SCOTUS Focus
It is "major Supreme Court decision season" once again, and the high court just punted on a very big issue, issuing a split decision (4-4) that allowed the lower appellate court's decision to stand on President Obama's plan for immigration. This is bad news for Obama (since the lower court ruled against him, and he likely won't get another chance to act before he leaves office) and also bad news for the almost five million people affected, but it might wind up being a silver lining for Democrats this fall. The decision itself is a non-decision, merely stating "we are deadlocked on the issue," which only serves to draw attention to the vacancy on the court (and the Senate Republicans' refusal to act on Obama's nominee). The impact of the decision may just cement Latino support for Democrats tighter than even Donald Trump has already made it. And for non-Latino voters, the focus on the president's ability to name Supreme Court justices may also serve to benefit Hillary Clinton at the voting booth. Politically, the stakes are high, and this time more voters might take that into consideration when casting their ballot in November.
Normally, "I'm voting for candidate X because of the Supreme Court" is a pretty wonky argument, usually only bandied about by those deeply interested in politics. Voters normally have to take a pretty long view of American politics to even be concerned about the court when deciding which candidate to vote for, especially those who generally don't pay a whole lot of attention to politics in the first place. This time around, it will be a lot harder to ignore. If not for the decision handed down today, then for the fact that the next president will most likely have the chance for a Supreme Court nomination on their first day in office.
This isn't guaranteed, however. If Hillary Clinton wins the election (and even, possibly, if Donald Trump wins), the Senate Republicans might start marching 180 degrees away from their current position in the lame-duck session of Congress. Obama's current nominee is about as moderate a choice as any Republican is going to see from a Democratic president, and that might just begin to look a whole lot more appealing than whomever Hillary Clinton would decide to name to the highest bench in the land. We could see a rush to confirm Merrick Garland right after the election, in fact. Republicans will be in danger of ideological whiplash by doing so (since they've been strenuously arguing that "the people should have a say" and "the next president should get their choice"), but they've faced similar neck-endangering reversals before and emerged mostly unscathed. Pragmatism may quickly take the place of their insistence that "the people" should have a voice.
That also isn't guaranteed, I should point out. I have already urged President Obama to immediately withdraw his nomination of Garland, should Hillary Clinton win the election. This would remove the opportunity for shenanigans in the lame-duck session altogether. Obama should smugly state, the day after the election: "Republicans have been harping all year about how the people should have a say in the next Supreme Court justice -- well, guess what? The people now have spoken. President-Elect Hillary Clinton is now free to make her own choice. Careful what you ask for, Senate Republicans, because you might just get it." This would be satisfying as all get out, and if Democrats take control of the Senate it might result in a much more liberal nomination (and one who is significantly younger, to boot).
Depending on whether they get re-elected or not, America's next president may get multiple Supreme Court picks. As I pointed out two years ago, those picks may either shift the balance of the court to the liberal side, or they will lock in a conservative majority, possibly for decades to come. The current vacancy could already shift the court to a 5-4 liberal majority (or 5-1-3, really, since it'll still have a swing vote). But the two oldest justices on the court consist of one liberal and one swing vote. If Hillary Clinton serves two terms, she could leave office with a 6-3 liberal majority on the court, to put this another way. Or Donald Trump could do the opposite.
It's pretty obvious that such a tilted majority -- no matter which way it tilts -- could change life in the United States drastically for at least the next decade or so. Rather than endless 5-4 decisions (one way or another), the court would be able to chart a solid course in one direction or another -- not just on immigration, but on a whole host of other critical issues: privacy rights, government snooping, campaign finance, corporate power, voting rights, abortion, health insurance, environmental law, labor law, gay rights, civil rights, and too many others to adequately list.
That is what is at stake here. A decade of progress, or a decade of further erosion of basic constitutional rights. I should say "at least a decade," really. More, if the nominees are as young as possible (while still being qualified for the nomination, of course). If the next president has two terms, he or she will almost certainly have the power to chart the Supreme Court's direction for a long time to come. Many Americans alive today have never even seen a liberal Supreme Court in action. It's really been so long since that was true that one huge demographic (Millennials) has never experienced what a solidly-liberal court can do to improve their lives.
