Discuss.
Complete obstruction by Republicans which will be blamed on the Democrats who lose house majority in 2022. (probably not the latter, but surely the former)
Lots of men shutting up.
everything gets blocked, nothing changes. President is literate.
so some improvement overall
Will Biden serve only one term and retire?
I think Biden will carry on with a tough stance on China and Russia in general and tough on trade and defense expectations with Europe. However, he will strengthen multilateralism and the rules based international order. Definitely better for international relations than the swooning dictator fanboy before him.
Quote from: Caliga on November 07, 2020, 12:21:13 PM
Will Biden serve only one term and retire?
Yes, Harris will run in 2024, and the thought of a black lady being Prez will drive people to elect whichever Trump will run against her.
I think Biden will successfully push for the infrastructure bill that Trump forgot about. US national infrastructure is in terrible shape and it's hurting competitiveness. That's an investment both parties say they want.
Quote from: Tamas on November 07, 2020, 12:31:53 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 07, 2020, 12:21:13 PM
Will Biden serve only one term and retire?
Yes, Harris will run in 2024, and the thought of a black lady being Prez will drive people to elect whichever Trump will run against her.
I'm not sure Harris will get the nod in 2024. If I had to bet Harris against the field right now, I'd bet the field.
Biden is pretty ancient so I'm wondering if Harris will be busier and have a higher profile than the average VP? If she does then she will also have the chance to make herself look like presidential material or the opposite.
Let's hope it won't be a shitshow like the last time a Democrat president resigned before the term of office was up, in 1968.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 07, 2020, 12:38:09 PM
Biden is pretty ancient so I'm wondering if Harris will be busier and have a higher profile than the average VP? If she does then she will also have the chance to make herself look like presidential material or the opposite.
It's crazy - just think that Biden's first campaign was de-railed beceause he plagiarised his British contemporary Neil Kinnock :blink:
I was looking at this recently and it's amazing how many of the leaders in the US are older than the Father of the House (Sir Peter Bottomley) - I think McConnell, Trump and Biden are, Pelosi is 5 years younger.
I wouldn't be surprised if Harris has a more fulsome role, as Biden did, and I suspect she'll impress. Could be wrong.
I'm wondering if the assumption that Biden won't run for a second term actually increases his chances of getting legislation through the Senate.
Pelosi is 80 btw.
I'm hoping that Harris will be great, but always try and purge such wishful thoughts, too many disappointments over the years.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 07, 2020, 12:50:27 PM
Pelosi is 80 btw.
I'm hoping that Harris will be great, but always try and purge such wishful thoughts, too many disappointments over the years.
Oh wow - so she's far older. Bottomley is only 76 and first elected, I think, in 1974.
My biggest prediction is that Biden will likely announce after the 2022 midterms (regardless of their result, I think he just won't announce before them) that he will not seek a second term.
I think Biden will try genuine bipartisanship and not succeed.
I think the more interesting questions will be how do the Democrats and Republicans go forward. There have been a few times in history where Presidents have been able to run vigorous midterm campaigns against inactive congresses and won, but that has usually been "riled up" Presidents good at riling other people up, which Joe Biden isn't. I think the Republicans are still on their same bad demographic track, but will be well positioned to win elections and keep fighting through 2030. I think the biggest issue the GOP will have going forward is to some degree Obama and Hillary were perfect for getting right wing agitation really high. I have a strong suspicion muddling Joe, who won't actually get any far lefty policies passed with a Republican Senate, will be much harder to keep people riled up about. At the same time I think the Democrats don't have any amazing way to rile up their people either.
I think until further demographic erosion of the white grievance base fundamentally alters America forever, if Democrats want to wield the kind of power they briefly had in 2008-10 they have to find a way to message to and win more votes with the white working class and white rural class. Not "win", not "kowtow to", but at least find a way to get those votes. They aren't even trying now. Even Trump tried to get black votes, which is more than we can say for Dems and rural voters the last few years. If you don't try at all you certainly won't get any.
I hear a lot of people expecting the "Trump surge" voters are hear to stay, but we had a historically high turnout election and those are rare. Voters drawn off the sidelines by a charismatic politician, in American history, rarely become permanent voters when they spent the previous 30-50 years of their lives not voting. Likewise Biden likely got a surge of voters that are either not here to stay, or possibly were quasi-Republicans (like me--although I'm not going back to the GOP unless they shift things a lot, my quixotic goal will be to try to advocate for the Dems being a true centrist style Merkel type party with broad appeal to the broadest portion of voters possible--I doubt me and the people like me will succeed.)
AOC will run against Don Jr. in 2024 and both will cause a split in their respective parties. US will continue with a 4+ party system, joining the civilized world. :P
I am not sure I am comfortable with Cal jumping FunkMunk's claim like this.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2020, 01:11:55 PM
I am not sure I am comfortable with Cal jumping FunkMunk's claim like this.
I'm alright having lived through the horror that transpired after Funks presidential thread.
:lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2020, 01:11:55 PM
I am not sure I am comfortable with Cal jumping FunkMunk's claim like this.
Claim Jumper :w00t:
(https://www.claimjumper.com/perch/resources/backgrounds/land-sea-desk.jpg)
Is that a jumper? :blink:
I have it on good authority, that Pelosi is going to invoke the 25th against Biden and Kamala will be the president before the end of 2021
Qanon is not good authority.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 07, 2020, 02:29:32 PM
Qanon is not good authority.
well thankfully it wasn't from Q then
Some equally reputable source though.
He will reverse almost everything Trump has done in foreign policy. He will spend a great deal of time trying to convince hoaxers and antimaskers to behave like grown ups. He will eventually propose significant Green legislation that will fail in the Senate.
Don't agree on foreign policy - I think arguably China policy is Trump's only real success that will endure.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 07, 2020, 02:38:36 PM
Don't agree on foreign policy - I think arguably China policy is Trump's only real success that will endure.
A big order for soybeans in exchange for years of tarriff disruptions?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 07, 2020, 02:38:36 PM
Don't agree on foreign policy - I think arguably China policy is Trump's only real success that will endure.
Yeah it was time China was called out on all the BS.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2020, 02:39:48 PM
A big order for soybeans in exchange for years of tarriff disruptions?
Bipartisan consensus that China is a strategic competitor and can't just be integrated into the international system.
Edit: Which I don't think existed in 2016.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 07, 2020, 02:45:29 PM
Bipartisan consensus that China is a strategic competitor and can't just be integrated into the international system.
Edit: Which I don't think existed in 2016.
I don't think Trump has created an enduring bipartisan consensus that the best way to deal with China is to force them to buy more soybeans and ban Tik Toc.
It will be interesting to see what Biden does about Israel. Pretty hard to reverse the location of an embassy, and very hard to go past rhetoric when it comes to annexation and all that occupied territory stuff. Obama tried rhetoric alone and that bluff got called.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 07, 2020, 02:37:32 PM
Some equally reputable source though.
well it is Tucker Carlson so...
I think that Biden will have a big, fat, neon sign that says "Transitional president" right from the start. As such, I don't expect him to do anything groundbreaking, Green New Deal style, just steering the country back to a rational course will be already a difficult chore in some aspects, and a possibly obstructionist Senate won't allow him to do anything radical anyway (not that I think that Biden would do that even if he could). With that in mind, I think he'll try to be a "healer" kind of President, bringing the coutnry back together and rebuilding bridges. How successful he'll be will remain to be seen.
His objectives will be, in the short term, applying a logical strategy against Covid and building an appropriate stimulus package to kickstart the economy and support those struggling during the pandemic, as well as bringing the federal apparatus back to speed. I guess he'll have to nominate bucketloads of people to all kind of agencies, some of them to positions that Trump left purposedfully unoccupied, and there'll be a lot of stuff catch up to do. Internationally I see him rejoining all the international agreements that Trump rubished, beginning with the Paris Agreement, and maybe rejoining the Iran Nuclear Deal. Just undoing all the Trumpian crap he can will be quite a tall order.
Long term, and if it's pretty clear that he'll be a one term president, he should focus on building up his successor, and logic says that it should be Kamala Harris, so I can see her taking up plenty of responsability during the presidency in order to increase her profile towards the 2024 elections.
The biggest dilemma he'll have to face is if he will really want to investigate and/or prosecute Trump. I'm pretty sure that if a serious investigation takes place enough shit will be found to warrant a proper trial against him. On the one hand it might set up the terrible precedent of a president investigating his predecessor, which might create plenty of bad blood for future elections, but on the other hand doing nothing basically condones doing all kinds of corrupt stuff during a presidency. If I had to bet I'd say he might investigate but won't really prosecute him.
Does Congress need to approve agreements with foreign powers? If it does, will it approve undoing Trump's stuff?
Which artists will play at Biden's inauguration? All of them?
Quote from: The Brain on November 07, 2020, 03:06:01 PM
Does Congress need to approve agreements with foreign powers? If it does, will it approve undoing Trump's stuff?
The Senate needs to approve *treaties* but not things like the Paris Accord or Bubba's memorandum of understanding with North Korea. IIRC the Iran deal was one of those memo type deals.
So as a side note maybe the formal treaty is dead like the official declaration of war.
Yeah - Paris was deliberately drafted the way it is to avoid having to get Senate approval.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 07, 2020, 02:38:36 PM
Don't agree on foreign policy - I think arguably China policy is Trump's only real success that will endure.
Well Obama was already building an anti-Chinese coalition that Trump split from.
I hope Biden works something out with TPP, though we probably can never join. Not even a Democratic Senate would let him do that now.
But China has worked for a long time to make themselves our enemy. No use pretending otherwise.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 07, 2020, 02:45:29 PM
Bipartisan consensus that China is a strategic competitor and can't just be integrated into the international system.
Edit: Which I don't think existed in 2016.
Xi didn't consolidate his power before about 2016. He's the game-changer, not Trump.
Trump really wasn't that hard on China. The tariff war hurt the US far more than China, and pretty much ended when China made some vague (and unfulfilled) promises to buy some US stuff.
Biden isn't beholden to any Chinese banks, so has more room to maneuver with regard to China.
Also, Biden's IQ is over 50.
Fine - Trump has no enduring achievements :P
But personally I think it's fair to say that his campaign changed the politics of dealing with China in a way that will last and changed the attitude of Dems as well as the GOP.
I agree he didn't create a new policy consensus but he changed the mood/politics of dealing with China and that matters significantly more than any individual policies. Unrelated to Trump it is a sentiment that has become common in Europe over the last year too so Biden will be able to build an actual policy consensus and actually make it more effective by leveraging US alliances.
Quote from: The Larch on November 07, 2020, 03:03:11 PM
The biggest dilemma he'll have to face is if he will really want to investigate and/or prosecute Trump. I'm pretty sure that if a serious investigation takes place enough shit will be found to warrant a proper trial against him. On the one hand it might set up the terrible precedent of a president investigating his predecessor, which might create plenty of bad blood for future elections, but on the other hand doing nothing basically condones doing all kinds of corrupt stuff during a presidency. If I had to bet I'd say he might investigate but won't really prosecute him.
I think that a "truth and reconciliation" approach is more Biden's style and better for the country. The excesses need to go on the record, but a trial would be counter-productive.
New York state charges, though, are likely. As is DJT's bankruptcy.
Quote from: grumbler on November 07, 2020, 03:26:49 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 07, 2020, 03:03:11 PM
The biggest dilemma he'll have to face is if he will really want to investigate and/or prosecute Trump. I'm pretty sure that if a serious investigation takes place enough shit will be found to warrant a proper trial against him. On the one hand it might set up the terrible precedent of a president investigating his predecessor, which might create plenty of bad blood for future elections, but on the other hand doing nothing basically condones doing all kinds of corrupt stuff during a presidency. If I had to bet I'd say he might investigate but won't really prosecute him.
I think that a "truth and reconciliation" approach is more Biden's style and better for the country. The excesses need to go on the record, but a trial would be counter-productive.
New York state charges, though, are likely. As is DJT's bankruptcy.
Do you think that something from the Mueller Report will be able to be used against him?
Quote from: The Larch on November 07, 2020, 03:31:13 PM
Do you think that something from the Mueller Report will be able to be used against him?
Used "against him" in the Truth and Reconciliation sense? Yes. As the basis for criminal charges, no.
I think that we will see the evidence that has not been produced yet.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 07, 2020, 02:38:36 PM
Don't agree on foreign policy - I think arguably China policy is Trump's only real success that will endure.
China policy was a disaster. Farmers only live with government grants now, instead of exporting their products.
Quote from: viper37 on November 07, 2020, 04:51:30 PM
China policy was a disaster. Farmers only live with government grants now, instead of exporting their products.
Fine. It's not a million miles away from that in Australia because China's imposed huge tariffs on certain agricultural products that are heavily exported to China. That isn't because Australia's started a trade war, it's because Australia won't row in behind Chinese political goals.
We may have to subsidise a lot more than farmers to preserve autonomy, but that's worth it.
Quote from: grumbler on November 07, 2020, 03:26:49 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 07, 2020, 03:03:11 PM
The biggest dilemma he'll have to face is if he will really want to investigate and/or prosecute Trump. I'm pretty sure that if a serious investigation takes place enough shit will be found to warrant a proper trial against him. On the one hand it might set up the terrible precedent of a president investigating his predecessor, which might create plenty of bad blood for future elections, but on the other hand doing nothing basically condones doing all kinds of corrupt stuff during a presidency. If I had to bet I'd say he might investigate but won't really prosecute him.
I think that a "truth and reconciliation" approach is more Biden's style and better for the country. The excesses need to go on the record, but a trial would be counter-productive.
New York state charges, though, are likely. As is DJT's bankruptcy.
I would happily forgo the pleasure of seeing Trump jailed if it meant that we could heal the rifts in our society. I don't want to see anymore street fights between protesters. I want everyone to take it down a notch.
First thing he needs to do is do something about the pandemic.
Hope that vaccine is ready soon.
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2020, 07:09:52 PM
Hope that vaccine is ready soon.
Trump has it in his back pocket, but since people rejected him he's not going to play ball and will leave the game with still in his possession.
This thread is not going to sustain Languish like the previous one. :(
Quote from: Maladict on November 07, 2020, 08:07:49 PM
This thread is not going to sustain Languish like the previous one. :(
It'll be kinda cool to not have to bother about the US president from one week to the next.
I can just safely assume he's trying to do an good, honest job.
Quote from: Maladict on November 07, 2020, 08:07:49 PM
This thread is not going to sustain Languish like the previous one. :(
I think we might end up with a lot of :pinch: from Biden's gaffe's and senility. Maybe some discussion of Article 25. Maybe discussion of resigning.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2020, 08:27:22 PM
Quote from: Maladict on November 07, 2020, 08:07:49 PM
This thread is not going to sustain Languish like the previous one. :(
I think we might end up with a lot of :pinch: from Biden's gaffe's and senility. Maybe some discussion of Article 25. Maybe discussion of resigning.
That's encouraging. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2020, 08:27:22 PM
Quote from: Maladict on November 07, 2020, 08:07:49 PM
This thread is not going to sustain Languish like the previous one. :(
I think we might end up with a lot of :pinch: from Biden's gaffe's and senility. Maybe some discussion of Article 25. Maybe discussion of resigning.
Jesus dude. That got dark.
What do you think of his speech?
One slightly thrilling aspect of a Biden Presidency: a leader who will simply read their speech off a teleprompter.
Never thought I'd miss it so much.
Edit: Also a politician talking about "action plans" and being able to take some hope from the fact that there are actually plans, not just large binders filled with blank sheets of paper propped on a table next to the President.
Edit: And when he quoted from "On Eagle's Wings" I had an alarming moment of recognition. I am 90% sure my nan had a CD with Daniel O'Donnell doing that song. As someone said on Twitter: Irish Catholic cringe is the next President :ph34r:
Ah well it just ended. Very kumbaya, I dug it.
We need more pics of Biden flirting with biker chicks.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2020, 08:27:22 PM
Quote from: Maladict on November 07, 2020, 08:07:49 PM
This thread is not going to sustain Languish like the previous one. :(
I think we might end up with a lot of :pinch: from Biden's gaffe's and senility. Maybe some discussion of Article 25. Maybe discussion of resigning.
Haven't seen any of that from him lately. Are we talking about the same guy? I'm thinking about the guy that just won the election, and gave a long victory speech that was pretty much memorized.
He seems less prone to gaffes and senility than Bush Jr, or Sr, though not as energetic as, say, Obama or Bill Clinton.
Yeah, we might end up with premature senility, but he doesn't show signs of it. He's smoother than all but a handful of his competitors, Republican or Democratic.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2020, 08:27:22 PM
Quote from: Maladict on November 07, 2020, 08:07:49 PM
This thread is not going to sustain Languish like the previous one. :(
I think we might end up with a lot of :pinch: from Biden's gaffe's and senility. Maybe some discussion of Article 25. Maybe discussion of resigning.
Duh.
We'll see.
He is a baby compared to the fossils running the house :ph34r:
Quote from: grumbler on November 07, 2020, 10:54:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2020, 08:27:22 PM
Quote from: Maladict on November 07, 2020, 08:07:49 PM
This thread is not going to sustain Languish like the previous one. :(
I think we might end up with a lot of :pinch: from Biden's gaffe's and senility. Maybe some discussion of Article 25. Maybe discussion of resigning.
Haven't seen any of that from him lately. Are we talking about the same guy? I'm thinking about the guy that just won the election, and gave a long victory speech that was pretty much memorized.
He seems less prone to gaffes and senility than Bush Jr, or Sr, though not as energetic as, say, Obama or Bill Clinton.
Yeah, we might end up with premature senility, but he doesn't show signs of it. He's smoother than all but a handful of his competitors, Republican or Democratic.
I just watched tonight's speech. It wasn't super-amazing oratory... but it was solid. It was good. And it was gaffe-free with no sign of senility. And miles better than anything out of Trump.
I mean Biden has been prone to stupid gaffes in the past, and he had some in this election. The hairy legs thing. The you are not really black if you don't vote for me thing. I think he was joking around in both instances but I can never tell.
However since he is following Trump those are not nearly as big of a deal as they used to be.
As far as senility, I don't know. I have a 99 year old great aunt who has no senility at all so I guess it depends if it runs in his family. I don't know. Do you know something Yi?
My 91-year-old mother-in-law is still completely sharp....unless she is tired, then things can go downhill. Many (most) people never go senile but everyone's energy levels lower with age. I hope that the new president has a workload that doesn't completely knacker him.
My 20 or even 30 year old me never imagined I'd become an old fart yearning for politics to be boring.
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2020, 12:00:49 AM
I just watched tonight's speech. It wasn't super-amazing oratory... but it was solid. It was good. And it was gaffe-free with no sign of senility. And miles better than anything out of Trump.
It was a bit one-tone shouty. But I think we should be sympathetic that he's dealing with novelty of giving a speech to hundreds of cars :lol:
Soooo.... I just learned Joe Bidens middle name is Robinette. Which in French is apparently a random female version of a tap.
Quote from: Tyr on November 08, 2020, 06:31:44 AM
Soooo.... I just learned Joe Bidens middle name is Robinette. Which in French is apparently a random female version of a tap.
Or a female version of Robin. :P
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 08, 2020, 04:21:25 AM
My 91-year-old mother-in-law is still completely sharp....unless she is tired, then things can go downhill. Many (most) people never go senile but everyone's energy levels lower with age. I hope that the new president has a workload that doesn't completely knacker him.
There is precedent for taking several hours executive time per day.
AOC is wasting no time... What's the strategy to force the Republican senate to accept progressives in the cabinet?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ends-truce-by-warning-incompetent-democratic-party
QuoteAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez ends truce by warning 'incompetent' Democratic party
Quote from: Valmy on November 08, 2020, 12:06:56 AM
As far as senility, I don't know. I have a 99 year old great aunt who has no senility at all so I guess it depends if it runs in his family. I don't know. Do you know something Yi?
Both my paternal grandparents suffered from dementia/alzheimer. I'm quite certain my grandpa had full blown alzheimer but his stupid doc never bothered with a full diagnostic. He spent nearly 10 years not talking, not recognizing anyone. My grandma had the same thing. And I fear my father is losing memory too, but it seems related or at least worst when he becomes stressed.
And my grandma always troubled with names. She would name all my uncles and my cousins before getting to my name. My dad is really bad with names, but his nicknames are more generic than Yi ;). And I also have some problem with names. I'll need to have a name repeated quite a few times until I can remember it correctly. I'll remember a phone number right away, after one reading, but I'm always having a hard time remembering to whome it belongs :P
Quote from: Tyr on November 08, 2020, 06:31:44 AM
Soooo.... I just learned Joe Bidens middle name is Robinette. Which in French is apparently a random female version of a tap.
robinet would be a tap.
robinette would be a deformation of the noun.
Don't think I've ever heard of a woman called
Robinette, but maybe the french speaking Euros do have some. They're all weird folks over there, with weird accents. :P
The only instance I would hear
Robinette would be to mock someone called
Robin, kinda like merging
tapette (faggot) with his name.
Quote from: garbon on November 08, 2020, 08:45:12 AM
AOC is wasting no time... What's the strategy to force the Republican senate to accept progressives in the cabinet?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ends-truce-by-warning-incompetent-democratic-party
QuoteAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez ends truce by warning 'incompetent' Democratic party
I don't think she has a strategy. She's just pissed off the "establishment" of the party blames her team for not winning more House seats.
Quote from: viper37 on November 08, 2020, 08:51:17 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 08, 2020, 08:45:12 AM
AOC is wasting no time... What's the strategy to force the Republican senate to accept progressives in the cabinet?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ends-truce-by-warning-incompetent-democratic-party
QuoteAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez ends truce by warning 'incompetent' Democratic party
I don't think she has a strategy. She's just pissed off the "establishment" of the party blames her team for not winning more House seats.
Wasn't her "team" like the most successful of the Democratic party in these elections?
Quote from: Solmyr on November 08, 2020, 10:17:35 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 08, 2020, 08:51:17 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 08, 2020, 08:45:12 AM
AOC is wasting no time... What's the strategy to force the Republican senate to accept progressives in the cabinet?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ends-truce-by-warning-incompetent-democratic-party
QuoteAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez ends truce by warning 'incompetent' Democratic party
I don't think she has a strategy. She's just pissed off the "establishment" of the party blames her team for not winning more House seats.
Wasn't her "team" like the most successful of the Democratic party in these elections?
Wouldn't be surprising; when radicals set the agenda, it is moderates who pay.
Quote from: garbon on November 08, 2020, 08:45:12 AM
AOC is wasting no time... What's the strategy to force the Republican senate to accept progressives in the cabinet?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ends-truce-by-warning-incompetent-democratic-party
QuoteAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez ends truce by warning 'incompetent' Democratic party
Beat on the table louder?
BTW, I don't think people like AOC need to be marginalized, I think they're adding a lot of energy to what would otherwise be a geriatric ward. I also think that they do know something about winning elections that the mainstream Democrats don't.
I just think they both AOC and her fans have to realize that politics is often like a cornstarch: a soft touch gets you further than a hard whack. It's better to help people move in the right direction slowly than to involuntarily aid people to move in the wrong direction quickly. I honestly believe that nothing in the US stands in the way of progress, not even the severely lopsided political system, if very progressive voters embraced pragmatism without losing their enthusiasm.
Obama had the birth certificate and "secret Muslim" nonsense going on.
I presume that Biden will have to deal with the "stolen election" stuff during his presidency. Which is even more destructive and will likely have more adherents.
Why is AOC blamed for "ending the truce" when it was John Kasich the one who made the first shot, blaming them from "almost costing Biden the election"?
QuoteProgressives Outraged as Biden Ally John Kasich Warns Democrats on the Far Left
Progressives in Congress fired back at former Republican Ohio Governor John Kasich on Saturday after the Joe Biden ally issued a warning to Democrats on the far left.
After media outlets projected President Donald Trump's defeat, Kasich—one of the Republicans reportedly being floated as a potential Cabinet choice for Biden's administration—said "the Democrats have to make it clear to the far left that they almost cost him the election."
Just a stunning statement from, again, Biden surrogate John Kasich: "The Democrats have to make it clear to the far-left that they almost cost him this election." https://t.co/Am9lcQ1WSq
— Hanna Trudo (@HCTrudo) November 7, 2020
Members of the so-called "squad" immediately responded to the remark. "Every single swing-seat House Democrat who endorsed #MedicareForAll won re-election or is on track to win re-election. Every. Single.One," Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York tweeted.
Anyone saying this after immigrant organizers delivered AZ, Black grassroots flipped Georgia, MI going blue w reality-bending 94% Detroit margin @RashidaTlaib running up the margins in her district & Trump publicly challenging @IlhanMN in MN and losing isn't a serious person. https://t.co/2FtJzqGki8
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) November 7, 2020
In another tweet, Ocasio-Cortez quote tweeted Kasich's warning, and asked: "Anyone saying this after immigrant organizers delivered AZ, Black grassroots flipped Georgia, MI going blue w reality-bending 94% Detroit margin + @RashidaTlaib running up the margins in her district & Trump publicly challenging @IlhanMN in MN and losing isn't a serious person."
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota joined Ocasio-Cortez in defending progressives. "And every single swing-seat House Democrat who is a member of the Progressive Caucus won or is on track to win re-election," she tweeted. "Every. Single. One."
And every single swing-seat House Democrat who is a member of the Progressive Caucus won or is on track to win re-election.
Every. Single. One. https://t.co/asmBijiXrP
— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) November 7, 2020
Ocasio-Cortez urged Democrats to embrace progressives and activists instead of blaming them.
"One thing I'll say: for the last two years, I and progressive candidates have been unseating powerful Dem incumbents supported by DCCC. Not *once* has anyone in the party asked me what weaknesses I've found in their operation. If they stop blaming progressives, we can help," she wrote. "I saw party consultants take over a Congressional swing campaign operation this year and was it wasn't good."
"The blind impulse to blame activists and the left both demoralizes a key constituency and distracts from asking real Qs & fixing serious operational issues," the lawmaker added.
One thing I'll say: for the last two years, I and progressive candidates have been unseating powerful Dem incumbents supported by DCCC.
Not *once* has anyone in the party asked me what weaknesses I've found in their operation.
If they stop blaming progressives, we can help.
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) November 7, 2020
Newsweek reached out to Kasich for comment.
I guess this is always going to be disadvantage of the Left. On the Right you have people who get all their submissive and authoritarian erogenous zones tickled when required to fall in line behind the latest leader chosen. People on the left are much less inclined to do that.
Quote from: The Larch on November 08, 2020, 11:10:22 AM
Why is AOC blamed for "ending the truce" when it was John Kasich the one who made the first shot, blaming them from "almost costing Biden the election"?
QuoteProgressives Outraged as Biden Ally John Kasich Warns Democrats on the Far Left
Progressives in Congress fired back at former Republican Ohio Governor John Kasich on Saturday after the Joe Biden ally issued a warning to Democrats on the far left.
After media outlets projected President Donald Trump's defeat, Kasich—one of the Republicans reportedly being floated as a potential Cabinet choice for Biden's administration—said "the Democrats have to make it clear to the far left that they almost cost him the election."
Just a stunning statement from, again, Biden surrogate John Kasich: "The Democrats have to make it clear to the far-left that they almost cost him this election." https://t.co/Am9lcQ1WSq
— Hanna Trudo (@HCTrudo) November 7, 2020
Members of the so-called "squad" immediately responded to the remark. "Every single swing-seat House Democrat who endorsed #MedicareForAll won re-election or is on track to win re-election. Every. Single.One," Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York tweeted.
Anyone saying this after immigrant organizers delivered AZ, Black grassroots flipped Georgia, MI going blue w reality-bending 94% Detroit margin @RashidaTlaib running up the margins in her district & Trump publicly challenging @IlhanMN in MN and losing isn't a serious person. https://t.co/2FtJzqGki8
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) November 7, 2020
In another tweet, Ocasio-Cortez quote tweeted Kasich's warning, and asked: "Anyone saying this after immigrant organizers delivered AZ, Black grassroots flipped Georgia, MI going blue w reality-bending 94% Detroit margin + @RashidaTlaib running up the margins in her district & Trump publicly challenging @IlhanMN in MN and losing isn't a serious person."
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota joined Ocasio-Cortez in defending progressives. "And every single swing-seat House Democrat who is a member of the Progressive Caucus won or is on track to win re-election," she tweeted. "Every. Single. One."
And every single swing-seat House Democrat who is a member of the Progressive Caucus won or is on track to win re-election.
Every. Single. One. https://t.co/asmBijiXrP
— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) November 7, 2020
Ocasio-Cortez urged Democrats to embrace progressives and activists instead of blaming them.
"One thing I'll say: for the last two years, I and progressive candidates have been unseating powerful Dem incumbents supported by DCCC. Not *once* has anyone in the party asked me what weaknesses I've found in their operation. If they stop blaming progressives, we can help," she wrote. "I saw party consultants take over a Congressional swing campaign operation this year and was it wasn't good."
"The blind impulse to blame activists and the left both demoralizes a key constituency and distracts from asking real Qs & fixing serious operational issues," the lawmaker added.
One thing I'll say: for the last two years, I and progressive candidates have been unseating powerful Dem incumbents supported by DCCC.
Not *once* has anyone in the party asked me what weaknesses I've found in their operation.
If they stop blaming progressives, we can help.
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) November 7, 2020
Newsweek reached out to Kasich for comment.
It seems to me there are two things going on here.
Progressives are beating out moderates within the party. So they point out they have the advantage over moderates. They also point out that they are winning their races.
Moderates are claiming progressives are costing the party, as a whole, against the other party in races where the areas are contentious between the parties.
Both of these things can be true at the same time, though. The end result, assuming they are both true, is a party dominated by progressives that does less well against Republicans overall, because they can't win in contentious areas. The party becomes localized in safe Democrat areas that are very progressive ... but can't command majorities.
Quote from: Tamas on November 08, 2020, 11:14:49 AM
I guess this is always going to be disadvantage of the Left. On the Right you have people who get all their submissive and authoritarian erogenous zones tickled when required to fall in line behind the latest leader chosen. People on the left are much less inclined to do that.
To be fair, on the right leaders like Trump aren't afraid to put all their points in INT and CHA. That gives them an advantage here.
Quote from: The Brain on November 08, 2020, 11:19:13 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 08, 2020, 11:14:49 AM
I guess this is always going to be disadvantage of the Left. On the Right you have people who get all their submissive and authoritarian erogenous zones tickled when required to fall in line behind the latest leader chosen. People on the left are much less inclined to do that.
To be fair, on the right leaders like Trump aren't afraid to put all their points in INT and CHA. That gives them an advantage here.
CHA maybe but INT? the elder Bush maybe but his son, Trump, or Reagan? Come on.
Quote from: Syt on November 08, 2020, 11:03:13 AM
Obama had the birth certificate and "secret Muslim" nonsense going on.
I presume that Biden will have to deal with the "stolen election" stuff during his presidency. Which is even more destructive and will likely have more adherents.
I think this is a reason a lot of establishment Republicans are still not openly acknowledging Biden's victory, although there's been a lot of careful messaging and dare I say hedging among Republicans regarding the election results.
They know, and reasonably sensible people around Trump know, and I suspect even Trump himself knows, that they have nothing that will overturn the election in the courts. Everyone knows they are going to lose these extremely dumb and baseless lawsuits. But the base needs to see that they at least tried and that they had their day in court. If the Rs don't at least appear to put up a fight then the base will never forgive them for not fighting the good fight. It's a case of the tail wagging the dog again.
It's absolutely insane than the party itself is scared to death of their own voters but that's where we are.
Quote from: Tamas on November 08, 2020, 11:23:30 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 08, 2020, 11:19:13 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 08, 2020, 11:14:49 AM
I guess this is always going to be disadvantage of the Left. On the Right you have people who get all their submissive and authoritarian erogenous zones tickled when required to fall in line behind the latest leader chosen. People on the left are much less inclined to do that.
To be fair, on the right leaders like Trump aren't afraid to put all their points in INT and CHA. That gives them an advantage here.
CHA maybe but INT? the elder Bush maybe but his son, Trump, or Reagan? Come on.
Do not question my jokes.
Quote from: DGuller on November 08, 2020, 10:49:35 AM
BTW, I don't think people like AOC need to be marginalized, I think they're adding a lot of energy to what would otherwise be a geriatric ward. I also think that they do know something about winning elections that the mainstream Democrats don't.
I just think they both AOC and her fans have to realize that politics is often like a cornstarch: a soft touch gets you further than a hard whack. It's better to help people move in the right direction slowly than to involuntarily aid people to move in the wrong direction quickly. I honestly believe that nothing in the US stands in the way of progress, not even the severely lopsided political system, if very progressive voters embraced pragmatism without losing their enthusiasm.
All fair points.
Quote from: Tamas on November 08, 2020, 11:14:49 AM
I guess this is always going to be disadvantage of the Left. On the Right you have people who get all their submissive and authoritarian erogenous zones tickled when required to fall in line behind the latest leader chosen. People on the left are much less inclined to do that.
Yes and no. Yanks correct me if I'm wrong, but during 2017-2018 the Republican party seemed completely uncapable of passing legislation despite dominating all the branches of government (i.e. the attempt to repeal Obamacare via legislation fell flat on its face). So it's not like they are such an homogeneous coordinated front.
Quote from: celedhring on November 08, 2020, 11:38:22 AM
Yes and no. Yanks correct me if I'm wrong, but during 2017-2018 the Republican party seemed completely uncapable of passing legislation despite dominating all the branches of government (i.e. the attempt to repeal Obamacare via legislation fell flat on its face). So it's not like they are such an homogeneous coordinated front.
Where they are effective at circling their wagons is when protecting their "tribe". Democrats tend to throw their members to the wolves as soon as there is anything they don't like.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 08, 2020, 10:17:35 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 08, 2020, 08:51:17 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 08, 2020, 08:45:12 AM
AOC is wasting no time... What's the strategy to force the Republican senate to accept progressives in the cabinet?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ends-truce-by-warning-incompetent-democratic-party
QuoteAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez ends truce by warning 'incompetent' Democratic party
I don't think she has a strategy. She's just pissed off the "establishment" of the party blames her team for not winning more House seats.
Wasn't her "team" like the most successful of the Democratic party in these elections?
I don't think so. They took no seats away from republicans. That's the measure of success that matters.
Quote from: Tamas on November 08, 2020, 11:14:49 AM
I guess this is always going to be disadvantage of the Left. On the Right you have people who get all their submissive and authoritarian erogenous zones tickled when required to fall in line behind the latest leader chosen. People on the left are much less inclined to do that.
if we look at where the leftist radicals find themselves ideologically I wouldn't be so sure they don't get their "submissive and authoritarian erogenous zones tickled when required to fall in line behind the latest leader chosen".
The only redeeming factor there is that there are so many radical leftist ideological variations at play and that they generally all hate each other's guts, meaning they can't form front.
Which is a bloody good thing given the history of radical leftism.
You guys do realize that your "leftist radicals" are basically like the centrist social democrats in Europe, right?
Yeah our Radical Left is Bernie. He just wants to tax the capitalists, not hang them with the rope they sold him.
Will not AOC making a lot of noise help Biden? It underlines just how moderate and centrist he is to have an actual leftist making a splash.
In any case, it seems to me that all this talk of Dems infighting is wildly blown out of proportion. My impression is that they've actually managed a pretty tight campaign with everyone doing their part and former rivals coming together to help Biden. Now that the campaign has been won it will be a different deal, but so far all the dem "rebels" were actually pretty good team players for Biden.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 08, 2020, 12:41:40 PM
You guys do realize that your "leftist radicals" are basically like the centrist social democrats in Europe, right?
It is a weird culture war issue. So Kasich complained about the radical left talking about things like "socialism" but said Biden should focus on policy priorities like establishing nationwide broadband and protecting social security :hmm:
Apparently this would help reach out to Republicans :huh:
Yeah, the Biden campaign benefited from the fact that the Dems united behind him pretty firmly. It's helpful when everyone more or less actually personally likes the candidate. Bernie and Biden are apparently good friends.
Big contrast from the Hillary campaign, where it always seemed there was lots of sniping back and forth between the progressive wing and the Clinton people, and Bernie really dragging out his endorsement.
The above makes me wonder if any other Democratic candidate would have won against Donald, now that the election is more or less behind us and we know what we know.
There was a lot of gnashing of teeth when Biden became the presumptive Dem nominee. A lot of posters here, including myself, were unconvinced by Joe and thought the Dems had better choices.
As it turned out, Joe united the party, returned much of the Midwest to the Dems, and flipped Arizona and Georgia in an election where 71 million Americans voted for Donald Trump! Would any of the other candidates have been able to do that? I don't know.
I still want to weaken the Presidency. Trump showed that there's a lot of holes in our laws. Things that Presidents don't do only because it violated norms rather than the law. The imperial Presidency needs to die.
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 08, 2020, 01:11:23 PM
The above makes me wonder if any other Democratic candidate would have won against Donald, now that the election is more or less behind us and we know what we know.
There was a lot of gnashing of teeth when Biden became the presumptive Dem nominee. A lot of posters here, including myself, were unconvinced by Joe and thought the Dems had better choices.
As it turned out, Joe united the party, returned much of the Midwest to the Dems, and flipped Arizona and Georgia in an election where 71 million Americans voted for Donald Trump! Would any of the other candidates have been able to do that? I don't know.
I got a couple of things badly wrong in 2020, and Joe Biden was probably the biggest one. I really did think for a long time that he was a completely uninspired choice, so uninspired that he could hand Trump a second term due to lack of enthusiasm. I now think that he was the best candidate Democrats could have, and I think that other candidates may have very well lost us the election.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2020, 01:03:38 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on November 08, 2020, 12:41:40 PM
You guys do realize that your "leftist radicals" are basically like the centrist social democrats in Europe, right?
It is a weird culture war issue. So Kasich complained about the radical left talking about things like "socialism" but said Biden should focus on policy priorities like establishing nationwide broadband and protecting social security :hmm:
Apparently this would help reach out to Republicans :huh:
I guess the real issue though is whether the policies expressed can win over American voters, who tend to be far more right wing.
Democrats have to win elections in a climate where nearly half the voters were willing to vote for Trump and the current Republican Party. The balance is this:
- push leftish policies to fire up a progressive base and get them to vote;
- but risk firing up the right against you/failing to win over voters in the middle.
I'm very very pleased, like nearly all of you I think , that Biden won the presidency. Trump is booted and the toboggan ride to hell has been stopped for a moment as we have collectively grabbed a passing tree branch and halted.
Biden won a great win, not the nuclear bombardment landslide that was hinted at, assured even by polling and pundits, but decent enough. Didn't seem to have much of a platform , some "soul of the nation" stuff , pretty meaningless, campaigning seemed to center around watching Trump actually campaign. Might have been the best strategy. I think that Biden is a pretty uninspiring candidate , but I take a great deal of comfort in imagining that people just really, really didn't want Trump to be president.
Not expecting much from his presidency - return to the 2015 status quo, cabinet of business titans and a perhaps a couple of Republicans, absolutely nothing for the progressive wing despite them fighting hard on his behalf. If the people in GA who worked hard to flip it for Biden can do the same thing in January, that would be amazing, if not blocked in the Senate obviously.
Return to default position of the last 70 years on Foreign policy, put some lipstick on the ACA and pretend it's good. No substantive reforms to SC, Healthcare, Police etc. Overturn Trumps executive orders by executive order and return to Obama immigration.
And while Im thrilled, as a non citizen, that Stephen Miller will now not be legislating against me and my family, Im very fearful of the future. If Democrats dont do something, anything, to start addressing or understanding why 70 million people voted for Trump they are going to be boned in 24 and in the future. Start addressing the cares and concerns of working Americans outside wealthy suburbs, in poorer areas, in economically ruined areas and rural areas and do it like it's a fucking emergency, because it is.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 08, 2020, 12:41:40 PM
You guys do realize that your "leftist radicals" are basically like the centrist social democrats in Europe, right?
Who cares? Our radical right is basically like the centrists in Saudi Arabia, so what? The best path towards winning elections in the US in 2020 is to know what is radical and what is mainstream in the US in 2020.
Quote from: DGuller on November 08, 2020, 01:20:20 PM
I got a couple of things badly wrong in 2020, and Joe Biden was probably the biggest one. I really did think for a long time that he was a completely uninspired choice, so uninspired that he could hand Trump a second term due to lack of enthusiasm. I now think that he was the best candidate Democrats could have, and I think that other candidates may have very well lost us the election.
