Continued Trump Administration Fallout

[hollodero]

(05-07-2021, 06:21 PM)Dill Wrote: (I esteem the invaluable uniqueness of Wyoming much more than does Hollo.)

Yeah my remarks surprisingly ended in a screw Wyoming take, which now of course I'm rolling with. You should throw them out honestly. Just imagine how cool a map of the US would be with a rectangular hole in it. You could stick a finger through it and twirl it around. That would be so cool.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-07-2021, 08:17 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah my remarks surprisingly ended in a screw Wyoming take, which now of course I'm rolling with. You should throw them out honestly. Just imagine how cool a map of the US would be with a rectangular hole in it. You could stick a finger through it and twirl it around. That would be so cool.

Better yet, let's cut it into four equal parts and make all four separate states! 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-07-2021, 08:05 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, there might not be an easy way, and politicians have to sell the whole idea in their countries after all or else they brexit away. Which demands a lot of compromise and makes the whole thing pretty ineffective.

There's an overall picture of a continent devastating itself in two gruesome wars and the EU being a peace project to avoid this ever happening again. Which makes me a passionate EU proponent despite all its severe flaws.

I think the idea of a free economic zone was an excellent one.  The minute they decided to make it a United States of Europe (an oversimplification I know) was the moment the idea jumped the shark.  You're talking about cultures thousands of years old having to abdicate their sovereignty, at the risk of economic devastation, to a central governing body largely dictated by Germany and France.  Who could have foreseen that going badly? I get the impetus behind it, especially given your correct assessment of the impact of the two World Wars, but the current execution of the idea is flawed and, IMO, doomed to eventual failure. 

[hollodero]

(05-07-2021, 08:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Better yet, let's cut it into four equal parts and make all four separate states! 

I am sly as a fox (which isn't that sly to be honest, but still), I see what you're doing...


...why not slice it in about twenty and make everyone there a senator. 

- Oh, but the stars in the flag. That would be an unpleasant starflation.

(05-07-2021, 08:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think the idea of a free economic zone was an excellent one.  The minute they decided to make it a United States of Europe (an oversimplification I know) was the moment the idea jumped the shark.  You're talking about cultures thousands of years old having to abdicate their sovereignty, at the risk of economic devastation, to a central governing body largely dictated by Germany and France.  Who could have foreseen that going badly? I get the impetus behind it, especially given your correct assessment of the impact of the two World Wars, but the current execution of the idea is flawed and, IMO, doomed to eventual failure. 

Don't say that... that was is as unpleasant as it is justified.

I mean, I for one am all for giving up our souvereignty for an United States of Europe project. Because I feel that's the only way to hold our own and be a global player independent from an increasingly moody US, also it's the only way to effectively fight global threats like climate change that know no borders, or also tax havens and whatnot.

But I know that's a complete illusion.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-07-2021, 08:34 PM)hollodero Wrote: Don't say that... that was is as unpleasant as it is justified.

I mean, I for one am all for giving up our souvereignty for an United States of Europe project. Because I feel that's the only way to hold our own and be a global player independent from an increasingly moody US, also it's the only way to effectively fight global threats like climate change that know no borders, or also tax havens and whatnot.

But I know that's a complete illusion.

I say this sincerely, the US commitment to NATO and European safety is far greater than European commitment to NATO and US safety.  I can pretty much guarantee you that even under Trump that if a NATO member was attacked we would jump at the chance to defend them.  Trump would certainly rub your nose in it, but he'd still do it.  I think Europe has too many disparate cultures, and deep seated feelings, many of them negative, to make that type of union work.  Plus you have the rather significant disconnect between the former Warsaw Pact nations (look at the tension within Germany itself and the more marked extremism in the former DDR states) and the west.  I think it would be much easier for Europe to present a united front without a central governing body, especially in the face of significant challenges.

I have a few friends from the Baltic states (all three of them), Croatia and the Czech Republic.  To a person none of them trust Germany at all, but would stand with them in a second against Russia.

[hollodero]

(05-07-2021, 08:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I say this sincerely, the US commitment to NATO and European safety is far greater than European commitment to NATO and US safety.

