Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[ldrews]

Regardless of your view, you can't deny that Trump ran as a Republican and Sanders ran as an independent.

 

What on earth are you smoking? Sanders may have been an independent but he ran for the Presidential nomination as a Democrat. Much like Trump, who is a populist, ran as a Republican.

[Winstonm]

Fact Check: 1)Trump is a registered Republican. 2)There is no "populist" party.3)Sanders is registered as an independent.

[RedSpawn]

http://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-warren-dnc-rigged-2016-primary-clinton-sanders-2017-11

 

Very well said. It is long overdue for the DNC to conduct a post-mortem of the 2016 Democratic primary process and clean up its glass house.

[Winstonm]

Elizabeth Warren sums up perfectly my sentiments concerning the Democratic nomination process for the 2016 election:

 

"If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead," Brazile added. "This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party's integrity."

[rmnka447]

And here are some comments from Rep. Tulsi Gabard (D-HI) also.

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/11/03/rep_tulsi_gabbard_the_dnc_needs_to_be_completely_overhauled_no_more_games_no_more_retaliation.html

[hrothgar]

Elizabeth Warren sums up perfectly my sentiments concerning the Democratic nomination process for the 2016 election:

 

Here's another view http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/donna-brazile-needs-to-back-up-her-self-serving-claims

[ldrews]

Fact Check: 1)Trump is a registered Republican. 2)There is no "populist" party.3)Sanders is registered as an independent.

 

Fact Check: Sanders ran in the Democratic primaries, not the Independent primaries. Trump is registered as a Republican this time around, he basically hijacked the Republican party. Ask Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, etc. Or rather, Trump conducted a "hostile takeover", he went directly to the "shareholders", i.e., the Republican party grassroots.

[Winstonm]

And here are some comments from Rep. Tulsi Gabard (D-HI) also.

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/11/03/rep_tulsi_gabbard_the_dnc_needs_to_be_completely_overhauled_no_more_games_no_more_retaliation.html

 

I agree 100% with those sentiments.

[Winstonm]

Fact check: 1) There is no "independents" primary. 2) Trump is a registered Republican.

[ldrews]

Fact check: 1) There is no "independents" primary. 2) Trump is a registered Republican.

 

Fact check: Sanders ran under the Democratic banner, so by definition he was a Democratic candidate. Trump was a registered Democrat before he was a registered Republican. During the primaries the Republican establishment did what they could to defeat Trump without alienating the Republican base. Trump does not adhere to Republican orthodoxy, he seems to be a populist. If the Democrats are willing to make the kind of deal that he wants he has no problem working with them, particularly since the Republican congress cannot seem to deliver.

[Winstonm]

Third Fact check: 1) Bernie Sanders is an independent. 2) Donald Trump is a registered Republican.

 

All else is spin.

[Winstonm]

Where is the president?

 

In Colorado, a white man, it is now being reported, who lived with 10 bibles and who would not talk to his hispanic neighbors but would talk to other white neighbors walked into a WalMart, pulled out a pistol, and executed 3 strangers who were standing in line to pay for their purchases.

 

Another mass shooting by a white guy.

[ldrews]

Where is the president?

 

In Colorado, a white man, it is now being reported, who lived with 10 bibles and who would not talk to his hispanic neighbors but would talk to other white neighbors walked into a WalMart, pulled out a pistol, and executed 3 strangers who were standing in line to pay for their purchases.

 

Another mass shooting by a white guy.

 

From CNN:

(CNN)Chicago marked 2016 as the deadliest year in nearly two decades, data released by the Chicago Police Department shows.

500 homicides. 9 months. 1 American city.

500 homicides. 9 months. 1 American city.

The city saw a surge in gun violence in 2016: 762 murders, 3,550 shooting incidents, and 4,331 shooting victims, according to a statement released by the department on Sunday.

 

There were 480 murders in 2015, the most in the city since 1997.

