- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,434
- Reactions
- 7,309
David Attenborough on the 2024 Presidential election
American Politics
- Thread starter The Triangle
- Start date
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,434
- Reactions
- 7,309
What does it mean to have a "Failed State" as a major political party in the US ? This analysis truly sums up the state of US politics in 2024.
He’s just an honest, God-fearing man who loves guns, America, and watching dudes go to town on chicks with dicks.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But there are two important points to discuss concerning Mark Robinson.
First: Why were yesterday’s revelations supposed to be so damning? Robinson exists in a context in which every one of his supposed sins has been normalized by the Republican party.
He talks about enjoying “tranny” pr0n? That’s just locker-room talk.
He says he’s a “black Nazi”? The Republican presidential nominee invited an actual neo-Nazi to dine with him at his residence.
He bad mouths Martin Luther King, Jr.? That’s just a joke. Look at how it triggers the libs because they hate free speech, what with their cancel culture snowflake blah-blah-blah.
Point is: Why should any of yesterday’s stories about Robinson disqualify him in the minds of Republican voters? There’s nothing new in there. Nothing that they haven’t already excused a dozen times for Donald Trump, or Elon Musk, or Herschel Walker, or Laura Loomer, or any number of others.
Those permission structures are almost a decade old and at this point, they’re less like hidden smuggler trails and more like a 12-lane freeway for rationalization.
The second, and more important point, is this: Why wasn’t the Republican party able to push Mark Robinson aside?
Up until last night, the GOP in North Carolina could have replaced its gubernatorial candidate. Robinson is going to lose this race. He’s going to lose it so badly that he might pull the top of the ticket down with him. And he’s going to lose it dishonorably. He isn’t Barry Goldwater going down to defeat because of his principles.
What happened is that the Republican Party of North Carolina got hijacked by an insane person. And when the fit hit the shan, the NC GOP didn’t have the ability to push this insane person aside.
This is the difference between a healthy institution and a failed institution.
Say what you will about the Democratic party, but it is a healthy institution.
What do I mean by that?
Institutions have power centers and interests. In a healthy institution, these power centers can unite to achieve shared interests, even in difficult moments which require sacrifice.
For instance:
In 2008 Hillary Clinton was the supposed to be the Democratic presidential nominee. But various Democratic power centers coordinated to elevate Barack Obama, who they believed was a better candidate.
In 2016, a Democratic Socialist tried to win the Democratic presidential nomination. The party coordinated to prevent him from doing so.
In 2020, the same Democratic Socialist made another attempt. The party coalesced around Joe Biden and got him elected president.
In 2023, as Republicans went through four nominees to find a speaker of the House, Democrats voted, unanimously, time after time, for Hakeem Jeffries.
And in 2024, when the Democratic party realized that Joe Biden was compromised as a candidate by his health, they convinced him to step aside.
I want to underscore this: The Democratic party was able to convince a sitting president to abandon his reelection attempt four months before November.
And the Republican party can’t push a single arriviste gubernatorial candidate off his spot after he gets clocked calling himself a “black Nazi” who likes watching kinky pr0n while talking about how he wishes he owned slaves.
This is what I mean when I say that the Republican party is a failed institution.
Will Saletan was the first person to make this observation, way back in January of 2016, when he observed that the Republican party had become a failed state.
If you are a Democrat, this is not cause for celebration.
Failed states are dangerous. They are inherently unstable. They are breeding grounds for extremism. Even if you live in a perfectly well-functioning country, having a failed state on your border is a substantial threat to your security.
In the case of the Republican party, this failed state is not sitting across a border. It is inside the house. It makes up half of our body politic.
If the Republican party had pushed Mark Robinson aside yesterday, it would have increased the party’s chances of winning the gubernatorial election in North Carolina and also increased Donald Trump’s chances of winning the presidency. Which, in the near term, is disadvantageous to the cause of democracy.
But also: It would have been a sign that somewhere inside the GOP, there remained some institutional strength.
No matter how many elections Democrats win, our system cannot survive in the long term with only a single healthy political party. We need either (1) a healthy Republican party, or (2) the GOP to be supplanted by a new, healthy, political institution.
I can’t see how we get to (1) and history shows that (2) is an incredibly heavy lift.
So yes, it’s fun to laugh at Mark Robinson and Republican ineptitude. And his continued candidacy helps Kamala Harris. But at the end of the day, the Republican party’s problems are our problems, too.
Our democracy cannot be safe so long as the Republican party is in disarray.
www.thebulwark.com
Mark Robinson Proves—Again—That the Republican Party Is a Failed State
The GOP is an impotent institution.
