The Great Divide
Has the right and lefts political differences as well;l as ideologies become so different that there is no middle anymore?
Are we seeing a segment of American society become anti-American, unrecognizable to what we have known in the past?
Where could this serious social division lead America?Personally, I believe there is a middle, a huge prairie between the twin mountains of the radical fringes.
Unfortunately it is that radical fringe with the bullhorns, it is the radicals gaining the attention of the media, it is the fringe that people hear to because all other voices are drowned out in the tsunami of screams and screeches from the fringes.
It is also the fringes that are fomenting hatred of anyone and anything that does not bow down before their screams, and that has and continues to cause damage beyond what I would have thought possible.I must agree with your very well-put comment. So, I ask, will this fringe result in the ruination of the Democratic party in the end? Naturally, I have some Democratic friends, as well as my much-loved sister. I see cracks in her armor, due to the more radical ideas being pushed by the "fringe". She is admittedly upset about where she feels the country may be headed.
What do you think, have this radical left sent the part over the edge of no return?Personally, I like to think that both parties have been pushed to the point of no return. Neither one represents the people as a group; both have taken up the mantra of their respective fringe elements. Neither is competent to "rule" the nation. IMO.
Yes, there is no middle. The Right has "doubled down" far more than the Left.
The segment that is anti-American?
It is not about pro life verses pro-choice as it is more about the extremes the Right is taking to impose upon Rights that belong to the individual. We all are aware of threats to the mobility of women regarding the abortion issue, the state's desire to criminalize a woman's ingestion of pills and just more recently the South Carolina legislation addressing communication about the topic of abortion on web sites on the internet, as if they have forgotten that the abortion procedure is legal in other states. This issue is touching upon many areas of civil liberties and first amendment rights. Listening to all the scuttlebut from their representatives, these current outrages are just the beginning. Where the Republican Party is taking to the role of a fascist cult.
Conservatives annoy me, for example, in the fact that they make a "big deal" about the concept of marriage. Whose business is it if two members of the same gender chooses to consummate a relationship? Who cares about any official definition of marriage?
What is anti-American is the stench of fascism and authoritarianism represented by Trump,which many conservatives have virtually turned their heads 180 degrees around to avoid. This has never happened before under any circumstances, why is it ok today? Are they so willing to accommodate the lie because they dislike the Democrats and what they stand for so much? It would be simpler if they just admit as much.
I know that I need to see the Republican Party self-eradicate, or morph into a far more moderate substitute. The alternative will be a stand off against fascists that want to remake America into a totalitarian, racist society. The penalty for that will be that America will cease to be a shinning light on anybody's hill. It will become a pariah among nations, as South Africa was 30 years ago. And I promise that the struggle will rip away the country's entrails, leaving her mortally wounded in every sense of what it is that America was supposed to represent.
"Mad Max in the Thunder dome?I feel Wilderness's comment is on the money. We have at this point both sides have taken up the mantra of their respective fringe elements.
The right has set its site on dictating women's rights which in my view is going backward, and destructive to our society. I hope women in states where the legislators are dictating what they can do with their bodies rise up and protest. I had felt that when abortion ended up in the states that abortion would be put on the Nov ballots. It's clear many states are not doing this.
I have no problem with same-gender marriage. I have the ability to pick and choose friends, and really don't care for same-gender marriage. I don't judge or feel the need to become involved in the issue. Live and let live.
I never felt Trump was promoting fascism or authoritarianism. I felt very little Government overreach while he was president, always felt he was doing his job. I don't think the problem with Republicans is they dislike Democrats, I feel they don't like what they represent.
I truely feel many Republicans like Trump due to how he did his job and his America first ideologies.
Always appreciate your thoughts.You're welcome. Here are a few more.
Trumps behavior regarding the election, his plans to overturn the result and his involvement however small in the January 6th riots, is as close to authoritarianism and fascism as I have seen in this country within my lifetime. Trump has set himself aside and apart from the dignity of the office in an unprecedented manner. When in your lifetime have you seen the President stoking a crazed mob? I question conservatives who say this all about just "politics" when far more is involved. Trump and his cronies threatened the hegemony of the rule of law regarding how elections are and have been conducted here for over 230 years. Do you all really think that you can just "blow off" the significance of these series of events?
America First was just a code word for more bigotry, intolerance and international arrogance, and has gotten us a "nothing burger" as a result.
While you may resist the attitudes that I complain about regarding conservatives, your gang embraces them like a warm blanket in the cold. Thus, the point of my argument."The right has set its site on dictating women's rights which in my view is going backward, and destructive to our society. I hope women in states where the legislators are dictating what they can do with their bodies rise up and protest. I had felt that when abortion ended up in the states that abortion would be put on the Nov ballots. It's clear many states are not doing this."
Sharlee,
I mentioned to you earlier, that the Republicans and what they have mutated into would never chance that people could vote down this abortion "pet peeve" of theirs. Republican controlled legislatures make it clear that they are free to operate independent of the will of the people in those states. So, the idea that people can actually vote to decide the fate of abortion in a "red state" is a "red herring".
We have two bills that have recently passed the house dealing with protecting same-sex marriage and the right to contraception. The Respect for Marriage Act passed , 267-157. Currently, only five Republican Senators are expressing support in the Senate. It looks doubtful they will reach the 10 votes needed.
The vote to protect access to birth control was 228-195. The Senate will most certainly kill this bill also.
I'd have to say it's the radical right that is sending its party over the edge of no return.
They are emboldened by the Supreme Court’s decision demolishing the constitutional right to an abortion, Republicans have signaled that they plan to take further action to limit, if not eradicate, abortion rights by imposing federal restrictions. You don’t need a crystal ball to glimpse their game plan if they gain control of Congress and the White House. You simply have to look at the legislation GOP lawmakers have introduced over the past few years. Together, these bills would amount to a near-total abortion ban.
I think Democrats have a winning message "stop dangerous, Trumpist extremists"
The slate of candidates on the Republican side for the midterms are just beyond the pale.Thanks for sharing, it is obvious we now have some far-right states. However, we also have a couple of huge far-left states.
Note I kept my opinion and questions non-bias.
Has the right and lefts political differences as well as ideologies become so different that there is no middle anymore?