I find that hard to compare. I know that the point I'm making is a showboat and not quite that substantial maybe, but the European countries stood with the US after 9/11 and this is the only instance of article 5 ever being envoked. Quite some of them even went to Afghanistan (which was not article 5) at your side.

Not us, of course, we're neutral. But the cool ones.

And as I said... I know. Overall you might be right with your assessment. Just comparing the military might and the ressources it took to commit to it would make it look foolish to really contradict that. Our security depends on your military, not so much ours.

(05-07-2021, 08:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   I can pretty much guarantee you that even under Trump that if a NATO member was attacked we would jump at the chance to defend them.  Trump would certainly rub your nose in it, but he'd still do it.

Well, I believe you personally would do that for sure. But you might have a certain understanding that we do not trust the leaders you choose all that much any longer. Yeah Trump would probably have jumped as described. But what Don jr. will do in 12 years, or president Tucker or whoever you pick, that I will not claim to know so certain. We can't afford to, imho from our perspective it would be foolish to not see Trump as being a warning. Some things change gradually, like commitments to things and values in the US. Might not be likely, but very well possible.

(05-07-2021, 08:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   I think Europe has too many disparate cultures, and deep seated feelings, many of them negative, to make that type of union work.  Plus you have the rather significant disconnect between the former Warsaw Pact nations (look at the tension within Germany itself and the more marked extremism in the former DDR states) and the west.

Trust me, I know. It's an illusion, as I said.

(05-07-2021, 08:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   I think it would be much easier for Europe to present a united front without a central governing body, especially in the face of significant challenges.

I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. As of now, we usually don't present a front at all. We let Putin pull all kinds of shit in front of our noses, we have no means but economical ones to make our words worth listening to, we have no strategy when it comes to Syria even though many of our problems come from there, we have roughly 28 approaches when it comes to Turkey and Erdogan, this could go on and on, we are split up and a halfassed pseudocommitment like the actual EU does not really change that. Economically, sure, that works just fine, but that's not enough to be prepared for the future. I mean, Arturo might see that totally different, but that's my frustration with it.

But yeah the alternative is an illusion. Can't abandon what I think is right though. I'm like one of those old Marxists, can't stop dreaming.

(05-07-2021, 08:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have a few friends from the Baltic states (all three of them), Croatia and the Czech Republic.  To a person none of them trust Germany at all, but would stand with them in a second against Russia.

Well, not to dismiss your overall point, but being preferrable to Putin is not quite a flaming endorsement. The Baltic states might list Russia just barely above North Korea probably.
Overall I do think there is a sense of solidarity between EU nations in severe cases, and to an extent with the people. Some kind of means and overall strategy would still go a long way.

[Dill]

(05-07-2021, 08:17 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah my remarks surprisingly ended in a screw Wyoming take, which now of course I'm rolling with. You should throw them out honestly. Just imagine how cool a map of the US would be with a rectangular hole in it. You could stick a finger through it and twirl it around. That would be so cool.

Really! Well look what you'd be cutting out - - long ways from PA and OH.

[Belsnickel]

(05-08-2021, 02:32 AM)Dill Wrote: Really! Well look what you'd be cutting out - - long ways from PA and OH.

This all gave me an idea. Republicans tend to point to these maps that highlight land area with the colors because these rural districts with low population density are larger than the condensed, tightly packed districts. However, in some states there is a large percentage of the land that is publicly owned. So, Wyoming's land is 55.9% publicly owned. We should come up with a way to reduce political power based on the percentage of publicly owned land since that land isn't held by a citizen with a vote, but the collective citizenry.

I'm joking of course, but it's a fun thought experiment to think about Alaska (95.8% public), Nevada (87.8%), Utah (75.2%), Idaho (70.4%), Oregon (60.4%), Arizona (56.8%), Wyoming (55.9%), and California (52.1%) having their political power reduced so much as states where the majority of their land is publicly held.

[Dill]

(05-08-2021, 06:48 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This all gave me an idea. Republicans tend to point to these maps that highlight land area with the colors because these rural districts with low population density are larger than the condensed, tightly packed districts. However, in some states there is a large percentage of the land that is publicly owned. So, Wyoming's land is 55.9% publicly owned. We should come up with a way to reduce political power based on the percentage of publicly owned land since that land isn't held by a citizen with a vote, but the collective citizenry.