Hillary Clinton will, doubtlessly, be making this a part of her campaign platform. The Republicans have guaranteed this will be a major issue in the campaign, by insisting that the voters have a say in the process (even though they all carry around pocket copies of the Constitution, which actually denies the voters any sort of direct say in the process). Obviously, after today's decision, that argument is going to resonate among Latino voters. They've already seen what Donald Trump is promising, and are flocking to the Democratic side as a direct result. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama can easily make the case "at least our side is trying to make things better for you," while the Republicans are left with a candidate who openly muses that Latinos are "rapists," and how high his Mexican border wall will be. The choice for Latinos was already pretty obvious, even before this court ruling. After it, the choice is even clearer: vote for a candidate who will support them, or vote for a candidate who says he's going to round up 11 million people and deport them.
Today's court decision (and many others) may not be a direct influence on all undecided voters this fall, but it will definitely be an indirect one. The next president may get to shift the court in a way not seen in at least a generation, and that shift might persist for another generation no matter who wins the White House in years to come. Normally, this isn't all that big of an issue because justices usually only choose to retire when a like-minded president is in office, but due to the advanced age of several of the sitting justices, they (like Scalia) may not have any choice in the matter. Eight years is a long time, and anything can happen. Even if they all hang on until another president takes the reins, whoever wins this year will probably get to set the balance to 5-4 (in one direction or the other), on their first day in office.
Those are high stakes indeed, and the renewed focus on the split nature of the eight sitting justices is only going to make this fact more obvious. Both candidates will be campaigning on the issue, and rulings like today's only serve to remind everyone how important the next Supreme Court pick is going to be. As well as the next few picks, which the incoming president may also get a chance to make. Voters may wind up focusing on the Supreme Court in this election much more than they usually do -- that much is now almost a certainty.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Hillary! Hillary!
So as not to pollute this commentary with off topic stuff..
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/06/17/ftp396/#comment-77751
If anyone wants to discuss the BREXIT, I would love to hear ya'all's thoughts...
Michale
So as not to pollute this commentary with off topic stuff..
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/06/17/ftp396/#comment-77751
If anyone wants to discuss the BREXIT, I would love to hear ya'all's thoughts...
Michale
Anyone who thinks that this is a shoo-in for Hillary needs to look long and soberly at the results of the BREXIT vote coming out of Britain this morning. Cameron didn't think the Brits would commit economic self-mutilation either.
Speaking of self-mutilation, I understand that Cameron didn't even have to call the referendum, but had made a deal for it in return for support in the last election.
Paul Ryan needs to learn from that tragic mistake.
Normally, "I'm voting for candidate X because of the Supreme Court" is a pretty wonky argument, usually only bandied about by those deeply interested in politics.
Ironically enough, that is really the ONLY valid reason for a Left Winger to vote Hillary over Trump...
Un-Hypnotizing a Rabid Anti-Trumper
When you encounter a rabid anti-Trumper, ask her what are the biggest concerns of a potential Trump presidency.
If “Supreme Court nominee” is one of the top objections, discontinue your persuasion for ethical reasons. This person has put some thought into the decision and has a legitimate opinion that is at least partly based on reason. I don’t recommend changing that person’s mind.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/146157026376/how-to-un-hypnotize-a-rabid-anti-trumper
:D
That is what is at stake here. A decade of progress, or a decade of further erosion of basic constitutional rights.
A conservative majority being the former and a liberal majority being {{cough}} {{cough}} 2nd Amendment {{cough}} the latter... :D
(even though they all carry around pocket copies of the Constitution, which actually denies the voters any sort of direct say in the process).
Gotta call BS on this, CW...
The Constitution says no such thing..
The power to advise and consent is ALSO the power NOT to advise and consent..
They've already seen what Donald Trump is promising, and are flocking to the Democratic side as a direct result.
And BS to this one as well.. Trump's support amongst Latino's is in the low 30s and growing... YES.. Growing..
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama can easily make the case "at least our side is trying to make things better for you,"
By giving them a free ride and make them dependent on the government...
I would hardly call that "better"... Let's ask the black community how much "better" things are for them after the Democrat Party's "kindness"...
Ya know.. It almost would be worth the price of admission (destroying this country) to see Hillary as POTUS and a 6-3 liberal SCOTUS, just to be able to laugh my ass off when CITIZEN'S UNITED is untouched... :D
Naw, it wouldn't be worth it... But still... :D
Excellent commentary, CW.. As usual you lay things out succinctly and entertainingly..
