Deep State Strikes Again

[Gunnar]

With people like Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greem, Lauren Bobert, George Santos, Jim Jordan, DeSantis, Ted Cruz, Greg Abbott, etc. and so many other increasingly obvious liars and hypocrites in the party, why are there still so many people who still support it? It boggles my mind!

Because the GOP has transformed from a party into a cult, people don't use common sense for judgment. They act on idiotic beliefs, like "Trump was a great president," for instance. You know; complete and utter nonsense.

It seems to me the GOP base prefers to be aggrieved and misled than to be realistic and educated. You'd like to have a discussion with a reasonable Republican, but they're impossible to find. They have gone the way of the dodo bird.

I heard a Republican who intends to run for the President talking to Bill Maher say, "We just need to sell the voters on our platform. We have a great product to sell." It's hard to have a reasonable conversation with people who are obviously unreasonable.

A great product... this guy thinks saying "no" to all Democrats and saying "so?" regarding all GOP politicians' corruption is "a great product." He thinks a federal ban on abortion is "a great product." He thinks wasting taxpayer money on bogus politically motivated investigations is "a great product." He thinks whining about practically nonexistent voter fraud and a stolen election that was never stolen is "a great product." He thinks making sure we never take measures to ensure gun safety is "a great product." He thinks banning books is a "a great product." He thinks systemic bigotry is "a great product."

The GOP product is only great for GOP pols who want to capriciously wield power, Putin, and a handful of oligarchs. It's damned awful for everyone else.

I really have a hard time not viewing Republican voters as damned stupid as gnat crap.

Fully agree with the above analysis, and have been aware that this has largely been true for a long time and has been getting worse, especially since Trump was first elected. But it still bewilders me how many people seem to be buying into this kind of nonsense. It is like we have been exposed to a growing epidemic or pandemic of stupid -- a pandemic that I think is or will become ultimately more dangerous and destructive than Covid-19, If we can't come up with something akin to a "vaccine" that can immunize people against it.

[Physics Guy]

I lived in two different American states for about ten years in total, but as a Canadian living in Germany for a fair bit longer than that now, American domestic politics isn't a personal issue for me. I do have a big question.

Where is JFK?

The actual JFK is of course dead. What I mean is, where is today's JFK? Where is the charismatic young leader in the Democratic Party who can obviously blow Trump and all his stumbling followers out of the water?

Among the three-hundred-odd million Americans there have to be many people with the talent to skewer such a lumbering target effectively. I understand that those people could probably get very rich with less effort than it would take to go into politics, but there should be some motivation. The power of angrily ignorant American conservatism is ridiculous. Surely somebody ought to care enough about their country to wipe that muck off its face.

I'm not surprised that Trump has the power that he has. The pool of ignorant and angry older American voters is clearly there. What disturbs me is that his opposition seems so weak. How the heck is Joe Biden the best that the United States of America can find to oppose Donald Trump?

Where's JFK?

[Gadianton]

You raise a great question, and my counter question is, is it that there isn't a JFK among the 300+ million or is something else the problem? Maybe that's the subtext of your question, however.

I've thought about it a little over the years, and I've just assumed it has something to do with brand recognition. Somehow, social media, television, and all that, have only increased the zero-sum element of name recognition. If Elon could fake a birth certificate, he might be the one person who could dethrone Trump for the right-wing death squad voters such as a......

CNN just gave several days straight to Trump's "town hall" -- I have no idea what went on there -- they just keep the ball rolling in his favor.

Arnold became governor of the largest state just because he was a familiar face. Speaking of acting, there is a reason why some of these actors in their twilight years keep getting action rolls and they can barely move. Not even young actors in great shape can compete with the old guys. I wonder if there is some equation; the number of times the person's name is heard and the number of seconds the person's face gets seen, and it's cumulative, fresh views might count more but older ones not discounted as much as you'd think. Those at the top may dwarf anyone else, and that's the minimum threshold to get on the ballot and have any chance of winning.

