45 Challenger (from the right)

Since Break Glass 2020 is discussing mostly 45's challengers from the left, I thought it appropriate to set up another thread on at least one challenger from the right. There may be more.

But this one looks serious Joe Walsh who is a former conservative representative from Illinois.

Does he have a chance? I can only hope.

Story Here
«1

Comments

  • He has no chance at all because the mass of Trumpites are glued to him.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Does he have a chance?
    Nope.

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Nor, alas, does Libertarian Bill Weld, a semi-reasonable (well, compared to President Orangina) former governor of Massachusetts.
  • I like this Joe Walsh better. I linked to his album "But Seriously Folks" because 'but seriously folks' and the album picture is apropos - under water.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited August 25
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Does he have a chance?
    Nope.

    Any challenger (from the right) with any savvy will stand in 2024. So if you want to be forewarned, look for ghouls with a public profile making presidential noises.
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    Along with Weld and Wlash, there is a possibility that Mark Sanford will do a hat toss into the ring. Of the three, I would favor Bill Weld to actually make a decent run, as a default candidate when Trump starts ranting about people stealing his strawberries.
  • Ohher wrote: »

    This is, by far, the most helpful conversation about American national politics in some time.
  • Hedgehog wrote: »
    . . . when Trump starts ranting about people stealing his strawberries.
    :notworthy:
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    He has no chance at all because the mass of Trumpites are glued to him.
    Any Trump supporter will have to admit they fucked up before they abandon him. If they had that capacity, they would not have voted for him.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    edited August 26
    Hedgehog wrote: »
    Along with Weld and Wlash, there is a possibility that Mark Sanford will do a hat toss into the ring. Of the three, I would favor Bill Weld to actually make a decent run, as a default candidate when Trump starts ranting about people stealing his strawberries.
    Bill Weld is sane, decent, and a grownup. If he makes it as far as my state's primary, I will consider taking a Republican ballot in order to vote for him.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Any Trump supporter will have to admit they fucked up before they abandon him. If they had that capacity, they would not have voted for him.
    I know several who voted for him reluctantly in the first place, but who have said that under no circumstances will they vote for him again. (This is because they are decent human beings, genuine Christians, and so forth.) All we need is to multiply them times several million before November of 2020.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited August 26
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Any Trump supporter will have to admit they fucked up before they abandon him. If they had that capacity, they would not have voted for him.
    I know several who voted for him reluctantly in the first place, but who have said that under no circumstances will they vote for him again. (This is because they are decent human beings, genuine Christians, and so forth.) All we need is to multiply them times several million before November of 2020.
    So that was a little bit of hyperbole. Though polls suggest his base is eroding a bit, they were the same polls that said he'd win. His base should rationally have eroded to almost nothing. It has not.
    I don't think all the people who supported him are evil. But they still voted for a racist who had no serious plan. Reluctantly or not.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Wondering what Romney may do.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    edited August 27
    If T's supporters who are conservative (fund/evo) Christians take the Bible seriously and somewhat literally, know of T's recent Messianic claims, and *still* support T...then they need to turn in their Christian memberships, 'cause the Bible's very explicit about false Messiahs turning up, trying to deceive the very elect, etc. Never mind that guy in Revelation.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    But this one looks serious Joe Walsh who is a former conservative representative from Illinois.

    Does he have a chance? I can only hope.

    Alex Pareene makes the case that deadbeat Joe Walsh is actually running for "Morning Joe". Click through for the full explanation.
  • Because the last thing anybody wants is a fair and open election, the Republican challengers may have no primaries to compete in. That, of course, could blow up in the Republicans' faces if (when) Trump becomes so unstable they need to have another candidate--and no primaries to test out who would fly best.
  • Hedgehog wrote: »
    Because the last thing anybody wants is a fair and open election, the Republican challengers may have no primaries to compete in. That, of course, could blow up in the Republicans' faces if (when) Trump becomes so unstable they need to have another candidate--and no primaries to test out who would fly best.

    So unstable that the GOP wants to dump him for another candidate? Trump’s base seems to be willing to stand behind him no matter how unstable he acts, and they like how his instability pisses off the Democrats. The party establishment is too afraid to upset his base by allowing a primary against him. Maybe if Trump nukes something things would change. Absent that I’m not sure of what could make the party turn against him.
  • It wouldn't change if he nuked somebody. I reckon it might just make him more popular to the racist right.