Agreed. I've always quite liked Biden but I thought he had weaknesses but he delivered on his promise of winning back the rust-belt states. I still think that Bernie might have been able to do that, but was certainly the only candidate with that priority. And ultimately you can't win the Democratic nomination without strong support in the black community which none of the other candidates had or even feinted at.
I do think the map points to a strategic choice for Democrats and Republicans though. Lot's of possibilities.
QuoteI guess the real issue though is whether the policies expressed can win over American voters, who tend to be far more right wing.
I don't thnk American voters are far to the right of John Kasich.
QuoteDemocrats have to win elections in a climate where nearly half the voters were willing to vote for Trump and the current Republican Party. The balance is this:
- push leftish policies to fire up a progressive base and get them to vote;
- but risk firing up the right against you/failing to win over voters in the middle.
There's always going to be a fight within the Dems. I think both sides are probably, possibly right - it's too soon to tell based on an election day poll givent that we know election day was far more pro-Trump. We need to wait for more detailed analysis of the whole 2020 votes including the overwhelmingly Biden mail-in and early voters.
But without that analysis I think it's probably true that the progressive wing energised their base in swing states (e.g. Ilhan Omar in Minnesota with far better numbers than for Clinton in 2016) which helped win the Presidential election. I also think it's probably true that centrists lost their seats or failed to win seats because they were portrayed as tied to the progressive wing. I think both of those are true and are being amplified in each sides' preferred arena: the progressives in social media, the centrists in the traditional media.
I don't think we'll know until we have the analysis and I think there's always going to be a fight at this stage of a new administration as people are scrapping for power and influence in it. It's frustrating because I actually think both sides need to put that aside (as they did in the 2020 election) and focus on Georgia.
I think it's the internet that's the issue for Democrats. Progressives doing well in progressive areas and pushing for left-wing policies is how the party should work - and they will have valuable lessons on mobilising voters etc. Centrists being able to push their message elsewhere should also work. As it is social media emphasises both sides of the fight and Republicans take advantage (this is like my thought that maybe the issue with Democrat targeting races is that it's the internet/social media campaigns and online donors that are allocating their funds badly, not the party). The left in the US are far more constructive than they are here (except for the DSA types) and the key is how they can all work together and not let each other's messaging get in the way.
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 08, 2020, 01:11:23 PM
The above makes me wonder if any other Democratic candidate would have won against Donald, now that the election is more or less behind us and we know what we know.
There was a lot of gnashing of teeth when Biden became the presumptive Dem nominee. A lot of posters here, including myself, were unconvinced by Joe and thought the Dems had better choices.
As it turned out, Joe united the party, returned much of the Midwest to the Dems, and flipped Arizona and Georgia in an election where 71 million Americans voted for Donald Trump! Would any of the other candidates have been able to do that? I don't know.
I still don't think Biden was the best choice, but I am glad he was good enough.
To a large extent I think he won by staying quiet and letting Trump speak for himself.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-gsa-letter-biden-transition/2020/11/08/07093acc-21e9-11eb-8672-c281c7a2c96e_story.html
QuoteA little-known Trump appointee is in charge of handing transition resources to Biden — and she isn't budging
A Trump administration appointee is refusing to sign a letter allowing President-elect Joe Biden's transition team to formally begin its work this week, in another sign the incumbent president has not acknowledged Biden's victory and could disrupt the transfer of power.
The administrator of the General Services Administration, the low-profile agency in charge of federal buildings, has a little-known role when a new president is elected: to sign paperwork officially turning over millions of dollars, as well as give access to government officials, office space in agencies and equipment authorized for the taxpayer-funded transition teams of the winner.
It amounts to a formal declaration by the federal government, outside of the media, of the winner of the presidential race.
But by Sunday evening, almost 36 hours after media outlets projected Biden as the winner, GSA Administrator Emily Murphy had written no such letter. And the Trump administration, in keeping with the president's failure to concede the election, has no immediate plans to sign one. This could lead to the first transition delay in modern history, except in 2000, when the Supreme Court decided a recount dispute between Al Gore and George W. Bush in December.
"An ascertainment has not yet been made," Pamela Pennington, a spokeswoman for GSA, said in an email, "and its Administrator will continue to abide by, and fulfill, all requirements under the law."
The GSA statement left experts on federal transitions to wonder when the White House expects the handoff from one administration to the next to begin — when the president has exhausted his legal avenues to fight the results, or the formal vote of the electoral college on Dec. 14? There are 74 days, as of Sunday, until the Biden inauguration on Jan. 20.
"No agency head is going to get out in front of the president on transition issues right now," said one senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. The official predicted that agency heads will be told not to talk to the Biden team.
The decision has turned attention to Murphy, whose four-year tenure has been marked by several controversies involving the president, an unusually high profile for an agency little known outside of Washington.
"Her action now has to be condemned," said Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.), who leads a House oversight panel on federal operations. "It's behavior that is consistent with her subservience to wishes of the president himself, and it is clearly harmful to the orderly transition of power."
The delay has implications both practical and symbolic.
By declaring the "apparent winner" of a presidential election, the GSA administrator releases computer systems and money for salaries and administrative support for the mammoth undertaking of setting up a new government — $9.9 million this year.
Transition officials get government email addresses. They get office space at every federal agency. They can begin to work with the Office of Government Ethics to process financial disclosure and conflict-of-interest forms for their nominees.
And they get access to senior officials, both political appointees of the outgoing administration and career civil servants, who relay an agency's ongoing priorities and projects, upcoming deadlines, problem areas and risks. The federal government is a $4.5 trillion operation, and while the Biden team is not new to government, the access is critical, experts said.
This is all on hold for now.
"Now that the election has been independently called for Joe Biden, we look forward to the GSA Administrator quickly ascertaining Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as the President-elect and Vice President-elect," a Biden transition spokesman said in an email. "America's national security and economic interests depend on the federal government signaling clearly and swiftly that the United States government will respect the will of the American people and engage in a smooth and peaceful transfer of power."
As the campaign wound down, President Trump gave signals that he would not easily hand over the reins to his successor, if there was one. But for people who have been through them, a presidential transition is a massive undertaking requiring discipline, decision-making and fast learning under the smoothest circumstances. Each lost day puts the new government behind schedule.
"The transition process is fundamental to safely making sure the next team is ready to go on Day One," said Max Stier, president and chief executive of the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service, which has set up a presidential transition center and shares advice with the Biden and Trump teams. "It's critical that you have access to the agencies before you put your people in place."
The Biden team can move forward to get preliminary security clearances and begin FBI background checks on potential nominees requiring Senate confirmation.
Another senior administration official who was not authorized to speak publicly said each agency has drafted detailed transition plans for a new administration, but they will not be released to the Biden team until a winner is formally declared.
Trump has been resistant to participating in a transition — fearing it is a bad omen — but has allowed top aides to participate as long as the efforts do not become public, administration officials said. He is unlikely to concede he has lost or participate in traditional activities, the officials said.
In a call on Friday with administration officials, Mary Gibert, the head of the presidential transition team at the GSA, told colleagues the agency was in a holding pattern and not to host people from Biden teams until there is "ascertainment." She gave no specific timeline on when it was expected.
The delay has already gummed up discussions on critical issues, including plans to distribute a possible coronavirus vaccine, this official said.
GSA has been part of transition planning since the Presidential Transition Act was signed in 1963. Since then, the agency has identified the winner within hours or a day of media projections, and weeks before the results were made official by the electoral college.
Chris Lu, who served as former president Barack Obama's transition director in 2008, recalled that after Obama was declared the winner over the late senator John McCain on Nov. 4, he went to sleep to get up early the next morning to open the transition office. He missed the call from GSA's acting administrator, Jim Williams, informing him that he had signed over transition resources to the Obama team.
"Jim made the call at 1 a.m.," Lu said. "There was simply no controversy involved."
Robert C. MacKichan Jr., an attorney who served as GSA general counsel for presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, said that because Trump is contesting the election and the electors have not yet voted, it's too early for Murphy to make a call. Once the administrator issues the letter, the funds can be spent and can't be recouped.
"I don't think, at this point, I would feel comfortable making that determination now," MacKichan said. "It's premature."
MacKichan said he was confident Murphy would handle a difficult situation fairly. "As an attorney and as a procurement official, I think she has the highest standard of integrity," he said.
Murphy has not sought the limelight during her tenure and was described by former colleagues as a by-the-book person. She's regarded as well-qualified, an expert on contracting with experience both at the agency, where she had previously served as chief acquisition officer, and on Capitol Hill, where she had been a staffer for multiple committees. Heading a federal agency unknown to most Americans seemed like an ideal assignment.
But under Trump, two issues of personal importance to the president became almost constant sources of controversy for her: the lease Trump's company holds with the agency for its D.C. hotel, located in the federally owned Old Post Office Pavilion, and the planned consolidation of the FBI headquarters.
Both projects have pressed Murphy into duty defending the president, and her actions elicited criticism from the agency's watchdog as well as from congressional Democrats.
Trump's hotel lease was signed with the agency before Trump took office, and he resigned his position with the company when he entered office. But he retained ownership of his business, allowing him to profit from the property while in office.
Democrats held repeated hearings to get a better explanation of how the agency decided to allow Trump to keep the lease given that the Constitution bar presidents from accepting gifts or payments from foreign governments, which often patronize the hotel. Under Murphy, the GSA repeatedly declined to provide documents to House Democrats, including the monthly income statements it receives from Trump's company.
Last year, the agency's inspector general determined that GSA "improperly" ignored those concerns in allowing Trump's company to keep the lease. GSA defended itself by saying that the investigation "found no undue influence, pressure or unwarranted involvement of any kind by anyone."
Trump has personally intervened in the most prominent real estate project in the agency's entire portfolio: the plan to build a new FBI headquarters that would allow the bureau out of the crumbling and insecure J. Edgar Hoover Building. During his first year in office, Trump and the GSA abruptly canceled a bipartisan plan to build a new suburban headquarters for the agency, infuriating Democrats who had worked more than a decade on the project and who alleged that Trump canceled the project so a competing hotel could never be built in place of the Hoover building, a site down the street from his hotel. The White House said the president's business had nothing to do with the decision.
If the transition is that important, the process should be stipulated in law.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 07, 2020, 01:02:55 PM
AOC will run against Don Jr. in 2024 and both will cause a split in their respective parties. US will continue with a 4+ party system, joining the civilized world. :P
I could see her primarying Schumer, depending on how things play out.
I think AOC is still too young in 2024 both in eligibility & actual age. It's only a max of 8 years, ending your 2 terms before you are 50 makes for a very long post-presidency life.
Quote from: Malthus on November 08, 2020, 01:53:56 PM
I guess the real issue though is whether the policies expressed can win over American voters, who tend to be far more right wing.
Democrats have to win elections in a climate where nearly half the voters were willing to vote for Trump and the current Republican Party. The balance is this:
- push leftish policies to fire up a progressive base and get them to vote;
- but risk firing up the right against you/failing to win over voters in the middle.
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of the country, one that I shared until relatively recently too. America isn't particularly against left economic policy, in fact it probably leans towards it. What America is against is "left cultural" issues, and of course even then I mean more the Republican base, but they represent a lot of the country as proven by last week's election. The biggest lesson, IMO, to draw from Trumpism is for a very significant portion of the electorate cultural issues outweigh anything else. Democrats have largely not spoken to these issues since about 2004, and they haven't spoken to them effectively since before then. Do we need to? Can we? Hard to say, but when people go after AOC on the right it's not actually her socialist economic policies, it is what she represents culturally. The vast, vast majority of this culturally conservative base are low propensity and low information voters, that couldn't discern socialism from liberal market economics if their lives depended on it. These are people who probably support Medicare, Medicaid, probably support Obamacare if you only describe its policy impact and don't use the word Obamacare, probably support higher minimum wages, more rights for unions, more limitations on U.S. corporate behavior etc etc. But to this segment of the population the right has successfully transmogrified the word socialism to mean a cultural left set of ideas that really have nothing to do with what educated people mean when they use the word, but that doesn't matter. We can't "out educate" people, we have to recognize the political reality and respond accordingly.
To a broad swathe of the country you say socialism and they think "my car will be taken away because city dwellers think we should walk and ride buses everywhere", "my Church should have to marry two transgenders because the pastor will be forced to do so", "my daughter will have to go to public restrooms with adult men", "they hate our soldiers", "they hate our country", "they hate people who live outside of the big cities."
The answer to these misguided and malformed views, unfortunately, is not to explain what socialism really is and how they probably approve of it economically. You lack the cultural believability and currency to talk to these people, so they won't even let you (you being the left) past the front door. You're the other. Socialism is the other. It is not an economic philosophy.
Yes. It's also what makes all this talk of compromise and moderation particularly abhorrent for large swaths of the left, because it's read (rightly) as a compromise over who they *are*, not over what they propose. Be less gay, less black, less urban.
This is why AOC is right: not because her politics are objectively right (even though I tend to agree with them) but because she advocates a campaign of proximity, which incomprehensibly seems utterly foreign to the Democratic establishment. I do think COVID here hurt the Democrats who largely stopped going door to door, while Republicans had no such qualms.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 09, 2020, 09:45:47 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 08, 2020, 01:53:56 PM
I guess the real issue though is whether the policies expressed can win over American voters, who tend to be far more right wing.
Democrats have to win elections in a climate where nearly half the voters were willing to vote for Trump and the current Republican Party. The balance is this:
- push leftish policies to fire up a progressive base and get them to vote;
- but risk firing up the right against you/failing to win over voters in the middle.
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of the country, one that I shared until relatively recently too. America isn't particularly against left economic policy, in fact it probably leans towards it. What America is against is "left cultural" issues, and of course even then I mean more the Republican base, but they represent a lot of the country as proven by last week's election. The biggest lesson, IMO, to draw from Trumpism is for a very significant portion of the electorate cultural issues outweigh anything else. Democrats have largely not spoken to these issues since about 2004, and they haven't spoken to them effectively since before then. Do we need to? Can we? Hard to say, but when people go after AOC on the right it's not actually her socialist economic policies, it is what she represents culturally. The vast, vast majority of this culturally conservative base are low propensity and low information voters, that couldn't discern socialism from liberal market economics if their lives depended on it. These are people who probably support Medicare, Medicaid, probably support Obamacare if you only describe its policy impact and don't use the word Obamacare, probably support higher minimum wages, more rights for unions, more limitations on U.S. corporate behavior etc etc. But to this segment of the population the right has successfully transmogrified the word socialism to mean a cultural left set of ideas that really have nothing to do with what educated people mean when they use the word, but that doesn't matter. We can't "out educate" people, we have to recognize the political reality and respond accordingly.
To a broad swathe of the country you say socialism and they think "my car will be taken away because city dwellers think we should walk and ride buses everywhere", "my Church should have to marry two transgenders because the pastor will be forced to do so", "my daughter will have to go to public restrooms with adult men", "they hate our soldiers", "they hate our country", "they hate people who live outside of the big cities."
The answer to these misguided and malformed views, unfortunately, is not to explain what socialism really is and how they probably approve of it economically. You lack the cultural believability and currency to talk to these people, so they won't even let you (you being the left) past the front door. You're the other. Socialism is the other. It is not an economic philosophy.
You have made a case for what the answer is not; what in your opinion is the best course?
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 09, 2020, 10:10:59 AM
Yes. It's also what makes all this talk of compromise and moderation particularly abhorrent for large swaths of the left, because it's read (rightly) as a compromise over who they *are*, not over what they propose. Be less gay, less black, less urban.
This is why AOC is right: not because her politics are objectively right (even though I tend to agree with them) but because she advocates a campaign of proximity, which incomprehensibly seems utterly foreign to the Democratic establishment. I do think COVID here hurt the Democrats who largely stopped going door to door, while Republicans had no such qualms.
Whether the talk is abhorrent or not to progressives isn't the primary concern; of course progressives believe that failing to follow progressive policies to the letter is abhorrent - putting everything in moral terms, where progressive policies are moral and those who do not follow them are not, is a basic feature of progressivism.
The real problem is whether or not following progressive policies risks losing elections for the left, hence losing power to the Trumpite right.
I get the point that, for sone progressives, the Democrats gaining power is meaningless if they don't actually enact progressive policies - why bother supporting them, if they are basically indistinguishable from conservatives? Problem is that Trumpite Republicans are not merely conservative - they are, as we have seen, dangerously insane. So keeping them out, even at the expense of electing relatively conservative Democrats, has value.
This is why refusing to "compromise" by progressives risks making the perfect the enemy of the good.
Uhh, I'm not sure we get a good outcome, I'm in kind of wait and see mode. I am from these people in a sense, the right cultural people. I don't know that there is much reaching these people. The ones I'm thinking of tend to be uneducated and belligerently so, anti-expertise and anti-knowledge. I'm not sure how I'd begin to reach them. I am an educated individual, so is my wife so are my close friends, many whom have similar cultural backgrounds (white people, from religious families etc), but my family also had a bit more money and such and more respect for educational and occupational attainment. Like while I grew up around a lot of cultural conservatives, it was in an environment where people really respected those with more education than them, those with professional degrees and etc, and they genuinely listened to and respected them when they would try to explain things. Today the attitude is more that those people are just elitist cucks who can fuck right off.
I don't know how you penetrate through that. I see a lot of similarities to what's gone on in places like Poland and Hungary, and even to a lesser degree in the United Kingdom with some of the messaging that you saw around Brexit and that wing of British conservatism.
I wish I knew what an answer or a good ending looked like. Maybe for America just our diversity of those age 40 and under and revulsion towards white grievance culture will mean the "good guys" to be simplistic, simply outlast and out breed the bad.
Quote from: Malthus on November 09, 2020, 10:33:33 AM
Whether the talk is abhorrent or not to progressives isn't the primary concern; of course progressives believe that failing to follow progressive policies to the letter is abhorrent - putting everything in moral terms, where progressive policies are moral and those who do not follow them are not, is a basic feature of progressivism.
The real problem is whether or not following progressive policies risks losing elections for the left, hence losing power to the Trumpite right.
Didn't you just read OvB's post? He just explained it very clearly: it's not about policies. It's not about progressives scaring away good moderates. It's about the Other scaring away people who do not like them. It's about identity. How do you compromise on identity? When people are proposing identical policies, and one is termed anti-american and the other one is celebrated, it's difficult to not read it as a rejection of who you are, rather than what you say. And if you can't understand how being told "be a little less black, a little less Mexican, a little less gay" is received poorly, I don't know what to tell you.
I understand you really are committed to the narrative of moderation is the greatest thing ever for a political regime. I sympathize with that, but I think this is the product of the political 90s, when such a stance was possible, because a lot of people more or less agreed on some version of neoliberal order. Or so we thought. But this is no longer the type of climate we are in; and the sort of gentleman's agreement about neoliberalism was shown to have been an agreement of elites. We no longer live in the type of political climate where moderation does the sort of work that you think it does.
When perfect makes itself the enemy of the good, it implicitly makes itself the ally of the terrible. I think what progressive fail to understand is that things are going to gradually change for the better just as long as you don't let people get elected who would move things backwards. I really have no sympathy for the view that it doesn't matter for them whether Democrats or Republicans get elected, and I have a lot of disdain for it given what that attitude accomplishes in practice.
Quote from: DGuller on November 09, 2020, 10:54:39 AM
When perfect makes itself the enemy of the good, it implicitly makes itself the ally of the terrible. I think what progressive fail to understand is that things are going to gradually change for the better just as long as you don't let people get elected who would move things backwards. I really have no sympathy for the view that it doesn't matter for them whether Democrats or Republicans get elected, and I have a lot of disdain for it given what that attitude accomplishes in practice.
I don't see how that is responding to what I wrote.
Short of voting reform (HINT HINT) the only way socialists are going to make a break through is if the moderates can cement their hold so much that being crazy just doesn't work for the republicans anymore and they have to fight for the centre (ala Cameron with the Tories).
When the alternative is things going backwards then it makes sense for the Democrats to stick with safe options to secure the sane conservatives.
If the Republicans are angling for sane people though then the way is clear for the Democrats to try something outside the box and try to push forward.
All said though full support for there being socialists within the democrat party. Overton window and highlighting that the moderates are what they are and all that.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 09, 2020, 10:47:51 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 09, 2020, 10:33:33 AM
Whether the talk is abhorrent or not to progressives isn't the primary concern; of course progressives believe that failing to follow progressive policies to the letter is abhorrent - putting everything in moral terms, where progressive policies are moral and those who do not follow them are not, is a basic feature of progressivism.
The real problem is whether or not following progressive policies risks losing elections for the left, hence losing power to the Trumpite right.
Didn't you just read OvB's post? He just explained it very clearly: it's not about policies. It's not about progressives scaring away good moderates. It's about the Other scaring away people who do not like them. It's about identity. How do you compromise on identity? When people are proposing identical policies, and one is termed anti-american and the other one is celebrated, it's difficult to not read it as a rejection of who you are, rather than what you say. And if you can't understand how being told "be a little less black, a little less Mexican, a little less gay" is received poorly, I don't know what to tell you.
I understand you really are committed to the narrative of moderation is the greatest thing ever for a political regime. I sympathize with that, but I think this is the product of the political 90s, when such a stance was possible, because a lot of people more or less agreed on some version of neoliberal order. Or so we thought. But this is no longer the type of climate we are in; and the sort of gentleman's agreement about neoliberalism was shown to have been an agreement of elites. We no longer live in the type of political climate where moderation does the sort of work that you think it does.
I did read his post. I am not, however, committed to moderation as "the greatest thing ever for a political regime".
What I am committed to, is avoiding disaster. I see Trumpism as the road to disaster for us all. The pandemic has demonstrated that Trumpites have no answers to dealing with problems, other than retreating into fantasy. Should other serious problems arise - and they will - Trumpites will have no answers for them, either. So avoiding that "trumps" (to excuse the expression) following policies I may prefer.
The question is this: can Democrats best win through moderation, or through adopting progressive policies that we know large swaths of the US public have been programmed to hate? If I was convinced the latter was true, I'd agree with you.
Quote from: Malthus on November 09, 2020, 11:03:33 AM
I did read his post. I am not, however, committed to moderation as "the greatest thing ever for a political regime".
What I am committed to, is avoiding disaster. I see Trumpism as the road to disaster for us all. The pandemic has demonstrated that Trumpites have no answers to dealing with problems, other than retreating into fantasy. Should other serious problems arise - and they will - Trumpites will have no answers for them, either. So avoiding that "trumps" (to excuse the expression) following policies I may prefer.
The question is this: can Democrats best win through moderation, or through adopting progressive policies that we know large swaths of the US public have been programmed to hate? If I was convinced the latter was true, I'd agree with you.
This is sort of my calculus as well. There is a huge pressure for society to be more progressive on a lot of things. That means that the only relevant objective is to minimize the electoral chances of Republicans. As long as Republicans won't be there to fight the pressure by any means possible, often of dubious democratic legitimacy, progress will find its way through the political process. The marginal difference between AOC and Joe Machin is an order of magnitude smaller than the marginal difference between Joe Manchin and Susan Collins.
Quote from: Malthus on November 09, 2020, 11:03:33 AM
The question is this: can Democrats best win through moderation, or through adopting progressive policies that we know large swaths of the US public have been programmed to hate? If I was convinced the latter was true, I'd agree with you.
I feel I am repeating myself: It's not about policies. Progressive policies have support from much larger swaths of the American public than what was previously thought. To the amazement of people like Krugman. It's about *who* carries those policies. Obamacare, bad. Comprehensive medicare that is essentially obamacare, good.
Thus, if it's about who carries policies, rather than the content of policies - which, as experience has shown, isn't actually how voters form their mind - what does moderation look like? How do you moderate who you are?
If both you and BB were essentially saying the exact same thing, and I just always agreed with him, and never with you (with insults thrown in from time to time for good measure), how would you compromise with me, exactly?
Quote from: Malthus on November 09, 2020, 11:03:33 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 09, 2020, 10:47:51 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 09, 2020, 10:33:33 AM
Whether the talk is abhorrent or not to progressives isn't the primary concern; of course progressives believe that failing to follow progressive policies to the letter is abhorrent - putting everything in moral terms, where progressive policies are moral and those who do not follow them are not, is a basic feature of progressivism.
The real problem is whether or not following progressive policies risks losing elections for the left, hence losing power to the Trumpite right.
Didn't you just read OvB's post? He just explained it very clearly: it's not about policies. It's not about progressives scaring away good moderates. It's about the Other scaring away people who do not like them. It's about identity. How do you compromise on identity? When people are proposing identical policies, and one is termed anti-american and the other one is celebrated, it's difficult to not read it as a rejection of who you are, rather than what you say. And if you can't understand how being told "be a little less black, a little less Mexican, a little less gay" is received poorly, I don't know what to tell you.
I understand you really are committed to the narrative of moderation is the greatest thing ever for a political regime. I sympathize with that, but I think this is the product of the political 90s, when such a stance was possible, because a lot of people more or less agreed on some version of neoliberal order. Or so we thought. But this is no longer the type of climate we are in; and the sort of gentleman's agreement about neoliberalism was shown to have been an agreement of elites. We no longer live in the type of political climate where moderation does the sort of work that you think it does.
I did read his post. I am not, however, committed to moderation as "the greatest thing ever for a political regime".
What I am committed to, is avoiding disaster. I see Trumpism as the road to disaster for us all. The pandemic has demonstrated that Trumpites have no answers to dealing with problems, other than retreating into fantasy. Should other serious problems arise - and they will - Trumpites will have no answers for them, either. So avoiding that "trumps" (to excuse the expression) following policies I may prefer.
The question is this: can Democrats best win through moderation, or through adopting progressive policies that we know large swaths of the US public have been programmed to hate? If I was convinced the latter was true, I'd agree with you.
Great, so Trumpists win either way. either they win power outright, or they get non Trumpist politicians to govern in a way that won't upset people who might vote for a Trumpist candidate.
What a perfectly horrible society that would create.
Democracy isn't for everyone.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 09, 2020, 11:22:40 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 09, 2020, 11:03:33 AM
The question is this: can Democrats best win through moderation, or through adopting progressive policies that we know large swaths of the US public have been programmed to hate? If I was convinced the latter was true, I'd agree with you.
I feel I am repeating myself: It's not about policies. Progressive policies have support from much larger swaths of the American public than what was previously thought. To the amazement of people like Krugman. It's about *who* carries those policies. Obamacare, bad. Comprehensive medicare that is essentially obamacare, good.
Thus, if it's about who carries policies, rather than the content of policies - which, as experience has shown, isn't actually how voters form their mind - what does moderation look like? How do you moderate who you are?
If both you and BB were essentially saying the exact same thing, and I just always agreed with him, and never with you (with insults thrown in from time to time for good measure), how would you compromise with me, exactly?
If it is all about identity, and nothing else, then the US would indeed be doomed, as the majority would always win, and Trumpites have a lock on the majority's identity politics.
However, it would appear that this thesis is simply not true - yes, for
many on the right as on the left, identity politics trump everything - but not for all. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain how Trump lost.
What progressives must grapple with is that if their own theory is correct - that identity is all -
they will always lose. Because the US remains a nation where the majority identifies as Christian, White, and heterosexual.
Quote from: The Brain on November 09, 2020, 11:28:20 AM
Democracy isn't for everyone.
Only if one accept Malthus' premise. However, if it is for everyone then political leaders should act that way.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2020, 11:24:52 AM
Great, so Trumpists win either way. either they win power outright, or they get non Trumpist politicians to govern in a way that won't upset people who might vote for a Trumpist candidate.
What a perfectly horrible society that would create.
Point is to find a compromise that garners enough votes to win elections. Please note that this does not mean doing everything Trumpites want. No doubt there are many Trumpites who will refuse to accept anything other that everything they want. You will never reason with them, but you also don't need 100% of votes to win elections. You just need a majority.
One again we see how, for progressives, the perfect is insisted upon (and so becomes the enemy of the good).
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2020, 11:32:23 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 09, 2020, 11:28:20 AM
Democracy isn't for everyone.
Only if one accept Malthus' premise. However, if it is for everyone then political leaders should act that way.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I'll agree with OVB here and I think his recent posts on the subject have been on point. I don't think leftish economic policies are hated by the US electorate, they are hated by the Republican donors and pundits. I think they are fairly popular with Americans around the country and some of the ballot propositions that have been voted for overwhelmingly seem to attest to that. A minimum wage in crazy red state Florida? What?
I do think Wokism is hated though, I mean I'm pretty left wing and I absolutely hate the "Woke" left and all of the bizarre posturing and maoist cultural revolution LARPing. But talking about "the left"* as if it is solely represented by the Wokesters isn't accurate, I don't think.
Reaching out to working people around the country with determined campaigning, grassroots organizing, and a soft left economic policy platform and focus on peoples material concerns in poor and rural areas would be a good place to start I think. I understand that the conventional wisdom is anything other than kneeling in Kente cloth or a policy that has something to do with vouchers and a website where you can learn to code is the preferred method, some telegenic faux blue collar identity (Scrappy Scranton Joe!) and so on, but I think a change of tack is urgently needed.
The Republican party has the ear of working people , it speaks to them. We understand that it doesn't actually help them , far from it, but Republicans wouldn't need to modulate on policy much to completely thrash the Dems - I think some hints of that with Latino votes in Texas for example.
* I well understand the Languish tradition of defining "the left" as everything you hate , or just whatever you say it is in general.
I think if the left can find a way to bribe the lower classes into putting up with their cultural policies, like they did in decades previous, they will be fine.
It's totally messed up that the healthcare system is a red line (haha) for a lot of people over there, as that'd be the most obvious start in building a non-terrible society for the disenfranchised. But perhaps silly subsidies for industries and such could work. On the plus side some of the GOP-leaning rich folk could be convinced to join in on looting most of the budget spent on this via getting grants to build and maintain unproductive factories etc.
Quote from: Malthus on November 09, 2020, 11:34:29 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2020, 11:24:52 AM
Great, so Trumpists win either way. either they win power outright, or they get non Trumpist politicians to govern in a way that won't upset people who might vote for a Trumpist candidate.
What a perfectly horrible society that would create.
Point is to find a compromise that garners enough votes to win elections. Please note that this does not mean doing everything Trumpites want. No doubt there are many Trumpites who will refuse to accept anything other that everything they want. You will never reason with them, but you also don't need 100% of votes to win elections. You just need a majority.
One again we see how, for progressives, the perfect is insisted upon (and so becomes the enemy of the good).
We are always hearing about Democrats having to compromise. What about Republicans. What if the narrative became one of the Democrats turning out more people who normally don't vote because they have policies that are not restricted by worrying about pissing off the people who might vote Republican.
What if the Republicans realized they had to start building a bigger tent.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2020, 11:39:11 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 09, 2020, 11:34:29 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2020, 11:24:52 AM
Great, so Trumpists win either way. either they win power outright, or they get non Trumpist politicians to govern in a way that won't upset people who might vote for a Trumpist candidate.
What a perfectly horrible society that would create.
Point is to find a compromise that garners enough votes to win elections. Please note that this does not mean doing everything Trumpites want. No doubt there are many Trumpites who will refuse to accept anything other that everything they want. You will never reason with them, but you also don't need 100% of votes to win elections. You just need a majority.
One again we see how, for progressives, the perfect is insisted upon (and so becomes the enemy of the good).
We are always hearing about Democrats having to compromise. What about Republicans. What if the narrative became one of the Democrats turning out more people who normally don't vote because they have policies that are not restricted by worrying about pissing off the people who might vote Republican.
What if the Republicans realized they had to start building a bigger tent.
The Republicans have found a strategy they think wins elections - just lie about everything, spread fear, use white, Christian and hetero identity politics. Unfortunately the left can't win using the same strategy only on reverse - as I've noted, in a straight contest between White and non-White, Christian and non-Christian, hetero and non-hetero, the former wins every time because they are in the majority in the US and likely to remain that way.
If the Republicans embraced compromise, building a bigger tent, ditched the divisive identity politics, stopped the lying and fearmongering, in short became a boring ordinary right-leaning political party ... that would be awesome. In a perfect world, that's what I'd
want to see happening.
Unfortunately it seems unlikely, as the Republicans are in a cancerous state.
Nate Silver predicts that this noncharismatic 80 year old Biden will reach 80 million votes. While barely campaigning, during a pandemic, with all the attempts from the GOP at voter suppression.
The answer is not to try and reach the Trumpers. They are impervious to facts and policy. The answer is to turn out your voters and start building an organization that can win local races at every level.
The Obama-Trump voter exists, but if they haven't gone back to Biden after 4 years of Trump, there's no reaching those. Either they're too low-information to reach or they've drank the kool-aid and are now Q-anon retards.
White Christians make up less than 50% of the US population - its somewhere in the low 40s. The return of white identity politics is not a confident assertion of a majority population, it is a backlash from a group that sees itself in danger and under siege. That is why it is so tough to root out and so dangerous.
Fix rural income insecurity & you'll see change.
Quote from: Zoupa on November 09, 2020, 12:00:23 PM
Nate Silver predicts that this noncharismatic 80 year old Biden will reach 80 million votes. While barely campaigning, during a pandemic, with all the attempts from the GOP at voter suppression.
You make it sound like this is the worst-case outcome. There are a lot of reasons to think that this was actually the best case outcome. One of the obvious reasons is that Biden won when his party itself seems to have lost.
QuoteThe answer is not to try and reach the Trumpers. They are impervious to facts and policy. The answer is to turn out your voters and start building an organization that can win local races at every level.
The answer is to not push people towards Trump. You can judge people all they want for voting for Trump while not being a terminal imbecile, but their vote counts just the same.
The answer is to nuke from orbit and start over in a million years.
Quote from: DGuller on November 09, 2020, 12:07:28 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on November 09, 2020, 12:00:23 PM
Nate Silver predicts that this noncharismatic 80 year old Biden will reach 80 million votes. While barely campaigning, during a pandemic, with all the attempts from the GOP at voter suppression.
You make it sound like this is the worst-case outcome. There are a lot of reasons to think that this was actually the best case outcome. One of the obvious reasons is that Biden won when his party itself seems to have lost.
QuoteThe answer is not to try and reach the Trumpers. They are impervious to facts and policy. The answer is to turn out your voters and start building an organization that can win local races at every level.
The answer is to not push people towards Trump. You can judge people all they want for voting for Trump while not being a terminal imbecile, but their vote counts just the same.
Who pushed people to vote for Trump exactly? How does that even work?
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 09, 2020, 12:06:22 PM
Fix rural income insecurity & you'll see change.
Is there any evidence supporting this theory at all? I get the impression that people talk about "economic insecurity" as the cause of Trumpism because there is no way to discuss racism productively. Unfortunately bad diagnosis rarely leads to good treatment.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 09, 2020, 12:04:50 PM
White Christians make up less than 50% of the US population - its somewhere in the low 40s. The return of white identity politics is not a confident assertion of a majority population, it is a backlash from a group that sees itself in danger and under siege. That is why it is so tough to root out and so dangerous.
True - those who identify as White
and Christian make up less than half the population. The problem with identity politics, though, is that not only those who fall into both categories at the same time can join - those who identify as White
or Christian make up more than 50%.
By appealing to that, Trumpites can win. People who are not White can be persuaded to vote for them because of "Christian" issues (think of abortion). That's how you get sone Blacks and Hispanics voting Trump against their best interests. People who are White but not Christian can be persuaded to vote for them "because White lives matter".
Throw heterosexuality into the identity politics mix, it becomes even more one sided.
Also - it is one of the fundamental tricks of this sort of right wing populism to convince their audience that they are under siege, wherever it is true or not.
Quote from: Zoupa on November 09, 2020, 12:12:19 PM
Who pushed people to vote for Trump exactly? How does that even work?
Asked and answered gazillion times by now.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 09, 2020, 12:04:50 PM
White Christians make up less than 50% of the US population - its somewhere in the low 40s. The return of white identity politics is not a confident assertion of a majority population, it is a backlash from a group that sees itself in danger and under siege. That is why it is so tough to root out and so dangerous.
Right, I mean this is not likely a winning thing for Republicans long term, which is why I mentioned outbreeding and outliving them. Which is more or less what is happening. It does look like the GOP is trying to takes its unvarnished message and expand it to culturally conservative black men and Hispanics, and got a little (tiny) bit of play with the former and a bit more play with the latter in 2020. But I am skeptical they can meaningfully widen the coalition without changing the core message at all.
That's why I go back to not really knowing that I have any magic answers here. The Dems can't get in bed with angry white racial grievance, that's not viable for a number of reasons. Oddly enough the suggestion by AOC to do "Deep Canvassing" may be one way that works, but that's incredibly labor intensive and only reaches smallish numbers of people.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 09, 2020, 12:06:22 PM
Fix rural income insecurity & you'll see change.
Rural areas are fucked. You don't need many people to work on farms, and whatever low cost manufacturing used to be available has generally evaporated.
No one is going to fix rural income insecurity because the immediate future is with urbanization.
About 1/3 of GOP voters have a college degree, which is more than in 1996 when Bob Dole ran. 10% of GOP voters have post-college university education (same as in 96 and compared to 15% nationally now). Trump actually increased his vote share among high income (100k+) voters compared to 2016 and got a majority of that vote.
Trump got 70+ million to vote for him because he attracted a broad coalition of very different kinds of people. Not just evangelicals, "very fine people" and trailer park denizens, but also small business owners, sunbelt professionals, and a good chunks of Latino men enticed by his fake tough guy image and appeal to traditional values. Some of those people are true believer Qanon suckers impervious to reason, some are not. There are plenty of people out there who had considerable recognition of Trump's many faults and voted for him anyways
Quote from: DGuller on November 09, 2020, 12:14:02 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on November 09, 2020, 12:12:19 PM
Who pushed people to vote for Trump exactly? How does that even work?
Asked and answered gazillion times by now.
Sure, whatever. You do you, believe what you will.
Quote from: Malthus on November 09, 2020, 11:47:48 AM
The Republicans have found a strategy they think wins elections - just lie about everything, spread fear, use white, Christian and hetero identity politics. Unfortunately the left can't win using the same strategy only on reverse - as I've noted, in a straight contest between White and non-White, Christian and non-Christian, hetero and non-hetero, the former wins every time because they are in the majority in the US and likely to remain that way.
If the Republicans embraced compromise, building a bigger tent, ditched the divisive identity politics, stopped the lying and fearmongering, in short became a boring ordinary right-leaning political party ... that would be awesome. In a perfect world, that's what I'd want to see happening.
Unfortunately it seems unlikely, as the Republicans are in a cancerous state.
I would not say unfortunately when describing the fact the Dems can't use the same tactics. Why would they want to be Republican light? I would say, very fortunately, the left will use a strategy that will not cater to the same smaller group of Republican voters.
For what it's worth I think AOC makes some good points about organising and campaigning here which I feel are very valid. It almost feels like the talk about how progressives messaging cost votes is distracting from talking about the substance here:
QuoteAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Biden's Win, House Losses, and What's Next for the Left
The congresswoman said Joe Biden's relationship with progressives would hinge on his actions. And she dismissed criticism from House moderates, calling some candidates who lost their races "sitting ducks."
By Astead W. Herndon
Nov. 7, 2020
For months, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been a good soldier for the Democratic Party and Joseph R. Biden Jr. as he sought to defeat President Trump.
But on Saturday, in a nearly hourlong interview shortly after President-elect Biden was declared the winner, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez made clear the divisions within the party that animated the primary still exist. And she dismissed recent criticisms from some Democratic House members who have blamed the party's left for costing them important seats. Some of the members who lost, she said, had made themselves "sitting ducks."
These are edited excerpts from the conversation.
We finally have a fuller understanding of the results. What's your macro takeaway?
Well, I think the central one is that we aren't in a free fall to hell anymore. But whether we're going to pick ourselves up or not is the lingering question. We paused this precipitous descent. And the question is if and how we will build ourselves back up.
We know that race is a problem, and avoiding it is not going to solve any electoral issues. We have to actively disarm the potent influence of racism at the polls.
But we also learned that progressive policies do not hurt candidates. Every single candidate that co-sponsored Medicare for All in a swing district kept their seat. We also know that co-sponsoring the Green New Deal was not a sinker. Mike Levin was an original co-sponsor of the legislation, and he kept his seat.
