So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...

[KBecks]

It's not xenophobic.  I prefer citizenship before voting.  I am fine with making better paths to citizenship regardless of color or creed.

Now, how I feel about extreme liberal Democrats?  That might reach xenophobia and paranoia.  Don't be so naive to think that people will not manipulate the vote.  People where I live have been busted for 'smokes for votes', tire slashing of the opposition's get out the vote vehicles, and other schemes.  You'd better believe that very politically motivated and low-morals people would take advantage if they think they can get away with it.  I support Voter ID.  I am OK with offering free IDs to anyone who needs them and has documentation.  I do not support, for example, voting among people serving time in jail, but after the time is served, sure, go vote.

Oh hey, you've found another great way to allow racist states to suppress their voting minority!

Most states do not allow voting from prison. Discrimination against criminals serving punishment is not necessarily racist.

Do you mean jail or do you mean prison?

Prison.

[MasterStache]

What economic policies have made "Trump's economy" so strong?

According to the feds, mass deregulation, record low unemployement rates, decreasing under-employment rates, more people coming back to the labor market, record profits, increasing housing prices, increase wage growth....  Every time the feds raised rates they cited a very strong economy.  Every time the feds discussed rate hikes with Obama as president, they gave a negative or neutral outlook to the economy.

Outside of massive deregulation, you didn't really list any specific policies. Massive deregulation has short and long term affects. I suppose if we hand waved away long term affects, things are looking up. Although a good argument could be made that money spent combating climate change currently is not good at all for the economy. But hey, let's roll back some more environmental regulations.

Ehh, at least we aren't migrants fighting for our lives because a serious lack of rainfall wiped out our food supply. Nope, we have the good ole supermarket!!  Ahhh first world problems. It's almost like the poorest are feeling the worst impacts of climate change. If only someone would have warned us. Yeah for deregulation!!

[bacchi]

In other news, the ACA may be struck down this month. That would be pretty shitty as it would toss those with pre-existing conditions into the "Fuck you, you're sick" Republican health care plan.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/federal-appeals-court-takes-up-case-that-threatens-affordable-care-act/

It would probably be stayed until the SC can hear it, which, the article states, would make it a highlight of the 2020 election.

[FIPurpose]

In other news, the ACA may be struck down this month. That would be pretty shitty as it would toss those with pre-existing conditions into the "Fuck you, you're sick" Republican health care plan.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/federal-appeals-court-takes-up-case-that-threatens-affordable-care-act/

It would probably be stayed until the SC can hear it, which, the article states, would make it a highlight of the 2020 election.

I'm not sure I understand why they think they'll win this. Obamacare was upheld 5-4 and all 5 of those judges are still on the court.

[bacchi]

In other news, the ACA may be struck down this month. That would be pretty shitty as it would toss those with pre-existing conditions into the "Fuck you, you're sick" Republican health care plan.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/federal-appeals-court-takes-up-case-that-threatens-affordable-care-act/

It would probably be stayed until the SC can hear it, which, the article states, would make it a highlight of the 2020 election.

I'm not sure I understand why they think they'll win this. Obamacare was upheld 5-4 and all 5 of those judges are still on the court.

Try, try, again.

The ACA has changed since that SC decision. There's no longer a tax, which is one of the arguments made by the 5-4 Court.

Given the administration's flip-flopping arguments, and the previous decision, it may well end up with a per curiam response.

[FIPurpose]

In other news, the ACA may be struck down this month. That would be pretty shitty as it would toss those with pre-existing conditions into the "Fuck you, you're sick" Republican health care plan.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/federal-appeals-court-takes-up-case-that-threatens-affordable-care-act/

It would probably be stayed until the SC can hear it, which, the article states, would make it a highlight of the 2020 election.

I'm not sure I understand why they think they'll win this. Obamacare was upheld 5-4 and all 5 of those judges are still on the court.

Try, try, again.

The ACA has changed since that SC decision. There's no longer a tax, which is one of the arguments made by the 5-4 Court.

Given the administration's flip-flopping arguments, and the previous decision, it may well end up with a per curiam response.

Yeah but it seems far more likely that the court can just decide that "if there is no tax, then there is effectively no mandate. And if there is a tax, then it is within congress' powers to do so." I can't see Roberts switching his vote for such a silly ploy. The "non-mandate mandate" is invalid because the tax was reduced to 0 and therefor must strike the whole ACA. It's one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if even Gorsuch sides with Roberts on it.