    I don't believe anything will dislodge him from the hearts of Republicans other than him losing the election. Then it will be on for young and old.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Hedgehog wrote: »
    Because the last thing anybody wants is a fair and open election, the Republican challengers may have no primaries to compete in.

    On a related note, Mark Sanford, the man who introduced "hiking the Appalachian Trail" to our lexicon of euphemisms, declared his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination on the same day his home state of South Carolina made moves to cancel its Republican presidential primary.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    What astonishes me is how seriously some commentators seem to take this candidate, though maybe that's simple desperation. I'd be astonished if the Appalachian-trail guy with the South American mistress could make much of a dent in the porn-star president's ownership of the Sleaze Sycophants (since that, apparently, is the nature of the base they'de be competing for).
  • I saw Condee Rice on Colbert today. She was pushing a book. I wouldn't mind seeing her as President - a safe pair of hands. I don't want her to run against Trump though. That's a job for someone who just wants to cruel his chances.
  • Re Condi for president:

    No, no, no, no. I'd have to dig back through years of news, but IMNSHO she'd be a bad choice. Aside from being part of Dubya's crew and being That Kind of Republican...after 9/11 (during the hearings, IIRC), she was asked about any foreknowledge that something might happen. She said something to the effect that there'd been some chatter, but no specific date, so she didn't take it seriously. And ISTM she thought that was perfectly ok, and didn't get why other people were upset with her.

    I'm not sure if she ever went back to her concert piano career, but that would be a much better place for her. She could do something she likes, make people happy, and not endanger the rest of us again.
  • hindsight is a wonderful thing. Nobody anticipated 9/11, but I understand why people do second-guess those in power.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Simon Toad, it's the job of intelligence to check out potential threats. IIRC, the pre-9/11 "chatter" included mentions of using planes as weapons. As to the "no specific dates" excuse, is our intelligence community so stupid and arrogant it expects engraved invitations, complete with date, time, place, and RSVPs, to enemy attacks?

    The real problem here was the utter lack of understanding -- no, the utter lack of any serious attempt to understand -- the position, commitment, world-view, and desperation of those who plotted the attack.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited September 11
    I'd agree with that, while also maintaining that nobody in the West really understood those things, except a few poor bastards who had been banging their heads against brick walls. I can't remember the details of the accusations against Hilary concerning the Benghazi thing. My brain begins to bleed when I even type the name of that blighted city. But I wonder whether the criticisms are comparable, and in both cases, I'd suggest neither woman ought be disqualified from high office because a really bad thing happened on their watch.

    I would also like to stress that I would prefer most Democrats to Rice. She just looks, I don't know... sane? Is that the word? Sane is very attractive to me in my political leaders (and as you know, I consider yours to be mine, as far as war and stuff is concerned). Given that Trump is unlikely to be the last Republican President, wouldn't it be wonderful if the next one was sane. Being black and a woman is just the icing on the cake. I mean how good do you have to be as a black woman to get a cabinet job in a Republican administration?
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Aside from being part of Dubya's crew and being That Kind of Republican...after 9/11 (during the hearings, IIRC), she was asked about any foreknowledge that something might happen. She said something to the effect that there'd been some chatter, but no specific date, so she didn't take it seriously. And ISTM she thought that was perfectly ok, and didn't get why other people were upset with her.

    Here's a video of Rice testifying before the 9/11 Commission. (Happy 9/11 anniversary, BTW. A child born this day in 2001 is now old enough to be deployed to Afghanistan.) At ~3:05 on the time index Ben-Veniste asks Rice if she remembers the title of the August 6 Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB). The title was "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" [PDF]. Rice goes on to explain that this didn't raise any alarm bells with her because the memo contained no suggested actions.

    It should also be noted that in her role as National Security Advisor she approved the use of torture enhanced interrogation techniques. She wasn't the only one to sign off on torture enhanced interrogation techniques, but she did give her assent.
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I'd agree with that, while also maintaining that nobody in the West really understood those things, except a few poor bastards who had been banging their heads against brick walls. I can't remember the details of the accusations against Hilary concerning the Benghazi thing. My brain begins to bleed when I even type the name of that blighted city. But I wonder whether the criticisms are comparable, and in both cases, I'd suggest neither woman ought be disqualified from high office because a really bad thing happened on their watch.

