Kansas Crimson

Shirley wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 4:59 pm Robert Reich

Shirley wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 4:59 pm Robert Reich

hartjack8 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 6:52 pm

Shirley wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 4:59 pm Robert Reich

Dude wtf

You work for minimum wage. Thought more of you.

Sparko wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 7:40 pm Bad take by the Hartjack.

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 7:59 am slavery texts across 20 states

misogynistic female body ownership statements from right-wing “influencers”

4B

such unity, such togetherness that this election has brought about

good job, ‘murica…inspirational look

On Tuesday, voters rewarded one of these parties and punished the other. What should Democrats learn from that outcome? One simple thing:

Do not expend political capital trying to protect voters from Trump.

Americans listened to everything Trump said over the last two years. They heard him talk about abandoning Ukraine, imposing massive tariffs, putting RFK Jr. in charge of healthcare policy, and rounding up millions of immigrants and either deporting them or putting them into camps.

A majority of voters affirmatively chose those policies.

So let Trump implement them. Let’s walk through what that would mean, one policy at a time.

Ukraine. President Trump is likely to abandon Ukraine to Russia. Democrats should not attempt to stop him.

Pulling back American support of Ukraine will have a number of bad outcomes.

It will reward Putin’s aggression, endangering the Baltic states and Eastern Europe.

It will strain NATO; or perhaps even break it.

All of which will spook global markets.

If NATO fractures, Europe will re-arm overnight and Germany would become a nuclear state.

It will signal to China that they have a free hand with Taiwan. Which would also cause a massive disruption to the global economy.

And—not that American voters care about this—it would also mean the death or enslavement of large numbers of Ukrainians.

Because they are silly, the great and good American people have asked for these outcomes. Democrats should not get in the way of them. If Republicans like Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, and Mike Johnson want to fight Trump over Ukraine, they can have at it. But they should do so with zero Democratic support.

Democrats should sit on the sidelines and point out all of the dangers. When things go sideways in Europe they should relentlessly highlight the bad outcomes and heap blame on Trump. They should score an endless number of political points and use the chaos and bloodshed in Ukraine to damage Trump politically.

But under no circumstances should they extend themselves politically to stop Trump from doing what he promised to do.

Tariffs. President Trump has promised to impose a massive tariff regime. The result will be rising prices for consumers. Rather than trying to stop it, Democrats should welcome this development.

The only way in which Democrats should fight back against tariffs is by exposing the crony capitalist loopholes Trump carves out for his allies. Democrats should relentlessly highlight the ways in which Trump uses his tariff scheme to help his billionaire friends and they should never shut up about the prices of everything.

But they should not attempt to stop the imposition of the tariffs themselves.

RFK and the vaccines. If President Trump attempts to appoint RFK Jr. to some administrative position from which he can harm America’s health, Democrats should let him.

RFK Jr. wants to take fluoride out of the water? Fine. Democratic governors can stand up programs to get fluoride supplements into the hands of their constituents.

RFK Jr. wants to do away with vaccine mandates? Okay. Democratic governors can support state and local mandates for childhood vaccinations and can run campaigns to encourage their constituents to protect themselves with free vaccinations.

But if Cletus in Alabama wants to abandon polio and MMR vaccines? Let him. No more saving people from themselves.

And then, when dangerous childhood diseases reappear, Democrats can demonize both Republicans and the slack-jawed yokels who made it possible.

Will some innocent people die as a result? Perhaps. But elections have consequences. And Americans have demonstrated, over and over, that they don’t give a political party any credit for preventing harms.

Deportations. It’s unclear exactly how serious Trump is about his deportation promises. Is he really going to round up 15 million immigrants and deport them?

No. This is like promising to build a wall that Mexico pays for.

But he may try to arrest some thousands of immigrants and either deport them or warehouse them in camps.

Democrats should not try to stop him.

Here is the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Lautaro Grinspan reporting from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Atlanta headquarters on the day after the election. I’m going to quote from it extensively.

[omitted]

Either way, why should Democrats do anything to obstruct Trump if he tries to institute a regime of mass deportation or incarceration?

Because one of two things is possible. Either:

Trump has no intention of following through on his promise—in which case he should not be given an excuse that Democrats somehow prevented him from doing it; or . . .

Trump really will try to arrest 15 million people. In which case it will be a logistical, legal, moral, and economic catastrophe.