I'm joking of course, but it's a fun thought experiment to think about Alaska (95.8% public), Nevada (87.8%), Utah (75.2%), Idaho (70.4%), Oregon (60.4%), Arizona (56.8%), Wyoming (55.9%), and California (52.1%) having their political power reduced so much as states where the majority of their land is publicly held.

Well that is some interesting information. I checked and 5.6 of that 55.9% is owned by the state of Wyoming, not the federal gov. I think only 60% of Alaskan public land is federally owned. The remainder I'm guessing is state owned. 

For the thought experiment to get off the ground though, wouldn't you need an amendment tying representation to land area? Otherwise, for purposes of Senate representation, a state is a state and equal to all others regardless of area. And as for the House, Wyoming still has its 563, 000 citizens claiming their one rep. Or how is the "collective citizenry" advantaged? 

Then there is the question of Indian reservations, held "in trust" by the federal gov. Do they count as public land, but "held" by the citizens who live on them? You'd be looking at tracts of populated "federal" land the size of Massachusetts and New Jersey in some cases. "Or larger," an angry Navaho would remind me. In Montana, whites are allowed to own land on the (public?) Flathead reservation (westernmost on the map) but not on the Crow (southernmost). 



lol little dot there in VA? I can't really tell. Y'all didn't treat yer Indians good. 

[Belsnickel]

(05-08-2021, 09:10 AM)Dill Wrote: lol little dot there in VA? I can't really tell. Y'all didn't treat yer Indians good. 

No, we really didn't. It resulted in only the Pamunkey tribe (the tribe of Powhatan and Pocahontas) having federal recognition because the state screwed the indigenous folks over so bad. That has changed recently, though, and now we have seven that are federally recognized. We do have other tribes with land, but they couldn't be considered reservations because of their status.

I interact a fair amount with the Monacan tribe, here, because of some things I do with Scouting. They have some land on Bear Mountain that is part of their ancestral lands.

[Dill]

(05-06-2021, 11:15 AM)hollodero Wrote: Dill Wrote:In any case, now that she has stuck to her course, she is forcing the party to make a very public choice between Trump, the Big Lie, and cult of personality on the one hand, and the rule of law on the other.  That is what interests me about her Op Ed and the GOP internal contract. It is the issue and its consequences, not whether Cheney is a good person deep down inside. 

I get that. As for that though, I fail to grasp why that matters. They (exceptions barred) made that choice already multiple times, also in public, they do not shy away from making it again and I don't think it effectively means anything. I'd wager not a single mind will change through that.

I understand you didn't exactly attribute heroism to her, but I still feel it's worth mentioning that as of now, she isn't a hero and there's a tendency to idolize anyone who speaks out against Trump. I remember past instances there. Mr. Kelly was perceived an awful person as long as he was Trump's chief of staff; as soon as he got ousted and said negative things about his former boss, he suddenly was the honorable general that did as best as he could under the circumstances. John Bolton was a warmongering FOX person and the super hack with the super PAC, then he was in Trump's admin, but as soon as he was out and wrote his book, suddenly what he had to say was all valuable and interesting and he was the upright, principled guy that might undo Trump. Additional examples exist.

And I feel something similar will happen with Cheney. She stays course, will get lauded and disappear after a while, or she betrays your hopes and comes back on the Trump train. And either way, it will end up meaning nothing. Which, imho, is what this public choice or public conflict you mentioned will amount to. To meaning nothing, only to the Trump side winning this conflict once again.
But hey I hope you're right and I'm not, for sure.

Well, this is helpful in that it illustrates how we are looking for different things and so select/assess evidence differently.  

When I look at US national politics, I view a field of various conflicting forces in degrees of balance and counterpoise. The lines of conflict and degrees of balance can be shifted by events and to some degree personalities. Sometimes that means a gradual build up of granular events forces a tectonic shift. That's kind of what happened with Trump's loss, which likely resulted from a long accumulation of small slights to minorities, the military, the elderly, etc.--"single minds" were changed, enough to move the needle just enough on election day. But considered in isolation, on the assumption they EITHER "make the difference now" OR "mean nothing," then one granular event doesn't indicate much. Nor does the next. 