Are we seeing a segment of American society become anti-American, unrecognizable to what we have known in the past?
Where could this serious social division lead America?
The term is open to interpretation, I think the term means different things to different people. Can't be isolated as a consistent phenomenon since the term is rough and personal.
I can share what those words mean to me. I feel the term indicates an attitude that is a relentless critical impulse toward American social, economic, and political institutions, adding in traditions and values.
What does the term mean to you?Fair question. To me, without pondering it much, it is outright treason or espionage. Again, for me, a particular set of founding principles is "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Wow!! That can be specific, which I think is the hassle between the two sides of the fence today or it can be shall we say esoteric in a sense.
As is beliefs being unique to each individual so are those terms as founding principles of our nation "Of the People, By the People, and For the People". For instance collecting guns is no different than me collecting diecast drag racing cars. They both are the pursuit of happiness. And, as well, the energy to provide for a fair and reasonable opportunity for education is also a pursuit of happiness. Yet, they may be diametrically opposed to each as to how to get to the end. I don't know if that makes sense or not, yet it does for me, thus liberty of expression within my life.I can appreciate all the thought you put into your response. You certainly are a very common sense individual. Yes, I can agree, with "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is a concept that the majority of Americans respect, and appreciate having the privilege of all three.
I guess that’s the dangers of a two party system?
In Europe and Britain we have a multi-party system, so there is always room for middle ground (moderate) parties which can help to bridge the gap between opposing ideologies, and reduce the risk of society being torn apart with serious social division.A Parlimentary system like yours could serve to moderate extremes and remove pressure points resulting from stark differences in political opinion, while preserving the structure of the system itself. That is the danger that we are beginning to see happen here.
It is high time for the emergence of at least a third partyDon't you feel that there is already a sort of emergence of a third party? The Republican party has basically been fractured. You have rationals versus radicals.
There are many who are not going to follow the lies, conspiracy theories, divisiveness and fear-mongering that are hallmarks of the Trump wing.
Rational Republicans don't have much of a choice other than to part ways and build something new.No, unfortunately, I do not see a "third party". I see "Trump fatigue", but as Sharlee and others indicate, they are full speed ahead regarding MAGA and Trumpism as a political concept.
The change is more cosmetic than substantive. Even Liz Cheney subscribed to Trumpism on her record, it is only when Trump crossed the line was her conscience disturbed. Getting rid of Trump may not mean that we can dispense with the divisiveness, fear mongering, etc. I am seeing these characteristics everywhere where Republicans are in control.
Everyone who is challenging Trump, including our Governor De Santis, subscribe to his principles of governance.
If there is any sense of rebellion or true schism in the party, its representatives are no more significant than a grain of sand on the Waikiki.
I think they are more interested in getting rid of Trump, than in embarking upon a new course.The agenda that promotes MAGA ideologies is what binds Trump's base to the other wing of the party. There is no questioning that the party is segmented but very strong due to believing in America's first ideologies along with conservative values.
I mean could the Democratic s and Republican ideologies be any further apart.
Again could have been different, if Biden did not come in like a wrecking ball. All his tearing down has scared the crap out of so many Americans, on both sides.Yes, from the Republican perspective, he was a wrecking ball. From my perspective and that of the Left, he has been timid and far too passive.
Really? Can't you at best see my point from a political strategy? Biden ran on being moderate. Many of us knew old Joe as someone that went whichever way the wind blew.
It is clear he pulled votes from independents, and Republican's to win. It took him about five minutes to lose their trust. He could have played his cards differently, a bit slower to gain the favor of "we the people".
he could have pushed his infrastructure bill, and rode that glory. He could have held off on all his giveaways, and rode a pretty good economy for a bit. Just bided his time for a year while we came out of COVID. Then worked on his more aggressive policies. Biden throughout his career is always a day late and a buck short.
He decided to appease the left. And look where it has gotten the Democratic party.
I mean I see your point, but you need to remember he had to have known after 50 years in Washington that Congress is ultimately the boss. He should have worked first on appearing to all Americans, not a handful of the far left.He certainly doesn't appeal to the far left and never has. They've never supported him and the progressive caucus is calling for him not to run in 2024. He cut bait on them right after he won the election.
On day one Biden went after Big oil --- his new green deal. Do you think any Dem moderates were on board with that?
You can thank "Mr. Green Jean's Biden" for the sweep in Nov.So far, the Democratic base is largely unimpressed with President Biden's performance in terms of climate. In fact, a recent poll showed climate change may be the only issue where Biden gets higher marks from conservative voters than Democrats but mostly because he’s been legislatively constrained. In the POLITICO/Morning Consult poll 26 percent of self-identified right-leaning Americans said President Biden had done the right amount to combat climate change, compared with only 10 percent of left-leaning respondents. And 80 percent of those on the left said he’s done too little.
Democrats largely agree with analysts that President Biden stands no chance of reaching his emissions-cutting targets without enacting the climate portions of the Build Back Better legislation and we all know that the coal loving Manchin has killed that.
Congress has done nothing to reduce carbon emissions. So no worries there, we're still on target to choke out the planet in the near future right?
I think the Trumpist party attempting to paint President Biden as some kind of climate warrior is hilarious. The facts just don't back it up.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/3 … e-00043423
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/17/us/p … biden.html
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/1407 … publicans/
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/1 … d-00007308
https://www.eenews.net/articles/bidens- … free-fall/My point was Biden came in like a wrecking ball. to appease the left. I feel he did, I also think he failed in their eyes. It did not take long for the left to become dissatisfied with Biden, due to Biden being Biden. he was all talking no real action. The left wanted action, they apparently;y don't understand that old-time politicians such as Boden, are all talk.
Biden has done little but talk, and much of what he says is
meaningless.
I don't think you understood the point I was trying to make with Cred. It was all about why Biden has failed. "he came out like a wreaking ball with eos to appease the left. It did not take them long to see that Biden was not really going to offer anything but words.
Actually, Biden has done nothing in regards to climate control. We are just paying more for all forms of energy.
"Mr. Green Jean", that is clever, Sharlee. I has been a long time since I actually sat down and watched "Captain Kangeroo".
Perhaps you might read the EO he signed on his very first day in office. He certainly came out strongly supporting the left's wants. In my view, the facts show he was clearly trying to appease the left climate concerns. He immediately caused a war with big oil, a war that he has lost.
