couch.

It bothers me when it's lies that's getting them off the couch.
Yeah, in an average presidential election 45% of the eligible to vote population don't vote. 2020 was unique in its high turnout. Midterms are much worse which runs roughly 60% don't bother to vote. Then in those weird election years when it's neither a presidential or midterm year, just state and local, you get turnout of in the 20's to 30's. That is unless there's a hot governors race.

We agree Trump was the motivating factor that got a lot of normally non-voters off the couch in 2020. So the next question is without Trump on the ballot for 2022 midterms, will that midterm return to the normal 40% or so who vote? From the indications I've seen, the answer is probably. That means 60% won't bother.

What we need is to get back to when election campaigns are all about substance. These days election campaigns are almost 100% negative with very little substance, ideas, possible solutions to our problems, visions of the future etc. It's always my opponent is the worst scumbag on earth. Try sitting through over a billion dollars of negative advertisements for a month for the January senate runoffs. None of the four candidates ever said what they were for, just my opponent is the worst person on earth.

This is how these coach potatoes, the uninformed, the non-affiliated, independents who don't pay attention to politics much are deciding who they'll vote for.

You have Republicans voting for Republicans, Democrats for Democrats and the rest trying to decide who's the least worst scumbag. Usually ending up voting for who they least want to lose, not win, but least want to lose.

Most of these latter folks will tell you they decided on the issues who to vote for. But most couldn't tell you which candidate was for what and against what.
Quote
It's always my opponent is the worst scumbag on earth.
So I shouldn't have pointed out the worst scumbag on earth in the 2016 election was elected and that should not have been mentioned in 2020? That same worst scumbag on earth whined the election was rigged in 2020 and that is not worth mentioning.

I mean the job is all about character, and when your opponent has no character ... has no integrity .... has no visible redeeming qualities, you think that should not be mentioned in passing???

But then ... his supporters don't care if he is the worst scumbag on earth and was willing to sell America to the low bidder. I think it says far more about the substance of Americans than any passing comment about scumbags.

I think we are frakked and Republicans can't hurry fast enough to regain power so they can complete the job of destroying America.
That's the problem, both parties think the other is out to destroy America. Each party thinks the other party is this nation's worst enemy, it's number one enemy.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/pu...voters_see_each_other_as_america_s_enemy

I chalk that up to today's modern political era we've entered into. The polarization, the great divide, the mega, ultra high partisanship.

As for 2016, it was an election between two unwanted candidates.

One in Four Americans Dislike Both Presidential Candidates

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/pol...ans-dislike-presidential-candidates.aspx

25% of the nation which included 54% of independents didn't want neither one to become their next president. Only Republicans liked and wanted Trump, only Democrats liked and wanted Hillary Clinton. Looking at the final vote totals from both parties, there must have been a lot within each who disliked and didn't want even their own candidate. Only 88% of Republicans voted for Trump, 89% of democrats voted for Hillary. That's below the national average for party members voting for their own candidate. Put it in perspective 94% of both Republicans and Democrats voted for their candidate in 2020, 93% of Republicans and 92% of Democrats voted for their candidates in 2012.

I term 2016 as an election of obnoxious, rude, uncouth vs. aloof, elitist, know it all. Obnoxious, rude, uncouth won by a quirk of the electoral college. 2020, it was obnoxious, rude, uncouth vs. bland, old, uninspiring, but behaved like an adult, in 2020, the adult won.

Like it or not, for quite a lot of folks, elections are beauty contests. These last two elections were strictly personality based. Strange as it seems, policy, stances on issues, independents were fairly split on those with Trump, for some, against some, indifferent to others. But when it came to like or dislike as a person, independents really disliked Trump as an individual, the man, by a 39% like/58% dislike. It was their dislike of Trump, the man, the person that defeated him.
Originally Posted by Greger
It bothers me when it's lies that's getting them off the couch.
Couldn't decide who to quote in a response, but what Greger said seems to be the most on point - the lies that got people off of the couch and active in an insurrection (a pretty serious crime, if you have to think about it) need to be investigated in a big way. There's a slim possibility that the truth might wake up a couple of those ignorant beauty contest voters and raise awareness about the insane trajectory of the Righties (are the Lefties on a similar insane tragictory?).

This deep dive story about seven leading insurrectionists is very interesting, as it gives a look at the personal and psychological motivations of a cross section of the "partisans" who wrecklishly stormed the seat of U.S. Government. The insight gained just might give a few clues as to how to correct the related trajectory. So far I have only watched the first three bios.

I almost know one of the crazies - Couy Griffin, leader of Cowboys For Trump - as I once bought roughsawn lumber from his family sawmill. Couy might well have been the fellow who cut the logs. He comes from Catron County, NM, known locally as 'Cartoon County', which was infested with a community of Celtic warriors brought to the region as railroad workers in the 1800's. They are still to this day trying to make ancient Celtic Law the rule of the land. (The county seat, Reserve, is also known locally as 'Reverse'). These are people with a cultural heritage that enshrines the personal right of liberty best described as, "No effing a$$hole is gonna tell ME what to do!" If anything, Otero County is worse. Thank Gawd we have a Republic that protects their rights from the majority!!
Quote
are the Lefties on a similar insane tragictory?

