The politics of 2024 and who do you think will be best for us

[Willow]

In the United States we are facing a deep divide in our government that is only getting deeper.  We are one of the political pawns being used to make that divide worse.

 

If permitted, I thought it might be time to generate a conversation about what we need so that we aren’t driven back to hiding from life much as it was before the protests of the 1980.

This is to be about us, not about any political party.  If this gets moving, as a discussion, please make it about what a candidate is for or against, not which party is best.  I intend to stick to individuals regardless of party affiliation.  Discussing both the good and bad.  Please, jump in.  This is a debate not an argument.

 

Willow

 

President Biden isn’t really doing much but giving us lip service.  He doesn’t have the backing in Congress to prevent our basic human rights from being trampled.  He lost Roe vs Wade and he will likely loose others soon.  
 

It is almost a given should Trump manage to get re-elected that we will be pushed back decades of progress.  
 

Let’s start talking about what we need and as possibilities arise who is most likely going to support us.

 

Nikki Halley  just announced.  I think she may have jumped in too soon to be a difference maker.  But look at her history in South Carolina.  I have to say that she could be a friend.  As governor she blocked many anti-transgender bills.  From allowing health care to banning the bathroom bill that would have made it an arrestable offense for us to use a public restroom.  

 

Who else is out there with any possible chance that would not force us to go into hiding again?  

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, Willow said:

President Biden isn’t really doing much but giving us lip service. 

This sounds exactly like mainstream media propaganda. This being the same mainstream media that’s spent the past two years pretending Biden’s strong economy is weak, pretending Biden’s strong approval rating is in the thirties, and pretending Biden is too old to be able to do the job. But in the real world, Biden has been absolutely nailing it for the past two years. After the media saw the midterm results, it was always going to have to revise its take on Biden’s presidency. After all, the American people clearly think Biden is doing far better than the media has been claiming. The question was when and how the media would begin to revise its approach. More than anything, President Biden’s recent State of the Union Address could just be the inflection point at which the mainstream media may finally be ready to admit that Biden is indeed kicking ass. Now if only they hadn’t first wasted two years of our time. 

 

I support President Joe Biden in 2024 to continue to work for us and our country. 

-Andrea

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Andrea Nicole said:

I support President Joe Biden in 2024 to continue to work for us and our country. 

Categorically not "lip service":

 

 https://www.glaad.org/biden-harris

[Marcie Jensen]

1 hour ago, Willow said:

Nikki Halley  just announced.  I think she may have jumped in too soon to be a difference maker.  But look at her history in South Carolina.  I have to say that she could be a friend.  As governor she blocked many anti-transgender bills.  From allowing health care to banning the bathroom bill that would have made it an arrestable offense for us to use a public restroom.  

I don't know a lot about her, honestly. But, from what I do know, Willow has a solid and valid point here. Ms. Halley has worked in a bipartisan manner as governor, appears to be intelligent and pretty sensible and doesn't chase wild ideas. That may make her unelectable, sadly.

[April Marie]

Unfortunately, our country is being driven by the extremes of both parties with the vast majority of people somewhere left or right of center. A Republic, our Republic, is designed to work somewhere close to the middle where politicians recognize that making wise concessions isn't weakness but rather represents the reality of where the majority of people reside philosophically.

 

I just finished reading Ambassador Halley's book - a good insight into her thought process, her values and her work ethic. I would have voted for her in the last election - would do so in a heartbeat.

 

Of course, this is all my own opinion and YMMV

[Willow]

@Andrea Nicole  I respect your opinion and welcome all input.  I would only like it pointed out that I am not campaigning for or against anyone.  That my statement regarding President Biden struck you as being some news media anti Biden play on my part is not really where I stand.

 

@April Marie I would agree that we have become a country of extremism both right and left.  The majority of Americans are most likely some where close to the middle but the people running for office are being cowards and going along with party extremism believe that is what they must do.  We need a more centrist country.

 

All, as more and more candidates announce, there will be more to talk about.  But please do your own research on each and every one.  I have no clue who will end up as the candidates.  Not being a native South Carolinian I did not know much about Hailey.  But I read her bio and discovered things about her that like @Jackie C. makes her a good ally to us and a better center it’s as she has supported both Republicans and Democrats.  But I also see that as being a reason she won’t make it past the contempt between to parties.

