US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Skybird]

Dowly, the Hanse is - or was - a hobby of mine, deriving from my love for our former home town Lübeck, which I know, love and where we once lived, long time ago. If you ever have a chance to visit the old town of it, do it. Yes, i have simplified the history of the Hanse, because I do not want to make a long report on it here. But the fact remains that during its rise and peak the alliance and its free cities were self-maintaining in their administrative tasks and that it was the traders that at the same time while they did their own businesses also cared for the tasks and needs of their homeports and respective: cities. The Hanse was no military alliance, but it had teeth, and although it was non state-like, but "private", it was able to field combat power at sea and land that were both forces others could not afford to not take into account. In other words: it was able to push its trade interests through and defend them, even with force. Just later a split in the way the Hanse cities were managed occured. With the raise of Lübeck (not Hamburg, as one might think) to the de facto capital of the Hanse, a new "caste" of people emerged from the ranks of the traders and captains and those who had become wealthy. They translated their welath more and more into polticla power not for the sake of the city - caring for the poor and the widows, building schools, widow homes and hospitals and social wellfare structures - all of that you still can see in structures and buildings in several Hanse cities, especially Lübeck - but the aspired power for the sake of political power itself. This is what I call the rise of the caste of career politicians. Thy stem from the ranks of former traders who had become wealthy, but they disconnected more and more from the mor socially oriented way of administration as their predecessors had done, and were more and more willing to stick their noses into foreign conflicts that originally the Hanse stayed away from. This was the beginning of the Hanse's fall. It started to sought power they exceeded what it it neede din power to just defend its trade structures, and started to stuck its nose into affairs that originally it must nit have had interest in. By doing so, it started to bite off more than it could chew.


Yes, I simplify it all, because this should be a forum post that does not become too long. But I simplify on the basis of the literature I have about it on my book shelf . As I said, Hanse history is a special interest of mine since long - and already since my years at elementary school I went to that school in Lübeck as y small boy, and back then Germans were not yet afraid to name a school course "Heimatkunde/Sachkunde" (today there would be an outcry, probably). In Lübeck in the seventies that meant: "History of the Queen of the Hanse - Lübeck, and the Hanse itself. What got me ignited as a little kid,were the adventure stories about the pirate in the Baltic that were so attractive for young boys to read or hear about, who challenged the Hanse, mocked and resisted to it (and finally got brought down nevertheless), Klaus Störtebeker. In Germany, the name still is known, especially in the Hanseatic regions in the North, think of him as kind of a German Robin Hood, without happy end. - And so my interest was started.



The more political and "professionalised" the Hanse became, the more it entangled itself in foreign intrigues and conflicts that originally it had little business to do with. But the more it got weakened (mostly from within), the more it craved to still be seen as the secrete superpower of the North that it once had been indeed, but was no more. It fall was self-made. The more characteristics of a state the Hanse formed out, the weaker it got, and the more its inner politics turned into a battlefield of intrigues.



Plenty of lessons to be learned from it. Especially regarding the EU.


Oh, and note: you quote and excerpts about the history, are simplifications as well. They are not wrong, but not complete - they get not described in the context of the inner development of the Hanse and the change in the way it administrated itself. The way your summary describes the going of history for the first and middle part of the Hanse#s living cycle, it is not just so because the others were so strong but because the Hanse grew weaker by itself. In parts that was inner politicis, in parts it was overstretching.It was not just pressure from the outside (that too, there was trade rivalry, but the Hanse initially had more than enough strength to defend its groundsand even expand it), but because due to the erosion within. For some time it was so strong that none of the kingdoms in the North could ignore it or do thingsagainst its explicit will. And that even included powerful Sweden. Thats as if Singapore today would keep China or the US in check in its part of the Pacific.

[Dowly]

But would you agree that it wasn't just the internal disputes and politics that were the sole reason the Hanse declined and eventually ceased to exist? That was my beef about your original post; you made it seem like it was the reason it disintegrated.


Interesting subject nevertheless.

[Skybird]

There are always the rivals from other countries or alliances. And inner and outer events in the Hanse may even have mutually fed back on each other, most liokely it was like that, yes. I think this is the case most of the time with the unfolding of history anyway. In the end, the raise of Holland and England as naval trade empires probbaly would have triumohed in the end anyway, but with Hanse that did not erode itself it may have happened over a longer period of time, with other paths events unfolded on.

In the end, any power that has risen, sooner or later falls again, and the Hanse was not different, nor would it have been different if it would have stayed wise for longer time. It would have lived longer, and would by that have made it more difficult to rise at the cost of it. That hardly is a brillianbt conclusion. Its just wehat happens in historx all the time.