[Some Schmo]

The problem with finding decent candidates, in my opinion, is that the people interested in getting into politics have no desire to actually serve in government. They're there for the power and perks. They like making speeches and public appearances, getting views on Twitter. They are characters in a dystopian play, not really a governing body.

If you're a smart, decent person, it's unlikely you're interested in associating with American politicians, because they are generally disingenuous people. You couldn't confidently trust anyone you worked with. Not only that, but associating with one party or the other automatically sets half the country against you. Who wants to sign up for that?

The most qualified people for the job have no interest in it, so we're stuck with assholes.

[honorentheos]

It's worth remembering that JFK barely won in 1960 with a 113k popular vote margin of victory and fewer state wins than Nixon though with a sizeable electoral vote margin, benefiting from the catholic vote not too differently than Barack Obama benefited from black voter turnout in both primaries and the general election in 2008. JFK was followed by Lyndon Johnson, the Democrat Senate Majority Leader who had became his VP to shore up claims JFK was too young and inexperience so he could win the nomination, not too differently from Biden and Obama. This despite three terms as a US representative and two terms as Senator compared to Obama's one partial term in the Senate for national office or executive office experience. The past may just seem more golden, less divisive, and better lead because it's the past.

That aside, the problems we face today in finding electable and competent leadership in politics is multi-faceted.

Gad is half right. Name recognition today matters more than just about any other quality, second to motivation. But that isn't a new phenomenon, it just works differently today than it did when television was new but the political machine was still largely ran by insiders in both parties who gatekept the path to the nominations. This meant the persons successful in making it to the party primaries to gain recognition had to be able to navigate within their own parties. There was a performance filter built into that process that helped the successful candidate do their job as president as much of that job involves working with lawmakers. We are much more truly democratic now, with all the good and bad that entails. Candidates who can keep their campaigns funded don't need to go sit in smoke-filled backrooms and prove to party bosses that they are ultimately the best person for the party. Instead, modern candidates appeal to niche constituencies to fund their campaigns, show up at elections, and spread their brand and message around on social media. The result? Chaos and less experienced candidates who leverage factions within the party to maneuver into office in manners that are destructive when applied to trying to do the job. Obama was an ok president in my opinion, not bad but not great, precisely because his appeal to the masses got him elected but his abilities to form working coalitions in the halls of Congress and among the Senate didn't exist. JFK had Bobby who was a master at that, and still JFK had a difficult first two years in office. He did things that needed done but struggled with balancing popular opinion and governing, and one shouldn't forget the Bay of Pigs was in this period as well. Obama had a difficult relationship with Congresspersons and Senators alike, and Biden was supposed to be his Bobby Kennedy AND Lyndon Johnson rolled into one.

Put simply, our primary process and social media combine to make chaos candidacies and party outsiders who represent idealist minorities rather than broad coalitions of Americans much more likely to succeed in capturing the nomination compared to times past. Name recognition matters most of all for general elections, but overall most folks don't show up to vote if they don't feel motivated strongly to actually vote. So motivation matters more, and this means splintering extremists have outsized power these days who also happen to be bad at governing more often than not.

This is a good time to bring up Bernie Sanders. I don't care who this applies to, but anyone who thinks he should become president is a moron. He would be a terrible president, representing the worst of the above problems in our system. Yet he almost captured the Democrat nomination in 2020 which was only prevented by the majority of moderate remaining candidates recognizing that Sanders would take the party if they didn't coalesce around one candidate, doing so in early March to rally around Biden after his performance in South Carolina ahead of super Tuesday. Trump became the Republican nominee in 2016 despite never winning a true majority of the primary votes until he had effectively cleared out the opposition because his 20-30% base was often enough to win a state in the Republican winner-take-all primary process crowded with candidates whose niches were more geographic/demographic based compared to Trump's nihilistic populist idealist base. Doesn't fix the issue of filtering IN candidates more fit for the job, but it would at least filter out candidates with extremist narrow appeal by allowing coalitions to form in real time as votes are counted.