In the case of the GOP especially, its Trump-based power is held together by an ideological consensus on certain issues--the Russia investigation was a hoax, the impeachments were witch hunts and ended in Trump's full exoneration, and Biden stole the election. I think this a fragile consensus, which has to be constantly maintained in the face of counter-evidence, in part, by de-legitimizing institutions which compete for or undermine Party/Trump authority, such as the MSM, universities, and government itself, institutions which constantly throw up the aforesaid counter-evidence.  This consensus can be easily managed in the face of individual, temporally spaced challenges, but multiples occurring in the same news cycle produce stresses--a laughingstock, mismanaged vote count in AZ; a Cheney op ed posing a choice between a party based on principle or person; Trump's refusal to pay his "lawyer" Giuliani--may drive a desperate search for "breaking news" about Hunter Biden.

On this view, 1/6 was a rare moment of "punctuated equilibrium"--a breakdown of ideological credibility which produced disorientation and rapid change--party leaders denouncing Trump and a pronounced drop in support.  But thanks in great part to the RWM, the "equilibrium" has been somewhat restored, though it remains on less sure footing than a year ago.

Thus Mini-events like the dust up over Cheney interest me because they indicate stresses and shifts in the balance of forces. I am not "hoping" a Cheney or a Bolton or Kelly will be the straw that breaks the back of Trump power. I'm finding things Bolton and Kelly have to say about the inner workings of the Trump WH are quite "valuable and interesting" in their own right as confirmation of journalistic and historical record.* And they become part of that counter-evidence which stresses the RW-GOP consensus, indicators and symptoms. 

So if tomorrow I were to post an article about a Republican state senator running for VA governor as an independent, who exhorts voters to trust her vote count, not the party's, I would be interested in how Trump's national party strategy was repeated at the local level by a "Trump in high heels"; "hoping for change" would not accurately describe my fascination in that process. Were I to post an article about the Bushie back ground and liberal voting patterns of Cheney's replacement in the House leadership, it would not be to elicit boring, tongue-clucking discussion of her personal "hypocrisy"--though collective hypocrisy is a different matter, as a structural feature of that ideological consensus mentioned above, and risks degradation or even breakdown with continual public scrutiny.  Hence the positive of keeping it before the public in op eds like Cheney's and articles about Stefanik's opportunistic shifts in position, support for the AZ vote count etc. I want all Repubs asked every day, on air, if they can confirm the the Big Lie. Do they "firmly back" the hunt for bamboo paper in AZ's vote count? 

Excepting a Gaetz or a Green, most do indeed "shy away" from such public affirmations. And the struggle and stress when forced to make them.
 
*I have to add something about "principles" and "heroes" here. I have never doubted that Bolton and Kelly are principled in a manner Trump is not. But it matters which principles, when judging "heroes." The former viewed his NSC position as a chance to more directly influence foreign policy in ways respectable Republicans would never countenance, but consistent with principles he's long held. He couldn't compromise those principles--SOME of which were professional, and good. Kelly supposed he could check Trump's excesses. And was sometimes successful (we still have our trade treaty with S Korea). I can find value in their eventual criticism of Trump, given the supreme awfulness of his FP deliberation and the obfuscation surrounding it, while also affirming that no competent administration would place either man in a president's inner circle. I can welcome their turn as principled, without idolizing them, walk and chew gum  .

[Dill]

(05-07-2021, 07:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Was that the post I responded to?
I believe anyone with a basic grasp of the English language could answer that question by reading the post you responded to.
I believe anyone with a basic grasp of the English language could answer that question by reading the post you responded to.

Hmm. You said I asked a different question, but failed to specify any "different" question. The quotes show I repeated the same, question, copy pasted, which you only answered on the fourth and final call.

Perhaps someone with a basic grasp of English can construct your agreement that 1) the Founders intended the Senate to pass bills with a simple majority, and that 2) you think a 60 vote majority for passage of bills is "keeping with the Chamber's purpose." 

And perhaps someone with a basic grasp of logic can see an inconsistency here, if it's the Founders who decide the Chamber's purpose, and they designed it to pass bills with a simple, not a supermajority.

