Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Well, at the very least both events I linked to have been quite well documented. Obama even explicitly apologized for Operation Ajax. Definitely not beyond the CIA's actual capabilities. However, I guess I have to believe you if you say that the US are still united rather than divided, despite all that happened during the election.

I was mostly referring to stuff that you hear out of Russia or Venezuela and a couple other placrs where everything bad is attributed to the CIA almost as reflex, but yes, they have done some absolutely horrific stuff like Ajax and in Chile and others.

Ahah yeah, if Khamenei's dog get diarrhea he'll blame the CIA ^^.
[edit]No, wait, it was actually the Mossad![/edit]

 Vaktathi wrote:
That is absolutely not the CIA's place.

Exactly, the CIA is supposed to act outside the USA. So, it's up to the NSA to enact such a nefarious plot.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Well, the idea was that the CIA would put the leader of some military or paramilitary group that they can control in power, rather than follow the rule of law and let Pence be president. That's what they usually do. They don't kill the current elected head of state and then let democracy decide for the replacement leader, as that would inevitably lead to people electing a government even more hostile to them. Which is what happened most of the time when US-backed dictators were ousted, with a few exceptions like in South Korea.

For that to happen you need to find a group that will do it. The military leans conservative and has a tradition of being apolitical and supporting the integrity of the system as a whole. The various militia groups are way too few in number and are generally far-right extremists who aren't going to be interested in overthrowing a right-wing government. There just isn't anyone in the US that is both willing to participate in a military dictatorship and capable of accomplishing it.

I am not sure if there is any US general that would be sufficiently impulsive, power hungry and easily manipulated, though. What are the political opinions of the US army highest ranking commanders, in general?

It doesn't matter. Even if the CIA could find a single leader for the coup the military as a whole isn't going to follow their orders.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
That is absolutely not the CIA's place.

Exactly, the CIA is supposed to act outside the USA. So, it's up to the NSA to enact such a nefarious plot.

Yeah, haven't you guys ever played splinter cell.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Well, the idea was that the CIA would put the leader of some military or paramilitary group that they can control in power, rather than follow the rule of law and let Pence be president. That's what they usually do. They don't kill the current elected head of state and then let democracy decide for the replacement leader, as that would inevitably lead to people electing a government even more hostile to them. Which is what happened most of the time when US-backed dictators were ousted, with a few exceptions like in South Korea.

For that to happen you need to find a group that will do it. The military leans conservative and has a tradition of being apolitical and supporting the integrity of the system as a whole. The various militia groups are way too few in number and are generally far-right extremists who aren't going to be interested in overthrowing a right-wing government. There just isn't anyone in the US that is both willing to participate in a military dictatorship and capable of accomplishing it.

I am not sure if there is any US general that would be sufficiently impulsive, power hungry and easily manipulated, though. What are the political opinions of the US army highest ranking commanders, in general?

It doesn't matter. Even if the CIA could find a single leader for the coup the military as a whole isn't going to follow their orders.

Peregrine has the right of it...

Even then, if it somehow happens, you'd be looking at a very bloody American Civil War part deux...

...and I'd be with the rebels.

I'll be hiding under my bed.

No, it would be much more subtle if the CIA actually wanted to be rid of him (release documents that would incite a public backlash that he would either be impeached or so weakened politically as to be irrelevant, for example).

Just watched Biden's extended interview on PBS Newshour: man we really would have done better with him.

 whembly wrote:
...and I'd be with the rebels.

Here the rebels means Pence and his supporter, or the CIA?
I am a bit surprised you would risk your life for either.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 whembly wrote:
...and I'd be with the rebels.

Here the rebels means Pence and his supporter, or the CIA?
I am a bit surprised you would risk your life for either.

to me, a coup would be something totally different than that.

Regardless... not even a possibility.

(besides, I think most Democrats would prefer Trump over Pence).

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If you want armed forces, pay for it yourself. If you want HIV medication, pay for it yourself. If you want hospitals, pay for them yourself. If you want painkillers to allow you to move after an injury, pay for them yourself. And so on. Why should pacifists be forced to pay taxes to support a military which goes against their own beliefs?

I actually think this is a really good idea here, we should find a way for pacifists to have their own country, so they don't have to fund a military to participate in wars at all. That country would last JUST long enough to gain a tiny bit of wealth and resources that one of the more... volatile nations on the planet would pave it over and scavenge anything of value. I feel if someone wants to refuse to pay for a service they take advantage/enjoy the benefits of, then those advantages/benefits should be denied to them. Does Britain have a clause where you can refuse to pay taxes on services you don't want/support?