To your first point, Democrats lost seats in an election where they were expected to gain them. Is that what you are ascribing to racism and white supremacy at the polls?
I think it's going to be really important how the party deals with this internally, and whether the party is going to be honest about doing a real post-mortem and actually digging into why they lost. Because before we even had any data yet in a lot of these races, there was already finger-pointing that this was progressives' fault and that this was the fault of the Movement for Black Lives.
I've already started looking into the actual functioning of these campaigns. And the thing is, I've been unseating Democrats for two years. I have been defeating Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee-run campaigns for two years. That's how I got to Congress. That's how we elected Ayanna Pressley. That's how Jamaal Bowman won. That's how Cori Bush won. And so we know about extreme vulnerabilities in how Democrats run campaigns.
Some of this is criminal. It's malpractice. Conor Lamb spent $2,000 on Facebook the week before the election. I don't think anybody who is not on the internet in a real way in the Year of our Lord 2020 and loses an election can blame anyone else when you're not even really on the internet.
And I've looked through a lot of these campaigns that lost, and the fact of the matter is if you're not spending $200,000 on Facebook with fund-raising, persuasion, volunteer recruitment, get-out-the-vote the week before the election, you are not firing on all cylinders. And not a single one of these campaigns were firing on all cylinders.
Well, Conor Lamb did win. So what are you saying: Investment in digital advertising and canvassing are a greater reason moderate Democrats lost than any progressive policy?
These folks are pointing toward Republican messaging that they feel killed them, right? But why were you so vulnerable to that attack?
If you're not door-knocking, if you're not on the internet, if your main points of reliance are TV and mail, then you're not running a campaign on all cylinders. I just don't see how anyone could be making ideological claims when they didn't run a full-fledged campaign.
Our party isn't even online, not in a real way that exhibits competence. And so, yeah, they were vulnerable to these messages, because they weren't even on the mediums where these messages were most potent. Sure, you can point to the message, but they were also sitting ducks. They were sitting ducks.
There's a reason Barack Obama built an entire national campaign apparatus outside of the Democratic National Committee. And there's a reason that when he didn't activate or continue that, we lost House majorities. Because the party — in and of itself — does not have the core competencies, and no amount of money is going to fix that.
If I lost my election, and I went out and I said: "This is moderates' fault. This is because you didn't let us have a floor vote on Medicare for all." And they opened the hood on my campaign, and they found that I only spent $5,000 on TV ads the week before the election? They would laugh. And that's what they look like right now trying to blame the Movement for Black Lives for their loss.
Is there anything from Tuesday that surprised you? Or made you rethink your previously held views?
The share of white support for Trump. I thought the polling was off, but just seeing it, there was that feeling of realizing what work we have to do.
We need to do a lot of anti-racist, deep canvassing in this country. Because if we keep losing white shares and just allowing Facebook to radicalize more and more elements of white voters and the white electorate, there's no amount of people of color and young people that you can turn out to offset that.
But the problem is that right now, I think a lot of Dem strategy is to avoid actually working through this. Just trying to avoid poking the bear. That's their argument with defunding police, right? To not agitate racial resentment. I don't think that is sustainable.
There's a lot of magical thinking in Washington, that this is just about special people that kind of come down from on high. Year after year, we decline the idea that they did work and ran sophisticated operations in favor of the idea that they are magical, special people. I need people to take these goggles off and realize how we can do things better.
If you are the D.C.C.C., and you're hemorrhaging incumbent candidates to progressive insurgents, you would think that you may want to use some of those firms. But instead, we banned them. So the D.C.C.C. banned every single firm that is the best in the country at digital organizing.
The leadership and elements of the party — frankly, people in some of the most important decision-making positions in the party — are becoming so blinded to this anti-activist sentiment that they are blinding themselves to the very assets that they offer.
I've been begging the party to let me help them for two years. That's also the damn thing of it. I've been trying to help. Before the election, I offered to help every single swing district Democrat with their operation. And every single one of them, but five, refused my help. And all five of the vulnerable or swing district people that I helped secured victory or are on a path to secure victory. And every single one that rejected my help is losing. And now they're blaming us for their loss.
So I need my colleagues to understand that we are not the enemy. And that their base is not the enemy. That the Movement for Black Lives is not the enemy, that Medicare for all is not the enemy. This isn't even just about winning an argument. It's that if they keep going after the wrong thing, I mean, they're just setting up their own obsolescence.
What is your expectation as to how open the Biden administration will be to the left? And what is the strategy in terms of moving it?
I don't know how open they'll be. And it's not a personal thing. It's just, the history of the party tends to be that we get really excited about the grass roots to get elected. And then those communities are promptly abandoned right after an election.
I think the transition period is going to indicate whether the administration is taking a more open and collaborative approach, or whether they're taking a kind of icing-out approach. Because Obama's transition set a trajectory for 2010 and some of our House losses. It was a lot of those transition decisions — and who was put in positions of leadership — that really informed, unsurprisingly, the strategy of governance.
What if the administration is hostile? If they take the John Kasich view of who Joe Biden should be? What do you do?
Well, I'd be bummed, because we're going to lose. And that's just what it is. These transition appointments, they send a signal. They tell a story of who the administration credits with this victory. And so it's going be really hard after immigrant youth activists helped potentially deliver Arizona and Nevada. It's going to be really hard after Detroit and Rashida Tlaib ran up the numbers in her district.
It's really hard for us to turn out nonvoters when they feel like nothing changes for them. When they feel like people don't see them, or even acknowledge their turnout.
If the party believes after 94 percent of Detroit went to Biden, after Black organizers just doubled and tripled turnout down in Georgia, after so many people organized Philadelphia, the signal from the Democratic Party is the John Kasichs won us this election? I mean, I can't even describe how dangerous that is.
You are diagnosing national trends. You're maybe the most famous voice on the left currently. What can we expect from you in the next four years?
I don't know. I think I'll have probably more answers as we get through transition, and to the next term. How the party responds will very much inform my approach and what I think is going to be necessary.
The last two years have been pretty hostile. Externally, we've been winning. Externally, there's been a ton of support, but internally, it's been extremely hostile to anything that even smells progressive.
Is the party ready to, like, sit down and work together and figure out how we're going to use the assets from everyone at the party? Or are they going to just kind of double down on this smothering approach? And that's going to inform what I do.
Is there a universe in which they're hostile enough that we're talking about a Senate run in a couple years?
I genuinely don't know. I don't even know if I want to be in politics. You know, for real, in the first six months of my term, I didn't even know if I was going to run for re-election this year.
Really? Why?
It's the incoming. It's the stress. It's the violence. It's the lack of support from your own party. It's your own party thinking you're the enemy. When your own colleagues talk anonymously in the press and then turn around and say you're bad because you actually append your name to your opinion.
I chose to run for re-election because I felt like I had to prove that this is real. That this movement was real. That I wasn't a fluke. That people really want guaranteed health care and that people really want the Democratic Party to fight for them.
But I'm serious when I tell people the odds of me running for higher office and the odds of me just going off trying to start a homestead somewhere — they're probably the same.
Astead W. Herndon is a national political reporter based in New York. He was previously a Washington-based political reporter and a City Hall reporter for The Boston Globe. @AsteadWesley
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2020, 12:19:53 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 09, 2020, 11:47:48 AM
The Republicans have found a strategy they think wins elections - just lie about everything, spread fear, use white, Christian and hetero identity politics. Unfortunately the left can't win using the same strategy only on reverse - as I've noted, in a straight contest between White and non-White, Christian and non-Christian, hetero and non-hetero, the former wins every time because they are in the majority in the US and likely to remain that way.
If the Republicans embraced compromise, building a bigger tent, ditched the divisive identity politics, stopped the lying and fearmongering, in short became a boring ordinary right-leaning political party ... that would be awesome. In a perfect world, that's what I'd want to see happening.
Unfortunately it seems unlikely, as the Republicans are in a cancerous state.
I would not say unfortunately when describing the fact the Dems can't use the same tactics. Why would they want to be Republican light? I would say, very fortunately, the left will use a strategy that will not cater to the same smaller group of Republican voters.
I guess it depends whether we are talking about winning or what they do when they get there.
If somebody lies and cheats and indulges in all manner of nonsense to get into power but then turns out to actually be a lovely guy who helps the needy, sets the economy on a positive tack, etc... Then that is somewhat forgivable....
Which is the same attitude a lot have to trump et al. Only theyre being tricked about good things happening once they get into power.
Quote from: Malthus on November 09, 2020, 11:47:48 AM
The Republicans have found a strategy they think wins elections - just lie about everything, spread fear, use white, Christian and hetero identity politics. Unfortunately the left can't win using the same strategy only on reverse - as I've noted, in a straight contest between White and non-White, Christian and non-Christian, hetero and non-hetero, the former wins every time because they are in the majority in the US and likely to remain that way.
The massive caveat all of this conversation needs is that we don't have much information about the voters at this stage. We have exit polls - in a year when polling companies got things wrong (especially at state levels) - of election day voters when we know a huge chunk of the electorate voted early or mail-in and we also know there was a partisan split beteween those groups. I don't think we're in a position yet to reach conclusions.
Which is partly why everyone I see in the media is regurgitating their opinion piece "The main lesson from the US election is that, once again, I am right".
The only point I'd make on this (and I've always thought all politics is identity politics and literally no-one cares about policies so I am an extremist on this :P) is that you're limiting identity too much to the obvious categories. So what you're saying works if everyone equally values their white, Christian, heterosexual identity - but we know they don't. They also value education, status, cultural signifiers, class as other identities, for example. Not all people assign the same value to the different bits of themselves/their identity and how they weight that possibly matters more. In the UK class used to be the biggest predictor of how someone votes, it's now education. There is a possibility that something similar is happening in the US (it's too soon to tell given the information we have) but in 2018 there was a big swing of college educated white people to Democrats and that seems to have largely held up. So for some white, Christian, straight people that's the bit of their identity that has valence not the other stuff.
QuoteYou make it sound like this is the worst-case outcome. There are a lot of reasons to think that this was actually the best case outcome. One of the obvious reasons is that Biden won when his party itself seems to have lost.
I really wonder about the impact of not doing any on the ground campaigning for down-ballot races. I can see a Presidential campaign being 90% air war and working, I'm not sure that the other races don't need door-knocking, canvassing, traditional GOTV (all of which can be done safely).
The other big point on this is I wonder if this changes the GOP. They've had a high turnout election but run ahead of the President. And I wonder if they move from thinking they can only govern as a minority to actually thinking they could win votes in a high turnout election and that turnout isn't necessarily bad for them.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 09, 2020, 12:19:21 PM
About 1/3 of GOP voters have a college degree, which is more than in 1996 when Bob Dole ran. 10% of GOP voters have post-college university education (same as in 96 and compared to 15% nationally now). Trump actually increased his vote share among high income (100k+) voters compared to 2016 and got a majority of that vote.
Trump got 70+ million to vote for him because he attracted a broad coalition of very different kinds of people. Not just evangelicals, "very fine people" and trailer park denizens, but also small business owners, sunbelt professionals, and a good chunks of Latino men enticed by his fake tough guy image and appeal to traditional values. Some of those people are true believer Qanon suckers impervious to reason, some are not. There are plenty of people out there who had considerable recognition of Trump's many faults and voted for him anyways
I'm holding off on analyzing any of that until we have better data, exit polling this year is particularly unrepresentative of who actually voted, and I'd avoid using it to make points. Also, cultural conservatism isn't limited to poor people, Like I myself said I come from cultural conservatives who didn't fit that mold. But I do think it's more commonly seen among the white working class than it is among the upper middle class suburban whites.
I also think it's worth noting that it probably doesn't apply as much to the actual white poor--who have cultural associations not easily generalized about, but by and large the true poor do not vote, which is something easy to forget. Most of the true white poor don't vote at all, and probably never will. We're usually talking about the lower income bands of the middle class when we generalize about the white working class.
Right, so I'm not putting a ton of stock in exit polls and am putting stock into county level data. I have a reasonably good chance of knowing what the demographics of a county are and a reasonably good chance to draw conclusions from them. Throughout the Midwest aside from Pennsylvania, Biden actually didn't substantially outperform Hillary. In some cases he did worse (like in eastern Ohio.) Why Pennsylvania doesn't tell the same tale is probably interesting and worth investigating. But it's on the basis of his performance in these counties that I'm making the claim the drew even more white working class to the polls than ever before.
His much diminished performance in suburban Georgia and Pennsylvania, as well as several other suburbs, is why I know he lost even more suburban vote. I haven't looked at the full Texas data--but it is worth noting he did worse among Texas suburban county voters than he did in 2016 but he did better than Cruz did when Beto ran against Cruz in 2018, which is probably also food for thought.
Beto ran a much better campaign then the Democrats did in 2020. And Cruz is disliked by Trump supporters which hurt his cause in 2018.
This whole "Texas tough! I like trucks and shit" thing the Democratic strategists have tried to do in Texas forever just falls flat. Your voters here are immigrants and urban and suburban dwellers not 1920s ranchers. Beto had messaging actually designed to work for 21st century likely Democratic voters.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 09, 2020, 01:16:46 PM
Right, so I'm not putting a ton of stock in exit polls and am putting stock into county level data. I have a reasonably good chance of knowing what the demographics of a county are and a reasonably good chance to draw conclusions from them. Throughout the Midwest aside from Pennsylvania, Biden actually didn't substantially outperform Hillary. In some cases he did worse (like in eastern Ohio.) Why Pennsylvania doesn't tell the same tale is probably interesting and worth investigating. But it's on the basis of his performance in these counties that I'm making the claim the drew even more white working class to the polls than ever before.
On this, looking at that NYT map is fascinating - the swing in eastern Ohio just stops at the state border with Pennsylvania. No idea why, it's really interesting.
This is part of the reason why I think US news organisations maybe have too many data reporters (again I do not see the news value of building a model to predict the outcome) and could do with more actual reporters.
Some interesting counties:
Trumbull County, OH (rural, white):
2016 Trump = 51.1% 49,024 votes
2016 HRC = 44.8% 43,014 votes
2020 Trump = 54.5% 53,756
2020 Biden = 44.1% 43,534
Biden didn't lose votes here--Trump gained new voters.
Cuyahoga County, OH (Cleveland, black inner city, white suburbs):
2016 Trump = 30.6% 184,211
2016 HRC = 66.1% 398,271
2020 Trump = 32.3% 195,089
2020 Biden = 66.6% 402,315
They both gained, but Trump gained quite a bit more.
Franklin County, OH (Columbus, more diverse and higher education than Cleveland)
2016 Trump = 34.5% 199,331
2016 HRC = 60.7% 351,198
2020 Trump = 33.6% 203,154
2020 Biden = 64.8% 391,584
Biden gained 40,000 votes, Trump gained a few thousand. I'm looking at a lot of counties and this is a very small number, but it's very interesting to me to see the differences between Columbus OH and Cleveland OH. Cleveland proper has a lot in common with Detroit and Baltimore, typical northern industrial cities with high black populations. The suburbs of Cleveland are also much more white working class, these are "white industrial suburbs", small ring towns that used to have factory industries of their own. Biden about held his own here, but Trump did a good bit better.
Columbus is a very different city. In the 1980s it had something like 250,000 people now it has almost 900,000. It was never an industrial hotbed, it was the centrally located state capitol and location of the state's big land grant college. In the latter half of the 20th century and first 20 years of the 21st, Columbus has grown almost exclusively due to white collar jobs. There's a fusion effect of having state government + education in the same place. Huntington National Bank (a regional bank w/15,000 employees) is headquartered here, Nationwide Mutual a national insurance concern with 30,000 employees is headquartered here, J.P. Morgan Chase built their national IT services campus in the suburbs of Columbus in a sprawling campus that employs some 15,000+ people. In the Northwest suburbs is where Cardinal Health, the 14th highest revenue generating company in the United States with 50,000 employees is headquartered, American Electric Power (one of the largest utilities in the U.S.) has its corporate headquarters in Columbus. Wendy's has its corporate headquarters in the northwest suburbs.
What all of these jobs have in common is these are jobs for educated people, these are not blue collar jobs. Columbus is a city that is rapidly growing as a result of 21st century jobs and its population looks like it--and Joe Biden gained 40,000 votes over Hillary Clinton there, and despite his big turnout over 2016, Trump barely gained any votes there.
It's not surprising to see old industrialised areas become more right-wing as time goes on. After all, they're going that way because of the 'old', much like the old peasantry in low industrialised countries were compared to the new industries. And like the peasantry in the countryside, a lack of opportunities in these left-behind towns causes their areas to progress slower and they become relatively more conservative compared to the norm.
But these voters do vote in their best interest. All voters do. People who say otherwise are really saying they're stupid but in a 'nicer' way. What the issue is, is that these voters are willing to forgo economic prosperity in return for more security/control. But measuring security is harder to achieve than calculating economic propensity. Sure you have crime figures etc, but that's just part of the picture. Security is more of an emotional state than prosperity. So Democrats (and the left in general) need to appeal to their emotions to convince them to vote for them. It's why Brexiteers managed to win the 2016 EU referendum, despite all the economic doom & gloom of leaving from the other side. Tony Blair understood this, which is why New Labour was keen to make sure they were good at security & law & order. Even Iraq helped in a way, as it bolstered their patriotic credentials, though that was evident even when they came to power and the years preceding.
I also think people are focusing too narrowly on the pure political angle (left / right), and need to broaden it to the wider societal / cultural angle. There's a perception that Hollywood is a cultural liberal centre, which has been around for 20-30 years. But more interestingly has been how progressive corporations have become in recent years, or at least perceived to be. Normally they have historically been more conservative in their approach, but social media has made them more culturally progressive, for fear of bad press. As a result, they may have been a backlash against the progressive values, but one which has been projected through elections, rather than actual protests (other than the usual extremists). In a way, this has provided the necessary checks and balances to keep things level, at least to those who have felt being left behind.
Quote from: PJL on November 09, 2020, 02:02:07 PM
I also think people are focusing too narrowly on the pure political angle (left / right), and need to broaden it to the wider societal / cultural angle. There's a perception that Hollywood is a cultural liberal centre, which has been around for 20-30 years. But more interestingly has been how progressive corporations have become in recent years, or at least perceived to be. Normally they have historically been more conservative in their approach, but social media has made them more culturally progressive, for fear of bad press. As a result, they may have been a backlash against the progressive values, but one which has been projected through elections, rather than actual protests (other than the usual extremists). In a way, this has provided the necessary checks and balances to keep things level, at least to those who have felt being left behind.
That is a great point. I have noticed a dramatic shift in corporate leadership over the last decade or so. Corporate leadership is a lot more interested in exceeding legal requirements so that they can be perceived as being more culturally in tune. I don't know for sure but I think they want to keep in touch with the values of the 20 somethings, which is very different from your typical Republican voter.
71.798310185186 day's till Biden is sworn in. :)
So far, Trump seems more focused on golfing, tantruming and firing people than on wrecking the US. Hopefully that will continue.
Quote from: Malthus on November 09, 2020, 06:18:31 PM
So far, Trump seems more focused on golfing, tantruming and firing people than on wrecking the US. Hopefully that will continue.
That's always been his focus, so why should it change now? :sleep:
Quote from: Tyr on November 09, 2020, 11:00:44 AM
Short of voting reform (HINT HINT) the only way socialists are going to make a break through is if the moderates can cement their hold so much that being crazy just doesn't work for the republicans anymore and they have to fight for the centre (ala Cameron with the Tories).
When the alternative is things going backwards then it makes sense for the Democrats to stick with safe options to secure the sane conservatives.
If the Republicans are angling for sane people though then the way is clear for the Democrats to try something outside the box and try to push forward.
All said though full support for there being socialists within the democrat party. Overton window and highlighting that the moderates are what they are and all that.
This would make sense only if the objective is to *propose* as many new progressive policies as possible rather than see them implemented. If Republicans present a sane alternative, then more wacky ideas from the left are going to push more moderates to vote on the right.
Trump in many respects presented an ideal opportunity for progressives. Force the country to choose between progressive ideas and insanity.
Quote from: Malthus on November 09, 2020, 06:18:31 PM
So far, Trump seems more focused on golfing, tantruming and firing people than on wrecking the US. Hopefully that will continue.
He probably won't do anything to wreck his future in the GOP. He, or a member of his family, would be a front runner in a 2024 GOP primary.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 09, 2020, 07:01:36 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 09, 2020, 06:18:31 PM
So far, Trump seems more focused on golfing, tantruming and firing people than on wrecking the US. Hopefully that will continue.
He probably won't do anything to wreck his future in the GOP. He, or a member of his family, would be a front runner in a 2024 GOP primary.
They're all poison and nuts.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 09, 2020, 07:01:36 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 09, 2020, 06:18:31 PM
So far, Trump seems more focused on golfing, tantruming and firing people than on wrecking the US. Hopefully that will continue.
He probably won't do anything to wreck his future in the GOP. He, or a member of his family, would be a front runner in a 2024 GOP primary.
I don't see this at all. Once Trump can no longer muster the power of the US government to hide his misdeeds, his name is going to turn to mud. There are plenty of republican demagogues ready to step on his face to move up the political ladder. The party doesn't need him.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 08, 2020, 10:17:35 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 08, 2020, 08:51:17 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 08, 2020, 08:45:12 AM
AOC is wasting no time... What's the strategy to force the Republican senate to accept progressives in the cabinet?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ends-truce-by-warning-incompetent-democratic-party (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ends-truce-by-warning-incompetent-democratic-party)
QuoteAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez ends truce by warning 'incompetent' Democratic party
I don't think she has a strategy. She's just pissed off the "establishment" of the party blames her team for not winning more House seats.
Wasn't her "team" like the most successful of the Democratic party in these elections?
Yes, but they were all in relatively safe districts. Everywhere they thought they could flip, the Dems didn't. McConnell, Graham and Collins are still Senators, no gains there. Being re-elected in a place where 60% of voters picked Dems the last time ain't such a great achievement.
They scared the centrists away, so now, they want to go further left to piss off the rest of the voters.
Quote from: DGuller on November 08, 2020, 10:49:35 AM
BTW, I don't think people like AOC need to be marginalized, I think they're adding a lot of energy to what would otherwise be a geriatric ward. I also think that they do know something about winning elections that the mainstream Democrats don't.
I like her style. But her political ideas, in the US context leave me totally cold, and I'm sure a lot of centrists, moderate right-wingers prefer voting for the GOP rather than risk having that kind of policies put forward.
Quote
I just think they both AOC and her fans have to realize that politics is often like a cornstarch: a soft touch gets you further than a hard whack. It's better to help people move in the right direction slowly than to involuntarily aid people to move in the wrong direction quickly. I honestly believe that nothing in the US stands in the way of progress, not even the severely lopsided political system, if very progressive voters embraced pragmatism without losing their enthusiasm.
Well, that's the thing with radicals, they never learn their lesson until its too late.
Quote from: Valmy on November 08, 2020, 12:43:33 PM
Yeah our Radical Left is Bernie. He just wants to tax the capitalists, not hang them with the rope they sold him.
that's what he says. -_-
Quote from: fromtia on November 08, 2020, 02:05:09 PM
Start addressing the cares and concerns of working Americans outside wealthy suburbs, in poorer areas, in economically ruined areas and rural areas and do it like it's a fucking emergency, because it is.
How would they do that? They had Obamacare, and they got slapped in the face right after that.
They fixed the China problem by isolating them, Trump wins, flipping Democrat bastions.
It seems everything they do short of giving money away like Trump did, they get hated for it.
Quote from: viper37 on November 09, 2020, 11:19:03 PM
Everywhere they thought they could flip, the Dems didn't.
So far we have flipped three districts. Can't we at least wait until all the races are finalized before announcing our big sweeping conclusions?
QuoteThey scared the centrists away, so now, they want to go further left to piss off the rest of the voters.
Trump scared the centrists. As we saw there are not just a ton of centrists left.
This country seems to be growing more radical at both ends. I am not so sure centrism has a strong future, the Republicans sure as fuck have no use for it.
But we will see what comes after Joe Biden.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 09, 2020, 12:18:42 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 09, 2020, 12:06:22 PM
Fix rural income insecurity & you'll see change.
Rural areas are fucked. You don't need many people to work on farms, and whatever low cost manufacturing used to be available has generally evaporated.
No one is going to fix rural income insecurity because the immediate future is with urbanization.
I actually wonder if remote working won't do this to some degree.
I have several coworkers who are moving out of the Big City and into small towns. They'll be spending their Big City money in those small town shops. That's going to help. Those dying small towns are suddenly not dying. They're growing and thriving.
This isn't a policy thing, though. It's just a shift in economic reality. But I do think that if the shift is big enough, there's a chance that it will have a direct impact on how rural folks vote.
I thought the internet would help revitalize small towns but so far it has only enriched the cities more than ever.
But hey we will see.
I mean if you get 200 of your friends to follow you, you can achieve total political control of Loving County Texas.
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2020, 12:57:29 AM
I thought the internet would help revitalize small towns but so far it has only enriched the cities more than ever.
But hey we will see.
I mean if you get 200 of your friends to follow you, you can achieve total political control of Loving County Texas.
I'll let you handle that city. ;)
I'm working on Peoria, Illinois.
Quote from: merithyn on November 10, 2020, 12:59:46 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2020, 12:57:29 AM
I thought the internet would help revitalize small towns but so far it has only enriched the cities more than ever.
But hey we will see.
I mean if you get 200 of your friends to follow you, you can achieve total political control of Loving County Texas.
I'll let you handle that city. ;)
I'm working on Peoria, Illinois.
It is a county that has only 134 people living in it, the least populated county in the entire continental United States. It has nothing approaching a town much less a city :P
But it is 350 miles from my house so it is only a suggestion for city dwellers wanting to turn a red county blue :P
It's most likely a place not worth living in.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 10, 2020, 01:23:59 AM
It's most likely a place not worth living in.
Unless you love deserts.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 09, 2020, 09:11:18 AM
I think AOC is still too young in 2024 both in eligibility & actual age. It's only a max of 8 years, ending your 2 terms before you are 50 makes for a very long post-presidency life.
She turns 35 in 2024, which is the minimum age to become president. I don't think she'll do that, though.
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2020, 01:27:34 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 10, 2020, 01:23:59 AM
It's most likely a place not worth living in.
Unless you love deserts.
Or Westerns. :P
(https://assets.landsofamerica.com/resizedimages/10000/10000/h/80/1-3768475239)
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2020, 12:57:29 AM
I thought the internet would help revitalize small towns but so far it has only enriched the cities more than ever.
But hey we will see.
I mean if you get 200 of your friends to follow you, you can achieve total political control of Loving County Texas.
Because, as usual, americans let private enterprise dictate development priorities.
Quote from: merithyn on November 10, 2020, 12:37:18 AM
I actually wonder if remote working won't do this to some degree.
I have several coworkers who are moving out of the Big City and into small towns. They'll be spending their Big City money in those small town shops. That's going to help. Those dying small towns are suddenly not dying. They're growing and thriving.
This isn't a policy thing, though. It's just a shift in economic reality. But I do think that if the shift is big enough, there's a chance that it will have a direct impact on how rural folks vote.
There are small towns that will probably be helped, but there are a LOT of small towns. City dwellers may move to that quaint town in the mountains or by the lake, but no one is going to relocate from NYC to some random dot on the map in Kansas or Oklahoma.
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2020, 11:55:25 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 09, 2020, 11:19:03 PM
Everywhere they thought they could flip, the Dems didn't.
So far we have flipped three districts. Can't we at least wait until all the races are finalized before announcing our big sweeping conclusions?
The GOP has gained 4 seats in the House.
So far, the Senate is neutral, 1 gain, 1 loss each side, Georgia remains for January, but somehow, I doubt it will flip to the Dems. But we'll see. As a foreigner, I'll be happy for you if the Dems gain at least 1 of those seats :)
Quote
Trump scared the centrists. As we saw there are not just a ton of centrists left.
Well, yeah, he demonized the party by using the left wing of your party and he managed to convince voters he was right. If you can't counter the message, there is a problem.
Quote
This country seems to be growing more radical at both ends. I am not so sure centrism has a strong future, the Republicans sure as fuck have no use for it.
You are right about the Republicans. But I still think the future of the Democratic party is at the center-right.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 10, 2020, 06:53:59 AM
Because, as usual, americans let private enterprise dictate development priorities.
Here, the government dictates where electricity goes. Lots of people, including me, even though I ain't that far from civilization, have constant problems with electricity. In the last few months, I've lost my microwave, my pellet stove broke, my dishwasher keeps freaking out and I have a bathroom light that will often burn because of a power surge. I've had to buy UPS units for all electronics and computers in the house because I lost two power supply and one motherboard.
For some of my clients, they fought tooth and nail with Hydro-Quebec to get them to recognize they had a parasitic problem. Millions of $ in lawyer fees to get your government to fix something.
At least, with the private, there's some competition.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 10, 2020, 09:45:31 AM
There are small towns that will probably be helped, but there are a LOT of small towns. City dwellers may move to that quaint town in the mountains or by the lake, but no one is going to relocate from NYC to some random dot on the map in Kansas or Oklahoma.
I feel all these moves may be temporary. Sure, people like the quietness of the countryside. But then, they want everything they left in the city: veganism, reserved bike lanes, lights everywhere, asphalt everywhere, no trees that block their view, etc
What exactly is the problem with the countryside? That there aren't enough jobs? Or that there are few high-paying jobs? Other?
QuoteI feel all these moves may be temporary. Sure, people like the quietness of the countryside. But then, they want everything they left in the city: veganism, reserved bike lanes, lights everywhere, asphalt everywhere, no trees that block their view, etc
There's definitely something to this to an extent. The draw of the city, particularly for the young, is just as much in the life as the jobs.
We already have a bit of a trend in the UK with everyone (without their dog) moving to London immediately post uni as its the only way to get started in a professional career, then as soon as they can over 30 moving out to breed.
Quote from: merithyn on November 10, 2020, 12:37:18 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 09, 2020, 12:18:42 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 09, 2020, 12:06:22 PM
Fix rural income insecurity & you'll see change.
Rural areas are fucked. You don't need many people to work on farms, and whatever low cost manufacturing used to be available has generally evaporated.
No one is going to fix rural income insecurity because the immediate future is with urbanization.
I actually wonder if remote working won't do this to some degree.
I have several coworkers who are moving out of the Big City and into small towns. They'll be spending their Big City money in those small town shops. That's going to help. Those dying small towns are suddenly not dying. They're growing and thriving.
This isn't a policy thing, though. It's just a shift in economic reality. But I do think that if the shift is big enough, there's a chance that it will have a direct impact on how rural folks vote.
A bit different in the UK with the scale of the move being less but I do suspect this trend might happen here too. More remote workers only going into the office in the city a few times a week, the rest staying in their small town.... Leaves a lot of opportunity for more of an upmarket economy in the small towns with cafes et al.
A big business idea I'd be curious to do some research into if I had anything like the funding for such a thing is to look into flexible meeting spaces in small towns outside the big cities- if you've a meeting with 5 people who all live SW of the city then why treck into the office just for that, why not just meet in the small town SW of the city that is closer and more convenient for you all?
Quote from: viper37 on November 10, 2020, 10:14:46 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 10, 2020, 06:53:59 AM
Because, as usual, americans let private enterprise dictate development priorities.
Here, the government dictates where electricity goes. Lots of people, including me, even though I ain't that far from civilization, have constant problems with electricity. In the last few months, I've lost my microwave, my pellet stove broke, my dishwasher keeps freaking out and I have a bathroom light that will often burn because of a power surge. I've had to buy UPS units for all electronics and computers in the house because I lost two power supply and one motherboard.
For some of my clients, they fought tooth and nail with Hydro-Quebec to get them to recognize they had a parasitic problem. Millions of $ in lawyer fees to get your government to fix something.
At least, with the private, there's some competition.
If it was private you wouldn't have electricity from them. You would have it from a small local coop, because Hydro-Bell refuses to lay down hundreds of km of line to service 5 households. So sorry.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 10, 2020, 11:34:26 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 10, 2020, 10:14:46 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 10, 2020, 06:53:59 AM
Because, as usual, americans let private enterprise dictate development priorities.
Here, the government dictates where electricity goes. Lots of people, including me, even though I ain't that far from civilization, have constant problems with electricity. In the last few months, I've lost my microwave, my pellet stove broke, my dishwasher keeps freaking out and I have a bathroom light that will often burn because of a power surge. I've had to buy UPS units for all electronics and computers in the house because I lost two power supply and one motherboard.
For some of my clients, they fought tooth and nail with Hydro-Quebec to get them to recognize they had a parasitic problem. Millions of $ in lawyer fees to get your government to fix something.
At least, with the private, there's some competition.
If it was private you wouldn't have electricity from them. You would have it from a small local coop, because Hydro-Bell refuses to lay down hundreds of km of line to service 5 households. So sorry.
Hydro-Bell seems to be a type of culvert design so probably not interested in laying down any kind of power lines under any circumstances.
Quote from: viper37 on November 09, 2020, 11:54:53 PM
How would they do that? They had Obamacare, and they got slapped in the face right after that.
They fixed the China problem by isolating them, Trump wins, flipping Democrat bastions.
It seems everything they do short of giving money away like Trump did, they get hated for it.
Campaigning and organizing are always a good place to start in a democracy. What do most people want? I think most people want more or less what I want, I want to be left alone and I want the opportunity to make as much money as I can because that solves most of my other problems. If we can address the calamitous cost of housing, education and healthcare then that ties into the money thing. That's the broad approach I would take. The economic cares and concerns of ordinary people. Trump won in part because he gave people the false hope that he was addressing those concerns by talking about China and NAFTA.
The ACA is unpopular (although some small parts of it are popular) because it's a moderates answer to the healthcare problem - arcane and complicated, it overpromised and under delivered. Buy some health insurance you can barely afford with the help of a government subsidy - perhaps for the first time in your life, use it and get fucked with a bill for $10,000 including hidden out of network and facility fees you knew nothing about. Don't buy it and get fined by the IRS. I'm not surprised people were mad, before the GOP and Fox etc had demagogued it to death on the national stage.
Quote from: viper37 on November 09, 2020, 11:19:03 PM
Yes, but they were all in relatively safe districts. Everywhere they thought they could flip, the Dems didn't. McConnell, Graham and Collins are still Senators, no gains there. Being re-elected in a place where 60% of voters picked Dems the last time ain't such a great achievement.
They scared the centrists away, so now, they want to go further left to piss off the rest of the voters.
I'm not sure this is accurate. I know the traditional calculation is that if Democrats run left then its McGovern* all over again and doom is imminent because the American voter only cares about firearms(or something). Personally I think this is out of date. I do think that if you run on some kind of vapid identity politics of a leftish sort that's a mistake though, I think people rightly hate that.
*In one of several Zelig like moments in my life I had the opportunity to wait on George McGovern in his later years. He was very polite. He ordered the special.
Quote from: The Brain on November 10, 2020, 10:23:57 AM
What exactly is the problem with the countryside? That there aren't enough jobs? Or that there are few high-paying jobs? Other?
both. And they're Christians. conservative Christians. You talk to them about immigrant rights, lgbt rights, people changing sex, it's like the Apocalypse has begun. Many aren't still over that whole freeing the slaves thing, so we have to give them time ;)
Seriously, there are the jobs thing and the fact that people have a huge mistrust of government interventions in private lives. It's even worst in the US than elsewhere.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 10, 2020, 11:34:26 AM
If it was private you wouldn't have electricity from them. You would have it from a small local coop, because Hydro-Bell refuses to lay down hundreds of km of line to service 5 households. So sorry.
We have internet services from a couple of providers, which disproves your point. So long as competition is allowed to flourish, it ain't much of a problem. Whenever it's a monopoly though, private or public, it's the same.
Quote from: fromtia on November 10, 2020, 11:49:48 AM
Campaigning and organizing are always a good place to start in a democracy.
IIRC, they were supposed to do that after the 2016 defeat and it got them a House win for 2018.I figured they were still doing it, but it's quite possible I am mistaken.
Quote
What do most people want? I think most people want more or less what I want, I want to be left alone and I want the opportunity to make as much money as I can because that solves most of my other problems.
That's a problem right there. Anything the government will do will cost money, and while in the US there is a lot of room to re-tax the super rich, at some point, anything that requires fixing will require more taxes and be a break on your opportunity to make as much money as you can.
Quote
If we can address the calamitous cost of housing,
That's mostly for States/Cities, though. I can't really see the Fed gov having much to do about it given the vast differences between the various States and cities.
Quote
education
That means increasing the taxes. Never popular.
Quote
and healthcare then that ties into the money thing. That's the broad approach I would take. The economic cares and concerns of ordinary people. Trump won in part because he gave people the false hope that he was addressing those concerns by talking about China and NAFTA.
China must be dealt with, but the US can't go at it alone since it's a global problem.NAFTA made the US much richer, it's only been used as a scapegoat for the loss or productivity in the US. Which ties to education who happens to be a local issue, mostly. Colleges are one thing, but there are good jobs to be had with non college education too. But you still need some professional training.
Quote
The ACA is unpopular (although some small parts of it are popular) because it's a moderates answer to the healthcare problem - arcane and complicated, it overpromised and under delivered. Buy some health insurance you can barely afford with the help of a government subsidy - perhaps for the first time in your life, use it and get fucked with a bill for $10,000 including hidden out of network and facility fees you knew nothing about. Don't buy it and get fined by the IRS. I'm not surprised people were mad, before the GOP and Fox etc had demagogued it to death on the national stage.
Well, yeah, the ACA was a compromise that got gutted by red States enabling restrictions on it from what I understand.
Medicare for all would likely be a solution, but that is unacceptable to a majority of the people who currently vote Republican and they are in the countryside... I think it's a dead-end for the Democrats like AOC to insist on this. Imho, as Berkut pointed out a while ago, it'd be better to extend coverage while keeping private insurances around, at least for a while, because Americans are scared about losing their actual coverage.
And nothing will ever get done on the ACA side of things as long as people in the countryside who want this fixed vote GOP...
Quote from: viper37 on November 11, 2020, 03:21:49 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 10, 2020, 11:34:26 AM
If it was private you wouldn't have electricity from them. You would have it from a small local coop, because Hydro-Bell refuses to lay down hundreds of km of line to service 5 households. So sorry.
We have internet services from a couple of providers, which disproves your point. So long as competition is allowed to flourish, it ain't much of a problem. Whenever it's a monopoly though, private or public, it's the same.
The cost of building a network of telecommunications is vastly inferior to the one of building an electricy distribution system. Especially when it's heavely subsidized.
You have 2 backbone provider, Telus & Cogeco, maybe.
Quote from: viper37 on November 11, 2020, 03:33:22 PM
IIRC, they were supposed to do that after the 2016 defeat and it got them a House win for 2018.I figured they were still doing it, but it's quite possible I am mistaken.
Yeah, it worked pretty well for this one Kenyan guy two times. He went on to ruin the US by wearing a tan suit. More recently it also delivered GA for Biden and horrible leftists Rashida Tlaib spent more time banging on doors for Biden than anyone from Bidens campaign did in MI. This is a proven approach.
Quote from: viper37 on November 11, 2020, 03:33:22 PM
That's a problem right there. Anything the government will do will cost money, and while in the US there is a lot of room to re-tax the super rich, at some point, anything that requires fixing will require more taxes and be a break on your opportunity to make as much money as you can.
You say this with the certainty of someone who just read Atlas Shrugged for the first time, and I am not going to be able to penetrate that forcefield. You may not be correct, possibly.
Quote from: viper37 on November 11, 2020, 03:33:22 PM
That's mostly for States/Cities, though. I can't really see the Fed gov having much to do about it given the vast differences between the various States and cities.
Housing costs are a problem in rural areas as well, so federal programs that help with housing costs in rural areas and also incentivize or subsidize construction of affordable rental options in those areas could be an approach to take. Yes, I agree housing costs are most acute in cities which isn't necessarily what we were talking about, but I think they are an issue in a great many places. Yes, also agree that addressing housing costs are more municipal/state level.
Quote from: viper37 on November 11, 2020, 03:33:22 PM
That means increasing the taxes. Never popular.
AZ just passed 208, increasing taxes on wealthy people to pay for education. Food for thought.