Michale
Anyone who thinks that this is a shoo-in for Hillary needs to look long and soberly at the results of the BREXIT vote coming out of Britain this morning. Cameron didn't think the Brits would commit economic self-mutilation either.
Ding, Ding, Ding!!! We HAVE A WINNER!!!!
The people have spoken!!!! Regardless of the fear-mongering of the ESTABLISHMENT/STATUS QUO politicians were using, the people have spoken...
So it will happen when President Trump is elected by a landslide..
I saids it befores and I'll says it agains ad nasuem..
This election is about one thing and one thing only..
The ESTABLISHMENT/STATUS QUO/STAY THE COURSE/SAME OL SAME OL versus the ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT..
And upwards of 70% of Americans DON'T WANT ESTABLISHMENT/STATUS QUO/STAY THE COURSE/SAME OL SAME OL...
The choice is stark and clear...
Even WITHOUT the indictment that is coming, Hillary won't stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning..
Michale
I have to admit, I do feel a twinge of sympathy for ya'all...
I know ya'all well enough to know that ya'all are YEARNING to get behind a Bernie-type candidate who is fresh and exciting.. You long to be able to be PASSIONATE about your candidate, like Trump supporters are... But alas, ya'all simply resign yourselves to choosing the lesser of two evils...
VOTE HILLARY!! BECAUSE THE OTHER GUY IS WORSE!!!
Not the most inspiring campaign slogan, eh??
Ya'all MUST feel the pinch of having to defend the ESTABLISHMENT and get behind a tired old hag who represents EVERYTHING that Progressives rally against...
So, I feel for ya'all.. I really do...
Michale
Anyone who thinks that this is a shoo-in for Hillary needs to look long and soberly at the results of the BREXIT vote coming out of Britain this morning. Cameron didn't think the Brits would commit economic self-mutilation either.
BREXIT does prove one thing beyond the shadow of a doubt..
Obama AND Hillary are on the wrong side of history..
AGAIN...
Michale
On BBC this morning. Brits perform self-surgery, world hilarity ensues.
On BBC this morning. Brits perform self-surgery, world hilarity ensues.
I seem to recall you were a STAY proponent, TS...
Hilarity?? I don't see hilarity..
I see a country that is taking back it's national identity...
Yesterday was Britain's INDEPENDENCE DAY..
"We're going to live on!! We're going to survive!! TODAY, WE CELEBRATE OUR INDEPENDENCE DAY!!!"
-President Whitmore, INDEPENDENCE DAY
:D
Michale
TS,
If you want to talk about BREXIT, Balthasar and I have a good thread going here:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/06/17/ftp396/#comment-77767
Michale
General opinion is Scotland will try for separation before the two years are over. Gibraltar is likey to leave as well. The vote there was something like 19 to 1 to stay. Looks like this may be shedding the final bits of Empire.
The markets are down, the pound is down. With the decline of the pound, France has moved up to the fifth largest economy. That has got to sting. If there is no rebound by November, Trumps chances could decline further.
Oh what the hell... I tried...
The people of the United Kingdom have exercised the sacred right of all free peoples. They have declared their independence from the European Union and have voted to reassert control over their own politics, borders and economy. A Trump Administration pledges to strengthen our ties with a free and independent Britain, deepening our bonds in commerce, culture and mutual defense. The whole world is more peaceful and stable when our two countries – and our two peoples – are united together, as they will be under a Trump Administration.
Come November, the American people will have the chance to re-declare their independence. Americans will have a chance to vote for trade, immigration and foreign policies that put our citizens first. They will have the chance to reject today’s rule by the global elite, and to embrace real change that delivers a government of, by and for the people. I hope America is watching, it will soon be time to believe in America again.
-Future POTUS, Donald Trump
Michale
M,BB-11,12
It was one of those British "near run things." If you look at the voting patterns, it was pretty much along the fault lines of the haves vs the have-nots. The big urban centers see themselves as part of a European economy, the rest of the UK sees themselves as an island nation threatened by Europe.