Biden Makes Sweeping Changes to Oil and Gas Policy
January 28, 2021
https://www.csis.org/analysis/biden-mak … gas-policy
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … ng-crises/"Brett Hartl, the government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, also noted more drilling permits were approved in the first year of Biden's presidency than during his predecessor's first 365 days. The center found the Biden administration approved 3,557 permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands last year, outpacing the Trump administration's first-year total of 2,658.
"As an environmentalist, I wish the administration would crack down on fossil fuel drilling much, much more," Hartl told Newsweek. "I think in the long run, it's super harmful. But it's just not factually accurate for the industry to complain, 'We're so helpless' when they've been given a huge green light over the last year and they're sitting on thousands and thousands of permits to drill. What are they waiting for?"
https://www.newsweek.com/have-biden-adm … on-1686104
But, moderate doesn't not compute with Republicanism, which I distinctly recall voting explicitly against. That was against Trump and his agenda, and there really is not a moderate approach to making that clean break. I did not vote for a Trump drone. His failure to appeal is more than reflected from the "far left". You guys wanted a center right candidate, and that is not who won the election.
I am left, and let me tell you, he has been a big disappointment thus far. I am not radical Left but anyone left of Trump and his hard right cronies is considered "radical left"? This is why we need to get Republicans out of Congress so that the agenda Biden campaigned upon can be brought to fruition.
"We the people" that you refer to are Trump supporters and I am diametrically opposed to "these people" on principle. Biden promised more and I don't care what Republicans wanted as they would have obstructed everything, anyway.
Excess of 8 million voters said that they did not want more Trump, that has to include no more "Trump light" either.I used the term "we the people" to indicate all the people. I think he as you said is a disappointment to a large majority of Americans. I think if he took a bit of a slower path to accomplish his policies, he would have kept the trust and support of more Americans. My point was he did pull many independents, Republicans, and naturally Dems. I do feel he could have gleaned their support if he did not come in like a wrecking ball.
He promised to bring people together, did he not? I think he should have tried to do that. It was clear from day one who he was out to appease in my view. These links provide what he factual did on day one
Biden Makes Sweeping Changes to Oil and Gas Policy
January 28, 2021
https://www.csis.org/analysis/biden-mak … gas-policy
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … onverging-
crises/
No, my term was not meant to refer to one segment of We the people, but all the people.
Let me remind you, and hopefully, you remember, that I excepted the election results immediately.I also felt a Congressional committee should have been formed to look at what Trump was considering "evidence" of voter fraud. I did feel the matter could be settled once and for all.
I don't think the Republican party resembles the party it was even 10 years ago. Trump certainly disrupted the party, and I don't think it will ever resemble the party of old.
I am not happy with all I see at the party. However, I felt the party needed to be disrupted, and change with the times.I believe that all of the initiatives concerning oil from 2021 that Mr Biden tried to implement were blocked by the courts. I think regulation and policy concerning energy looks about identical to the Trump years. Please, correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that anything President Biden did caused American oil companies to produce less, they made those decisions according to profits
That is not the point the point is Biden came into office and on day one gave the left a bunch of what he knew was meaningless crap. This man has been in Washington for 50 years he knows what can get done and what can't, and won't get done.
The point he made enemies of the left, of many that voted for him and trusted he was moderate.
I am not going into all the regulations he tried to push onto big oil.
He made enemies of big oil, they are powerful. They have put their thumb down on him, and will ultimately be one of the biggest reasons the Dem party will be booted in Nov, and 2024.
Biden's energy policies in no respect mirror Trump's energy policies.
On Day one, Biden ended the Keystone XL Pipeline, halted leasing on federal lands for oil and gas productions, and levied heavy restrictions on domestic oil producers, making it harder to produce oil in America. This abrupt switch caused widespread uncertainty and disruption in the domestic oil market, limiting our ability to produce oil in the U.S. and forcing dependence on foreign nations to power our country.
Read the EO's he initiated on his first week in office. He clearly shot down any and all of Trump's energy policies. Maybe time to accept that as fact.
Trump had the country almost energy independent. We are now begging for oil from rogue nations. Just yesterday he once again announced he would for the fifth time be taking more oil from our reservice. We are at an all-time low, and it well appears in my view Biden could not beg oil from the Saudis so he is tapping our reservice once again trying to keep the cup half full to prevent gas from spiking back up. And most likely using our oil reserves as a political tool to buy votes.
So, I think it is clear you will believe what you want to beleive. Me, I believe what is before my eyes.You bring up a point that so many want to ignore or overlook - that Biden's direct attack on oil companies produced a negative reaction from them. No company wants to invest large amounts in a climate of the kind of uncertainty and "war" that Biden created, and the result was static or declining oil production. He made it clear that the oil industry is on his "shutdown" list and those companies took notice.
Yes, BINGO. Big oil is very powerful, and coming in on day one making enemies was not smart. My gosh let's face it Big oil is fighting to be relevant, and prosperous. Why in the world would big oil invest when they are being threatened with regulations that work to destroy their companies?
Would seem very counterproductive in view. They are in a war, and one they will win...
Biden can only take from our reserves for so long, and then he will beresponcible to replace them, I might add at a high cost.
This all is so ridiculous. On one hand, we hear we have grid problems, that could fail, and we are right in the middle of Hurricane, and tornado season and Biden better dam well hope we don't need to tap reserves. If for any reason we do, the media will go wild on how he has our reserves at a very historic low. This guy is a disaster. He can't problem solve, only make it all worse.
The Republicans need not work hard to get the Dems out. They are doing all the hard work to assure a sweep in Nov, and a win in 2024.
This administration can change the definition of recession, they can tell us the borders are closed, they can tell us we have no real problems with crime in our Dem cities, and they can tell us just buy an electric car. What they can't tell us is that we are not paying more for everything, living on credit, and 401Ks, and are very much afraid of crime.
My God the ploy of look here, not there is old and worn out, and no one but a very few buy into that ploy.
This fool from day one shot himself in the foot.
Those who believed that a vote for Mr Biden would equal radical action on climate needed only to look at his record. That's being a misinformed voter. But regardless, we are living on a dying planet and we do need to take steps. It won't and can't happen all at once but it needs to happen little by little.