Motherfething, spineless, lying, piece-of-gak hypocrites! Just another vindication of the tearing up of my RNC card. Nothing but fething two-faced weasels.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/conservatives-ready-to-support-dollar1-trillion-hole-in-the-budget/ar-BBxX2DD?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

Increasingly, it looks like Republicans simply had no real plan whatsoever on how to repeal the ACA this year. They didn't need one all these years because they knew all along every attempt was just political theater doomed to fail. And once Trump was their nominee, they figured they were going to have another four years of that same political theatre.

But Trump won.

And now they have to actually do something. And they're acting like someone who suddenly decides to sell their car for the money to buy something shiny they want, only to realize the next day that they now have no way to get to work.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Motherfething, spineless, lying, piece-of-gak hypocrites! Just another vindication of the tearing up of my RNC card. Nothing but fething two-faced weasels.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/conservatives-ready-to-support-dollar1-trillion-hole-in-the-budget/ar-BBxX2DD?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

The GOP has NEVER given a crap about balancing the budget.

Rosebuddy wrote:
How would that possibly work as sarcasm? Have you seen the massive political losses the Democratic Party is taking and have been taking for a decade? Disgust is the only appropriate reaction.

Yeah, maybe it seems pedantic to pick you up on 'a decade' but this is a really good example of where vague thinking produces terrible political analysis.

"a decade" means we are talking about the 2006 to 2016 series of political elections (2017 and it's almost one week of no elections doesn't count). In 2006 Democrats had one of the most historic wins in the history of the party. They won a majority of governorships, took the House of Reps, and won 6 new senate seats to take the senate, including winning senate races in Missouri and Montana). In 2008 they extended those gains, took the presidency, retained the house and extended their senate majority to a filibuster proof 60 votes (as long as the independents came along for the party). Describing that as a massive political loss is utterly clueless - you are in fact talking about one of the most dominant four year periods of Democratic election results in the history of US politics.

So what you're actually talking about with the Democratic decline is a six year period - 2010 to 2016. But even that is a fairly mixed story. The mid-terms in were real bad for Democrats, in both 2010 and 2014, they got proper thumped and had really bad turn out. But in between that Obama's second term saw Democrats not only retain the presidency, but also win a majority of House of Reps seats (though the house remained Republican because of the districting problems), and actually gain senate seats.

That brings us to the last election, the 2016 presidential election. There will be books written about what happened there, and maybe we won't ever know. Democrats certainly showed a much lower level of enthusiasm, they not only lacked enery for Clinton but also for the Democratic cause, as their voting down-ticket also declined. Republicans on the other hand were energized enough to turn out and vote, even when their candidate was Donald Trump. But even within that the results are mixed, as Trump won by taking a lot of states by small margins, and in the house and senate Democrats gained slightly. It was still a big defeat considering their opponent is the worst candidate in living memory, but the post election stories of massacre are utterly ignorant.

So, once we actually add some facts to your claim, what we see is there hasn't been any kind of decade long decline at all. What there's been is a decline in the energy base of the party that holds the presidency. This was no more shocking when it happened to Republicans from 2006 to 2008 (it took longer to kick due to the rally around the flag effect post-911), to Democrats 1994 to 2000, to Republicans from 1986 to 1992 (the effect there was masked when Dukakis fumbled strong advantages in 1988 presidential election).

Which makes your conclusion of 'going through' the Democrats laughable, to be frank. Everytime a political party loses an election people call for the death of the party, and it is always wrong. What will return Democrats to a position of strength will be the same master strategy that's always returned the minority party to power - continue to exist and benefit as people get pissed off with the party in power. No matter how well a government is run, no matter how favourable the headwinds the party in power will bleed support - the opposition is energised by all the bad stuff you're doing, and your own base gets frustrated that you're not doing enough stuff fast enough.

And that natural advantage democrats just gained by losing power will be boosted because what Republicans want to do is incredibly unpopular, even among their own base. They'll get their conservative SC, but besides that it will be tax cuts for the wealthy and ending healthcare coverage for 20 million people (with a vague promise to put something else in place). These are things that are woefully unpopular among Republican voters, let alone the rest of the country.

tldr - your socialist revolution isn't happening. Democrats might move left due to a natural effect of a more energised youth vote and an end to Clintonian tri-angulation, but that will be unrelated to the almost inevitable Democratic gains you will see under a Trump presidency.

...and don't forget seb, that the Democrats are facing leadership issues. They need new blood stat!