As I said, the brief summary you quoted is not wrong, its just not complete, takes events on the outer stage - from the Hanse's point of view - out of the context that links them with Hanseatic inner changes.


The consequences of the existence of the Hanse are hard to overestimate, and the shine and glory and the enormous wealth that this trader alliance accumulated, still can be seen in the buildings of the old towns of the Hanse cities, where they survived WWII. If you know Lübeck or Wismar (which is like a smaller model copy of Lübeck), then you will recognise the old towns of any other former Hanse city'S old town as well, the infleunce in culture, art and architecture, heavily influenced by the enormous wealth of the Hanse, radiated from Lübeck into all other regions of the Hanse. The level of social wellfare projects called to life by successful traders who became donators, was unique for that time, and in places lives on until today. It found condensates in the citiy'S architecture as well, were foudnaiton homes for poor and people in need were build. The traditonal Protstant working ethic and the Christian idela of caring for hte weak combined itself with the honour code of the "guild men", the Hanse traders, that amongst business men in Hanse cities whose fmailies lived in these cities since long time, partially lives on until today.



The golden time of the Hanse was 13th to early 15th century, but its beginnings reach back into the early 12th century. It formed up as decentralised local initiatives that became successful due to - for that time - revolutionary changes to the ways financial transactions were handled, surpassed in that quality (guaranteed safety) only by eqivalent practices in Italy, and the success of the traders who stationed their Kogge-ships in cityies' harbours made these persons welcomed candidates for the political offices of that city, a development described by the shift from the era of the "trading Hanse" to the "city-Hanse". As long as this process did not reach to far, the activity and coordination of the Hanse was not comparable to that of a nation'S centralised government, was more in private, volunterily self-organising hands, and was superior in economy and efficiency. For some time the Hnase fielded military navel power that nboody in the baltic could ignore. When this process went beyond a certain treshhold point however, and more and more administrational power centralised in Lübeck, the inofficial capitol of the Hanse, it started to behave like a national state, showed more and more typical administrational problems of states, got more and more eroded by inernal introgues and corruption, and saw the factors that had made it great and strong, being weakened and hollowed out.

The Hanse became great becasue it was no state-run affair, But the more similiar it became to a state late ron, the weaker it became, and the more it lost what had made it big.


The Hnase teches many lessons for today'S initiaves to build free private cities - lessons for how to start and how to run it, but also warning lessons on what mistakes to avoid. In the end, the Hanse did not last as long as some city states in Italy, namely Venice, or Genoa. Still, a very interesting matter indeed. And I must admit, authors of books often present very contradicting views on certain aspects of the Hanse's history.

[August]

None of this has to do with US Politics.

[vienna]

Middle of the road...



Seems like a fine place to drive; mainly, because, you know, if you steer too far to one side or the other, you'll most likely end up in a mess in a ditch or crumpled up against some barrier...


People in the middle of the road aren't just standing there, waiting; they are getting on with the normal business of life and not waiting for a tow truck (also driving down the middle of the road) to pull them out of their self-made messes...
















<O>

[Dowly]

Trump: The World is no longer laughing at us!! #MAGA #NOCOLLUSION

The World:

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by vienna

Middle of the road...
Seems like a fine place to drive; mainly, because, you know, if you steer too far to one side or the other, you'll most likely end up in a mess in a ditch or crumpled up against some barrier...

People in the middle of the road aren't just standing there, waiting; they are getting on with the normal business of life and not waiting for a tow truck (also driving down the middle of the road) to pull them out of their self-made messes...


<O>

Why do Hollywood movie stars lean mostly to the left?

Why is the whole state of California mostly democrats?

Surely it's not due to the poor people, you know the poor pickers ... I thought all rich people were Republicans.

[MaDef]

Why is the whole state of California mostly democrats?

Because, California is full of fruits, nuts and flakes.

[Buddahaid]

Maybe because it's not landlocked and inbred.

[Dowly]

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Trump: The World is no longer laughing at us!! #MAGA #NOCOLLUSION

The World:

Yes, he has accomplished so much: in the first 19 months, the highest turnover of staff in the history of the Presidency (even counting Presidents who served two (or, in the case of FDR, more) terms:

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/19/59416...back-100-years

...then there is a record setting number of felony convictions of Trump associates, campaign members, and White House staff:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...er/1061162002/

...and there will most very likely be more, if Mueller is allowed to complete his investigations. Oh, and there is the record set for taking the Office of the President, the international respect of other nations, and our influence on international issues and completely trashing same said in less than two years...