 

 

[VickySGV]

In France one time the Prime Minister asked the society of merchants in Paris what the government could do for them to help them.  The merchants as a whole told him "Nothing, do nothing at all for us."   I

 

I am reaching that point with the Federal level  of things other than getting the Equal Rights Bill put in place.  We are doing worse as a national issue and will do better state by state even though some will be rougher than others.

[Marcie Jensen]

Hmm. Limited federal government seems to be a common thread throughout this discussion. That seems to be a return to the initial interpretation of the constitution, which gave the individual states greater jurisdiction over their own affairs.Interesting; particularly as the supremacy of the fed did not become entrenched until after the Civil War. In fact, James McPherson, acclaimed historian and author of th4e pulitzer winning Battle Cry of Freedom makes the comment that one of the most overlooked aspects of that conflict is how the country refers to itself. Specifically, prior to the Civil war, the USA was referred to in the plural (ie: The United States ARE...) and post Civil War singularly, or more properly as a monolith (ie: the United Stat4es IS.)

 

Seemingly a minor thing, the csince;hange has had a huge impact on this country. If a return to, pardon the phrase, leads to increased states' rights and thus increased individual liberty and tolerance, Vicky's point is especially apt. I have to agree that it will be rougher in some states than others, but this may very well be better in the long run.

[Ivy]

1 hour ago, Marcie Jensen said:

I have to agree that it will be rougher in some states than others, but this may very well be better in the long run.

This is kinda hard on those who are stuck in "red" states.  I kinda like the idea of some protection at the federal level.  Somehow it's hard to think of "don't kill these people" as government overreach.

But of course I'm only one of those libtards that doesn't understand reality.

[Sally Stone]

Oh, I have so many thoughts floating around in my head, I'm struggling to decide which one to comment on.  I think the biggest thing for me is to have a government that enacts policies that achieve the greatest good.  Obviously, this is a loaded statement because I am inferring that our government cannot please everybody.  Reasonable government spending has to match what the government actually takes in, which means we have to make careful choices about where to spend.  This means not every program, even programs that are meaningful to some, get funded.  It's a difficult truth to accept but there's only so much money to go around, which means our government should be focusing on programs that have the broadest impact.  I know, what am I smoking, right?  Unfortunately, this is reality.

[Willow]

Some very good points are being made.  Exactly what I had hoped to get.

 

Interesting point,  United States ARE verses The United States IS.  
 

An interesting point. Nikki is being criticized in the media for saying “the states had a right to secede”. Of course being a southern governor it wouldn’t be out of place to defend states rights.  What is interesting is how the party of Abraham Lincoln has switched to the opposite side in human rights.  I do think the United States ARE stronger as a single unified nation as opposed to being two separate nations.  
 

I suppose that’s why the European countries have formed the European Union.  
 

So, does Nikki have much of a chance of becoming our next President?  Not as long as we continue to allow the media to decide what we know and don’t know about the people they want in office.  
 

Why were we forced to withdraw from Vietnam?  Was it because we were loosing or because the media tied our hands?  What about the Clinton Bush election?  Why didn’t the media report Clinton’s indiscretions that were known to them?  During more recent elections what part did the FBI play in hiding and or releasing information and did that change the election?

 

Why is the justice department dragging their feet on Trump’s roll in the January 6th acts of sedition and the attempted overthrow of our constitution.  Or having so many classified documents?

 

Similarly, what about Biden also having classified documents stored in various places.  And then there is the whole Hunter Biden affair.  
 

My point is, we may cast the ballots but who really controls how we vote?

 

[Marcie Jensen]

52 minutes ago, Willow said:

 

My point is, we may cast the ballots but who really controls how we vote?

 

A point very well taken. If I might rephrase it a bit? After what happened here in AZ in the last election (full disclosure: I didn't vote for either.) where essentially we had a governor's election where the democratic candidate, who refused to recuse herself, said "let's you and I have an election and I'll count the votes." I think the question might be better phrased as not who controls how we vote, but rather "who controls HOW the votes are counted and by whom?"

 

Just some food for thought...