When people sincerely want to be understood, they take care to reduce ambiguity in their statements; they don't respond to requests for clarification with even more elliptical questions/constructions.

When people want to obscure logical inconsistency, they embrace ellipsis and ambiguity for the plausible deniability it affords. (You didn't ACTUALLY state the Founders intended bills to pass with a simple majority, did you? I couldn't get you to do that on the Puerto Rico thread.) 

So there is an inconsistency between 1) and 2) which you may deny or commit too, depending on how I specify it. After all I don't have a direct quotation from you--only some buzz about a "basic grasp of English."  And this inconsistency may involve a number of others as well.
 
Hence the preference for deflecting questions and elliptical construction. Nothing to see here folks--look, over there, DILL is inconsistent!! 

Well let's see how the charge fits:

(05-07-2021, 07:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: By your own admission you have not complained about the filibuster before, despite it being in place since the mid 1800's.  As it now stymies your apparently preferred agenda you suddenly take issue with it.  Does this make you a hypocrite?  No, many of your other positions reveal your hypocrisy, but this is not one of them.  Hence my not making the assertion in this instance.  What it does make you is inconsistent, which is the charge I levelled against you in this instance. This is neither "rather too far" or even too far, it's precisely on point.  I must say, watching your edifice of genteel erudition erode by the post is amusing me to no end.  My how the mighty have fallen.  

You've leveled quite a few unsupported "charges" against me on this thread, including gaslighting and "hate for our system." And actually you did assert I was a hypocrite "in this instance": post #42 --"why didn't you make any posts about it during the years it stymied the Trump administration?  The answer is because you're a massive hypocrite."

I believe Bels and Michealsean don't like Trump. And now, on this thread, after years of silence, they too have suddenly taken issue with the filibuster. Where were they when Trump was "stymied"?  "Massive hypocrisy" here? Or ok when your friends do it? 

Sure you've thought this post facto gambit through? And given YOUR record, you expected no blowback from charging me with inconsistency?? 

One day you stand against hyperbole, and another you accuse me of supporting MS-13 because I won't call them "animals"--nevermind that some of your very best friends won't call them that either. So far as I know, you are the only guy in this forum who directly accuses other forum members "racism," but you warn the conservatives away from a Dino thread claiming that's what the liberals will do if they participate. When I ask you to cite examples of the nefarious tricks you insist I've learned from Fred, you can't; rather you insinuate I "see" them but won't cop to it. And accuse me of gaslighting. 

And then yesterday you asserted that I am "confused" by all your consistency. Indeed. Perhaps you got that one right.

So you've come at me every week with these ad hoc arguments: feels good one day to embrace the concept of absolute free speech, and another day to urge the moderators to delete a thread that crosses your preferred agenda. Different day, different standard. I apparently track your own arguments much better than you do.  Did you suppose the limits of this venue would prevent demonstration?

Why not leave off trying to "fell the mighty" and just focus on political issues and persons in the news, perhaps learning as you go, as I do.

(05-07-2021, 07:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  watching your edifice of genteel erudition erode by the post is amusing me to no end.  My how the mighty have fallen.  

[*michaelsean*]

(05-07-2021, 07:58 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah that kinda makes two of us.
It's not very transparent to say the least.



Well, that is surprinsingly complicated to answer. There's an European parliament where Austrian delegates are elected to in proportion to the population, eg. not so many. Small countries are slightly overrepresented. What this parliament does in practice, well, that would take too long to moan about. In theory, control and legislate.
The "government" is the Commission, every country gets to send one person into that Commission. Usually local politicians we don't know what to do with. The actual overall goals are somewhat informally decided in the European Council, where every country gets a vote through their head of government. The principle of unanimity applies in most cases. You can imagine how much gets done there. Eg. Poland always says no and the thing is dispersed.
But hey we also got the Council of the European Union, where ministers (think heads of department) from every country decide things in their respective fields. Eg. foreign affairs are decided there by the foreign ministers of each country, again principle of unanimity, again there's a reason we do not really have a common foreign policy. There are topics where a "double majority" is enough, representing the double amount of people, where Austria could get overruled. I really don't know when this applies though.