The Trump Oval office is a ramshackle circus and Donny Boy is the Head Clown...

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

Why do Hollywood movie stars lean mostly to the left?
...

Artists have always been among the most liberal of professions and it would be, indeed, highly unusual for those in the film, TV, music, etc., industries to not be likewise. There is also the long, long, historic antagonism of various 'conservative' or 'fundamentalist' cultures and governing entities towards the arts, particularly when the thoughts, ideas, or representations run contrary to the ideology of the governing. The arts are usually the first to suffer from censorship or repression under oppressive extreme regimes, be they Right or Left; the repression is most extreme when cultural politics is melded with religious fundamentalist fanaticism. Hence, in our country, art, of all kinds, has leaned away from the restrictive Right and towards the more accommodating left. There are not a few Right leaning entertainment ventures here in CA, but they tend to mainly cater to their niche audience of like-minded patrons, often existing out of the mainstream...

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

...


Why is the whole state of California mostly democrats?
...

A number of reasons. A prime cause has been the dearth of GOP candidates who are able to appeal to the needs and interests of the general voting population; the CA-GOP has been tied to mainly out-of state Far Right national GOP interests, very often at odds with the general will of the voters, and that stance has not played well with the majority of voters and the CA-GOP has been hemorrhaging registered voters as a result. If the voters aren't going to buy your ideas and/or proposals or if they won't espouse your political bent, you aren't going to have very many registered voters...

Also, Californians, on the whole are content with the current direction of the State and are not prone to 'upset the apple cart' and take a risk on what appears to be flawed political/social offerings...

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

...

Surely it's not due to the poor people, you know the poor pickers ... I thought all rich people were Republicans.

No, there are an awful lot of very rich DEMs in CA and they do carry a lot of clout. It should be noted DEMs are less than 50% of the registered voters in CA (44.6%); however, GOP Registered CA voters (25.4%) are nearly 19 percentage points behind the DEMs. This indicates DEM candidates or issues, in order to pass, have to pull in Independent voters as well as some GOP voters. What is really of note is the increase in voters registering as "No Party Preference" (the CA term for Independent has grown and will surpass the total number of GOP registered voters. A lot of this is due to the many younger voters who are turning their backs on partisan politics, in general. Here is a break down from the CA Secretary Of State on voter stats:

154 -DAY REPORT OF REGISTRATION

January 2, 2018, for the June 5, 2018, Statewide Direct Primary Election

TRENDS

Since the last 154-Day Report of Registration for a Statewide Direct Primary in a gubernatorial election
year (December 31, 2013):

The total voter registration in the state increased from 17,660,257 to 18,980,481.

The percentage of eligible Californians who are registered to vote increased from 73.4% to 75.7%.

The percentage of voters who have no party preference increased from 20.9% to 25.0%.

The percentage of voters registered with a qualified political party decreased from 76.7% to 74.4%.

The percentage of voters registered with the Democratic Party increased from 43.6% to 44.6%.

The percentage of voters registered with the Republican Party decreased from 28.7% to 25.4%.

SOURCE: 154-DAY REPORT OF REGISTRATION -- January 2, 2018, for the June 5, 2018, Statewide Direct Primary Election -- (Page 2)

https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ror...-reg-stats.pdf

If you look at Page 1 of the above report, there is a historical table of trends and stats dating back to 1997...


Keep in mind, when comparing CA stats with other states, CA is rather unique in that CA has so much influence on the rest of the country. The CA-GOP's long term embrace of Far Right, even radical, political stances has cost them dearly and the overall partisan bickering by both major parties has caused a dramatic increase in Independent voters and the trends that have developed in Ca are now recently being seen in the national political scenes. The fact a GOP Presidential candidate was not able to garner more votes than a highly unsatisfactory DEM candidate is troubling for the GOP. Perhaps, they should view the GOP's fate in CA as a cautionary example...

CA is the most populous state in the US, with its population holding at 12% of the national total, or 1 in 8 Americans. The next nearest state is Texas, and CA exceeds their total by over 11 Million citizens or about 39% of Texas's total population; in fact, the population of the State Of California exceeds the total population of Canada by some 3 Million people. CA , if it were a separate country, would be the 5th largest world economy, just ahead of the UK, and behind the rest of the US, China, Japan, and Germany. Comparing the conditions and conduct of CA with any other states is like comparing apples to oranges...









<O>

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Maybe because it's not landlocked and inbred.