[Marcie Jensen]

Oh, and I dare say the question of the right of secession was settled once and for all in 1865 after four years of bloody conflict and over 800,000 casualties not counting civilians. It doesn't matter very much what any politician says about it. The Civil War and re-admittance to the Union got rid of Texas' right under her initial petition for statehood to split into 5 separate smaller states.

 

Just think about the way the senate would look and vote if the GOP had an 8 additional votes...

[awkward-yet-sweet]

Nikki is kinda cute, but I don't think she'll get the votes.  And the bipartianism is a strike against her in most red states.  I'd love to see a viable third party (or several) to take out the main two, as I believe the Republicans are bad and the Democrats are worse.  Biden didn't have my vote in 2020, and definitely won't in 2024 after the economic horror we're watching. 

 

@Marcie Jensen The war may have been over in 1865, but it is not over in the hearts of many.  There's a statue in the square of the nearby town of my husband's great-great-great grandfather - a Confederate officer fondly remembered.  I suspect that the next time there is secession it will succeed, but it won't be just two sides and it definitely won't be a return to the Southern Confederacy.  I've seen theorists say the country could split into 5 or 6 different regional pieces, but who knows. 

 

I believe elections are rigged one way or another.  It is traditional, and not unique to 2016 or 2020.  2024 will see both sides trying to do it again.  And if 2020 was any indication, there will probably be chaos and street violence and all manner of awful things.  I hated 2020.  We lived in fear from disease, political violence, looting and government overreach even in our rural area. 

 

It got so bad the sheriff locked down our county borders.  We had quarantine checkpoints and barricades on the highway, barbed wire, and defense patrols were mobilized until February 2021.  A couple other counties nearby were the same way, and if it had gotten worse our county governments were prepared to declare an independent economic zone.  De-facto secession from the state.  I hope it won't come to that in 2024, but that worry is in the back of my mind.  Three of the people I love are in uniform, and my oldest stepkid is a cadet and will be joining at the end of spring.  They'll be on the front line of whatever craziness shows up. 

 

I would love to see the Federal Government return to its original role.  "You had just one job."  Keep foreign armies out.  That's basically it.  Occasionally settle disputes between states, and apply tariffs to imports to create advantageous conditions for domestic industry.  Feds went crazy after 1865, and things have never turned around.  1894 - IRS created.  1913 - Federal Reserve created, 16th Amendment ratified.  1918 - a European war we never should have gone into.  1941 - a second (avoidable) war caused by the first one we shouldn't have been in.  Post WW2 and now we have "America: World Police." with a giant standing army and bloated government.  If we can't have merely a tiny Federal Government, we ought to eliminate it entirely.

 

 

 

 

[Willow]

I am happy to see the dialogue here.  It shows to me that we care and are concerned and that is a good thing.

 

I absolutely believe the time is right for a third party to break into the leadership of our country.  But not several different ones, that will only divide the votes and keep them out.  Also, they will need to have a good center platform and recognizable candidate.  And of course there is financing and congressional candidates people can get behind.  I believe it is possible but not with multiple parties and candidates, they can’t get anywhere near enough votes.

 

Allegedly, Jill Biden doesn’t want another Joe Biden campaign.  And I can’t imagine Trump winning again, there are too many allegations against him of wrongdoing.  But what are they waiting for?

 

willow

[Marcie Jensen]

26 minutes ago, Willow said:

I am happy to see the dialogue here.  It shows to me that we care and are concerned and that is a good thing.

 

I absolutely believe the time is right for a third party to break into the leadership of our country.  But not several different ones, that will only divide the votes and keep them out.  Also, they will need to have a good center platform and recognizable candidate.  And of course there is financing and congressional candidates people can get behind.  I believe it is possible but not with multiple parties and candidates, they can’t get anywhere near enough votes.

 

Allegedly, Jill Biden doesn’t want another Joe Biden campaign.  And I can’t imagine Trump winning again, there are too many allegations against him of wrongdoing.  But what are they waiting for?

 

willow

Willow, that was nicely put. I couldn't agree more.

 

And, @awkward-yet-sweet, I didn't say the Civil War ENDED in 1865. I said the question of the RIGHT OF SECESSION ended in 1865. As did the question of slavery. The effects of the Civil war haven't ended to this day, nor do I expect them to end soon. For example, the effects of reconstruction too nearly 100 years for the south to recover from, and many parts of the region have yet to fully recover. I had ancestors who fought on both sides--literally brother against brother--and mostly in small engagements along the KS/MO border. (Yeah, I'm kind of a history nerd.) lol.