[John Galt incarnate!]

I'm not sure I understand why they think they'll win this. Obamacare was upheld 5-4 and all 5 of those judges are still on the court.

Reliance on  precedent ("reliance interest")  is one of the issues the  Supreme Court may weigh  when reviewing  a challenge  to one of its precedents. Millions of patients and potential patients  rely on the ACA for healthcare and budgeting  of family  finances, a dual reliance that is axiomatic.

Judicial deference to exercise of legislative power, both Congress' and the States',  is a bedrock principle of constitutional adjudication: The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to save and not to destroy.

Reliance interest and the principle of judicial deference  militate powerfully against the Court's overrule of its landmark, ACA decision.






“'Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government' requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if 'the lack of constitutional authority to pass the act in question is clearly demonstrated.'"

 "Policy judgments...are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

 "It is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so."

"'No court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it unavoidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the constitution.'”

 “'The rule is settled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act.'”

 "As we have explained, 'every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.'”

"The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution. Granting the Act the full measure of deference owed to federal statutes, it can be so read."

[runbikerun]

You're just trolling at this point and don't really deserve a response with that attitude.  What I was posted was a fact.  I could provide references as well.  But I don't have time to do that for you, so google is your friend.  Welcome to the interwebs.

It's not trolling, and your response shows that you didn't bother actually reading what I wrote anyway. I didn't dispute any of your data points: I pointed out that "slowest recovery from a recession" is a meaningless metric without data regarding the scale of said recession, and that it's not comparable to employment levels. What you did was first present data point A stripped of any context, then presented data point A from an entirely different dataset, before presenting the two as though one follows from the other. It's cheap, partisan hackery devoid of any value, and I maintain that it's either deliberate bad faith or an inability to properly assess data. And both are disqualifying.

[Psychstache]

It's not xenophobic.  I prefer citizenship before voting.  I am fine with making better paths to citizenship regardless of color or creed.

Now, how I feel about extreme liberal Democrats?  That might reach xenophobia and paranoia.  Don't be so naive to think that people will not manipulate the vote.  People where I live have been busted for 'smokes for votes', tire slashing of the opposition's get out the vote vehicles, and other schemes.  You'd better believe that very politically motivated and low-morals people would take advantage if they think they can get away with it.  I support Voter ID.  I am OK with offering free IDs to anyone who needs them and has documentation.  I do not support, for example, voting among people serving time in jail, but after the time is served, sure, go vote.

Oh hey, you've found another great way to allow racist states to suppress their voting minority!

Most states do not allow voting from prison. Discrimination against criminals serving punishment is not necessarily racist.

Do you mean jail or do you mean prison?

Prison.

So, a couple of questions coming from a place of genuine curiosity:

1. Why do you believe that incarcerated individuals who are otherwise eligible to vote should be barred from doing so?

2. What rights do you believe incarcerated individuals should have?

[Roadrunner53]

Incarcerated people should have the right to an attorney, right to visitors, right to be treated humanly, healthcare. I am sure prisoners have many rights that we don't even know about. But they while there, their lives are in suspended animation. They can't get a Social Security check until they reapply after they get out. Why should they get the privilege to vote? They are obviously sub humans and their opinion does not count until they pay their debt to society. If voting was so important to them, maybe they shouldn't have committed a crime in the first place.

[JLee]

Incarcerated people should have the right to an attorney, right to visitors, right to be treated humanly, healthcare. I am sure prisoners have many rights that we don't even know about. But they while there, their lives are in suspended animation. They can't get a Social Security check until they reapply after they get out. Why should they get the privilege to vote? They are obviously sub humans and their opinion does not count until they pay their debt to society. If voting was so important to them, maybe they shouldn't have committed a crime in the first place.

I can't even tell if this is sarcasm or not.

[ketchup]

Incarcerated people should have the right to an attorney, right to visitors, right to be treated humanly, healthcare. I am sure prisoners have many rights that we don't even know about. But they while there, their lives are in suspended animation. They can't get a Social Security check until they reapply after they get out. Why should they get the privilege to vote? They are obviously sub humans and their opinion does not count until they pay their debt to society. If voting was so important to them, maybe they shouldn't have committed a crime in the first place.