Now you might ask how this all works and how the cogs match. There's just no easy way to tell and I figure you weren't really after the long uneasy way to tell. The EU basically doesn't work properly, so it's a tough comparison to the US really.

Ok I was going to try to make a comparison but I guess that doesn’t work. I am interested in the local politician nobody knows what to do with though.

[hollodero]

(05-08-2021, 02:32 AM)Dill Wrote: Really! Well look what you'd be cutting out - - long ways from PA and OH.

Seems like the most representative representative for Wyoming would be a geysir. One outburst for aye, two for nay.

I mean, judging from the pictures, it appears everything cool about Wyoming is the non-human stuff.

[hollodero]

(05-08-2021, 10:58 AM)Dill Wrote: I want all Repubs asked every day, on air, if they can confirm the the Big Lie. Do they "firmly back" the hunt for bamboo paper in AZ's vote count? 

Excepting a Gaetz or a Green, most do indeed "shy away" from such public affirmations. And the struggle and stress when forced to make them.

That sure would go a long way with liberal leaning viewers. You'd own those Republicans every day. Imho, this approach still works under the assumption that truth matters in the end, something I no longer believe. 
Everyone enshrined in the Trump movement will just say fake news, paint you as a radical and that's that. No needle moved.

- Sure, I read your thoughts and don't quote them to not slay the thread through length. My main answer would be that there is a countrerreaction to the erosion-like process you describe. It's that with each and every instance like this Cheney vote, those that are loyal to Trump are automatically tied to him even closer, have even less room to ever turn away. Which makes it more and more unlikely that a critical mass breaks away from him. And if it does not, it's the other side that breaks away and the party just becomes even more unhinged and radical. Which is why I see no real positive aspects in Cheney's Op-Eds and in her eventual ouster. That I guess she's not exactly seen as credible actor by many does not help that.

When I look at recent GOP history, that is the effect I observe. Singular people speak out, for the hopeful non-Trumpers a sign of crumbling loyalty, a come to Jesus moment and whatnot; and then in the end those singular people are out and nothing has changed for the better. And that of course especially means the electorate was not moved. And the internal Trump critics rather lost their voice as being able to enhance it.

[hollodero]

(05-08-2021, 07:42 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Ok I was going to try to make a comparison but I guess that doesn’t work. I am interested in the local politician nobody knows what to do with though.

Well, people usually are not interested in them. It's those people that have a lot of merit, meaning a lot of connections, but the current bosses do not really have a place in their hearts or their cabinets for them. 
Eg., and this is not official and mere speculation on my part, our current nominee was sure a higher shot in one party and had a relationship with a woman that was quite an influential figure in another party. Which might have caused some awkwardness if he were to stay around at home. This is an ideal candidate to send to Brussels.

As for comparing the US with the EU, nope doesn't work. One might imagine as example how things would work if all of your 50 governors had to agree on something before it gets done. I get the US is quite used to cowtrading, but this sure is another level. Can we get this important measure done, how many fishing rights do you need to agree, how much extra money for you, how much leeway on this or that for you? OK.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-10-2021, 07:27 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, people usually are not interested in them. It's those people that have a lot of merit, meaning a lot of connections, but the current bosses do not really have a place in their hearts or their cabinets for them. 
Eg., and this is not official and mere speculation on my part, our current nominee was sure a higher shot in one party and had a relationship with a woman that was quite an influential figure in another party. Which might have caused some awkwardness if he were to stay around at home. This is an ideal candidate to send to Brussels.

As for comparing the US with the EU, nope doesn't work. One might imagine as example how things would work if all of your 50 governors had to agree on something before it gets done. I get the US is quite used to cowtrading, but this sure is another level. Can we get this important measure done, how many fishing rights do you need to agree, how much extra money for you, how much leeway on this or that for you? OK.

It's that damn Poland.  "Poland said no.  I'm going to try to catch the earlier train" 

[Dill]

(05-10-2021, 02:43 PM)hollodero Wrote: Seems like the most representative representative for Wyoming would be a geysir. One outburst for aye, two for nay.

I mean, judging from the pictures, it appears everything cool about Wyoming is the non-human stuff.

