Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2019 11:11:54 GMT -5
It's too early to tell. Some will never break, for sure. See, e.g.,:
"Freedom", my ass.
So yeah, they're a lost cause. But others...well, they're awfully quiet. We'll see.
But regardless of whether anyone else breaks rank -- indeed BECAUSE of the risk no one else will and all he'll get is rocks thrown at him -- this is seriously courageous on Amash's part and it's absurd to write it off as weak or half-hearted or insincere. Looking for a profile in courage in the GOP congress? Here it is.
I incline towards Prozyan's view that Amash is not really hard-core GOP. Nighttimer doesn't seem to agree, though. And certainly he's on the conservative side on a pile of issues and caucuses with the GOP.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on May 21, 2019 11:27:19 GMT -5
I can't quite decide about this, to be honest. NT is right that Amash doesn't get to call himself a good guy because of this one stance. His prior policy decisions and positions were and are pretty awful. Doing the right thing ONCE doesn't make you a saint, and it doesn't wash away other sins.
But Cass is also right, imo, that this is significant. And that, if nothing else, it gives me hope that there's a selection of GOP-ers somewhere who might, sooner or later, jump from the USS Trump and seek safer and more normal waters. The Titanic metaphor strikes me as a good one, although I will add that this ship is sinking waaaay too slowly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2019 11:34:52 GMT -5
I didn't say Amash was a saint in heaven and that I agreed with everything he did, for the record. My stance is that this particular action is principled, and under the circumstances (i.e., that he's going to take all kinds of heat from the Trumpalos), downright heroic. My further stance is that I am happy to celebrate a heroic, principled stance from someone even if I vigorously disagree with other things they do. Hell, I'm hard placed to find anyone I don't have at least some disagreements with. It's a matter of degree. I just don't see anyway Justin's action here can be taken as anything but principled. It's not going to get him votes from his supporters (unless he convinces them) nor cheers from his caucus (ditto). Hell, even if one disagrees with him here (obviously, I don't), I don't see how one can dispute that his doing it is heroic and that he's doing it out of principle (even if it is one you disagree with). It sure isn't done for political advantage -- he's risking quite the opposite, though I hope ultimately he pulls people along with him. If you have to agree with someone on everything or be from the same party to find something (and something pretty significant) that they do awesome, will, I guess that's you, but it ain't me. Seriously, this is a stronger position than most Democratic reps have taken, and they're mostly going to get cheers and support for anti-Trump stances. ETA: And on the "way too slowly" -- well, sure, I'd love for Trump to be out last year. But. I previously, in another thread, posted the Nixon/Watergate timeline. The Mueller investigation was comparatively short, despite all the whining. The report really just came out. We haven't had hearings yet. The shit is still hitting the fan. It feels like it is taking forever because we are right in the middle of it. Remember that people were still against impeachment of Nixon until the hearings progressed. People were sitting on the deck of the Titanic picking up chunks of iceberg and jokingly dunking them in their drinks. Some went back to bed. Even when the damn ship broke in half, some hoped the remaining half would stay afloat. Think about how long that damn movie seemed to take.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on May 21, 2019 15:50:39 GMT -5
Oh, I know you didn't say he was a saint. Your position is nuanced and reasonable. In fact, I spent a little time this afternoon looking into his policy positions and, other than him opposing abortion and the ACA, there's a lot I agree with. And this isn't the first time he's stepped ahead of his colleagues. I might differ with you when you label his call for impeachment, "Heroic," but I agree that it's principled and brave. And maybe it's a crack in the door... or bulkhead, or whatever needs cracking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2019 16:07:40 GMT -5
He's an interesting guy, actually. I've been reading up on him, too. From what I can gather, while I don't agree with all of his stances, he does seem to make them after careful consideration and research rather than purely on a knee-jerk partisan basis.* His analysis of the Mueller report and the way he justified his take reflects that. He didn't just skim and flip something off. I actually really like that approach (it's really rare these days) and I respect it. By heroic, I mean politically heroic. Obviously he hasn't saved orphans from a burning building. Trump and the horribles on the freedom caucus are on his ass already, and I have zero doubt he's getting death threats from Trump loons, and certainly he knew that he would. My fave NeverTrump conservative pundit guys do on a regular basis -- even their children get threatened. From what I can see on Twitter, they get more abuse from the crazier Trump supporters than Democrats do, because they are regarded as traitors. That, alas, is the world we currently live in. So, yeah, I think it is rather heroic in the current political climate for a rep. to take a stance on an important and controversial issue that goes against his own party -- and to do so out of principle, just because you think it's the right stance, when you know for sure you'll get insults and death threats and you might lose your job (lots of "we're primarying this dude" talk on Trumpy Twitter). haggis , you're from Michiganistan. What's this guy's district like? Are they likely to applaud him or hate him for this? Are the "we're going to primary you" threats likely to hurt him? It's a notch less brave if his district will support him -- though he will still get all the rest of the shit for it. ETA: *In that respect, Amash actually operates the way the framers of the constitution intended, actually -- I think they would have been pretty horrified by our lockstep party blocks, tbh. And I'm sure they'd be horrified at Trump.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on May 21, 2019 17:28:31 GMT -5
