Always treat others with respect and kindness, even if you disagree with them. Avoid making personal attacks or insulting others, and try to maintain a civil and constructive tone in your discussions.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 0
No. of Recommendations: 1
No. of Recommendations: 9
We be offered a candidate we can all respect?
Two reasons:
1) Jeh Johnson didn't choose to run for President; and
2) If he did run for President and became the nominee, you'd certainly stop respecting him.
The first is pretty inarguable. The second might not seem like it would be the case, but any Democrat who actually had a chance to get the nomination would immediately be subject to tons of Republican and conservative oppo attacks. The same is true of any Republican and Democratic negative attacks, BTW. So non-candidates often seem like they might appeal to a broad base of both parties - "candidates we can all respect" - because it's advantageous for the opposition parties to make the non-candidates look better than the actual candidates. Which usually means highlighting the one or two policy areas on which they might disagree with their parties and come closer to the opposition party.
Most relevant example in the current race - if you think that Nikki Haley seems "reasonable" to Democrats now, just wait and see if she actually won the nomination. Then she'd be portrayed as the most horrendous person imaginable.
Anyone progressive enough to actually have a shot of winning a Democratic primary would immediately be savaged by the conservative/Republican groups once they reached a point of success in the polls. The same would certainly be true of Johnson - a few months of savaging him as a tax and spend, pro-choice, pro-gay rights (he spearheaded the effort to get rid of DADT), climate-change believing hippie, and all the folks who now respect him because he says critical things about Democratic border policy will turn on him faster than you can say "John McCain."
No. of Recommendations: 3
So your header urging Biden to raise asylum restrictions seems to ignore this. So are you practicing your ignore-ance?
Biden administration urges US court to uphold asylum restrictions
By Daniel Wiessner
November 7, 20237:59 PM EST
Nov 7 (Reuters) - A lawyer for the administration of U.S. President Joe Biden on Tuesday told an appeals court that a judge was wrong to block a rule imposing new restrictions on asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California, heard the government's appeal of a decision that said the rule adopted earlier this year violates federal immigration law, which explicitly states that crossing the border illegally should not be a bar to asylum.
he challenge to the rule was brought by immigrant advocacy groups represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
Biden, a Democrat, took office in 2021 pledging to reverse many of the hardline policies of Republican former President Donald Trump, but has adopted many strict border measures as record numbers of migrants have been caught crossing illegally.
The regulation presumes most migrants are not eligible to apply for asylum if they passed through other nations without seeking protection there first, or if they crossed the border illegally instead of arriving at a designated port of entry.
No. of Recommendations: 0
2) If he did run for President and became the nominee, you'd certainly stop respecting him."" The idea is to run a person who can get 55% of the vote and unite 70 % of the country. No one can be expected to do more than that.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Then she'd be portrayed as the most horrendous person imaginable.
Second most. Trump will forever be number 1 in that category. At least in US politics.
No. of Recommendations: 3
he idea is to run a person who can get 55% of the vote and unite 70 % of the country. No one can be expected to do more than that.
That cannot happen in modern politics.
No presidential candidate has captured 55% of the vote since Ronald Reagan's re-election in 1984.
No new presidential candidate has captured 55% of the vote since LBJ in 1964.
If Jeh Johnson were to run for President and obtain the Democratic nomination, whatever respect you currently have for him based on his iconoclastic positions as a Democratic border hawk would dissipate immediately. It would be overwhelmed by GOP/conservative positioning of all of his more standard Democratic positions as being more important than being half right on a single issue.
No. of Recommendations: 2
“ No presidential candidate has captured 55% of the vote since Ronald Reagan's re-election in 1984.”” Come on man, no party has spent so much time and energy demonizing a political rival. Running against Trump, who makes more unforced errors than a high school tennis player should be a lay up.
No. of Recommendations: 7
Come on man, no party has spent so much time and energy demonizing a political rival. Running against Trump, who makes more unforced errors than a high school tennis player should be a lay up.
There are no lay-ups in modern politics. The electorate is divided and fairly well-sorted on political positions corresponding to the two major parties. Trump's "unforced errors" don't and won't cost him any support among the 45% of voters who will vote against the Democratic nominee no matter who the Democratic candidate is, just as Biden's weaknesses as a candidate won't cost him any support among the 45% of voters who will vote against any Republican. And neither candidate will be able to seize all of the 10% in the middle.
The GOP has spent a fair amount of time and energy demonizing Biden - as they did with H. Clinton, Obama, Kerry, and B. Clinton before him. The Democrats have spent a fair amount of time and energy demonizing Trump - as they did with McCain, Romney, and G. W. Bush before him. It works for both sides. People who are inclined to support Republicans will learn to hate whatever Democrat is the nominee (especially an incumbent); people who are inclined to support Democrats will learn to hate whatever Republican is the nominee (again, especially an incumbent).