I can't even tell if this is sarcasm or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

[DavidAnnArbor]

Incarcerated people should have the right to an attorney, right to visitors, right to be treated humanly, healthcare. I am sure prisoners have many rights that we don't even know about. But they while there, their lives are in suspended animation. They can't get a Social Security check until they reapply after they get out. Why should they get the privilege to vote? They are obviously sub humans and their opinion does not count until they pay their debt to society. If voting was so important to them, maybe they shouldn't have committed a crime in the first place.

There are a lot of people in prison for what I think are ridiculous and arbitrary reasons:

1. They smoked marijuana
2. A woman in Alabama could become imprisoned if something inadvertently happens to her fetus while she is pregnant
3. In the past gay men were imprisoned for private consensual sex
4. People with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia did not have access to mental health treatment and proper medication and they had a psychological break with reality that led to some crime
5. Someone violated a parole for reasons that were completely beyond their control.
6. You're too poor to pay for a parking ticket
7. Joe Arpaio decided you were an illegal alien even if you really are a legal resident of the US and the prison is in no rush to grant you access to your attorney and a hearing before a judge.

It's just plain ridiculous to take away a person's vote, especially since they are impacted by inhumane prison conditions because of the lack of political power to influence policymakers.

[Zamboni]

I'm enjoying international business travel this month. Rough life, I know.

A colleague I've known for 20+ years (a Dutch guy who resides in Singapore), said:
"You know, Trump is making an international laughing stock of the United States."

Yes, yes, I'm aware, thanks for the reminder. Ugh!

[talltexan]

Are the Netherlands so great? Their team couldn't even beat ours in the FIFA women's world cup this year!!!

[ketchup]

I'm enjoying international business travel this month. Rough life, I know.

A colleague I've known for 20+ years (a Dutch guy who resides in Singapore), said:
"You know, Trump is making an international laughing stock of the United States."

Yes, yes, I'm aware, thanks for the reminder. Ugh!

Yep, anyone international I've talked to incredulously asks if anyone here actually likes Trump.  Though I've only talked to people from Europe and Australia in this context.

[Samuel]

I'm enjoying international business travel this month. Rough life, I know.

A colleague I've known for 20+ years (a Dutch guy who resides in Singapore), said:
"You know, Trump is making an international laughing stock of the United States."

Yes, yes, I'm aware, thanks for the reminder. Ugh!

Yep, anyone international I've talked to incredulously asks if anyone here actually likes Trump.  Though I've only talked to people from Europe and Australia in this context.

I happened to be in Italy on election day 2016. The Kiwi's I met and talked with 2 days later were pretty stunned. I had to point out that between our 50-60% rate of voting and the electoral college system only 25 or 26% of eligible voters actually voted for the guy. Made them feel a little better about the American people, if not America. I also, in an uncharacteristic burst of optimism, guessed that Trump's need to be loved would lead him to govern much less divisively than he campaigned. Was pretty wrong about that one.

Interestingly, none of the Italians I talked to were baffled. They had Berlusconi. They understood.

[Kris]

I'm enjoying international business travel this month. Rough life, I know.

A colleague I've known for 20+ years (a Dutch guy who resides in Singapore), said:
"You know, Trump is making an international laughing stock of the United States."

Yes, yes, I'm aware, thanks for the reminder. Ugh!

Yep, anyone international I've talked to incredulously asks if anyone here actually likes Trump.  Though I've only talked to people from Europe and Australia in this context.

I happened to be in Italy on election day 2016. The Kiwi's I met and talked with 2 days later were pretty stunned. I had to point out that between our 50-60% rate of voting and the electoral college system only 25 or 26% of eligible voters actually voted for the guy. Made them feel a little better about the American people, if not America. I also, in an uncharacteristic burst of optimism, guessed that Trump's need to be loved would lead him to govern much less divisively than he campaigned. Was pretty wrong about that one.

Interestingly, none of the Italians I talked to were baffled. They had Berlusconi. They understood.

That's quite a story.

I have spent a lot of time in France, and have a lot of friends there. I still remember the conversations I had with people about GW Bush.

The conversations I have had about Trump are much, much worse. With Bush, they were just baffled, and a little afraid, of what it was about the American psyche that brought him into office.

With Trump, it's not bafflement. It's disgust.

