KCRag Forum

I would say as recent as the Clinton administration.

grovester wrote:35% of Americans will support whoever is on their team. It's all about "winning".

I say this all the time.

I know people whose families would starve without food stamps, and/or be homeless without housing assistance, who vote for Republicans because that is who their father voted for. They vote for the very people that would devastate their lives with their proposed policies. Many are seniors. If you mine very deep with questions, many of them cannot answer basic questions about politics, or even know that Republicans are trying to cut food stamp and housing programs, and privatize Social Security and Medicare. They have no idea about these things, but they always vote Republican.

I know Trump supporters who are now going to be devastated by his trade war. I am from a rural farming town originally, and the economy revolves around selling grain -- a lot of which is shipped to China. Because of our deteriorating relationship with Mexico, I read recently that they are negotiating to buy more of their grain from Brazil and Argentina.

My point in this is the team loyalty thing is real and strong. People often vote against their own interests because of legacy loyalty.

Highlander wrote:

grovester wrote:35% of Americans will support whoever is on their team. It's all about "winning".

That's a function of extreme partisan politics. My memory may not be that great when it comes to politics but it seems like that is a relatively recent phenomena. A Trump or Greitens 30 year years ago would have almost no support.

Nixon was out a couple years before I came along, but it seems like he had an awful lot of support up until it became virtually impossible to keep supporting him, and even then it was higher than it probably should have been. I say this based on my recollection of the history, though, not any actual contemporaneous surveys or anything.

Nixon did have fairly high support among Republicans clear up to the end. However, once people realized he was involved in the cover-up of Watergate, that support dropped. I grew up in a heavily-Republican area, and once people became aware of the crimes in the administration, they dropped Nixon like a hot potato. They were loyal party people, but they had no use for law-breaking politicians.

I am not certain that the apparent clarity with which 1970s era republicans were able to view Nixon's misdeeds is possible today. While the partisanship seems about equally toxic, there were not an infinite number of sycophantic blogs, podcasts, YouTube personalities, fake news propaganda factories, etc. around to simultaneously defend Nixon and try to flip the script by impugning the reputations and motivations of anyone who dared to speak against him. I am reasonably confident (more now than I was, say, a year ago) that we'll find our way through the weeds here eventually, but until then it might be nasty. The mantra many of us around for the dawn of the web adopted (something like, "don't believe anything you read on the internet") seems to have morphed in the years since to become, "don't believe anything you read on the internet unless it checks your particular confirmation bias checkboxes, in which case, it is the unassailable truth."

.

beautyfromashes wrote:

aknowledgeableperson wrote:At one time Greitens dreams were to run for President. No matter the outcome of troubles now I would imagine those dreams are no longer.

“Should I be President, or get pervy with my hairstylist....?” Hmmm. Anyone got a picture of the hair cut lady? Any chance she was worth it?

I believe her identity is unknown, but besides that, the poor lady was raped, we shouldn’t be talking about her like that (well, we shouldn’t be talking about her like that regardless, but especially so in this situation).

You’re right. I just wonder why someone would make such a stupid decision. Did he think he was so untouchable that this wouldn’t get out? The ego involved would have to be enormous...godlike. It’s almost purposeful self sabotage. So, my apologizes for the question. I thought she said this was a consensual relationship. Terrible for the lady and the breakup of her family that this contributed to.

beautyfromashes wrote:You’re right. I just wonder why someone would make such a stupid decision. Did he think he was so untouchable that this wouldn’t get out? The ego involved would have to be enormous...godlike. It’s almost purposeful self sabotage. So, my apologizes for the question. I thought she said this was a consensual relationship. Terrible for the lady and the breakup of her family that this contributed to.