The initial hit to the UK has been hard, but pretty much in line with predictions. I suspect it's a bit of an over-reaction by the world markets, there will likely be a correction, but overall, Brexit could be launching a world wide recession. I think a British recession is a near certainty. The Pound is now 15 ounces. The halve-nots have very likely F'd themselves into a deeper hole with less buying power.
A lot of the haves are going to think hard about giving the have-nots an even bigger FU! by breaking out of the UK (at some level, it might be complete or just regional autonomy) and brokering deals to remain in the EU system. London, Scotland, N. Ireland.
As I said in an earlier thread, the benefits of Brexit have been oversold, the risks understated.
In local news, I wonder if Trump shot himself in the foot by being so gleeful about the Brexit vote?
I've also read that this is really a referendum that the leadership has agreed to follow but is otherwise not binding. Tthe real decision will be in the house of commons. If everything goes south fast, they could just say no. Some say that would be political suicide but with such a close vote, I doubt it would be that bad.
Michale wrote:
"I see a country that is taking back it's national identity...
Yesterday was Britain's INDEPENDENCE DAY.."
It might very well have been Scotland's Independence day too, as there is now pressure in both Scotland and Northern Ireland for both of them to leave the UK and remain in the EU, without England and Wales.
I see a nation taking a leap into the unknown and possibly breaking up itself.
Bashi -15
Thanks for pointing that out.
There are also treaty obligations to the EU for 2 years, so the UK can't just pack up and leave without creating even more serious international trade complications. The hit to UK is immediate, the popular vote was close, so that might give the House of Commons a bit of spine.
M- the prediction markets got this issue wrong, the polling outfits did better, saying it would be close. Personally, I went for 50:50, too close to call (it's on record somewhere in the recent threads). Just a hunch based on poll trend lines. The actual margin of victory was well inside the polling margins of error.
In local news, I wonder if Trump shot himself in the foot by being so gleeful about the Brexit vote?
Of course you do.. :D
Michale
M- the prediction markets got this issue wrong, the polling outfits did better, saying it would be close. Personally, I went for 50:50, too close to call (it's on record somewhere in the recent threads). Just a hunch based on poll trend lines. The actual margin of victory was well inside the polling margins of error.
Yea, just another example of the betting markets not being the end all get all of prediction capabilities..
Michale
The Brits are going to be just fine... They will actually be better off than with the EU because then their government will put BRITS first and Europeans second..
It was the exact opposite under the EU whip and yoke...
Michale
M-20
I am sure they take comfort in your words and wait eagerly for their Pounds and investment portfolios to recover their pre-Brexit values :)
Prosperity is just around the corner!
I have a feeling the British public may be looking for some whips and yokes in a few months to apply to the political asses who sold them the Brexit. Timw will tell, clock is ticking, the electorate is fickle.
I am sure they take comfort in your words and wait eagerly for their Pounds and investment portfolios to recover their pre-Brexit values :)
Not everything is about money and portfolios, my friend... :D
I have a feeling the British public may be looking for some whips and yokes in a few months to apply to the political asses who sold them the Brexit.
And when all the fear-mongering DOESN'T come to pass???
Will Obama, Hillary et al admit they were wrong??
Yea.. When hell freezes over...
I just find it hilarious that every time Obama puts his 2 cents in, people do the opposite... That is why the Olympics is in Rio and not in Chicago this year...
Michale
Another reason NOT to vote for Hillary...
She is going to send our NUMBER ONE ally back to the end of the line..
Michale
But, getting back to the SCOTUS...
How do ya'all think Obama is going to handle his complete and utter rejection of his plan to mint millions of fresh new Democrat voters???
My guess is he is not going to take it very well...
Michale
@CW,
I have the feeling that no matter how clear the connection between choice and consequences, most average voters just won't care about the court. We can point it out as clear as day, but the average registered voter probably still won't see it. They'll vote (or not) with whatever their emotions tell them, which will most likely be hitler vs. capone, and nary an ounce of nuance between.
JL
Frustrated Londoners have now taken to social media to ask London mayor Sadiq Khan to declare the city independent from the rest of the UK and stay in the EU.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/londoners-call-capital-break-away-8276156
Typical Left Wingery...
Waaaaa!!!! Waaaaaaa!!!! We didn't get our way so we're taking our toys and going home!!! Waaaaaaa!!!!