In a weird flip, I see it quite likely that the Democrats would take the house, where GOP barely retains Senate in 2018.

 Verviedi wrote:
Somewhat agreed. The Democrats must learn that it is impossible to compromise with the deluded. The modern GOP is the party that wants everything, burns the house down when it doesn't get what it wants, and then blames the Democrats for the fire. And their supporters believe it. Democrats must go scorched earth, run more candidates in every election, refuse to compromise, just like the GOP, and attack Republicans in the same ways that Republicans attack them. It's been proven that the high road doesn't work. The GOP suppresses minority votes and gerrymanders heavily. The Democrats cannot tolerate that. Attack it. HATE it.
And if they succeed and finally get a majority, they can justify it, as it was for the greater good. Time to go Full Machiavelli.

The last thing the US needs is two terrible political parties. Democrats certainly have to change up their game but that doesn't mean going down the same path as the Republicans. Remember the Republicans didn't just go crazy overnight. It started with a commitment that the most important thing was winning and keeping Democrats out of power, and from the decline of the party to a collection of ideologues began. We don't need Democrats to become just as bad, and there were signs of the during the primary*.

What Democrats need to do right now is simple. Just keep talking about Republican policy. The real challenge is what they do when they win back power. The utter failure of the Bush presidency faded from the minds of voters very quickly, this time they need to make sure when Trump collapses that it isn't written off as just a Trump thing. They need to show that feth ups like Bush and Trump are where the Republican party is now, and will be until they massively reform.



*Not saying Sanders is as bad, because he isn't. But there were elements of his campaign, not even necessarily from Sanders himself, where the cause was beyond pesky facts, such as his economic plan and the insistence that they were cheated out of an election where they got 10% less votes because something, something super-delegates.

 whembly wrote:
In a weird flip, I see it quite likely that the Democrats would take the house, where GOP barely retains Senate in 2018.

I doubt it. The house is just too thoroughly gerrymandered and generally biased in favor of republicans. It would take a borderline miracle for the democrats to flip that many seats, especially in a midterm election where the democrats have done poorly in their past few attempts.

 whembly wrote:
...and don't forget seb, that the Democrats are facing leadership issues. They need new blood stat!

That's true. Really the two things go hand in hand - a rising political tide brings in new faces. Most of the major public faces of the Republican party, Rubio, Cruz, Walker, Ryan, they all came on the scene in or around 2010, either as part of the Tea Party or benefiting from its wake. And Trump makred his return to politics through birtherism at this time.

Something similar may well happen with Democrats, but we can't just assume it. And even then it makes for a tight timeline - win in 2018, build national profile in two years. Republicans couldn't do that from 2008 to 2012, the primary that year was a weird split of very new faces and very old faces (Gingrich!), with the nomination eventually going to Romney, who sat between those two factions.

In a weird flip, I see it quite likely that the Democrats would take the house, where GOP barely retains Senate in 2018.

Democrats will need to win the vote in the House by a lot to take control. They managed that in 2006 but by that stage Bush was crazy unpopular. Can Trump get that unpopular in just two years? Well if anyone can Trump can, but it would still be a crazy thing.

I agree on the senate. Democrats need to gain two seats and while that doesn't sound like much, I can't see where those gains are coming from. The issue is that it will be the 2012 senate cycle up for grabs, which only has 8 Republican seats in it, and they're all very safe. There were only two close Republican wins last time around, Nevada and Arizona, the third closes race believe it or not was Cruz in Texas, and he won by 15 points. At the same time Democrats will be defending five seats they won last time by 6 points or less.

So the way I see it there's a few possible outcomes;
1) Democrats gain lose the vote total in the house by about the same amount, and make little no headway in seats. They gain no senate seats or maybe even lose a couple. This can happen if it turns out that the recent Democratic failure to turn out in mid-terms is not due to holding the presidency, but something deeper in the party. If true, this doesn't mean anything for the 2020 election, but it does mean Republicans can count on only ever being two years away from power. It is a sign of a malaise in Democratic politics that is beyond Trump. It would make it near impossible for Democrats to ever develop policy, and continue to hurt their development of a leadership pool.
2) Democrats win the vote total in the house, but not enough to actually take the house. They gain nothing in the senate. Power remains with Republicans, but there is evidence of the normal movement away from the party of the president. This is a bad sign for Trump because his win was wafer-thin in 2016, he can't give up any votes at all.
3) Democrats win the vote total in the house, by a lot. Democrats either win control of the house, or they gain the two senate seats needed to retake the senate, maybe even both. This is full panic stations for Republicans. Not because losing control of the house or senate is uncommon for the party controlling the presidency, but because it is unlikely that Republicans will ever have structural advantages like 2018 ever again. If they can't keep control with those advantages, then things are looking really grim for 2020.