Not from my viewpoint as a lefty. Our struggle is for equality and justice for every race, creed, and sexual orientation. We want equality and justice for right wingers too.

Rightwingers mostly just want us dead.
Quote
both parties think the other is out to destroy America
A false equivalence.

Make a list of what one party thinks the other is doing to destroy America .... if you can demonstrate the lists are equivalent, I will reconsider my position. An example ... how does guaranteeing everyone is equal destroy America? Legalization of discrimination does destroy the very fabric of the foundations of America.

You may be looking for rationalizations of something which is unsupportable.
I was referring to a bunch of Hispanics who did not support the Democratic candidates because they thought that they would take away their jobs! that could only have happened if those candidates were completely clueless about those they wanted to vote for them. There is one sure way to lose voters and that is to threaten their jobs and the Dems, apparently, did that!

If you threaten jobs then all the promises of all the good things you are going to give them just goes up in smoke. Somebody might point that out to the Dems. I have tried and been duly ignored. I remembered when, in 2016 my wife was working for the Dems. She asked them for a sign to put on her lawn and they wanted 35.00 for the sign. She quite working for the Dems. The town was loaded with Trump signs - there were no Hillary signs. Hillary lost.

One has to think that the Dems spend a lot of time figuring out clever ways to lose.
I think the poll which pointed out

A deeper dive finds that 37% of Republicans feel Biden voters are the biggest enemy, just edging the 34% who feel that way about China. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats think Trump voters are the biggest threat, far and above the danger posed by all the others.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/pu...voters_see_each_other_as_america_s_enemy

It shows the deep partisan effect of what those highly partisans think. Number one enemy, biggest enemy, same, same. Biggest threat, destroy, same, same.

This shows what a big chunk of each party thinks, views the other party. 20 or so years ago, no pollster would even think about asking this question. Actually 20 years ago, Lott and Daschle came up with a power sharing agreement for a 50-50 senate tie. My how times have change.

https://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/05/senate.powershare/index.html

Now if I have a hankering for the past, this is the past as far as politics go I want to replace today's modern era politics of polarization, the great divide and the mega, ultra high partisanship. If Lott and Daschle can accomplish this, there's no reason it can't be done today. That is if party leaders were willing.
Quote
Republicans feel Biden voters are the biggest enemy
Quote
Democrats think Trump voters are the biggest threat,

Gee I am not typing about feelings or ruminations .... please post the precise policies which will destroy America from each. I gave you an example and OMG there are plenty of Republican examples and if you actually believe what you typed, you should be able to provide an equivalent list to demonstrate the claim Democrats are destroying America.

Feelings .... that's what Limbaugh used to say about liberals .... all about emotions
Not my job, I'm not a partisan one way or the other. I keep track of these things. I don't defend Republicans, I don't defend Democrats. Now if I were one or the other I probably would launch into a tirade about the other party. I'm not. I want to see how these things effect elections and why the two major parties can't even cooperate on things they agree on let alone compromise to an outcome neither likes on things they disagree on. which 20 or so years ago was more the norm than an aberration.

I just post what I see, in this case how a large chunk of each major party views the other as an enemy, a threat to the nation. How you take is entirely up to you.

What I find sad is that so many view their political opponents as enemies. But I wasn't surprised, not in today's modern political era of polarization, the great divide and mega, ultra high partisanship. Here's something else I found interesting.

Why The Two-Party System Is Effing Up U.S. Democracy

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-two-party-system-is-wrecking-american-democracy/
The answer to this is pretty simple, and the end is coming soon...or perhaps the beginning of the end.

Mitch McConnell. The only genuine political genius of our time.

And his race is almost run.

There's no one waiting in the wings. He hoards power like a dragon hoards gold.
Quote
Feelings .... that's what Limbaugh used to say about liberals .... all about emotions
Yes, yes...bleeding heart liberals vs rock ribbed republicans.

I've been asking for years for any example of republican policy or legislation which has helped American working families.

The party is 100% invested in the tinkle down myth. But they keep any actual tinkling down from happening...
Quote
Not my job, I'm not a partisan one way or the other.
Yikes

So when you presented the stats with the claim, which shows both sides equally think/feel/emote the other side is destroying America, I have to infer you concluded that means neither side is trying to destroy America, and it is all baloney. Double yikes!!!!

My question to you was as a teacher to a student, you being a student of politics, to support your conclusion with a factual analysis.

Quote
What I find sad is that so many view their political opponents as enemies.
I suppose as I read the DoI you would have concluded George III was not the enemy but some misunderstood royal.

It's real ... it's happening now ... and it's not about my feelings ... it's about policies and their effect on the institutions of democracy. You can stand by with a page full of stats which claim there would be no insurrection or listen to people who waiting for the storm. They are THE BASE, and they have extorted elected officials into doing their will, which is not to maintain democracy but destroy and place Mr Trump at the helm of the New America.
Look on me as a reporter reporting on or providing the statistical numbers being reported. The numbers are that 37% of Republicans feel Biden voters are the biggest enemy, 35% of Democrats think Trump voters are the biggest threat. The whys and wherefores weren't included. Just the numbers, the percentages of each party who think the other party is this nation's number one enemy.