Michale
Five reasons Brexit could signal Trump winning the White House
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36564808?SThisFB
Democrats should be cowering in fear right about now...
Things are moving in favor of Trump...
Michale
Democrats should be cowering in fear right about now... Things are moving in favor of Trump...
...ehh, not really. The hangover from this nationalistic bender will be a doozy, and it hasn't had a chance to set in yet. Of course the rest of us will feel it right away.
Uncertainty is different from insecurity, in that insecure people look for strong leaders, uncertain people seek out steady, reliable leadership.
Trump's greatest strength and weakness is that he's unpredictable. He pretty much blew any opportunity he had to impress folks with his leadership skills after Orlando by demonstrating a complete lack of empathy for the victims, congratulating himself instead for having warned the world about the danger of muslim extremism.
While the great unwashed out there may think that he's a financial savant, I doubt that business leaders, even with the threat of financial regulation hanging over their heads, would say that the international markets would be worse off under Hillary than Trump.
As a matter of fact, if the Brits take a big enough economic hit for their Brexit vote, folks over on this side of the pond will start to wonder if the US wants to risk a similar market reaction to Trump. Could his mere election cause a recession here? He has already promised trade wars with China, Japan and Mexico. Could our economy take that hit? Reality is setting in, folks, at last.
Britain's decision to leave the EU is Hillary Clinton's worst nightmare
The global implications of the Brexit vote are just beginning to be felt. And nowhere will the outcome of Britain’s historic vote to leave the European Union be more closely scrutinised than in New York City.
As the Stock Exchange opens on Wall Street, a few miles away in Brooklyn dozens of the most brilliant minds in the Democratic Party will gather at the Hillary Clinton for President HQ to work out where the vote leaves their candidate.
The immediate answer is: in grave danger.
With the referendum proving, once again, the utter contempt for mainstream politicians felt by the white, working classes of virtually all Western countries, the prospect of a President Trump has never seemed more likely.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/britains-decision-to-leave-the-eu-is-hillary-clintons-worst-nigh/
"Do you hear that, Mr Anderson? That is the sound of.... inevitability."
Agent Smith, THE MATRIX
Michale
...ehh, not really. The hangover from this nationalistic bender will be a doozy, and it hasn't had a chance to set in yet. Of course the rest of us will feel it right away.
Whatever you have to tell yourself to make it thru the day...
Look how many "sure things" have totally decimated the Left Wingery in the last year....
The Israeli Elections.. The UK Elections... Trump being the GOP Nominee... BREXIT...
Inevitability never seemed so...... loud....
Michale
I get it.. Ya'all have to minimize and spin the danger away...
But doing the ostrich thing doesn't make the danger go away....
Like Balthasar himself said..
Anyone who thinks that this is a shoo-in for Hillary needs to look long and soberly at the results of the BREXIT vote coming out of Britain this morning. Cameron didn't think the Brits would commit economic self-mutilation either.
The rule book has gone out the window, mates...
It's the day after WWIII, 2012 and DEEP IMPACT...
And it's a whole new world...
Michale
From that same article:
"As Brexit proves, working people around the world are in no mood for common sense."
Ain't that the truth. Trouble is, quick fixes like Brexit and Trump aren't going to do them any good at all, and will probably make things worse for them.
And there appears to be a growing backlash against conservatives who appear to be oblivious to fact that everyone else is irritated by growing economic inequality and continue to propose tax dodges and loopholes for the very rich, even as our infrastructure deteriorates around us.
Even Trump acknowledged this before realizing that it was too much common sense for his flock to bear, and reversed himself, now promising (more) tax cuts for himself and his friends.
But as I said in my previous post, the markets' reaction to Brexit is a harbinger of troubled water ahead if we go the way of Britain and stick our collective middle fingers up to the rest of the world. Globalism may suck, but losing friends, allies, and trading partners sucks infinitely worse in the long run.
Ain't that the truth. Trouble is, quick fixes like Brexit and Trump aren't going to do them any good at all, and will probably make things worse for them.
Yea, that's what ya'all keep saying..
And yet, with the ESTABLISHMENT in charge, things ARE getting worse and worse....
Globalism may suck, but losing friends, allies, and trading partners sucks infinitely worse in the long run.
More fear-mongering...
