Interesting analysis on schism in gop

[auburnatl1 4,929]

Actually done by Fox.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-power-rankings-2024-gop-presidential-frontrunner-challengers-second-place-candidates

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

So at this point I'm just not seeing a viable path for any of the contenders to beat Trump unless Trump himself decides (or is forced) out of the race. 

DeSantis's Support has been cratering for months and yet he's still seen as the 2nd best candidate in the race? 

 

Unless these polls are all wildly inaccurate then it's looking more and more likely that the GOP is still all in on MAGA and that Trump is going to be the Republican nominee in 2024

[auburnatl1 4,929]

20 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

So at this point I'm just not seeing a viable path for any of the contenders to beat Trump unless Trump himself decides (or is forced) out of the race. 

DeSantis's Support has been cratering for months and yet he's still seen as the 2nd best candidate in the race? 

 

Unless these polls are all wildly inaccurate then it's looking more and more likely that the GOP is still all in on MAGA and that Trump is going to be the Republican nominee in 2024

It definitely appears that conservatism is a waning ideology (unless they became independents - ie as I did) and that populism has eaten the Republican Party alive.

[TexasTiger 12,892]

The best hope is in NH. They listen more than most states and have a long primary season. Trump’s at only 39%. The problem is the opposition vote is scattered.

[AU9377 4,934]

Good read.  The only thing I would add is that there is a large portion of the Republican party that isn't firm in their ideology.  They can be described as populist only due to that being the position of Donald Trump.  They will follow his meandering thru issues, whatever those issues may be. 

A great example is his ditching of the pro life movement this week.  They would be calling most any other candidate a baby killer by now.  They conveniently ignore the topic when it comes to Trump.

This blind allegiance is the very thing that could have given him the platform to become one of the most effective Presidents in decades.  He had the political clout to actually lead and push consensus on major problems.  He would be half way thru his second term had he been that type leader.  Instead, he couldn't get out of his own way, his own insecurities and his own need for immediate affirmation.

Edited September 22, 2023 by AU9377

[icanthearyou 4,463]

On 9/20/2023 at 1:45 PM, auburnatl1 said:

populism has eaten the Republican Party alive

If only that were true.  Nationalism has eaten the party, the distorted type of nationalism that degrades the humanity of all other "tribes".

[homersapien 11,377]

On 9/22/2023 at 1:20 PM, icanthearyou said:

If only that were true.  Nationalism has eaten the party, the distorted type of nationalism that degrades the humanity of all other "tribes".

Nationalism and populism are variants of the same thing.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Nationalism and populism are variants of the same thing.

I'm not so sure.  I think there is a real difference between left wing and, right wing populism.  I believe populism has often been co-opted, distorted by nationalists.

 

[homersapien 11,377]

5 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I'm not so sure.  I think there is a real difference between left wing and, right wing populism.  I believe populism has often been co-opted, distorted by nationalists.

 

That's fair.

[auburnatl1 4,929]

6 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I'm not so sure.  I think there is a real difference between left wing and, right wing populism.  I believe populism has often been co-opted, distorted by nationalists.

 

I always get nervous when someone starts blaming “elites” for every problem in the world.  It’s stage 1 populism. I understand the point but it’s also a “them” mentality and a very slippery slope. I’ve seen both  extremes - maga and socialists - integrate this into their rants and mindset. Several on this site.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

15 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

I always get nervous when someone starts blaming “elites” for every problem in the world.

But aren't they running the world?  Do they not own the media, the means of production, the banks, the dominant political parties, the government?

It is not about punishing them.  It is about making society fair, equitable, just.

 

[auburnatl1 4,929]

16 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

But aren't they running the world?  Do they not own the media, the means of production, the banks, the dominant political parties, the government?

It is not about punishing them.  It is about making society fair, equitable, just.

 

You see capitalists as elites, maga sees gov institutions as elites.   Same mentality, different bad guys. Opposite ideologies, similar ideologies. Of course you have a point -  im just pushing back on excessive “them”ing.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

15 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

You see capitalists as elites, maga sees gov institutions as elites.   Same mentality, different bad guys. Opposite ideologies, similar ideologies. Of course you have a point -  im just pushing back on excessive “them”ing.

Why?  These are the people with power.  These are the people making policy.

 

[auburnatl1 4,929]

9 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Why?  These are the people with power.  These are the people making policy.

 

How does any society function without people leading it? Ie to use your term - “power”. Whether it’s Apple or the DOJ - they gotta have leaders.  That doesn’t mean everyone else is completely “powerless”.

imo The term “elite” has a Machiavellian   overtone to it that’s straight out of the populist playbook.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 minute ago, auburnatl1 said:

How does any society function without people leading it? Ie to use your term - “power”. Whether it’s Apple or the DOJ - they gotta have leaders.  That doesn’t mean everyone else is completely “powerless”.

imo The term “elite” has a Machiavellian   overtone to it that’s straight out of the populist playbook.