Quote from: viper37 on November 11, 2020, 03:33:22 PM
China must be dealt with, but the US can't go at it alone since it's a global problem.NAFTA made the US much richer, it's only been used as a scapegoat for the loss or productivity in the US. Which ties to education who happens to be a local issue, mostly. Colleges are one thing, but there are good jobs to be had with non college education too. But you still need some professional training.
Did NAFTA make working people in the US much richer? In a way it's not the point I was making - Trump talking about NAFTA is part of his popularity whatever you personally believe about it's merits, there is a broad and common perception that NAFTA is responsible for good paying jobs in the US disappearing. Trump was not afraid to talk about that and Democrats need to counter. I agree with you wholeheartedly about the importance of vocational and technical training.
Quote from: viper37 on November 11, 2020, 03:33:22 PM
Well, yeah, the ACA was a compromise that got gutted by red States enabling restrictions on it from what I understand.
Medicare for all would likely be a solution, but that is unacceptable to a majority of the people who currently vote Republican and they are in the countryside... I think it's a dead-end for the Democrats like AOC to insist on this. Imho, as Berkut pointed out a while ago, it'd be better to extend coverage while keeping private insurances around, at least for a while, because Americans are scared about losing their actual coverage.
And nothing will ever get done on the ACA side of things as long as people in the countryside who want this fixed vote GOP...
All the Democrats who ran on support for Medicare for All won reelection. I don't think that healthcare reform, of some kind is as unpopular with rural Republican voters as you claim. I think a good way forward would be to introduce a public option ( I think this was originally planned ) and lower the age from 65 to 60 for medicare, or 55. All pretty moderate stuff. That's what I would do at least.
If you have already capitulated completely to any idea of addressing some problems that people face because Fox News might have a field day with it, then fair enough.
Trump nominated Judy Shelton to the Fed - she's a goldbug who is not a huge fan of the Fed, used to militate for far tighter monetary policy (she opposes the dual mandate and wants a 0% inflation target) and disagrees with Federal deposit insurance.
During the Trump administration she was an enormous fan of low interst rates and expansive monetary policy (she also moved from supporting free trade for most of her career to supporting trade wars).
Given her eccentric views her nomination has been on hold for about 18 months.
Inevitably and terribly on brand Republicans are now proceeding with hearings to approve her appointment :lol:
Edit: And no better sign that Republicans are very aware that Trump's lost.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 12, 2020, 03:38:23 PM
Inevitably and terribly on brand Republicans are now proceeding with hearings to approve her appointment :lol:
Not seeing what they get out of this. Is there really mass popular movement to appoint Shelton to the Fed? I very much doubt it. For the monied element of their constituency - i.e. the people that sustain the party and its candidates - this is just more confirmation that the Biden Democrats are the safe pair of hands.
Shelton will have zero clout on the Fed so there is no policy impact either.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 12, 2020, 06:51:35 PM
Not seeing what they get out of this. Is there really mass popular movement to appoint Shelton to the Fed? I very much doubt it. For the monied element of their constituency - i.e. the people that sustain the party and its candidates - this is just more confirmation that the Biden Democrats are the safe pair of hands.
Shelton will have zero clout on the Fed so there is no policy impact either.
They'll start moaning about loose monetary policy want things tightened up and militating for changes on the Fed under a Biden policy. Just like they'll start wanting tighter fiscal policy too.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-service-coronavirus-outbreak/2020/11/13/610eebcc-2539-11eb-8672-c281c7a2c96e_story.html
QuoteMore than 130 Secret Service officers are said to be infected with coronavirus or quarantining in wake of Trump's campaign travel
More than 130 Secret Service officers who help protect the White House and the president when he travels have recently been ordered to isolate or quarantine because they tested positive for the coronavirus or had close contact with infected co-workers, according to three people familiar with agency staffing.
The spread of the coronavirus — which has sidelined roughly 10 percent of the agency's core security team — is believed to be partly linked to a series of campaign rallies that President Trump held in the weeks before the Nov. 3 election, according to the people, who, like others interviewed for this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the situation.
The outbreak comes as coronavirus cases have been rapidly rising across the nation, with more than 152,000 new cases reported Thursday.
The virus is having a dramatic impact on the Secret Service's presidential security unit at the same time that growing numbers of prominent Trump campaign allies and White House officials have fallen ill in the wake of campaign events, where many attendees did not wear masks.
Among those who are infected are White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and outside political advisers Corey Lewandowski and David Bossie.
In addition, at least eight staffers at the Republican National Committee, including Chief of Staff Richard Walters, have the virus, according to officials at the organization. Some of those infected are in field offices across the country, including Pennsylvania, where some believe they were exposed in large staff gatherings, an official said.
White House spokesman Judd Deere said the administration takes "every case seriously." He referred questions about the Secret Service outbreak to agency officials. A spokeswoman for the Secret Service declined to comment.
Trump went on a travel blitz in the final stretch of the campaign, making five campaign stops on each of the last two days. On Nov. 2, Trump's campaign schedule required five separate groups of Secret Service officers — each numbering 20 to several dozen — to travel to Fayetteville, N.C.; Scranton, Pa.; Traverse City and Grand Rapids, Mich.; and Kenosha, Wis.; to screen spectators and secure the perimeter around the president's events. President-elect Joe Biden made two campaign stops that day that also required Secret Service protection, but in smaller numbers.
The agency is also examining whether some portion of the current infections are not travel-related, one government official said, but instead trace back to the site where many Secret Service officers report for duty each day: the White House.
White House staff largely eschew wearing masks, despite public health guidelines that they help contain the spread of the virus, and some Secret Service officers on duty at the complex have also been seen without them.
The Secret Service employs roughly 1,300 officers in its Uniformed Division to guard the White House and the vice president's residence. The officers are also the backbone of security for presidential trips out of town and other official events. Officers are distinct from agents, most of whom work in plainclothes and provide close security of the president, his family members and other senior officials.
Earlier this week, agency supervisors told other staff about the large number of officers who have contracted the virus and said there has been expanded testing to help limit the spread, according to the people familiar with the situation.
The number of officers who have been pulled off duty creates a major stress on an already overworked team and will force many officers to forgo days off and work longer hours to compensate for absent co-workers. A 2015 blue-ribbon panel identified overworked Secret Service officers as one key factor that contributed to security breaches at the White House.
"Being down more than 100 officers is very problematic," said one former senior Secret Service supervisor. "That does not bode well for White House security."
It's not the first time the Secret Service has been hit hard by the decisions of Trump and Vice President Pence to travel during the pandemic. This summer, dozens of Secret Service agents fell ill or were sidelined and forced to quarantine in the wake of the president's massive indoor stadium rally in Tulsa in June and the vice president's subsequent trip to Arizona.
At the time, Secret Service spokesman Catherine Milhoan said in a statement to The Washington Post that the agency "continues to methodically assess the unique requirements necessary to operate in the ongoing pandemic environment."
But many of Trump's own choices put his protection team at heightened risk, specifically his choice to travel out of state and hold large public events. Secret Service agents and medical professionals were shocked early last month when Trump — then being treated at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center for the coronavirus — insisted on taking a ride outside the hospital to wave to supporters from inside a government sport-utility vehicle. He wore a cloth mask, but many feared he was unnecessarily endangering the Secret Service agents inside the vehicle.
Deere defended the outing at the time, telling reporters "appropriate precautions were taken in the execution of this movement to protect the president and all those supporting it." He said precautions included personal protective equipment, without elaborating, and said the trip "was cleared by the medical team as safe to do."
While many people in Trump's orbit have contracted the virus this year, the most recent outbreak at the White House has been particularly extensive. Many of those who are now sick attended a campaign party last week in the East Room, or were exposed to someone who did.
Meadows was among those in the East Room of the White House when Trump gave remarks around 3 a.m. Wednesday to a crowd of about 150 of his top aides, donors and allies, as well as family members. During that event, Meadows worked the room extensively, without a mask, speaking to dozens.
More than a dozen White House aides have tested positive for the virus in the past week, including a range of low-level assistants and secretaries, officials said. Offices that have been affected include political affairs, legislative affairs and communications.
Meadows's positive diagnosis was revealed last week, along with the fact that he had urged staffers not to disclose it. The chief of staff is not expected to return to the office until next week, a person close to him said.
People present at Wednesday night's campaign party in the East Room who were around Meadows, Lewandowski and other now-sick staffers say they have not been contacted by the White House.
Several staffers said they were nervous about going to work because there has been such an outbreak. "I'm trying to work from home," one senior administration official said Wednesday afternoon. "It's not really safe to be in there right now."
Several aides said they were frustrated by a lack of transparency from their superiors, particularly Meadows, and that they did not notify more people of diagnoses.
Quote from: fromtia on November 12, 2020, 01:39:57 PM
AZ just passed 208, increasing taxes on wealthy people to pay for education. Food for thought.
Seems to be the exception, though.
Quote
Did NAFTA make working people in the US much richer? In a way it's not the point I was making - Trump talking about NAFTA is part of his popularity whatever you personally believe about it's merits, there is a broad and common perception that NAFTA is responsible for good paying jobs in the US disappearing. Trump was not afraid to talk about that and Democrats need to counter. I agree with you wholeheartedly about the importance of vocational and technical training.
Since these jobs went to China and Vietnam, I'd say it's a sure bet NAFTA isn't the problem.
The wage gap between auto plants in the Southern States and those in Michigan is huge. Yet, GM, Ford and Chrysler produce most of their cars in Ontario and Northern US States. Some of them are made in Mexico. But the reality is, globally, since NAFTA, US manufacturing output has increased. Real wage has not, but it does not depend on NAFTA, or any single culprit.
Quote
All the Democrats who ran on support for Medicare for All won reelection.
Most of them ran in safe places. If I tell you Liberal MPs gets elected in Western Montreal ridings with a 95% margins election after election since the 1960s, could you deduce the candidates won their last election because the party did an incredible job at managing the economy?
Quote
I don't think that healthcare reform, of some kind is as unpopular with rural Republican voters as you claim. I think a good way forward would be to introduce a public option ( I think this was originally planned ) and lower the age from 65 to 60 for medicare, or 55. All pretty moderate stuff. That's what I would do at least.
But that's far from medicare for all as envisionned by the AOC wing of the party, afaik.
It's what Berkut said should e done earlier in the Trump thread, if I'm not mistaken.
Quote
If you have already capitulated completely to any idea of addressing some problems that people face because Fox News might have a field day with it, then fair enough.
After Trump, I'd prefer not to have another Republican US President during my lifetime, but I have no control over it, sadly.
I'm just brainstorming to find the best way to reach all Americans and bring them back to the Dem fold, until such time as the GOP has renounced its populist&racist ways.
Quote from: fromtia on November 12, 2020, 01:39:57 PM
You say this with the certainty of someone who just read Atlas Shrugged for the first time, and I am not going to be able to penetrate that forcefield. You may not be correct, possibly.
I haven't said this yet, but I missed you, fromtia
Quote from: PDH on November 15, 2020, 12:23:20 AM
Quote from: fromtia on November 12, 2020, 01:39:57 PM
You say this with the certainty of someone who just read Atlas Shrugged for the first time, and I am not going to be able to penetrate that forcefield. You may not be correct, possibly.
I haven't said this yet, but I missed you, fromtia
Well if you hadn't he wouldn't be posting, would he?
PDH is as accurate as a Wyoming QB.
Well lets see if the democrats don't dick this all up.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 15, 2020, 04:43:55 PM
Well lets see if the democrats don't dick this all up.
Which part?
Quote from: 11B4V on November 15, 2020, 08:29:44 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2020, 08:15:57 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 15, 2020, 04:43:55 PM
Well lets see if the democrats don't dick this all up.
Which part?
The next four years.
What administration in US history has gone four years without dicking it all up at some point? You standards are too high. :P
https://www.rollcall.com/2020/11/20/hoyer-earmarks-are-likely-coming-back-next-year/
QuoteHouse Democratic leaders are proceeding with plans to bring back earmarks for the 117th Congress, according to Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer.
Hoyer, D-Md., said in an interview that sometime after the Appropriations Committee's new chairwoman is elected the week of Nov. 30, she will begin soliciting House lawmakers to "ask for congressional initiatives for their districts and their states."
Good.
Merrick Garland is reported to be under consideration to be Attorney-General under Biden.
So, what's the case for earmarks? I know plenty against.
Quote from: Habbaku on November 20, 2020, 06:15:19 PM
So, what's the case for earmarks? I know plenty against.
Easier to bribe reps to vote for important legislation.
Quote from: Habbaku on November 20, 2020, 06:15:19 PM
So, what's the case for earmarks? I know plenty against.
What it says to me is that they are going to have a small majority so they probably need to make it worth the reps while to pass legislation.
Quote from: Habbaku on November 20, 2020, 06:15:19 PM
So, what's the case for earmarks? I know plenty against.
.
Old style corruption that encourages members of congress to cooperate across party lines is better the new style corruption where nothing gets done and politics is about how much the President can steal for friends and family while passing out Get out of Jail Free cards.
Quote from: Habbaku on November 20, 2020, 06:15:19 PM
So, what's the case for earmarks? I know plenty against.
What Yi and Minsky say.
I'm not convinced by the argument. I also don't think it works for everyone, but we may well discover West Virginia's been renamed Joe Manchin State by the end of Biden's term :lol:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 20, 2020, 11:19:45 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on November 20, 2020, 06:15:19 PM
So, what's the case for earmarks? I know plenty against.
.
Old style corruption that encourages members of congress to cooperate across party lines is better the new style corruption where nothing gets done and politics is about how much the President can steal for friends and family while passing out Get out of Jail Free cards.
I prefer to think of it as "incentivized bipartisanship".
An imperfect solution for an imperfect world.
It may be a fix, but it is not a repair.
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2020, 02:20:13 PM
Merrick Garland is reported to be under consideration to be Attorney-General under Biden.
God I hope he got his mother's looks.
Quote from: The Brain on November 21, 2020, 12:54:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2020, 02:20:13 PM
Merrick Garland is reported to be under consideration to be Attorney-General under Biden.
God I hope he got his mother's looks.
Are you his father?
Quote from: katmai on November 22, 2020, 09:00:06 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 21, 2020, 02:18:46 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 21, 2020, 01:19:29 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 21, 2020, 12:54:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2020, 02:20:13 PM
Merrick Garland is reported to be under consideration to be Attorney-General under Biden.
God I hope he got his mother's looks.
Are you his father?
That hurts.
answer the question.
Wrong elephant man.
I'm pretty sure Merrick is his given name.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 23, 2020, 04:18:31 AM
I'm pretty sure Merrick is his given name.
I can only work with the clay the Lord has provided.
Looking at the rumours/confirmed appointments by Biden and while I'm sure they're competent and will be good at their role (especially Yellen), it does really add to that feeling of American gerontocracy. So far John Kerry (76) has a climate role, proposed UN Ambassador is Linda Thomas-Greenfield (68), Janet Yellen for the Treasury (74).
There's Antony Blinken (only 58 - but that would make him the oldest member of the UK cabinet).
Obviously I've mentioned Pelosi etc before. But the thing with these executive positions that I wonder is, can't they be used to promote young talent (especially with similar politics to you)?
Also there's been loads of talk about the weakness of the upcoming Democrat bench - how much of that is there fault and how much is just people not getting out the way to let the young(er) generation come up?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 23, 2020, 05:46:30 PM
There's Antony Blinken (only 58 - but that would make him the oldest member of the UK cabinet).
And what a gathering of young statesmen that UK cabinet is! :p
Quote from: Tamas on November 23, 2020, 06:03:01 PM
And what a gathering of young statesmen that UK cabinet is! :p
:lol: Comparatively - I just feel like in your late 60s-70s you should be moving into "party grandee" or "big beast" territory rather than actively running things.
I wonder if it's a cultural thing and similar in the corporate world - there are very few CEOs in that age bracket - they're mainly late 40s-50s.
But also it's just really important that you don't keep the seat warm for so long that there's no chance for other people to rise up.
On one hand, young people suck.
On the other, old people have sucked longer.
Corey Booker should get something. Booty Judge should get something.
Apparently the GSA administrator has finally ok'ed Biden's transition efforts.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 23, 2020, 05:46:30 PM
Looking at the rumours/confirmed appointments by Biden and while I'm sure they're competent and will be good at their role (especially Yellen), it does really add to that feeling of American gerontocracy. So far John Kerry (76) has a climate role, proposed UN Ambassador is Linda Thomas-Greenfield (68), Janet Yellen for the Treasury (74).
There's Antony Blinken (only 58 - but that would make him the oldest member of the UK cabinet).
Obviously I've mentioned Pelosi etc before. But the thing with these executive positions that I wonder is, can't they be used to promote young talent (especially with similar politics to you)?
Also there's been loads of talk about the weakness of the upcoming Democrat bench - how much of that is there fault and how much is just people not getting out the way to let the young(er) generation come up?
Same reason many of our movie blockbusters are sequels and remakes: familiar characters and storylines so it's considered a lower risk.
How common are antediluvians in top jobs in other kinds of organizations in the US? Like major corporations?
Andrew Yang for Secretary of Commerce.
Quote from: The Brain on November 23, 2020, 06:58:43 PM
How common are antediluvians in top jobs in other kinds of organizations in the US? Like major corporations?
Very common in the olde thyme industries. Tech has broken that recently but some day Bezos and all them will be old and still probably CEOs.
Quote from: Valmy on November 23, 2020, 07:34:42 PM
Andrew Yang for Secretary of Commerce.
Commerce doesn't do anything. All the cool parts of the job got sucked out by the Trade Rep.
Well, they do stuff like weather forecasts, but the Secretary himself has a lot of time to kill.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 23, 2020, 06:11:21 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 23, 2020, 06:03:01 PM
And what a gathering of young statesmen that UK cabinet is! :p
:lol: Comparatively - I just feel like in your late 60s-70s you should be moving into "party grandee" or "big beast" territory rather than actively running things.
I wonder if it's a cultural thing and similar in the corporate world - there are very few CEOs in that age bracket - they're mainly late 40s-50s.
But also it's just really important that you don't keep the seat warm for so long that there's no chance for other people to rise up.
I think, usually, the average cabinet member of a US administration lasts longer than in a British parliamentary system. In our system, we can have junior ministers, either in terms of portfolio or age, and if they screw up, they can get thrown to the wolves. In the US, it's usually the fault of the President since he did picked them himself, not through the hazardous election process and generally, he's stuck with them for the ride, bar something really important, where as our opposition parties ask for a minister dismissal every week or so.
I guess it's more important to them to avoid risks caused by inexperience.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2020, 07:36:33 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 23, 2020, 07:34:42 PM
Andrew Yang for Secretary of Commerce.
Commerce doesn't do anything. All the cool parts of the job got sucked out by the Trade Rep.
Well, they do stuff like weather forecasts, but the Secretary himself has a lot of time to kill.
Which is probably why he is considered a front runner :lol:
But Yang had ideas about better economic metrics to measure the health of the economy, maybe he can do some of that in Commerce I don't know. But him being in the cabinet at all would be a big win so I am hoping this rumor turns out to be true.
Quote from: viper37 on November 23, 2020, 07:40:58 PM
I think, usually, the average cabinet member of a US administration lasts longer than in a British parliamentary system. In our system, we can have junior ministers, either in terms of portfolio or age, and if they screw up, they can get thrown to the wolves. In the US, it's usually the fault of the President since he did picked them himself, not through the hazardous election process and generally, he's stuck with them for the ride, bar something really important, where as our opposition parties ask for a minister dismissal every week or so.
I guess it's more important to them to avoid risks caused by inexperience.
I get that - the UK system is far more political. Although here I don't think firing a junior minister would ever satisfy the press - if it's not a cabinet minister, it's not a real scandal.
It just seems like possibly Biden especially should be using this to promote younger talent/give them a chance rather than people from his generation (and should be promoting young figures on his wing of the party). But also I know people have commented on the lack of depth/underwhelming candidates in the Democrats but if so many senior positions are taken up by people in their 70s that might be part of the problem in the modern age.
Biden is trying to do exactly the opposite of that and assure establishment politicians they have nothing to fear, which is precisely what I expected him to do.
What has Yang accomplished, though, besides being a rich businessman who's actually not at all rich? Does he bring any proven skills to the table?
Quote from: DGuller on November 23, 2020, 08:24:21 PM
What has Yang accomplished, though, besides being a rich businessman who's actually not at all rich? Does he bring any proven skills to the table?
Well he ran non-profits and you don't get rich that way.
Any particular skills you are thinking of? He is an idea guy.
Quote from: Valmy on November 23, 2020, 08:27:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 23, 2020, 08:24:21 PM
What has Yang accomplished, though, besides being a rich businessman who's actually not at all rich? Does he bring any proven skills to the table?
Well he ran non-profits and you don't get rich that way.
Any particular skills you are thinking of? He is an idea guy.
Skills that translate to managing a large bureaucracy. Ability to effective fight political battles. Idea guys don't necessarily make for good managers.
Avril Haines named for DNI. Worked as Deputy Director of CIA under Obama.
Quote from: DGuller on November 23, 2020, 08:31:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 23, 2020, 08:27:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 23, 2020, 08:24:21 PM
What has Yang accomplished, though, besides being a rich businessman who's actually not at all rich? Does he bring any proven skills to the table?
Well he ran non-profits and you don't get rich that way.
Any particular skills you are thinking of? He is an idea guy.
Skills that translate to managing a large bureaucracy. Ability to effective fight political battles. Idea guys don't necessarily make for good managers.
Ah good points.
He has managed organizations for most of his career so he has management skills but I don't know if any jobs prepare you well enough to be skilled at running a Federal Bureaucracy. I think his last two or so years have demonstrated he is politically savvy, at least savvy enough for this kind of consideration, but that is a different kind of political battle. I think he is as prepared and skilled as a political appointee to a lower level cabinet position would be expected to be, if not more.
fanboi
Quote from: Valmy on November 23, 2020, 07:36:27 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 23, 2020, 06:58:43 PM
How common are antediluvians in top jobs in other kinds of organizations in the US? Like major corporations?
Very common in the olde thyme industries. Tech has broken that recently but some day Bezos and all them will be old and still probably CEOs.
Well owners are a special case that's not really comparable to hired people or elected politicians. I was looking for a pattern in the US of picking ancient people for important top jobs, if such a pattern exists. When major corporations in America hire someone for the top job, do they often hire people who are pushing 80?
Quote from: The Brain on November 24, 2020, 03:27:13 AM
Well owners are a special case that's not really comparable to hired people or elected politicians. I was looking for a pattern in the US of picking ancient people for important top jobs, if such a pattern exists. When major corporations in America hire someone for the top job, do they often hire people who are pushing 80?
Doesn't happen.
Quote from: The Brain on November 24, 2020, 03:27:13 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 23, 2020, 07:36:27 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 23, 2020, 06:58:43 PM
How common are antediluvians in top jobs in other kinds of organizations in the US? Like major corporations?
Very common in the olde thyme industries. Tech has broken that recently but some day Bezos and all them will be old and still probably CEOs.
Well owners are a special case that's not really comparable to hired people or elected politicians. I was looking for a pattern in the US of picking ancient people for important top jobs, if such a pattern exists. When major corporations in America hire someone for the top job, do they often hire people who are pushing 80?
I'm not sure how elected politicians are like hired people.
Quote from: garbon on November 24, 2020, 03:39:07 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 24, 2020, 03:27:13 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 23, 2020, 07:36:27 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 23, 2020, 06:58:43 PM
How common are antediluvians in top jobs in other kinds of organizations in the US? Like major corporations?
Very common in the olde thyme industries. Tech has broken that recently but some day Bezos and all them will be old and still probably CEOs.
Well owners are a special case that's not really comparable to hired people or elected politicians. I was looking for a pattern in the US of picking ancient people for important top jobs, if such a pattern exists. When major corporations in America hire someone for the top job, do they often hire people who are pushing 80?
I'm not sure how elected politicians are like hired people.
What do you mean?
What I said.
Quote from: garbon on November 24, 2020, 03:48:57 AM
Presumably those two things would need to be similar to make it worthwhile comparing them to top corporate jobs.
I don't follow. They are both positions that other people pick you for, unlike owners of corporations or politicians that don't bother with elections.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 23, 2020, 07:50:57 PM
It just seems like possibly Biden especially should be using this to promote younger talent/give them a chance rather than people from his generation (and should be promoting young figures on his wing of the party). But also I know people have commented on the lack of depth/underwhelming candidates in the Democrats but if so many senior positions are taken up by people in their 70s that might be part of the problem in the modern age.
I agree, but it would be against his nature: play safe, seek agreement from as much people as possible.
Americans tend to be much more conservative than we are, in their politics. And even here, they talk all they want about how nice it is to have "youngsters" (meaning 40-50 I guess :P ) actually interested in politics, but whenever a younger candidate presents itself in any kind of leadership position, he gets slammed for his/her lack of experience. Fringe leftist party get away with it, because the electors figure they won't do anything in the opposition (and they're right), and if one of the major traditional party does it, these kind of candidates serve as back benchers with no real responsibilities, and if they ever commit a mistake, they lose whatever responsibilities they have.
It's done in Europe too. Our 35-year old female PM is still slammed by right-wingers for "lack of experience" (despite having served in municipal politics for 10 years). Meanwhile, the previous PM (a conservative middle-aged man) had nothing of the kind despite having come to his party leadership directly from business with no political career.
Quote from: PDH on November 23, 2020, 11:53:18 PM
fanboi
I am keeping a spot for you on the bandwagon!
Antony Blinken for Sec State.
There's a nomination to get people's pulses racing. :mellow:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJcuYKyHEgs
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 24, 2020, 10:25:11 PM
Antony Blinken for Sec State.
There's a nomination to get people's pulses racing. :mellow:
The Quebec media is pretty in love with him already. (He speaks French.)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 24, 2020, 10:25:11 PM
Antony Blinken for Sec State.
There's a nomination to get people's pulses racing. :mellow:
Eh?
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 25, 2020, 06:39:26 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 24, 2020, 10:25:11 PM
Antony Blinken for Sec State.
There's a nomination to get people's pulses racing. :mellow:
The Quebec media is pretty in love with him already. (He speaks French.)
He is half Hungarian which for the Hungarian press makes him Hungarian period.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 24, 2020, 10:25:11 PM
Antony Blinken for Sec State.
There's a nomination to get people's pulses racing. :mellow:
A. Blinken?
:hmm:
:hmm: :o
Quote from: DGuller on November 25, 2020, 10:09:54 AM
:hmm: :o
What's worse is apparently in being introduced by Biden yesterday, Blinken apologized for his "insatiable appetite for bad puns". :bash:
I'm not sure why you'd want "exciting" cabinet nominations, Yi.
Quote from: Tamas on November 25, 2020, 08:21:14 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 25, 2020, 06:39:26 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 24, 2020, 10:25:11 PM
Antony Blinken for Sec State.
There's a nomination to get people's pulses racing. :mellow:
The Quebec media is pretty in love with him already. (He speaks French.)
He is half Hungarian which for the Hungarian press makes him Hungarian period.
Even though he is Jewish? How does that cognitive dissonance work for them?
I'm looking forward to see what posts are offered to Winken and Nod.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 24, 2020, 10:25:11 PM
Antony Blinken for Sec State.
There's a nomination to get people's pulses racing. :mellow:
that's the guy who speaks French, right? Should be a change to get someone cultured at this position. Then again, just about anyone would seem perfect for the job after this administration :P
Quote from: Zoupa on November 25, 2020, 01:22:15 PM
I'm not sure why you'd want "exciting" cabinet nominations, Yi.
I sure as hell don't. I want government I don't have to think about.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 25, 2020, 08:27:56 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 24, 2020, 10:25:11 PM
Antony Blinken for Sec State.
There's a nomination to get people's pulses racing. :mellow:
A. Blinken?
:hmm:
A secretary of state with a record of opposing slavery might hurt our relations with China and Saudi Arabia.
I think all world leaders appreciate a Men In Tights reference.
I'm chiming in now.
It'll be hell on Earth. Socialism. Leftism. Communism. SUpermarkets will be empty. Long lines to get 15.00 dollar gas.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 04, 2020, 03:27:25 PM
I'm chiming in now.
It'll be hell on Earth. Socialism. Leftism. Communism. SUpermarkets will be empty. Long lines to get 15.00 dollar gas.
Dammit - why didn't you warn us before the election! :o :mad:
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 04, 2020, 03:27:25 PM
I'm chiming in now.
It'll be hell on Earth. Socialism. Leftism. Communism. SUpermarkets will be empty. Long lines to get 15.00 dollar gas.
Everybody only moderately right of center is now a communist.
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2020, 03:43:20 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 04, 2020, 03:27:25 PM
I'm chiming in now.
It'll be hell on Earth. Socialism. Leftism. Communism. SUpermarkets will be empty. Long lines to get 15.00 dollar gas.
Everybody only moderately right of center is now a communist.
Everyone not giving their money to the dear leader, and prepared to go on a violent rampage, is a traitor.
Pete Buttigieg is to be named as Biden's Secretary of Transportation.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/15/biden-cabinet-pete-buttigieg-transportation-secretary-445515
I'd been waiting to see where he wound up. Stories were he wanted UN Ambassador, but he really has no foreign policy experience. There were stories he turned down VA Secretary (a notoriously badly run part of the government). Ambassador to China was also floated, but not really a position that would raise his profile.
So, they settle on Transportation. Buttigieg really has no meaningful Transportation expertise (South Bend Indiana had a fleet of 60 buses). In the Westminster system where you're limited by who is in your caucus it isn't unusual for Ministers to have no real experience leading their departments, but it's more unusual in the US I think.
Better than Ambassador to China I guess.
Quote from: Barrister on December 15, 2020, 02:32:43 PM
I'd been waiting to see where he wound up. Stories were he wanted UN Ambassador, but he really has no foreign policy experience. There were stories he turned down VA Secretary (a notoriously badly run part of the government). Ambassador to China was also floated, but not really a position that would raise his profile.
Well Ambassador to China would have meant fuck all really - I think Ambassador to Australia could have been an interesting and potentially more profile raising role depending on how it was managed. A major democracy so far fewer limits on what he can say, plus a country on the sort of "frontline" of US v China tensions and a regional leader where he'd be helping build/coordinate the alliance on a day to day basis.
QuoteSo, they settle on Transportation. Buttigieg really has no meaningful Transportation expertise (South Bend Indiana had a fleet of 60 buses). In the Westminster system where you're limited by who is in your caucus it isn't unusual for Ministers to have no real experience leading their departments, but it's more unusual in the US I think.
Yes. But I don't see what difference it necessarily makes given that in the US you also have loads of basically partisan career civil servants to support the cabinet members. I feel like if he could credibly be President the fact he's not a wonk in x policy area shouldn't matter. I'm also not convinced appointing subject area officials helps - look at Obama's often wonky choices - what's more is credibility and closeness or not to the President - x policy expert who's been doing the rounds in Democrat think tanks strikes me as someone who'll be a less effective Secretary of whatever than someone who has politically helped Biden get elected/been a great surrogate and has a bit of capital.
I thought foreign policy was considered his strong point.
Quote from: Maximus on December 15, 2020, 04:03:46 PM
I thought foreign policy was considered his strong point.
He's a 38 year old former mayor of the 4th largest city in Indiana. In the past he did a tour in Afghanistan and worked for McKinsey consulting.
Other than speaking multiple languages (I read 8) there's nothing that really shouts foreign policy as a strong suit.
And none of those languages is Mandarin.
I am just glad Rahm Emmanuel did not end up at Transportation.
Quote from: Valmy on December 15, 2020, 04:11:28 PM
I am just glad Rahm Emmanuel did not end up at Transportation.
Isn't that the truth.
I've always quite liked Rahm Emanuel :blush:
While I'm aware of who Rahm Emmanuel is, and that he was a former White House Chief of Staff for Obama and former Mayor of Chicago, what exactly is the knock against him?
That he was mayor of Chicago.
Quote from: Barrister on December 15, 2020, 04:25:11 PM
While I'm aware of who Rahm Emmanuel is, and that he was a former White House Chief of Staff for Obama and former Mayor of Chicago, what exactly is the knock against him?
I am not going to go into it unless his name crops up again. But Max lived in Illinois at the time so he is probably the man to go into the dirty details.
Quote from: Valmy on December 15, 2020, 04:46:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 15, 2020, 04:25:11 PM
While I'm aware of who Rahm Emmanuel is, and that he was a former White House Chief of Staff for Obama and former Mayor of Chicago, what exactly is the knock against him?
I am not going to go into it unless his name crops up again. But Max lived in Illinois at the time so he is probably the man to go into the dirty details.
I love Max, but I'm pretty sure the fact that Emannuel is a centrist is all the reason Max needs to dislike him.
Quote from: Barrister on December 15, 2020, 04:25:11 PM
While I'm aware of who Rahm Emmanuel is, and that he was a former White House Chief of Staff for Obama and former Mayor of Chicago, what exactly is the knock against him?
IIRC he's a very divisive figure amongst the Democrats, already from his time as Obama's chief of staff. Apparently he has a very abrassive personality and his style of negotiating is of the "take no prisoners" style, which rubs a lot of people the wrong way. He has also been criticised for his tenure as major of Chicago, as he seems to have worsened the city's inequality issues, including the handling of some police shootings.
I managed to find this article on the issue:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/11/rahm-emanuel-joe-biden-cabinet-chicago-mayor (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/11/rahm-emanuel-joe-biden-cabinet-chicago-mayor)
QuoteNews that Rahm Emanuel is being considered for transportation secretary or another position in Joe Biden's cabinet or senior team has sparked outrage among Chicagoans who believe his controversial tenure as mayor of that city should disqualify him from a return to the highest echelons of Washington.
Emanuel is a Chicago native with a track record as an Illinois congressman before serving as Barack Obama's chief of staff then two terms as Chicago mayor.
But he's a divisive figure who long ago upset liberals, most prominently in Washington, by discouraging Obama from pursuing what became his signature legislative achievement – healthcare reform via the Affordable Care Act – and then in myriad ways as mayor of Chicago from 2011 to 2019.
(...)
But prominent progressives in Chicago and elsewhere are livid that Biden would even give his name an airing, accusing Emanuel of exacerbating the city's entrenched, acute inequalities and, most dramatically, botching the handling of Black teenager Laquan McDonald's killing by a white police officer in 2014.
Rahm Emanuel "covered up the murder of a young Black man in Chicago in order to advance his political career", city alderman Carlos Ramirez-Rosa said of his potential appointment.
Dashcam footage of 17-year-old McDonald being gunned down by officer Jason Van Dyke, who was convicted in 2018 of the murder, was suppressed for more than a year before a judge ordered it released. Emanuel's role in that delay ignited weeks of local and national protests and calls for his resignation. It left an indelible stain and he didn't run for a third term.
So, maybe not the best appointment for the BLM era.
So what are the odds on Georgia?
I'm skeptical. I'm guessing a lot of anti trump republicans voted Biden but will vote republican in the rerun.
Quote from: Tyr on December 19, 2020, 04:18:03 PM
So what are the odds on Georgia?
I'm skeptical. I'm guessing a lot of anti trump republicans voted Biden but will vote republican in the rerun.
Who knows? Everything is so fucking weird right now. Normally it should be an easy win for Republicans, but this year Stacey Abrams produced a miracle (the women should run the party), and you have a large number of Republicans who take Donald Trump's statement about a rigged election at face value and say they won't vote.
Polls suggest a Republican win...but as Raz said it's weird. So I have no idea.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 19, 2020, 05:48:11 PM
Who knows? Everything is so fucking weird right now. Normally it should be an easy win for Republicans, but this year Stacey Abrams produced a miracle (the women should run the party), and you have a large number of Republicans who take Donald Trump's statement about a rigged election at face value and say they won't vote.
If Stacy Abrams could produce electoral miracles she would be governor now.
Quote from: The Larch on December 15, 2020, 04:59:34 PM
IIRC he's a very divisive figure amongst the Democrats, already from his time as Obama's chief of staff. Apparently he has a very abrassive personality and his style of negotiating is of the "take no prisoners" style, which rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
His brother was the inspiration for the character of Ari Gold in Entourage, I can see abrassiveness running deep in that family :lol:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkwktQ93Qvw
Biden's nomination for Attorney General going to be...wait for it...
Merrick Garland.
That's SASSY.
Putting that chip on his shoulder to good use. :lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on December 19, 2020, 09:31:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 19, 2020, 05:48:11 PM
Who knows? Everything is so fucking weird right now. Normally it should be an easy win for Republicans, but this year Stacey Abrams produced a miracle (the women should run the party), and you have a large number of Republicans who take Donald Trump's statement about a rigged election at face value and say they won't vote.
If Stacy Abrams could produce electoral miracles she would be governor now.
Or two senate seats.
I was wondering something that is not clear to me. Does the new legislative assemblies (House&Senate) begin governing (voting laws, approving budgets, etc) before the new President is sworn in or are they just doing "extraordinary" short sessions to approve the vote of the Electoral College?
Biden is announcing his DOJ nominees.
Quote from: viper37 on January 06, 2021, 06:45:05 PM
I was wondering something that is not clear to me. Does the new legislative assemblies (House&Senate) begin governing (voting laws, approving budgets, etc) before the new President is sworn in or are they just doing "extraordinary" short sessions to approve the vote of the Electoral College?
It's a new Congress, so they can do as they please. The new President of the Senate doesn't take office until Jan 20th, however.
I thought his response yesterday to the Capitol invasion/violence and calling out Trump has very good, maybe a couple of minutes too long, but he can be forgiven for being somewhat angry having seen the shameful events taking place at the heart of US democracy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 06, 2021, 01:04:28 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkwktQ93Qvw
Biden's nomination for Attorney General going to be...wait for it...
Merrick Garland.
That's SASSY.
Is there any reason for this beyond owning the cons? Like is there reason to Garland has the right sort of skillset/experience to be a good AG? Because in my head being an AG and Supreme Court Justice are quite different :hmm:
Who is this man and why do right wingers hate him?
Quote from: Tyr on January 08, 2021, 06:33:20 AM
Who is this man and why do right wingers hate him?
He reminds them of their hypocrisy and Obama.
Quote from: Tyr on January 08, 2021, 06:33:20 AM
Who is this man and why do right wingers hate him?
Merrick Garland? He's the candidate for the Supreme Court nominated by Obama that the Republicans refused to consider because it happened in his last year of the presidency.
Quote from: The Larch on January 08, 2021, 06:38:20 AM
Quote from: Tyr on January 08, 2021, 06:33:20 AM
Who is this man and why do right wingers hate him?
Merrick Garland? He's the candidate for the Supreme Court nominated by Obama that the Republicans refused to consider because it happened in his last year of the presidency.
Ahh, makes sense now.
Seems a nice move to give him this position then after he had the other big one unfairly denied him at the last moment.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2021, 06:19:57 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 06, 2021, 01:04:28 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkwktQ93Qvw
Biden's nomination for Attorney General going to be...wait for it...
Merrick Garland.
That's SASSY.
Is there any reason for this beyond owning the cons? Like is there reason to Garland has the right sort of skillset/experience to be a good AG? Because in my head being an AG and Supreme Court Justice are quite different :hmm:
He worked in the us attorneys office in DC and as deputy associate AG under Clinton before becoming a judge
Quote from: Tyr on January 08, 2021, 06:43:11 AM
Seems a nice move to give him this position then after he had the other big one unfairly denied him at the last moment.
Yeah, and I would love to see him put a bunch of Trumpists, and possibly even Trump himself, in jail. Oh the delicious irony....
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2021, 10:18:41 AM
He worked in the us attorneys office in DC and as deputy associate AG under Clinton before becoming a judge
Okay that is a reasonable background - although query if you'd be better appointing someone with more recent experience than the 90s.
QuoteYeah, and I would love to see him put a bunch of Trumpists, and possibly even Trump himself, in jail. Oh the delicious irony....
I've read that Trump is considering self-pardoning and it's interesting because I think if he just leaves office Biden will want to move on (and I personally feel that after Iran-Contra, after torture, after the entire Trump administration that some Republicans need to see consequences for what they do when they're in the executive). But if he self-pardons I sort of feel like the DoJ has to prosecute him to challenge the scope of a self-pardon.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2021, 10:32:53 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2021, 10:18:41 AM
He worked in the us attorneys office in DC and as deputy associate AG under Clinton before becoming a judge
Okay that is a reasonable background - although query if you'd be better appointing someone with more recent experience than the 90s.