The American people have heard it all before and they just ain't buyin' the BS any longer...
It's THAT simple...
Michale
M-
That is why the Olympics is in Rio and not in Chicago this year...
Wrong...considering that it really was about a smoke filled room and Brazil committing to make the OOCOG operating budget very small....
Germany, USA and Canada ALL say they want special trade deals with post-Brexit Britain
GERMANY has joined the United States and Canada in reaching out to Britain to stress the importance of trade deals with the UK outside of the European Union (EU).
http://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/683117/US-and-Canada-lead-promises-to-maintain-trade-relations-with-Britain-outside-the-EU
Globalism may suck, but losing friends, allies, and trading partners sucks infinitely worse in the long run.
Apparently.... not....
Michale
Wrong...considering that it really was about a smoke filled room and Brazil committing to make the OOCOG operating budget very small....
Of course, you would say that..
But the fact that Obama was involved and things go south...
Well, it's happened to much to be a coincidence... :D
Michale
GT,
Wrong...considering that it really was about a smoke filled room and Brazil committing to make the OOCOG operating budget very small....
But it's a minor unimportant point..
It just makes me giggle that Obama seems to have the kiss of death about things. :D
See... I am giggling... :D
Michale
M-
Setting aside the fact that Obama was not in office when the final selection of bid cities was made...
Setting aside the fact that he was only in office for 2 months when final presentations were made...
Setting aside the fact he had only been in office for 9 months when the final voting occurred and Chicago was voted out in the first round...
Setting aside the fact that I can unequivocally state that beyond a shadow of a doubt that the bid package as submitted to the IOC was done and submitted well in advance of Obama taking office...
Considering that I have worked on EVERY SINGLE Olympics since 2002 and have been in a games wide project management / Project Rescue position since 2006. I also worked on the Chicago Bid Committee, and prior to that San Francisco (stupid football team owner screwed that one up) where we were odds on favorites to host the whole thing.
Factoring in the one small tiny fact that I WAS THERE...
I can state with certainty that it was a smoke filled back room deal and that Brazil structured the financial side to absorb a larger portion of the operating budget that the OOCOG would normally pay out that swung the vote to the country with the lowest technical score.
GT,
And yet, ALL of that doesn't change the fact that Obama made the Chicago bid all about him and he lost...
WASHINGTON — President Obama not only failed to bring home the gold, he could not even muster the silver or bronze.
A 20-hour mission across the ocean to persuade the International Olympic Committee to give the Summer Games of 2016 to Chicago ended with the president’s adopted hometown finishing fourth of four candidate cities.
Although Chicago might have lost to Rio de Janeiro for reasons that had little to do with Mr. Obama, the fact that he made himself the face of its bid invariably meant that its defeat would be taken as a stinging rejection of its favorite son.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/sports/03obama.html?_r=0
Regardless, I bow to your personal expertise in this matter and acknowledge and concede the point..
I would hope that, when issues of counter-terrorism and LE operations come up again, that you will reciprocate and acknowledge MY expertise...
Deal??
Michale
Unfortunately the die had already been cast against Chicago due to the BRICS countries sticking together and voting against the US no matter what...
The Russians were somewhat unhappy with us after they had the world boxing qualifiers taken away from them due to not being prepared....once the event had been taken away from them it made it so they could not bid on the summer games since they had not held enough world level sport events to qualify for the summer games bid process...
We on the other hand did execute the qualifiers quite nicely...
And yet, with the ESTABLISHMENT in charge, things ARE getting worse and worse...
That's the thing. That's the big lie you guys want to keep telling, along with 'immigrants are taking your jobs'. Because things aren't getting worse. Things have, in fact, been improving steadily, despite all manner of attempted obstruction on the part of the GOP. Go, look up the GDP for the last 10 years.
GDP is up in the manufacturing, agriculture, construction, and services sectors. Not surprisingly, unemployment is way down, at about 5.4%, considered by economists to be functional full employment. On this date in 2008, gas prices were at around $4 per gallon.
Now what is also true is that hourly earnings are down, economic inequality is up, the infrastructure is crumbling, and the Republicans are sitting on their hands, obstinately refusing to do anything about any of it, for fear that it would require a raise in taxes for the rich.
They could get the rich off their backs (and everyone else's) by passing campaign finance reform, but they refuse to do that too.