 

From http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/chicago-75-murdered-are-black-71-murderers-are-black

 

Chicago: 75% of Murdered Are Black, 71% of Murderers Are Black

 

Talk about mass shooting.

[Winstonm]

THORNTON, Colo. (AP) — Authorities have identified the three people who were fatally shot at a Walmart in suburban Denver. Coroner Monica Broncucia-Jordan said Thursday that 52-year-old Pamela Marques, 66-year-old Carlos Moreno, and 26-year-old Victor Vasquez died in Wednesday night’s shooting. Moreno was a grandfather who was a longtime maintenance worker at the Auraria Higher Education Center.

[Winstonm]

Here is a quote from the Steele dossier:

 

“July 2016: Trump advisor Carter Page holds secret meetings in Moscow with Sechin and senior Kremlin Internal Affairs official, Divyekin.”

 

Here is what the New York Times reported today:

 

Carter Page, a foreign policy adviser to the Trump presidential campaign, met Russian government officials during a July 2016 trip he took to Moscow, according to testimony he gave on Thursday to the House Intelligence Committee.

 

Doesn't look like Steele is such fake news anymore.

[ldrews]

Here is a quote from the Steele dossier:

 

 

 

Here is what the New York Times reported today:

 

 

 

Doesn't look like Steele is such fake news anymore.

 

Ah, yes, the Steele dossier. Paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign, to acquire information from the Russians in order to influence the 2016 election. So we have, at least, indirect collusion between the Clinton campaign and the Russians. Ironic, isn't it?

[Winstonm]

Fact check: 1) Papadopoulos was working for the Trump campaign when he met with Russians and tried to arrange meetings between Trump and Putin. He lied to the FBI and pled guilty. 2) Carter Page was working for the Trump campaign in July 2016 when he traveled to Moscow and met with Russian government officials. Page e-mailed the Trump campaign letting them know he had met with these Russians. 3) The Steele dossier is confirmed in part.

[cherdano]

"the Russians"

[kenberg]

Third Fact check: 1) Bernie Sanders is an independent. 2) Donald Trump is a registered Republican.

 

All else is spin.

 

This got me thinking. During the primaries candidates are asked many questions Was Sanders ever asked "Are you or are you not a Democrat"". This is not like asking someone if he is a Communist. A guy is attempting,to become the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, he has not previously run as a Democrat, so it seems reasonable to ask him if he is a Democrat. Was he never asked this? I think quite a few people, including me, did not really regard him as a Democrat. Probably he wasn't and isn't.

 

Eisenhower's connection to the Republican Party was not all that strong, and ditto for Trump but when they ran they declared themselves as Republicans. Strom Thurmond left the Dems to become a Dixiecrat, Teddy Roosevelt became a Bull Moose, but then they no longer sought the nomination within the party that they left.

 

I have been trying to think of any case where a person has become the nominee of political party X while denying that s/he is a member of political party X. It's true that Sanders did not become the nominee but he came close. Even that may be unprecedented. A person denies being an X but almost becomes the presidential nominee of party X. Can you think of any other example?

 

 

Now what is Sanders? "Independent" seems to be more a statement of what he isn't than what he is. I had not much paid any attention to him until he tried to become the Democratic nominee. I guess he described himself as a Democratic Socialist. Sometimes this was modified to Socialist Democrat, a distinction that seemed to be very important to some people. See https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/05/17/bernies-democratic-socialism-isnt-socialism-its-social-democracy/#40c58f15272d

I'll take his word for it that the distinction is important.

 

One more thought. If a guy is not a Democrat, I can well understand that the power people within the Democratic party would not be enthusiastic about having him be the nominee from their party. Of course they still have to follow the rules, or at least they should follow the rules, but their lack of enthusiasm for having a non-Democrat as the Democratic nominee is hardly a surprise.