 

Your point about potential balkaniztion is well taken, too. I would highly recommend the book America's Next Civil War for those interested. It's well written, provides some plausible scenarios and is unbiased. It's written by a Canadian whose name escapes me and it really makes one think about the future of the USA well beyond 2024.

[Ivy]

43 minutes ago, Willow said:

Allegedly, Jill Biden doesn’t want another Joe Biden campaign.

I think Biden's age should be a consideration -- also TFG and some other particularly in the senate.  Maybe not a dealbreaker, but still….      Perhaps it is time for the next generation to step up.

 

Personally, I've been fine with getting out of the way for my kids to be the motivators.

[Ivy]

49 minutes ago, Willow said:

I absolutely believe the time is right for a third party to break into the leadership of our country.

I think it would be good to have more than 2 parties.   I mean, we do -- kinda.   But the thing is it seems impossible for a 3rd party to actually gain any power other than as a spoiler.

 

Here in NC the Democrats were fighting in court to keep the Green Party off of the ballot.  They feared that some of their support would be lost to the Greens.

 

At this point our political situation is pretty much set up to keep only the 2 major parties in power.  We don't seem to have any mechanism for any coalition form of government.  Pity, since that might force those in power to be more willing to compromise, which would probably be a good thing.

[Marcie Jensen]

@Ivy you raise a couple of good points about potential third parties. I think you're spot on. The only thing where we disagree, at it's very minor, is your point about coalition governments. (I'm thinking you're referring to the European parliamentary model here? If not, please correct me.)

 

There are a couple of things in the US that stand in it's way. First is the separation of powers into three branches of government. To illustrate, keep in mind that in a parliamentary system (such as the UK, Germany, France, etc) the Prime Minister who actually runs things, remains as a sitting member of the legislative branch and the chief executive is merely a figurehead (ie: king, premier, president). Second is that when our current form of government was formed, the founders hated the notion of political parties and didn't envision their rise in the US. Consequently, they took no measures about them and now, the two major ones are so firmly in power that getting rid of them is virtually impossible. And both have become so radicalized that compromise is out of the question. It's tragic, really, because the federal government is rapidly approaching the point where it can no longer function. When that happens, history teaches us that the government will change. Usually violently and painfully.

[awkward-yet-sweet]

1 hour ago, Marcie Jensen said:

And, @awkward-yet-sweet, I didn't say the Civil War ENDED in 1865. I said the question of the RIGHT OF SECESSION ended in 1865. As did the question of slavery.

 

I would argue that even the question of the right of secession wasn't solved, except by military force.  Of course, how are any laws made binding except by threat?  Any time enough military force gets raised, it can and will come up again....laws or no laws.  I would say that secession is a natural right, as people should only be governed by something they consent to.  I, personally, do not consent to the existence or behavior of our government.  I view the Federal government as loathsome, and I resent the huge effect that people who live far away from me have upon our local area.  The state government is annoyingly cooperative with the Feds, and will need replacement as well.  I obey only as far as I am forced to.  Its like dealing with the Mafia.  And any time I have the option of sticking it in Uncle Sam's eye....

 

Unfortunately, I think the probability of peaceful and productive political change is around 0%.  Things just keep getting worse.  The only question is how long people are going to put up with it and drag out the process before they finally give up.  People are less likely to engage in resistance as long as there's affordable food, fuel, and sufficient employment.  Every time the establishment acts in a way that threatens those things, they threaten their own future ability to remain in power.  It is only inertia and relative contentment that keeps things from going crazy. 

 

 

 

[Ivy]

28 minutes ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

I resent the huge effect that people who live far away from me have upon our local area. 

I could be mis-remembering, (new word?) but I have seen Anarchy explained as a political system being about returning to local control, presumably by consensus.  

 

On a different note, if we can function on a national level, we have many more resources available, for example in a natural disaster (like a hurricane?).  How well that is directed is an other question.

[KathyLauren]

1 hour ago, Ivy said:

I think it would be good to have more than 2 parties.   I mean, we do -- kinda.   But the thing is it seems impossible for a 3rd party to actually gain any power other than as a spoiler.

