A Time For Unity - The Lost Decades - A Tale of a Potential Future
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:24:24 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs? (Moderator: Dereich)
  A Time For Unity - The Lost Decades - A Tale of a Potential Future
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 9
Author Topic: A Time For Unity - The Lost Decades - A Tale of a Potential Future  (Read 43002 times)
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: August 13, 2009, 04:59:11 PM »

Does the European Parliament still exist in any real form?
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,458
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: August 13, 2009, 05:09:13 PM »

Does the European Parliament still exist in any real form?

It does, but there is a split between Germany, which is still trying to maintain a sort of liberal interpretation of the Union, and states that feel that they need more freedom of action. Technically, Poland, France, the UK, the Netherlands, Austria, and Italy are in violation of one or more EU laws and under penalties. In practice the EU is not doing anything to them.

Germany itself had elections in 2017 that empowered extremists, but the political consensus there is a lot stronger than else-ware, and the center is holding. France and the Netherlands are basically implementing the Geert Wilders program, though France at the moment is doing it with bullets. President Le Pen is not interested in reconciliation, and has a majority behind her.

In the US it does create impression that the whole world is falling apart, which drives people to the only group that can make them feel empowered even if they don't agree with them. Which is why the events of the next section(the one tomorrow, not the one I am posting now) will be so important. if the Progressives can face down the US Army without resorting to bloodshed then there a whole lot of people looking for security and empowerment.
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,458
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 13, 2009, 05:11:17 PM »
« Edited: August 13, 2009, 05:34:33 PM by Dan the Roman »

With international failures on all sides, and the economic recovery reversed by gas prices passing ten dollars a gallon, the Pence administration was beleaguered on all sides. But they nonetheless did not abandon their plans to destroy the Democrats. As the elections approached and the Progressives fielded over 120 Congressional candidates, the Administration all but urged Republicans to vote for Progressive candidates where Republicans could not win.

In Massachusetts, where a systematic takeover of the Unions, and campaign of intimidation was in progress, the Republicans, who knew better than anyone what was at stake, disobeyed national instructions and formed a joint statewide slate to oust Attorney General Berman if they could not deny Walton a third term,

They operated under a serious handicap however in terms of campaigning. If volunteers traveled alone they were apt to be harassed, whether that harassment was a strange vehicle following them, or something more physical, whereas if they traveled in groups they were apt to get involved in fights in which they, not the Progressives, would be charged for.

That said, it was Mike Pence, not Michael Walton, who destroyed their chances of success. It was hoped that Martha Coakley, one of the few Democrats remaining in Statewide office would lead the campaign, and there was a effort to convince her to run for Attorney General to "save democracy". In this, however, they were sabotaged by President Pence's determination to cripple the Democrats, and as a sign of reconciliation with the 57% who had voted against him, he offered her the now vacant position of Secretary of State. Faced with the potentially dangerous prospect of coming home, or a prominent national position, she took the latter.


The results were therefore decisive. Governor Walton was reelected with 64% of the vote. Berman won 59%. Every statewide office was won by the Progressives, as was Martha Coakley's vacant Senate seat. In fact, the Progessives had been so confident of victory that they dispatched thousands of volunteers out of state to assist campaigns elseware. In the legislature, the Democrats were reduced to a rump, looking forward with trepidation to what the Republicans had faced for so long.

State House
114 Progressives
44 Democrats
 2  Republicans

State Senate
28 Progressives
11 Democrats
  1 Republican

Outside of Massachusetts there was little comfort for the Republicans. They lost 10 Senate seats, and 49 House Seats. It was however, not a great result for the Democrats either. While they gained 3 Senate seats from the Republicans, they lost 4 to the Progressives, for a net loss of 1.

The real breakthrough was for the Progressives. They not only picked up the vacant Senate seat in Massachusetts, but also defeated Senators Sheldon Whitehouse in Rhode Island, Joseph Lieberman in Connecticut, Mary Taylor in Ohio, Terri Lyn Land in Michigan, and in two surprises, Denny Rehberg in Montana and Bob Menendez in New Jersey. They also won the Maine seat left vacant by Olympia Snowe's retirement. She had been begged to run again, but the moderate Senator had enjoyed being able to go to town halls and visit events, and now that she was unable to appear in public because of Progressive activists, she saw no point in continuing.

At the same time the Progressives also won Governorships in Connecticut, Michigan, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Maine, as well as control of the legislature in Connecticut and Rhode Island, and pluralities in Ohio and Michigan. In all of these states, and surprisingly Arkansas, Washington, and New York they won the Attorney Generals’ office. In the House they won a total of 36 seats.