No, everyone else is relatively "powerless".  Power and wealth are that concentrated.  And that,,, is the problem.  Highly concentrated power serves itself, not society.  A "government of the people" was/is suppose to keep this from happening.  However, when power concentrates to the extent that even the government serves power,,, there is no "government of the people".  We have been here before.  It is not sustainable. 

It does not matter whether the government owns the means of production or, those who own the means of production own the government.  Either way, power will be served,,, only power.

Only you are focused on the individual "elites".  I am more concerned with the systems that have been created and/or distorted in order to serve their interests exclusively.

[auburnatl1 4,929]

1 minute ago, icanthearyou said:

No, everyone else is relatively "powerless".  Power and wealth are that concentrated.  And that,,, is the problem.  Highly concentrated power serves itself, not society.  A "government of the people" was/is suppose to keep this from happening.  However, when power concentrates to the extent that even the government serves power,,, there is no "government of the people".  We have been here before.  It is not sustainable. 

It does not matter whether the government owns the means of production or, those who own the means of production own the government.  Either way, power will be served,,, only power.

Only you are focused on the individual "elites".  I am more concerned with the systems that have been created and/or distorted in order to serve their interests exclusively.

Where you an I disagree is that you almost delineate people into 2 subspecies. I see us as one - but with very different abilities. Go on any 3rd grade playground - leaders and followers. The classroom - smart and less so. Football field - same thing. It’s the human condition. Again, I understand your point that the system isn’t fair and that poverty is a cycle.  My only point was that pure elitism focus is a defeatist, dog whistle mentality and needs to be balanced with solving the problem - which imo begins with a manic, longer term focus on improving education. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

28 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Where you an I disagree is that you almost delineate people into 2 subspecies. I see us as one - but with very different abilities. Go on any 3rd grade playground - leaders and followers. The classroom - smart and less so. Football field - same thing. It’s the human condition. Again, I understand your point that the system isn’t fair and that poverty is a cycle.  My only point was that pure elitism focus is a defeatist, dog whistle mentality and needs to be balanced with solving the problem - which imo begins with a manic, longer term focus on improving education. 

Not really.  You are the one making this about individuals.  My point is about the breakdown of systems that are suppose to limit the use and abuse of power.

We cannot afford an over class.  We cannot have democracy and capitalism that is consumption/debt based.  There is no democracy or, capitalism in a society in which a few own the media, the means of production, the financial system and, the government.  Equality is essential for real liberty.

Without unrestricted campaign finance, without lobbying, without privatization, without financialization, without deregulation,,, there would be no oligarchs.

I believe you are being totally dishonest.  I do not believe you really want to defend the elite.  I believe you are typical of your environment.  You want to drive the car by only steering to the right.  You cannot imagine even the most incremental move to the left.  You have been masterfully trained to revere capital, the revere the capitalist, to believe in all things moving to the political right.

Interesting that your solution is limited to education.  Education is important but,,, education is now about debt, at least for those who are not already wealthy.  Education itself has become part of the financialization.  It is part of what keeps us from re-industrializing.  Workers who are saddled with debt, high rent, low access to medical care, high food costs are going to demand high wages.  IMHO, we have to get back to the idea that necessities are a somewhat socialized economy.  Insecurity is great for control.  Control is great for a financialized economy.  However, for real productivity, insecurity is expensive and inefficient.

Edited September 25, 2023 by icanthearyou

[auburnatl1 4,929]

17 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Not really.  You are the one making this about individuals.  My point is about the breakdown of systems that are suppose to limit the use and abuse of power.

We cannot afford an over class.  We cannot have democracy and capitalism that is consumption/debt based.  There is no democracy or, capitalism in a society in which a few own the media, the means of production, the financial system and, the government.  Equality is essential for real liberty.

Without unrestricted campaign finance, without lobbying, without privatization, without financialization, without deregulation,,, there would be no oligarchs.

I believe you are being totally dishonest.  I do not believe you really want to defend the elite.  I believe you are typical of your environment.  You want to drive the car by only steering to the right.  You cannot imagine even the most incremental move to the left.  You have been masterfully trained to revere capital, the revere the capitalist, to believe in all things moving to the political right.