    Condoleeza Rice was the National Security Advisor during America's biggest national security failure since Pearl Harbor. Preventing that sort of thing was her job. Competence counts. The Benghazi attacks represent a security failure on a smaller scale, but the State Department does not handle security for its various missions. That's the job of the Defense Department. So why was Hillary Clinton publicly pilloried instead of Leon Panetta? Some of it may be sexism, but mostly it was that the Republicans running the eleventy billion Congressional Benghazi investigations (number a rough estimate from memory) knew that Panetta wasn't going to be the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee.
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I would also like to stress that I would prefer most Democrats to Rice. She just looks, I don't know... sane? Is that the word? Sane is very attractive to me in my political leaders (and as you know, I consider yours to be mine, as far as war and stuff is concerned). Given that Trump is unlikely to be the last Republican President, wouldn't it be wonderful if the next one was sane.

    One of the big problems with American politics is the inability to admit that the Republican party is a toxic dungheap of bigots and imbeciles. There's a popular myth that you can fashion a compromise between "moderates on both sides" that will eliminate all controversies forever and get the politics out of politics. In order for this centrist wet dream to come true there have to be moderate Republicans with whom such a compromise can be made, and if none exist then some will have to be invented out of existing Republicans. That's the way a con-man like Paul Ryan gets portrayed as an economics wonk who's super worried about deficits, vicious fratboy "Bart O'Kavanaugh" becomes a sober jurist, and a torture "enhanced interrogation technique"-loving screw-up like Condoleeza Rice become not just "sane" but a plausible president.

    The thing that's going to guarantee that all Republican presidents for the foreseeable future are in the mold of Donald Trump is to continue to turn a blind eye to the Republican party that's spent the last forty years turning into something that would vomit up someone like Donald Trump into the Oval Office. He's not an anomaly, he's where the Republicans have been deliberately heading for a very long time.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Being black and a woman is just the icing on the cake. I mean how good do you have to be as a black woman to get a cabinet job in a Republican administration?

    Apparently, about as good as this black woman, which is to say, "Not especially, as long as you can conform to culturally-appropriate appearance standards set by Old White Guys.
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    . . . I can't remember the details of the accusations against Hilary concerning the Benghazi thing. My brain begins to bleed when I even type the name of that blighted city. But I wonder whether the criticisms are comparable, and in both cases, I'd suggest neither woman ought be disqualified from high office because a really bad thing happened on their watch.

    There are two important distinctions to be made here: First, Rice was National Security Advisor when 9/11 happened; she wasn't directly in charge of intelligence operations. Second, her boss, who was too busy plotting to outdo Dad in cultivating his own agenda in the Middle East, was a doorknob and therefore likely willfully ignoring his intelligence community's info.

    Clinton's situation was different. As Secretary of State, she did bear more direct responsibility for Benghazi. There are well-documented requests in advance of the attacks for beefed-up security for that post which were turned down. What is not established is whether Clinton herself was aware of these requests for added security.

    Both women faced the problem, however, of not being able to "duck" criticism for their boss's decisions without appearing disloyal to their respective teams.
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I would also like to stress that I would prefer most Democrats to Rice. She just looks, I don't know... sane? Is that the word? Sane is very attractive to me in my political leaders (and as you know, I consider yours to be mine, as far as war and stuff is concerned). Given that Trump is unlikely to be the last Republican President, wouldn't it be wonderful if the next one was sane.

    While Rice may or may not be sane, it's going to be a cold day in you-know-where before this US citizen willingly entrusts governance to anyone claiming membership in a party that appears to have completely turned its back on every known ideal of justice and fairness and equality ever espoused, however incompletely, brokenly, and inadequately, by this nation.

    However badly we've treated these ideals, we are not released from the obligation of trying to honor them.
  • It can be argued that the whole of the USA wallows in the same sewer as the Republican Party; that the success of that party and the iniquities it has foisted on the world are the responsibility not only of Republicans but of the whole country, a country that has not only failed to stop them, but has participated in them by participating in the utterly corrupt system they created. It might be argued that because they have not taken up arms in defence of their beliefs, in the face of this plain and undeniable evil, they stand justly condemned of the crimes committed primarily by Republicans but also by them because they were to weak to effectively oppose them.