The resulting breakdown of the Houses of Congress in January of 2019 was therefore:


Senate 2019
Democrats 43
Republicans 48
Progessives  9


House
Democrats 185
Republicans 214
Progressives 36

The Republicans lost their majorities in both houses, but they were saved when the Progressives paid them back for their support, and announced that they would refrain from voting in the organizational resolutions with the caveat that both be left open to revision if the sense of the chambers shifted. While the Progressives had no interest in being the Kingmakers, Governor Walton wanted to make sure he could be the King-breaker at will.


For he could all but read Mike Pence's mind, and had an idea of what was coming. All that was needed was a push. Hence the aftermath of the election found a massive uptick in violence in New Hampshire, the one New England state alongside Vertmont not under Progressive control. By January, the state had been faced with the resignations of 19 newly elected State Representatives, 12 Democrats and 6 Republicans. When the President himself, in a private event in Manchester had to be snuck out the backdoor while three members of his staff were hospitalized he was furious, and so when Governor Glenborough of New Hampshire asked for Federal Troops to restore order, the President took the bait. On the Sunday, the 27th of April 2019, the face of Mike Pence took to the TV screens of living rooms across America in a speech that would live in infamy.

My fellow Americans, our great country today faces great challenges, but the history of our land is one of overcoming adversity, of the triumph of the better angels of our nature. Central to that is a tradition of freedom that we promote abroad and at home. Our forefathers fought on the beaches of Normandy, on the plains of Gettysburg, in the deserts of Iraq for that freedom. Now it is threatened at home. Thugs and hooligans, in the guise of political campaigning, have waged a campaign of intimidation and terror against their fellow citizens, denying them the freedom we hold so dear. Their criminality has not been checked by state and local authorities and has in disturbing cases even been encouraged by them. We can not stand by while our fellow citizens have their rights stolen from them. As of two hours ago, I signed an executive order declaring Martial law in the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island New Hampshire, and Maine. As of this speech, federal forces are moving in. If Governor Walton will not maintain order I will. God bless you and good night.........
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: August 13, 2009, 05:26:13 PM »

Fascinating. One question, though: if the Governor of New Hampshire asked for martial law, why was it only imposed in Progressive states?
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,458
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: August 13, 2009, 05:33:20 PM »
« Edited: August 13, 2009, 05:37:39 PM by Dan the Roman »

Fascinating. One question, though: if the Governor of New Hampshire asked for martial law, why was it only imposed in Progressive states?

Shoot, should have put that he was sending federal troops to New Hampshire as well. But the main thing is that President Pence has gotten it in his head that he can come as the savior and solve this problem militarily and be a hero.

Now that neither the military nor he has any idea what these troops are going to be doing, their relationship with the legal governments, or an exit strategy is beside the point. He is acting tough!! And in his view New England is the source.

He also seems to be assuming that after doing nothing about this for two years, and in fact doing everything in his power to assist the Progressives, that Democrats will somehow embrace his 180 degree turnaround. Well that and that it is blatantly unconstitutional. Let's just say that not even the cabinet was consulted on this, much less the congressional leadership.
Logged
War on Want
Evilmexicandictator
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,643
Uzbekistan


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -8.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: August 13, 2009, 05:34:47 PM »

So why haven't the Democrats been unsuccessful at forming some sort of defense against the Progressives in MA? I'd assume that the Progressives would be treated as Nazi pieces of shit among university students, some unions and yuppies. Are there any signs of Democratic violence towards Progressive supporters in colleges?
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: August 13, 2009, 05:39:47 PM »

What's the expectation among top military brass?
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,458
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: August 13, 2009, 05:41:42 PM »

So why haven't the Democrats been unsuccessful at forming some sort of defense against the Progressives in MA? I'd assume that the Progressives would be treated as Nazi pieces of shit among university students, some unions and yuppies. Are there any signs of Democratic violence towards Progressive supporters in colleges?

They have been trying to. But the legal apparatus is in the hands of the Progressives, and whenever there are fights, the Democrats get 30 days in jail and the Progressive 'Patriots" get community service. And I wouldn't say College students are liberal. They are anti-establishment, but there is a strong constituency there that is left-wing economically, that would like the opportunity to beat up the "teacher's pet" students with impunity, and feels empowered by being part of something bigger than themselves. the Universities were center of support for the Nazis in Germany for exactly those reasons.

I would say the Progressives have little support at Harvard or MIT. But Harvard or MIT students are not exactly popular at less prestigious schools. And there is a strong anti-Ivy league component. See the taxing of endowments.
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,458
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: August 13, 2009, 05:44:18 PM »

What's the expectation among top military brass?