The keystone XL was never transporting anything. It was and is a literal heap of trash that many experts believe would have never been fit to transport oil.
The term energy independence, in my opinion, is being used by many incorrectly and in a misleading manner. True energy Independence comes from use renewable energy it will never come from American oil producers continuing to sell on the global market. What a different world it would be if we weren't beholden to princes who control oil.
But again I don't see any policy concerning oil that wasn't blocked by the courts.
I see an executive order about reducing greenhouse gases, methane emissions. What in the world is wrong with that? Can we at least try to hasten the destruction of the planet?
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-cl … cff9d5fa6eI certainly did not say the Keystone XL was functional. The pipeline was in the process of being built. The XL was going to be an expansion, of the Keystone Pipeline. The existing Keystone runs from oil sand fields in Alberta, Canada into the U.S., ending in Cushing, Oklahoma.
The 1,700 new miles of pipeline would offer two sections of expansion. First, a southern leg would connect Cushing, Oklahoma, where there is a current bottleneck of oil, with the Gulf Coast of Texas, where oil refineries abound. That leg went into operation in January 2014. Second, the pipeline would include a new section from Alberta to Kansas. It would pass through Bakken Shale region of eastern Montana and western North Dakota. Here, it will pass through a region where oil extraction is currently booming and take on some of this crude for transport.
The southern leg of the Keystone XL ties into the existing Keystone pipeline that already runs to Canada, bringing up to 700,000 barrels of oil a day to refineries in Texas. At peak capacity, the pipeline will deliver 830,000 barrels of oil per day. While the pipeline initially carried U.S. light crude, it is expected to carry more heavy Canadian oil harvested from tar sands. It was going to be a valuable pipeline for our oil companies, and aid in moving oil to refineries more efficiently. At this point, Crude oil moves from wellhead to refinery using barges, tankers, overland, trucks, and railroads. I would think this is much more harmful to our environment than a closed pipeline. But common sense does not seem to compute well with some.
"Those who believed that a vote for Mr Biden would equal radical action on climate needed only to look at his record. "
In a way that statement is true, he is well known for lying. But he did campaign on the climate crisis and made many promises that he would stop Keystone XL, and he would stop all development of fossil fuels.
I certainly knew his history and warned what a failure he would be due tp his lackluster past.
I will not argue about the climate crisis, I have made it a point to research the subject, and there are two scientific sides to the issue.
I have heard the climate warnings for many years, and I can't say I have seen any come to fruition.
I have no problem with a healthier plant. I have a problem with how we get there.
In my view, I am happy with what I am seeing with respect to America's rejection of the Democratic policies.
We have always had an element of citizens that pushes socialist policies, and once again they will be pushed to the background, as will most of their policies.
On the term "energy Independence":
"Andrew Campbell, Executive Director of the Energy Institute at Berkeley Haas states “energy independence” is a “political slogan, not an economic or technical concept with a clear definition” often used by politicians to “imply that a country is insulated from global energy markets”.
“This is rarely the case,” he said.
“If a country produces all of the energy that it consumes, does not participate in international trade in energy, does not import energy-intensive products and does not send energy-related pollution to its neighbors or the atmosphere, then I would consider it energy independent. I don’t think any country meets that definition.”
To get to the point of energy independence in the spirit I believe many are thinking, where our energy prices are unaffected by supply and demand conditions abroad, it will require having less dependence on energy coming from internationally traded energy commodities.
Most energy experts concur that moving away from oil and toward other energy sources would help the United States begin to escape the impact of global oil markets and become more energy independent.
He is a disappointment to Americans for differing reasons, Sharlee
There is a difference between a slow path and being totally inanimate.
Bringing people together meant refutation of the previous administration, finding little value therein. Trump has disrupted the Republican Party in a negative direction.
I won't say that Biden did not step over the line with climate change stuff. But the big picture does say, we need to be concerned about the ultimate habitability of this planet and not to the whims of corporate power, who doesn't care who gets to pee in my water supply as long as it is conducive to profits and they won't have to drink it.
Sharlee, why does Trump's opinion matter? He has been told by every possible reliable source that there was no fraud. He is stonewalling, his opinion (his evidence) is only as valuable as what he can prove. As of right now, he is a babbling fool. Even facets of your GOP are tired of his incessant whining."Bringing people together meant refutation of the previous administration, finding little value therein."
Is it really possible that anyone, anyone at all, actually thinks the way to bring people together is to tell them there is no value in the things they value and proceeding to do away with them?"There is a difference between a slow path and being totally inanimate."
Biden's history shows he tried hard to be noticed, although he always came short of being noticed. Until Obama, and I think Obama saw what you see in Joe, he is and was inanimate., "Uncle Joe" sitting in the corner. A true yes man. I think that's why the Dems went with him in 2020. They knew well of they needed a trojan horse. They just bet on the wrong horse.
I think many Americans were disappointed, but willing o move on, and might have if Biden would have respected some of Trump's accomplishments just a bit. He passed many off quickly, and it's been downhill since. I think he is responsible for causing real voter remorse.
He just destroyed so much of what some Americans were coming to enjoy.
"I won't say that Biden did not step over the line with climate change stuff. But the big picture does say, we need to be concerned about the ultimate habitability of this planet and not to the whims of corporate power, who doesn't care who gets to pee in my water supply as long as it is conducive to profits and they won't have to drink it."
I can't argue your point. Only point out that Biden could have worked up to his policies in regard to climate. I don't think many would deny we need to strive to help promote a healthy planet. It's clearly the way Biden came in with no real plan to accomplish his plan in a doable manner.
A plan that states common-sense steps to move forward without sending us into an energy crisis. I just feel this man never has a plan, he causes problems and has no plan to solve them.
He is tapping oil reserves, if we have grids go down we will have no clean water or food or electricity to power our utilities. And with this man's karma, I won't even think this could not happen. Actually, I consider Biden very dangerous.
Why does Trump's opinion matter? I would answer it should not matter.
However, if Trump would have gotten his Congressional investigation after the election. we most likely would not be dealing with his ongoing claims?
The thought of fraud still haunts some today.