I think they would have been pretty horrified by our lockstep party blocks, tbh. And I'm sure they'd be horrified at Trump. They'd be pretty horrified by the whole mess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2019 18:34:01 GMT -5
I think they would have been pretty horrified by our lockstep party blocks, tbh. And I'm sure they'd be horrified at Trump. They'd be pretty horrified by the whole mess. I'm guessing they'd heave a sigh and say "this is why we can't have nice things." And, among other things, perhaps they'd make it even more explicit that Congress is not supposed to be subservient to the executive branch, since a frightening number of people don't seem to understand that.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on May 22, 2019 15:08:00 GMT -5
Justin Amash, I'm afraid, is far more amenable to reason and logic than either celawson or Mikey or the typical Trump fan. Maybe because he's not a Trump fan. I don't agree with him on everything by a long shot, but he looks at facts and law and draws logical conclusions from them rather than blowing them off or twisting himself into ridiculous pretzels trying to defend the indefensible. I'm afraid that at this point, if Trump shot someone on 5th Avenue, Mikey would shrug and say "so what?", and ce would find some way to blame Nancy Pelosi. I wouldn't waste my breath trying to persuade the people still actively defending the indefensible. But the country is not simply divided into celawson and Mikey versus you, me, and Mark. (ETA: Nor, by the way, do I lump celawson and Mikey together. They don't actually share much in common except one unfortunate trait -- doubling down on Trump in disregard or downright defiance of fact, law, and logic. But they don't, as far as I can see, share much in the way of values -- they represent two different strands of die-hard Trump support. But again, the country isn't divided neatly into die-hard Trump supporters and die-hard Trump opposers. We've got a big pile of people who don't like Trump but aren't up in arms (yet) for whatever reason, and another big pile who are kind of oblivious. It's a lost cause to target the die-hards -- they will only double down right up until the crash. It's the others that are worth working on. If we pull enough of them on board, Trump is toast.) Plenty of people don't like Trump but aren't sure whether he should be removed from office or is really so terribly harmful. Those are the people worth working on. And in politics, it's also the people who know damn well he's awful but are afraid of political blowback. I find your cock-eyed optimism charming. Banal and naive at times, but charming.
Those people you're talking about? They have a name. They're called "cowards" and they are not reliable allies. Cowards never are. If they were they wouldn't be cowards.
Those people are not worth working on. Anyone who isn't sure about what they should think about Trump by now is a ignorant fool on top of being a gutless coward. You're either all-in or all-out about President Pussygrabber. Dithering indecision is pointless in a time of looming Constitutional crises brought about a lawless, rogue Administration that feels it has zero accountability to anyone. If you're standing in the middle of a busy intersection as cars whiz past and you can't decide whether to run back to where you were or run forward to where you want to go, doing nothing because you can't make up your fucking mind is not an option. Make a damn decision and then live or die with it.
My way is to mobilized the unmotivated, protect the right to vote, and pay attention to the interests and concerns of those most already inclined to support a Democratic challenger. Your way is to try to deprogram the programmed and convert the already converted. Fine. You have nothing to offer the rank and file Trump voter, but go ahead and split a bottle of chardonnay with one of these zombies. As you put it, "You do you." Just don't scream for help when they start chewing your arm off from the elbow.
Conversely, it doesn't mean you're correct because I actually don't lump all non-liberals into a single, indistinguishable mass. Prove otherwise. It's only when non-liberals AND liberals move through the world with a hive mentality that I lump them all as fundamentally useless amorphous blobs and slugs unworthy of expending precious energy and limited time upon.
I know you consider all non-liberals basically to be liberals deep down inside and if you ply them with drinks and some kind words, it'll come oozing out of them and they'll be as right as rain!
Start with Roy Moore and Ann Coulter and go from there. You do you.
No. It really doesn't matter. ONLY ONE GUY is a lone wolf, not the leader of the pack and the GOP is not going to throw Trump to the wolves. Not today and not tomorrow and not now and not ever until they fear being punished for failing to abandon him. That won't happen until the base demands their elected officials to do so and they ain't doing that.