No biggie. I think people like greitens are so full of themselves/unempathetic that they don’t realize they are harming another person? No idea.

mean wrote:I am not certain that the apparent clarity with which 1970s era republicans were able to view Nixon's misdeeds is possible today. While the partisanship seems about equally toxic, there were not an infinite number of sycophantic blogs, podcasts, YouTube personalities, fake news propaganda factories, etc. around to simultaneously defend Nixon and try to flip the script by impugning the reputations and motivations of anyone who dared to speak against him. I am reasonably confident (more now than I was, say, a year ago) that we'll find our way through the weeds here eventually, but until then it might be nasty. The mantra many of us around for the dawn of the web adopted (something like, "don't believe anything you read on the internet") seems to have morphed in the years since to become, "don't believe anything you read on the internet unless it checks your particular confirmation bias checkboxes, in which case, it is the unassailable truth."

Counterfactuals are dumb and all but I'm pretty sure Nixon would have survived if he'd had Fox News. I mean helping a future Nixon stay in power is basically the reason that Fox News was created by former Nixon staffer Roger Ailes.

https://youtu.be/_lu_Hgw60Ns

We still giving this big ol' goofball a chance or what?

mean wrote:I am not certain that the apparent clarity with which 1970s era republicans were able to view Nixon's misdeeds is possible today. While the partisanship seems about equally toxic, there were not an infinite number of sycophantic blogs, podcasts, YouTube personalities, fake news propaganda factories, etc. around to simultaneously defend Nixon and try to flip the script by impugning the reputations and motivations of anyone who dared to speak against him.

While all that is true, I think the political situation has become a more partisan "win at all costs" scenario today versus what it was when Nixon resigned. It's difficult to separate out the impact of media today but still, I felt most politicians 30 years ago at least had the good of the nation first and foremost in mind and the populace generally expected politicians not to be scumbags. I don't think most politicians give a crap about the overall national health today as long as they can remain in power and a lot of voters don't really care if the politician is a scumbag or not as long as they have the conservative or liberal pedigree. Nixon resigned because it became increasingly obvious he was involved in a cover up. I'm not sure that would be that much of an issue today, and yea, partially because of conservative media, but mostly due to the fact that politicians routinely do things that equally or more reprehensible and manage to stay in office. Trump, ill advised tweets and erratic behavior aside, can simply fire the guy investigating his administration and a third of the country still loves him.

If you look at past politics from the 50's and 60's up to now there was always some partisanship and "win at all costs" attitudes during the elections but when it came time to legislation those in the middle usually came out the winners. Both parties had the left and right wings, the Southern Democrats and the Rockefeller Republicans, but now the moderates in both parties are taking a hit, from within and from without. Not sure what the Dems might be called but for the Republicans they are the RINOs.

The winning of the Cold War has changed everything. Sure, politicians in the past were win at all cost, but when you have the threat of war breaking out at any moment as a backdrop, you think more about getting together for common good. When someone is attacking your family, you become friends with your idiot cousin who you would normally want to bludgeon.

Of course Reagan said this about the Democratic Party but IMO Reagan was a Southern Democrat at heart.

""I'm still a Republican. I didn't leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me," Kasich said on CNN's "State of the Union." "In my state we have balanced budgets, surplus, we're up half a million jobs and then people say, 'Well Kasich's not a conservative.' What does that mean?"
"Come home to where we basically live," the 2016 presidential candidate added. "We should care about people from top to bottom, not just those at the top, but everybody."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... li=BBnb7Kz

KMBC is reporting that Gov. Eric Greitens has called a press conference and plans to resign.

Update: He will resign as of June 1.

https://www.kshb.com/news/state/missour ... -to-resign

Update 2: Shockingly, he takes no responsibility for any of his actions

Prediction: Greitens will end up in the Trump Administration.

Will Mike Parsons (Lt Gov) be any better? Sounds like he's easily paid off and controlled by lobbyists.

earthling wrote:Will Mike Parsons (Lt Gov) be any better? Sounds like he's easily paid off and controlled by lobbyists.

Supporter of low-income housing credits, so it's possible those will be back – think I also heard he supported UMKC Conservatory being downtown, but who knows how that all will play out at this point.