That will be dealt with in the next section, but I doubt they will be pleased being used as glorified bouncers. Especially given the likely effects on moral.
Logged
War on Want
Evilmexicandictator
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,643
Uzbekistan


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -8.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: August 13, 2009, 05:50:40 PM »

So why haven't the Democrats been unsuccessful at forming some sort of defense against the Progressives in MA? I'd assume that the Progressives would be treated as Nazi pieces of shit among university students, some unions and yuppies. Are there any signs of Democratic violence towards Progressive supporters in colleges?

They have been trying to. But the legal apparatus is in the hands of the Progressives, and whenever there are fights, the Democrats get 30 days in jail and the Progressive 'Patriots" get community service. And I wouldn't say College students are liberal. They are anti-establishment, but there is a strong constituency there that is left-wing economically, that would like the opportunity to beat up the "teacher's pet" students with impunity, and feels empowered by being part of something bigger than themselves. the Universities were center of support for the Nazis in Germany for exactly those reasons.

I would say the Progressives have little support at Harvard or MIT. But Harvard or MIT students are not exactly popular at less prestigious schools. And there is a strong anti-Ivy league component. See the taxing of endowments.
hmmmm I'd disagree with you on some of this. My experience with college students has led me to believe that the majority of them are somewhat intellectual and would have huge problems with the Progressives for some of their nutjob positions, fascism etc. I'm sure those in frats would join up with them in good large portions. I could see tons of bands activley campaigning against the Progressives in Massachussetts, and a huge anti-Progressive movement among people who could activley influence students.

Basically if my idea of what will be trendy in the future is right(hipster music blows up), then the youth could be mobilized pretty well against the Progressives. I'm going to assume though that because of the terrible economy lots of people's perceptions change and populist thought becomes reasonably popular again among the youth.  Like I said though I could definitley see huge schisms happening at major universities. Some of the worst fighters could be on the Democratic side too.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 13, 2009, 05:56:07 PM »

So why haven't the Democrats been unsuccessful at forming some sort of defense against the Progressives in MA? I'd assume that the Progressives would be treated as Nazi pieces of shit among university students, some unions and yuppies. Are there any signs of Democratic violence towards Progressive supporters in colleges?

They have been trying to. But the legal apparatus is in the hands of the Progressives, and whenever there are fights, the Democrats get 30 days in jail and the Progressive 'Patriots" get community service. And I wouldn't say College students are liberal. They are anti-establishment, but there is a strong constituency there that is left-wing economically, that would like the opportunity to beat up the "teacher's pet" students with impunity, and feels empowered by being part of something bigger than themselves. the Universities were center of support for the Nazis in Germany for exactly those reasons.

I would say the Progressives have little support at Harvard or MIT. But Harvard or MIT students are not exactly popular at less prestigious schools. And there is a strong anti-Ivy league component. See the taxing of endowments.
hmmmm I'd disagree with you on some of this. My experience with college students has led me to believe that the majority of them are somewhat intellectual and would have huge problems with the Progressives for some of their nutjob positions, fascism etc. I'm sure those in frats would join up with them in good large portions. I could see tons of bands activley campaigning against the Progressives in Massachussetts, and a huge anti-Progressive movement among people who could activley influence students.

Basically if my idea of what will be trendy in the future is right(hipster music blows up), then the youth could be mobilized pretty well against the Progressives. I'm going to assume though that because of the terrible economy lots of people's perceptions change and populist thought becomes reasonably popular again among the youth.  Like I said though I could definitley see huge schisms happening at major universities. Some of the worst fighters could be on the Democratic side too.

Not sure about that. The Progressives could pretty effectively position themselves as anti-establishment, especially with the military bearing down on them.
Logged
War on Want
Evilmexicandictator
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,643
Uzbekistan


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -8.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 13, 2009, 06:01:46 PM »

So why haven't the Democrats been unsuccessful at forming some sort of defense against the Progressives in MA? I'd assume that the Progressives would be treated as Nazi pieces of shit among university students, some unions and yuppies. Are there any signs of Democratic violence towards Progressive supporters in colleges?

They have been trying to. But the legal apparatus is in the hands of the Progressives, and whenever there are fights, the Democrats get 30 days in jail and the Progressive 'Patriots" get community service. And I wouldn't say College students are liberal. They are anti-establishment, but there is a strong constituency there that is left-wing economically, that would like the opportunity to beat up the "teacher's pet" students with impunity, and feels empowered by being part of something bigger than themselves. the Universities were center of support for the Nazis in Germany for exactly those reasons.

I would say the Progressives have little support at Harvard or MIT. But Harvard or MIT students are not exactly popular at less prestigious schools. And there is a strong anti-Ivy league component. See the taxing of endowments.
hmmmm I'd disagree with you on some of this. My experience with college students has led me to believe that the majority of them are somewhat intellectual and would have huge problems with the Progressives for some of their nutjob positions, fascism etc. I'm sure those in frats would join up with them in good large portions. I could see tons of bands activley campaigning against the Progressives in Massachussetts, and a huge anti-Progressive movement among people who could activley influence students.