Just a-pickin' ans a-grinnin'

















<O>

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by vienna

Yes, he has accomplished so much: in the first 19 months, the highest turnover of staff in the history of the Presidency (even counting Presidents who served two (or, in the case of FDR, more) terms:

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/19/59416...back-100-years

...then there is a record setting number of felony convictions of Trump associates, campaign members, and White House staff:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...er/1061162002/

...and there will most very likely be more, if Mueller is allowed to complete his investigations. Oh, and there is the record set for taking the Office of the President, the international respect of other nations, and our influence on international issues and completely trashing same said in less than two years...

The Trump Oval office is a ramshackle circus and Donny Boy is the Head Clown...




Artists have always been among the most liberal of professions and it would be, indeed, highly unusual for those in the film, TV, music, etc., industries to not be likewise. There is also the long, long, historic antagonism of various 'conservative' or 'fundamentalist' cultures and governing entities towards the arts, particularly when the thoughts, ideas, or representations run contrary to the ideology of the governing. The arts are usually the first to suffer from censorship or repression under oppressive extreme regimes, be they Right or Left; the repression is most extreme when cultural politics is melded with religious fundamentalist fanaticism. Hence, in our country, art, of all kinds, has leaned away from the restrictive Right and towards the more accommodating left. There are not a few Right leaning entertainment ventures here in CA, but they tend to mainly cater to their niche audience of like-minded patrons, often existing out of the mainstream...





A number of reasons. A prime cause has been the dearth of GOP candidates who are able to appeal to the needs and interests of the general voting population; the CA-GOP has been tied to mainly out-of state Far Right national GOP interests, very often at odds with the general will of the voters, and that stance has not played well with the majority of voters and the CA-GOP has been hemorrhaging registered voters as a result. If the voters aren't going to buy your ideas and/or proposals or if they won't espouse your political bent, you aren't going to have very many registered voters...

Also, Californians, on the whole are content with the current direction of the State and are not prone to 'upset the apple cart' and take a risk on what appears to be flawed political/social offerings...





No, there are an awful lot of very rich DEMs in CA and they do carry a lot of clout. It should be noted DEMs are less than 50% of the registered voters in CA (44.6%); however, GOP Registered CA voters (25.4%) are nearly 19 percentage points behind the DEMs. This indicates DEM candidates or issues, in order to pass, have to pull in Independent voters as well as some GOP voters. What is really of note is the increase in voters registering as "No Party Preference" (the CA term for Independent has grown and will surpass the total number of GOP registered voters. A lot of this is due to the many younger voters who are turning their backs on partisan politics, in general. Here is a break down from the CA Secretary Of State on voter stats:



SOURCE: 154-DAY REPORT OF REGISTRATION -- January 2, 2018, for the June 5, 2018, Statewide Direct Primary Election -- (Page 2)

https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ror...-reg-stats.pdf

If you look at Page 1 of the above report, there is a historical table of trends and stats dating back to 1997...


Keep in mind, when comparing CA stats with other states, CA is rather unique in that CA has so much influence on the rest of the country. The CA-GOP's long term embrace of Far Right, even radical, political stances has cost them dearly and the overall partisan bickering by both major parties has caused a dramatic increase in Independent voters and the trends that have developed in Ca are now recently being seen in the national political scenes. The fact a GOP Presidential candidate was not able to garner more votes than a highly unsatisfactory DEM candidate is troubling for the GOP. Perhaps, they should view the GOP's fate in CA as a cautionary example...

CA is the most populous state in the US, with its population holding at 12% of the national total, or 1 in 8 Americans. The next nearest state is Texas, and CA exceeds their total by over 11 Million citizens or about 39% of Texas's total population; in fact, the population of the State Of California exceeds the total population of Canada by some 3 Million people. CA , if it were a separate country, would be the 5th largest world economy, just ahead of the UK, and behind the rest of the US, China, Japan, and Germany. Comparing the conditions and conduct of CA with any other states is like comparing apples to oranges...


<O>

This is why we should elect vienna as our Political Zar

Wait a minute we don't have a Political Zar

[Platapus]

I still think that Reagan has the record for most convictions in an administration, but that record is being challenged by Trump.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

This is why we should elect vienna as our Political Zar

Wait a minute we don't have a Political Zar

I will consider the position only if a couple of really great-looking Czarinas are included in the deal...

Originally Posted by Platapus

I still think that Reagan has the record for most convictions in an administration, but that record is being challenged by Trump.

Its not a question of just amount, its a question of how many in how short a time: Regan had 8 years to rack up his record; Trump is already set to topple Reagan in less than 2 years...

...but, then, Trump really, really, loves having the most of anything...













<O>