    This is of course rot, and very unfair. But it is a common view in progressive circles, particularly attractive to the young.

    Without compromise, America will have a painful time getting out of the mess of the last 30 years. Without compromise, how are you going to do it? If a group of people think they will never achieve power in a system, then they either buckle under or they seek to destroy the system through revolution.

    I don't want to see that for my own selfish reasons. I want compromise. That means in the present circumstances, identifying people you can work with.

    I'd like to hear the alternative to compromise you think will work. I can't think of one, and so I like Obama, Clinton and Rice. I like Warren too. She embodies an America I would like to see triumph through compromise.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I don't want to see that for my own selfish reasons. I want compromise. That means in the present circumstances, identifying people you can work with.

    That assumes that there are "people you can work with". And sometimes making compromises just leaves you compromised. For example, what's the reasonable compromise on torture enhanced interrogation techniques?

    Part of my problem with this mindset is that it starts to view compromise not as an instrument, a means to achieve certain ends, but as a goal in its own right. Any compromise is good because it's a compromise, while sticking to your principles is always considered unreasonable intransigence.

    It's also an easy system to game. Just invent some spurious positions (e.g. the sporadic Republican obsession with the federal deficit) and offer to sacrifice them as a "compromise".
  • What's the alternative in a Democratic system? The one I can think of, violently tearing the country apart, is unacceptable to me and is likely to result in the imposition of a truly authoritarian right wing United States. I think that many people who support Trump would support taking action against Democrats including extra-judicial murder, abductions and torture. It would be back to the 50's, but this time it will not only be racially but politically targeted victims. I mean, you have had political trials and arrests in America before. You have had lynching and intimidation of black people before.

    Are my dire fears of a return to an authoritarian, right-wing, universally white european ruling class America overblown?

    If compromise is not your strategy for making your country finally just, what else will work?
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    What's the alternative in a Democratic system?
    The alternative is to try to defeat your opponents on election day and get your own policies enacted.
  • @Ohher
    Apparently, about as good as this black woman, which is to say, "Not especially, as long as you can conform to culturally-appropriate appearance standards set by Old White Guys.

    You can't seriously be equating Omarosa, who as I understand it was a reality TV star before a new position was created for her at the WH, with the highly-qualified Rice, who seems to be one of those people who is good at everything.

    I'm not going to make further excuses for her decisions in the aftermath of 9/11, or in the period leading up to it. I will say that people who have experience in politics and in public administration do make mistakes. Part of becoming experienced involves making mistakes and learning from them. That's why Clinton would be so good as President, and why people like Rice are acceptable to me as leaders from the other side. They are acceptable to me because there are elections which despite Republican fiddling, matter, and in which I have confidence. I know that eventually, my side will have a go.

    Concerning torture, rendition and the Iraq war generally, they were not things I supported. But the West went crazy in the aftermath of 9/11. Seriously, in 2001 we were all a bit freaked. As I understand things in the WH at the time, Cheney and Rumsfeld were the decision makers. Had I been in Rice's position, I hope I would have resigned, but given my personal career history, I reckon I would have just torn myself apart with private guilt.

    Lets not forget that in many political parties, policy fights are had in-house and in private. Once the majority view prevails, you support it in public or you resign and keep your trap shut. It's called solidarity, comrades.

    So I square bracket that stuff for everyone except Cheney Rumsfeld and Bush, who actually had the power to say no.

    The big British example of the bad politician who was the right person for the times was Churchill. Churchill should have been, and indeed was dismissed by many because he was blamed for the disastrous Dardanelles campaign in WW1 and for imposing the extra-judicial killers, abductors and torturers known as the Black and Tans on Ireland. But he got the Americans to help enough to stave off the Germans, and was rewarded with their decisive intervention in the War after Pearl Harbor.

    Politicians are human too. Donald Trump was an error free politician in 2015.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    What's the alternative in a Democratic system?
    The alternative is to try to defeat your opponents on election day and get your own policies enacted.