Many Republicans hope to see new candidates and a fresh start. Just to go forward, not have the need to walk a line. Many of us appreciate Trump's policies, yet do not want all that he will bring with him if he runs.
It is obvious many of us won't consider coming together, just due to not having the same aspirations for America or beliefs as the other side.
The stalemate is in stone on both sides I would presume.The job of Vice President has been compared to a warm cup of spittle. Most Vice Presidents generally stay quietly in the background, Biden and Pense are examples. The most prominent VP was Cheney during the Bush administration, "Darth Vader". I complain because I thought that Harris should be taking a more prominent role than she has thus far.
I did not go with Joe, but was left with him as the sole alternative to Trump who was considered unacceptable for me. How much respect has Trump earned, look how he behaved during the 1st debate with Biden?
Being free of the controversy that always surrounded Trump, was something many of us enjoyed.
The gas prices have fallen, does Biden deserve any credit for that?
I think that any entity that threatens democratic governance beyond mere politics is dangerous. Far more dangerous than the administration of any one president. That has been the GOP to a tee over the last 2 years.
It was not practical to think that any such committee could have been formed right after the questions were raised about the legitimacy of the election. I won't entertain thoughts or ideas that I cannot prove, or have been proven false by any myriad of valid sources without exception.
I am afraid that Trump's policies and his "baggage" are one in the same. De Santis or any other Republican picking on Trump plolicies will find that they will have to bring along the "baggage" as well.
On a side note: did you ever find out how many of your African Americans friends or associates voted for Trump in 2020, would they tell you?
There appears to be no moderate middle and what there is from Biden is just milquetoast and Democrats are still dissatisfied."The gas prices have fallen, does Biden deserve any credit for that?"
It could well be that Biden played a part in that. Whether it was wise or not remains to be seen; if gasoline prices remain down, even as we struggle to refill our reserves, perhaps it was.
Personally I expect them to immediately rise as our reserve is depleted, and to rise even more when we refill that reserve.I also feel when Biden can no longer feasibly take from the reserves, the gas prices will rise, unless he can get more oil from OPEC. I don't see that happening. Especially with this new bill that will pass. It clearly will threaten big oil further. So, not sure if Biden can keep pouring oil in before the media really get on the case of how he has depleted our reserves.
We are having weather problems s we speak that will require hitting the reservice.
And then there is the new bill - In my view, this new bill will cause a loss of jobs, have more on welfare, and truely send us into further inflation. These tax increases will go after big business, and we will have that perfect storm, oil, and big business sending us possibly into a depression.
This new bill makes no sense in any respect. my God is anyone keeping score on how much this administration is spending?
Gosh, it seems common sense has gone out the window.Mr Manchin's statement concerning the corporate tax.
“Tax fairness is vital to our nation’s economic future. It is wrong that some of America’s largest companies pay nothing in taxes while freely enjoying the benefits of our nation’s military security, infrastructure and rule of law. It is commonsense that a domestic corporate minimum tax of 15 percent be applied only to billion-dollar companies or larger ensuring that America’s largest businesses are no longer able to operate for free in our economy. Furthermore, to avoid inevitable partisan gamesmanship and increase confidence in the fairness of the tax system, tax reform should never put U.S. businesses at a disadvantage against international competitors. Our tax code should not favor red state or blue state elites with loopholes like SALT and should focus more on closing unfair loopholes like carried interest. Through the enforcement of a fair tax code, we can use the revenue to cut the deficit and lower the cost of healthcare for working families and small businesses.'
I know you have sort of thought of him as a quasi Republican. I think you'd find some agreement in his thoughts.
His whole statement is here:
https://www.manchin.senate.gov/newsroom … ct-of-2022
Let's not forget about the CHIPS Bill also. Which will allow us to be less dependent on China for semiconductors. Looks like it will passManchin obtained a new pipeline for WV. Guess he would sign. I have never thought of Manchin as a Republican, I feel he is a representative of his state and the people of that state, and respect him for doing his job well. In the case of the new bill, if it passes it will benefit WV with a new pipeline. His common sense tells him -- as he said -- "commonsense that a domestic corporate minimum tax of 15 percent be applied only to billion-dollar companies." Facts show there are no Fortune 500 companies in West Virginia.
Please keep in mind not much big This new tax code will not or will have little impact on WV. Other than low-paying jobs, and growing unemployment.
In my view, Manchin is a classic politician.
The Chip Industry Has a Problem With Its Giant Carbon Footprint. Talk about pollution and health hazards... But I guess we can just ignore
that.Chip manufacturing has been here for decades. Our country actually provided chips to almost half of the world in the '80s until the industry went to China. I'd rather see those jobs, which are high paying, return to this country where we have better environmental regulations. Regulations are almost non-existent in China.
But some manufacturers seem to be headed in the right direction.
"Samsung semiconductor is moving onward from protecting to saving the Earth with green chips"
https://semiconductor.samsung.com/susta … en%20chips
We can reinforce those measures here in this country.
Also, I've read quite a bit that it's a national security issue to continue to have the majority of our Chips made in China.
I would think that "America first" proponents would be happy about this initiative. But you are correct, the chip industry and it's environmental impact needs a lot of scrutiny. I'd always feel safer with that sort of oversight with a Democrat in the White House. Republicans have never shown much concern for the environment and now we have a very radical Supreme Court who has recently handicapped the EPA.
It's tough times but semiconductors aren't going anywhere so our government will need to figure it out.Faye, your logic escapes me. The bottom line is this administration is trying to usher out one form of pollution and replace it with another, in some cases more dangerous to our environment than fossil fuels.
You're dancing around trying to justify obvious hypocrisy at its very
worse.What will our country do without a secure supply of semiconductors? At this point on time we rely on them for virtually every aspect of life and there is no substitute for them. I may go as far as saying they are more vital than fossil fuel as we do have alternatives there.
I agree with the folks that think this is a national security issue that should be addressed—without politicizing it. It is too important to our future.
I have heard the environmental concerns and, without support, think they can be mitigated.
Folks should check out recent chip-making news and uses. I bet they won't want China leading, (and controlling), that technology supply.
The $150 Million Machine Keeping Moore’s Law Alive
"ASML’s next-generation extreme ultraviolet lithography machines achieve previously unattainable levels of precision, which means chips can keep shrinking for years to come."