I don’t get what the big deal is.He’s just an honest, God-fearing man who loves guns, America, and watching dudes go to town on chicks with dicks.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But there are two important points to discuss concerning Mark Robinson.
First: Why were yesterday’s revelations supposed to be so damning? Robinson exists in a context in which every one of his supposed sins has been normalized by the Republican party.
He talks about enjoying “tranny” pr0n? That’s just locker-room talk.
He says he’s a “black Nazi”? The Republican presidential nominee invited an actual neo-Nazi to dine with him at his residence.
He bad mouths Martin Luther King, Jr.? That’s just a joke. Look at how it triggers the libs because they hate free speech, what with their cancel culture snowflake blah-blah-blah.
Point is: Why should any of yesterday’s stories about Robinson disqualify him in the minds of Republican voters? There’s nothing new in there. Nothing that they haven’t already excused a dozen times for Donald Trump, or Elon Musk, or Herschel Walker, or Laura Loomer, or any number of others.
Those permission structures are almost a decade old and at this point, they’re less like hidden smuggler trails and more like a 12-lane freeway for rationalization.
The second, and more important point, is this: Why wasn’t the Republican party able to push Mark Robinson aside?
Up until last night, the GOP in North Carolina could have replaced its gubernatorial candidate. Robinson is going to lose this race. He’s going to lose it so badly that he might pull the top of the ticket down with him. And he’s going to lose it dishonorably. He isn’t Barry Goldwater going down to defeat because of his principles.
What happened is that the Republican Party of North Carolina got hijacked by an insane person. And when the fit hit the shan, the NC GOP didn’t have the ability to push this insane person aside.
This is the difference between a healthy institution and a failed institution.
Say what you will about the Democratic party, but it is a healthy institution.
What do I mean by that?
Institutions have power centers and interests. In a healthy institution, these power centers can unite to achieve shared interests, even in difficult moments which require sacrifice.
For instance:
In 2008 Hillary Clinton was the supposed to be the Democratic presidential nominee. But various Democratic power centers coordinated to elevate Barack Obama, who they believed was a better candidate.
In 2016, a Democratic Socialist tried to win the Democratic presidential nomination. The party coordinated to prevent him from doing so.
In 2020, the same Democratic Socialist made another attempt. The party coalesced around Joe Biden and got him elected president.
In 2023, as Republicans went through four nominees to find a speaker of the House, Democrats voted, unanimously, time after time, for Hakeem Jeffries.
And in 2024, when the Democratic party realized that Joe Biden was compromised as a candidate by his health, they convinced him to step aside.
I want to underscore this: The Democratic party was able to convince a sitting president to abandon his reelection attempt four months before November.
And the Republican party can’t push a single arriviste gubernatorial candidate off his spot after he gets clocked calling himself a “black Nazi” who likes watching kinky pr0n while talking about how he wishes he owned slaves.
This is what I mean when I say that the Republican party is a failed institution.
Will Saletan was the first person to make this observation, way back in January of 2016, when he observed that the Republican party had become a failed state.
If you are a Democrat, this is not cause for celebration.
Failed states are dangerous. They are inherently unstable. They are breeding grounds for extremism. Even if you live in a perfectly well-functioning country, having a failed state on your border is a substantial threat to your security.
In the case of the Republican party, this failed state is not sitting across a border. It is inside the house. It makes up half of our body politic.
If the Republican party had pushed Mark Robinson aside yesterday, it would have increased the party’s chances of winning the gubernatorial election in North Carolina and also increased Donald Trump’s chances of winning the presidency. Which, in the near term, is disadvantageous to the cause of democracy.
But also: It would have been a sign that somewhere inside the GOP, there remained some institutional strength.
No matter how many elections Democrats win, our system cannot survive in the long term with only a single healthy political party. We need either (1) a healthy Republican party, or (2) the GOP to be supplanted by a new, healthy, political institution.
I can’t see how we get to (1) and history shows that (2) is an incredibly heavy lift.
So yes, it’s fun to laugh at Mark Robinson and Republican ineptitude. And his continued candidacy helps Kamala Harris. But at the end of the day, the Republican party’s problems are our problems, too.
Our democracy cannot be safe so long as the Republican party is in disarray.
Mark Robinson Proves—Again—That the Republican Party Is a Failed State
The GOP is an impotent institution.
www.thebulwark.com
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,434
- Reactions
- 7,309
The Mark Robinson story.
By Andrew Kaczynski and Em Steck, CNN
9 minute read
Published 3:21 PM EDT, Thu September 19, 2024
Animation by Patrick Gallagher/CNN
Editor’s Note: This story contains offensive language.