I'm not going to put any kind of probabilities on any of those three results. We've got two years to stare at poll results and 538 before those elections, plenty of time to declare we know what's going to happen

 TheArmorOfContempt wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'm sure Manchu can eloquently chime in, but more boyz are not harmed in this...

I don't think you really understand what Christian Evangelicals are trying to introduce to the education system, but the guy is right, Creationism literally has no place in a SCIENCE class room. It is anti-science by definition.

We need to be careful with this term creationism. In the broadest sense, we're talking about a belief that God is the Creator. That of course is a basic tenant of Catholic faith and of all Christianity (third clause of the Nicene Creed) - but there is a more particular meaning of that term denoting opposition to the theory of evolution, and that meaning is simply not current with Catholics generally, from the cardinals in Rome right through to lay people in every part of the world. The creationism that Catholics universally accept is not an alternative to evolutionary theory generally much less a buzzword signalling some agenda of opposition to evolutionary theory.

 Peregrine wrote:
I doubt it. The house is just too thoroughly gerrymandered and generally biased in favor of republicans. It would take a borderline miracle for the democrats to flip that many seats, especially in a midterm election where the democrats have done poorly in their past few attempts.

Democrats last regained the House in a mid-term, in 2006. Even with the gerrymandered headwind, Bush was just so unpopular that Democrats won anyway. Will Trump be as unpopular after two years as Bush was after 6? That's one question.

The second question is whether Democrats poor showing in mid-terms has been due to them being less disciplined and less organised than Republicans, or is it because the party that doesn't hold the presidency has tended to do better in mid-terms in recent history? There's arguments both ways. 2018 will tell us a lot about the state of both parties.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Increasingly, it looks like Republicans simply had no real plan whatsoever on how to repeal the ACA this year. They didn't need one all these years because they knew all along every attempt was just political theater doomed to fail. And once Trump was their nominee, they figured they were going to have another four years of that same political theatre.

But Trump won.

And now they have to actually do something. And they're acting like someone who suddenly decides to sell their car for the money to buy something shiny they want, only to realize the next day that they now have no way to get to work.

Agreed. The GOP's platform has more or less been 'oppose the Democrats' with little else for a decade, only getting worse and worse each year. They no longer have an ability to actually govern because in addition to being 10 years out of practice they are now as detached from reality as GW was in 2015. They simply cannot produce an agenda that will function because they perceive a nation that is very, very different from what actually exists. Whembly's spin of facts seems near-completely rational by comparison. I mean we are talking about a party which still believes, actually believes, that cutting taxes on the rich will somehow help the poor despite an overabundance of evidence otherwise.

The GOP has its head planted so firmly up it's own ass that the only thing they eat is their own crap.

Two weeks left of Obama's presidency.

 sebster wrote:


tldr - your socialist revolution isn't happening. Democrats might move left due to a natural effect of a more energised youth vote and an end to Clintonian tri-angulation, but that will be unrelated to the almost inevitable Democratic gains you will see under a Trump presidency.

The Democrats had a chance to turn left. They picked Clinton instead. So much for energising the youth vote. Faith in them as a remotely leftist option is gone and the entire controlling caste will have to be cleared out completely before anything can change with the party. You're talking about people whose main understanding of "opposition" is to calmly invite a fascist to respectfully follow the rules and hope that some clown will totally eviscerate him on TV when he ignores them. Real leftism and not simply the veneer of it is a greater enemy to the Democratic Party than Trump is. Clintonian triangulation was and is the party. Their first instinct will be to move rightwards because they can't stomach leftism. They lack the ability and desire to energise masses of new voters because they aren't a real political party. They're a club for lawyers and Harvard grads to build a sweet career.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

*Not saying Sanders is as bad, because he isn't. But there were elements of his campaign, not even necessarily from Sanders himself, where the cause was beyond pesky facts, such as his economic plan and the insistence that they were cheated out of an election where they got 10% less votes because something, something super-delegates.

The DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign. Thousands of voters were purged from the rolls. You keep going on about facts but pick and choose the ones that allow you to think that politics as usual are possible. Here's a fact for you: Clinton lost to Trump. The most qualified, most electable candidate who was so guaranteed to win because the Democrats had a computer that told them The Facts that she didn't even campaign in key states, lost to Donald J. Trump.