Nah, I haven't read The Mueller Report, but then I don't need to read The Mueller Report to be moved on impeachment. Even without Russian collusion there's enough high crimes and misdemeanors already committed by The Orange Mussolini, but what difference does it make when Chucky "Let's Make A Deal" Schumer flat-out refused to co-sign your "freaking hero" on impeachment and if the so-called "leader" of the Senate Dems won't get behind it, why should I get all hyped over something that no matter what the lower chamber does is going nowhere in the upper chamber?
This is only a crisis inside the Beltway and among political pundits, professional and amateur alike. Nobody else is paying attention. The folks back home are tripping on how Game of Thrones ended more than this shitshow.
But regardless of whether anyone else breaks rank -- indeed BECAUSE of the risk no one else will and all he'll get is rocks thrown at him -- this is seriously courageous on Amash's part and it's absurd to write it off as weak or half-hearted or insincere. Looking for a profile in courage in the GOP congress? Here it is. Wrong. This is you indulging in Motivated Reasoning. You want something to be true and then you invent ways to make it true. Your hero worship of Justin Amash comes despite ample evidence that this Tea Party Libertarian who caucuses with the Republicans in the way Ron Paul did is "seriously courageous" when in fact he is seriously cruel. Any one who can says the Constitution prohibits the federal government from interceding when children are drinking contaminated water is no goddamn "hero."
That may not matter to you, but it matters to me. Because why let my facts about Amash get in the way of your feelings about Amash? You do you.
I can't quite decide about this, to be honest. NT is right that Amash doesn't get to call himself a good guy because of this one stance. His prior policy decisions and positions were and are pretty awful. Doing the right thing ONCE doesn't make you a saint, and it doesn't wash away other sins. But Cass is also right, imo, that this is significant. And that, if nothing else, it gives me hope that there's a selection of GOP-ers somewhere who might, sooner or later, jump from the USS Trump and seek safer and more normal waters. The Titanic metaphor strikes me as a good one, although I will add that this ship is sinking waaaay too slowly. Here's something you can try, Mark. Hope in one hand and shit in the other. See which one fills up first.
I wonder how could Justin Amash possibly expand his appeal beyond Libertarians and Never Trumpers to flexible Dems and quixotic independents? Take on Trump and make a big show of it.
Mission. Accomplished.
I didn't say Amash was a saint in heaven and that I agreed with everything he did, for the record. My stance is that this particular action is principled, and under the circumstances (i.e., that he's going to take all kinds of heat from the Trumpalos), downright heroic. My further stance is that I am happy to celebrate a heroic, principled stance from someone even if I vigorously disagree with other things they do. Hell, I'm hard placed to find anyone I don't have at least some disagreements with. It's a matter of degree. I just don't see anyway Justin's action here can be taken as anything but principled. It's not going to get him votes from his supporters (unless he convinces them) nor cheers from his caucus (ditto). Hell, even if one disagrees with him here (obviously, I don't), I don't see how one can dispute that his doing it is heroic and that he's doing it out of principle (even if it is one you disagree with). It sure isn't done for political advantage -- he's risking quite the opposite, though I hope ultimately he pulls people along with him. If you have to agree with someone on everything or be from the same party to find something (and something pretty significant) that they do awesome, will, I guess that's you, but it ain't me. Seriously, this is a stronger position than most Democratic reps have taken, and they're mostly going to get cheers and support for anti-Trump stances. You can't or you won't see any way Amash's action can be taken as anything but principled? They are not the same thing. He's an interesting guy, actually. I've been reading up on him, too. From what I can gather, while I don't agree with all of his stances, he does seem to make them after careful consideration and research rather than purely on a knee-jerk partisan basis.* ETA: *In that respect, Amash actually operates the way the framers of the constitution intended, actually -- I think they would have been pretty horrified by our lockstep party blocks, tbh. And I'm sure they'd be horrified at Trump. Would the slaveowning framers of the Constitution who purposefully excluded women and Negroes from it be pretty horrified by Amash not giving a shit about kids and babies swallowing lead-contaminated water or would they be applaud him for his careful consideration and research that since they can't vote for him, fuck 'em?
I mean, I know it bothers me, but you do you.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on May 24, 2019 14:47:09 GMT -5
I hadn't seen that he's considering a run for president. I would LOVE him to do that, absolutely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2019 18:23:38 GMT -5
I hadn't seen that he's considering a run for president. I would LOVE him to do that, absolutely. I'd be happy to see that, too. The only thing better than one primary challenger to Trump is more than one primary challenger to Trump. At the very least, it weakens him.
|
|