[Zamboni]

Are the Netherlands so great? Their team couldn't even beat ours in the FIFA women's world cup this year!!!

Ba dum, ching! Yes, I definitely had to resist rubbing his nose in that as it was only a couple of days after the final.

[DavidAnnArbor]

Apparently Donald Trump is a defendant in an allegation of rape against a 13 year old girl.

Ian Madrigal - The Monopoly Man
@iansmadrig
“Jane Doe” alleges Donald Trump sexually assaulted her on four separate occasions, culminating in a rape when she was just 13 at Jeffrey Epstein’s mansion.
Her evidence? Three sworn declarations – from her, a friend she confided in at the time, AND one of Epstein’s recruiters.

https://twitter.com/iansmadrig/status/1068606178723270656?s=20

[Zamboni]

Many years ago, a senior male colleague was ousted for allegedly making advances on younger men (20 something year old guys). At the time, a female friend of mine said this about the wealthy older white guys where I work: "It's only because they were boys. These guys could rape 10-year-old girls here, and nothing would happen to them."

I was shocked that she said that in that moment . . . but quite unfortunately it appears that she may very well be right.

[Roland of Gilead]

Apparently Donald Trump is a defendant in an allegation of rape against a 13 year old girl.

Ian Madrigal - The Monopoly Man
@iansmadrig
“Jane Doe” alleges Donald Trump sexually assaulted her on four separate occasions, culminating in a rape when she was just 13 at Jeffrey Epstein’s mansion.
Her evidence? Three sworn declarations – from her, a friend she confided in at the time, AND one of Epstein’s recruiters.

https://twitter.com/iansmadrig/status/1068606178723270656?s=20

It is actually looking like both Trump and Clinton did stuff at Epstein's mansion.    Hard to find a good politician nowadays on either side.

[Kris]

Apparently Donald Trump is a defendant in an allegation of rape against a 13 year old girl.

Ian Madrigal - The Monopoly Man
@iansmadrig
“Jane Doe” alleges Donald Trump sexually assaulted her on four separate occasions, culminating in a rape when she was just 13 at Jeffrey Epstein’s mansion.
Her evidence? Three sworn declarations – from her, a friend she confided in at the time, AND one of Epstein’s recruiters.

https://twitter.com/iansmadrig/status/1068606178723270656?s=20

It is actually looking like both Trump and Clinton did stuff at Epstein's mansion.    Hard to find a good politician nowadays on either side.

Difference being that Trump is currently in office. And his base will stand up for him, no matter what the outcome.

[Roland of Gilead]

Difference being that Trump is currently in office. And his base will stand up for him, no matter what the outcome.

He is yes and you are right his base probably will, they are fanatics.

But we elected Clinton too.   I am just saying gee it is damn hard to find a good politician nowadays.

[ysette9]

I thought Obama was a fine example of a good person and a good politician.

[Roland of Gilead]

I thought Obama was a fine example of a good person and a good politician.

Yeah so great track record, we elected one good president out of the past four.

I am not seeing much good in either side in the current election either.  Barf Trump on one side, Socialists on the other side.

I actually liked Obama and am enjoying the ACA although it really does benefit wealthy people a bit more than it should.

[runbikerun]

If you think the current crop of Democratic candidates are all socialists, then you haven't actually seen a socialist. Sanders is probably the closest, and outside of the US his policies would make him a fairly mainstream centre-leftist.

There's a consistent and infuriating tone to a lot of commentary on American politics - "well, Trump is bad, but so are the extremists on the other side!" Newsflash: there are no extremists on the other side. Anyone with a national profile in the Democratic party has already embraced centrist policies to their core, and it's ludicrous to pretend that Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren are the mirror image of Trump. The whole thing is best encapsulated in this exchange between Ben Shapiro and Andrew Neil of the BBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E. Shapiro gets asked a few pointed questions, and responds by accusing Andrew Neil of leftist bias. That would be Andrew Neil, former editor of the Murdoch-owned Sunday Times, regular contributor to the Daily Mail, enthusiastic proponent of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and climate change denier. Everything in American politics that isn't aggressively right-wing is now derided as socialism, and it's absolute and total horseshit.

[former player]

I seem to remember that the right's go-to word to denigrate any other views was "liberal".  It seems that has lost its force and they've moved on to "socialism".

