Republicans had a tête-à-tête with Trump to remind him how, if he wins, he should extend the tax cuts before he gets tied up with punishing all his enemies.
Amanda is so good, please more of her! A critical part of the discussion with Ben, which I wish they had more time to develop, was the implications of Schedule F for punishing blue states. "California didn't vote for me so let it burn" is terrifying to me and one of the most dangerous and un-American components of Trump's brand of authoritarianism. I feel like it doesn't get nearly enough attention, even though we know now that it played a role in Trump's disastrous response to COVID.
The following passage is from 1933 (guess the author?). Substitute 'Republican politician' for 'priests' and you have the quintessence of Trump today.
"We should trap the priests by their notorious greed and self-indulgence. We shall thus be able to settle everything with them in perfect peace and harmony. I shall give them a few years' reprieve. Why should we quarrel? They will swallow anything in order to keep their material advantages. Matters will never come to a head. They will recognize a firm will, and we need only show them once or twice who is the master. They will know which way the wind blows."
Pascal's wager was as cynical in the 15th century as it is today. If we have descended to the point where we can be blackmailed into supporting a political candidate, we are lost.
From now on, when you guys start talking about bogus poll numbers ( which is every time you talk polls ), I’m marking “played” and not listening any further. Good day.
No one seems to understand that the R’s who are not stupid and who have read some history know what actually happens physically to dissidents and their families and friends when the tyrant takes power. So these people are physical cowards. It’s not complicated, people. Hide or die.
JVL described this but pulled his punches. The adulation of Trump from the R’s is about FEAR.. Not just fear for careers,.. FEAR as basic as it gets.
Love the point that capitalism doesn’t thrive under autocracy. The folks who attended the Business Roundtable must see that any association with Trump is unstable.
Some businesses do very well under autocracy. These people each believe that they are the special, extra clever one who successfully can thread the needle. Just like the people that thought they could work successfully in his administration.
Somehow they think there can be a "benevolent" dictator? A dictator who exercises good common sense when it come to their personal situations and needs but who will be appropriately harsh with the bad people is what they think they want.
The Bulwark puts out so much content that I don’t catch it all, but it’s a huge help in preserving my sanity to have all you smart, thoughtful folks following events and sharing your thoughts & opinions so we can understand more.
There's a very simple fact to understand. If we institute a voting system which counts Democrats' preferences among the Republicans, Trump's power over the Republican pols ends.
IRV has not reduced Trump's power in jurisdictions using because IRV does not do so. Sure, IRV let's Democrats rank some Republicans higher than others. But that does not mean that that preference would be counted. As long as there is a candidate rated higher than a voter's highest rated Republican, that voter's preferences among the Republicans are ignored.
Yes, I do have a preferred methods, and a handful of honorable mentions that also fulfill the criterion I established.
First the preferred method. All voters rate all candidates on a scale from -10 to +10, with ignored candidates getting an implied 0. For each voter, the ratings determine preferences between each pair of candidates, with higher positive scores preferred over smaller positive scores, preferred over zero, preferred over smaller negative scores, preferred over larger negative scores. For each pair, tally the number of voters preferring A over B and voters preferring B over A, with the larger tally winning the pair. The candidate winning all pairs wins the election.
Honorable mentions include: 1) Using the second part, but ratings consisting of ordinal
ranks. 2) Using the same first part, but simply summing/averaging each voter's rating for each candidate. 3) Same day primary and general in which all voters cast a ballot for the party they want to win the election and a ballot in each party's primary for which candidate they would want to win if that party were to win. First the votes for party would be counted, with the primary ballots of the winning party being counted to determine the winner. Not my favorite, but it does count Democrats' preferences among Republicans and Republicans' preferences among Democrats.
JVL, maybe someone has already commented about this, but Joe Biden has already said he will continue the Trump tax cuts for everyone making under $400k per year.
Question - JVL is exactly right that they fold because Trump will end their careers and try to ruin their lives. But there is something I've stuggled with since Trump first came on the scene.
Have any of them ever considered that there is strength in numbers and that if they resisted Trump as a group they could counter that? That it may actually resonate with voters if every "normie" Republican told the truth about Trump and said they cannot support him?
Game theory has the answer to that scenario: the prisoner's dilemma. It is rational for every individual to defect if he cannot ensure the cooperation of all the other participants.
There are a lot of examples of the MAGA Republicans’ short sightedness. My favorite is the change to Florida pedestrian law; after the Republican base got a boner to run over protesters Ron DeSantis gleefully hurried to make vehicular manslaughter legal so his voters could run over protestors. But the law does not say “for people who vote Republican.” It applies to everyone. Now if they want to protest anything or march the people they hate can lawfully run them over, too. It is, however, amusing when in conversation with a MAGA or MAGA adjacent person gleeful about such “policy” to bring that up. They’ve almost always never considered that weaponization made legal can also be used against them. I usually get something like “well Democrats/liberals are too much wussies to ever do it” and I always laugh and say, “Willing to bet your life on it? Cuz according to you, they are also all violent Antifa thugs and that’s why you need all this MAGA machismo, so, which is it?” They usually don’t want to talk anymore.
Amanda is so good, please more of her! A critical part of the discussion with Ben, which I wish they had more time to develop, was the implications of Schedule F for punishing blue states. "California didn't vote for me so let it burn" is terrifying to me and one of the most dangerous and un-American components of Trump's brand of authoritarianism. I feel like it doesn't get nearly enough attention, even though we know now that it played a role in Trump's disastrous response to COVID.