Maybe one of these guys.  More mobile than a geyser. Less swayed by party orthodoxy.

[Dill]

(05-10-2021, 02:57 PM)hollodero Wrote: - Sure, I read your thoughts and don't quote them to not slay the thread through length. 

Your s'posed to do it that way. I also quote only passages I am addressing. Quoting a long post is just lazy if you are only addressing bits of it. (Anyway, I've already slain the thread with all those pictures.)

(05-10-2021, 02:57 PM)hollodero Wrote: That sure would go a long way with liberal leaning viewers. You'd own those Republicans every day. Imho, this approach still works under the assumption that truth matters in the end, something I no longer believe. 
Everyone enshrined in the Trump movement will just say fake news, paint you as a radical and that's that. No needle moved.

Truth still matters to many (including you), maybe still a majority in the U.S. That's why Trump lost. The glass isn't just half full on this. It's more like 55% full.  There is still a chance that the consequences of ignoring truth will come home to more people and increase that percentage. 

On moving needles--see below.

(05-10-2021, 02:57 PM)hollodero Wrote: My main answer would be that there is a countrerreaction to the erosion-like process you describe. It's that with each and every instance like this Cheney vote, those that are loyal to Trump are automatically tied to him even closer, have even less room to ever turn away. Which makes it more and more unlikely that a critical mass breaks away from him. And if it does not, it's the other side that breaks away and the party just becomes even more unhinged and radical. Which is why I see no real positive aspects in Cheney's Op-Eds and in her eventual ouster. That I guess she's not exactly seen as credible actor by many does not help that.

Sure a counter-reaction, an effort to secure ideological consensus against the threat of unraveling. That's why McCarthy and Graham came back into the fold. The role of Fox news is to solidify such counter-reaction.

Those ultra-loyal may tie themselves closer to Trump; but all GOP/Trump voters don't fit that category. That hard core is not growing. As Romney said today, the process against Cheney is turning the GOP's big tent into a pup tent; it's become a primary party, not one that can win national elections. 

You are correct that one consequence of the purer concentration of Trump voters is more unhinged radicalism. Where they can control local and state races, we'll have candidates competing for ideological purity, not appealing to all voters in their district. That's going to have consequences in some places, making competent governance difficult where it's Trump from governor down to mayor. Stefanik's district is purple. Moderates and centrists put her over the top in 2020. If the interviews of her constituents seen on Erin Burnett tonight are any indication, she has lost at least some of those voters. Who knows if she has gained any. Some of the hard core think she is still really a "liberal." So needles appear to be moving in her district. Too soon to tell how many and which way.

The above two paragraphs describe what amounts to a growing structural problem, a core which cannot grow, but only become more unhinged and unable to govern.Increasing consequences of division, like efforts to solve the problem of extremists among police, will aggravate this problem, increasing Trumpist fanaticism without increasing numbers. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/11/us/police-extremists-state-laws.html The consequences of this structural problem aren't going to be business as usual, at least not as "business" was understood prior to 2019. Fanaticism is, finally, exhausting--for fanatic and non-fanatic alike.

(05-10-2021, 02:57 PM)hollodero Wrote: When I look at recent GOP history, that is the effect I observe. Singular people speak out, for the hopeful non-Trumpers a sign of crumbling loyalty, a come to Jesus moment and whatnot; and then in the end those singular people are out and nothing has changed for the better. And that of course especially means the electorate was not moved. And the internal Trump critics rather lost their voice as being able to enhance it.

Today three Republican Senators--Thule, Cassady, and Romney--spoke out in support of Cheney as a matter of PRINCIPLE. Before she spoke in the House today, at least two members of the infamous "Freedom" Caucus spoke on her behalf (albeit to an almost empty house, as the other Repubs absented themselves), one emphasizing the contradiction between making "cancel culture" a big party talking point and then canceling someone for speaking truth to power. 