Basically if my idea of what will be trendy in the future is right(hipster music blows up), then the youth could be mobilized pretty well against the Progressives. I'm going to assume though that because of the terrible economy lots of people's perceptions change and populist thought becomes reasonably popular again among the youth.  Like I said though I could definitley see huge schisms happening at major universities. Some of the worst fighters could be on the Democratic side too.

Not sure about that. The Progressives could pretty effectively position themselves as anti-establishment, especially with the military bearing down on them.
Yeah but anti-establishment does not equal popular among university students. Do you really think that a huge majority of the youth would be all for 150 hours of community service being mandated on them, a teaching that calls the counter-culture movement terrible(hippie throwback stuff is pretty popular), and the Vietnam War being glorified? I'd doubt it, this stuff would scream fascist and authoritarian to lots of kids in college.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: August 13, 2009, 06:11:27 PM »

So why haven't the Democrats been unsuccessful at forming some sort of defense against the Progressives in MA? I'd assume that the Progressives would be treated as Nazi pieces of shit among university students, some unions and yuppies. Are there any signs of Democratic violence towards Progressive supporters in colleges?

They have been trying to. But the legal apparatus is in the hands of the Progressives, and whenever there are fights, the Democrats get 30 days in jail and the Progressive 'Patriots" get community service. And I wouldn't say College students are liberal. They are anti-establishment, but there is a strong constituency there that is left-wing economically, that would like the opportunity to beat up the "teacher's pet" students with impunity, and feels empowered by being part of something bigger than themselves. the Universities were center of support for the Nazis in Germany for exactly those reasons.

I would say the Progressives have little support at Harvard or MIT. But Harvard or MIT students are not exactly popular at less prestigious schools. And there is a strong anti-Ivy league component. See the taxing of endowments.
hmmmm I'd disagree with you on some of this. My experience with college students has led me to believe that the majority of them are somewhat intellectual and would have huge problems with the Progressives for some of their nutjob positions, fascism etc. I'm sure those in frats would join up with them in good large portions. I could see tons of bands activley campaigning against the Progressives in Massachussetts, and a huge anti-Progressive movement among people who could activley influence students.

Basically if my idea of what will be trendy in the future is right(hipster music blows up), then the youth could be mobilized pretty well against the Progressives. I'm going to assume though that because of the terrible economy lots of people's perceptions change and populist thought becomes reasonably popular again among the youth.  Like I said though I could definitley see huge schisms happening at major universities. Some of the worst fighters could be on the Democratic side too.

Not sure about that. The Progressives could pretty effectively position themselves as anti-establishment, especially with the military bearing down on them.
Yeah but anti-establishment does not equal popular among university students. Do you really think that a huge majority of the youth would be all for 150 hours of community service being mandated on them, a teaching that calls the counter-culture movement terrible(hippie throwback stuff is pretty popular), and the Vietnam War being glorified? I'd doubt it, this stuff would scream fascist and authoritarian to lots of kids in college.

Most students don't subscribe to student culture, as it were.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: August 13, 2009, 06:23:28 PM »

So, 2019 is when the temperture hits 212. When will it hit 451?
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,458
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: August 13, 2009, 06:24:16 PM »
« Edited: August 13, 2009, 06:27:11 PM by Dan the Roman »

So why haven't the Democrats been unsuccessful at forming some sort of defense against the Progressives in MA? I'd assume that the Progressives would be treated as Nazi pieces of shit among university students, some unions and yuppies. Are there any signs of Democratic violence towards Progressive supporters in colleges?

They have been trying to. But the legal apparatus is in the hands of the Progressives, and whenever there are fights, the Democrats get 30 days in jail and the Progressive 'Patriots" get community service. And I wouldn't say College students are liberal. They are anti-establishment, but there is a strong constituency there that is left-wing economically, that would like the opportunity to beat up the "teacher's pet" students with impunity, and feels empowered by being part of something bigger than themselves. the Universities were center of support for the Nazis in Germany for exactly those reasons.

I would say the Progressives have little support at Harvard or MIT. But Harvard or MIT students are not exactly popular at less prestigious schools. And there is a strong anti-Ivy league component. See the taxing of endowments.
hmmmm I'd disagree with you on some of this. My experience with college students has led me to believe that the majority of them are somewhat intellectual and would have huge problems with the Progressives for some of their nutjob positions, fascism etc. I'm sure those in frats would join up with them in good large portions. I could see tons of bands activley campaigning against the Progressives in Massachussetts, and a huge anti-Progressive movement among people who could activley influence students.