It uses extreme ultraviolet light to etch chips 13.5 nanometers wide. Our current tech uses light 193 nanometers wide.
GAYes, you make my point --" I may go as far as saying they are more vital than fossil fuel as we do have alternatives there."
Yet now we find ourselves repeating history, pretty much trading one for the other.
I suggest you research what goes into manufacturing semiconductors, and start with the many dangerous minerals that we will now be either mining or importing to manufacture chips. Then move on to the proven health problems that occur not only to workers but those that live around the plants. The employees wear head-to-toe hazmat suits.
You know, this conversation is not one I will continue. I am very much aware that the subject is very scientific, and Google does not suffice for the true science of semiconductor manufacturing.It also worth noting that the semiconductor industry is not a particularly dangerous industry, at least when it comes to experiencing workplace illnesses and injuries. A Vanderbilt University study that examined more than 100,000 semiconductor industry workers over a five-year period found no evidence of increased mortality rates from all causes or from cancers.
It's been around in this country for 50 years or more. The bunny suits are too protect the chips from dust and other particles.
Since this industry has been around in this country for quite some time I don't know, are we seeing large scale health problems and lawsuits like we are in other areas?
As far as the industry goes, I don't think we'll be doing anything new because the industry has already existed here for quite a long time.
Aside from asking the American public to basically live off grid, which they certainly don't have the fortitude, what would you like to see us do? Continue to depend on China?
https://www.reliableplant.com/Read/2739 … or-workers
I have asked several African Americans friends if they voted for Trump the second time around., 2 out of five voted for Trump. Only one voted for Trump both times. All identity as Democrats, but one. I will also add all at this point are very disappointed with Biden.
Yep, most defiantly, it is time for the emergence of a third party in the USA – but I don’t see how that can happen because the electoral system in America seems to be rigged to favour just a two party system?
In Britain, when politicians feel their political party no longer represents their values and views they just resign from that party and either join another party or create a new party of their own; as happened when four Labour MPs resigned from their party in 1981 to create the Social Democratic Party (centralist/moderate party) – which split the Liberal votes in General Elections, so in 1988 the Social Democratic Party and Liberal Party merged to form the ‘Liberal Democrats’.
Also, in 2019, 7 Labour MPs quit their party to form a new ‘Independent Group’ political party (centralist/moderate party); and shortly afterwards 3 Conservative MPs quit their party and joined forces with the 7 Labour MPs in the new Independent Party, shortly followed by Nick Boles (Conservative), who quit his party on camera in Parliament to join the new group.
The videos of the three above mentioned 2019 quitting sessions mentioned above are below:
I can’t imagine Democrats or Republicans taking such drastic steps as these examples; I don’t even know whether such actions would be legally possible under the strict party electoral rules in the USA?
• 2019 - 7 Labour MPs quit their party and form new Independent Party in Parliament: https://youtu.be/i2uU-XcH3aM
• 2019 – 3 Conservative MPs quit their party and joins the new Independent Party in Parliament: https://youtu.be/oNYX7qs7Ehk
• 2019 – Dramatic Resignation of Conservative MP from his party, to join the other 10 MPs (from Labour and Conservative) in the new Independent Party: https://youtu.be/aM2XWT8NaFgWell, Arthur, hope springs eternal. Just as soon as you mentionedmthe idea of a third party, here it is...
https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-former … 54665.html
In America, the two party systems has been sustained by money and power and the voices of the people never figures in much.
Thanks for the links.
The history of "third parties" is that they have siphoned votes from either of the major parties creating an upset that, otherwise, would not have occurred.
In 1992, a third party took enough votes from George H.W. Bush to allow Bill Clinton to win.
In 1968, George Wallace's third party candidacy, probably took votes from Nixon, but not so many as to allow Hubert Humphrey a win as the Democrat candidate.
In 1912, the very successful Bull Moose Party led by the then still charismatic Theodore Roosevelt, cost the Republican candidate, William Howard Taft, votes. As a result, an academician, Woodrow Wilson (Democrat) won the election.
The real danger is that the Republican Party has become so up tight, far-right fascist that the introduction of this new party in its appearance of moderation would just ciphon votes from the Democrat candidate.Were we to get a centrist, moderate party I like to think that votes would be drawn from both parties. I feel that both the left and the right have gone so far to the extreme that a large majority are not happy with either one.
Were they willing to work together for the best for the country it might not be that way no matter how far right or left their central philosophy was...but they aren't. All or nothing. And I do not think that most people are happy with that philosophy.Wilderness, that all sounds nice in theory, but I suspect that the reality will show itself to be quite different. We will wait and see.
As a Democrat progressive liberal type, my instincts say that this would be an ominous development at this time and juncture."The Forward Party will approach each other with grace and tolerance, finding ways to pick people back up rather than knock them down. We won’t cancel people or cast them out of the party for not falling in line."
So in other words, no top down, groupthink, "conform or be cast out" ideology.
If they take off it also may be a place for Republicans to find a home who have been shunned from Trumpism and don't support it's fascist direction.Like I had mentioned to Wilderness, Faye. This initiative is an ideal for which we are not ready. We are far too polarized. Any concession like this will be considered as a form of vulnerability and weakness by the GOP. And, you bet that they will take advantage of it.
We have a "gee whiz" Democrat and a RINO Republican, whose investment in a third party threatens the development of fragile but growing coalitions that the Democrats need to defeat Republicans this fall. We can ill afford any dilution of its strength. In my opinion, we will be lucky to get through the next two election cycles, 2022 and 2024 with our democracy based government still intact.
We have as an example, Steve Bannon, who was Trumps right hand man, threaten after his sentencing to take down the government, "brick by brick". We have seen a live attempt at insurrection from their side at the highest level of Government. You can see for yourself, the entire party does not moderate extremes but doubles down on them. Yet, we continue to be content to play with toys? They will be more than happy to have you waste your time, so they can carve us up the rest of the way where it will all be irretrievable.
I say that moderation has not been a characteristic of Republicans in a far more demonstrative way than the case with Democrats.
"All we are saying, is give peace a chance"
John Lennon
But when has it REALLY ever worked?