Meanwhile, folks out in the hinterland are crying for cheaper education, a no-call list that works, for road crews to stop shutting down major road arteries to work on 6x8 patches of gravel, for a vetted list of inexpensive, on-call doctors, for an end to unnecessary Emergency Broadcast System messages in the middle of the night, for mental patients to stop being treated like criminals, for criminals to stop being treated like cattle, for cattle to stop being treated like mushrooms, for the planet to stop being treated like a party room on New Year's Eve, and for Senators and Representatives to throw their donor call-lists away forever. That's the short list.
"folks out in the hinterland are crying for cheaper education ..."
I agree that this is a starting list of what they are calling for. But what are they voting for?
- Brexit because Little Englanders don't like immigrants, gays and their way of life changing
- Trump because 'Muricans don't like immigrants, gays and their way of life changing
The common thread is that people who don't understand the structures of power, finance and media manipulation will fall for a Brexit clown or a clown like Trump because they don't understand what they are breaking.
Bloody idiots.
[42] Absolutely. That is also, unfortunately, true.
The common thread is that people who don't understand the structures of power, finance and media manipulation will fall for a Brexit clown or a clown like Trump because they don't understand what they are breaking.
This lack of understanding you speak of could be, at the very least, mitigated if there were some competent explaining going on without sounding condescending.
This lack of understanding you speak of could be, at the very least, mitigated if there were some competent explaining going on without sounding condescending.
How do you intend to explain to people who are now searching "What is the EU?" (#2 Google search on the EU in Britain at the moment) without trying to lay out some basic facts? You may call it condescending, I call it stating the simple facts that are required to understand how a nation works.
Plus, I'm bored being told that common politeness and decency is "PC run rampant" and the same people feel 'condescension' if they run into somebody who has taken the time and effort to become educated on a subject.
For example, if Trump defaults on the nation's debt because he is voted into power by people who don't understand the consequences, do you think those same people who are watching the economy going down the toilet and their jobs with it would choose:
1. To have had the implications of the default explained to them in simple terms beforehand, or
2. To suffer from another major recession?
Or to understand the impact of a trade war? Or why a nuclear Japan and South Korea is a really bad idea? Or that the Mexicans will never, ever, pay for a dumb wall? Or that rounding up 11 million people will cause complete chaos?
Personally, I think they are like some of the morons I've heard support Trump - they just don't care. They will care when the impact hits, but by then it will be too late.
[44] fortunately, sounding condescending and being incorrect are two different things. Neilm implies that to reach those folks means breaking through a cultural firewall that's been reinforced by lots and lots of cash and deliberate misinformation disseminated by others with quite different agendas. This is a firewall that would confound Julian Assange.
But, it's been hacked before: Bill Clinton was able to carry a number of southern states in both 1992 and 1996, confounding and frustrating conservatives to no end. Even after the impeachment ordeal he left office with a 75% approval rating, meaning that some of the people who voted for the people who impeached Clinton liked him anyway. Epic hack.
No, Neil, I wouldn't call laying out the basic facts condescending in any way, shape or form.
But, I don't see any competent explaining going on, condescension or no. Do you?
Neil,
Just to be clear, I was talking about real and actual condescension. Or doesn't that exist anymore?
It's all about tone, Neil and, well, knowing how to explain things.
One of the biggest problems with the Obama administration was that few of them, most of all the president himself, is not very good at explaining things.
Now, take Secretary Geithner ... he could explain things so that even I understood what the heck he was talking about and he did it without the slightest hint of condescension.
This is a firewall that would confound Julian Assange.
Julian Assange? Are you freakin' kidding me! You think he's an explainer-in-chief? Not even close.
But, it's been hacked before: Bill Clinton was able to carry a number of southern states in both 1992 and 1996, confounding and frustrating conservatives to no end.
Say what you want about Bill Clinton - he's in the group of people who know how to explain things.
Neil,
I think you and I are operating on two different definitions of condescension. I'm talking about the ability to relate to and communicate with people to increase understanding.
It's all about respect for people, Neil, and an ability to communicate in precise and concise language.
Julian Assange? Are you freakin' kidding me! You think he's an explainer-in-chief? Not even close.
No, no. I was thinking firewall-breaker, generic reference.