Basically if my idea of what will be trendy in the future is right(hipster music blows up), then the youth could be mobilized pretty well against the Progressives. I'm going to assume though that because of the terrible economy lots of people's perceptions change and populist thought becomes reasonably popular again among the youth.  Like I said though I could definitley see huge schisms happening at major universities. Some of the worst fighters could be on the Democratic side too.

Not sure about that. The Progressives could pretty effectively position themselves as anti-establishment, especially with the military bearing down on them.
Yeah but anti-establishment does not equal popular among university students. Do you really think that a huge majority of the youth would be all for 150 hours of community service being mandated on them, a teaching that calls the counter-culture movement terrible(hippie throwback stuff is pretty popular), and the Vietnam War being glorified? I'd doubt it, this stuff would scream fascist and authoritarian to lots of kids in college.

Ah but an organization that tells students at Plymouth State they are as good as students at Harvard, that they are future leaders of the country if they join, and they will piss off the present elite? Part of the student counterculture at elite universities is the view that they could do it better, but that only applies to a minority of politically engaged students who feel they are part of the elite. On rare occasions you get a Barrack Obama who inspires people because they could believe real change might happen.

The entire Progressive attraction is:

1. We have implemented and will implement real change. Care about Universal Health-care? The political system will never allow it to be passed by the Democrats and Republicans, only we can. Care about Global Warming? The political system favors short-term gain over long-term planning, but we can change that. Care about Goldman Sachs controlling our politics? Well we can end that since our party is centrally run and elected officials can't be bribed.

2. We will punish those responsible for the Worlds problems and hold them accountable. Not just change policies, punish.

3. We will win, resistance is futile.

4. We don't care what elitists think of us. Their time is coming to an end.

Its more effective with some students than others. Also by this point the Progressives have overwhelming support from unions, the business community, minority groups(for using deadly force in the war on gangs, which I might go back to later). The other thing to consider is how involved students at Tufts or Harvard are in local politics. Mostly they care about national which is opposing President Pence, and who is about to become the number one enemy of the administration?
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: August 13, 2009, 06:31:41 PM »

It sounds like a good program at this point....but it won't be soon, huh? I mean, a hawkish civic republican regime seems just what we would need. The common good would trump private and partial interests.
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,458
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: August 13, 2009, 06:40:15 PM »

It sounds like a good program at this point....but it won't be soon, huh? I mean, a hawkish civic republican regime seems just what we would need. The common good would trump private and partial interests.

Thats its main appeal. What makes the Progressives attractive is not their issue positions; those while unique, are not anything out of the ordinary. What is different is the way they promise to implement them. Obama promised to try to pass healthcare. The Progressives will pass health care regardless of Congress, the Supreme Court, the phase of the moon. The very fascism that offends the political and social elite is what makes them appealing to people who have seen every promise broken.

The other thing is the extent to which the party itself offers more democracy. People can participate in the Democrats or Republicans and even get elected as delagates and pass a party platform, but the elected officials can still ignore it. The way the Progressive Party is set up is that the elected officials are instruments of the membership, so the argument is that policies are better discussed at party meetings than in congress.

As for timing, the next 18 months will be critical, but there will be light at the end of the tunnel, the only question is for who?
Logged
War on Want
Evilmexicandictator
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,643
Uzbekistan


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -8.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: August 13, 2009, 07:06:42 PM »

So why haven't the Democrats been unsuccessful at forming some sort of defense against the Progressives in MA? I'd assume that the Progressives would be treated as Nazi pieces of shit among university students, some unions and yuppies. Are there any signs of Democratic violence towards Progressive supporters in colleges?

They have been trying to. But the legal apparatus is in the hands of the Progressives, and whenever there are fights, the Democrats get 30 days in jail and the Progressive 'Patriots" get community service. And I wouldn't say College students are liberal. They are anti-establishment, but there is a strong constituency there that is left-wing economically, that would like the opportunity to beat up the "teacher's pet" students with impunity, and feels empowered by being part of something bigger than themselves. the Universities were center of support for the Nazis in Germany for exactly those reasons.

I would say the Progressives have little support at Harvard or MIT. But Harvard or MIT students are not exactly popular at less prestigious schools. And there is a strong anti-Ivy league component. See the taxing of endowments.
hmmmm I'd disagree with you on some of this. My experience with college students has led me to believe that the majority of them are somewhat intellectual and would have huge problems with the Progressives for some of their nutjob positions, fascism etc. I'm sure those in frats would join up with them in good large portions. I could see tons of bands activley campaigning against the Progressives in Massachussetts, and a huge anti-Progressive movement among people who could activley influence students.

