Democratic (Party) Direction

XPost Uselessly broad references to opposing “party establishment” doesn’t really count. It me a lot about all of the NYT profile style whitewashing pieces on Trump supporters.

*reminds me of

the Kochs are more than willing to abjure their ostensible "libertarianism" in favor of white ethnocentrism if it gets them the wins that really matter.

otm. the Krupps made similar calculations.

No, Trump support was not fueled by backlash against Koch Brothers influence.

― Nerdstrom Poindexter, Wednesday, June 20, 2018 12:47 PM (nine minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The Trump base differs distinctly from the Kochs on immigration. Kochs were a big backer of the Gang of 8 immigration reform bill that helped spark the anti-immigrant/white-supremacist rebellion within the party.

If placating white supremacists is the price to get those $1.7 trillion in tax cuts passed, the Kochs wouldn't hesitate over differences on immigration policy.

That's mostly just a Sanders-soundbite, no?

“Ezra Klein: You said being a democratic socialist means a more international view. I think if you take global poverty that seriously, it leads you to conclusions that in the US are considered out of political bounds. Things like sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders. About sharply increasing ...”
“Bernie Sanders: Open borders? No, that's a Koch brothers proposal.”
“Ezra Klein: Really?”
“Bernie Sanders: Of course. That's a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States.”

If placating white supremacists is the price to get those $1.7 trillion in tax cuts passed, the Kochs wouldn't hesitate over differences on immigration policy.

― A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, June 20, 2018 1:11 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Not sure I agree with this. Immigration reform is a pretty central part of pro-business libertarianism, which wants more movement of workers to depress wages (combined with fewer worker protections).

lol Fred are you saying Bernie Sanders is unfairly smearing the Koch Bros, that's a position you actually want to take?

No, I'm saying you should try and get your news from different sources. Also, being pro open borders is not really a 'smear' in my book.

But I mean, there's no doubt that the Koch Brothers are out of step with Trump here: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/19/koch-libre-against-house-immigration-bills-654201

I'm "getting my news" from people who have written books on the Koch Bros, not from Sanders

oh, suddenly there's "no doubt", I guess you googled it and backtracked

yeah but like, have you considered, uh

I get all my news from the Jyllands-Posten

jfc that Bernie quote

<3 open borders

the koch vision of open borders is nothing like what you probably have in mind

it's based on the concept of large population indentured servitude by individual contract with is weird

the koch vision of open borders is nothing like what you probably have in mind

― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Wednesday, June 20, 2018 2:32 PM (two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

true, but even a libertarian version of open borders would be the greatest humanitarian policy in history

the libertarian version of open borders looks something like the "guest worker" programs in saudi arabia and dubai and is definitely not humanitarian

some "true libertarians" literally believe in open borders, no conditions

well yeah, but those are unicorns, I'm talking about the Koch Bros

I mean there are college libertarians who believe that stuff in the abstract, but no one on the right with any power does

oh, suddenly there's "no doubt", I guess you googled it and backtracked

― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), 20. juni 2018 20:17 (twenty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

You think that link backs up your claims? Lol.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/X4wtQRMju29c82CYA1VLJ6eTSQWYhuAZ7OHMfwkJYI4r0nTfiBhGZxCIyU4DdOQFcUkZnybxJKb3cQeJCJvqTVlhiQ7vI7m7HoplAJo=w800-l68

Quoting myself on the "open or national borders?" thread:

Obviously, there are some personal benefits for an individual to be able to move about in the world without restraint. But there are even greater benefits in maintaining somewhat stable social and legal institutions. In the absence of a complex and sophisticated worldwide legal framework, the complete elimination of borders would, just for a start, cripple the ability of any governmental entity to collect taxes or enforce law. We'd all be in the libertarian's idea of heaven in three shakes of a lamb's tail.

― Aimless, Sunday, June 29, 2014

Fred can you stop with your weird evasive bullshit, ever, and just make the point you are trying to make because I don't actually know what it is?

Also agree with Aimless. Even the left version of open borders doesn't work without stronger international governance bodies.

stronger international governance bodies

i'm starting to think my utopian future isn't very realistic. picard would get the Federation on the blower and make sure open planets were justly governed, but in 2017 trump had to go and break the space treaty so now its Ferengi universe.

My point is that you're stupid and wrong. The fact that Koch supports immigration reform does not mean that the Trump backlash is in any way related to a backlash against their influence. Trump was pushing birtherism long before the Gang of 8 wrote their first draft, for instance. You've got half a point, and then you're taking it in a completely stupid direction. And it seems to mostly be trying to fit left-wing soundbites into where they don't belong. Right-wing voters don't care about dark money, they aren't complaining about the Mercers promoting Breitbart and Trump.