And in the face of this you insist on more liberalism.

Rosebuddy wrote:
The Democrats had a chance to turn left. They picked Clinton instead.

Heh. Yeah, political parties only ever get one chance to tack more to the left or right. That's why political parties only ever last a decade or so, before being replaced by something that better suits the politics of internet posters living in other countries.

I mean, hell, imagine a world in which political parties could move in direction, then move in another direction at another point in time. Or even crazier, considering that a political party is made up of millions of people organised in to large and small groups within the party, consider each trying to move the party in different ways at different times, with a result that the party is at all times pushing in all directions, with the most electorally successful elements have the greatest impact on party direction? Why if such a crazy thing were to

Clintonian triangulation was and is the party.

Clintonian triangulation was a particular variation on centrism, a strategy both parties have found success with at different times in US history. The idea that Democrats always undertook Clintonian triangulation is just fething staggering. I mean, did you stop to think about why it was called Clintonian? Did you think Bill Clinton started his campaign in '92, and was just tickled pink that this supposed strategy that "was and is the Democrats" shared his name? Must have been a good omen!

Their first instinct will be to move rightwards because they can't stomach leftism. They lack the ability and desire to energise masses of new voters because they aren't a real political party. They're a club for lawyers and Harvard grads to build a sweet career.

Your sweeping generalisations continue. I spent time and effort taking apart your total piffle about a decade of Democratic decline, and after seeing that you just nod, and move on to this new bit of nonsense.

Please fething stop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:
The DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign.

Inside players posted in emails that they supported the inside player. Breaking fething news. Note the collusion you talk about is alleged, there's no sign of them actually doing anything to shift votes.

Thousands of voters were purged from the rolls.

Sanders lost by millions.

You keep going on about facts but pick and choose the ones that allow you to think that politics as usual are possible. Here's a fact for you: Clinton lost to Trump. The most qualified, most electable candidate who was so guaranteed to win because the Democrats had a computer that told them The Facts that she didn't even campaign in key states, lost to Donald J. Trump.

Clinton lost to Trump. Sanders isn't Clinton therefore Sanders beats Trump.

There it is people. The same piece of not logic I've been batting down over and over again, from the same poster, for months. And here on my first day back from holiday I'm doing it again.

And in the face of this you insist on more liberalism.

I'm not insisting on anything. Stop making up random nonsense.

 sebster wrote:
There it is people. The same piece of not logic I've been batting down over and over again, from the same poster, for months. And here on my first day back from holiday I'm doing it again.

Yeah, that's true. And FWIW, I respect your perseverance. You're a better man than I for trying.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Motherfething, spineless, lying, piece-of-gak hypocrites! Just another vindication of the tearing up of my RNC card. Nothing but fething two-faced weasels.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/conservatives-ready-to-support-dollar1-trillion-hole-in-the-budget/ar-BBxX2DD?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

I'm sure the Tea Party people will be up in arms and protesting about this any minute now.







Russia already producing Trump-Putin memorabilia.

Apparently reads "Christianity, Superpowerness, National Ethos!" -- a twist on Nicholas I famous dictum "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy,_Autocracy,_and_Nationality

It's bad enough you appear to be losing the information war to Russia, but now they're even producing better worthless tat than you, for shame !

 sebster wrote:

Clinton lost to Trump. Sanders isn't Clinton therefore Sanders beats Trump.

There it is people. The same piece of not logic I've been batting down over and over again, from the same poster, for months. And here on my first day back from holiday I'm doing it again.

Sanders polled more favourably against Trump than Clinton did. The Democrats lost a couple of million voters not to Trump nor to third parties but to the option of not voting at all. The doubts over Clinton were there from day 1 and her total lack of desire to acknowledge them felled her.

In a country where people are growing more fearful for their futures day by day, the Democratic leadership thought it was a great idea to push for the candidate whose retort to her opponent's core message was that America already was great because America is good. The party that became the Clinton machine has to be reborn if it wants to be relevant and even then it must clear its debt to the American peoples before it can be trusted. Considering that the party spent the time after their loss blaming Russia and raging about Berniebros, I do not think it will ever become a useful party.

Plus weren't Clinton and Sanders policies effectively identical anyway? The only real difference being that Clinton wanted a more incremental approach?

And the voters didn't care about that. I mean, who cares about policies right? Slogans and buzzwords will always rule, even when the actions are the exact opposite.

Trump vs. border tax for Toyota in Mexico. Interesting.
BWM and Daimler also plan to produce in Mexico next time.