*cough* Bill Barr *cough*
So McConnell has said there will be no rush to deal with the Trump impeachment - it can wait until after Biden is sworn in.
This has the effect of turning the whole problem over to the Dems and gets Trump, even after he leaves office, to still dominate the agenda even during Biden's first 100 days.
Quote from: Barrister on January 13, 2021, 05:08:05 PM
So McConnell has said there will be no rush to deal with the Trump impeachment - it can wait until after Biden is sworn in.
This has the effect of turning the whole problem over to the Dems and gets Trump, even after he leaves office, to still dominate the agenda even during Biden's first 100 days.
Trump and his crew were going to be on the agenda, anyway.
Quote from: Barrister on January 13, 2021, 05:08:05 PM
So McConnell has said there will be no rush to deal with the Trump impeachment - it can wait until after Biden is sworn in.
This has the effect of turning the whole problem over to the Dems and gets Trump, even after he leaves office, to still dominate the agenda even during Biden's first 100 days.
It isn't a nefarious plot--he really didn't have a choice. Biden takes office in 7 days. Aside from the reality that the Senate is in recess until then, how are you going to hold a trial in 7 days, presided over by the Chief Justice?
He was able to do a Supreme Court Justice confirmation is record time. It is amazing how fast the political process can be when the politicians want it to be fast.
But those two Georgia Democrats will not be in DC until after the 20th and those might be two pretty important votes to convict...
I am just glad we got that impeachment through the House quickly. There is a lot of important business to get to.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 13, 2021, 06:00:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 13, 2021, 05:08:05 PM
So McConnell has said there will be no rush to deal with the Trump impeachment - it can wait until after Biden is sworn in.
This has the effect of turning the whole problem over to the Dems and gets Trump, even after he leaves office, to still dominate the agenda even during Biden's first 100 days.
It isn't a nefarious plot--he really didn't have a choice. Biden takes office in 7 days. Aside from the reality that the Senate is in recess until then, how are you going to hold a trial in 7 days, presided over by the Chief Justice?
There's an emergency Senate rule that allows the Senate to be immediately called into session if the Majority and Minority leader agree. This is just Mitch pushing things down the line so he can take up some of Biden's time and see what other information comes out on this attack.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/14/biden-stimulus-package-details-checks-unemployment-minimum-wage.html
Uncle Joe's relief bill proposal.
Quote
Direct payments of $1,400 to most Americans, bringing the total relief to $2,000, including December's $600 payments
Increasing the federal, per-week unemployment benefit to $400 and extending it through the end of September
Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour
Extending the eviction and foreclosure moratoriums until the end of September
$350 billion in state and local government aid
$170 billion for K-12 schools and institutions of higher education
$50 billion toward Covid-19 testing
$20 billion toward a national vaccine program in partnership with states, localities and tribes
Making the Child Tax Credit fully refundable for the year and increasing the credit to $3,000 per child ($3,600 for a child under age 6)
Oh look that local government aid Pelosi promised. And just throwing in $15.00 minimum wage...
Well good luck getting Manchin on board Joe.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 14, 2021, 12:19:34 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 13, 2021, 06:00:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 13, 2021, 05:08:05 PM
So McConnell has said there will be no rush to deal with the Trump impeachment - it can wait until after Biden is sworn in.
This has the effect of turning the whole problem over to the Dems and gets Trump, even after he leaves office, to still dominate the agenda even during Biden's first 100 days.
It isn't a nefarious plot--he really didn't have a choice. Biden takes office in 7 days. Aside from the reality that the Senate is in recess until then, how are you going to hold a trial in 7 days, presided over by the Chief Justice?
There's an emergency Senate rule that allows the Senate to be immediately called into session if the Majority and Minority leader agree. This is just Mitch pushing things down the line so he can take up some of Biden's time and see what other information comes out on this attack.
That rule requires unanimity of the Senators, IIRC. Otherwise, they can not rule on anything.
Quote from: viper37 on January 15, 2021, 04:54:56 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 14, 2021, 12:19:34 AM
There's an emergency Senate rule that allows the Senate to be immediately called into session if the Majority and Minority leader agree. This is just Mitch pushing things down the line so he can take up some of Biden's time and see what other information comes out on this attack.
That rule requires unanimity of the Senators, IIRC. Otherwise, they can not rule on anything.
I don't believe that this is true - the Senate is in recess, not between sessions.
Jeff or regular?
Quote from: grumbler on January 15, 2021, 07:33:05 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 15, 2021, 04:54:56 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 14, 2021, 12:19:34 AM
There's an emergency Senate rule that allows the Senate to be immediately called into session if the Majority and Minority leader agree. This is just Mitch pushing things down the line so he can take up some of Biden's time and see what other information comes out on this attack.
That rule requires unanimity of the Senators, IIRC. Otherwise, they can not rule on anything.
I don't believe that this is true - the Senate is in recess, not between sessions.
In a memo a few days ago to Republican senators, McConnell had suggested the trial wouldn't start until Biden becomes president, saying all 100 senators would need to consent to change the Senate's schedule. He indicated that the earliest the Senate could take up any House-passed articles of impeachment against Trump would most likely be right after his term endsI have no idea if it is true or not, but that's what he said.
Quote from: viper37 on January 15, 2021, 08:06:56 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 15, 2021, 07:33:05 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 15, 2021, 04:54:56 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 14, 2021, 12:19:34 AM
There's an emergency Senate rule that allows the Senate to be immediately called into session if the Majority and Minority leader agree. This is just Mitch pushing things down the line so he can take up some of Biden's time and see what other information comes out on this attack.
That rule requires unanimity of the Senators, IIRC. Otherwise, they can not rule on anything.
I don't believe that this is true - the Senate is in recess, not between sessions.
In a memo a few days ago to Republican senators, McConnell had suggested the trial wouldn't start until Biden becomes president, saying all 100 senators would need to consent to change the Senate's schedule. He indicated that the earliest the Senate could take up any House-passed articles of impeachment against Trump would most likely be right after his term ends
I have no idea if it is true or not, but that's what he said.
I think that what he is saying is that the Senators who don't want to come back will deny the Senate a quorum. It would be almost impossible to enforce a quorum in the few days allowed, and Senators wouldn't want a quorum to be established in the absence of a large portion of their own caucus, so they'd not show up for a special session unless they knew everyone in their caucus was going to.
The emergency action provision mentioned by Schumer would bypass this by requiring Senators to return to the chamber.
Ah. Not what I thought it was. Thanks for the clarification.
Apparently tomorrow Mike Pence will attend Biden's inauguration, but will skip Trump's send-off, saying attending both would be "logistically challenging".
https://twitter.com/jdawsey1/status/1351584529652322310
(WaPo's White House reporter)
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2021, 03:40:27 PM
Apparently tomorrow Mike Pence will attend Biden's inauguration, but will skip Trump's send-off, saying attending both would be "logistically challenging".
https://twitter.com/jdawsey1/status/1351584529652322310
(WaPo's White House reporter)
I'll bet it would be. The logistics of not smashing someone who near got you and your family killed by a coked up mob would be more than most could overcome.
Also, Pence is trying to rehabilitate his reputation now, so going to Trump's bullshit thing isn't the smartest way to go about doing that.
Quote from: Caliga on January 19, 2021, 04:24:43 PM
Also, Pence is trying to rehabilitate his reputation now, so going to Trump's bullshit thing isn't the smartest way to go about doing that.
I think there might be genuine disgust on Pence's part. He's been the loyal lackey this whole time and all it got him was a band of crazy people who tried to lynch him.
He is now the best example of a politician who gave himself entirely over to Trump and got nothing in return.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2021, 05:38:44 PM
Quote from: Caliga on January 19, 2021, 04:24:43 PM
Also, Pence is trying to rehabilitate his reputation now, so going to Trump's bullshit thing isn't the smartest way to go about doing that.
I think there might be genuine disgust on Pence's part. He's been the loyal lackey this whole time and all it got him was a band of crazy people who tried to lynch him.
He is now the best example of a politician who gave himself entirely over to Trump and got nothing in return.
He got exactly what he was supposed to get. Ain't nothing ever as good as we want it to be.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2021, 05:38:44 PM
Quote from: Caliga on January 19, 2021, 04:24:43 PM
Also, Pence is trying to rehabilitate his reputation now, so going to Trump's bullshit thing isn't the smartest way to go about doing that.
I think there might be genuine disgust on Pence's part. He's been the loyal lackey this whole time and all it got him was a band of crazy people who tried to lynch him.
He is now the best example of a politician who gave himself entirely over to Trump and got nothing in return.
He rode that Trump train almost all the way to the end, suffering any end of indignities in order to assure there was no daylight between him and Trump, but at the last hour found something that even he couldn't do - a blatantly unconstitutional move to refuse to count electoral votes awarded to Biden.
And in exchange he gets death threats and is excommunicated from Trumpworld.
We should of course be grateful that he did so and make some level of "room" for ex-Trump officials who did break from Trump, no matter how late. But we should never forget the preceeding 5 years either.
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2021, 05:54:30 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2021, 05:38:44 PM
Quote from: Caliga on January 19, 2021, 04:24:43 PM
Also, Pence is trying to rehabilitate his reputation now, so going to Trump's bullshit thing isn't the smartest way to go about doing that.
I think there might be genuine disgust on Pence's part. He's been the loyal lackey this whole time and all it got him was a band of crazy people who tried to lynch him.
He is now the best example of a politician who gave himself entirely over to Trump and got nothing in return.
He rode that Trump train almost all the way to the end, suffering any end of indignities in order to assure there was no daylight between him and Trump, but at the last hour found something that even he couldn't do - a blatantly unconstitutional move to refuse to count electoral votes awarded to Biden.
And in exchange he gets death threats and is excommunicated from Trumpworld.
We should of course be grateful that he did so and make some level of "room" for ex-Trump officials who did break from Trump, no matter how late. But we should never forget the preceeding 5 years either.
he did ask for different legal advices first. At least two. It's not like he didn't entertain the thought. I wouldn't sing his praise just because he's been backstabed by Trump
It has been reported that Biden will sign 17 executive orders as soon as he's sworn in. Amongst those orders there'll be the following:
- Rejoining the WHO.
- Rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement.
- Blocking the funding for the construction of the border wall.
- Repealing the travel ban from a number of majority muslim countries.
- Allowing "Dreamers" to stay in the US.
A new Covid taskforce will probably be announced early next week.
Geez. Pick a lane.
Also that he's going to sign up to Covax which will be huge news in distributing to many developing countries (and I really think it's morally wrong but also practically stupid to have very slow roll-out of the vaccine in the developing world).
Other measures that will be passed in the early days of the Biden presidency (no idea if as part of the 17 exec. orders or otherwise):
- Eviction moratorium until the end of March.
- Moratorium on the payment of school loans until the end of September
- Mandatory use of face masks and social distancing in federal buildings for 100 days.
Quote from: The Larch on January 20, 2021, 07:55:14 AM
- Mandatory use of face masks and social distancing in federal buildings for 100 days.
Even for intruders?
A more comprehensive list:
QuotePresident-elect Joe Biden plans to sign 17 executive actions today in the Oval Office including:
-National mask mandate
-Establish a WH COVID-19 team
-Cease withdrawal from WHO
-Restore national security pandemics office
-Extend pause on student loan payments and interest
-Rejoin Paris Climate Agreement
-Government agency review focused on equity
-Extend federal eviction moratorium
-Rescind Census orders to exclude non-citizens
-Preserve and fortify DACA
-Revoke Muslim ban
-Rescind 1776 commission
Not bad for a first day on the job.
America really is the world leader in marching band songs.
Dick Turpin is at the ceremony? Or did I mishear?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2021, 10:35:34 AM
America really is the world leader in marching band songs.
Gotta keep the Nazis a distant second.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 20, 2021, 10:42:05 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2021, 10:35:34 AM
America really is the world leader in marching band songs.
Gotta keep the Nazis a distant second.
American marching band songs are notably more jaunty :lol:
It's a really uniquely American/turn of the century sound. You even get it on things like the West Wing - I don't know what the equivalent musical cue would be in the UK.
Edit: It must be kind of crap being Dan Quayle and 30 years later still just survive as a punchline. Wonder why Al Gore isn't attending? :hmm:
Remember when Dan Quayle was a joke? :wub:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2021, 10:44:19 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 20, 2021, 10:42:05 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2021, 10:35:34 AM
America really is the world leader in marching band songs.
Gotta keep the Nazis a distant second.
American marching band songs are notably more jaunty :lol:
It's a really uniquely American/turn of the century sound. You even get it on things like the West Wing - I don't know what the equivalent musical cue would be in the UK.
I was looking at Sousa's wiki page as an aside reading for this post, and it compares him to a Kenneth J. Alford, the "British March King'. Though I think Sousa probably eclipsed him in overall fame/notoriety.
Dan Quayle, VP from over 30 years ago, is younger than both Trump and Biden.
I assume there has been a good handover from Trump's people to Biden's people?
I can't get use to the way Washington DC looks like in winter.
Quote from: The Brain on January 20, 2021, 10:52:17 AM
I assume there has been a good handover from Trump's people to Biden's people?
Probably very few turds left in the water tanks of the WH toilets.
Crowd doesn't look that impressive.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 20, 2021, 10:52:42 AM
I can't get use to the way Washington DC looks like in winter.
:hmm:
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 20, 2021, 10:47:13 AM
I was looking at Sousa's wiki page as an aside reading for this post, and it compares him to a Kenneth J. Alford, the "British March King'. Though I think Sousa probably eclipsed him in overall fame/notoriety.
Huh :hmmm:
Sousa has definitely eclipsed him.
Quote from: Caliga on January 20, 2021, 10:53:53 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 20, 2021, 10:52:42 AM
I can't get use to the way Washington DC looks like in winter.
:hmm:
Everyone is wearing winter clothes, even tuques for some, but it looks so warm. (And usually is).
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2021, 05:51:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2021, 05:38:44 PM
Quote from: Caliga on January 19, 2021, 04:24:43 PM
Also, Pence is trying to rehabilitate his reputation now, so going to Trump's bullshit thing isn't the smartest way to go about doing that.
I think there might be genuine disgust on Pence's part. He's been the loyal lackey this whole time and all it got him was a band of crazy people who tried to lynch him.
He is now the best example of a politician who gave himself entirely over to Trump and got nothing in return.
He got exactly what he was supposed to get. Ain't nothing ever as good as we want it to be.
To paraphrase Spock, "having is not the same as wanting." Good point. He should have realized what was going to be the endgame.
Quote from: The Brain on January 20, 2021, 10:52:17 AM
I assume there has been a good handover from Trump's people to Biden's people?
Live shot of the handover
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82RIfy-gRa4
Who's that lady I saw Pence with?
Quote from: The Brain on January 20, 2021, 10:53:50 AM
Crowd doesn't look that impressive.
Definitely low energy crowd, far cry from two weeks ago.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 20, 2021, 10:59:44 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 20, 2021, 10:52:17 AM
I assume there has been a good handover from Trump's people to Biden's people?
Live shot of the handover
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82RIfy-gRa4
Looks good, but I don't really know baseball.
Who are the 3 Hot wearing Pink, Beige & White girls?
Pete Buttigieg's hair really is a disgrace on a man of his age <_<
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2021, 11:11:16 AM
Pete Buttigieg's hair really is a disgrace on a man of his age <_<
Why exactly?
*takes notes*
What's with the speeches. Sheesh.
:lol: It's just the haircut I had as a kid and all my friends had.
I feel like by the time you're in your thirties you should have some specific hairstyle you're going for - whether it's side-parting and short back and sides, or buzz-cut, or man-bun.
Bernie looks comfy. :lol:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsMF4ZaW8AQyjCf?format=png&name=900x900)
Gaga's badge has Hunger Games vibes.
It's Enrico Pallazzo!
OMG Karens will go nuts.
From mainstream Catholic Twitter:
QuoteMichael Peppard
@MichaelPeppard
Kennedy: don't be scared of us Catholics
Biden: light these candles, join me at Mass, and also here's a priest quoting the Pope at the inauguration
:lol:
The fact he also quoted the kitschest/naffest Catholic hymn which I've heard at numerous funerals in his victory speech adds to this.
So Trump's nuclear codes are deactivated now, right? :unsure: Or are they still good for 6 minutes?
Comparing himself to Lincoln. Nice that he opts for some continuity from the previous administration.
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2021, 11:54:21 AM
So Trump's nuclear codes are deactivated now, right? :unsure: Or are they still good for 6 minutes?
They are(were) still good but the Marine is in the bathroom.
Biden is really putting the boot into the Trumpies :D
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 20, 2021, 11:59:10 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2021, 11:54:21 AM
So Trump's nuclear codes are deactivated now, right? :unsure: Or are they still good for 6 minutes?
They are(were) still good but the Marine is in the bathroom.
Weirdly, he was in there since early January.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 20, 2021, 12:12:38 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 20, 2021, 11:59:10 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2021, 11:54:21 AM
So Trump's nuclear codes are deactivated now, right? :unsure: Or are they still good for 6 minutes?
They are(were) still good but the Marine is in the bathroom.
Weirdly, he was in there since early January.
I'd be shitting bricks non-stop as well in his place.
Wait, Q said that everyone at the inauguration was going to get arrested and that Trump's plane was going back to DC????? What is happening???????
Q who?
Suddenly I feel a great weight lifted
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 20, 2021, 12:32:53 PM
Suddenly I feel a great weight lifted
Is this still about your haircut? :unsure:
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 20, 2021, 12:32:53 PM
Suddenly I feel a great weight lifted
Nice. I have been very regular lately. :)
Quote from: FunkMonk on January 20, 2021, 12:30:44 PM
Wait, Q said that everyone at the inauguration was going to get arrested and that Trump's plane was going back to DC????? What is happening???????
Seeing some screenshots of the Q forums and group chats. Going about as well as you'd expect :lol:
People are gushing online about the poetry reading section of the inauguration. Did anyone here catch it?
Quote from: The Larch on January 20, 2021, 12:41:51 PM
People are gushing online about the poetry reading section of the inauguration. Did anyone here catch it?
Yeah - she was very good.
(https://preview.redd.it/bj5dy1p72ic61.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=719c3a8cb9fac40b46c8d917a9dbdc072f569f2c)
:lol:
Quote from: FunkMonk on January 20, 2021, 12:30:44 PM
Wait, Q said that everyone at the inauguration was going to get arrested and that Trump's plane was going back to DC????? What is happening???????
Don't worry, it's all part of the plan.
(https://forumcontent.paradoxplaza.com/public/660400/1611155380787.png)
Well, Maya Rudolph is the official Kamala Harris impersonator at SNL, so it's close enough. :lol:
https://twitter.com/morganfmckay/status/1351934178493935620?s=20
QuoteMark Leggiero is the one lone Trump supporter out in front of the NYS Capitol. He says he expected a few thousand ppl here and is disappointed. He said he drove 45 minutes for a peaceful protest
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsMI90wXYAI4eb_?format=jpg&name=small)
:(
Quote from: celedhring on January 20, 2021, 12:50:24 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on January 20, 2021, 12:30:44 PM
Wait, Q said that everyone at the inauguration was going to get arrested and that Trump's plane was going back to DC????? What is happening???????
Don't worry, it's all part of the plan.
(https://forumcontent.paradoxplaza.com/public/660400/1611155380787.png)
Onoda Hiroo would be proud. :cry:
Quote from: Syt on January 20, 2021, 12:52:04 PM
https://twitter.com/morganfmckay/status/1351934178493935620?s=20
QuoteMark Leggiero is the one lone Trump supporter out in front of the NYS Capitol. He says he expected a few thousand ppl here and is disappointed. He said he drove 45 minutes for a peaceful protest
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsMI90wXYAI4eb_?format=jpg&name=small)
:(
It is peaceful, I'll give
them him that.
LOL trick of the camera angle. The crowd is a lot denser.
Quote from: The Larch on January 20, 2021, 12:41:51 PM
People are gushing online about the poetry reading section of the inauguration. Did anyone here catch it?
Shit didn't rhyme. :mad:
Quote from: Caliga on January 20, 2021, 12:57:29 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 20, 2021, 12:41:51 PM
People are gushing online about the poetry reading section of the inauguration. Did anyone here catch it?
Shit didn't rhyme. :mad:
I'm surprised the word was used at all.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2021, 11:26:34 AM
:lol: It's just the haircut I had as a kid and all my friends had.
I feel like by the time you're in your thirties you should have some specific hairstyle you're going for - whether it's side-parting and short back and sides, or buzz-cut, or man-bun.
Mine is somewhat similar, if not nearly as neatly kept.
And I've started combing it increasingly sideways to cover the impeding chasm. :ph34r:
How long will it take to search the White House for Russian bugs?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2021, 12:42:57 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 20, 2021, 12:41:51 PM
People are gushing online about the poetry reading section of the inauguration. Did anyone here catch it?
Yeah - she was very good.
Agreed, at points I would say brilliant.
Quote from: The Brain on January 20, 2021, 01:15:26 PM
How long will it take to search the White House for Russian bugs?
I didn't get the impression they needed bugs.
Quote from: The Brain on January 20, 2021, 01:15:26 PM
How long will it take to search the White House for Russian bugs?
He left for Florida this morning.
Quote from: Maladict on January 20, 2021, 01:30:28 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 20, 2021, 01:15:26 PM
How long will it take to search the White House for Russian bugs?
I didn't get the impression they needed bugs.
Not under Trump. Biden is president now.
I've always loved the pageantry of presidential inaugurations. Nothing else quite like it in American ceremonies.
Quote from: FunkMonk on January 20, 2021, 02:11:08 PM
I've always loved the pageantry of presidential inaugurations. Nothing else quite like it in American ceremonies.
I love them even if some of it is a little absurd. They are very unique - the only natural habitat of those Sousa marches.
British Twitter always splits in two between people who wish we had something similar/a setting where the PM could set out their vision and people who are very glad that when we remove elected leaders you know because a delivery van turns up outside Downing Street :lol:
I personally like it too, but then I imagine it transposed to Spain or Catalonia and I kinda squirm in disgust. :hmm:
We haven't had a change of head of state in Sweden in my lifetime.
Quote from: celedhring on January 20, 2021, 02:25:27 PM
I personally like it too, but then I imagine it transposed to Spain or Catalonia and I kinda squirm in disgust. :hmm:
Yeah. It's republican paegentry which I love - same goes for France. But add it to a monarchy and it's just weird and why is a politician saluting the military marching band :lol:
In Germany we don't really do much pageantry around politicians anymore -_-
Never paid attention to the pageantry of US inaugurations before. A lot of militarism involved.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2021, 02:30:03 PM
Quote from: celedhring on January 20, 2021, 02:25:27 PM
I personally like it too, but then I imagine it transposed to Spain or Catalonia and I kinda squirm in disgust. :hmm:
Yeah. It's republican paegentry which I love - same goes for France. But add it to a monarchy and it's just weird and why is a politician saluting the military marching band :lol:
I guess I'm just more on the "moving van pulling up" crowd, and I just watch the yanks doing their yankness like I was watching sleazy porn :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 20, 2021, 02:46:34 PM
Never paid attention to the pageantry of US inaugurations before. A lot of militarism involved.
Even when our actual military was five guys in a fort in Kansas we still had big military parades for it. It is just part of the tradition for some reason.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 20, 2021, 02:46:34 PM
Never paid attention to the pageantry of US inaugurations before. A lot of militarism involved.
I think there's a military march but that's it in terms of normal inaugurations - the visit to Arlington etc I think are Biden's choices.
And there is a degree to which that makes sense - new Commander in Chief etc. There'll be a pretty heavy military side (processions etc) at the Queen's funeral and new coronation here.
Queen? Funeral? :unsure:
Officer Goodman, the Capitol police officer who lured the mob away from the Senate chamber, was made acting Deputy Senate Sergeant-at-Arms and given a role in the inauguration. :)
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2021, 03:00:04 PM
Queen? Funeral? :unsure:
Codename - "London Bridge is down":
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge
I found the piece weirdly fascinating.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 20, 2021, 02:46:34 PM
Never paid attention to the pageantry of US inaugurations before. A lot of militarism involved.
Didn't notice that before, but yeah I think you have a point. We need to cut back on that stuff.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2021, 03:10:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2021, 03:00:04 PM
Queen? Funeral? :unsure:
Codename - "London Bridge is down":
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge
I found the piece weirdly fascinating.
I am having a hard time believing Elizabeth Windsor will ever die. She is the Lich Queen. Clearly the British Public agrees with me :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2021, 03:11:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 20, 2021, 02:46:34 PM
Never paid attention to the pageantry of US inaugurations before. A lot of militarism involved.
Didn't notice that before, but yeah I think you have a point. We need to cut back on that stuff.
For me personally the eye-opener was when I went to see a NASCAR race in Pocono about ten years ago. The pre-race ceremonies for a fucking NASCAR race looked like a Victory Day parade on Red Square. I found it creepy.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 20, 2021, 02:46:34 PM
Never paid attention to the pageantry of US inaugurations before. A lot of militarism involved.
Well we're basically electing a monarch for 4 years so that's par for the course. What is actually disturbing is the amount of militarism in normal American life.
Military parades are fine and proper for inaugurating heads of state imo.
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2021, 03:29:05 PMFor me personally the eye-opener was when I went to see a NASCAR race in Pocono about ten years ago. The pre-race ceremonies for a fucking NASCAR race looked like a Victory Day parade on Red Square. I found it creepy.
Yeah - this is the bit I find a bit weird. The military at private things like sporting events etc.
The military is popular. NASCAR and the NFL pay them to show up and perform at their events. Does the RAF not fly over and parachute into Everton-Liverpool matches?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 20, 2021, 02:46:34 PM
Never paid attention to the pageantry of US inaugurations before. A lot of militarism involved.
You can really tell that the US has not been thoroughly whipped and near-destroyed in a war like the Europeans. We have beaten this jingoist nonsense out of each other during the 20th century.
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2021, 03:53:25 PM
The military is popular. NASCAR and the NFL pay them to show up and perform at their events. Does the RAF not fly over and parachute into Everton-Liverpool matches?
Traditionally fuck no.
There is a creeping tendency for such though.
Please let this thread remain boring as hell for the next four years ...
Quote from: Malthus on January 20, 2021, 04:10:18 PM
Please let this thread remain boring as hell for the next four years ...
Early indications are good:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsImMitW8AUFkEq?format=jpg&name=small)
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2021, 03:53:25 PM
The military is popular. NASCAR and the NFL pay them to show up and perform at their events. Does the RAF not fly over and parachute into Everton-Liverpool matches?
Actually it is the military that paid the NFL. And when that came to light, the NFL repaid the money. It seems the practice has now stopped.
Don't know about NASCAR
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2021, 03:53:25 PM
The military is popular. NASCAR and the NFL pay them to show up and perform at their events. Does the RAF not fly over and parachute into Everton-Liverpool matches?
:lol: Probably not the best game for that sort of thing. But no. You might get a military marching band at like FA Cup final or national team games and a few soldiers when its remembrance day but I feel like that's about it?
Quote from: Malthus on January 20, 2021, 04:10:18 PM
Please let this thread remain boring as hell for the next four years ...
Sorry we couldn't keep you entertained, sir. :(
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 20, 2021, 04:27:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2021, 03:53:25 PM
The military is popular. NASCAR and the NFL pay them to show up and perform at their events. Does the RAF not fly over and parachute into Everton-Liverpool matches?
Actually it is the military that paid the NFL. And when that came to light, the NFL repaid the money. It seems the practice has now stopped.
Don't know about NASCAR
Ah. Wow I clearly got that backwards.
But the NFL, at least before all the knee-taking started, was huge in playing the patriotic "we love the military" card as much as possible. Things might be different now.
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2021, 04:35:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 20, 2021, 04:27:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2021, 03:53:25 PM
The military is popular. NASCAR and the NFL pay them to show up and perform at their events. Does the RAF not fly over and parachute into Everton-Liverpool matches?
Actually it is the military that paid the NFL. And when that came to light, the NFL repaid the money. It seems the practice has now stopped.
Don't know about NASCAR
Ah. Wow I clearly got that backwards.
But the NFL, at least before all the knee-taking started, was huge in playing the patriotic "we love the military" card as much as possible. Things might be different now.
Yes, but it was paid patriotism - ie the NFL was getting paid to showcase the military they way they did.
Fuck. Our tax dollars at work.
Hope people can see this without a subscription.
The poet - amazing
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/20/us/who-is-amanda-gorman-poet-inauguration.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage
Quote from: Tamas on January 20, 2021, 03:53:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 20, 2021, 02:46:34 PM
Never paid attention to the pageantry of US inaugurations before. A lot of militarism involved.
You can really tell that the US has not been thoroughly whipped and near-destroyed in a war like the Europeans. We have beaten this jingoist nonsense out of each other during the 20th century.
Hmm that's not exactly the vibe I get from the Hungarian politics thread. Seems like Trianon revisionism is more in vogue these days than light balling.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 20, 2021, 04:56:10 PM
Hmm that's not exactly the vibe I get from the Hungarian politics thread. Seems like Trianon revisionism is more in vogue these days than light balling.
They're trying to be heavy ballers?
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2021, 04:44:45 PM
Fuck. Our tax dollars at work.
Recruiting budget no doubt :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2021, 04:13:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 20, 2021, 04:10:18 PM
Please let this thread remain boring as hell for the next four years ...
Early indications are good:
He has the Amtrak branded Peloton.
You can take rides through Youngstown and downtown Sheboygan. The trainer is Jack LaLanne and the music is all from the Lawrence Welk band.
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2021, 04:32:50 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 20, 2021, 04:10:18 PM
Please let this thread remain boring as hell for the next four years ...
Sorry we couldn't keep you entertained, sir. :(
I want to be bored! 😄
Quote from: Tamas on January 20, 2021, 03:53:51 PM
You can really tell that the US has not been thoroughly whipped and near-destroyed in a war like the Europeans. We have beaten this jingoist nonsense out of each other during the 20th century.
Wish it had stuck in Russia.
This is the longest the President of the US has gone without doing something stupid in the last four years.
During dinner I was telling Emily a story while we were listening to NPR. Then Biden came on and I said "Hang on, I want to hear The President's speech here." Felt good. I have not said "The President" like that since 2017. I refused to address Trump as President. Most people didn't notice, but I don't care. :sleep:
It is weird not having a narcissistic reality TV star as my president for the first time since 2017.
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2021, 09:12:31 PM
It is weird not having a narcissistic reality TV star as my president for the first time since 2017.
Yeah. You have a good man as President now (not to mention, an amazingly qualified one). I was lucky enough to grow up in PA and saw quite a bit of Biden on TV (I mean, Wilmington is basically a neighborhood of Philly). Biden will do this country proud. Trust me. :cool:
Did Trump end up getting his glorious military sendoff?
So they spent all the money they couldn't spend on inaugural balls on the fireworks because holy hell that was a lot of fireworks. :lol:
Quote from: FunkMonk on January 20, 2021, 10:08:52 PM
So they spent all the money they couldn't spend on inaugural balls on the fireworks because holy hell that was a lot of fireworks. :lol:
Yeah I saw that :lol:
At least it did not spell "BIDEN 2020" across the sky.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2021, 10:08:28 PM
Did Trump end up getting his glorious military sendoff?
I think I read that he did end up getting the 21 gun salute he asked for and totally did not deserve. :)
Right now, I do not know what the President of the USA did tonight.
It is so refreshing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-cVf53pFcM
Anti-Biden loonie left protests in Portland.
:tinfoil:
Quote from: Syt on January 20, 2021, 02:42:37 PM
In Germany we don't really do much pageantry around politicians anymore -_-
Yeah, it was too campy anyway.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsM_cjTVgAAW69M?format=jpg&name=small)
(The episode aired March 2000.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_to_the_Future
QuoteThe episode mentions that real estate mogul Donald Trump became president, and caused a budget crisis that Lisa inherits. In 2015, news media cited the episode as a foreshadowing of Trump's future run for president;[16] the episode was produced during Trump's 2000 third-party run. Dan Greaney told The Hollywood Reporter in a 2016 interview that the thought of a Trump presidency at the time "just seemed like the logical last stop before hitting bottom. It was pitched because it was consistent with the vision of America going insane."[17] In an interview with TMZ in May 2016, Matt Groening said he thought it was unlikely that Donald Trump would become the president of the United States.[18]
On November 8, 2016, Trump was elected as the 45th president of the United States.[19][20] Four days later, in the opening credits of the episode "Havana Wild Weekend", aired on November 13, 2016, Bart writes "Being right sucks" as the chalkboard gag.[21]
Scenes from a 2015 Simpsons YouTube post "Trumptastic Voyage" (which references real-life scenes of Donald Trump around that time) have been mistakenly identified as those from "Bart to the Future".[22]
Anyone know who the 'Sanitiser-in-chief' was during yesterday's ceremony.
Quote
Sanitiser-in-chief' takes social media by storm
Forget the almost life-size Lady Gaga dove brooch and barnstorming tunes of Katy Perry et al, one guy has been drawing the awe of social media by just doing a normal job, diligently and repetitively.
The grey-haired, masked and scarfed destroyer of all things Covid made more appearances than the VIPs - dutifully wiping down the podium after each speaker.
Some have called for him to be put in charge of the vaccine rollout.
Remarkably, his name doesn't seem to be out there in the cyber ether yet either.
It was a pretty shitty episode as well.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/484150492520382484/801613534596825099/bernie_and_keanu.jpg)
Why would someone put on their mask so crooked? :bleeding: He can always use a mirror if he has such a hard time feeling out the center by feel.
He tilts left in all things, DG.
So, Biden is starting to reverse the Trump legacy, just as Trump was trying to reverse the Obama legacy. Which Republican will try to reverse the Biden legacy?
Quote from: Syt on January 21, 2021, 12:05:19 PM
So, Biden is starting to reverse the Trump legacy, just as Trump was trying to reverse the Obama legacy. Which Republican will try to reverse the Biden legacy?
Ivanka.
Quote from: Tamas on January 21, 2021, 12:09:40 PM
Quote from: Syt on January 21, 2021, 12:05:19 PM
So, Biden is starting to reverse the Trump legacy, just as Trump was trying to reverse the Obama legacy. Which Republican will try to reverse the Biden legacy?
Ivanka.
There is no chance in hell Ivanka is ever President.
Don Jr, on the other hand...
I do find it problematic, though, when successive governments of opposing parties primarily try to revert what their predecessors did. Some of it is natural, due to opposing policies, but for Trump it seemed to be a staple, and obviously the Democrats want to undo his damage. I expect, though, that the next time the Rs have the power again, they will try to re-undo things.
Quote from: Syt on January 21, 2021, 12:12:43 PM
I do find it problematic, though, when successive governments of opposing parties primarily try to revert what their predecessors did. Some of it is natural, due to opposing policies, but for Trump it seemed to be a staple, and obviously the Democrats want to undo his damage. I expect, though, that the next time the Rs have the power again, they will try to re-undo things.
So I don't mind it in theory because as you say it's partly in the nature of elections in a two party system. I think the bigger issue is that because Congress hasn't worked for some time a lot of the agenda of both parties is being implemented as far as possible by the executive. Whether that's lots of executive orders or the Paris Agreement being deliberately drafted in a way to avoid the Senate ratification requirements.
For some reason it feels okay for me to try and overturn, say, Obamacare. But it's more problematic that the lives of so many people because of their immigration status can be based on executive orders and that they'll just ping-pong on this - same for climate.
I think there isn't an equivalence between Trump's trashing of US institutions or international involvements and most of Biden's new executive orders, it's not a ping-pong situation where those are two opposing sides either side of a balanced middle.
Trump was an extremist, exiting WHO, something the US had a major hand in setting up and funding was a hollow domestic political act, no other US administration had ever planned on leaving it.
Similarly leaving the open skies treaty was just wanton vandalism, damaging US national security by losing access to a useful set of international protocols.
Relax. A generation from now the US may have built a reputation for stability again.
Quote from: Syt on January 21, 2021, 08:27:36 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsM_cjTVgAAW69M?format=jpg&name=small)
(The episode aired March 2000.)
(https://imagenes.20minutos.es/files/image_656_370/files/fp/uploads/imagenes/2021/01/21/kamala-harris-y-lisa-simpson.r_d.513-261.jpeg)
:ph34r:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2021, 12:32:34 PM
Quote from: Syt on January 21, 2021, 12:12:43 PM
I do find it problematic, though, when successive governments of opposing parties primarily try to revert what their predecessors did. Some of it is natural, due to opposing policies, but for Trump it seemed to be a staple, and obviously the Democrats want to undo his damage. I expect, though, that the next time the Rs have the power again, they will try to re-undo things.
So I don't mind it in theory because as you say it's partly in the nature of elections in a two party system. I think the bigger issue is that because Congress hasn't worked for some time a lot of the agenda of both parties is being implemented as far as possible by the executive. Whether that's lots of executive orders or the Paris Agreement being deliberately drafted in a way to avoid the Senate ratification requirements.
For some reason it feels okay for me to try and overturn, say, Obamacare. But it's more problematic that the lives of so many people because of their immigration status can be based on executive orders and that they'll just ping-pong on this - same for climate.
It all revolves again back to Moscow Mitch & the abortion issue.
Wow. That is pretty close.
Wonder if she did it on purpose?
Hopefully the QAnon people don't see that post. :ph34r:
Quote from: mongers on January 21, 2021, 01:08:28 PM
I think there isn't an equivalence between Trump's trashing of US institutions or international involvements and most of Biden's new executive orders, it's not a ping-pong situation where those are two opposing sides either side of a balanced middle.
I'm not saying there's a balanced middle but because these things are done by executive orders they're easy "wins" for both sides to overturn their opponent's achievements. So it seems likely to me that the next Republican administration will pull out of the Paris Agreement, I wouldn't be surprised if they pissed about with DACA again.
QuoteTrump was an extremist, exiting WHO, something the US had a major hand in setting up and funding was a hollow domestic political act, no other US administration had ever planned on leaving it.
I swear multiple Republicans have over the years said that the US should leave the UN? I'm not convinced Trump's foreign policy stuff (which was less damaging than I expected) is actually that far from other Republicans. I'm not convinced that Trump is actually an extremist compared to the GOP - that's the bigger issue and they will win the White House again.
Quote from: Tyr on January 21, 2021, 01:33:38 PM
Wow. That is pretty close.
Wonder if she did it on purpose?
If you are interested, there is a great article in the NYTimes about the fashion choices and the reasons they were made.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2021, 01:44:27 PM
I swear multiple Republicans have over the years said that the US should leave the UN? I'm not convinced Trump's foreign policy stuff (which was less damaging than I expected) is actually that far from other Republicans. I'm not convinced that Trump is actually an extremist compared to the GOP - that's the bigger issue and they will win the White House again.
There is a long history of anti-UN sentiment in the modern Republican Party, and there was precedent in Reagan's withdrawal from UNESCO, which Trump also withdrew from. That's not the same thing as withdrawing from WHO however, which is a much bigger deal and more obviously counterproductive.
Trump's views and policies on trade and immigration were definitely outside the GOP mainstream, although not *too* far outside - it is basically the old Buchanan program which did attract a non-insignificant number of the GOP voters. It was surprising how quickly the mainstream party rolled over on these issues and how the policy debates play out on those issues may be the key to understanding how the post 2020 GOP will evolve. The immediate attacks Biden is getting now from usual media suspects seem to focus heavily on immigration - it will be interesting to see if that remains the main focus or attack. A GOP that realigns permanently as a hardline anti-immigration party would mark a significant break from postwar party - essentially a belated victory of the deviant Buchanan/Pete Wilson wing over the long dominant Reagan-Bush-McCain wing.
I just hope Biden notices how aggressively deporting people on an unprecedented scale did little to counter the charge that Obama was pro-open borders. What you actually do as President doesn't really matter, it is always about what you represent.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN29O2PE
QuoteBiden will recognize Guaido as Venezuela's leader, top diplomat says
By Reuters Staff
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President-elect Joe Biden's administration will continue to recognize Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido as the South American country's president, Anthony Blinken, Biden's nominee for secretary of state, said on Tuesday.
Blinken told members of the U.S. Senate that Biden would seek to "more effectively target" sanctions on the country, which aim to oust President Nicolas Maduro - who retains control of the country. Blinken said the new administration would look at more humanitarian assistance to the country.