[ketchup]

I seem to remember that the right's go-to word to denigrate any other views was "liberal".  It seems that has lost its force and they've moved on to "socialism".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ffWV9mlAPI

[RetiredAt63]

American liberals would be right of center here and your socialists would be slightly left of center.     Our New Democratic Party, which is sort of socialist, would have you all in a faint at how left-wing it is. American politics is totally skewed right.   

[talltexan]

Difference being that Trump is currently in office. And his base will stand up for him, no matter what the outcome.

He is yes and you are right his base probably will, they are fanatics.

But we elected Clinton too.   I am just saying gee it is damn hard to find a good politician nowadays.

Clinton won his last election in Nov. 1996.

The Lewinsky story wasn't broken by media until January 1998.

The Juanita Broadrick rape allegation--the only non-consensual allegation against him--was not publicly known until the Starr report was released in Fall 1998.

When Donald Trump won his election in Nov. 2016, there were already more than a dozen public allegations of sexual assault against him, and there was also the Access Hollywood tape.

[talltexan]

Here's a link to George Conway comparing the Juanita Broaddrick allegations to those made by one of Trump's accusers:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/22/george-conway-juanita-broaddricks-claims-against-bill-clinton-are-credible-latest-accusations-against-trump/?utm_term=.645b65f1a08c

It's fine to disapprove of Bill Clinton seeking sexual relationships outside of his marriage. But there's a clear mismatch in handling of "consent" between the two men.

[GuitarStv]

Here's a link to George Conway comparing the Juanita Broaddrick allegations to those made by one of Trump's accusers:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/22/george-conway-juanita-broaddricks-claims-against-bill-clinton-are-credible-latest-accusations-against-trump/?utm_term=.645b65f1a08c

It's fine to disapprove of Bill Clinton seeking sexual relationships outside of his marriage. But there's a clear mismatch in handling of "consent" between the two men.

If only there were warning signs about Trump before he was elected.

Like dozens of lawsuits.  Or a written description of marital rape from a former wife.  Or tape of him bragging about grabbing women by the pussy without consent.

[Samuel]

I'm enjoying international business travel this month. Rough life, I know.

A colleague I've known for 20+ years (a Dutch guy who resides in Singapore), said:
"You know, Trump is making an international laughing stock of the United States."

Yes, yes, I'm aware, thanks for the reminder. Ugh!

Yep, anyone international I've talked to incredulously asks if anyone here actually likes Trump.  Though I've only talked to people from Europe and Australia in this context.

I happened to be in Italy on election day 2016. The Kiwi's I met and talked with 2 days later were pretty stunned. I had to point out that between our 50-60% rate of voting and the electoral college system only 25 or 26% of eligible voters actually voted for the guy. Made them feel a little better about the American people, if not America. I also, in an uncharacteristic burst of optimism, guessed that Trump's need to be loved would lead him to govern much less divisively than he campaigned. Was pretty wrong about that one.

Interestingly, none of the Italians I talked to were baffled. They had Berlusconi. They understood.

That's quite a story.

I have spent a lot of time in France, and have a lot of friends there. I still remember the conversations I had with people about GW Bush.

The conversations I have had about Trump are much, much worse. With Bush, they were just baffled, and a little afraid, of what it was about the American psyche that brought him into office.

With Trump, it's not bafflement. It's disgust.

To be fair it was a relatively small sample size (after a day or two we consciously decided to just enjoy the rest of our trip and deal with reality when we got home) and no one I talked to was happy about the situation. They just weren't as shocked as everyone else to learn a corrupt blowhard could fan enough nationalist passion to get elected.

The silver lining was that at least I was spared the unfolding agony of election night. Went to bed before any results and woke up in a whole new world...

[Kris]

I'm enjoying international business travel this month. Rough life, I know.

A colleague I've known for 20+ years (a Dutch guy who resides in Singapore), said:
"You know, Trump is making an international laughing stock of the United States."

Yes, yes, I'm aware, thanks for the reminder. Ugh!

Yep, anyone international I've talked to incredulously asks if anyone here actually likes Trump.  Though I've only talked to people from Europe and Australia in this context.

I happened to be in Italy on election day 2016. The Kiwi's I met and talked with 2 days later were pretty stunned. I had to point out that between our 50-60% rate of voting and the electoral college system only 25 or 26% of eligible voters actually voted for the guy. Made them feel a little better about the American people, if not America. I also, in an uncharacteristic burst of optimism, guessed that Trump's need to be loved would lead him to govern much less divisively than he campaigned. Was pretty wrong about that one.

