The Danger of Coordination

[donquixote99]

So, why the rush to defend Trump’s supporters? Why the self-recriminations? Why the willingness to stretch the bounds of legitimacy to accommodate Trump’s antics? Much has been written about Trump’s demagoguery and its similarity to totalitarian leaders of the past, but what about Trump’s opponents? Are many of us borrowing a page from totalitarianism without realizing it? Are we empowering him? Are we coordinating?

The word Gleichschaltung is often translated from the German as “coordination” and refers to the process of ― politically speaking ― getting in line. It often appears in books about the Nazi era.

There's a tendency to 'get in line' with the new order when the authoritarians take over. Scholars of how things went in Germany in you-know-who's case call this process "coordination." Briefly, standing in opposition is stressful. One's mind wants things to be normal, acceptable. So, one accepts, one goes along. You make excuses for the new regime, you blame yourself or others on your side, you say 'maybe it won't be so bad, and what can I do anyway.' You say 'we should give them a chance.' You coordinate yourself with the new government, accept it, give it legitimacy.

In addition to what Trump is going to do, watch out for what your friends are going to do. Watch out for what you are going to think and do.

Read the whole article quoted above here. It's important: What Those Who Studied Nazis Can Teach Us About The Strange Reaction To Donald Trump

[ZeroJunk]

Good God. It's always racism, or misogyny, or homophobia, .....

Now, it's Nazi's.

If the left actually had a message they would not have lost a thousand seats in the last eight years.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

Good God. It's always racism, or misogyny, or homophobia, .....

Now, it's Nazi's.

If the left actually had a message they would not have lost a thousand seats in the last eight years.

We have messages. Among them is that there's stuff WRONG with racism, misogyny, homophobia, and authoritarian demagogues. A thing you might agree with in the abstract, but, any case that we actually point out is just nuttiness, you say....

So you scoff at that, and you'd scoff at our other policy goals, like good public education, and a more broad income distribution, or restricting the unbridled power of corporations. Just because they are our ideas, whatever you might think of them on the merits....

I could ask you something like, "Is the right always right about everything? Is the left always wrong about everything?," but you'll just give some taunting answer that boils down to yes.

Won't you?

[icenine]

I would refuse to confirm any Supreme Court nominees period. For at least a year. It was
ok for McConnell it should be ok for Schumer. I think Trump is going to pick some garbage candidates anyway.

A smart Trump would nominate Garland and in the long run probably be more successful with his other Supreme Court picks. He is not bright enough to think like that. Bill Clinton would do something like that.

I hope that his choices are so idiotic that the Democrats have an easy time voting against them. They need 3/4ths of the Senate to get confirmed right?

Infrastructure is hard because it benefit constituents but then again this is Trump we are discussing. I can see a fake infrastructure bill that is really a big tax cut.

It will be shameful to see the GOP House looking the other way on his massive conflict of interest issues. Like I said Ryan will probably try to destroy the safety net while letting Trump get rich as long as the latter signs whatever the former brings to his desk.

[donquixote99]

My going-in position in no Supreme Court appointees confirmed for four years. At least. But Republican control of the Senate probably enables them to put their nominees in, under current rules, unless the nominee stinks so much that a few Republicans will vote against him. Simple majorities are sufficient to end filibusters, and to confirm nominees.

6) If any Senator objects to unanimous consent, then a cloture motion must be filed in order to end debate and move to a vote. Cloture motions for judicial and executive nominations require 51 votes to pass. If 51 Senators support cloture, the full Senate will vote on the nomination, with a majority required for confirmation. If fewer than 51 Senators support cloture, debate continues and a confirmation vote cannot occur. This is known as a filibuster. Prior to the November 2013 Senate rules change, all cloture motions required 60 votes to pass. Now, only cloture motions for legislation and nominees to the Supreme Court require 60 votes.

7) Once the Senate holds a confirmation vote, with a majority voting to confirm, the nominee becomes a Federal Judge.

http://judicialnominations.org/how-t...-process-works

[ZeroJunk]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

We have messages. Among them is that there's stuff WRONG with racism, misogyny, homophobia, and authoritarian demagogues. A thing you might agree with in the abstract, but, any case that we actually point out is just nuttiness, you say....

So you scoff at that, and you'd scoff at our other policy goals, like good public education, and a more broad income distribution, or restricting the unbridled power of corporations. Just because they are our ideas, whatever you might think of them on the merits....

I could ask you something like, "Is the right always right about everything? Is the left always wrong about everything?," but you'll just give some taunting answer that boils down to yes.

Won't you?

I never said it didn't exist or that there is nothing wrong with it.

But, if the entirety of your message is putting people in to groups and attaching derogatory names to your opponents as the tactic you lose.

Go the Nazi route and see if that works any better. The Democrats have learned nothing apparently.

[ZeroJunk]

But Republican control of the Senate probably enables them to put their nominees in, under current rules, unless the nominee stinks so much that a few Republicans will vote against him. Simple majorities are sufficient to end filibusters, and to confirm nominees.

And, whose fault is that. Harry Reid has to have been the stupidest politician in my lifetime.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

I never said it didn't exist or that there is nothing wrong with it.

But, if the entirety of your message is putting people in to groups and attaching derogatory names to your opponents as the tactic you lose.

Go the Nazi route and see if that works any better. The Democrats have learned nothing apparently.

You suggest that's 'the entireity' of our message. That is not true or fair. The message warning against coordination, btw, is for leftist consideration, nothing to do with you.

And as I suggested, you agree that racism, etc are bad, and do exist, in the abstract. You just never think any examples of it are properly mentioned, for some reason....

[icenine]

Is the Senate in session right now?

What if Obama appointed Garland right now if the Senate was not in session.

I think it would be for 2 years. Would Trump have to have 60 votes to remove him?

Two years is better than none. I am thinking about America more than Garland.

[ZeroJunk]

Originally Posted by icenine

Is the Senate in session right now?

What if Obama appointed Garland right now if the Senate was not in session.

I think it would be for 2 years. Would Trump have to have 60 votes to remove him?

Two years is better than none. I am thinking about America more than Garland.

No. You can't remove them at all.

But, he would have to be approved by the Senate which is not likely to happen since the Republicans have a majority.