Fuck. Can we stop this? I mean I get that Maduro sucks but he just sucks for Venezuela. He poses no threat to us and there are plenty of other terrible regimes out there. Why are we still doing these regime change conflicts? I am so frustrated about this.
Quote from: Valmy on January 21, 2021, 02:36:49 PM
I just hope Biden notices how aggressively deporting people on an unprecedented scale did little to counter the charge that Obama was pro-open borders. What you actually do as President doesn't really matter, it is always about what you represent.
But also what you present, no? Did Obama want to give the impression that he was aggressively deporting people?
Quote from: Valmy on January 21, 2021, 02:59:45 PM
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN29O2PE
QuoteBiden will recognize Guaido as Venezuela's leader, top diplomat says
By Reuters Staff
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President-elect Joe Biden's administration will continue to recognize Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido as the South American country's president, Anthony Blinken, Biden's nominee for secretary of state, said on Tuesday.
Blinken told members of the U.S. Senate that Biden would seek to "more effectively target" sanctions on the country, which aim to oust President Nicolas Maduro - who retains control of the country. Blinken said the new administration would look at more humanitarian assistance to the country.
Fuck. Can we stop this? I mean I get that Maduro sucks but he just sucks for Venezuela. He poses no threat to us and there are plenty of other terrible regimes out there. Why are we still doing these regime change conflicts? I am so frustrated about this.
But this one makes (or at least made) sense.
Back in 2019 there was a real groundswell in Venezuela against the Maduro regime. The recently held Presidential elections were largely seen as illegitimate, so Guaido stepped up and said under the Constitution he was then interim President until free and fair elections could be held. There was thought that the protests on the streets, combined with international pressure (by governments recognizing Guaido as President) could spur a change.
Over 50 governments recognize Guaido as President.
Of course in the end... it didn't work. BUt the Maduro government has done nothing since then to warrant the reward of US recognition. It's not like there was meaningful diplomacy going on between the two governments in any event.
Being recognized as the leader of a country that you are obviously the leader of shouldn't be viewed as a "reward". That said, what is happening in Venezuela is a humanitarian catastrophe, and I'm not sure that having a failed state in that area is in our interest.
Quote from: DGuller on January 21, 2021, 03:32:38 PM
Being recognized as the leader of a country that you are obviously the leader of shouldn't be viewed as a "reward". That said, what is happening in Venezuela is a humanitarian catastrophe, and I'm not sure that having a failed state in that area is in our interest.
There's all kinds of these situations though. US never recognized the USSR's annexation of the Baltics, for example. US right now does not recognize Taiwan (though the two do have a deep relationship).
In any case, regardless of who we recognize, I think Venezuela is a textbook case of an intervention for humanitarian reasons being warranted. The country is being turned into a wasteland by an extremely unpopular leader who by now must be holding on to power by authoritarian means, with the aid of the Axis of Authoritarians.
Venezuela used to be a functioning state; it's not a basket case like Syria. I don't think it's a great idea for the US to just neglect a failed state in the region - eventually those problems will becomes US problems one way or another.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 21, 2021, 04:14:05 PM
Venezuela used to be a functioning state; it's not a basket case like Syria. I don't think it's a great idea for the US to just neglect a failed state in the region - eventually those problems will becomes US problems one way or another.
They already are US problems. Look how many Venezuelans in the US voted for Trump. :P
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 21, 2021, 04:14:05 PM
Venezuela used to be a functioning state; it's not a basket case like Syria. I don't think it's a great idea for the US to just neglect a failed state in the region - eventually those problems will becomes US problems one way or another.
BTW, is Monroe Doctrine still in use, officially? Or has it been discarded? China's and Russia's involvement in Venezuela seems to be something that the Monroe Doctrine meant to head off.
They've been in Cuba since the 50s.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2021, 10:08:28 PM
Did Trump end up getting his glorious military sendoff?
Sadly, I think the firing squad is no longer in vogue in the USA :(
Beautiful visualisation but depressing
(https://i.redd.it/rw0vrjakuoc61.png)
Quote from: Valmy on January 21, 2021, 02:59:45 PM
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN29O2PE (https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN29O2PE)
QuoteBiden will recognize Guaido as Venezuela's leader, top diplomat says
By Reuters Staff
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President-elect Joe Biden's administration will continue to recognize Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido as the South American country's president, Anthony Blinken, Biden's nominee for secretary of state, said on Tuesday.
Blinken told members of the U.S. Senate that Biden would seek to "more effectively target" sanctions on the country, which aim to oust President Nicolas Maduro - who retains control of the country. Blinken said the new administration would look at more humanitarian assistance to the country.
Fuck. Can we stop this? I mean I get that Maduro sucks but he just sucks for Venezuela. He poses no threat to us and there are plenty of other terrible regimes out there. Why are we still doing these regime change conflicts? I am so frustrated about this.
Drug cartel.
Yes, people are living longer and are more active longer. That shouldn't be depressing.
Man, Lost really is old now.
Quote from: Tyr on January 21, 2021, 04:44:20 PM
Beautiful visualisation but depressing
(https://i.redd.it/rw0vrjakuoc61.png)
Why depressing? Because there are millenials old enough to be senators? :P
It's depressing if your an X. Most of them couldn't displace their parents.
Yep. Consider the oldest gen x is now, what? 55?
People 55 and under are the majority of the population.... And they're so massively under-represented.
Maybe if they didn't play videogames all day they'd get ahead.
That graph sucks.
Because if you understand what it says, it is really very depressing.
But when you look at it, it is not at all intuitive what it is really telling us. It isn't about the current state, it is about how things have changed.
Quote from: Tyr on January 21, 2021, 05:38:32 PM
Yep. Consider the oldest gen x is now, what? 55?
People 55 and under are the majority of the population.... And they're so massively under-represented.
Yep, the Boomers all decided to stick around for a couple more decades - and they called the millennials entitled....
Quote from: Tyr on January 21, 2021, 05:38:32 PM
Yep. Consider the oldest gen x is now, what? 55?
People 55 and under are the majority of the population.... And they're so massively under-represented.
Truth in advertising; "Senate" means council of elders.
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2021, 05:41:55 PM
That graph sucks.
Because if you understand what it says, it is really very depressing.
Not at all. We'll all get our turn, it just comes later due to longer life spans.
"Wah people live longer and stay healthy longer. DOOOM"
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 21, 2021, 04:50:25 PM
Yes, people are living longer and are more active longer. That shouldn't be depressing.
Maybe. I think that Ben Smith piece in the NYT was very good about the conversations reporters have about how they cover Senators who are physically and mentally ailing (the answer: generally they don't). So it may not be obvious to the public even if it's an open secret in DC.
It's not easy but it's a conversation that seems important in the US given the number of leadership positions held by very old people.
There are more "Generation x" six years after the first entered the Senate than there were "Baby Boomers" six years after the first entered the Senate.
I'll just note once again that this whole "generations" thing is moronic and those who think it meaningful are mistaken. "Generation" does not mean random grouping of people and 20 years hasn't ben a generation length since the mid-20th Century, if even that late. The current generational length (average age of a woman giving birth) in the US is 27 years.
The idiot wing of the GOP is at it again:
QuoteRep. Marjorie Greene files articles of impeachment against Biden
Rep. Marjorie Greene (R-Ga.) said Thursday that she has filed articles of impeachment against President Biden, only a day after he was sworn into office.
The text of Greene's articles of impeachment specifying any impeachable offenses committed by Biden was not immediately available. But Greene indicated that the articles accuse Biden of abusing his power while serving as vice president by allowing his son, Hunter, to serve on the board of a Ukrainian energy company.
"President Joe Biden is unfit to hold the office of the presidency. His pattern of abuse of power as President Obama's Vice President is lengthy and disturbing. President Biden has demonstrated that he will do whatever it takes to bail out his son, Hunter, and line his family's pockets with cash from corrupt foreign energy companies," Greene said in a statement.
I think it's probably best not to report on Greene at all. Will never be anything of value.
At least until she is arrested or resigns.
Quote from: garbon on January 21, 2021, 06:58:50 PM
I think it's probably best not to report on Greene at all. Will never be anything of value.
The competition for being the most terrible person in the House must be hard, but she's really working for it.
Quote from: The Larch on January 21, 2021, 07:00:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 21, 2021, 06:58:50 PM
I think it's probably best not to report on Greene at all. Will never be anything of value.
The competition for being the most terrible person in the House must be hard, but she's really working for it.
No one will out-stupid her, that's for sure.
Ban anyone over the age of 70 from holding office. Simple and elegant solution. :bowler:
Quote from: The Larch on January 21, 2021, 07:00:46 PM
The competition for being the most terrible person in the House must be hard, but she's really working for it.
Short list is Jim Jordan, Mat Gaetz, that chick with the gun, and this chick.
Quote from: grumbler on January 21, 2021, 07:21:13 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 21, 2021, 07:00:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 21, 2021, 06:58:50 PM
I think it's probably best not to report on Greene at all. Will never be anything of value.
The competition for being the most terrible person in the House must be hard, but she's really working for it.
No one will out-stupid her, that's for sure.
When it comes to stupid, never count out Gohmert.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 21, 2021, 08:55:19 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 21, 2021, 07:21:13 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 21, 2021, 07:00:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 21, 2021, 06:58:50 PM
I think it's probably best not to report on Greene at all. Will never be anything of value.
The competition for being the most terrible person in the House must be hard, but she's really working for it.
No one will out-stupid her, that's for sure.
When it comes to stupid, never count out Gohmert.
Gomert has gallons and gallons of stupid, but Greene has the distilled essence of stupid.
I assume Biden will collect his Nobel Peace Prize this year? Since Obama got it for not being W, Biden not being Trump must make it pretty much automatic. :)
Quote from: The Brain on January 22, 2021, 04:07:29 AM
I assume Biden will collect his Nobel Peace Prize this year? Since Obama got it for not being W, Biden not being Trump must make it pretty much automatic. :)
They should give it to the as yet unknown people who talked Trump out of doing really stupid things, or refused to carry them out.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2021, 08:08:43 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 21, 2021, 07:00:46 PM
The competition for being the most terrible person in the House must be hard, but she's really working for it.
Short list is Jim Jordan, Mat Gaetz, that chick with the gun, and this chick.
I think Cawthorn may be a dark horse this year.
(https://i.ibb.co/k41c9Lh/140922451-3990947577630951-4803123788787636247-n.jpg)
Oh dear :lol:
Seems he is setting himself up as the successor of Trump.
He'll never get elected with that beard.
Cruz always seems completely phony to me when he tries to play the Trump card. I assume republican voters will think the same.
I read some posts that Biden gets instructions via ear piece because he apparently said "salute the marines" when passing marines without saluting them. Supposedly he was confused and repeated the instruction instead of following it. :tinfoil:
Write something inane and push the post button.
Quote from: Syt on January 22, 2021, 07:55:28 AM
I read some posts that Biden gets instructions via ear piece because he apparently said "salute the marines" when passing marines without saluting them. Supposedly he was confused and repeated the instruction instead of following it. :tinfoil:
Saw the video, and on the face of it, comes across as depicted. Could the audio have been spliced in? Sure. Is the President supposed to salute the Marines in that instance? Not sure.
All the video sources I've found, as expected, come from right-wing sources. So, who knows.
If anyone cares (or if you think this is even some kind of importance), and wants to dodge the biased sources...here is a link to the original video, so the audio itself, at least, is genuine.
https://youtu.be/ZwvbQR887W0?t=12567
I also cannot be sure if the first word he says is "salute", though "marines" is pretty clear. He could have been saying something else in reference to them.
If one were to want to nitpick...it was from the inauguration ceremony, and before Biden was sworn in, so technically not POTUS yet. I don't know if that matters from a protocol perspective in this case...but what I do know is that typically the lesser rank should salute first, and the higher up returns the salute (in previous POTUS saluting gaffes, you will always see the Marine presenting, or already holding, a salute). These Marines don't salute at all, but they're also holding the door, and may be excused from that in this instance. The USMC may also have their own protocol, I am not qualified to speak for them.
Is it possible he's just saying "look at the marines" to his wife?
In the way that my dad (and I assume most older men) just sort of say what they see on holiday :lol:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 21, 2021, 08:55:19 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 21, 2021, 07:21:13 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 21, 2021, 07:00:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 21, 2021, 06:58:50 PM
I think it's probably best not to report on Greene at all. Will never be anything of value.
The competition for being the most terrible person in the House must be hard, but she's really working for it.
No one will out-stupid her, that's for sure.
When it comes to stupid, never count out Gohmert.
I still believe that sending Gohmert to Washington is a Texan plot to destroy the city by placing a man in the capital of such immense density that he can pull satellites out of orbit.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 22, 2021, 10:19:13 AM
Is it possible he's just saying "look at the marines" to his wife?
In the way that my dad (and I assume most older men) just sort of say what they see on holiday :lol:
Hard to say. In my professional experience, when there is a word or two that you cannot fully make out, oftentimes you will fill it in either with what you want to hear, or more often, the first "worm" (this "worm" often comes in the form of someone else telling you in advance what is said, as in this case) that gets in your brain, and then you will always hear, and be convinced you hear, that "worm" until there is absolute proof otherwise.
If that's going to be the level of Biden's scandals, you should be pretty safe. :lol:
Oh I agree. Better than the issue of "ZOMG BIDEN DIDNT SALUT OUR HEROS!!!111", is the issue of; even if Biden does have aids giving him prompts via earpiece...is that really a big deal?
Only because it amuses me...I took one of the shorter clips (I used this one: https://youtu.be/ZwvbQR887W0?t=12567) , and ran it a couple lower speeds (which Youtube lets you do)...and I am almost convinced that the person who tells him to "salute the Marines" is his wife, walking next to him. You can see her tilt her head just slightly, and just barely hear something from her (she is further from the mic) say what is likely the same phrase. She cannot confirm if he did or not, of course, because she is slightly ahead of him.
Otherwise we have to presume there is a "watcher" somewhere who gives him prompts at just the right times/locations. Which is: :tinfoil:
Quote from: grumbler on January 21, 2021, 06:48:02 PM
There are more "Generation x" six years after the first entered the Senate than there were "Baby Boomers" six years after the first entered the Senate.
I'll just note once again that this whole "generations" thing is moronic and those who think it meaningful are mistaken. "Generation" does not mean random grouping of people and 20 years hasn't ben a generation length since the mid-20th Century, if even that late. The current generational length (average age of a woman giving birth) in the US is 27 years.
While I agree that arbitrary assignment of generation identities is moronic, there has been a shift to people working much longer and as a result the positions they hold not becoming vacant for others to progress into. The Senate is a bad example because it has been the place where the olds historically hang on.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2021, 12:49:36 PM
While I agree that arbitrary assignment of generation identities is moronic, there has been a shift to people working much longer and as a result the positions they hold not becoming vacant for others to progress into. The Senate is a bad example because it has been the place where the olds historically hang on.
The "hanging on" bit is, indeed, a problem, but it isn't a new one. Healthy life expectancies have gone up for a long time.
In Roman times, a man on the Cursus Honorum would enter the Senate at age 30 and reach the peak of his career at age 42, when he would stand for Consul. Plenty of complaints in the late republic that older men were standing for consul and preventing the younger men from achieving the office in their year.
I'm not sure that there is a good way out of the problem of the ever-escalating "blocking the path" problem. It's human nature to want to hang on to power, whether in business, politics, or family life.
Quote from: grumbler on January 22, 2021, 01:22:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2021, 12:49:36 PM
While I agree that arbitrary assignment of generation identities is moronic, there has been a shift to people working much longer and as a result the positions they hold not becoming vacant for others to progress into. The Senate is a bad example because it has been the place where the olds historically hang on.
The "hanging on" bit is, indeed, a problem, but it isn't a new one. Healthy life expectancies have gone up for a long time.
In Roman times, a man on the Cursus Honorum would enter the Senate at age 30 and reach the peak of his career at age 42, when he would stand for Consul. Plenty of complaints in the late republic that older men were standing for consul and preventing the younger men from achieving the office in their year.
I'm not sure that there is a good way out of the problem of the ever-escalating "blocking the path" problem. It's human nature to want to hang on to power, whether in business, politics, or family life.
I am fortunate that the folks 10-20 years older than me in the firm voluntarily and affirmatively gave over control. Very different in other places where mandatory retirement policies needed to be put into place to remove overholding partners. It worked out very well for our firm because it has become known as a place where an older lawyer (kicked out of their firm) can hang a shingle. We have picked up some amazing talent that way and they play an active role mentoring our junior ranks.
Quote from: grumbler on January 21, 2021, 07:21:13 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 21, 2021, 07:00:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 21, 2021, 06:58:50 PM
I think it's probably best not to report on Greene at all. Will never be anything of value.
The competition for being the most terrible person in the House must be hard, but she's really working for it.
No one will out-stupid her, that's for sure.
one of her co-worker tried to enter the Senate floor with his gun, after the attempted coup. I don't know if it qualifies, but it's close. ;)
Quote from: celedhring on January 22, 2021, 07:31:03 AM
Cruz always seems completely phony to me when he tries to play the Trump card. I assume republican voters will think the same.
You assume... much :P
Man, this presidency sure is boring.
Quote from: Solmyr on January 25, 2021, 04:13:07 AM
Man, this presidency sure is boring.
You know, you've made realize I just have no idea what the US president did the past 2-3 days. I missed that.
Quote from: Solmyr on January 25, 2021, 04:13:07 AM
Man, this presidency sure is boring.
Not if you're a fan of the previous administration:
QuoteIn 2 days... Biden has Canada pissed off, closer to war in Syria, obliterates women's sports, allows boys in girls locker rooms, admits he doesn't have a plan to contain the pandemic, he wants to vaccinate 1M people a day for 100 days( but the last week of trump admin they were doing 1.2M people a day), Biden responsible for covid deaths of 4,300 people since his inauguration, doesn't return salutes from marines, doesn't wear a mask on federal property after mandating it, already has articles of impeachment filed against him, put approx 52,000 people on unemployment, uses Betsy Ross flag at inauguration after republicans were told it was racist when it was displayed at trump rally, said " no comment" when asked about the Portland violence on Inauguration Day, rejoins Paris climate accord, fires a well qualified black man (Obama's surgeon general) gets locked out of the white house( he fired the usher that opens the doors to the White House 5 hours earlier) wants to raise minimum wage to $15 hour during a pandemic( non partisan congressional budget office says raising minimum wage to $15 will kill over 4 million jobs). He's been busy.... busy screwing Americans.
I cut and pasted this from another but felt it needs to be heard.
Cut and paste is so lazy IMHO.
Quote from: celedhring on January 25, 2021, 04:15:20 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on January 25, 2021, 04:13:07 AM
Man, this presidency sure is boring.
You know, you've made realize I just have no idea what the US president did the past 2-3 days. I missed that.
It's wonderful, isn't it?
Like, I don't know what the US president is doing right now.
Meanwhile, from the opposition ...
(https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/01/ny-post-cover.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=618&h=410&crop=1)
Hard to believe it's the same newspaper that gave us Redford and Hoffman. :(
Quote from: Syt on January 25, 2021, 07:48:24 AM
Meanwhile, from the opposition ...
(https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/01/ny-post-cover.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=618&h=410&crop=1)
https://twitter.com/Mike_Shapes/status/1347860463577608193?s=20
Well yeah, there's no self-awareness about how many communication channels and amplification they have while whining about being silenced.
Quote from: Syt on January 25, 2021, 08:14:00 AM
Well yeah, there's no self-awareness about how many communication channels and amplification they have while whining about being silenced.
I kid you not, it was just last year that a Hungarian government official complained about the "Liberal-left media dominance" in Hungary, after a decade of them gaining control each and every media outlet they could grab, at a time when supposedly entirely independent regional newspapers publish copy-pasted identical Orban interviews and other designs, not to mention the absolute control of all state media and varying level of control over most private TV channels.
Quote from: The Brain on January 25, 2021, 07:55:17 AM
Hard to believe it's the same newspaper that gave us Redford and Hoffman. :(
Washington. :contract:
Quote from: Tamas on January 25, 2021, 09:39:31 AM
Quote from: Syt on January 25, 2021, 08:14:00 AM
Well yeah, there's no self-awareness about how many communication channels and amplification they have while whining about being silenced.
I kid you not, it was just last year that a Hungarian government official complained about the "Liberal-left media dominance" in Hungary, after a decade of them gaining control each and every media outlet they could grab, at a time when supposedly entirely independent regional newspapers publish copy-pasted identical Orban interviews and other designs, not to mention the absolute control of all state media and varying level of control over most private TV channels.
Narrative counts more than truth. Sure, there's been duplicity and lies in politics since forever, but now groups can insulate themselves in their respective bubbles and can have their beliefs reinforced independent from petty things like "facts."
Quote from: Syt on January 25, 2021, 07:48:24 AM
Meanwhile, from the opposition ...
(https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/01/ny-post-cover.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=618&h=410&crop=1)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Djf-zdQUYAAhPkQ.jpg)
That's probably the least fun example of that.
https://www.dw.com/en/us-russia-agree-to-extend-new-start-nuclear-arms-treaty/a-56354318
QuoteUS, Russia agree to extend 'New START' nuclear arms treaty
The extension of the landmark arms control treaty will continue to limit the number of nuclear missiles and warheads each country can deploy.
The Russian lower house of Parliament, the Duma, on Wednesday ratified a new START nuclear treaty with the US.
The United States and Russia had "agreed in principle" to extend the arms treaty by five years following a phone call between US President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin Tuesday.
A Kremlin description of the call between the two leaders said they had both "expressed satisfaction" that diplomatic notes had been exchanged earlier Tuesday confirming that the treaty would be extended,
The extension doesn't require approval from lawmakers in the US.
Deadline approaching
The White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the two leaders agreed to have their teams "work urgently" to iron out the details of the extension before the treaty's expiration date, February 5.
The New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), was signed in 2010 by former US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart at the time, Dmitry Medvedev.
The treaty limits each party to 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) or deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), 1,550 nuclear warheads on deployed ICBMs and SLBMs, and 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers.
It also envisions a rigorous inspection regime to verify compliance.
The last nuclear arms control agreement
Biden had indicated during his presidential campaign that he favored extending the treaty, and Russia has long proposed its extension without any conditions or changes.
However, negotiations to extend the treaty were stalled by the administration of former US President Donald Trump, which insisted on tougher inspections for Russia and for China to be included, which Beijing refused.
During Trump's term, the US withdrew from a separate nuclear weapons control agreement with Russia, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, making New START the last remaining nuclear weapons control treaty between Russia and the US.
(https://static.dw.com/image/42459491_7.png)
Quote from: garbon on January 27, 2021, 05:25:20 AM
That's probably the least fun example of that.
The video in the tweet Sheilbh linked did the exact same thing (inspired the strip, I'm sure) but in a clever way.
Quote from: grumbler on January 27, 2021, 06:45:45 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 27, 2021, 05:25:20 AM
That's probably the least fun example of that.
The video in the tweet Sheilbh linked did the exact same thing (inspired the strip, I'm sure) but in a clever way.
Exactly. That Death to 2020 clip was clever, as you say, whereas this later posted comic strip was not. :D
Amazing to think that the B52 will still be in service into the 2040s, getting close to a century.
Just read that Biden signed an Executive Order requesting the DoJ to end federal contracts with private prisons. I don't know how effective will that be (IIRC there aren't that many federal prisons compared to state prisons) but seems at least a step in the right direction. The concept of a private prison seems abhorrent to me, and everything that I read about them has always confirmed that bias.
I would get behind federal legislation making private prisons simply illegal, whether state run or otherwise.
But if the states run prisons then they'll have to pay that money directly to running them instead of giving it to companies who can skim off profits and run awful places that the states "don't have direct control of."
Commies.
Quote from: Berkut on January 27, 2021, 10:17:02 AM
I would get behind federal legislation making private prisons simply illegal, whether state run or otherwise.
Would this be constitutional? Non-rhetorical.
It should be but commerce clause jurisprudence is in flux and there is new personnel on the court. State criminal law is a traditional core state competency and the feds tend to stay out but if a state contracts out its prison system that concern is vitiated. I believe most if not all the significant prison companies are multi state enterprises so it should be a no brainer that it can be regulated under the commerce clause.
I would consider attacking on tsgt tsgt, if not inherently cruel, one could consider private-run prisons as "unusual".
I recall once listening to a report on some criminal justice reform in New York State. It was casually mentioned that the reform was opposed by some because their districts have prisons. I was beyond disgusted, it's like funeral industry lobbying against the Covid vaccine.
Quote from: DGuller on January 27, 2021, 11:56:52 AM
I recall once listening to a report on some criminal justice reform in New York State. It was casually mentioned that the reform was opposed by some because their districts have prisons. I was beyond disgusted, it's like funeral industry lobbying against the Covid vaccine.
That is quite horrific.
The whole private prisons thing reminds me of the movie the Shawshank Redemption. It's line the evil warden's scheme to profit personally off of prisoner labour, but on a huge scale.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 27, 2021, 10:58:29 AM
It should be but commerce clause jurisprudence is in flux and there is new personnel on the court. State criminal law is a traditional core state competency and the feds tend to stay out but if a state contracts out its prison system that concern is vitiated. I believe most if not all the significant prison companies are multi state enterprises so it should be a no brainer that it can be regulated under the commerce clause.
Thanks.
Quote from: Malthus on January 27, 2021, 12:31:11 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 27, 2021, 11:56:52 AM
I recall once listening to a report on some criminal justice reform in New York State. It was casually mentioned that the reform was opposed by some because their districts have prisons. I was beyond disgusted, it's like funeral industry lobbying against the Covid vaccine.
That is quite horrific.
The whole private prisons thing reminds me of the movie the Shawshank Redemption. It's line the evil warden's scheme to profit personally off of prisoner labour, but on a huge scale.
Heh, I'd have thought having a prison in your district would elicit a NIMBY response, not the opposite.
In the US, those districts are typically very rural, and the prison is, or has the potential to be, the #1 source of employment/tax revenue.
In an urban/metro area, the normal NIMBY rules could easily apply.
Quote from: celedhring on January 27, 2021, 12:36:25 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 27, 2021, 12:31:11 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 27, 2021, 11:56:52 AM
I recall once listening to a report on some criminal justice reform in New York State. It was casually mentioned that the reform was opposed by some because their districts have prisons. I was beyond disgusted, it's like funeral industry lobbying against the Covid vaccine.
That is quite horrific.
The whole private prisons thing reminds me of the movie the Shawshank Redemption. It's line the evil warden's scheme to profit personally off of prisoner labour, but on a huge scale.
Heh, I'd have thought having a prison in your district would elicit a NIMBY response, not the opposite.
The way some look at it, the prison is generating large sums of cash paid for by other areas in the form of tax money used to finance the prison - and that cash then benefits the lucky area the prison is in, in the form of jobs and other economic activities.
Thus, if the state passes laws that effectively imprison a large percentage of that state's lower class inhabitants, paid for by the dutiful taxes of the tax payers who are not imprisoned - and the prisoners are put to productive work, generating yet more local economic activity, which local politicians find beneficial (also with the possible benefit of undercutting the labour of those lower class inhabitants not yet imprisoned, thus increasing the prison population yet further! It's a virtuous cycle ...)
Quote from: The Brain on January 27, 2021, 10:45:47 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 27, 2021, 10:17:02 AM
I would get behind federal legislation making private prisons simply illegal, whether state run or otherwise.
Would this be constitutional? Non-rhetorical.
You could probably make the argument that it was a civil rights issue.
Yes but not in this Supreme Court
Biden's Presidency will still have to contend with the Republican moral and political bankruptcy:
Proposed bill in Missouri: immunity to those who run over protesters with their cars; authorize the private use of deadly force against protesters.
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/missouri-bill-would-allow-deadly-force-against-demonstrators/article_3ad28172-efb2-5b65-aa63-56f54d9a7585.html#utm_campaign=blox&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
Why not just arm the the cars with machine guns to cover all our bases?
Does it have money for the perverted arts?
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 28, 2021, 05:55:59 PM
Biden's Presidency will still have to contend with the Republican moral and political bankruptcy:
Proposed bill in Missouri: immunity to those who run over protesters with their cars; authorize the private use of deadly force against protesters.
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/missouri-bill-would-allow-deadly-force-against-demonstrators/article_3ad28172-efb2-5b65-aa63-56f54d9a7585.html#utm_campaign=blox&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
If that law passed, there would be so many antiabortion protestors gunned down on abortion clinic property that Jesus himself would cry for joy.
Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2021, 09:59:33 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 28, 2021, 05:55:59 PM
Biden's Presidency will still have to contend with the Republican moral and political bankruptcy:
Proposed bill in Missouri: immunity to those who run over protesters with their cars; authorize the private use of deadly force against protesters.
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/missouri-bill-would-allow-deadly-force-against-demonstrators/article_3ad28172-efb2-5b65-aa63-56f54d9a7585.html#utm_campaign=blox&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
If that law passed, there would be so many antiabortion protestors gunned down on abortion clinic property that Jesus himself would cry for joy.
Silly, that law will only be applied to left-ish protests, of course.
Does this thread really need to be stickied?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2021, 08:48:29 PM
Does this thread really need to be stickied?
It does, if we want to keep it on first page.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2021, 08:48:29 PM
Does this thread really need to be stickied?
are you questioning me?!?
Yes boss!
Interesting scenario...only 6 cabinet picks have been confirmed so far, in large part due to a late start with the election nonsense.
Apparently the priority is now to focus on the budget/relief bill. Next week the impeachment trial starts. For some reason the senate is taking a week off at the end of the month.
Republicans are signaling that the budget/relief bill "requires" their undivided attention, as does the impeachment trial.
The takeaway is that unless something changes, cabinet appointments are going to be getting into place extremely late.
Why does anyone care what Republicans think?
Quote from: Berkut on February 03, 2021, 02:46:46 PM
Why does anyone care what Republicans think?
Because there are filibuster rules and cloture rules that can grind everything to a halt so long as Democrats leave the rules in place, as they seem inclined to do.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 03, 2021, 02:51:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 03, 2021, 02:46:46 PM
Why does anyone care what Republicans think?
Because there are filibuster rules and cloture rules that can grind everything to a halt so long as Democrats leave the rules in place, as they seem inclined to do.
The Republicans already eliminated the filibuster for nominations, I believe.
I though there were some issues with it being split 50-50 (despite the VP tie-breaker) and not a "real" majority, but I will admit to not being clued in on the details of any consequences from that.
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2021, 02:57:28 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 03, 2021, 02:51:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 03, 2021, 02:46:46 PM
Why does anyone care what Republicans think?
Because there are filibuster rules and cloture rules that can grind everything to a halt so long as Democrats leave the rules in place, as they seem inclined to do.
The Republicans already eliminated the filibuster for nominations, I believe.
I think they did, though you can still hold things up for 3 days or something.
The Republicans are intentionally trying to fuck everything up to score big wins in 2022. You are about as able to get help from an arsonist in fire-proofing your house as to get reasonable cooperation from them. We have seen this game for a decade now and how they play it.
Maybe there is one or two who might be willing to cooperate in some circumstances but otherwise the Democrats need to get their own house in order and do everything they can with what they have. Expecting anything out of the Republicans is a fools errand.
Sure there might be one of two Republican Senators who might work with you on this issue or that issue but they are pretty disciplined under McConnell's leadership generally. Splitting them in a significant way on anything the Democrats might want to do is almost impossible.
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2021, 03:12:52 PM
The Republicans are intentionally trying to fuck everything up to score big wins in 2022. You are about as able to get help from an arsonist in fire-proofing your house as to get reasonable cooperation from them. We have seen this game for a decade now and how they play it.
Maybe there is one or two who might be willing to cooperate in some circumstances but otherwise the Democrats need to get their own house in order and do everything they can with what they have. Expecting anything out of the Republicans is a fools errand.
Sure there might be one of two Republican Senators who might work with you on this issue or that issue but they are pretty disciplined under McConnell's leadership generally. Splitting them in a significant way on anything the Democrats might want to do is almost impossible.
I realize I'm in the minority on this, but I think holding the trial now is a massive mistake. The outcome is preordained--there won't be a conviction. The priorities right now need to be covid relief and getting a team in place. They are trying to rush covid relief in before the trial, but republicans are going to drag both out which is going to result in delays.
What is supposed to be a presidential honeymoon period is going to sidetracked with this trial and cause a rapid descent into the standard partisan nonsense, when the trial could have been in April or May when we naturally would be there anyway.
In what fantasy world were any Republican supporters going to have a honeymoon phase with Biden
Quote from: alfred russel on February 03, 2021, 03:55:48 PM
I realize I'm in the minority on this, but I think holding the trial now is a massive mistake.
when should it be held?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 03, 2021, 05:06:11 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 03, 2021, 03:55:48 PM
I realize I'm in the minority on this, but I think holding the trial now is a massive mistake.
when should it be held?
A couple months from now.
Well, I guess we can lock the thread, it's decided:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EteAnERXAAUKY2C?format=jpg&name=large)
That's, well, uh, a reasonable critic.
Is that accurate though? I thought he was trying to get schools open ASAP.
Ah well. Hard to get good accurate information these days.
I can't believe that so many of your schools remained closed to be honest. Having our schools open is one of the better things Alberta has done in fighting Covid. There's been very, very little spread within the schools themselves.
Quote from: Barrister on February 05, 2021, 01:40:02 PM
I can't believe that so many of your schools remained closed to be honest. Having our schools open is one of the better things Alberta has done in fighting Covid. There's been very, very little spread within the schools themselves.
Yeah our schools are open. I can see why we closed them at first, before we had more information, but now we have data that suggests that they can be opened safely. The high cost of closing those schools does not seem worth the price at all based on what we know now.
Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2021, 01:42:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 05, 2021, 01:40:02 PM
I can't believe that so many of your schools remained closed to be honest. Having our schools open is one of the better things Alberta has done in fighting Covid. There's been very, very little spread within the schools themselves.
Yeah our schools are open. I can see why we closed them at first, before we had more information, but now we have data that suggests that they can be opened safely. The high cost of closing those schools does not seem worth the price at all based on what we know now.
But in other jurisdictions (I keep hearing about NYC for example) they're closed.
Quote from: Barrister on February 05, 2021, 02:06:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2021, 01:42:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 05, 2021, 01:40:02 PM
I can't believe that so many of your schools remained closed to be honest. Having our schools open is one of the better things Alberta has done in fighting Covid. There's been very, very little spread within the schools themselves.
Yeah our schools are open. I can see why we closed them at first, before we had more information, but now we have data that suggests that they can be opened safely. The high cost of closing those schools does not seem worth the price at all based on what we know now.
But in other jurisdictions (I keep hearing about NYC for example) they're closed.
I know. But NYC might be a bad example since they have been such a hot spot. It might make sense there where it might not in Alberta or Texas I don't know.
But generally we need to get schools open. Education, and all activities for kids, are really suffering during this thing.
The POTUS doesn't decide when schools open.
My school has been open since the beginning of October, with a two-week break after an outbreak of Covid that was not really related to school (a parent of the baseball team decided to have a team cookout).
But this is in a small rural county with much less student interaction with crowds. I think that things have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, which precludes a presidential order.
Yeah. Schools in Fairfax county (densely populated DC suburbs) have been closed, reopened with restrictions, and are now closed again, but recently announced a reopening plan targeting mid-March. All of the (private) preschools we're looking at, however, have been open with reduced class sizes, social distancing, and other precautions.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 03, 2021, 03:55:48 PM
I realize I'm in the minority on this, but I think holding the trial now is a massive mistake.
I believe you are somewhat right, and there will be political loss over the short term, but they really have to. No other President has started an insurrection, went home to watch the spectacle on TV, and refuse to take phone calls while he was enjoying his show.
There just has to be a trial.
Quote from: saskganesh on February 05, 2021, 09:47:26 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 03, 2021, 03:55:48 PM
I realize I'm in the minority on this, but I think holding the trial now is a massive mistake.
I believe you are somewhat right, and there will be political loss over the short term, but they really have to. No other President has started an insurrection, went home to watch the spectacle on TV, and refuse to take phone calls while he was enjoying his show.
There just has to be a trial.
I agree with this - not doing the trial would be a mistake.
Quote from: Malthus on February 05, 2021, 09:59:38 PM
I agree with this - not doing the trial would be a mistake.
Yeah, if for no other reason than to bring more evidence of the organization into public view.
The trial has value in setting an historical record of the vote and compelling Republican senators to vote on something they would rather duck.
I'm reading Grant lost Reconstruction, because he did mass arrests but there was not enough legal followup, legal capacity and too many sympathizers in the judiciary.
Good luck, honestly.
You must kill the sons of Brutus.
Quote from: saskganesh on February 05, 2021, 09:47:26 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 03, 2021, 03:55:48 PM
I realize I'm in the minority on this, but I think holding the trial now is a massive mistake.
I believe you are somewhat right, and there will be political loss over the short term, but they really have to. No other President has started an insurrection, went home to watch the spectacle on TV, and refuse to take phone calls while he was enjoying his show.
There just has to be a trial.
Imagine the political price of condoning the actions of the past president by taking the unprecedented step of not holding the trial in the Senate and the vote to impeach has already occurred in the House.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 06, 2021, 01:44:56 PM
Imagine the political price of condoning the actions of the past president by taking the unprecedented step of not holding the trial in the Senate and the vote to impeach has already occurred in the House.
I was just curious so I checked wikipedia--if it is accurate it looks like it would have precedent for the senate to not proceed to a trial for an impeached official who left office.
That said: I want to be clear that I was in no way saying there shouldn't be a senate trial. I was saying that there shouldn't be a senate trial right now. The senate has only approved 6 Biden senior posts, and if they aren't approving more while the trial proceeds, we will likely be at 7 at the one month mark of Biden's presidency. The optics will be that litigating the past is more important to senate democrats than putting in place the administration, and I think the optics will have truth to them.
A couple months from now, that won't be the case.
The real trial for Trump shouldn't be in the Senate anyway. There should be a criminal trial--or more likely multiple criminal trials.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 06, 2021, 01:44:56 PM
Imagine the political price of condoning the actions of the past president by taking the unprecedented step of not holding the trial in the Senate and the vote to impeach has already occurred in the House.
Nobody is suggesting that though. Only that we get the important legislative agenda done first, and that is often done in the first few months of a Presidential term, and then we can have the trial. It sounds good to me if the trial will slow the vital legislation we need, especially with the crisis our nation is facing and the politically precarious position the Democrats currently are in. They need to have a big string of successes to take to the voters in 2022.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 06, 2021, 07:59:12 PM
I was just curious so I checked wikipedia--if it is accurate it looks like it would have precedent for the senate to not proceed to a trial for an impeached official who left office.
What precedent is that?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 07, 2021, 12:50:32 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 06, 2021, 07:59:12 PM
I was just curious so I checked wikipedia--if it is accurate it looks like it would have precedent for the senate to not proceed to a trial for an impeached official who left office.
What precedent is that?
I think a couple of judges resigned rather than facing impeachment trials.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 07, 2021, 12:50:32 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 06, 2021, 07:59:12 PM
I was just curious so I checked wikipedia--if it is accurate it looks like it would have precedent for the senate to not proceed to a trial for an impeached official who left office.
What precedent is that?
As I mentioned I only checked wikipedia, but it seems (per wikipedia) Mark W. Delahay was a federal judge impeached due to drunkenness that resigned and didn't get tried back in the 1870s, and there were a couple other similar ones as well.
It says impeachment articles were never drafted for Delahay nor sent to the Senate. So they couldn't have held a trial.
Both the House and Senate have the discretion to decide that removal of office is sufficient sanction and elect not to pursue matters further. That is very different from the constitutionally and historically absurd claim that the Senate lacks the power to try such cases.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 07, 2021, 11:12:07 AM
It says impeachment articles were never drafted for Delahay nor sent to the Senate. So they couldn't have held a trial.
I'm just going off the list here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Impeachment%20in%20the%20United%20States%20is%20the%20process,President%20for%20misconduct%20alleged%20to%20have%20been%20committed.
It looks like there were 3 judges that have dates of impeachment but no trial was held (again just per wikipedia):
Delahay
English
Kent
Maybe I'm missing one because the article states: "Of the 21 impeachments by the House, eight were convicted and removed from office,
four cases did not come to trial because the individuals had left office and the Senate did not pursue the case, eight ended in acquittal and one is still pending."