(CNN) — Mark Robinson, the controversial and socially conservative Republican nominee for governor of North Carolina, made a series of inflammatory comments on a pornography website’s message board more than a decade ago, in which he referred to himself as a “black NAZI!” and expressed support for reinstating slavery, a CNN KFile investigation found.
Despite a recent history of anti-transgender rhetoric, Robinson said he enjoyed watching transgender pornography, a review of archived messages found in which he also referred to himself as a “perv.”
The comments, which Robinson denies making, predate his entry into politics and current stint as North Carolina’s lieutenant governor. They were made under a username that CNN was able to identify as Robinson by matching a litany of biographical details and a shared email address between the two.
Many of Robinson’s comments were gratuitously sexual and lewd in nature. They were made between 2008 and 2012 on “Nude Africa,” a pornographic website that includes a message board. The comments were made under the username minisoldr, a moniker Robinson used frequently online.
Robinson listed his full name on his profile for Nude Africa, as well as an email address he used on numerous websites across the internet for decades.
CNN is reporting only a small portion of Robinson’s comments on the website given their graphic nature.
I’m a black NAZI!’: NC GOP nominee for governor made dozens of disturbing comments on pr0n forum
By Andrew Kaczynski and Em Steck, CNN
9 minute read
Published 3:21 PM EDT, Thu September 19, 2024
Animation by Patrick Gallagher/CNN
Editor’s Note: This story contains offensive language.
(CNN) — Mark Robinson, the controversial and socially conservative Republican nominee for governor of North Carolina, made a series of inflammatory comments on a pornography website’s message board more than a decade ago, in which he referred to himself as a “black NAZI!” and expressed support for reinstating slavery, a CNN KFile investigation found.
Despite a recent history of anti-transgender rhetoric, Robinson said he enjoyed watching transgender pornography, a review of archived messages found in which he also referred to himself as a “perv.”
The comments, which Robinson denies making, predate his entry into politics and current stint as North Carolina’s lieutenant governor. They were made under a username that CNN was able to identify as Robinson by matching a litany of biographical details and a shared email address between the two.
Many of Robinson’s comments were gratuitously sexual and lewd in nature. They were made between 2008 and 2012 on “Nude Africa,” a pornographic website that includes a message board. The comments were made under the username minisoldr, a moniker Robinson used frequently online.
Robinson listed his full name on his profile for Nude Africa, as well as an email address he used on numerous websites across the internet for decades.
CNN is reporting only a small portion of Robinson’s comments on the website given their graphic nature.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/19/politics/kfile-mark-robinson-black-nazi-pro-slavery-pr0n-forum
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,917
- Reactions
- 12,365
Some really strange characters in politics over there. Black Nazis? I can't think of much else that beats that for a contradiction.
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,529
- Reactions
- 4,564
Trump representing workers and freedom....
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,434
- Reactions
- 7,309
We have our own strange characters here of course. Hasn't been a peep from the usual suspects about how Mark Robinson hasn't been dropped from the Republican ticket when the full horror and hypocrisy of his views was made public.
I suppose the clearest observations are that :
1) There is no behaviour that will disqualify a serious political Trump acolyte from Trumps support.
2) No matter how much evidence is supplied as to the behavior the only response will be to classify it as fake news.
3) True Trumps supporters will accept the first premise and swallow the second. Anyone who doubts is a RINO
Last edited:
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,434
- Reactions
- 7,309
Is this over the top or just cresting the wave ?
Cats the Musical Finally Ends After Immigrants Eat Entire Cast, Trump Claims
Shutterstock/Lev Radin
The Andrew Lloyd Webber musical Cats has finally come to an end after Haitian immigrants abducted and then ate the cast, according to Presidential candidate Donald Trump.
Trump said he had heard credible reports that recently arrived immigrants had broken into a performance in Springfield, Ohio and feasted on the performers.
“The people came in, they ate the cats. It’s terrible,” Trump explained.
“They ate Mistoffeles, they ate Rumpleteazer. A lot of people are telling me that Rum Tum Tugger is gone too. I hear maybe even Skimbleshanks. I don’t know, someone should look into it. It’s very nasty what they’re doing to the Jellicles”.
Springfield Mayor Rob Rue said the city had no documented cases of immigrants eating cats, or Cats the musical ever playing in Springfield.