Interestingly, none of the Italians I talked to were baffled. They had Berlusconi. They understood.

That's quite a story.

I have spent a lot of time in France, and have a lot of friends there. I still remember the conversations I had with people about GW Bush.

The conversations I have had about Trump are much, much worse. With Bush, they were just baffled, and a little afraid, of what it was about the American psyche that brought him into office.

With Trump, it's not bafflement. It's disgust.

To be fair it was a relatively small sample size (after a day or two we consciously decided to just enjoy the rest of our trip and deal with reality when we got home) and no one I talked to was happy about the situation. They just weren't as shocked as everyone else to learn a corrupt blowhard could fan enough nationalist passion to get elected.

The silver lining was that at least I was spared the unfolding agony of election night. Went to bed before any results and woke up in a whole new world...

Oh, yeah. Election night was bad. I was the only one of my friends who actually thought knew Trump was going to win. The whole day was agony for me. Actually watching the returns come in was sickening.

[ysette9]

American liberals would be right of center here and your socialists would be slightly left of center.     Our New Democratic Party, which is sort of socialist, would have you all in a faint at how left-wing it is. American politics is totally skewed right.

This is such an important observation I am going to quote it to make sure it is seen again. It feels like most Americans don’t appreciate how far off from center our center of gravity really is.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Apparently Donald Trump is a defendant in an allegation of rape against a 13 year old girl.

Ian Madrigal - The Monopoly Man
@iansmadrig
“Jane Doe” alleges Donald Trump sexually assaulted her on four separate occasions, culminating in a rape when she was just 13 at Jeffrey Epstein’s mansion.
Her evidence? Three sworn declarations – from her, a friend she confided in at the time, AND one of Epstein’s recruiters.

https://twitter.com/iansmadrig/status/1068606178723270656?s=20

It is actually looking like both Trump and Clinton did stuff at Epstein's mansion.    Hard to find a good politician nowadays on either side.

There is no way in which this should be normalized.  Jeffrey Epstein and the people who 'partied with' and enabled him are the lowest form of criminals.  I challenge you, instead of making a comment that normalizes sexual activity between predatory, powerful men and vulnerable, disenfranchised minors, to study up on 'politicians nowadays' and tell us what specifically you dislike most about the current crop.  I would be very interested to know if any of the candidates associate with 'Epstein-like' businessmen, it would influence my support of them.  Otherwise, keep 'politicians' in general out of your tarring everyone with the same brush as Trump is being tarred with - he is exceptionally vile in this instance of partying with and praising Epstein as a 'fun guy'.

[RetiredAt63]

American liberals would be right of center here and your socialists would be slightly left of center.     Our New Democratic Party, which is sort of socialist, would have you all in a faint at how left-wing it is. American politics is totally skewed right.

This is such an important observation I am going to quote it to make sure it is seen again. It feels like most Americans don’t appreciate how far off from center our center of gravity really is.

It's been said before on most of the political threads, by Canadians and lots of Europeans and Aussies and Kiwis.  All those countries that have universal health care and decent parental leave and social nets?  We are all radically socialist by American standards.   Because your liberal standards are still so much to the right of our central (neither left not right) standards.  We often feel we are talking into a tornado when we discuss these issues with Americans.

On the other hand, the far-right turn of American politics has given our small number of far right wing politicians encouragement.  Our Ontario premier, Doug Ford, is a mini-Trump.  Our Conservative leader, Andrew Scheer, is a mini-Trump.  They have permission now to be social jerks.  They are all social conservatives, and fiscal conservatives only when it serves their social agendas.

[LennStar]

American liberals would be right of center here and your socialists would be slightly left of center.     Our New Democratic Party, which is sort of socialist, would have you all in a faint at how left-wing it is. American politics is totally skewed right.

This is such an important observation I am going to quote it to make sure it is seen again. It feels like most Americans don’t appreciate how far off from center our center of gravity really is.

We Europeans here have actually grown bored of saying that.

Remember lil' Hillary? She would be fairly center in the German party that had openly stated several times in the past that there shouldn't be any other legal party right of them.