That's because any major-party candidate has to carry the major-party brand. It's baked into being the nominee. If you don't like the general politics/policies/cultural associations of the Democratic party, you're going to vote against the Democratic nominee no matter who it is or whether they have policies that are slightly more to the center than the party brand. Same is true of the GOP nominee. The nominees matter, but not enough to overcome the partisan split so prominent in modern American presidential politics.
No. of Recommendations: 7
Trump's "unforced errors" don't and won't cost him any support among the 45% of voters who will vote against the Democratic nominee no matter who the Democratic candidate is, just as Biden's weaknesses as a candidate won't cost him any support among the 45% of voters who will vote against any Republican.
That's the bit of the psychology I don't get.
Sure. If it was Chris Christie (just to pick someone with experience), I get it. Reps would rally behind him, and Dems would attack him. And vice versa with Biden. Totally understand.
But Trump? He says stupid things, he does stupid things, he (and/or his company) has been found guilty of various offenses, and he (they) are charged with even more (pending trials). He is a reprehensible excuse for a human being. He has zero redeeming qualities. So other than those who agree with his hateful, authoritarian, points of view, he should have NO support.
As a hypothetical, if there were a Dem that was equally awful, running against (again, pick someone) Christie, I would vote for Christie. He may not do what I want, but he isn't so awful that he might bring the democracy crumbling down (or try to).
It truly is the lesser of two evils. I think a lot of Reps do get that (e.g. the Lincoln Project Reps), but not enough of them.
No. of Recommendations: 2
As a hypothetical, if there were a Dem that was equally awful, running against (again, pick someone) Christie, I would vote for Christie. He may not do what I want, but he isn't so awful that he might bring the democracy crumbling down (or try to).
What if that awful Democrat was running against Trump? Or De Santis? You're picking the Republican that's probably running the closest to the Democrats, of all the field - it's an easy choice to say you'd be willing to pick the most 'centrist' of the current candidates. But what if it was someone who would really use the office to push hardcore conservative positions? Are you willing to give the GOP another four years of power rather than have an less-than-perfect Democrat keep the office in Democratic hands?
The GOP electorate is smart enough to realize that no matter Trump's faults, the country is going to move closer to what they want with him in office than any Democrat. They're probably better at realizing that politics is a team sport, rather than an expression of personal virtues or values, than Democrats are.
No. of Recommendations: 2
What if that awful Democrat was running against Trump?
As Legal Eagle says: It depends. Who is most awful. Again, we're looking at the lesser evil. I'm not talking "less than perfect". I'm talking "truly awful".
I did say "pick someone". If you don't like Christie, how about Haley? I don't like her either, but I would take her in a heartbeat over a Dem Trump. What was the name of that guy who was just kicked out of Congress? I'd probably take Haley over him, because he was a minor-league Trump (from what I could tell), even if he was a Dem.
I know politics is a team sport. But if your team is putting up genuinely wretched people, then -like the Lincoln Project- you have to try to stop them. Always your objective should be what's best for the country, and that isn't always your team's leader. If it were a lesser evil, I would get it. McConnell is a piece of work, but I would understand Reps rallying behind him if he were to run. Just not Trump. He'll do more damage than good (or the Rep's idea of "good"). Ultimately he doesn't care what the party is, if he decides someone is "disloyal". He'll attack and try to destroy them.
No. of Recommendations: 1
The GOP electorate is smart enough to realize that no matter Trump's faults, the country is going to move closer to what they want with him in office than any Democrat. They're probably better at realizing that politics is a team sport, rather than an expression of personal virtues or values, than Democrats are. - albaby
---------------
Exactly.
No. of Recommendations: 5
Just not Trump. He'll do more damage than good (or the Rep's idea of "good").
There's not a lot of support for that. The GOP was almost certainly much better off having Trump in office from 2017-2021 than they would have been with Clinton - if nothing else, having him in power gave conservatives control of the SCOTUS for a generation, rather than giving liberals a 6-3 majority. Yes, Trump led to tons of problems for the GOP. But not enough to outweigh the benefits of controlling the Presidency for four years.
No. of Recommendations: 6
You're talking "GOP". I'm talking the country.
He weakened NATO, he weakened our alliances overseas, he weakened our presence in Asia...the list is pretty long. In fact, he also did a lot of stuff the GOP didn't like (including most of the prior list).
He did give the Reps the SCOTUS. That's about it. Not that it's trivial, but there is a lot more to running a country.
No. of Recommendations: 2
On a side note, do you ever check out the science board? I just posted an article about a new approach to EV batteries that makes "refueling" faster. I know you have an interest in that.
No. of Recommendations: 0
He weakened NATO, he weakened our alliances overseas, he weakened our presence in Asia...the list is pretty long. In fact, he also did a lot of stuff the GOP didn't like (including most of the prior list).
Yeah, but a Clinton Administration would have done a lot of stuff that the GOP wouldn't like in foreign policy, either.
That's the bottom line - regardless of how disappointed the GOP might have been in some of the decisions Trump made, on the whole they're going to prefer a foreign policy apparatus headed by a Republican than a Democrat. And inarguably the same is true about domestic policy, only more so.