QuoteBoth the House and Senate have the discretion to decide that removal of office is sufficient sanction and elect not to pursue matters further. That is very different from the constitutionally and historically absurd claim that the Senate lacks the power to try such cases.
That was never my point. My point was that CC is wrong (at least per wikipedia) to say it would be unprecedented.
OK - I think I get your point - that the Senate could delay or elect to forgo a trial in its discretion. That's true, the Senate is the master of itself.
But the objection raised by the minority is a constitutional and jurisdictional one, and that is without support.
I personally don't see much benefit in pulling the bandaid off slowly. Get it done and one way or other put the man in the rear view mirror.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 07, 2021, 03:21:25 PM
But the objection raised by the minority is a constitutional and jurisdictional one, and that is without support.
That was not my objection.
QuoteI personally don't see much benefit in pulling the bandaid off slowly. Get it done and one way or other put the man in the rear view mirror.
Imagine a counterfactual. Mitch McConnell has a majority and sets a pace for approving nominees. He says, "We'll approve 7 in the first 3 weeks of Biden's term, take a week or so off, and then take up others. Seven in month one seems like a good number. I don't see much benefit in going faster than that." Democrats would be losing their shit that he was obstructing the Biden administration.
It is also suspicious that the covid relief package is destined to come back from the house only after the senate trial is expected to end. It isn't a stretch to wonder if holding the trial now is slowing down that package.
Trump isn't going into the rear view mirror. He is destined to be acquitted and is probably the most likely person to be the GOP nominee in 2024. My hunch is that some of the procedural issues -- like witnesses -- are being decided based on Democratic senators seeing the same pressures I'm pointing out and just wanting the trial to end as fast as possible. If you put this off a few months, you could be much more thorough. Or--even better--you could piggy back off of a criminal trial.
The impeachment trial is just an excuse; the Senate can walk and chew gum at the same time if it wants to. If Zombie Scalia came to life, McConnell would get a vote to have him reinstated to the Court through committee and on the floor in nano-seconds, even if was December 24 and a Martian-Jewish alliance was assaulting DC with orbital space lasers..
Lawfare's podcast had a good review of the constitutionality of "late impeachments" that was worth the listen, the guy they had on is more or less considered the only real expert on them since it's not an area of law frequently explored or typically of any real import. That guy came down on the side of believing they are constitutional, but acknowledged the people raising claims that it is unconstitutional have arguments with merit even though he disagreed with them. His core reason for coming down on the side of them considering all of the facts, was that the contrary belief would be that a poorly behaving official could simply resign to avoid the penalty of lifetime disqualification, and then simply be reappointed (in the case of appointed officials) or re-elected, which he thinks would not have been the intent of the founder's. He also mentioned that the constitution uses language about impeachment that highly suggests it's largely congress's sole discretion as to how to use it, suggesting there was not an intention for the courts to adjudicate the constitutionality of an impeachment proceeding, but rather the discretion of the congress itself.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 08, 2021, 10:18:26 AM
The impeachment trial is just an excuse; the Senate can walk and chew gum at the same time if it wants to. If Zombie Scalia came to life, McConnell would get a vote to have him reinstated to the Court through committee and on the floor in nano-seconds, even if was December 24 and a Martian-Jewish alliance was assaulting DC with orbital space lasers..
I'm confused on this...McConnell isn't in charge...the Majority Leader is Chuck Schumer. Absent a trial, it does seem likely they would be proceeding with other business.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 08, 2021, 11:03:48 AM
I'm confused on this...McConnell isn't in charge...the Majority Leader is Chuck Schumer.
Incorrect. Joe Manchin is in charge.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 08, 2021, 10:30:32 AM
Lawfare's podcast had a good review of the constitutionality of "late impeachments" that was worth the listen, the guy they had on is more or less considered the only real expert on them since it's not an area of law frequently explored or typically of any real import. That guy came down on the side of believing they are constitutional, but acknowledged the people raising claims that it is unconstitutional have arguments with merit even though he disagreed with them.
I'll put aside the expertise claim; there are many people who have written books or academic articles on the impeachment power. I have heard people say that the unconstitutionality argument has merit; what I haven't seen in any arguments that seem meritorious. I would compare that with say the self-pardon question which I think has a clear answer -- it's not permissible - but for which there is an obvious meritorious argument to the contrary - namely that the pardon clause contains no such limitation. There doesn't seem to be an argument of that strength on the former impeachment question.
Let's start by approaching it like Justice Scalia would. First look at the text of the impeachment power: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment". That is pretty straightforward. The power of impeachment is given to the House, there is no limitation to sitting officers. OK what about the Senate - does the Constitution remove their jurisdiction to try former officers? No is it also unqualified in the same way: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." I.e. if the House can impeach, the Senate can try.
The one argument I've seen is that Article II states that: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". The argument is that since impeachment entails removal of a sitting officer, it must be the case that former officers can't be impeached. Even stating the argument, it makes no sense: how does the conclusion follow from the premise? To analogize to another example, it is correct statement of law to say that that an alien convicted of a crime of violence is deportable. Does that mean US citizens can't be convicted of crimes of violence because they are not deportable?
OK but what if the *ONLY* sanction available for crimes of violence was deportation? Then the argument might hold because what would be the point of trying a US citizen? So if the only sanction available in impeachment was removal, the argument could hold pragmatically. But of course that isn't true either -because the officeholder bar is an available sanction that can apply to former as well as current officeholders.
Then there is the next element of the Scalia analysis: the original "public meaning" of the impeachment clause at the time it was adopted - i.e. was it understood at the time to reach former officers. That one is easy: not only did the known 18th century English precedents involve impeachment of former officers (not current), but at the time the Constitution was being drafted, debated and then ratified, one of the biggest news stories in the English speaking world was the impeachment of Warren Hastings - who was impeached about 2 years after holding office.
Given that background, it is not surprising that the very first known federal impeachment involved the trial of a former officer - more than a year after he fled the District for good - and that there is no record of any objection raised on that ground. Eighty years later, when Belknap was impeached, the issue was raised but then rejected, and Belknap was also tried despite having already left office.
When one leaves Scalialand and considers question like purpose and likely intent, the question is even clearer, as the dangers of allowing officials to escape the consequences of impeachment through resignation ae obvious.
Thought to post in the Texas thread but didn't want to hijack....
There going to be any movement on Puerto Rico statehood with Biden?
Quote from: Tyr on February 08, 2021, 04:43:41 PM
Thought to post in the Texas thread but didn't want to hijack....
There going to be any movement on Puerto Rico statehood with Biden?
DC is more likely.
It's not entirely clear whether PR wants statehood or not. It would mean many profound changes to life on the island (They'd have to pay income tax, but would also qualify for other benefits).
Quote from: Tyr on February 08, 2021, 04:43:41 PM
Thought to post in the Texas thread but didn't want to hijack....
There going to be any movement on Puerto Rico statehood with Biden?
That probably depends to a great extent on the people of Puerto Rico wanting statehood.
They voted yes on a referendum last year iirc?
Shoot, my bad. I thought the most recent was the three way split.
Quote from: Tyr on February 08, 2021, 05:56:54 PM
They voted yes on a referendum last year iirc?
Boycotted by pro-independence groups.
There's 3 factions in PR: statehood, independence, status quo. None of the three have a majority support.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2021, 05:59:34 PM
Shoot, my bad. I thought the most recent was the three way split.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum#:~:text=A%20referendum%20on%20the%20political,overwhelmingly%20chose%20statehood%20by%2097%25.
97% support for statehood, but only 23% turnout.
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2021, 06:01:01 PM
Quote from: Tyr on February 08, 2021, 05:56:54 PM
They voted yes on a referendum last year iirc?
Boycotted by pro-independence groups.
There's 3 factions in PR: statehood, independence, status quo. None of the three have a majority support.
The boycotted one was in 2017, IIRC. The one last year was not boycotted, AFAIK.
In any case, the pro-independence camp is a very minoritary one, they only got like 5% in the last referendum in which it was an option on the ballot.
This is the more recent one
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum
The dreaded 52-48. Clear sign that Puerto Rico overwhelmingly wants to become a state, ban Spanish, and form a NFL team.
Considering the gains Republicans made among Hispanics in the last election, it isn't unreasonable to say Puerto Rico has a decent chance of sending a Republican to the Senate. PR probably has a better chance at statehood than DC.
I can't imagine DC ever achieving statehood, absent an agreement that, say, Texas splits into 2 states so they can send an additional 2 Republicans to the Senate.
Quote from: FunkMonk on February 08, 2021, 06:17:48 PM
I can't imagine DC ever achieving statehood, absent an agreement that, say, Texas splits into 2 states so they can send an additional 2 Republicans to the Senate.
Most reasonable solution is folding DC outside a "federal enclave" back into Maryland.
I tend to agree. I don't think DC should be a state...either back to Maryland as Yi said, or maybe throw them a huge boon for lacking federal representation, such as making DC residents (and they'd have to very strict on verification of this to avoid exploitation) exempt from federal taxes.
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2021, 04:53:05 PM
Quote from: Tyr on February 08, 2021, 04:43:41 PM
Thought to post in the Texas thread but didn't want to hijack....
There going to be any movement on Puerto Rico statehood with Biden?
DC is more likely.
It's not entirely clear whether PR wants statehood or not. It would mean many profound changes to life on the island (They'd have to pay income tax, but would also qualify for other benefits).
Well they have voted for it multiple times now. But beyond that ut isn't clear at all.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2021, 05:59:34 PM
Shoot, my bad. I thought the most recent was the three way split.
Just went to look it up. They voted 97% in favour of statehood, but with a 23% turnout. The pro-status-quo party encouraged a boycott, so read that as you will.
Yeah, there has never been a strong and clear mandate either way. So for now everything defaults to status quo. I'm not cognizant enougn on PR politics to know if the issue truly important there, or they are just happy to chug along.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2021, 06:21:17 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on February 08, 2021, 06:17:48 PM
I can't imagine DC ever achieving statehood, absent an agreement that, say, Texas splits into 2 states so they can send an additional 2 Republicans to the Senate.
Most reasonable solution is folding DC outside a "federal enclave" back into Maryland.
Yep. Solves all the problems and has a precedent. Maryland would need some compensation for all the tax-exempt properties, but that's just negotiating the details.
Can it be renamed Marylamb?
Quote from: The Brain on February 09, 2021, 07:47:04 AM
Can it be renamed Marylamb?
No, but you can find a woman there named Mary Lamb.
Quote from: grumbler on February 09, 2021, 07:48:55 AM
Quote from: The Brain on February 09, 2021, 07:47:04 AM
Can it be renamed Marylamb?
No, but you can find a woman there named Mary Lamb.
Is she into... kind of nerdy baby-faced Scandinavians?
Quote from: The Brain on February 09, 2021, 07:58:45 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 09, 2021, 07:48:55 AM
Quote from: The Brain on February 09, 2021, 07:47:04 AM
Can it be renamed Marylamb?
No, but you can find a woman there named Mary Lamb.
Is she into... kind of nerdy baby-faced Scandinavians?
Add "who like to be spanked" and you're on to something.
Quote from: FunkMonk on February 08, 2021, 06:17:48 PM
Considering the gains Republicans made among Hispanics in the last election, it isn't unreasonable to say Puerto Rico has a decent chance of sending a Republican to the Senate. PR probably has a better chance at statehood than DC.
I can't imagine DC ever achieving statehood, absent an agreement that, say, Texas splits into 2 states so they can send an additional 2 Republicans to the Senate.
Given Texas is currently inching towards being a true swing state might not splitting it gift one of the two to the Dems?
Unless there's some serious gerrymandering of course.
Quote from: Tyr on February 09, 2021, 09:44:42 AM
Given Texas is currently inching towards being a true swing state might not splitting it gift one of the two to the Dems?
Unless there's some serious gerrymandering of course.
It's a bit tricky to gerrymander Senate races.
Merge the Dakotas. There is no justification for there being two Dakotas <_< :ultra:
Also the civil war is over - go back to one Virginia <_<
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 09, 2021, 10:58:44 AM
Quote from: Tyr on February 09, 2021, 09:44:42 AM
Given Texas is currently inching towards being a true swing state might not splitting it gift one of the two to the Dems?
Unless there's some serious gerrymandering of course.
It's a bit tricky to gerrymander Senate races.
True but when you are splitting a state in half you have a unique opportunity to do so.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 09, 2021, 11:06:38 AM
Merge the Dakotas. There is no justification for there being two Dakotas <_< :ultra:
The Dakotas are so nice they made two of them. :)
Maine should return to Massachusetts.
Oklahoma should be divided in half, with one side becoming a true Native American state.
Reunite the Virginias!
Quote from: Valmy on February 09, 2021, 11:34:10 AM
True but when you are splitting a state in half you have a unique opportunity to do so.
Leaving aside the issue that the Texas state legislature would not be the body drawing the new state line, how does one split a purple state into two parts so that the splitting party gains an electoral advantage in state-wide races?
While at it, let's redraw all the states to make it more equitable when it comes to representation. :P
(https://i.redd.it/nt4u2y10k5511.jpg)
Annex American Samoa and Guam to Hawaii.
Am I forgetting one? American Marshall Islands or something?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 09, 2021, 11:52:20 AM
Annex American Samoa and Guam to Hawaii.
Am I forgetting one? American Marshall Islands or something?
Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands?
Quote from: Barrister on February 09, 2021, 12:02:37 PM
Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands?
By "one" I meant Pacific territories. Annexing US VI to Hawaii would be stoopid.
Ya'll need to give up on splitting/combining States. The requirements to do that make it probably the most impossible/unlikely to happen mechanism in the Constitution.
If the democrats want to play hardball they should add 100 states, each of which is about a block or so of DC.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 09, 2021, 11:52:20 AM
Annex American Samoa and Guam to Hawaii.
Am I forgetting one? American Marshall Islands or something?
Ok there are five inhabited territories with various statuses:
Puerto Rico 3.2 million people
Guam 168K people
US Virgin Islands 106K people
Northern Mariana Islands 51K people
American Samoa 49K people
My idea to handle the problem was this:
Create two new states: a Pacific one (combining Guam, Northern Marianas, and American Samoa) and a Caribbean one (combining Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands) and then let them draw out their constitutions deciding how each area is to be represented in the congress, locally governed, and how to divide their electoral votes.
Then I would give all of DC, except for the federal buildings themselves and places like the national mall, back to Maryland.
Then expand the House of Representatives by 100 members.
And that, to me, would guarantee that everybody in the United States had representation in our federal government.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 09, 2021, 11:51:00 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 09, 2021, 11:34:10 AM
True but when you are splitting a state in half you have a unique opportunity to do so.
Leaving aside the issue that the Texas state legislature would not be the body drawing the new state line, how does one split a purple state into two parts so that the splitting party gains an electoral advantage in state-wide races?
For the dems I'd imagine a natural split would do the trick. You'd have urban Texas and cowboy Texas.
If the intention is to give two republican states though... You'd have to really be careful to split the cities between the two I guess?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 09, 2021, 11:51:00 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 09, 2021, 11:34:10 AM
True but when you are splitting a state in half you have a unique opportunity to do so.
Leaving aside the issue that the Texas state legislature would not be the body drawing the new state line, how does one split a purple state into two parts so that the splitting party gains an electoral advantage in state-wide races?
Well the trick that is used is to split the urban areas into lots of rural dominated districts. Probably hard to do with a state :hmm:
But hey it all comes down to how you group the cities together.
I'm honestly perplexed, not trying to play a gag on youse guys.
Say for the sake of argument Texas is 51/49 GOP/Dem. How do you split that electorate in two in such a way to disadvantage the Dems?
Seems to me the absolute best the GOP could hope for is two cloned states that split 51/49.
A problem with "no gerrymandering" is there isn't an organizing principle in US politics to move to.
For example, if you were to say, "the 435 house of rep districts should be drawn so that the partisan balance of each district reflects that of the whole" the result would be a democratic advantage in the house of 435 - 0 (as democrats had the edge in overall house voting - a 51/49 edge for the democrats in house voting would be matched in every district).
If a first principle is the urban core areas have their own districts, those will be hyper democratic and be an effective republican gerrymander. If the first principle is rural districts are created, those will generally be hyper republican and an effective democratic gerrymander.
You can develop more neutral rules than those (and of course people have), but the problem is there isn't a consensus on what the principle should be and everyone is gaming the outcome.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 09, 2021, 03:26:45 PM
I'm honestly perplexed, not trying to play a gag on youse guys.
Say for the sake of argument Texas is 51/49 GOP/Dem. How do you split that electorate in two in such a way to disadvantage the Dems?
Seems to me the absolute best the GOP could hope for is two cloned states that split 51/49.
It's closer to 55-45 really. Cornyn got 61-36 in 2014.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 09, 2021, 03:36:42 PM
A problem with "no gerrymandering" is there isn't an organizing principle in US politics to move to.
For example, if you were to say, "the 435 house of rep districts should be drawn so that the partisan balance of each district reflects that of the whole" the result would be a democratic advantage in the house of 435 - 0 (as democrats had the edge in overall house voting - a 51/49 edge for the democrats in house voting would be matched in every district).
If a first principle is the urban core areas have their own districts, those will be hyper democratic and be an effective republican gerrymander. If the first principle is rural districts are created, those will generally be hyper republican and an effective democratic gerrymander.
You can develop more neutral rules than those (and of course people have), but the problem is there isn't a consensus on what the principle should be and everyone is gaming the outcome.
The solution, it seems to me, would be to hand over the task to a politically non-partisan election tribunal working with agreed rules - as is done in other countries.
In Canada for example, the federal electoral districts are re-drawn every decade by a set of commissions, to take into consideration population changes.
Each province has its own boundary commission, working independently, and drawn from allegedly non-partisan individuals - usually retired judges and senior civil servants. The provinces have a number of seats assigned to them based on a particular formula. The districts are supposed to be roughly equal in population, though they can depart from that in special social and geographic circumstances. The boundaries are subject to public hearings and debate in parliament, but ultimately the decisions are made by these commissions.
https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=cir/red&document=index&lang=e
The advantage is that this type of system appears to curtail gerrymandering. The system was adopted in the 1960s because, prior to that, gerrymandering had been a serious problem in Canada.
Now obviously the US is not Canada, and the constitutional rights of states to govern their own process is different. However, states could adopt a similar solution if they wanted to.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 09, 2021, 03:43:33 PM
It's closer to 55-45 really. Cornyn got 61-36 in 2014.
Yeah it was 53-44 vote in the House races. And yeah it was much larger just a short time ago. The trends are good at least...if you are on the blue team anyway.
Quote from: Malthus on February 09, 2021, 04:14:07 PM
The solution, it seems to me, would be to hand over the task to a politically non-partisan election tribunal working with agreed rules - as is done in other countries.
In Canada for example, the federal electoral districts are re-drawn every decade by a set of commissions, to take into consideration population changes.
Each province has its own boundary commission, working independently, and drawn from allegedly non-partisan individuals - usually retired judges and senior civil servants. The provinces have a number of seats assigned to them based on a particular formula. The districts are supposed to be roughly equal in population, though they can depart from that in special social and geographic circumstances. The boundaries are subject to public hearings and debate in parliament, but ultimately the decisions are made by these commissions.
https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=cir/red&document=index&lang=e
The advantage is that this type of system appears to curtail gerrymandering. The system was adopted in the 1960s because, prior to that, gerrymandering had been a serious problem in Canada.
Now obviously the US is not Canada, and the constitutional rights of states to govern their own process is different. However, states could adopt a similar solution if they wanted to.
Of course, you are overlooking my point: there is no agreed set of rules. And at this point, both sides have gamed the potential rules out and know what the outcomes will be.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 09, 2021, 04:26:12 PM
Of course, you are overlooking my point: there is no agreed set of rules. And at this point, both sides have gamed the potential rules out and know what the outcomes will be.
I think most people know a weird shaped district when they see one.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 09, 2021, 04:26:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 09, 2021, 04:14:07 PM
The solution, it seems to me, would be to hand over the task to a politically non-partisan election tribunal working with agreed rules - as is done in other countries.
In Canada for example, the federal electoral districts are re-drawn every decade by a set of commissions, to take into consideration population changes.
Each province has its own boundary commission, working independently, and drawn from allegedly non-partisan individuals - usually retired judges and senior civil servants. The provinces have a number of seats assigned to them based on a particular formula. The districts are supposed to be roughly equal in population, though they can depart from that in special social and geographic circumstances. The boundaries are subject to public hearings and debate in parliament, but ultimately the decisions are made by these commissions.
https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=cir/red&document=index&lang=e
The advantage is that this type of system appears to curtail gerrymandering. The system was adopted in the 1960s because, prior to that, gerrymandering had been a serious problem in Canada.
Now obviously the US is not Canada, and the constitutional rights of states to govern their own process is different. However, states could adopt a similar solution if they wanted to.
Of course, you are overlooking my point: there is no agreed set of rules. And at this point, both sides have gamed the potential rules out and know what the outcomes will be.
There aren't any right now, but there could be.
I rather suspect the impossibility of finding a solution lies in the fact that each side, when it gets into power, now decides to perpetuate the system, hoping to remain in power. It is a failure of political will, not from some inherent impossibility. It would be easy enough to establish neutral rules (others have done so) if the motivation existed.
The problem on both sides in the US (Both-sides-ism! :o) is far too much short-term thinking. Yes, if you gerry-mander when you're in power you can "lock-in" your advantage... for awhile. If you refuse to consider a judicial nomination you can "take" a USSC seat. If you blow up the fillibuster or pack the Supreme court you can get to take advantage of your momentary position of power.
But these things never last. In particular with gerry-mandering - depending on how aggressively you do it if there's even just a moderate shift in public opinion the gerry-mander can suddenly work against you.
California draws the districts with a group of 5 Dems, 5 Repubs, and 4 non-affiliated. It seems to work fairly well, in a state where the overwhelming blue coast could swamp the eastern counties with wildly drawn districts there is instead regional and mostly compact districts that seem to represent the makeup of the populace.
Quote from: Barrister on February 09, 2021, 04:46:24 PM
The problem on both sides in the US (Both-sides-ism! :o) is far too much short-term thinking. Yes, if you gerry-mander when you're in power you can "lock-in" your advantage... for awhile. If you refuse to consider a judicial nomination you can "take" a USSC seat. If you blow up the fillibuster or pack the Supreme court you can get to take advantage of your momentary position of power.
But these things never last. In particular with gerry-mandering - depending on how aggressively you do it if there's even just a moderate shift in public opinion the gerry-mander can suddenly work against you.
I think this kind of played itself out in this last election in Texas :hmm:
The Republicans shifted the vote in their direction a few percentage points in 2020 from 2018 and the result? They lost one State Senate Seat and traded singular flips in the State House. Somehow they managed to lose ground despite winning a larger percentage. The same thing with the US House of Representatives in Texas. They shifted the vote in their favor and yet gained no seats. Status Quo of the Democrats at the gates remains...for now. We will see how they redraw things now.
A possible rule could be "no splitting counties amongst different districts" as well. Districts must include only entire counties, that leaves vastly less room for gerrymandering.
Quote from: Malthus on February 09, 2021, 04:40:17 PM
There aren't any right now, but there could be.
I rather suspect the impossibility of finding a solution lies in the fact that each side, when it gets into power, now decides to perpetuate the system, hoping to remain in power. It is a failure of political will, not from some inherent impossibility. It would be easy enough to establish neutral rules (others have done so) if the motivation existed.
It isn't just the majority taking advantage of the minority. A very notorious example is republicans supporting majority minority districts, which elements of the democrats also support. Obviously grouping very democratic demographics (generally black people) in a handful of districts is how you would want to gerrymander to create a republican map, but a lot of minorities support it as a way to get their own representation.
Also politicians are drawing their own boundaries, directly or indirectly. This is a very passionate subject for them. :) It seems unlikely they will turn it over to a third party voluntarily. It also limits the amount of effective gerrymandering -- super safe districts are theoretically counterproductive to the party in charge, but they still get drawn from time to time. :D
We had a funny gerrymandering case in BC years ago. A cabinet minister's riding was redrawn so that it included a very narrow long territory which attached to the rest of her riding. It was a corridor of very high value homes in more downscale neighborhood. It became known as Gracie's Finger. When that government fell BC went with a non partisan commission similar to what Malthus described.
Sen. Susan Collins of Maine
Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana
Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah
Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska
Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania
6 who voted impeachment trial constituiional
So the usual suspects plus Cassidy who I admit I don't know much about.
Out of the 6, who will vote to actually impeach though?
4, maybe? Cassidy won't and Collins is a cunt.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 09, 2021, 06:47:01 PM
Sen. Susan Collins of Maine
Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana
Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah
Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska
Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania
6 who voted impeachment trial constituiional
So are the remaining GOP senators saying that if an outgoing president engages in impeachable behavior and there's not enough time to go through an impeachment trial until after that president leaves office, then that president walks away without consequences? That would seem like a blank check to do whatever for any lame duck president.
(I understand of course that Republicans would happily reconsider their position if an outgoing Democrat president gave reason to impeach in the last week or two in office.)
That is what it sounds like to me.
For myself, I think the Constitutional position to proceed is ironclad. That those GOP are taking their stand there I think only further exposes their intellectual bankruptcy. It is the legal foundation (incitement to insurrection) of the case, when it comes to actual conviction/acquittal phase, that is far more debatable, and thus would be a more defensible position to take one's stand.
Quote from: Syt on February 10, 2021, 12:43:58 AM
So are the remaining GOP senators saying that if an outgoing president engages in impeachable behavior and there's not enough time to go through an impeachment trial until after that president leaves office, then that president walks away without consequences? That would seem like a blank check to do whatever for any lame duck president.
(I understand of course that Republicans would happily reconsider their position if an outgoing Democrat president gave reason to impeach in the last week or two in office.)
It doesn't seem like a blank check unless he is also somehow absolved from criminal charges.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 10, 2021, 02:02:47 AM
For myself, I think the Constitutional position to proceed is ironclad. That those GOP are taking their stand there I think only further exposes their intellectual bankruptcy. It is the legal foundation (incitement to insurrection) of the case, when it comes to actual conviction/acquittal phase, that is far more debatable, and thus would be a more defensible position to take one's stand.
I agree, but which vote do you think would be easier to explain in a primary?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 10, 2021, 06:56:21 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 10, 2021, 02:02:47 AM
For myself, I think the Constitutional position to proceed is ironclad. That those GOP are taking their stand there I think only further exposes their intellectual bankruptcy. It is the legal foundation (incitement to insurrection) of the case, when it comes to actual conviction/acquittal phase, that is far more debatable, and thus would be a more defensible position to take one's stand.
I agree, but which vote do you think would be easier to explain in a primary?
Always nice when politicians make dumb decisions and take ridiculous positions because the reasonable way to act doesn't carry the vote.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 10, 2021, 06:56:21 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 10, 2021, 02:02:47 AM
For myself, I think the Constitutional position to proceed is ironclad. That those GOP are taking their stand there I think only further exposes their intellectual bankruptcy. It is the legal foundation (incitement to insurrection) of the case, when it comes to actual conviction/acquittal phase, that is far more debatable, and thus would be a more defensible position to take one's stand.
I agree, but which vote do you think would be easier to explain in a primary?
I doubt most senators are more concerned about primary challenges.
So a sad update on my life/the Biden presidency.
As some of you may remember, I bet $20k on the presidential election, mostly in low risk bets. Ended up winning about $4.5k. Kept rolling that over into other bets on other current events, and got up to $28k total ($8k of profits).
I have now bet most of that on cabinet selections. But it looks like there is more republican opposition to the education and EPA appointments than I thought, and I thought that there would be more cabinet approvals than there have been (I have $1,700 just on Gina Raimondo getting approved by March 1, and after I made that bet Ted Cruz put a hold on her nomination). I may be fucked and losing all my post election profits. :( Even worse, since I made some of these bets when they seemed low risk, I have almost no upside.
The House always wins in the end. You should know that.
Here's a bit of advice for you: gambling is for idiots. :sleep:
:hmm: But an idiot won't take your advice.
:hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on February 11, 2021, 10:40:04 AM
Here's a bit of advice for you: gambling is for idiots. :sleep:
Or for entertainment. Accept that you will lose money and calculate whether the entertainment is worth the cost, just like any other entertainment.
I think I might be able to make money. We will see how bad the carnage is on this very bad series of bets I've made, but if it isn't too bad I'll stick with it. Only I'll be a lot more conservative and update you guys periodically if I'm winning or losing.
Gambling is a very bad investment dude...unless you already know the results but you don't strike me as the 21st century Arnold Rothstein.
Gambling with no vig is a break even activity if the odds are fair.
Quote from: Valmy on February 11, 2021, 11:53:07 AM
Gambling is a very bad investment dude...unless you already know the results but you don't strike me as the 21st century Arnold Rothstein.
Some might even say it is not an investment at all. :D
Quote from: Valmy on February 11, 2021, 11:53:07 AM
Gambling is a very bad investment dude...unless you already know the results but you don't strike me as the 21st century Arnold Rothstein.
We shall see--though if I get crushed here I'll probably drop out. I will post updates. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2021, 11:56:00 AM
Gambling with no vig is a break even activity if the odds are fair.
:yes: And sometimes, very rarely, but sometimes some players know enough to make gambling an investment for them (i.e. a +EV risky activity).
No vig, what's that? You almost always have a service provider.
Like in online poker. If you are breaking even with other players you are in negative thanks to rake.
Quote from: Tamas on February 11, 2021, 01:41:45 PM
No vig, what's that? You almost always have a service provider.
Bar bets, online forum bets, etc.
Quote from: Tamas on February 11, 2021, 01:41:45 PM
No vig, what's that? You almost always have a service provider.
Like in online poker. If you are breaking even with other players you are in negative thanks to rake.
I used to make money playing online poker. Extremely extremely limited money. I wanted to see if I could make money with just the house money, so years ago when poker was the rage I signed up on a site that gave like a free $10 without deposit and went to low stakes tables. After a month I had like $40 and then gave up.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2021, 11:51:03 AM
I think I might be able to make money. We will see how bad the carnage is on this very bad series of bets I've made, but if it isn't too bad I'll stick with it. Only I'll be a lot more conservative and update you guys periodically if I'm winning or losing.
didn't you have an option of offsetting these potential losses by taking opposite bets, sort of like how we close a deal on futures?
Quote from: viper37 on February 11, 2021, 08:42:55 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2021, 11:51:03 AM
I think I might be able to make money. We will see how bad the carnage is on this very bad series of bets I've made, but if it isn't too bad I'll stick with it. Only I'll be a lot more conservative and update you guys periodically if I'm winning or losing.
didn't you have an option of offsetting these potential losses by taking opposite bets, sort of like how we close a deal on futures?
Yes, you can bet on both sides to reduce risk, but why would you do that? You get 90% of gains and 100% of losses (after taking into account the vig), so that is the one guaranteed way to lose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Me6MfRG58A
Biden has 62% approval out of the gate.
That's encouraging.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/12/media/tj-ducklo-white-house-suspended/index.html
Not a scandal insofar as any impact on Biden or his presidency, but I think it easily can be said that if this occurred with a Trump staffer, the calls for a firing would be much more publicized, and I think justified in either case.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 12, 2021, 03:37:11 PM
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/12/media/tj-ducklo-white-house-suspended/index.html
Not a scandal insofar as any impact on Biden or his presidency, but I think it easily can be said that if this occurred with a Trump staffer, the calls for a firing would be much more publicized, and I think justified in either case.
It would also be pushed off the front page within 12 hours after Trump tweeted something much worse, and with poor spelling and grammar to boot.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2021, 05:50:08 AM
Quote from: viper37 on February 11, 2021, 08:42:55 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2021, 11:51:03 AM
I think I might be able to make money. We will see how bad the carnage is on this very bad series of bets I've made, but if it isn't too bad I'll stick with it. Only I'll be a lot more conservative and update you guys periodically if I'm winning or losing.
didn't you have an option of offsetting these potential losses by taking opposite bets, sort of like how we close a deal on futures?
Yes, you can bet on both sides to reduce risk, but why would you do that? You get 90% of gains and 100% of losses (after taking into account the vig), so that is the one guaranteed way to lose.
it's called cutting your losses. Like selling an underporming stock. You sure are losing money, but not all of it.
When is losing less money better than losing no money?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 12, 2021, 07:29:55 PM
When is losing less money better than losing no money?
When trying to lose no money will end up losing you more money.
Err, to lose no money all he has to do is not make a bet.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2021, 09:57:50 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 12, 2021, 07:29:55 PM
When is losing less money better than losing no money?
When trying to lose no money will end up losing you more money.
This.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 12, 2021, 10:18:29 PM
Err, to lose no money all he has to do is not make a bet.
But it's been made already.
Quote from: viper37 on February 12, 2021, 06:58:34 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2021, 05:50:08 AM
Quote from: viper37 on February 11, 2021, 08:42:55 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2021, 11:51:03 AM
I think I might be able to make money. We will see how bad the carnage is on this very bad series of bets I've made, but if it isn't too bad I'll stick with it. Only I'll be a lot more conservative and update you guys periodically if I'm winning or losing.
didn't you have an option of offsetting these potential losses by taking opposite bets, sort of like how we close a deal on futures?
Yes, you can bet on both sides to reduce risk, but why would you do that? You get 90% of gains and 100% of losses (after taking into account the vig), so that is the one guaranteed way to lose.
it's called cutting your losses. Like selling an underporming stock. You sure are losing money, but not all of it.
I could just sell my bet at the current value rather than by an opposite bet. Taking an opposite bet gets charged a vig--no vig involved in closing a bet in a losing position.
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1360963559820320773?s=20
QuoteLindsey Graham suggests Kamala Harris will be impeached if Republicans take back the House next year
He's not wrong with his underlying point though...would anybody really be surprised if the current crop of Republicans wouldn't just start throwing impeachments willy-nilly? Even if they're spurious, and DOA in the Senate, it will always be a good way to either grab headlines, or kill off some other political embarassment.
All Benghazi all the time.
They could impeach Hilary Clinton for that, even as a former SoS, sure. A good bone to throw to the base.
What is he accusing Harris of?
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 14, 2021, 04:34:36 PM
They could impeach Hilary Clinton for that, even as a former SoS, sure. A good bone to throw to the base.
90% of Senate republicans have already voted that holding such a trial after the individual has left office is unconstitutional. They couldn't hold a trial because that would be transparently hypocritical.
:P
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 14, 2021, 04:35:36 PM
What is he accusing Harris of?
Un-American activity, that is her parent's because they both indulge in affairs with foreigners, something no true-blue Trumpist would ever consider.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 14, 2021, 04:35:36 PM
What is he accusing Harris of?
She sent out a tweet supporting a NGO in Minnesota that raises bail money for BLM demonstrators. That same organization bailed out someone was than charged again for possession of a controlled substance while also in possession of a firearm. THE HORROR
Her real crime is of course something very different.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 14, 2021, 04:37:53 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 14, 2021, 04:34:36 PM
They could impeach Hilary Clinton for that, even as a former SoS, sure. A good bone to throw to the base.
90% of Senate republicans have already voted that holding such a trial after the individual has left office is unconstitutional. They couldn't hold a trial because that would be transparently hypocritical.
:P
They would just figure that, plus their Supreme Court hypocrisy would be like multiplying by zero, and thus cancel each other out.
I don't think one can be successful in politics without being comfortable with hypocrisy. :hmm:
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 14, 2021, 04:35:36 PM
What is he accusing Harris of?
It's a weird coincidence that the GOP always zones in on people who are women and/or non-white. Uncanny.
Booty Judge confirmed. First openly gay cabinet member, for people who care about that sort of thing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2021, 10:05:21 AM
Booty Judge confirmed. First openly gay cabinet member, for people who care about that sort of thing.
Who has been confirmed - as Richard Grenell loves to point out even though it feels like it's drawing attention to the fact that the Senate would not confirm him (and not for reasons of homosexuality) :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 15, 2021, 10:23:23 AM
Who has been confirmed - as Richard Grenell loves to point out even though it feels like it's drawing attention to the fact that the Senate would not confirm him (and not for reasons of homosexuality) :lol:
I have no clue what you're talking about. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2021, 10:28:26 AM
I have no clue what you're talking about. :)
Richard Grenell was made Acting Director of National Intelligence by Trump.
He's the first openly gay cabinet member. But he was never confirmed by the Senate for reasons.
So Buttigieg is only the first who's been confirmed :)
Edit: Grenell points this out a lot in his ongoing LGBT for Trump advocacy :bleeding:
grazie
Isn't that what the T stands for?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 15, 2021, 10:36:26 AM
Isn't that what the T stands for?
I have mixed feelings on this idea of yours that we should make "Trump" the new term for being transgender. :hmm:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 14, 2021, 07:02:26 PM
Her real crime is of course something very different.
I won't asked how you figured that ;) , but do you think Graham came up with this idea on his own, or was he wispered something by someone who's now living in Florida?
Unsurprisingly, the much lauded Lincoln Project has collapsed because of sexual harassment allegations, a toxic work environment, and the funneling of most of the funds raised to board members' own businesses and projects.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/15/inside-lincoln-project-claims-harassment-sexism-toxic-workplace/4483922001/
That Regeneron ad was good though.
Quote from: FunkMonk on February 16, 2021, 03:16:08 PM
Unsurprisingly, the much lauded Lincoln Project has collapsed because of sexual harassment allegations, a toxic work environment, and the funneling of most of the funds raised to board members' own businesses and projects.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/15/inside-lincoln-project-claims-harassment-sexism-toxic-workplace/4483922001/
That Regeneron ad was good though.
Why do you say "unsurprisingly"?
The sexual harassment allegations are not good, but the sending money to companies controlled by the controllers is basically how every PAC ever operates.
Quote from: Barrister on February 16, 2021, 03:20:57 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on February 16, 2021, 03:16:08 PM
Unsurprisingly, the much lauded Lincoln Project has collapsed because of sexual harassment allegations, a toxic work environment, and the funneling of most of the funds raised to board members' own businesses and projects.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/15/inside-lincoln-project-claims-harassment-sexism-toxic-workplace/4483922001/
That Regeneron ad was good though.
Why do you say "unsurprisingly"?
The sexual harassment allegations are not good, but the sending money to companies controlled by the controllers is basically how every PAC ever operates.
Some of the founders were kind of scummy and the whole thing smelled of a grift, hence the "unsurprisingly"
Sounds like it is now the Benjamin Butler Project. :(
Quote from: FunkMonk on February 16, 2021, 03:28:42 PM
Some of the founders were kind of scummy and the whole thing smelled of a grift, hence the "unsurprisingly"
I don't get how you think it was a grift. They said donate money to us and we will make ads that attack Trump and the current GOP. People gave them money, and they made ads that attacked Trump and the current GOP. Did they fraudulently promise to make the ads for free?
Can't say anything about the other members, but I like Steve Schmidt. He gave heartfelt, honest interviews in the aftermath of the McCain/Palin loss. He and the others had a great interview on 60 Minutes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 16, 2021, 07:28:07 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on February 16, 2021, 03:28:42 PM
Some of the founders were kind of scummy and the whole thing smelled of a grift, hence the "unsurprisingly"
I don't get how you think it was a grift. They said donate money to us and we will make ads that attack Trump and the current GOP. People gave them money, and they made ads that attacked Trump and the current GOP. Did they fraudulently promise to make the ads for free?
Can't say anything about the other members, but I like Steve Schmidt. He gave heartfelt, honest interviews in the aftermath of the McCain/Palin loss. He and the others had a great interview on 60 Minutes.
I'm guessing that the money taken in by the founders and their companies is not commensurate with the services provided by them.
Quote from: DGuller on February 16, 2021, 08:13:48 PM
I'm guessing that the money taken in by the founders and their companies is not commensurate with the services provided by them.
Why do you guess that? You're starting with the conclusion and working backwards.
Quote from: DGuller on February 16, 2021, 08:13:48 PM
I'm guessing that the money taken in by the founders and their companies is not commensurate with the services provided by them.
Isn't that how PACs work? Like isn't the bulk of the GOP funding and grifting apparatus centred on taking donors' money, providing some service for it but mostly pocketing the cash or hiring friends and associates for cushy consulting positions? I thought that was how the whole system worked...?
I guess you're more idealistic than I am on this. Weird.