    Indeed it is. But the American system is built for compromise, so that the many parts of your diverse country can all have a say in government. So its necessary to do numbers, and try to identify people on the other side who might support you.

    To participate in the system is to compromise. The alternative is to do a Mitch, gaming the system for partisan benefit and when you can't, stonewalling. Not a good strategy for the common good.

    When the Republicans get another bite of the cherry, after 8 years of Warren, and another 8 of Mayor Pete, I like Rice.

  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    What's the alternative in a Democratic system?
    The alternative is to try to defeat your opponents on election day and get your own policies enacted.

    Indeed it is. But the American system is built for compromise, so that the many parts of your diverse country can all have a say in government.
    If it was, it certainly doesn't work that way now.

  • Oh yes it does! That's why there is gridlock, and has been for the past 12 or so years. That's why people are busy trying to extend the boundaries of Presidential power, and have been doing so for the entire 21st century. As public attitudes on both sides of the political spectrum but especially the right has hardened, the capacity of a Congress which requires any more than 50% plus 1 to do many vital things has dwindled. Meanwhile, in Parliaments where 50% plus 1 is enough, minority parties are left to shout things and take court action, the extraordinary scenes in Westminster notwithstanding.

    I would like to think I would have organised a Rugby line-out thing to get in Bercow's lap and stop him leaving the chamber. It's a sign of the disorganisation in opposition ranks that they didn't do it!!! :tongue:
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    What's the alternative in a Democratic system?
    The alternative is to try to defeat your opponents on election day and get your own policies enacted.

    Indeed it is. But the American system is built for compromise, so that the many parts of your diverse country can all have a say in government. So its necessary to do numbers, and try to identify people on the other side who might support you.

    To participate in the system is to compromise. The alternative is to do a Mitch, gaming the system for partisan benefit and when you can't, stonewalling. Not a good strategy for the common good.

    When the Republicans get another bite of the cherry, after 8 years of Warren, and another 8 of Mayor Pete, I like Rice.
    In a country of 300 million, I hope we could do better than someone who was an apologist for torture and a key promoter of an insane war.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited September 12
    Clearly there are better candidates, but they are all Democrats. Would you prefer President Stephen Miller, or President Huckerbee - Sanders? Or maybe a wrestling star, or President Kanye West? How about another President Trump? Would you choose Eric, or Don Jr?
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    @Ohher
    Apparently, about as good as this black woman, which is to say, "Not especially, as long as you can conform to culturally-appropriate appearance standards set by Old White Guys.

    You can't seriously be equating Omarosa, who as I understand it was a reality TV star before a new position was created for her at the WH, with the highly-qualified Rice, who seems to be one of those people who is good at everything.

    Check your irony meter. I was attempting to point out the immense disparity between these two women, not trying to equate them. Bush, despite being a fool himself, at least recruited support from capable, intelligent aides. Trumpf, not so much.



  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited September 12
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    What's the alternative in a Democratic system? The one I can think of, violently tearing the country apart, is unacceptable to me and is likely to result in the imposition of a truly authoritarian right wing United States. I think that many people who support Trump would support taking action against Democrats including extra-judicial murder, abductions and torture. It would be back to the 50's, but this time it will not only be racially but politically targeted victims. I mean, you have had political trials and arrests in America before. You have had lynching and intimidation of black people before.

    This is the kind of blinkered historical revisionism that drives me nuts. What you leave out of your analysis is that segregation and lynching were the product of the type of political compromise you advocate. Nearly a century of it. Do you have any idea how many anti-lynching bills died in the Senate? Some due to obstructionism, but most quietly shelved as part of legislative horse-trading. I think a pretty solid case can be made that this only changed when a number of legislators decided that the rights of black Americans were no longer something they were willing to compromise on or use as a political bargaining chip. In other words, the exact opposite of what you advocate.
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I'm not going to make further excuses for her decisions in the aftermath of 9/11, or in the period leading up to it.

    Good. Glad to hear it.
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Concerning torture, rendition and the Iraq war generally, they were not things I supported. But the West went crazy in the aftermath of 9/11. Seriously, in 2001 we were all a bit freaked.

    <snip>

    So I square bracket that stuff for everyone except Cheney Rumsfeld and Bush, who actually had the power to say no.