[Winstonm]

This got me thinking. During the primaries candidates are asked many questions Was Sanders ever asked "Are you or are you not a Democrat"". This is not like asking someone if he is a Communist. A guy is attempting,to become the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, he has not previously run as a Democrat, so it seems reasonable to ask him if he is a Democrat. Was he never asked this? I think quite a few people, including me, did not really regard him as a Democrat. Probably he wasn't and isn't.

 

Eisenhower's connection to the Republican Party was not all that strong, and ditto for Trump but when they ran they declared themselves as Republicans. Strom Thurmond left the Dems to become a Dixiecrat, Teddy Roosevelt became a Bull Moose, but then they no longer sought the nomination within the party that they left.

 

I have been trying to think of any case where a person has become the nominee of political party X while denying that s/he is a member of political party X. It's true that Sanders did not become the nominee but he came close. Even that may be unprecedented. A person denies being an X but almost becomes the presidential nominee of party X. Can you think of any other example?

 

 

Now what is Sanders? "Independent" seems to be more a statement of what he isn't than what he is. I had not much paid any attention to him until he tried to become the Democratic nominee. I guess he described himself as a Democratic Socialist. Sometimes this was modified to Socialist Democrat, a distinction that seemed to be very important to some people. See https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/05/17/bernies-democratic-socialism-isnt-socialism-its-social-democracy/#40c58f15272d

I'll take his word for it that the distinction is important.

 

One more thought. If a guy is not a Democrat, I can well understand that the power people within the Democratic party would not be enthusiastic about having him be the nominee from their party. Of course they still have to follow the rules, or at least they should follow the rules, but their lack of enthusiasm for having a non-Democrat as the Democratic nominee is hardly a surprise.

 

Bernie Sanders describes himself as a democratic socialist, but it might be better described as shared capitalism. I don't know of any political party that represents his views. My interest in presidential races began with Kennedy, so I've never seen anything other than Democrat/Republican races. The fact that Trump won and is changing the party and Bernie came so close to winning shows how out-of-touch with constituents were both parties.

[kenberg]

Bernie Sanders describes himself as a democratic socialist, but it might be better described as shared capitalism. I don't know of any political party that represents his views. My interest in presidential races began with Kennedy, so I've never seen anything other than Democrat/Republican races. The fact that Trump won and is changing the party and Bernie came so close to winning shows how out-of-touch with constituents were both parties.

 

Trump seems to be very much in touch with a sizable portion of Republicans, much to my regret. I do think the Democratic Party is substantially out of touch with many traditional Democrats. I often think of writing to the leaders and asking them whether they do or do ot want old white guys such as myself in the party. If they do, they often have a strange way of showing it.

[Winstonm]

Trump seems to be very much in touch with a sizable portion of Republicans, much to my regret. I do think the Democratic Party is substantially out of touch with many traditional Democrats. I often think of writing to the leaders and asking them whether they do or do ot want old white guys such as myself in the party. If they do, they often have a strange way of showing it.

 

The biggest surprise to me is not the election results (I was aware of Clinton hatred) but that the Republican party seems to have morphed into the party of Trump - losing many traditional Republicans along the way.

 

At the same time, the neo-liberals, such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, long ago abandoned their traditional base of union workers by not preparing them for the transition into and competition from a world economy and labor system.

[y66]

From What if Mueller proves his case and it doesn’t matter? by David Roberts at Vox:

 

As Ezra Klein laid out, there is enough on the record now to make it at the very least highly probable that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, meant to affect the outcome of the election.

 

... What happens if nothing happens?

 

Mainstream scholars do not think that Trump will be able to get away with simply ignoring Mueller’s findings or pardoning everyone involved. As Andy Wright, a law professor at Savannah Law School, put it, “with each abnormal, unbecoming, or dishonorable act, President Trump makes it harder for his appointees to defend him, harder for traditional Republicans to maintain their uneasy power alliance with him, and easier for Democrats to take the moral high ground and secure political advantage."