So the issues are partially due to which candidates filter up but it has more to do with the process. Ironically, the greater degree our process reflects the uninformed will of the people, the less capable the resulting leaders turn out to be. The better system, in my opinion, would be one that favors candidates who prove capable of doing the job first, then seeing those candidates go through the process of winning over folks to get their campaign dollars and votes. But that isn't something folks in the US would favor. At that point I think the best alternative involves a ranked choice system taking the place of party primaries.

ETA: I am also interested in seeing how the process works this time around with Biden making it clear he's running again in 2024. I have to believe he has no choice except to declare this or else see the last half of this term become the worst possible lame duck two years imaginable. One has to accept that with the House in Republican control under weak leadership and challenged by extremist non-governing boobs, weakness in the White House due to the President having zero political future and thus zero political leverage would be disastrous in too many ways to count. The Senate is little better, meaning the loons would take over completely the next two years. Anyone concerned with seeing Trump defeated in 2024 in either the primaries or general election should view that as a dangerous scenario. So...the question becomes if things might change closer to the primaries? I wouldn't bet that will be the case, but it isn't impossible, either.

[Gadianton]

good points, H. When I made my statement I couldn't figure out how Obama would fit in, because he wasn't that well known. I think your points about selection for incompetency are important.

[ajax18]

It's worth remembering that JFK barely won in 1960 with a 113k popular vote margin of victory and fewer state wins than Nixon though with a sizeable electoral vote margin, benefiting from the catholic vote not too differently than Barack Obama benefited from black voter turnout in both primaries and the general election in 2008. JFK was followed by Lyndon Johnson, the Democrat Senate Majority Leader who had became his VP to shore up claims JFK was too young and inexperience so he could win the nomination, not too differently from Biden and Obama. This despite three terms as a US representative and two terms as Senator compared to Obama's one partial term in the Senate for national office or executive office experience. The past may just seem more golden, less divisive, and better lead because it's the past.

That aside, the problems we face today in finding electable and competent leadership in politics is multi-faceted.

Gad is half right. Name recognition today matters more than just about any other quality, second to motivation. But that isn't a new phenomenon, it just works differently today than it did when television was new but the political machine was still largely ran by insiders in both parties who gatekept the path to the nominations. This meant the persons successful in making it to the party primaries to gain recognition had to be able to navigate within their own parties. There was a performance filter built into that process that helped the successful candidate do their job as president as much of that job involves working with lawmakers. We are much more truly democratic now, with all the good and bad that entails. Candidates who can keep their campaigns funded don't need to go sit in smoke-filled backrooms and prove to party bosses that they are ultimately the best person for the party. Instead, modern candidates appeal to niche constituencies to fund their campaigns, show up at elections, and spread their brand and message around on social media. The result? Chaos and less experienced candidates who leverage factions within the party to maneuver into office in manners that are destructive when applied to trying to do the job. Obama was an ok president in my opinion, not bad but not great, precisely because his appeal to the masses got him elected but his abilities to form working coalitions in the halls of Congress and among the Senate didn't exist. JFK had Bobby who was a master at that, and still JFK had a difficult first two years in office. He did things that needed done but struggled with balancing popular opinion and governing, and one shouldn't forget the Bay of Pigs was in this period as well. Obama had a difficult relationship with Congresspersons and Senators alike, and Biden was supposed to be his Bobby Kennedy AND Lyndon Johnson rolled into one.

Put simply, our primary process and social media combine to make chaos candidacies and party outsiders who represent idealist minorities rather than broad coalitions of Americans much more likely to succeed in capturing the nomination compared to times past. Name recognition matters most of all for general elections, but overall most folks don't show up to vote if they don't feel motivated strongly to actually vote. So motivation matters more, and this means splintering extremists have outsized power these days who also happen to be bad at governing more often than not.