Either way, let him do it. Give him no way to blame Democrats for obstructing the glorious immigrant round-up of 2025—whether because it happens or because it does not happen.

Because either way—and this is the key—Trump’s deportation policy isn’t going to disproportionately affect Democratic voters. And Democrats can no longer afford to spend political capital protecting anyone who can’t support them electorally, just because it’s nice or the right thing to do.

At the end of the day, that should be the precept that guides Democrats’ decisions about when and how to spend capital trying to obstruct Trump during the next two years.

If Trump is trying to break the rule of law, then yes, Democrats should attempt to stop him.

If Trump is taking an action that would hurt a Democratic voting group or a Democratic state, then yes, they should attempt to stop him.

But for everything else? Democrats should stand back and stand by.2 And then, when the fit hits the shan, they should demagogue the ever-living-crap out of Trump for any bad outcome that occurs, anywhere.

Make him own it. All of it.

The American people have chosen. They should not be insulated from the consequences of their choice.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 8:14 am

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 7:59 am slavery texts across 20 states

misogynistic female body ownership statements from right-wing “influencers”

4B

such unity, such togetherness that this election has brought about

good job, ‘murica…inspirational look

I don't not agree with this thinking.

A Modest Proposal: Let Trump Be Trump

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/a-modest-p ... p-be-trump

On Tuesday, voters rewarded one of these parties and punished the other. What should Democrats learn from that outcome? One simple thing:

Do not expend political capital trying to protect voters from Trump.

Americans listened to everything Trump said over the last two years. They heard him talk about abandoning Ukraine, imposing massive tariffs, putting RFK Jr. in charge of healthcare policy, and rounding up millions of immigrants and either deporting them or putting them into camps.

A majority of voters affirmatively chose those policies.

So let Trump implement them. Let’s walk through what that would mean, one policy at a time.

Ukraine. President Trump is likely to abandon Ukraine to Russia. Democrats should not attempt to stop him.

Pulling back American support of Ukraine will have a number of bad outcomes.

It will reward Putin’s aggression, endangering the Baltic states and Eastern Europe.

It will strain NATO; or perhaps even break it.

All of which will spook global markets.

If NATO fractures, Europe will re-arm overnight and Germany would become a nuclear state.

It will signal to China that they have a free hand with Taiwan. Which would also cause a massive disruption to the global economy.

And—not that American voters care about this—it would also mean the death or enslavement of large numbers of Ukrainians.

Because they are silly, the great and good American people have asked for these outcomes. Democrats should not get in the way of them. If Republicans like Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, and Mike Johnson want to fight Trump over Ukraine, they can have at it. But they should do so with zero Democratic support.

Democrats should sit on the sidelines and point out all of the dangers. When things go sideways in Europe they should relentlessly highlight the bad outcomes and heap blame on Trump. They should score an endless number of political points and use the chaos and bloodshed in Ukraine to damage Trump politically.

But under no circumstances should they extend themselves politically to stop Trump from doing what he promised to do.

Tariffs. President Trump has promised to impose a massive tariff regime. The result will be rising prices for consumers. Rather than trying to stop it, Democrats should welcome this development.

The only way in which Democrats should fight back against tariffs is by exposing the crony capitalist loopholes Trump carves out for his allies. Democrats should relentlessly highlight the ways in which Trump uses his tariff scheme to help his billionaire friends and they should never shut up about the prices of everything.

But they should not attempt to stop the imposition of the tariffs themselves.

RFK and the vaccines. If President Trump attempts to appoint RFK Jr. to some administrative position from which he can harm America’s health, Democrats should let him.

RFK Jr. wants to take fluoride out of the water? Fine. Democratic governors can stand up programs to get fluoride supplements into the hands of their constituents.

RFK Jr. wants to do away with vaccine mandates? Okay. Democratic governors can support state and local mandates for childhood vaccinations and can run campaigns to encourage their constituents to protect themselves with free vaccinations.

But if Cletus in Alabama wants to abandon polio and MMR vaccines? Let him. No more saving people from themselves.

And then, when dangerous childhood diseases reappear, Democrats can demonize both Republicans and the slack-jawed yokels who made it possible.

Will some innocent people die as a result? Perhaps. But elections have consequences. And Americans have demonstrated, over and over, that they don’t give a political party any credit for preventing harms.

Deportations. It’s unclear exactly how serious Trump is about his deportation promises. Is he really going to round up 15 million immigrants and deport them?