 

Here in NC the Democrats were fighting in court to keep the Green Party off of the ballot.  They feared that some of their support would be lost to the Greens.

 

At this point our political situation is pretty much set up to keep only the 2 major parties in power.  We don't seem to have any mechanism for any coalition form of government.  Pity, since that might force those in power to be more willing to compromise, which would probably be a good thing.

 

Here in Canada, we used to have two parties on the right and two parties on the left.  The minority party on either side gave disgruntled voters a place to go if the major party got them pissed off.  I think it made for a more representative distribution of votes and allowed coalition governments to work when neither major part could get a majority.

 

That ended when a campaign to "unite the right" successfully united moderate and extreme conservatives under one party.  So now we have two on the left and one on the right.  Voters to the right of centre have only one party to vote for, regardless of whether they are moderates or extremists.  It takes some extreme disgruntlement for voters to switch sides entirely, meaning that many of them have to put up with a party that doesn't really represent their views.

 

The major party on the left is currently in power, helped in a coalition by the minor left-wing party.  The problem for them is that, with only one party on the other side, a plurality of votes is not enough to govern: they need either an absolute majority or a coalition.

 

The consensus here seems to be that multiple parties produce better government.  But uniting one side of the spectrum is a one-way trip.  Since they are more likely to form a government, they will never decide to split, no matter how bad the provokation.  The only way to beat them is to join them and unite the left.  But that puts us in the same position as the US, with a polarized two-party system.

[Marcie Jensen]

46 minutes ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

 

I would argue that even the question of the right of secession wasn't solved, except by military force.   I would say that secession is a natural right, 

 

Unfortunately, I think the probability of peaceful and productive political change is around 0%.  

 

 

 

Regarding secession; It was absolutely solved by military force. And frankly, pretty thoroughly. The use of military force doesn't invalidate the empirical evidence that in the United States the secession question was resolved in 1865. It was. Period. As to it being a "natural right," well, if it works, it's called revolution historically. If it doesn't it's called treason. This is not a value judgement, BTW. It's a fact borne out by history and , honestly, a grim reality. for

 

As to your second point, again borne out by history, ir is just about 0%. Even when India got independence from the UK after WW2, there was a great deal of violence. And keep in mind India was led by Ghandi history's foremost pacifist. irony there)

 

The fact of the matter is, whether we like it or not, that governments exist only so long as they serve the interests of the people or are imposed by force. (The latter is is tyranny or totalitarianism. ) When a government no longer serves the interest of the people it governs, it is replaced, almost always violently. There may be some historical examples of non-violent replacement but I'm unaware of them. Even in countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, where home rule has been granted as part of the "Commonwealth," the English monarch remains the titular head of state.

 

We're getting off into the weeds here and need to return to the original topic.

[Marcie Jensen]

Good point, @KathyLauren, however, unless I'm mistaken Canada's government is a parliamentary system modeled after that of the UK. Please correct me if I'm in error. Whereas the system of the USA is not. Superficially the systems are quite similar, but the US constitution uses a different model wherein the branches of government are literally separate but coequal (for example, the president [chief executive] cannot and does not sit as a member of congress) and operates under a system of checks and balances that actually discourages any sort of coalition government here. 

 

Frankly, I like the idea of multiple parties. I agree it would improve how government works. Sadly, it's extremely difficult to form effective third political parties when the majority parties are so firmly entrenched as they are in the US and if I understand you correctly, as they are in Canada.

[awkward-yet-sweet]

40 minutes ago, Ivy said:

I could be mis-remembering, (new word?) but I have seen Anarchy explained as a political system being about returning to local control, presumably by consensus.  

 

Although I don't see myself as an anarchist, perhaps anarchy would be preferable at times.  I don't think that having a mostly local government is actually anarchy.  To me, anarchy is no government at all, which would lead to too much chaos.  My GF is actually a hardcore anarchist... but she's strong enough to survive that kind of world.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Marcie Jensen said:

As to it being a "natural right," well, if it works, it's called revolution historically. If it doesn't it's called treason.

 

We're getting off into the weeds here and need to return to the original topic.

 

Actually, I suspect that revolution is on topic.  Because one way or another, I see it as a very likely possibility in the next 10 years.  In 2020, it nearly happened here.