This is a good time to bring up Bernie Sanders. I don't care who this applies to, but anyone who thinks he should become president is a moron. He would be a terrible president, representing the worst of the above problems in our system. Yet he almost captured the Democrat nomination in 2020 which was only prevented by the majority of moderate remaining candidates recognizing that Sanders would take the party if they didn't coalesce around one candidate, doing so in early March to rally around Biden after his performance in South Carolina ahead of super Tuesday. Trump became the Republican nominee in 2016 despite never winning a true majority of the primary votes until he had effectively cleared out the opposition because his 20-30% base was often enough to win a state in the Republican winner-take-all primary process crowded with candidates whose niches were more geographic/demographic based compared to Trump's nihilistic populist idealist base. Doesn't fix the issue of filtering IN candidates more fit for the job, but it would at least filter out candidates with extremist narrow appeal by allowing coalitions to form in real time as votes are counted.

So the issues are partially due to which candidates filter up but it has more to do with the process. Ironically, the greater degree our process reflects the uninformed will of the people, the less capable the resulting leaders turn out to be. The better system, in my opinion, would be one that favors candidates who prove capable of doing the job first, then seeing those candidates go through the process of winning over folks to get their campaign dollars and votes. But that isn't something folks in the US would favor. At that point I think the best alternative involves a ranked choice system taking the place of party primaries.

ETA: I am also interested in seeing how the process works this time around with Biden making it clear he's running again in 2024. I have to believe he has no choice except to declare this or else see the last half of this term become the worst possible lame duck two years imaginable. One has to accept that with the House in Republican control under weak leadership and challenged by extremist non-governing boobs, weakness in the White House due to the President having zero political future and thus zero political leverage would be disastrous in too many ways to count. The Senate is little better, meaning the loons would take over completely the next two years. Anyone concerned with seeing Trump defeated in 2024 in either the primaries or general election should view that as a dangerous scenario. So...the question becomes if things might change closer to the primaries? I wouldn't bet that will be the case, but it isn't impossible, either.

A very interesting post, though I fear you upset the liberals with it.

Why not just have a national divorce. I think it would be in the best interests of everyone, Think about it. No conservatives disrupting your cheap labor supply with border enforcement. No more haggling over debt ceiling or tax rates. Vax and mask mandates forever, no limits on abortion and the world's first democratic socialist utopia, no more poverty, racial tensions, because your way is the best and all you need is a willing group of people to prove it. No more idiot right wingers or idiotic religious beliefs and traditions. Why not?

[Moksha]

Russia is floating a plan to build a village for conservative Americans who want to move to a 'Christian country' and are tired of liberal ideology in the US. Comarades Ajax and Santos would be doubly welcome.

https://news.yahoo.com/russia-floating- ... 09704.html

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Why not just have a national divorve. I think it would be in the best interests of everyone, Think about it. No conservatives disrupting your cheap labor supply with border enforcement. No more haggling over debt ceiling or tax rates. Vax Mandates, no limits on abortion and the world's first democratic socialist utopia. No more idiot right wingers or annoying religions. Why not?

Sigh …

"I was at a crappy crustpunk bar once getting an after-work beer. One of those shitholes where the bartenders clearly hate you. So the bartender and I were ignoring one another when someone sits next to me and he immediately says, "no. get out."

And the dude next to me says, "hey i'm not doing anything, i'm a paying customer." and the bartender reaches under the counter for a bat or something and says, "out. now." and the dude leaves, kind of yelling. And he was dressed in a punk uniform, I noticed

Anyway, I asked what that was about and the bartender was like, "you didn't see his vest but it was all nazi crap. Iron crosses and stuff. You get to recognize them."

And i was like, ohok and he continues.

"you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it's always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don't want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after a while they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too.

And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh crap, this is a Nazi bar now. And it's too late because they're entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down.

And i was like, 'oh damn.' and he said "yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people."

And then he went back to ignoring me. But I haven't forgotten that at all." "

Is there any question about the terrible, awful part now?

-Doc

[ajax18]

Russia is floating a plan to build a village for conservative Americans who want to move to a 'Christian country' and are tired of liberal ideology in the US. Comarades Ajax and Santos would be doubly welcome.

https://news.yahoo.com/russia-floating- ... 09704.html

I might start learning to говорит ро русски. I guess my spanish will be useful in Cuba or Venezuela if I want to experience the fruits of real Marxism without leaving the western hemisphere.