[RetiredAt63]

American liberals would be right of center here and your socialists would be slightly left of center.     Our New Democratic Party, which is sort of socialist, would have you all in a faint at how left-wing it is. American politics is totally skewed right.

This is such an important observation I am going to quote it to make sure it is seen again. It feels like most Americans don’t appreciate how far off from center our center of gravity really is.

We Europeans here have actually grown bored of saying that.

Remember lil' Hillary? She would be fairly center in the German party that had openly stated several times in the past that there shouldn't be any other legal party right of them.

We keep saying it because we are right next door (well, basically north). 

Americans often expect Canadians to be much more like them than we are.  We are geographically far away from Australia and New Zealand, but culturally we are a lot more similar than any of us are to Americans  I felt right at home (except for my "exotic Canadian accent") when I was there.

[FIREstache]

American liberals would be right of center here and your socialists would be slightly left of center.     Our New Democratic Party, which is sort of socialist, would have you all in a faint at how left-wing it is. American politics is totally skewed right.

This is such an important observation I am going to quote it to make sure it is seen again. It feels like most Americans don’t appreciate how far off from center our center of gravity really is.

It's been said before on most of the political threads, by Canadians and lots of Europeans and Aussies and Kiwis.  All those countries that have universal health care and decent parental leave and social nets?  We are all radically socialist by American standards.   Because your liberal standards are still so much to the right of our central (neither left not right) standards.  We often feel we are talking into a tornado when we discuss these issues with Americans.

On the other hand, the far-right turn of American politics has given our small number of far right wing politicians encouragement.  Our Ontario premier, Doug Ford, is a mini-Trump.  Our Conservative leader, Andrew Scheer, is a mini-Trump.  They have permission now to be social jerks.  They are all social conservatives, and fiscal conservatives only when it serves their social agendas.

It feels to me like too many Americans lean too far to the left these days.  It didn't used to be that way, but sadly, I see it slowly moving in that direction.

[Glenstache]

American liberals would be right of center here and your socialists would be slightly left of center.     Our New Democratic Party, which is sort of socialist, would have you all in a faint at how left-wing it is. American politics is totally skewed right.

This is such an important observation I am going to quote it to make sure it is seen again. It feels like most Americans don’t appreciate how far off from center our center of gravity really is.

It's been said before on most of the political threads, by Canadians and lots of Europeans and Aussies and Kiwis.  All those countries that have universal health care and decent parental leave and social nets?  We are all radically socialist by American standards.   Because your liberal standards are still so much to the right of our central (neither left not right) standards.  We often feel we are talking into a tornado when we discuss these issues with Americans.

On the other hand, the far-right turn of American politics has given our small number of far right wing politicians encouragement.  Our Ontario premier, Doug Ford, is a mini-Trump.  Our Conservative leader, Andrew Scheer, is a mini-Trump.  They have permission now to be social jerks.  They are all social conservatives, and fiscal conservatives only when it serves their social agendas.

It feels to me like too many Americans lean too far to the left these days.  It didn't used to be that way, but sadly, I see it slowly moving in that direction.

It feels to me like too many Americans lean too far to the right these days, and are unaware of the history of the right from Eisenhower to the present, or even Reagan to the present.  It didn't used to be that way, but sadly, I see it slowly moving in that direction. This skews their view from the right. They think the political landscape is moving around them without realizing they are on a ship pulling away from shore and they are the ones drifting.

[talltexan]

American liberals would be right of center here and your socialists would be slightly left of center.     Our New Democratic Party, which is sort of socialist, would have you all in a faint at how left-wing it is. American politics is totally skewed right.

This is such an important observation I am going to quote it to make sure it is seen again. It feels like most Americans don’t appreciate how far off from center our center of gravity really is.

It's been said before on most of the political threads, by Canadians and lots of Europeans and Aussies and Kiwis.  All those countries that have universal health care and decent parental leave and social nets?  We are all radically socialist by American standards.   Because your liberal standards are still so much to the right of our central (neither left not right) standards.  We often feel we are talking into a tornado when we discuss these issues with Americans.

On the other hand, the far-right turn of American politics has given our small number of far right wing politicians encouragement.  Our Ontario premier, Doug Ford, is a mini-Trump.  Our Conservative leader, Andrew Scheer, is a mini-Trump.  They have permission now to be social jerks.  They are all social conservatives, and fiscal conservatives only when it serves their social agendas.