 

But if there’s one thing non-experts like me have learned over the last few decades of watching US politics, it’s that experts are frequently caught flat-footed by the growing intensity of partisanship and the destruction of norms it has wrought.

 

They are operating based on certain assumptions that it simply doesn’t occur to them that a politician can ignore. But politicians can. Mitch McConnell can simply refuse to hold a vote on a Supreme Court nominee. There’s no explicit rule or law that says he can’t, so he can, and he did.

 

That one shocked and flabbergasted experts too, but just like all the other perverse steps down this road to illiberal lawlessness, they eventually took it on board and normalized it.

 

Now they’re sure Donald Trump can’t simply brazen his way out of an indictment. What if they’re wrong about that?

 

Say he pardons everyone. People will argue on cable TV about whether he should have. One side will say up, the other will say down. Trump may have done this, but what about when Obama did that? What about Hillary’s emails? Whatabout this, whatabout that, whatabout whatabout whatabout?

 

There is no longer any settling such arguments. The only way to settle any argument is for both sides to be committed, at least to some degree, to shared standards of evidence and accuracy, and to place a measure of shared trust in institutions meant to vouchsafe evidence and accuracy. Without that basic agreement, without common arbiters, there can be no end to dispute.

 

If one side rejects the epistemic authority of society’s core institutions and practices, there’s just nothing left to be done. Truth cannot speak for itself, like the voice of God from above. It can only speak through human institutions and practices.

 

The subject of climate change offers a crystalline example here. If climate science does its thing, checks and rechecks its work, and then the Republican Party simply refuses to accept it ... what then?

 

That’s what US elites are truly afraid to confront: What if facts and persuasion just don’t matter anymore?

 

As long as conservatives can do something — steal an election, gerrymander crazy districts to maximize GOP advantage, use the filibuster as a routine tool of opposition, launch congressional investigations as political attacks, hold the debt ceiling hostage, repress voting among minorities, withhold a confirmation vote on a Supreme Court nominee, defend a known fraud and sexual predator who has likely colluded with a foreign government to gain the presidency — they will do it, knowing they’ll be backed by a relentlessly on-message media apparatus.

 

And if that’s true, if the very preconditions of science and journalism as commonly understood have been eroded, then all that’s left is a raw contest of power.

 

Donald Trump has the power to hold on to the presidency, as long as elected Republicans, cowed by the conservative base, support him. That is true almost regardless of what he’s done or what’s proven by Mueller. As long as he has that power, he will exercise it. That’s what recent history seems to show.

 

Democrats do not currently have the numbers to stop him. They can’t do it without some help from Republicans. And Republicans seem incapable, not only of acting on what Mueller knows, but of even coming to know it.

 

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe US institutions have more life in them than I think. But at this point, it’s just very difficult to imagine anything that could bridge the epistemic gulf between America’s tribes. We are split in two, living in different worlds, with different stories and facts shaping our lives. We no longer learn or know things together, as a country, so we can no longer act together, as a country.

 

So we may just have to live with a president indicted for collusion with a foreign power.

Four rare steaks please, and hurry.

[RedSpawn]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/11/03/rep_tulsi_gabbard_the_dnc_needs_to_be_completely_overhauled_no_more_games_no_more_retaliation.html

I agree 100% with those sentiments.

Agreed. So what's the likelihood of Congress presenting campaign finance reform bills in 2018? Hmmm, I say remote.

 

Can we honestly expect a broken system that helps the politicians and incumbents at the expense of the citizenry to repair itself?

 

Money and politics are a deadly cocktail.

[Winstonm]

Agreed. So what's the likelihood of Congress presenting campaign finance reform bills in 2018? Hmmm, I say remote.

 

Can we honestly expect a broken system that helps the politicians and incumbents at the expense of the citizenry to repair itself?

 

Money and politics are a deadly cocktail.

 

The history of the Supreme Court is not encouraging - Citizen's United among that history of bizarre rulings.