I'm sure Democrats think their justified in thinking that just as Republicans feel justified from their side of the aisle. Although the numbers weren't given in the article, you had this sentence, Voters not affiliated with either major party rate China, Biden voters and Trump voters all equal as threats.So one's partisan view point comes to the fore.

What you have here is the feelings of America broke down into party groups. When you combine all the numbers to America as a whole, nationwide without party affiliation, you have 24% who think Biden voters are America’s biggest enemy, The same number (24%) see China as enemy number one. 22% regard Trump voters as the biggest enemy, while 10% view Russia and seven percent 7% North Korea as the largest threat to the United States.

Now how you take this is entirely up to you. But what it tells me is our modern political era of polarization, the great divide and the mega ultra high partisanship is growing to a point where it us vs. them. Where one of isn't of the same political party becomes hated to a point where we'll have violence and riots in the streets from the losing party who thinks they're defending America and her ideals. Trying to stop the other party from destroying her.

It's to a point where each party views the other as out to destroy this country. Right, wrong or indifferent, that just the way it is. From a Democrats point of view, it's the Republican Party, from a Republicans point of view, it's the Democrats. From a good many independents, it's both.

numbers, figures, stats. from all of America, America as a whole, not just one party or one group. All.
I have experienced this problem before with conservatives/libertarians.

When I say compare issues/positions/agendas of the two parties, that does not mean compare your feelings. Maybe I am typing in a foreign language???

Does ensuring equal rights for all Citizens in America destroy America? I don't need a poll. I need a political analysis. One party supports equal rights and one party does not. That statement is demonstrable. This is concrete and road. Take the chalk in hand and step up to the board and analyze ... start with definitions .... what does it mean when you say "destroy America".

Now go from there .... I don't want a poll on someones feelings .... i don't want to know YOUR personal feelings .... I want an analysis
I didn't say destroy America, I didn't say each party looks on the other as this nation's number one enemy. The people being polled said that. I just posted the poll, reported on the numbers as the voting public views them.

I'm not an analyst. Now we did have them in the Army, intel analyst, photo analyst, more. I suppose we could equate votes to percentages. Biden voters viewing Republicans as the enemy would come out to 28.4 million. Trump voters viewing democrats as the number enemy would come out to 27.4 million. So we have approximately the same number of folks from both parties viewing the other party as this nation's number enemy out to destroy her. Notice I didn't say that, the people who responded to the question did.

You're putting words into my mouth. Frankly both major parties disgust me, that why I'm a swing voter and not a Republican nor a Democrat. You're just as good an analyst to figure out why so many people do view the other party party this way.

Personally, I would say 40 years of nothing but negative attack ads portraying the other party's candidates as the worst scumbag on the face of the earth probably has everything to do with it. In a two party system, especially now, both parties try to portray the other in the most negative light possible. The goal is to get the voter to hate the other party's candidate more than they hate yours.

Now if you want to call that an analyst or a personal opinion or whatever , be my guest. But there you have it. All this negative advertisement has caused people to believe it is all true. They've heard it for 40 years which has gotten worst every year for 40 years. Now people believe it.
Quote
I'm not an analyst
so how do you form an opinion to make a choice on whom you are voting??? Let me help you .... you analyze, ergo you are an analyst.

Please note when I asked for "your" definition of "destroy America" it was not you personally. I used it as a starting point. In mathematics we would say start with the definitions i.e. make sure everyone is on the same page.

I don't like the party machinery either, so I am also an independent, but am a liberal with emphasis on equality and justice for all.

I think you over rate negative ads and especially try to equate Democrat ads which describe objectionable behavior of beliefs as negative the same as the slime we see from Republicans i.,e. he has a black baby out of wedlock. So for you white supremacy is simply a nasty negative ad. For me it tells me everything I need to know about a candidate. So for you when Re Gosar hangs out with white supremacists and fund raise off of them, you don't think it means anything about Rep Gosar, since there is no substantive issue mentioned in ad .... at least that is my conclusion of what you have typed. To me knowing he hangs with the supremacists is a substantive issue.

So are you going to be an analyst or continue to regurgitate polls?
I analyze polls to find trends that will help in forecasting the next election. So I will continue to be the analyst. I'm about as far as one can get from being a partisan or an ideologue. But elections interest me, they might not you because you have a political agenda. They do me however. Sometimes the most mundane thing equates to giving one party or the other an advantage. It's those mundane things I want to catch.

To get a grasp on how the next election goes, one needs to know how all Americans are thinking, feeling, what issues are hot with them and which ones they don't give an owl's hoot about.

Negative ads work, if they didn't no one would use them. You have to be aware at who the negative ads are focused on. They aren't focused on the other party's base and aren't on their own base for the most part. We know how those affiliated voters will vote within a couple of percentage points in almost every election. It's those in the middle, swing voters, independents, non-affiliated, less to non-partisan that all these negative ads are trying to convince. More of less to get those voters who don't pay much or any attention to politics to hate the other party's candidates more than they hate yours.
© ReaderRant