Then Cheney stepped up for a truly Margaret Chase Smith Declaration-of-Conscience moment, centering on a refutation of the Big Lie, which I think she pulled off. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/05/11/liz-cheney-house-floor-slams-trump-calls-him-threat-america/5047782001/
She has been widely regarded as a "traitor" in her home state, so I'm curious how this plays out. Papers in Cheyenne, Gillette and Lander will print it in its entirety tomorrow.  It will appeal to principled conservatives, even as the shape shifters in House and Senate stop forward as the current face of the party. The party of Lincoln and principle--and defender of masculine identity--now run by flip floppers and kow towers who are afraid of a "girl."  And that girl promises to escalate the principle-over-party battle over the next two years. This will be hard to classify as "fake news" since it comes straight from the mouths of people who have been accusing the MSM for the last four years. 

I think the bolded above was true of the primary and Trump's first three years in office. It's not so true now. You keeping saying "nothing has changed for the better" as if the GOP still controlled the presidency, the Senate and the House. What counts as change for the better? 

Or were you only thinking of the Republican party? One journalist on CNN tonight, who regularly interviews Congress, said most House Repubs do not really believe the Big Lie (maybe 5, he said). How will they fare running against true believers whose campaign adds will feature their flip flops and grimacing embrace of Trump truth? This may produce a true Trump surge in '22, but the long term doesn't look so good.  And a party based on personality is more inherently unstable than a "normal" party. Remember the Trump-in-high-heels in VA, now telling Virginians to trust her over her party's vote count, or the conflict between Republicans in Arizona and Georgia over how to manage vote counts/voting. As naked power becomes more and more obviously the goal at state and national level, why would the electorate remain "unmoved"?  

PS I know. Long again. Not expecting you to address every point. No offense if you feel you made your point and see nothing new to respond to here. Though I will expect you to take up your "no change" thesis sometime down the road again--political accountability, even at the message board level!

[hollodero]

(05-12-2021, 01:15 AM)Dill Wrote: I think the bolded above was true of the primary and Trump's first three years in office. It's not so true now. You keeping saying "nothing has changed for the better" as if the GOP still controlled the presidency, the Senate and the House. What counts as change for the better? 

Well, for one having THREE principled GOP party members talking into a void is not change for the better. There were always three people doing that.

Change for the better would have been a total repudiation of Trump. Him losing by 15 percentage points overall, or even more, 20, 25, that would have been change. The EC map being predominantly blue. Governors and whole state parties speaking out and distancing themselves, splitting away, claiming how unbearable it is to be in a party that still worships Trump and scolds everyone who has the audacity to claim that Biden won legitimately and that storming the Capitol and erecting gallows to hang Mike Pence and whoever else is scary and bad. That's what is needed for change. Not someone talking on principle and getting booed and ousted for it.

What you got four years ago is Trump winning with a slim margin of I seem to remember 70.000 votes in some crucial states. Four years later, you have him losing by 45.000 votes in three crucial states, and that after those four years and with Corona in the background that would make reelection hard for anyone. At the same time Republicans won house seats. The election resulted in things being better in its end result, but only just. The needle moved on a tiny scale, all while Trump actually gained voters. He could easily be back and win again in 4 years, I see no reason why he wouldn't, and that is not sustainable change for the better. Imho it rather shows that the two parties are bound to take turns no matter what. Chtulhu and an army of darkness could lead one of the parties and this would be the case.

To a large part, one can see it here. I found exactly one person that actually got swayed (TigerTeeth). Eg. folks like Nately see Trump pretty much exactly as we do, yet he did not vote for the alternative the first time or the second time, which amounts to zero movement on his part. Not to pick him out, it seems to be the 50% of people's take, can't vote for either party anyway and nothing and no one could ever change that, so it does not matter. You really have little swing voters in your country. All is dug in, including the never-voters and third-party voters, the "truth" can be picked accordingly these days.

And since you asked what the GOP members will do that do not "really" believe the election was stolen; I fully believe that almost all know that. They just play their parts regardless for these are a bunch of completely spineless and honorless sycophants. This is not an exaggeration, just an accurate description of people like Graham and Kennedy and all the others, all of them, except Romney really (I know you found three in total, three!). Whoever can't lie with a straight face will be replaced and that's that. How you can see some kind of butterfly effect on that is beyond me, these people knew so many things better the last four years and still lied and distorted, they will not unlearn how to do that and they will not have a change of heart. Why would they, it would be the end of their career.