And I'm not trying to be evasive, there's just really a limit to how much effort I'm going to spend on explaining the simplest things about your own country's recent history, while being shouted at for being a foreigner, lol.

No, you're misconstruing my point. My point is that the outsized influence of the Koch Bros has pushed Republicans to support policies that are not actually popular with the base, immigration reform being a good example. This opened up an opportunity for an upstart Republican candidate to capitalize on anti-immigrant sentiment and nativism among the base.

It has nothing to do whatsoever with whether voters like the Koch Bros or dark money, it has to do with the Koch Bros influence on the party.

couldn't citizens united have helped trump too since previously non-viable candidates could be flush with cash and think they had a chance? hence debate A and debate B and the whole clown car

left a vacuum for someone like him

I don't think so, Citizens United worsened the money-in-politics landscape but did not completely remake it

xps - So, what you are saying is that the backlash is not against the Kochs directly, but against Republicans being highly effective in fulfilling the policy agenda of billionaires, while being mostly ineffective at fulfilling the policy agenda of white supremacists?

Although I guess there is something to the idea that there were a few candidates that seemed to have "their own billionaire" but not much popular support, and I guess Citizens United did grease the runway for that the more I think about, so yeah, maybe. xp

No, you're misconstruing my point. My point is that the outsized influence of the Koch Bros has pushed Republicans to support policies that are not actually popular with the base, immigration reform being a good example. This opened up an opportunity for an upstart Republican candidate to capitalize on anti-immigrant sentiment and nativism among the base.

― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), 20. juni 2018 21:05 (two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

But dude, immigration reform didn't pass. Never came up for a vote in the house. If it's an example of the Kochs outsize influence, then their influence aren't that big. And Mitt Romney ran on anti-immigration sentiment as well - and lost, which is probably the bigger reason the party tried reform. And Trump pushes most of same policies the big backers want - removing benefits while giving tax cuts to the rich - and the base doesn't care. It's a bad point.

xps - So, what you are saying is that the backlash is not against the Kochs directly, but against Republicans being highly effective in fulfilling the policy agenda of billionaires, while being mostly ineffective at fulfilling the policy agenda of white supremacists?

― A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, June 20, 2018 2:10 PM (forty-four seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ha, well yeah to an extent. I think the interrelationship between white supremacy, nativism, populism and economics are also more complex than tends to get teased out in these threads but I'm kind of tired of that debate now. But if you have a group who feels like their standard of living and security is being eroded, and you have a party that appears pro-immigration, and then you have a demagogue come in and say "it's the immigrants taking your jobs, and these people want to let them in" you get a nice stew of racism, resentment and economic anxiety.

But dude, immigration reform didn't pass. Never came up for a vote in the house. If it's an example of the Kochs outsize influence, then their influence aren't that big. And Mitt Romney ran on anti-immigration sentiment as well - and lost, which is probably the bigger reason the party tried reform. And Trump pushes most of same policies the big backers want - removing benefits while giving tax cuts to the rich - and the base doesn't care. It's a bad point.

― Frederik B, Wednesday, June 20, 2018 2:12 PM (four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

That's because the Gang of 8 bill was a major turning point wherein a lot of the same strategists who went on to back Trump harnessed and stoked a huge backlash. This is not something I'm pulling out of my ass, it's been widely written about.

fwiw, if the presumed point of Koch's desire for immigration reform is to depress wages, then this is just one avenue to greatly increased profits and having a docile workforce with few rights or protections. Those primary goals are already being well served in other ways than through guest worker programs.

That's because the Gang of 8 bill was a major turning point wherein a lot of the same strategists who went on to back Trump harnessed and stoked a huge backlash. This is not something I'm pulling out of my ass, it's been widely written about.

― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), 20. juni 2018 21:17 (ten minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

You might not be pulling it out of your ass, but you're still wrong. As I just said, Romney ran on being anti-immigration as well. You're portraying the Go8 as if it was the culmination of years and years of GOP pro-immigration sentiment, rather than something they tried for a year, then turned their back on.

You're idea of the 'interrelationship between white supremacy, nativism, populism and economics' doesn't seem to be that complex, really, it seems to be mostly 'the 1% did it!'.

JFC

Romney ran against a good candidate.

In any case, the Republican donor base has been more pro-immigration than the voter base for a long time.

xxpost Obama was a better candidate without question but he might have had some trouble with contextless email leaks that were curated to enrage whatever narrative/grievance against him and people who should have known better easily goaded into undercutting his campaign’s critcism of the fascist running against him w endless “what about”

oh cool let's do this again

pfft whatever, we're definitely going to figure it out this time

cmd-f racism