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,434
- Reactions
- 7,309
"Former Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, a Republican, put it best in his speech to the Democratic convention last month when he said: 'Let me be clear to my Republican friends at home: If you vote for Kamala Harris in 2024 you’re not a Democrat, you’re a patriot.' On Nov. 5, be a patriot."
www.rawstory.com
'Be a patriot': Three former Maine GOP chairs endorse Kamala Harris
Three former chairs of the Republican Party of Maine are out with a new op-ed in the Bangor Daily News, endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election.Robert A.G. Monks, Ken Cole and Ted O’Meara, despite previously running the GOP in Maine, united Monday on crossing the...
www.rawstory.com
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,434
- Reactions
- 7,309
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,529
- Reactions
- 4,564
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,353
- Reactions
- 24,092
Also the upper echelon of society, the elites, would expect them to vote anything else?
They aren't the ones getting screwed. Lol
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,529
- Reactions
- 4,564
Surprisingly its real the numbers have changed over the decades (used to be more even) to arrive at that survey which was over 8000 professors, the author had serious concerns about the negatives effects that could come from it.
TBH I don't know what you would read into it I suspect the political leanings have stayed similar but the political climate on the Republican side has gotten a lot nuttier with Trump in the mix.
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,434
- Reactions
- 7,309
Came across this clip from 12 Angry Men that summed up MAGA and the best way to respond to it. Very powerful.
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,434
- Reactions
- 7,309
How did the Democrats get back into power in the 1990's? Any lessons to be learnt here ?
Al From
Dec 09, 2024
President Bill Clinton poses November 1, 1992 in Cherry Hill, N.J. Clinton, formerly the governor of Arkansas, was the first Democrat elected to two terms of office since Franklin D. Roosevelt. (Photo by Cynthia Johnson/Liaison)
DEMOCRATS PONDERING WHAT TO DO NEXT after November’s defeat would do well to remember how the party came back the last time it was in the political wilderness.
After the 1988 election, respected political analysts believed Republicans had a lock on the presidency. Democrats had lost five of the previous six presidential elections. In 1972 and again in 1984, the Democratic candidate lost 49 states. In the three elections in the 1980s, the Republican candidate won landslide victories, averaging 54 percent of the popular vote and nearly 90 percent of Electoral College votes.
Democrats were out of power, out of ideas, and out of touch.
To change that, in 1985, I joined with a group of governors, senators, and representatives to form the Democratic Leadership Council. In 1990, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton became chairman of the DLC.
Share
Under Clinton’s leadership, we launched the New Democrat movement and forged a new policy agenda grounded in the values of opportunity, responsibility, and community,
Running as a New Democrat, Clinton ended the Democrats’ losing streak and reversed our fortunes in presidential elections. Between Clinton’s first victory in 1992 and Joe Biden’s in 2020, Democrats won the popular vote for president in seven of eight elections.
That streak was broken this year. While the Democratic party today is not at bedrock as it was after 1984 and 1988, the 2024 vote revealed disturbing trends that if not arrested could leave the party stranded again in the political wilderness.
It’s time for a new effort to fix the Democratic party’s brand.
This renewal effort needs to be led by a new generation of leaders—the outstanding crop of Democratic governors would be a good place to start—who can define challenges and solutions for the decades ahead. But they should keep in mind five things that made the DLC successful.
First, the DLC had a clear purpose: to develop an agenda, grounded in Democratic party principles, that could make us competitive again in the presidential elections. We believed that ideas mattered and that if we stood for the right things, the American people would once again turn to us for national leadership. It was no more complicated than that.
Second, the DLC offered Democrats a new face. Its members were among the party’s brightest rising stars. Under the DLC banner, they worked together and traveled the country to form a critical mass that became a new force in national politics. Nearly all had presidential aspirations, but they realized that for any of them to win the White House they needed to change our party first.
Third, the DLC was an insurgency. We built our own playing field and played by our own rules. We put on our own conferences and conventions. We arranged our own trips around the country. We raised our own money. We were neither part of nor sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee or the party’s other official campaign committees.
We pushed off not only Republicans but Democrats as well, where we believed Democratic orthodoxy must change. We were not afraid to ruffle feathers and take on intraparty fights when necessary to bring about change.
Share The Bulwark
We shored up Democratic weaknesses on the economy, crime, and national security. We stayed out of day-to-day fights and concentrated on developing big, defining ideas—like national service (AmeriCorps), the earned income tax credit, welfare reform, charter schools, community policing, and reinventing government—that told voters that we were different from the Democrats they had been voting against for a quarter century.
Fourth, the DLC eschewed interest group and identity politics. We restored a sense of national purpose to a party that had become dominated by constituency and narrow interest groups. We built a diverse coalition around shared principles and ideas. We believed that if we put together a new agenda, grounded in New Democrat values, Democrats of all races, ethnic groups, and ideological persuasions would rally around our flag. That’s what we did—and that’s what happened.