No. This is like promising to build a wall that Mexico pays for.

But he may try to arrest some thousands of immigrants and either deport them or warehouse them in camps.

Democrats should not try to stop him.

Here is the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Lautaro Grinspan reporting from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Atlanta headquarters on the day after the election. I’m going to quote from it extensively.

[omitted]

Either way, why should Democrats do anything to obstruct Trump if he tries to institute a regime of mass deportation or incarceration?

Because one of two things is possible. Either:

Trump has no intention of following through on his promise—in which case he should not be given an excuse that Democrats somehow prevented him from doing it; or . . .

Trump really will try to arrest 15 million people. In which case it will be a logistical, legal, moral, and economic catastrophe.

Either way, let him do it. Give him no way to blame Democrats for obstructing the glorious immigrant round-up of 2025—whether because it happens or because it does not happen.

Because either way—and this is the key—Trump’s deportation policy isn’t going to disproportionately affect Democratic voters. And Democrats can no longer afford to spend political capital protecting anyone who can’t support them electorally, just because it’s nice or the right thing to do.

At the end of the day, that should be the precept that guides Democrats’ decisions about when and how to spend capital trying to obstruct Trump during the next two years.

If Trump is trying to break the rule of law, then yes, Democrats should attempt to stop him.

If Trump is taking an action that would hurt a Democratic voting group or a Democratic state, then yes, they should attempt to stop him.

But for everything else? Democrats should stand back and stand by.2 And then, when the fit hits the shan, they should demagogue the ever-living-crap out of Trump for any bad outcome that occurs, anywhere.

Make him own it. All of it.

The American people have chosen. They should not be insulated from the consequences of their choice.

Is this rooting for bad things to happen? No. But when you are repeatedly punished for being the adult in the room, maybe it's a sign of bigger-picture strategic stupidity to be the adult in the room where doing so is in service of smaller-picture wins.

We all know that Trump is going to blame D resistance for any unfulfilled promises, or the effects of fulfilled ones.

Why should the Ds give him ammunition for that bullshit cannon by futilely minimizing his harms by a few points?

Sparko wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 7:40 pm Bad take by the Hartjack.

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 8:30 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 8:14 am

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 7:59 am slavery texts across 20 states

misogynistic female body ownership statements from right-wing “influencers”

4B

such unity, such togetherness that this election has brought about

good job, ‘murica…inspirational look

I don't not agree with this thinking.

A Modest Proposal: Let Trump Be Trump

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/a-modest-p ... p-be-trump

On Tuesday, voters rewarded one of these parties and punished the other. What should Democrats learn from that outcome? One simple thing:

Do not expend political capital trying to protect voters from Trump.

Americans listened to everything Trump said over the last two years. They heard him talk about abandoning Ukraine, imposing massive tariffs, putting RFK Jr. in charge of healthcare policy, and rounding up millions of immigrants and either deporting them or putting them into camps.

A majority of voters affirmatively chose those policies.

So let Trump implement them. Let’s walk through what that would mean, one policy at a time.

Ukraine. President Trump is likely to abandon Ukraine to Russia. Democrats should not attempt to stop him.

Pulling back American support of Ukraine will have a number of bad outcomes.

It will reward Putin’s aggression, endangering the Baltic states and Eastern Europe.

It will strain NATO; or perhaps even break it.

All of which will spook global markets.

If NATO fractures, Europe will re-arm overnight and Germany would become a nuclear state.

It will signal to China that they have a free hand with Taiwan. Which would also cause a massive disruption to the global economy.

And—not that American voters care about this—it would also mean the death or enslavement of large numbers of Ukrainians.

Because they are silly, the great and good American people have asked for these outcomes. Democrats should not get in the way of them. If Republicans like Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, and Mike Johnson want to fight Trump over Ukraine, they can have at it. But they should do so with zero Democratic support.

Democrats should sit on the sidelines and point out all of the dangers. When things go sideways in Europe they should relentlessly highlight the bad outcomes and heap blame on Trump. They should score an endless number of political points and use the chaos and bloodshed in Ukraine to damage Trump politically.

But under no circumstances should they extend themselves politically to stop Trump from doing what he promised to do.

Tariffs. President Trump has promised to impose a massive tariff regime. The result will be rising prices for consumers. Rather than trying to stop it, Democrats should welcome this development.