It feels to me like too many Americans lean too far to the left these days.  It didn't used to be that way, but sadly, I see it slowly moving in that direction.

I would like to hear more from you on this, @FIREstache

How have you come to conclude that the country is moving leftward?

[RetiredAt63]

It feels to me like too many Americans lean too far to the left these days.  It didn't used to be that way, but sadly, I see it slowly moving in that direction.

Good thing I wasn't drinking my tea when I read this.   You still seem to have no idea of what the rest of the world thinks left is, your left is our moderate right.
 
Plus politics is a pendulum - people who think the right is too far right will shift to balance it.

[talltexan]

My own feeling is that we have had a dramatic rightward shift over the last forty years.

Ronald Reagan successfully captured sentiment that the LBJ expansion of government went too far. He managed just enough economic and foreign policy success that--in the thirty years since he left office--Newt Gingrich and Mitch McConnell were able to basically play defense, forcing the Democratic Presidents who were in office to cut spending such that there would be fiscal space for large tax cuts when unified GOP control of government came around again. I sincerely believe those will be the three names from this era that history classes will teach in the late twenty-first century.

It is possible to identify one-off issues (gay marriage) where progress has occurred during this period, but for every one of those, I could name one like gun rights, where it feels like conservatives have won decisively.

[partgypsy]

I understand why tobacco companies suppressed evidence that smoking say, causes cancer.
 But I hope people understand how disturbing it is, that our current US government, is now supressing government reports on climate change, becuase our dear leader doesn't personally believe in climate change. Climate change is going to affect many things: waterfall amounts and patterns, flooding, crop yields, insects, and disease. It is also going to affect human migration and conflict and ignorance is not bliss in this situation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/07/10/intelligence-aide-blocked-submitting-written-testimony-climate-change-resigns-state-department/?fbclid=IwAR16vANu_XZTOAiSsyDgAvcY7Gj9-vGRthqzzRjg3vj-Lqjz4I-X4uLL_yY&utm_term=.439d63040161

[Davnasty]

I understand why tobacco companies suppressed evidence that smoking say, causes cancer.
 But I hope people understand how disturbing it is, that our current US government, is now supressing government reports on climate change, becuase our dear president doesn't personally believe in climate change. Climate change is going to affect many things: waterfall amounts and patterns, flooding, crop yields, insects, and disease. It is also going to affect human migration and conflict and ignorance is not bliss in this situation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/07/10/intelligence-aide-blocked-submitting-written-testimony-climate-change-resigns-state-department/?fbclid=IwAR16vANu_XZTOAiSsyDgAvcY7Gj9-vGRthqzzRjg3vj-Lqjz4I-X4uLL_yY&utm_term=.439d63040161

Interestingly, the current formula of muddying the waters of science likely began with the tobacco industry and some of the same people who worked with tobacco companies then moved on to the Republican party.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1386128/

The formula has been successfully applied to missile defense, acid rain, the ozone layer, global warming, mercury in fish, sugar and obesity, evolution, sex education, contraception, AIDS prevention, and stem cell research.

[Davnasty]

As an example, here's an article written by Joseph Bast of the Heartland institute in 1998, which I'm surprised is still up on their website:

https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/july-1998-five-lies-about-tobacco-the-tobacco-bill-wasnt-about-kids

Several experts (including two who are very anti-smoking) have told me that smoking fewer than seven cigarettes a day does not raise a smoker's risk of lung cancer.

And here's one he co-authored in 2018:

https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/the-ipcc-is-still-wrong-on-climate-change-scientists-prove-it

Sixteen of 25 identified impacts of fossil fuels are net positive, eight uncertain.  Only one is net negative.  Areas of impact measured include agriculture, air quality, extreme weather events, and human health.

And one more just because it's funny:

Forcing a transition from fossil fuels to wind and solar power would inflict tremendous economic hardship, reducing world GDP by some 96 percent and plunging the world back to economic conditions last seen in the 1820s and 1830s.

[GuitarStv]

“Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also a means of establishing controversy.”

Jesus, seeing the tobacco industry (now Republican) policy laid out so bare is unsettling.

[RetiredAt63]

I'm presently reading Falter:Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out?
by Bill McKibben.  I would recommend this book to everyone on this thread, it addresses virtually everything we are discussing.  And it is profoundly depressing so far.