Finally, we had an outstanding candidate. In the end, parties are defined by their presidential nominees. Bill Clinton carried the DLC message into the primaries, and it didn’t hurt that he proved to be a generational political talent.
It’s true that 2024 is not 1985. Re-creating the DLC of back then is not an option; any new effort to fix the party must address the challenges Democrats face today. But the next generation of Democratic leaders can learn a lot by studying why the DLC was so successful.
www.thebulwark.com
What It Took to Fix the Democratic Brand Last Time Around
Today’s solutions will be different—but there are lessons worth learning from the story of the Democratic Leadership Council.
Al From
Dec 09, 2024
President Bill Clinton poses November 1, 1992 in Cherry Hill, N.J. Clinton, formerly the governor of Arkansas, was the first Democrat elected to two terms of office since Franklin D. Roosevelt. (Photo by Cynthia Johnson/Liaison)
DEMOCRATS PONDERING WHAT TO DO NEXT after November’s defeat would do well to remember how the party came back the last time it was in the political wilderness.
After the 1988 election, respected political analysts believed Republicans had a lock on the presidency. Democrats had lost five of the previous six presidential elections. In 1972 and again in 1984, the Democratic candidate lost 49 states. In the three elections in the 1980s, the Republican candidate won landslide victories, averaging 54 percent of the popular vote and nearly 90 percent of Electoral College votes.
Democrats were out of power, out of ideas, and out of touch.
To change that, in 1985, I joined with a group of governors, senators, and representatives to form the Democratic Leadership Council. In 1990, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton became chairman of the DLC.
Share
Under Clinton’s leadership, we launched the New Democrat movement and forged a new policy agenda grounded in the values of opportunity, responsibility, and community,
Running as a New Democrat, Clinton ended the Democrats’ losing streak and reversed our fortunes in presidential elections. Between Clinton’s first victory in 1992 and Joe Biden’s in 2020, Democrats won the popular vote for president in seven of eight elections.
That streak was broken this year. While the Democratic party today is not at bedrock as it was after 1984 and 1988, the 2024 vote revealed disturbing trends that if not arrested could leave the party stranded again in the political wilderness.
It’s time for a new effort to fix the Democratic party’s brand.
This renewal effort needs to be led by a new generation of leaders—the outstanding crop of Democratic governors would be a good place to start—who can define challenges and solutions for the decades ahead. But they should keep in mind five things that made the DLC successful.
First, the DLC had a clear purpose: to develop an agenda, grounded in Democratic party principles, that could make us competitive again in the presidential elections. We believed that ideas mattered and that if we stood for the right things, the American people would once again turn to us for national leadership. It was no more complicated than that.
Second, the DLC offered Democrats a new face. Its members were among the party’s brightest rising stars. Under the DLC banner, they worked together and traveled the country to form a critical mass that became a new force in national politics. Nearly all had presidential aspirations, but they realized that for any of them to win the White House they needed to change our party first.
Third, the DLC was an insurgency. We built our own playing field and played by our own rules. We put on our own conferences and conventions. We arranged our own trips around the country. We raised our own money. We were neither part of nor sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee or the party’s other official campaign committees.
We pushed off not only Republicans but Democrats as well, where we believed Democratic orthodoxy must change. We were not afraid to ruffle feathers and take on intraparty fights when necessary to bring about change.
Share The Bulwark
We shored up Democratic weaknesses on the economy, crime, and national security. We stayed out of day-to-day fights and concentrated on developing big, defining ideas—like national service (AmeriCorps), the earned income tax credit, welfare reform, charter schools, community policing, and reinventing government—that told voters that we were different from the Democrats they had been voting against for a quarter century.
Fourth, the DLC eschewed interest group and identity politics. We restored a sense of national purpose to a party that had become dominated by constituency and narrow interest groups. We built a diverse coalition around shared principles and ideas. We believed that if we put together a new agenda, grounded in New Democrat values, Democrats of all races, ethnic groups, and ideological persuasions would rally around our flag. That’s what we did—and that’s what happened.
Finally, we had an outstanding candidate. In the end, parties are defined by their presidential nominees. Bill Clinton carried the DLC message into the primaries, and it didn’t hurt that he proved to be a generational political talent.
It’s true that 2024 is not 1985. Re-creating the DLC of back then is not an option; any new effort to fix the party must address the challenges Democrats face today. But the next generation of Democratic leaders can learn a lot by studying why the DLC was so successful.
What It Took to Fix the Democratic Brand Last Time Around
Today’s solutions will be different—but there are lessons worth learning from the story of the Democratic Leadership Council.
www.thebulwark.com