For explainer-in-chief, I'd pick Clinton, the guy that Obama dubbed "Secretary of Explaining Stuff".
Neil,
Will good communication skills mitigate against all ignorance? Of course, not. But, putting the art of good language to work and understanding the concerns people have and how to overcome them could very well have avoided a Brexit and might just avoid a Trump presidency.
For explainer-in-chief, I'd pick Clinton, the guy that Obama dubbed "Secretary of Explaining Stuff".
Indeed. And I would add Biden and Geithner to the mix.
Chris,
Politically, the stakes are high, and this time more voters might take that into consideration when casting their ballot in November.
Someone should start explaining why that is arguably the most important factor to consider when choosing between Clinton and Trump and I know just who fits that bill!
I'll give ya three guesses and the first two don't count ...
I would add Biden and Geithner to the mix.
Geithner's very good, actually. But the Pleasant Surprise of the year is Elizabeth Warren. She's very talented, it turns out, at verbal skirmishing.
Yeah, she has some talent ... but not when it comes to knowing what to do during the most destructive financial crisis since the Great Depression. Geithner gave it a valiant effort to set her straight, God bless him. I think she put up a firewall against logic and good reasoning. :)
Balthasar,
That's the thing. That's the big lie you guys want to keep telling, along with 'immigrants are taking your jobs'.
No one is talking about IMMIGRANTS... That's the big lie you keep telling yourself.. :D
The problem is ILLEGAL immigrants. Criminals..
NO ONE has a problem with immigrants here in the US...
Things have, in fact, been improving steadily, despite all manner of attempted obstruction on the part of the GOP.
Maybe.. But here's the thing. Ask Joe and Jane Sixpack if their lives are getting better and they will tell you, "Of course not!"...
So, yes.. You cherry pick a stat here or there and you can prove that things are getting better...
But over 70% of Americans say that their lives AREN'T getting better.
And THAT is the only stat that matters in the voting booth..
Michale
- Brexit because Little Englanders don't like immigrants, gays and their way of life changing
Oh what a load of crap...
Gays had NOTHING to do with BREXIT...
Stick with the facts.. Jeezus...
- Trump because 'Muricans don't like immigrants, gays and their way of life changing
And like Balthasar, you make a straw man that has NOTHING to do with reality...
NO ONE in America has a problem with immigrants..
The common thread is that people who don't understand the structures of power, finance and media manipulation will fall for a Brexit clown or a clown like Trump because they don't understand what they are breaking.
Ahhh... So people who don't believe as you do just "don't understand"... :D
Of course, the idea that YOU don't understand and that THEY understand perfectly... Well, that's just not possible, eh?? :D
And people call ME arrogant... :D
Michale
You make a good point, Michale. No, you make a very good point.
Geithner's very good, actually. But the Pleasant Surprise of the year is Elizabeth Warren. She's very talented, it turns out, at verbal skirmishing.
Who?? Fauxchohantas???
Yea, she is really good at verbal skirmishing..
AKA lying...
But, she has a -D after her name so her lying doesn't matter one whit..
Michale
You make a good point, Michale. No, you make a very good point.
Thank you, Liz.. Thank you sincerely..
Michale
As in 2015, the simple answer was that the public lies to pollsters. And who can blame it? I have spent quite a lot of time in the U.K. over the last month, and I have been startled by the condescension, the disdain, and the downright bullying that I have seen from advocates within the Remain camp. That this morning I am seeing precisely the same attitudes on display has left me wondering whether the British chattering classes are capable of learning new tricks. More than 17 million voters opted for Leave yesterday, and yet to take their opponents at face value would be to conclude that this vast and diverse coalition of citizens was little more than a revanchist, hate-filled, antediluvian rump.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437082/brexit-uk-eu-referendum-vote-beginning
And that same attitude is here in the US..
"Oh the people are dullards and just don't understand".
Ya'all really need to come to grips with the reality, my fellow Weigantians...
The people understand JUST fine..
It's ya'all who don't get it..
The ESTABLISHMENT....??? The STATUS QUO.....????
It's going down!! :D
Michale
You make a good point, Michale. No, you make a very good point.
Thank you, Liz.. Thank you sincerely..
Which point was it??
I want to know so I make sure I don't do it again.. :D heh
Michale