    "Hey, she went nuts so I'm gonna give her a do-over" (slight paraphrase) sounds an awful lot like making further excuses for Rice. Look, elite politics is tough and one of the reasons for having elections rather than simply choosing leaders by lot is that a reasoned assessment of the qualities of prospective leaders can (theoretically) eliminate most candidates with unacceptable flaws. Rice has demonstrated that she'll "go crazy", as you put it, under pressure. This does not seem like a good quality in a president, a position that by definition deals with pressure and crisis. If 'no war criminals or crazy people' is too high a bar for the modern Republican party to clear, maybe the problem is with the Republican party.
  • I'm still not sure what alternative strategy you propose.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    Ohher wrote: »
    Bush, despite being a fool himself, at least recruited support from capable, intelligent aides. Trumpf, not so much.

    I’ll assume that was a typo as we have previously requested that the man’s name shouldn’t be messed about with in Purgatory.

    BroJames
    Purgatory Host
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Type in haste, repent at leisure. Apologies.
  • Had a sleep. I think its time for me to pull my head in on Rice and listen carefully to the rest of you, who broadly agree with me on most issues and who are actually American.

    I still want to talk through general approaches to take once the Dems achieve power but.
  • If being American gave one automatic insight, Trump would not be president.
    There are Americans who like Rice' record, so it is less being American than agreeing with the policies or not. Rice was on the wrong side of history and either agreed or did not make a principled stand.
  • True LB but I reckon that old socialist dictum is a good rule of thumb. Find people in foreign countries you generally agree with and they are likely to steer you right.
  • Thanks, Simon Toad. You just forestalled an international incident!
    ;)
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    True LB but I reckon that old socialist dictum is a good rule of thumb. Find people in foreign countries you generally agree with and they are likely to steer you right.

    ?? Um, what?

    You mean how Trump finds, oh, say, Kim Jong Un, and he'll steer Trump right?

    Is this one of those deals where we're two people divided by a common language?
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    .Condi Rice (who is said to be an excellent pianist) is absolutely my favorite war criminal. She's smart, well-spoken, and almost everything you'd want in a candidate. But I still wouldn't vote for her.


  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited September 13
    Ohher wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    True LB but I reckon that old socialist dictum is a good rule of thumb. Find people in foreign countries you generally agree with and they are likely to steer you right.

    ?? Um, what?

    You mean how Trump finds, oh, say, Kim Jong Un, and he'll steer Trump right?

    Is this one of those deals where we're two people divided by a common language?

    lol kind of. They both have the same outlook, so maybe on matters NK, Trump should be guided by Kim... :tongue:

    I'm not sure if this is an old socialist dictum or whether it is the product of my imagination, but the idea is that if you are a politically aware worker, you should support politically aware workers in other countries. So if you are asked to support a particular political position in an international forum about say Venezuela, you take advice from a Venezuelan worker you trust and who shares more or less your political outlook and you vote accordingly. Solidarity Comrade!

    I am fascinated in a juvenile way with the patterns of behavior in postwar socialist organisations. Accordingly, I can sing a few verses of The Red Flag and the Nicaraguan National Anthem (courtesy of Billy Bragg, although I hum a bit), together with various other things that rattle around in my head, such as voting strategies. I can also sing a Red Flag knock off song, but only in patches. The verse I like especially goes:
    The People's flag is deepest pink; it's not as red as you might think; It was not stained with workers' blood; but by some old bastard down the pub.
    That version might include in it words of my own composition to make up for my lapses of memory.

    I'm not technically a socialist, though I share their aims, more or less. I don't understand economics you see, and the Marxist Historical Imperative seems like a big pile of doggie doo to me, and typical of the nineteenth century. However, as P.J. O'Rourke one noted, socialists have better drugs.

    I am sure that has cleared things up for you Ohher, or perhaps I've missed your irony again...
  • An article concerning the risk to Trump of canceling primaries to frustrate his challengers from the right. AIUI, if there is no primary, then the delegates are not obligated at the convention--so, for example, if Trump won the SC primary, they would be obligated to cast their votes for him at the convention, but if SC cancels its primaries, then they get to vote for whomever they wish at the convention. It gives the party an out if/when Trump demonstrates enough mental instability that even Republicans would be reluctant to support him.
Sign In or Register to comment.