The Idea of Trump creating a third party, now that is something I can live with. From that vantage point, I can safely assess the amount of real GOP moderates there are.Or for Democrats that do not support inflation, giving oil reserves to China, unlimited "immigration" and dependence on other countries for our energy.
I think you're right. While I like to think that, I fear it is a rather forlorn hope.
For whatever reason (maintenance of power?) Capitol Hill is desperately engaged in a massive effort to get everything they want, beating their chest in glory when they do and crying out that their opponents are evil and demonic for not voting as they should.
And too many people are falling for it; if their party loses a vote then the other party is evil, by definition. That it isn't true is buried deep, never to see the light of day.There is a reason why after 160 years, the point where the Republican Party was created, that Third Parties have failed here, consistently. I would like to see more choice in political parties and such, but not with so much riding on outcomes right now.
That tends to be the experience in British politics; centrist moderate parties tend to draw votes from the two main parties; with a moderating effect e.g. both sides (left and right) have to periodically moderate their policies to appeal to the middle ground in order to win back votes and seats.
A third (middle ground party), such as the Liberal Democrats in Britain, tend to attract protest votes from disenchanted Conservative and Socialist loyalists when their own party becomes too extreme; which then means the main parties loose seats to the middle ground.
It doesn’t prevent the UK from having extreme Governments from time to time, but it does mean that opposing political parties do have to quite often work together for the best interest of the country; so op-operation amongst parties in the UK is more common than what we seem to see in American politics.
There is now plenty of middle ground because conservatives no longer have to mindlessly vote GOP because of abortion. They can now look at the other issues they care about - the majority of which are endorsed by the Democrat Party - and vote for those concerns: gun control, health care, the environment, voting rights - to name only a few.
And join the liberals that mindlessly support the democratic issues: overtaxation that drives manufacturing jobs out of the US, the replacement of free enterprise with governmental servcies, gun control--to name only a few.
Here's another example of why we have a Great divide: just look at these heinous SOB'S . This is our country's "back the blue and support the troops" party?
Fist bumping and high-fiving over denying veterans benefits? This is grotesque.
What are they celebrating? A veteran who fought in a war and who is now dying of cancer due to his wartime exposure to chemicals?
Absolutely nauseating and infuriating. Sorry, I'm not even going to try to be civil on this one. These Senators May as well have given Vets the middle finger.
https://www.newsweek.com/gop-fistbump-p … es-1729031The Senate voted 84-14 last month in favor of the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act of 2022. The bill, which was passed with a majority vote in both the House and Senate, represents the most comprehensive veteran health care reform to date, establishing a presumptive service connection for veterans made gravely ill after inhaling toxic fumes that hung over their bases overseas, including in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The bill went back to the House, which recently passed a revised version, but further passage has been delayed after Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., spoke out against the bill saying an additional amendment on provisional spending needed to be added.
"Senator Toomey is asking for a fix to prevent the PACT Act from being used to increase spending completely unrelated to veterans," a spokeswoman for the senator said in a statement provided to Fox News. "As currently written, the PACT Act includes a budget gimmick that will allow Democrats to increase spending totally unrelated to veterans by $400 billion over the next 10 years. Sen. Toomey’s technical fix would prevent this unrelated spending without changing any of the underlying policy in the bill."
Well, appear Dems added-on amendments to have an open wallet to spend on pretty much anything they wanted to. they pull this poly
frequently. I am thankful we have some in Congress to stop these ploys.
"is stalling a process for those sick and dying. That's the bottom line," said Rosie Torres, a lobbyist and founder of advocacy group Burn Pits 360. "It's not just any bill. It's a bill that helps those that are waiting and the widows that are waiting for survivor benefits, none of them can move forward. And every day, every minute that goes by, someone's dying."
Yes, this is a disgrace, to see the Democrats try to stick an open wallet through on this form of a bill. I am sure this bill will be passed once it is returned to its original form.
I have become very accustomed to this kind of despicable ploy, but this one really turns my stomach.
And the media can spin this any way they choose this is all on the Democrats in my view.those same spending concerns didn't seem to pose an initial concern for the more than two dozen Republicans who voted for it last month only to abruptly change their stance. They are: Sens. John Barrasso, Marsha Blackburn, Roy Blunt, Mike Braun, Bill Cassidy, John Cornyn, Tom Cotton, Kevin Cramer, Ted Cruz, Joni Ernst, Deb Fischer, Bill Hagerty, Josh Hawley, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Jim Inhofe, Ron Johnson, John Kennedy, Roger Marshall, Mitch McConnell, Rob Portman, Ben Sasse, Tim Scott, Rick Scott, Dan Sullivan and Todd Young. Sens. Additionally, Sens. Steve Daines and Roger Wicker voted against the bill after not voting in June.
Why the change of heart? I think it's revenge. It's pure retaliation for the Inflation act. Ultimately, veterans are falling victim to pathetic, petty partisan politics. They just got screwed out of an expansion of VA healthcare over political BS and we all know it.
I agree with Jon Stewart's comment today
"This disgrace, if this is America first, America is f—ed,”
And the celebratory fist bumps? Really? How about some respect and dignity? I'd like to drop Ted Cruz in the middle of Afghanistan about now.The change of heart on the Republican side was due to the Dems amending the bill. It is that simple, they do this just about on every bill. The Republicans stopped them in their tracks. No matter how much spin the media puts on this, the bill failed due to the amendments that the Dems added to a very straightforward bill. They just did not get away with it. The Republicans will not pass the bill until the Dems open slush fund is removed. The Media drama is ridiculous. The full story needs to be presented, not a photo of a fist bump. Point to why the bill failed, that is uglier than any fist bump. Shame on anyone that bought into this crap.
As I said this bill will pass when the open wallet is removed. Thank God we have some in Congress that will finally stop this kind of practice.
I think John Steward is right to be incensed, however, ill-informed about the bill itself, and what the Democrats did.
I have not looked into the fist bump photo. I would like to hear both
sides.
The facts --- "In a statement to Newsweek, a spokesman for Cruz said: "Senator Cruz is a strong supporter of the PACT Act and our nation's veterans. However, this version of the PACT Act contains an irresponsible Democratic provision allowing Congress to recklessly spend an additional $400 billion on programs totally unrelated to our veterans.