Basically if my idea of what will be trendy in the future is right(hipster music blows up), then the youth could be mobilized pretty well against the Progressives. I'm going to assume though that because of the terrible economy lots of people's perceptions change and populist thought becomes reasonably popular again among the youth.  Like I said though I could definitley see huge schisms happening at major universities. Some of the worst fighters could be on the Democratic side too.

Not sure about that. The Progressives could pretty effectively position themselves as anti-establishment, especially with the military bearing down on them.
Yeah but anti-establishment does not equal popular among university students. Do you really think that a huge majority of the youth would be all for 150 hours of community service being mandated on them, a teaching that calls the counter-culture movement terrible(hippie throwback stuff is pretty popular), and the Vietnam War being glorified? I'd doubt it, this stuff would scream fascist and authoritarian to lots of kids in college.

Ah but an organization that tells students at Plymouth State they are as good as students at Harvard, that they are future leaders of the country if they join, and they will piss off the present elite? Part of the student counterculture at elite universities is the view that they could do it better, but that only applies to a minority of politically engaged students who feel they are part of the elite. On rare occasions you get a Barrack Obama who inspires people because they could believe real change might happen.

The entire Progressive attraction is:

1. We have implemented and will implement real change. Care about Universal Health-care? The political system will never allow it to be passed by the Democrats and Republicans, only we can. Care about Global Warming? The political system favors short-term gain over long-term planning, but we can change that. Care about Goldman Sachs controlling our politics? Well we can end that since our party is centrally run and elected officials can't be bribed.

2. We will punish those responsible for the Worlds problems and hold them accountable. Not just change policies, punish.

3. We will win, resistance is futile.

4. We don't care what elitists think of us. Their time is coming to an end.

Its more effective with some students than others. Also by this point the Progressives have overwhelming support from unions, the business community, minority groups(for using deadly force in the war on gangs, which I might go back to later). The other thing to consider is how involved students at Tufts or Harvard are in local politics. Mostly they care about national which is opposing President Pence, and who is about to become the number one enemy of the administration?
hmmm I think you have made me believe that students could be for the Progressives plausibly. Especially if the Blue Dogs in this TL have stopped Universal Healthcare and special interests managed to drive Democratic programs into the ground. I could definitely see the Progressives getting some significant support then. Oh and how do the Progressives treat Gays at this point? I think that could cause problems with them among college students if more and more homophobic stuff within the party comes to light.

Anyways this is a great timeline. I really love Weimar style political styles.
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,458
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: August 13, 2009, 10:27:15 PM »
« Edited: August 13, 2009, 10:35:32 PM by Dan the Roman »

So why haven't the Democrats been unsuccessful at forming some sort of defense against the Progressives in MA? I'd assume that the Progressives would be treated as Nazi pieces of shit among university students, some unions and yuppies. Are there any signs of Democratic violence towards Progressive supporters in colleges?

They have been trying to. But the legal apparatus is in the hands of the Progressives, and whenever there are fights, the Democrats get 30 days in jail and the Progressive 'Patriots" get community service. And I wouldn't say College students are liberal. They are anti-establishment, but there is a strong constituency there that is left-wing economically, that would like the opportunity to beat up the "teacher's pet" students with impunity, and feels empowered by being part of something bigger than themselves. the Universities were center of support for the Nazis in Germany for exactly those reasons.

I would say the Progressives have little support at Harvard or MIT. But Harvard or MIT students are not exactly popular at less prestigious schools. And there is a strong anti-Ivy league component. See the taxing of endowments.
hmmmm I'd disagree with you on some of this. My experience with college students has led me to believe that the majority of them are somewhat intellectual and would have huge problems with the Progressives for some of their nutjob positions, fascism etc. I'm sure those in frats would join up with them in good large portions. I could see tons of bands activley campaigning against the Progressives in Massachussetts, and a huge anti-Progressive movement among people who could activley influence students.

Basically if my idea of what will be trendy in the future is right(hipster music blows up), then the youth could be mobilized pretty well against the Progressives. I'm going to assume though that because of the terrible economy lots of people's perceptions change and populist thought becomes reasonably popular again among the youth.  Like I said though I could definitley see huge schisms happening at major universities. Some of the worst fighters could be on the Democratic side too.

Not sure about that. The Progressives could pretty effectively position themselves as anti-establishment, especially with the military bearing down on them.
Yeah but anti-establishment does not equal popular among university students. Do you really think that a huge majority of the youth would be all for 150 hours of community service being mandated on them, a teaching that calls the counter-culture movement terrible(hippie throwback stuff is pretty popular), and the Vietnam War being glorified? I'd doubt it, this stuff would scream fascist and authoritarian to lots of kids in college.