The only way in which Democrats should fight back against tariffs is by exposing the crony capitalist loopholes Trump carves out for his allies. Democrats should relentlessly highlight the ways in which Trump uses his tariff scheme to help his billionaire friends and they should never shut up about the prices of everything.

But they should not attempt to stop the imposition of the tariffs themselves.

RFK and the vaccines. If President Trump attempts to appoint RFK Jr. to some administrative position from which he can harm America’s health, Democrats should let him.

RFK Jr. wants to take fluoride out of the water? Fine. Democratic governors can stand up programs to get fluoride supplements into the hands of their constituents.

RFK Jr. wants to do away with vaccine mandates? Okay. Democratic governors can support state and local mandates for childhood vaccinations and can run campaigns to encourage their constituents to protect themselves with free vaccinations.

But if Cletus in Alabama wants to abandon polio and MMR vaccines? Let him. No more saving people from themselves.

And then, when dangerous childhood diseases reappear, Democrats can demonize both Republicans and the slack-jawed yokels who made it possible.

Will some innocent people die as a result? Perhaps. But elections have consequences. And Americans have demonstrated, over and over, that they don’t give a political party any credit for preventing harms.

Deportations. It’s unclear exactly how serious Trump is about his deportation promises. Is he really going to round up 15 million immigrants and deport them?

No. This is like promising to build a wall that Mexico pays for.

But he may try to arrest some thousands of immigrants and either deport them or warehouse them in camps.

Democrats should not try to stop him.

Here is the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Lautaro Grinspan reporting from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Atlanta headquarters on the day after the election. I’m going to quote from it extensively.

[omitted]

Either way, why should Democrats do anything to obstruct Trump if he tries to institute a regime of mass deportation or incarceration?

Because one of two things is possible. Either:

Trump has no intention of following through on his promise—in which case he should not be given an excuse that Democrats somehow prevented him from doing it; or . . .

Trump really will try to arrest 15 million people. In which case it will be a logistical, legal, moral, and economic catastrophe.

Either way, let him do it. Give him no way to blame Democrats for obstructing the glorious immigrant round-up of 2025—whether because it happens or because it does not happen.

Because either way—and this is the key—Trump’s deportation policy isn’t going to disproportionately affect Democratic voters. And Democrats can no longer afford to spend political capital protecting anyone who can’t support them electorally, just because it’s nice or the right thing to do.

At the end of the day, that should be the precept that guides Democrats’ decisions about when and how to spend capital trying to obstruct Trump during the next two years.

If Trump is trying to break the rule of law, then yes, Democrats should attempt to stop him.

If Trump is taking an action that would hurt a Democratic voting group or a Democratic state, then yes, they should attempt to stop him.

But for everything else? Democrats should stand back and stand by.2 And then, when the fit hits the shan, they should demagogue the ever-living-crap out of Trump for any bad outcome that occurs, anywhere.

Make him own it. All of it.

The American people have chosen. They should not be insulated from the consequences of their choice.

Is this rooting for bad things to happen? No. But when you are repeatedly punished for being the adult in the room, maybe it's a sign of bigger-picture strategic stupidity to be the adult in the room where doing so is in service of smaller-picture wins.

We all know that Trump is going to blame D resistance for any unfulfilled promises, or the effects of fulfilled ones.

Why should the Ds give him ammunition for that bullshit cannon by futilely minimizing his harms by a few points?

i’m honestly torn, but i’m leaning towards agreeing

was just reading about all the Dem governors (lead, apparently, by Newsome and Pritzker) trying to trump-proof their states’ protections for the marginalized

i’ve said it before, but i think we’re headed down the FAFO road, and perhaps it is just time for maga world to get its wish and face the repercussions

dolomite wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 10:25 am A lot of “borrowing trouble” here on this thread on what might happen during Trump’s presidency. A complete waste of time imo.
Also the slavery texts should be ignored. Probably coming from foreign entities who want to divide the country even more.

Overlander wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 12:04 pm I put the probability of the US having a fair election again at 20%

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 8:14 am
I don't not agree with this thinking.

A Modest Proposal: Let Trump Be Trump

dolomite wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 10:25 am A lot of “borrowing trouble” here on this thread on what might happen during Trump’s presidency. A complete waste of time imo.

dolomite wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 10:25 am A lot of “borrowing trouble” here on this thread on what might happen during Trump’s presidency. A complete waste of time imo.
Also the slavery texts should be ignored. Probably coming from foreign entities who want to divide the country even more.