The following passage is from 1933 (guess the author?). Substitute 'Republican politician' for 'priests' and you have the quintessence of Trump today.
"We should trap the priests by their notorious greed and self-indulgence. We shall thus be able to settle everything with them in perfect peace and harmony. I shall give them a few years' reprieve. Why should we quarrel? They will swallow anything in order to keep their material advantages. Matters will never come to a head. They will recognize a firm will, and we need only show them once or twice who is the master. They will know which way the wind blows."
My first guess was Lenin, but he died in 1924. Mussolini, perhaps? He was an admirer and imitator of Lenin.
Hitler.
Pascal's wager was as cynical in the 15th century as it is today. If we have descended to the point where we can be blackmailed into supporting a political candidate, we are lost.
From now on, when you guys start talking about bogus poll numbers ( which is every time you talk polls ), I’m marking “played” and not listening any further. Good day.
No one seems to understand that the R’s who are not stupid and who have read some history know what actually happens physically to dissidents and their families and friends when the tyrant takes power. So these people are physical cowards. It’s not complicated, people. Hide or die.
JVL described this but pulled his punches. The adulation of Trump from the R’s is about FEAR.. Not just fear for careers,.. FEAR as basic as it gets.
Love the point that capitalism doesn’t thrive under autocracy. The folks who attended the Business Roundtable must see that any association with Trump is unstable.
Some businesses do very well under autocracy. These people each believe that they are the special, extra clever one who successfully can thread the needle. Just like the people that thought they could work successfully in his administration.
Americans have no experience living under any kind of dictatorship. So they just imagine they can "try it a little bit" and then quit at anytime...
Somehow they think there can be a "benevolent" dictator? A dictator who exercises good common sense when it come to their personal situations and needs but who will be appropriately harsh with the bad people is what they think they want.
Great episode! Nice to have Amanda hosting.
The Bulwark puts out so much content that I don’t catch it all, but it’s a huge help in preserving my sanity to have all you smart, thoughtful folks following events and sharing your thoughts & opinions so we can understand more.
There's a very simple fact to understand. If we institute a voting system which counts Democrats' preferences among the Republicans, Trump's power over the Republican pols ends.
IRV has not reduced Trump's power in jurisdictions using because IRV does not do so. Sure, IRV let's Democrats rank some Republicans higher than others. But that does not mean that that preference would be counted. As long as there is a candidate rated higher than a voter's highest rated Republican, that voter's preferences among the Republicans are ignored.
It's been a while since I looked at alternative voting options. Is there one you prefer?
Yes, I do have a preferred methods, and a handful of honorable mentions that also fulfill the criterion I established.
First the preferred method. All voters rate all candidates on a scale from -10 to +10, with ignored candidates getting an implied 0. For each voter, the ratings determine preferences between each pair of candidates, with higher positive scores preferred over smaller positive scores, preferred over zero, preferred over smaller negative scores, preferred over larger negative scores. For each pair, tally the number of voters preferring A over B and voters preferring B over A, with the larger tally winning the pair. The candidate winning all pairs wins the election.
Honorable mentions include: 1) Using the second part, but ratings consisting of ordinal
ranks. 2) Using the same first part, but simply summing/averaging each voter's rating for each candidate. 3) Same day primary and general in which all voters cast a ballot for the party they want to win the election and a ballot in each party's primary for which candidate they would want to win if that party were to win. First the votes for party would be counted, with the primary ballots of the winning party being counted to determine the winner. Not my favorite, but it does count Democrats' preferences among Republicans and Republicans' preferences among Democrats.
Apple Music Playlist ready for the weekend:
https://music.apple.com/us/playlist/bulwark-pod-songs/pl.u-0embfxV15e
JVL, maybe someone has already commented about this, but Joe Biden has already said he will continue the Trump tax cuts for everyone making under $400k per year.
The Fuhrer's birthday was a big deal in Nazi Germany, too!
Yea California!!!!
Question - JVL is exactly right that they fold because Trump will end their careers and try to ruin their lives. But there is something I've stuggled with since Trump first came on the scene.
Have any of them ever considered that there is strength in numbers and that if they resisted Trump as a group they could counter that? That it may actually resonate with voters if every "normie" Republican told the truth about Trump and said they cannot support him?
Game theory has the answer to that scenario: the prisoner's dilemma. It is rational for every individual to defect if he cannot ensure the cooperation of all the other participants.
I always wondered about that too...in a large group it would be impossible for him to attack and ruin them all...
Gordon Tullock looked down and smiled at this podcast.
There are a lot of examples of the MAGA Republicans’ short sightedness. My favorite is the change to Florida pedestrian law; after the Republican base got a boner to run over protesters Ron DeSantis gleefully hurried to make vehicular manslaughter legal so his voters could run over protestors. But the law does not say “for people who vote Republican.” It applies to everyone. Now if they want to protest anything or march the people they hate can lawfully run them over, too. It is, however, amusing when in conversation with a MAGA or MAGA adjacent person gleeful about such “policy” to bring that up. They’ve almost always never considered that weaponization made legal can also be used against them. I usually get something like “well Democrats/liberals are too much wussies to ever do it” and I always laugh and say, “Willing to bet your life on it? Cuz according to you, they are also all violent Antifa thugs and that’s why you need all this MAGA machismo, so, which is it?” They usually don’t want to talk anymore.