Ah but an organization that tells students at Plymouth State they are as good as students at Harvard, that they are future leaders of the country if they join, and they will piss off the present elite? Part of the student counterculture at elite universities is the view that they could do it better, but that only applies to a minority of politically engaged students who feel they are part of the elite. On rare occasions you get a Barrack Obama who inspires people because they could believe real change might happen.

The entire Progressive attraction is:

1. We have implemented and will implement real change. Care about Universal Health-care? The political system will never allow it to be passed by the Democrats and Republicans, only we can. Care about Global Warming? The political system favors short-term gain over long-term planning, but we can change that. Care about Goldman Sachs controlling our politics? Well we can end that since our party is centrally run and elected officials can't be bribed.

2. We will punish those responsible for the Worlds problems and hold them accountable. Not just change policies, punish.

3. We will win, resistance is futile.

4. We don't care what elitists think of us. Their time is coming to an end.

Its more effective with some students than others. Also by this point the Progressives have overwhelming support from unions, the business community, minority groups(for using deadly force in the war on gangs, which I might go back to later). The other thing to consider is how involved students at Tufts or Harvard are in local politics. Mostly they care about national which is opposing President Pence, and who is about to become the number one enemy of the administration?
hmmm I think you have made me believe that students could be for the Progressives plausibly. Especially if the Blue Dogs in this TL have stopped Universal Healthcare and special interests managed to drive Democratic programs into the ground. I could definitely see the Progressives getting some significant support then. Oh and how do the Progressives treat Gays at this point? I think that could cause problems with them among college students if more and more homophobic stuff within the party comes to light.

Anyways this is a great timeline. I really love Weimar style political styles.

Thanks.

As for Gays, since it was in Massachusetts, Gay Marriage was initially treated as settled issue. The party had therefore nominally backed it in Massachusetts, without having to take an opinion on it nationwide. To the extent that they are working towards a position, it is government recognition for relationships, so some type of Civil Unions. They have nothing against Gays per se, but they are very suspicious of Gay activist groups, seeing them as social divisive, and the more culturally separatist ones are looked upon the same way they do, say Pagans. As joke people who couldn't actually believe what they mean and are therefore promoting it to cause to division. By the culturally separatist ones, I would be refering to the types of groups that complain about heteronormativity in society rather than not being discriminated against. Queer studies departments in Universities is a sign of the decline of Academy, though to be fair, so are Woman and Gender studies programs.


Most orginized Gay political activity tends to be in places(Cambridge, Brookline, Newton, Allston, Somerville) which still vote Democratic at the end of the decade so by extension of that a lot of are probably Democrats. But a 30-something Lesbian couple in a Boston suburb, or in Fairfield, Connecticut who are both attorneys and are raising two kids would have a very different attitude towards the Progressives than 22 year old student in Somerville, or  a Harvard Professor. And the Progressives would have a very different attitude towards them.

There is also split between younger Gays, mainly those who went to high school after 2004 or so, and older ones. Older ones tend to be very suspicious of the Progressives, whereas younger ones tend to support them in a similar proportion to the general population. This goes at least for Gays born in Massachusetts. Out-of-state ones tend to be much more hostile.

Oh the Progressives are also against non-discrimination laws, feeling that they are liberal social engineering. So basically, not hate crimes laws, no non-discrimination laws, here are your national civil unions, shut up and go away. Which could be worse.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: August 13, 2009, 11:01:40 PM »

So, basically the Progressive Party is like the Chinese Communist Party in that they have a paralell structure between their political offices and their party offices. The head of the Progressive Party is the president or the presidential candidate, or the congressional caucus leader ....and so on.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: August 14, 2009, 03:03:53 PM »

Will this be continued?
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,458
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: August 14, 2009, 03:59:03 PM »

Sorry, its Friday night and I am in the UK so there is a five hour time difference. Heading out, but will post the next section in a couple hours when I get back.
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,458
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: August 14, 2009, 05:50:10 PM »
« Edited: August 14, 2009, 05:56:06 PM by Dan the Roman »

It has become common among revionist historians to revisit the tenure of Mike Pence as President of the United States. While conceding the catastrophic consequences of his tenure, they argue that many of his mistakes were unforeseeable, the product of chance and consequences of forces outside of his control. While there is undoubtedly truth to the claim that the Pakistani strike presented no positive options, the decision to intervene militarily against the Progressive forces in the Northeast presents challenges to this view.

There is assuredly enough blame to go around. The military command bears particular responsibility for not producing even the rudimentary basis of a plan for military intervention in the two years previous to the intervention, thus forcing them to rely on a contingency plan for a terrorist nuclear strike.