"The Senator and his Republican colleagues are working to advance the bill while removing that provision. Democrats were aware of this concern before yesterday's vote but ignored it and refused to allow a vote to fix the bill.
"That refusal is why the bill is currently stalled. Democrats must work with Republicans and fix this issue to prevent inflationary spending that will hurt all Americans. Once that happens, the PACT Act will quickly become law." https://www.newsweek.com/gop-fistbump-p … es-1729031
The Republicans stop this bill due to the Dems amendment to spend on unrelated projects. I call it blackmail.
The bill was held up due to a cheap ploy, they were stopped and the bill will pass without all the crap they hung on it.
This fist bump is media fodder, and not sure why more Americans can't be open to the real problem that occurred with the bill. One only needs to read the amendment that was added to it! The media has dished up another bunch of rotten feed for some that will devour it.If there's a defense for Senate Republicans rejecting a bill to help sick veterans, after having already voted for a similar bill, I don't see it.
I understand your explanation of the elements of the bill but The trouble is, that helps explain the opposition from the Republicans who were ALREADY against the bill. What about the GOP senators who were on board with the legislation before changing their minds THE NIGHT BEFORE?
Looks like they threw a tantrum plain and simple. 25 Senate Republicans flipped at the very last minute on the PACT Act for no apparent reason.
ALL of those 25 voted to pass the same bill just weeks ago.
It looks like these 25 villains concocted their own "surprise" in retaliation to the one given to them by the Schumer/Manchin deal.I can only applaud legislators that voted for a bill rejecting a "similar" bill loaded with pork. This method of getting pork barrel spending passed is disgusting and should always be rejected.
The bill didn't change though. Only the minds of these 25 who had a last minute change of heart after previously voting for it. Are you insinuating they just didn't understand what they were voting for the first time around?
Reading through here, I thought it did change - that the pork was tacked on after a vote and the thing went back for another vote. You did mention it was a "similar" bill. But if not, I apologize.
But it is quite possible that they did NOT understand what they were signing - that it took someone else to point it out to them. After all, such pork is usually well hidden within the verbiage of a bill for that exact reason - to disguise and hide part of it in order to get it passed.
Either way, I still applaud those that refused to vote for a pork laden bill.Either way, they voted for the bill and then changed their mind,
"There was, however, a slight hiccup in the process: The House made a technical fix that required the Senate to vote on it again. In theory, that shouldn’t have been much of a problem. After all, an effectively identical bill passed with 84 votes last month."
If these elected officials can't comprehend or don't understand how to read a bill they shouldn't be there in the first place but I highly doubt this was the reason for the rescinded votes.
They don't deserve any applause whatsoever for taking their Petty partisan politics out on sick and dying veterans
Have there not been a technical error, this bill would have been signed into law.
Sorry but all 25 of them need an intensive tour of a VA hospitalDo you have no faith that the bill will be cleaned up, and passed? I predict it will.
You're right and I also certainly do believe that it will be passed eventually. But there was no need to do this vindictive political theater which honestly is the Hallmark of those 25. Really the lowest kind of blow to use veterans as fodder. I don't know how these people live with themselves. At this point, Sharlee, I'm for a clean sweep of the government.
I am with you on that... I have promoted term limits in Congress. I feel this would give us new blood, new ideas, and a better chance against gridlock.
Congressmen and women become very predictable, and we could do better with open-mindedness.
If I can believe the 'facts' as they are presented, it appears Sen. Toomy's argument is valid.
There was a "technical move' that added $400 billion, (?), to non-veteran-related spending. It also appears that 'problem' could have been fixed in one night, (?), and the bill would have passed.
It looks like a legitimate explanation to me. It seems the Democrats could get this bill passed quickly if that 'slush' fund, (as in unapportioned spending), was removed.
The Republicans claim this removal would have no impact on the veteran's part of the bill. If that is true, then it is the Democrats' that have stopped the bill and are doing exactly what they claim the Republicans are doing—turning their back on veterans for petty political reasons.
I suppose I will hear more from the Democrats in defense of this extra appropriation, but I haven't stumbled across any yet.
This looks like a legitimate complaint, what do you think?
[EDITAdded] Damn, I should have read the thread, you folks have already covered my points. I'm late, as usual.
GA
Mark and Sharlee: There is now a chance, but won't be for long if knee-jerk reactions don't give it the slightest chance.
Related Discussions
- 32
Political Labels: Barriers to Progress?
by Faye V 17 months ago
I feel this would be very hard to do on a Political forum. Most threads represented here are political in nature, and the line is well drawn via the thread title at times. It is very hard to get across that people, in general, should not be categorized, set into a group void of the fact that people...
- 36
IS IT TYRANNY PEEKING? Part 2
by Credence2 2 years ago
A little background......https://www.yahoo.com/news/americas-pol … 02936.html"More alarming, though, is that some of Trump's fellow Republicans are advocating for GOP-held legislatures to overturn the will of the voters in states — like Michigan and Pennsylvania — where Biden won, and...
- 309
Trump is a Racist and the Republican Party is avoiding the truth
by Tiffany Payne 3 years ago
No matter what you say or how you say it Trump is 100% racist and os feeding off the attention. From the squad to Cummings he wants nothing but to divide us. Sadly it’s working this issue has nothing to do with party but right and wrong. Do you think silence from his party indicates they are too...
- 13
The Right, Conservatives, Republicans prefer Autocracy over Democracy?
by Credence2 16 months ago
I find this topic most disturbing as it is a reflection of the goals and aspirations of the American Right wing movement. There is no such thing as it being "fringe" as Trump, Carlson and many Republican Senators avoided direct answers or said that the Orbanz authoritarian regime in...
- 93
Trump's Grip on His GOP Minions
by Mike Russo 9 months ago
It's payback time for Trump. He is endorsing primary candidates who are loyal to his "stop the steal" movement and they are winning in his battleground states. He is like the pied piper with his following of "Trumpets." This is serious business. He is putting...
- 273
Is the Democrat Party dead?
by Brenda Durham 10 years ago
Where is it?and What is it?Is it now the Activist Party?The Homosexual Party?The Vengeance Party?The Obama Worshippers Party?There seems to be little semblance left of what it used to be. Before 2008, it still held to at least SOME core moral values and SOME sense of manners. ...