Required no training - I’m a capitalist at the genetic level. Worse - I ran a nyse company. Guess Im about to be tagged. Btw diabolical structures aside, why have Indian and Asian immigrates thrived in this country? Either 1) the elites planned it that way or 2) the first generation had a manic focus on their children’s education. You pick.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Required no training - I’m a capitalist at the genetic level. Worse - I ran a nyse company. Guess Im about to be tagged. Btw diabolical structures aside, why have Indian and Asian immigrates thrived in this country? Either 1) the elites planned it that way or 2) the first generation had a manic focus on their children’s education. You pick.

Well, do we really need to bring in a geneticist to refute that ridiculousness?  Thank you for precisely making my point.  You cannot fathom any answers other than pure power.  At your core you are close minded, ideological, extremely biased,,, regardless of history and example.  Ignorant, disingenuous or, trained?

How many of them came to this country with capital?  Or, were selected because of unique skills or, knowledge?  

"Tagged"?  I am sorry you take this personally.  However, I sincerely doubt you are one of the wealthiest people in our society.  If you are,,, then you understand how our systems work to ensure the continuance of wealth and power.  And,,, you are being highly disingenuous.

The answers for a better society lie in balancing the interests of capital and society.  The answers lie in productivity, not debt.  The answers lie in prosperity for all, not merely a few.

 

[homersapien 11,377]

19 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

Where you an I disagree is that you almost delineate people into 2 subspecies. I see us as one - but with very different abilities. Go on any 3rd grade playground - leaders and followers. The classroom - smart and less so. Football field - same thing. It’s the human condition. Again, I understand your point that the system isn’t fair and that poverty is a cycle.  My only point was that pure elitism focus is a defeatist, dog whistle mentality and needs to be balanced with solving the problem - which imo begins with a manic, longer term focus on improving education. 

This ^

And in a healthy society, there will always be a degree of tension between the "leaders" and the "followers". 

It's tricky balance for democracies to maintain.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

It's tricky balance for democracies to maintain.

I disagree.  Society can function in relative harmony when,,, the interests of capital and the interests of society are in balance.

IMHO, that is what good government does.  Our current financialized model of "capitalism" is fundamentally exploitative and corrupt.

[auburnatl1 4,929]

On 9/26/2023 at 11:01 AM, icanthearyou said:

I disagree.  Society can function in relative harmony when,,, the interests of capital and the interests of society are in balance.

IMHO, that is what good government does.  Our current financialized model of "capitalism" is fundamentally exploitative and corrupt.

Simplistically this is the coaching vs players debate.  How best to improve the “team”. You see it as a system (coaching) problem. The institutions aren’t prioritized and aligned correctly.  Bad “scheme”. Imo You see poor performance (inequity) as because of poor macro level issues. I see it more as an individual (player) problem. Micro issues. Improve player “talent”. Raise the education, skills, and impact of individuals and the team improves by nature (imo exponentially).

Both sides have merit.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

Simplistically this is the coaching vs players debate.  How best to improve the “team”. You see it as a system (coaching) problem. The institutions aren’t prioritized and aligned correctly.  Bad “scheme”. Imo You see poor performance (inequity) as because of poor macro level issues. I see it more as an individual (player) problem. Micro issues. Improve player “talent”. Raise the education, skills, and impact of individuals and the team improves by nature (imo exponentially).

Both sides have merit.

No, we have been here before.  There is adequate history.

The needs of business/capital have become vastly more prioritized than the needs of society. 

This is a system failure.

You cannot fathom an imperfection in capitalism.  Therefore, you blame those at the bottom.  It is foolish.

Lack of humanity, corruption and, greed are causes of inequality.

 

[auburnatl1 4,929]

17 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

No, we have been here before.  There is adequate history.

The needs of business/capital have become vastly more prioritized than the needs of society. 

This is a system failure.

You cannot fathom an imperfection in capitalism.  Therefore, you blame those at the bottom.  It is foolish.

Lack of humanity, corruption and, greed are causes of inequality.

 

Maybe. But if someone leaves school with no skill or trade (US citizens without high school diploma is 10% - 25million, much the less trade school or college), there is no magical balance society with capital system that will save them. Doomed to gov dependence, crime, hopelessness, ect.

Youve fixated on a solution.  And it has warrant. But you’re mainly solving the effect. Not the cause.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

20 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

Maybe. But if someone leaves school with no skill or trade (US citizens without high school diploma is 10% - 25million, much the less trade school or college), there is no magical balance society with capital system that will save them. Doomed to gov dependence, crime, hopelessness, ect.

Youve fixated on a solution.  And it has warrant. But you’re mainly solving the effect. Not the cause.

No.  People who are desperately poor cannot see the value of education.  They are too busy with the burden of mere survival.

The first thing you have to give people is hope, a reason for hope.

You cannot defend this level of inequality.  It is inhumane.  It is immoral.