Nevertheless, the vast majority of blame must be placed on the shoulders of a President who committed military force without any political policy of what its objective should be. Was the military intervening to remove illegal local governments? Intervening to assist them in maintaining order? If the former, why were no arrests  of Progressive officials approved even senior members of the Patriots? If the latter the President badly misjudged the public mood……..

Excerpt from Twilight of the Republic: A New History of America 2015-2101
Published University of Colorado Press Denver 2108

We are at a critical moment, and as such it is important that the utmost discipline be maintained. Under no circumstances are there be unauthorized clashes with the federal troops. All local officials are to cooperate with them to the minimal legal level. We must show the rest of the country that there is no “security situation”. Coalitions with anti-federal Democrats and even local Republicans are to be encouraged. Protests should be peaceful, but confrontation is to be encouraged, provided it is nonviolent. And of course, Federal troops can not be everywhere…….

Email from Matthew O’Neil, Deputy Director of Political Affairs, Patriots

The decision to commit federal troops into seven states was met with shock, not least by a military command that had been informed of the decision only hours before. As a result, there were no actual units to be moved in for more than a day and a half. This was sufficiently long for leaders of Congress from all parties to express misgivings on the intervention, though publicly there was a united front among Republicans in favor of the President’s decisive actions, whilst Democrats expressed frustration that the President had done nothing before the elections.

There was much talk of what the consequences of armed resistance would be. The media speculated on what would happen if the armed units of the Patriots resisted, worrying over the prospect of house-to-house fighting. They need not have bothered. Governor Walton, in a joint Press Conference with Governors DiPalva of Rhode Island, Wells of Connecticut, and Miller of Maine declared the action unconstitutional, but announced that they would fully comply. Even the reaction of local Democrats was muted. While a number welcomed the Federal troops as liberators, some expressed concern about outsiders intervening in local affairs.

This was not helped by the fact that when Federal troops marched in, on the 23rd, they were operating from a modified version of a contingency plan for a terrorist attack which prioritized securing highways, with the result that major interstates were all but shut down for the better part of two days. On arrival they were greeted with protestors declaring their presence a violation of the constitution, many of whom went over and asked individual soldiers why they were there.

Furthermore, providing housing for the soldiers proved a logistical nightmare requiring them to rent out hotel rooms, and when that proved insufficient, camping them in makeshift bases on fields, and community buildings.

The soldiers soon found that “restoring order” was more difficult than they had planned. Expecting rioting and open violence, they found states where crime was lower than almost anywhere else in the country.

What violence there was proved disturbing hard to stamp out. While the military could prevent open attacks on individuals in the streets, efforts to police events found themselves trapped in the middle of confrontations between Progressive supporters, and supporters of the federal presence. In these instances soldiers could do no more than keep the various groups apart, and forcefully evict troublemakers, all the while suffering abuse. The only way to prevent clashes was to ban public meetings, which simply provoked the Progressives to stage illegal rallies. The military could not break these up without the use of force which they were reluctant to use beyond firing over the heads of protestors.

The efforts to suppress these revealed one of the great weaknesses of the military. They could arrest individuals but had no legal authority to detain or charge them. Turning them over to state authorities simply resulted in their release. When a frustrated President Pence authorized indefinite detentions without charge, it served little purpose as those detained proved to be generally low-level operatives, not worth holding on to.

While the Progressives staged illegal rallies of thousands which the military was powerless to break up without force, President Pence grew increasingly frustrated. While there had been strong national support for intervention when launched, public opinion was turning against it as the violent thugs they had been warned about failed to materialize, and things like indefinite detention were introduced.
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,458
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: August 14, 2009, 05:55:31 PM »


To make matters worse, the Progressives were launching a full-throated press operation in the national media demonizing the campaign. Governor Walton appeared on CNN where he denied there were any problems.

Anderson Cooper: So do you deny the President’s charges that there is a climate of intimidation.

Governor Walton: Absolutely. The charges are absurd. Have there been incidents? Of course, but this has been a tragic constant in American politics for the last decade. And of the ones we’ve had, most have been provoked by outsiders who the Democrats have brought in to intimidate voters.

Cooper: They claim that they have been trying to protect themselves, that they are the victims of the overwhelming majority of offenses.

Governor Walton: That is not what the crime statistics say. I believe, now I don’t have this on me, but I believe that Democrats make up close to 70% of those convicted of political violence in Massachusetts. That sounds like the intimidation is clearly one-sided.

Cooper: Some would say that’s a consequence of a politically biased judiciary, and your Attorney General has been accused of partisanship.

Walton: Nonsense, our Judges are appointed from a committee of the MBA, and as for the Attorney General, he is an excellent public servant, something the voters agree with.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: August 14, 2009, 06:24:43 PM »

Hahaha...this is bad ass.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 9  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.082 seconds with 11 queries.