I mean, institutionalized grifting is still, uh, grifting.
I don't blame them for making a quick buck taking people's money to make dumb internet memes. Easy money, sure, I'd probably do the same if I were them. Still makes me a grifter.
I would just save myself the pain and leave out all the sexual harassment and cover-up.
That doesn't make you a grifter any more than a little girl running a lemonade stand is a grifter.
I'm not understanding how one gets from the fact that the donors voluntarily donated money and seemed to be satisfied with what their money bought to the claim that this was all just a grift.
I think that Yi is right; people are starting with the conclusion that this was a grift and working back to claim that all of the evidence just magically provides evidence that it was a grift, because reasons.
It seems to me that the whole organization was so ad hoc that pretty much any of the founders could claim that "their understanding" of the deal wasn't what the deal looked like in the end. You often see that in cases of unexpected success in a loosely-organized endeaver.
QuoteRepublican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine joins Democrat Joe Manchin, saying she also will vote against Neera Tanden as Biden's budget director. Says Tanden showed "animosity" on Twitter, and deleting her past offensive tweets "raises concerns about her commitment to transparency."
Cancel culture! :P
Quote from: me, beginning of the monthImagine a counterfactual. Mitch McConnell has a majority and sets a pace for approving nominees. He says, "We'll approve 7 in the first 3 weeks of Biden's term, take a week or so off, and then take up others. Seven in month one seems like a good number. I don't see much benefit in going faster than that." Democrats would be losing their shit that he was obstructing the Biden administration.
It is also suspicious that the covid relief package is destined to come back from the house only after the senate trial is expected to end. It isn't a stretch to wonder if holding the trial now is slowing down that package.
Trump isn't going into the rear view mirror. He is destined to be acquitted and is probably the most likely person to be the GOP nominee in 2024. My hunch is that some of the procedural issues -- like witnesses -- are being decided based on Democratic senators seeing the same pressures I'm pointing out and just wanting the trial to end as fast as possible. If you put this off a few months, you could be much more thorough. Or--even better--you could piggy back off of a criminal trial.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 08, 2021, 10:18:26 AM
The impeachment trial is just an excuse; the Senate can walk and chew gum at the same time if it wants to. If Zombie Scalia came to life, McConnell would get a vote to have him reinstated to the Court through committee and on the floor in nano-seconds, even if was December 24 and a Martian-Jewish alliance was assaulting DC with orbital space lasers..
Here we are three weeks later, with only 7 cabinet positions confirmed, and a bullshit senate trial at a historically breakneck pace without witnesses.
It turns out the Senate could not walk and chew gum at the same time. You willing to admit I was right on this?
Are there any studies measuring the IQ of Trumpists vs the general population?
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 22, 2021, 12:39:57 PM
Are there any studies measuring the IQ of Trumpists vs the general population?
To what end?
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2021, 12:19:35 PM
Quote from: me, beginning of the monthImagine a counterfactual. Mitch McConnell has a majority and sets a pace for approving nominees. He says, "We'll approve 7 in the first 3 weeks of Biden's term, take a week or so off, and then take up others. Seven in month one seems like a good number. I don't see much benefit in going faster than that." Democrats would be losing their shit that he was obstructing the Biden administration.
It is also suspicious that the covid relief package is destined to come back from the house only after the senate trial is expected to end. It isn't a stretch to wonder if holding the trial now is slowing down that package.
Trump isn't going into the rear view mirror. He is destined to be acquitted and is probably the most likely person to be the GOP nominee in 2024. My hunch is that some of the procedural issues -- like witnesses -- are being decided based on Democratic senators seeing the same pressures I'm pointing out and just wanting the trial to end as fast as possible. If you put this off a few months, you could be much more thorough. Or--even better--you could piggy back off of a criminal trial.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 08, 2021, 10:18:26 AM
The impeachment trial is just an excuse; the Senate can walk and chew gum at the same time if it wants to. If Zombie Scalia came to life, McConnell would get a vote to have him reinstated to the Court through committee and on the floor in nano-seconds, even if was December 24 and a Martian-Jewish alliance was assaulting DC with orbital space lasers..
Here we are three weeks later, with only 7 cabinet positions confirmed, and a bullshit senate trial at a historically breakneck pace without witnesses.
It turns out the Senate could not walk and chew gum at the same time. You willing to admit I was right on this?
No, the claim is that the Senate can do something, the reality is that the Senate is not doing something.
I am 100% certain that absent a trial, McConnel would be doing the exact same thing in regards to holding up nominations.
McConnell is a lying, deceitful piece of shit. He has shown that he will say he will do something, and then turn around and immediately do the opposite the moment whoever he "convinced" agrees.
So if McConnel CAN hold up nominations, he will do so. It matters not whether there is a trial going on or not.
Quote from: The Larch on February 22, 2021, 09:42:28 AM
QuoteRepublican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine joins Democrat Joe Manchin, saying she also will vote against Neera Tanden as Biden's budget director. Says Tanden showed "animosity" on Twitter, and deleting her past offensive tweets "raises concerns about her commitment to transparency."
Cancel culture! :P
Much as I hate Twitter, this is such a Boomer thing to do. :lol:
Quote from: Berkut on February 22, 2021, 01:04:28 PM
No, the claim is that the Senate can do something, the reality is that the Senate is not doing something.
I am 100% certain that absent a trial, McConnel would be doing the exact same thing in regards to holding up nominations.
McConnell is a lying, deceitful piece of shit. He has shown that he will say he will do something, and then turn around and immediately do the opposite the moment whoever he "convinced" agrees.
So if McConnel CAN hold up nominations, he will do so. It matters not whether there is a trial going on or not.
My claim was it was stupid to have the trial when they did because the result would be that we would get to this point with only 7 cabinet members approved and with a rushed trial (because the trial would table everything else requiring senate floor time, including future cabinet approvals and covid relief). That is exactly what happened.
I've been following this extremely closely and the republicans have not been obstructionist on the nominees so far. Seven have been approved and half the republican senators have either voted against no nominees or only one. Only Mayorkas has been contested and I think the lowest vote total besides him was Blinken with 78 votes. McConnell himself has only voted against Mayorkas.
This is an epically slow pace and is due to:
-Republicans weren't holding many hearings while Trump was still president because Trump was claiming he won,
-A significant amount of floor time was devoted to impeachment and matters around impeachment, which the republicans did not cooperate regarding,
-Time was spent around covid relief, which republicans fought (and continue to fight) tooth and nail,
-The senate decided to take a week's vacation last week.
Due to the way senate rules are structured, it would be very difficult to conduct contested floor business with a Senate trial of the president ongoing. When the Senate voted to approve witnesses, some knowledgeable republicans were absolutely gleeful that this was going to stall covid relief and the approval of any new cabinet positions for weeks and maybe longer. It is why it is very believable that some senate democrats lobbied the house prosecutors not to call witnesses: if they had it really would have delayed a lot of business further than it already has been.
So you agree with me that they could in fact do both, they simply chose not to - thanks.
And no, the Senate rules do not make it difficult, GOP obstruction makes it difficult. Absent a trial, they would be doing the exact same thing, and I don't buy for a second your "just so" story about how their ability to obstruct and delay is ONLY based on their being a trial.
Quote from: Berkut on February 22, 2021, 01:31:14 PM
So you agree with me that they could in fact do both, they simply chose not to - thanks.
And no, the Senate rules do not make it difficult, GOP obstruction makes it difficult. Absent a trial, they would be doing the exact same thing, and I don't buy for a second your "just so" story about how their ability to obstruct and delay is ONLY based on their being a trial.
There's a pretty strong narrative that whenever the GOP obstructs the Democrats, it's the Democrat's fault for being stupid. If they'd just changed their approach or rhetoric to match the one favoured by the speaker, they could've outmanoeuvred the GOP for sure.
Personally, while I'd love to see a Democrat masterstroke to circumvent the GOP's obstruction I believe the responsibility for the GOP's obstruction lies with the GOP.
Good news, Berkut, feels well enough to post
Quote from: Berkut on February 22, 2021, 01:31:14 PM
So you agree with me that they could in fact do both, they simply chose not to - thanks.
And no, the Senate rules do not make it difficult, GOP obstruction makes it difficult. Absent a trial, they would be doing the exact same thing, and I don't buy for a second your "just so" story about how their ability to obstruct and delay is ONLY based on their being a trial.
I don't agree with you and don't think you understand the senate rules on holds and cloture for nominations.
Joe Biden became president on January 20. There have been four full weeks since then. In that time, 1 week was completely dedicated to the trial, and 1 week completely dedicated to vacation.
The other two weeks included the first round of passing a covid relief bill that was $1.6 trillion. The republicans fought that tooth and nail and the floor fight didn't end until after 5 in the morning. They offered over 700 amendments and in the end it passed with a 50-50 vote and Harris being the tie breaker.
Schumer is the majority leader and he has prioritized covid relief (no argument with that) over nominations. It is the other use of time that is disappointing.
Well the point is that at least it was short. So much business still to achieve in such a short time. I hope by this summer we can look back at this period as a success. We'll see.
The problem with saying, "republicans are obstructionist" as the default for anything behind schedule is that it perversely destroys incentives to cooperate for republicans (why cooperate if we don't get credit) and also incentives for leadership from democrats (why work hard to push stuff through if we can just blame republicans).
It is insane that I lay out for you people that:
-if the trial was to be held, we would get to this date with very limited cabinet positions filled,
-the trial would need to be rushed and probably have no witnesses because the calendar there are too many competing priorities.
Here we are with just 7 cabinet positions filled and with a rushed trial without witnesses and all we get are "republicans sure are obstructing shit!" It isn't republicans fault--it is a fault of democratic leadership that they scheduled the trial a few weeks into Biden's administration when it could have been delayed until the middle of the year.
Republicans have not been obstructing most nominees--so far only Mayorkas was contested--my guess is as good as yours as to why--probably McConnell is calculating that they will be better served not to fight everything but instead cooperate and save their powder for fights they can win.
Quote from: garbon on February 22, 2021, 12:51:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 22, 2021, 12:39:57 PM
Are there any studies measuring the IQ of Trumpists vs the general population?
To what end?
Smugness, obviously. :P
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2021, 03:14:47 PM
The problem with saying, "republicans are obstructionist" as the default for anything behind schedule is that it perversely destroys incentives to cooperate for republicans (why cooperate if we don't get credit) and also incentives for leadership from democrats (why work hard to push stuff through if we can just blame republicans).
It is insane that I lay out for you people that:
-if the trial was to be held, we would get to this date with very limited cabinet positions filled,
-the trial would need to be rushed and probably have no witnesses because the calendar there are too many competing priorities.
Here we are with just 7 cabinet positions filled and with a rushed trial without witnesses and all we get are "republicans sure are obstructing shit!" It isn't republicans fault--it is a fault of democratic leadership that they scheduled the trial a few weeks into Biden's administration when it could have been delayed until the middle of the year.
Republicans have not been obstructing most nominees--so far only Mayorkas was contested--my guess is as good as yours as to why--probably McConnell is calculating that they will be better served not to fight everything but instead cooperate and save their powder for fights they can win.
So the Republicans have not been obstructing nominees, but they have been obstructing other things, and those other things have stopped the nominations.
But this is the Dems fault, for wanting to hold Trump accountable now, instead of pretending like murdering cops while trying to murder members of COngress is no big deal and can wait until later...
What is insane is the arrogance of predicting the utterly predictable, having everyone say "Yes, that is predictable, but there are good reason to do it anyway" and then slobbering all over yourself about how brilliant you are for predicting that the sun would rise in the East and that might mean it gets more light out.
If there was no Senate trial, McConnel would be doing everything he can to obstruct everything he can. If there is a trial, he will do the exact same thing. The difference is in details, and I have seen nothing that suggests that those details matter. You are so impressed with your ability to predict that yes, McConnell and the lickspittle pieces of GOP shit would suceed in doing the onlly thing they know how to do. Nobody disputed it. The only dispute was the claim that there is just no other possible way it could have turned out, when even you admit that is not true.
The Republicans could have held the trial AND not been onstructionists assholes. They chose not to. Why we would assume they would not be obstructionist assholes anyway, that is the part where, as usual, you fail.
Quote from: garbon on February 22, 2021, 12:51:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 22, 2021, 12:39:57 PM
Are there any studies measuring the IQ of Trumpists vs the general population?
To what end?
more of a beginning than an end.
Quote from: Jacob on February 22, 2021, 01:38:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 22, 2021, 01:31:14 PM
So you agree with me that they could in fact do both, they simply chose not to - thanks.
And no, the Senate rules do not make it difficult, GOP obstruction makes it difficult. Absent a trial, they would be doing the exact same thing, and I don't buy for a second your "just so" story about how their ability to obstruct and delay is ONLY based on their being a trial.
There's a pretty strong narrative that whenever the GOP obstructs the Democrats, it's the Demcrat's fault for being stupid. If they'd just changed their approach or rhetoric to match the one favoured by the speaker, they could've outmanoeuvred the GOP for sure.
Personally, while I'd love to see a Democrat masterstroke to circumvent the GOP's obstruction I believe the responsibility for the GOP's obstruction lies with the GOP.
Indeed. McConnell is a master at being a lying, deceitful piece of shit. I see no reason to pretend that of all the times he has done the same thing over and over and over again, if ONLY the Dems had gone along with the GOP on THIS occasion, they would have totally tricked him into being a decent human being!
Quote from: Berkut on February 22, 2021, 03:29:38 PM
So the Republicans have not been obstructing nominees, but they have been obstructing other things, and those other things have stopped the nominations.
The republicans are in the minority and nothing that requires a 60 vote threshold to break a filibuster has come before the Senate since Biden became president. Their ability to "obstruct" thus far is somewhat limited - they made covid relief round 1 very painful and did all they could to stop Mayorkas.
It is a bit disingenuous to call fighting a $1.6 trillion covid relief bill that the entire caucus voted against as being "obstructionist"--versus fighting a bill they don't like.
Quote
But this is the Dems fault, for wanting to hold Trump accountable now, instead of pretending like murdering cops while trying to murder members of COngress is no big deal and can wait until later...
The trial was 1/3 the length of the shortest previous trial and ended in acquittal. There is now going to be an additional congressional inquiry because the impeachment and trial was completely half assed.
Is there going to be any criminal prosecution of Trump regarding the events? If so, has the criminal justice system decided it was no big deal because they haven't prosecuted him already? Why did the Senate need to try Trump and reach a verdict in 5 days in February versus say taking the month of May?
QuoteWhat is insane is the arrogance of predicting the utterly predictable, having everyone say "Yes, that is predictable, but there are good reason to do it anyway" and then slobbering all over yourself about how brilliant you are for predicting that the sun would rise in the East and that might mean it gets more light out.
If there was no Senate trial, McConnel would be doing everything he can to obstruct everything he can. If there is a trial, he will do the exact same thing. The difference is in details, and I have seen nothing that suggests that those details matter. You are so impressed with your ability to predict that yes, McConnell and the lickspittle pieces of GOP shit would suceed in doing the onlly thing they know how to do. Nobody disputed it. The only dispute was the claim that there is just no other possible way it could have turned out, when even you admit that is not true.
The Republicans could have held the trial AND not been onstructionists assholes. They chose not to. Why we would assume they would not be obstructionist assholes anyway, that is the part where, as usual, you fail.
You fucking idiot. The Senate took a week long recess last week. Schumer is the majority leader. Keep believing it is all the fault of republicans.
So you are now claiming that they took a recess because there was an impeachment trial, and they HAD TO TAKE THAT RECESS because there was an impeachment trial, and absent an impeachment trial, there would not have been a recess?
YOU are the one claiming everything is all about the impeachment trial. One would think pointing out that the Senate decided it needed a week off would argue against blaming everything on the trial.
It's very odd how selective you are in how you evaluate data. Oh wait.....no it isn't. It is utterly predictable.
Quote from: Berkut on February 22, 2021, 04:31:04 PM
So you are now claiming that they took a recess because there was an impeachment trial, and they HAD TO TAKE THAT RECESS because there was an impeachment trial, and absent an impeachment trial, there would not have been a recess?
What could possibly lead you to conclude that?
The recess is not because of the impeachment trial (only an idiot would think that). But that is one of just 4 full weeks that have transpired since the inauguration.
If you want to spend time on covid relief (justifiably), and a week on an impossibly rushed impeachment trial that borders on a show rather than something of substance, that week of recess is going to put you at a historically slow pace of cabinet approvals.
You are blaming McConnell and Republican obstructionism for the super slow pace of cabinet approvals. I'm telling you that you are wrong and that a giant chunk of time was spent on the trial and recess. Of the other two weeks a chunk was spent on a $1.6 trillion covid relief bill.
You are a simp if you are buying the slowness is due to republican obstructionism.
Quote
YOU are the one claiming everything is all about the impeachment trial.
Certainly not! I'm not claiming that at all.
[/quote]
One would think pointing out that the Senate decided it needed a week off would argue against blaming everything on the trial.
It's very odd how selective you are in how you evaluate data. Oh wait.....no it isn't. It is utterly predictable.
[/quote]
How I interpret the data? You are a fucking idiot. I looked at the calendar and could see that if they scheduled a trial that:
a) it would have to be wrapped up very quickly because apart from cabinet approvals there is also a revote needed on covid relief,
b) the recess was already scheduled and LOL at Senators canceling their vacation,
c) even a one week trial would produce a historically delayed cabinet.
I thought a better alternative would be to delay the trial. Of course that didn't happen, and JR was like "the senate can walk and chew gum at the same time".
Turns out I was right on the money. Sucks for the people entitled to some of the billions in aid that need an approved cabinet member to get it to them, or the people in legal limbo if they have to return to federal prison, but it is what it is and Berkut is blaming Mitch McConnell.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2021, 05:23:03 PM
Sucks for the people entitled to some of the billions in aid that need an approved cabinet member to get it to them
wut? Do you know something about confirmation and cutting checks that I don't?
He knows everything about those things. And he will tell you all about it.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2021, 05:23:03 PM
Turns out I was right on the money. Sucks for the people entitled to some of the billions in aid that need an approved cabinet member to get it to them, or the people in legal limbo if they have to return to federal prison, but it is what it is and Berkut is blaming Mitch McConnell.
The Senate CAN walk and chew gum at the same time, it just requires the Senate to actually decided to do so, which means that they senators have to decide to do their job instead of not doing their job.
You keep claiming that it was the trial, and absent the trial, nothing else would matter. Except you bring up them taking a recess. Well, they could have not taken a recess in the exact same manner they could have not had the trial - just decided to do so.
So why is it the trial that is at fault, while you keep mentioning other things?
They could have had the trial, AND gotten confirmations done, had they wanted to do so, and had Senate leadership in the minority decided to do so - they didn't, which is entirely predictable.
It's funny how you are pretending to not know that all these confirmations could have been done prior to Jan. 20th anyway - when McConnell still controlled the Senate. Of course he did not, because your dear McConnell is a fucking douchebag, and now you are sitting here blaming his refusal to do his job on the Dems.
Pathetic. There is one reason and one reason only there has not been the normal confirmations done - because McConnell did not act when he was supposed to do so, safe knowing that his faithful would invent all kinds of reasons why it was actually someone else fault.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 22, 2021, 05:26:02 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2021, 05:23:03 PM
Sucks for the people entitled to some of the billions in aid that need an approved cabinet member to get it to them
wut? Do you know something about confirmation and cutting checks that I don't?
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/transition-playbook/2021/02/18/the-biden-backlog-491804
QuoteThe Agriculture Department's Covid relief payments to farmers, for example, are on hold until Vilsack is confirmed. The Justice Department's review of a last-minute Trump administration legal opinion stating that federal inmates must be sent from home confinement back to prison once the pandemic is over can't be completed until MERRICK GARLAND is confirmed as attorney general.
The Biden administration has largely run their pandemic response out of the White House but the delayed confirmation of XAVIER BECERRA as Health and Human Services secretary has slowed the department's effort to review what it can do about high prescription drug prices, according to a person familiar with the matter.
"Timely confirmation of the President's deeply qualified and crisis-tested nominees is more critical than ever to defeating the pandemic, putting the American people back to work, ensuring families have food on the table, and re-opening our schools," ANDREW BATES, a transition spokesman, said in a statement.
Vilsack's confirmation delay has been particularly consequential, holding up billions of dollars in relief payments to farmers and giving some farm-state lawmakers anxiety.
The Agriculture Department suspended the checks after Biden's inauguration as part of a broader regulatory freeze, which is standard practice in a new administration.
"There are a lot of important decisions awaiting feedback from an eventual Secretary of Agriculture, including the direction of the [farm aid] program," MATT HERRICK, an Agriculture Department spokesman, said in a statement.
The Senate Agriculture Committee tried to fast-track Vilsack's nomination, citing the need for him to review the relief efforts. The committee approved his nomination hours after the hearing — an abnormally fast turnaround — but he still hasn't received a vote on the Senate floor.
That's left Vilsack — and the farmers who were counting on the aid money — with no choice but to wait. (Local Agriculture Department offices are still taking applications, but they're not mailing any checks.)
The Senate is expected to vote on Vilsack's nomination when senators return next week.
Quote from: Berkut on February 22, 2021, 05:33:01 PM
He knows everything about those things. And he will tell you all about it.
I don't know everything, but I know more than you, obviously.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2021, 05:45:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 22, 2021, 05:33:01 PM
He knows everything about those things. And he will tell you all about it.
I don't know everything, but I know more than you, obviously.
No, you only know what you need to know to confirm your defense of Moscow Mitch. The rest you just ignore. Classic cognitive dissonance.
Fredo, I draw a different conclusion than you do. I don't see anything there about a legal requirement for the SecAg to be confirmed before those checks are sent. What it looks like to me is Biden holding up money to a Republican constituency in order to speed Vilsack's confirmation.
Quote from: Berkut on February 22, 2021, 05:40:41 PM
You keep claiming that it was the trial, and absent the trial, nothing else would matter. Except you bring up them taking a recess. Well, they could have not taken a recess in the exact same manner they could have not had the trial - just decided to do so.
So why is it the trial that is at fault, while you keep mentioning other things?
I brought up before the trial that this would happen. They would have a sham trial, then a recess, then a big cabinet backlog. A proper trial would have probably taken a few weeks, and that is out of the question. They could have canceled the recess, but LOL.
QuoteThey could have had the trial, AND gotten confirmations done, had they wanted to do so, and had Senate leadership in the minority decided to do so - they didn't, which is entirely predictable.
No, actually they couldn't. They had recess last week.
QuoteIt's funny how you are pretending to not know that all these confirmations could have been done prior to Jan. 20th anyway - when McConnell still controlled the Senate. Of course he did not, because your dear McConnell is a fucking douchebag, and now you are sitting here blaming his refusal to do his job on the Dems.
Pathetic. There is one reason and one reason only there has not been the normal confirmations done - because McConnell did not act when he was supposed to do so, safe knowing that his faithful would invent all kinds of reasons why it was actually someone else fault.
I don't know that a nominee from an opposing party has ever been approved prior to the next inauguration. That said, McConnell absolutely could and should have been holding hearings prior to Biden being inaugurated. They did hold five hearings before but there should have been more and earlier. The Trump nonsense was obviously a problem.
But Schumer has to play the hand he is dealt, and two weeks have been spent on impeachment and recess. We will see if it changes, but Friday is possibly also going to be recess. The Senate didn't convene today after the vacation until 3 PM.
It is possible for McConnell to be an asshole and for Schumer to also be a lackluster majority leader providing poor support for the new administration, and unable/unwilling to lead a body walking and chewing gum at the same time. These are not mutually exclusive opinions.
Quote from: Berkut on February 22, 2021, 05:51:42 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2021, 05:45:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 22, 2021, 05:33:01 PM
He knows everything about those things. And he will tell you all about it.
I don't know everything, but I know more than you, obviously.
No, you only know what you need to know to confirm your defense of Moscow Mitch. The rest you just ignore. Classic cognitive dissonance.
Berkut, I'm going to speak to you from my heart. I want you to absorb what I'm saying, reflect on it for a few moments, and contemplate the possibility that it is true.
You are a useless fucking idiot.
Three weeks ago I was arguing it would be better for Schumer not to schedule the Senate trial in February. I gave several predictions on what I thought would happen if the trial was held in February, and why I thought a delayed trial would be advantageous. MM and others disagreed with me. Schumer apparently does not read m posts on languish, and the trial was held anyway. What I thought would happen has indeed happened, and so I'm making an "I told you so" post to those who disagreed with me earlier.
I'm not defending Mitch McConnell. This was about a decision point the democrats had weeks ago.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 22, 2021, 05:59:54 PM
Fredo, I draw a different conclusion than you do. I don't see anything there about a legal requirement for the SecAg to be confirmed before those checks are sent. What it looks like to me is Biden holding up money to a Republican constituency in order to speed Vilsack's confirmation.
That doesn't make sense, and it highlights that you guys don't follow the process. Vilsack was approved by the committee unanimously on February 2. The only think that needs to happen for him to be approved is for it to go to the senate floor for a vote. The holdup isn't republicans--no republicans have put a hold on the nomination.
If you look at a calendar, the second half of February 2 was dedicated to covid. There was some extra time used to approve the VA nominee. The next week was impeachment, then vacation. Vilsack is going to be approved tomorrow. All the pressure in the universe to republicans won't speed this up. Schumer just needed to schedule it.
AF, you are going to a lot of trouble explaining why your bets didn't work out.
I wonder if Joe Biden could get away with raising taxes and claim that China is paying them.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 22, 2021, 07:14:53 PM
AF, you are going to a lot of trouble explaining why your bets didn't work out.
We will see how bad the carnage gets. I'm spending a ton of time in the comment section spinning why the ultimate outcome will be worse than I bet on and then trying to escape some of my positions, and then if the price moves saying "oh wait I was think I missed some stuff, it will be better than we were thinking" and posting arguments in that direction to escape the others.
I thought I had the potential to really get hammered, because I was afraid that covid would come back to the Senate this week, but that isn't going to happen so the Senate is using this week to catch up on confirmations (most of the bets expire March 1 at midnight).
I had $1700 bet that Ramiando would be confirmed by midnight March 1--that seems very unlikely at this point. That is the one I'm going to take it on the chin.
Sooo.... the dollar seems to have crashed a bit? :unsure:
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2021, 06:12:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 22, 2021, 05:51:42 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2021, 05:45:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 22, 2021, 05:33:01 PM
He knows everything about those things. And he will tell you all about it.
I don't know everything, but I know more than you, obviously.
No, you only know what you need to know to confirm your defense of Moscow Mitch. The rest you just ignore. Classic cognitive dissonance.
Berkut, I'm going to speak to you from my heart. I want you to absorb what I'm saying, reflect on it for a few moments, and contemplate the possibility that it is true.
You are a useless fucking idiot.
Three weeks ago I was arguing it would be better for Schumer not to schedule the Senate trial in February. I gave several predictions on what I thought would happen if the trial was held in February, and why I thought a delayed trial would be advantageous. MM and others disagreed with me. Schumer apparently does not read m posts on languish, and the trial was held anyway. What I thought would happen has indeed happened, and so I'm making an "I told you so" post to those who disagreed with me earlier.
I'm not defending Mitch McConnell. This was about a decision point the democrats had weeks ago.
Of course you are.
You think Schumer should "Deal with the hand he is dealt" when it is dealt to him by your lovely Moscow Mitch, and in the process, make sure poor Trumpy and is buddies are let off the hook.
Democrats shold make decisions based on reality and what has happened, and what is likely to happen. Letting McConnell set the terms for all decisions is stupid.
They could have had the trial, AND got confirmations, if the GOP had cooperated. Of course they did not, but that is because people like you encourage them to act exactly as they are acting, and cheer them on for it, and turn around and blame the Dems for not cooperating with the GOP and doing their bidding, like "Hey, lets just have this trial of attempted insurrection in, I don't know...some time when there isn't anything more interesting happening...I am sure that will totally come up soon. Give it a few months, and then we can discuss if the timing is convenient for Mitch and Lindsey!"
Fucking GOP sycophant tool.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2021, 12:19:35 PM
Here we are three weeks later, with only 7 cabinet positions confirmed, and a bullshit senate trial at a historically breakneck pace without witnesses.
It turns out the Senate could not walk and chew gum at the same time. You willing to admit I was right on this?
No capability is not the same as result.
It's clear that the slow pace on appointments has nothing to do with the impeachment trial, which as you correctly point out, was carried out very quickly - because that was in the interest of all factions.
Quote from: Berkut on February 23, 2021, 08:51:45 AM
Of course you are.
You think Schumer should "Deal with the hand he is dealt" when it is dealt to him by your lovely Moscow Mitch, and in the process, make sure poor Trumpy and is buddies are let off the hook.
Democrats shold make decisions based on reality and what has happened, and what is likely to happen. Letting McConnell set the terms for all decisions is stupid.
They could have had the trial, AND got confirmations, if the GOP had cooperated. Of course they did not, but that is because people like you encourage them to act exactly as they are acting, and cheer them on for it, and turn around and blame the Dems for not cooperating with the GOP and doing their bidding, like "Hey, lets just have this trial of attempted insurrection in, I don't know...some time when there isn't anything more interesting happening...I am sure that will totally come up soon. Give it a few months, and then we can discuss if the timing is convenient for Mitch and Lindsey!"
Fucking GOP sycophant tool.
God damn you are an idiot. Chuck Schumer is the majority leader, not Mitch McConnell. The filibuster for nominees has been removed. McConnell voted that the trial was unconstitutional, and yet it happened against his objections. Covid relief passed in the first round despite unanimous GOP objection. McConnell seems to be some sort of all powerful boogeyman in your mind that can determine Senate results and Schumer is powerless.
Yes, your right, Schumer has the power to let Mitch tell him how to run the Senate, and if he doesn't go along with Mitch, why, then its his fault for not cooperating with your Dear Leader and his lackeys when shit does not get done.
I fear Alfred has lost it.
I can vouch for him being much more lucid in person.
I think you guys need a chill out a bit.
While the Democrats can win any vote in the Senate IF they maintain 100% discipline and IF everyone is healthy and present, they can't drag in the VP to force things every time they want to schedule a hearing or a committee meeting. Even without the Manchin issue, as a practical matter they need some degree of cooperation from the GOP to operate, even if it is passive.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 23, 2021, 08:56:28 AM
No capability is not the same as result.
It's clear that the slow pace on appointments has nothing to do with the impeachment trial, which as you correctly point out, was carried out very quickly - because that was in the interest of all factions.
That is indefensible. In the first 4 full weeks since the inauguration we had 7 confirmations. Why?
One week was designated for recess, leaving 3 weeks. The trial lasted 5 days, and that doesn't include floor time used for pre trial activities. Without a trial you would have an almost 50% increase in available floor time. There were only 7 confirmations before the trial in part because the priority was covid relief, which may have actually used most of the time (since they stayed until almost 6 in the morning one day).
Under current senate rules it is probably difficult to process more than 1 nominee a day on average - if you are focused on nominees. Schumer setting a schedule of a week for impeachment with a week of recess already scheduled after predetermined that we would enter this week with very few confirmed nominees. That was his play. You can argue the rules of the Senate suck, but they command a majority support of Senators.
You are totally spinning the Senate trial being fast "because it was in the interest of all factions." Republicans wanted a fast trial because it was politically damaging and humiliating for them. Democrats wanted a fast trial because --
as I was saying before the trial was scheduled -- Senate rules meant pressing work for covid relief and cabinet nominations would be delayed for the duration of the trial. Politically, they couldn't run a legitimate trial with witnesses if the cost was delaying covid relief and putting in place the Biden administration for a month. You disagreed with that back then, and yet now seem to be agreeing with the argument without admitting I was right!
Your dedication to the GOP is admirable, really. You should get a little Brown star for your shirt.
It is "difficult" to process nominations because the GOP has decided to make it difficult. It could be trivially easy of they wanted it to be, but they don't. Schumer knows that perfectly well.
The trial took 5 days. They could have confirmed nominees before or during it, but the GOP would not let that happen, they would use the standard delaying tactics to do so, and that was understood.
And it was understood by your boy McConnell, hence the attempt to use the nominees as hostage to get the trial delayed.
I think the right move was made to tell you and McConnell that no, the GOP doesn't get to mandate the Senate schedule when they are not in power, and don't get to try to shovel the impeachment trial onto a back burner.
You are so proud that you successfully predicted that the GOP would act in exactly the same way they have acted for the last 10 years, and so happy that your team was able to hold up some nominations as the price for having the impeachment trial.
The GOP has the ability under Senate rules to make sure everything takes a long time, and they are going to use it as a chip to try to force Schumer to act as if they are still the ones in the majority. McConnell is, if nothing else, incredibly competent at just that. That is the reality, but we don't have to pretend that it is some great thing and all the GOPTards who get all swole with pride at their leaders are some prescient wizards for predicting that douchebags actually are douchebags.
But you keep on patting yourself on the back for predicting the obvious.
AR, did you watch any of the confirmation hearing for the AG yesterday? If so, did you detect just a hint of the Republicans dragging it out as long as possible?
The US is increasingly run as a gerontocracy. Trump is 74, Biden is 78, Schumer is 70, McConnell is 79, Pelosi is 80.
Of 100 Senators, 26 are older than 70. Another 24 are 65 or older. Literally half of the Senate is at or beyond retirement age.
It isn't hard to see why: we increasingly don't expect those in charge to deliver results. People like Diane Fienstein and Chuck Grassley are 87, may be senile, and increasingly frail, but its cool to leave them in some of the most important leadership roles of the country because they vote against the right people. 74 million people voted for Trump whose main activity as president seemed to be shit tweeting at 3am.
I've reviewed the reasons for this, and I have determined it is the fault of Berkut. People like him just reflexively blame the other side for a lack of results. Senate procedure is complicated, but if in the first month of Biden's administration, Trump is acquitted in effectively a show trial, very little movement on nominations has happened, and the Senate took a week's recess, it must be McConnell's doing!
A show trial. That is how you characterize it. Well done. You are doing good work for the right people.
It wasn't a show trial. In show trials, innocent people are found guilty. This one was the other way around.
Quote from: Syt on February 23, 2021, 10:59:49 AM
It wasn't a show trial. In show trials, innocent people are found guilty. This one was the other way around.
In a way, wasn't it?
In show trials the verdict is pre-determined and the trial makes no impact. It's for communicating outside of the court. That feels like what happened here and it was important that it did happen. But it was never going to produce another result.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 23, 2021, 11:03:49 AM
Quote from: Syt on February 23, 2021, 10:59:49 AM
It wasn't a show trial. In show trials, innocent people are found guilty. This one was the other way around.
In a way, wasn't it?
In show trials the verdict is pre-determined and the trial makes no impact. It's for communicating outside of the court. That feels like what happened here and it was important that it did happen. But it was never going to produce another result.
I just wanted to make a flippant remark and didn't think it through. :(
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 23, 2021, 10:55:41 AM
AR, did you watch any of the confirmation hearing for the AG yesterday? If so, did you detect just a hint of the Republicans dragging it out as long as possible?
I didn't, but while the hearings have been delayed for a number of reasons they can be blamed for, I don't think they are delaying it as long as possible under the rules. Why their motives for allowing the process to be expedited a bit can be debated (I'm sure it isn't out of kindness), they aren't dragging it out as long as possible.
For example, a committee vote is going to happen next monday. They could have delayed that vote longer (I think a week after written responses are received, which are expected Friday), but agreed to an accelerated vote.
Quote from: Berkut on February 23, 2021, 10:52:24 AM
Your dedication to the GOP is admirable, really. You should get a little Brown star for your shirt.
It is "difficult" to process nominations because the GOP has decided to make it difficult. It could be trivially easy of they wanted it to be, but they don't. Schumer knows that perfectly well.
The trial took 5 days. They could have confirmed nominees before or during it, but the GOP would not let that happen, they would use the standard delaying tactics to do so, and that was understood.
And it was understood by your boy McConnell, hence the attempt to use the nominees as hostage to get the trial delayed.
I think the right move was made to tell you and McConnell that no, the GOP doesn't get to mandate the Senate schedule when they are not in power, and don't get to try to shovel the impeachment trial onto a back burner.
You are so proud that you successfully predicted that the GOP would act in exactly the same way they have acted for the last 10 years, and so happy that your team was able to hold up some nominations as the price for having the impeachment trial.
The GOP has the ability under Senate rules to make sure everything takes a long time, and they are going to use it as a chip to try to force Schumer to act as if they are still the ones in the majority. McConnell is, if nothing else, incredibly competent at just that. That is the reality, but we don't have to pretend that it is some great thing and all the GOPTards who get all swole with pride at their leaders are some prescient wizards for predicting that douchebags actually are douchebags.
But you keep on patting yourself on the back for predicting the obvious.
:unsure: Since when is AR dedicated to GOP? Did I miss some update?
Quote from: Berkut on February 23, 2021, 10:58:49 AM
A show trial. That is how you characterize it. Well done. You are doing good work for the right people.
"It is hard to imagine a trial without documents and witnesses," Schumer said. "If it doesn't have documents and witnesses, it is going to seem to the American people that it is a sham trial, a show trial."
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/12/26/chuck_schumer_if_senate_impeachment_trial_doesnt_have_witnesses_it_will_be_seen_as_a_sham_trial_a_show_trial.html
That is what Schumer said about the first trial.
There easily could have been witnesses--but it is very tough to do with the calendar the way it is. There was no compelling reason to hold the trial now except Valmy's argument "to rip the bandaid" and get this behind us asap. Well guess what? That didn't happen because the trial was not thorough and now there is going to a deeper congressional inquiry. That didn't need to be the case if the trial was held a few months from now.
I mean, when Trump was actually still president, the trial lasted 3 weeks and was considered superficial--the fastest in history. The house inquiry started in September and ended with a verdict in February. There wasn't a need to run this fast.
What witnesses should have been called and what would they have added?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 23, 2021, 11:35:47 AM
What witnesses should have been called and what would they have added?
There is going to be a criminal trial, right? Do you think they will have witnesses there? Do you think it will be wrapped up in one week?
Is the additional congressional inquiry going to have witnesses?
Give me a break...you know the trial was cut way short because there are too many political pressures on the Senate (covid relief, confirmations) to make tolerable a long trial right now.
It was cut short because the GOP made it clear, again, that no matter what witnesses were called and no matter what they said, or what documents were produced, the result would be them voting to acquit.
This isn't a criminal trial, it is a Senate "debate" and vote where a big chunk of those voting stated ahead of time they don't care what evidence is presented. Comparing it to a criminal trial with an impartial jury that needs to be convinced is rather laughable - indeed, the only reason I could imagine doing so is so you could then smugly declare how it is all fake news.
Quote from: Berkut on February 23, 2021, 12:05:29 PM
It was cut short because the GOP made it clear, again, that no matter what witnesses were called and no matter what they said, or what documents were produced, the result would be them voting to acquit.
This isn't a criminal trial, it is a Senate "debate" and vote where a big chunk of those voting stated ahead of time they don't care what evidence is presented. Comparing it to a criminal trial with an impartial jury that needs to be convinced is rather laughable - indeed, the only reason I could imagine doing so is so you could then smugly declare how it is all fake news.
Seriously, there have been 4 senate trials of presidents in history, and only in the case of Andrew Johnson was the outcome in doubt before the trial began. Before this trial started, enough republicans voted that the trial was unconstitutional that it was impossible to get a conviction.
The trial was to determine if Trump was guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Under the constitution it is actually considered a trial and not a debate.
I don't get your need to have the trial--and was absolutely a trial--on a super expedited basis at a time there is a lot of pressing business for the senate, only to then hold a more extensive inquiry later. It was one of the worst options of those available.
With democracy in the US failing holding the trial before the next coup happens made sense.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 23, 2021, 11:03:49 AMIn show trials the verdict is pre-determined and the trial makes no impact. It's for communicating outside of the court. That feels like what happened here and it was important that it did happen. But it was never going to produce another result.
I strongly disagree, and find myself agreeing a lot with AR here. (though not because I had placed bets on the outcome) If the only possible result is the verdict, then yes. Justice requires indeterminacy. But that's such a narrow view when it comes to corruption and political matters. If this was a show trial, it was a very poor show.
Corruption is one of the hardest thing to investigate and judge through the ordinary means of justice. If the appropriate judgement of corruption is political, it requires a whole lot of pedagogy to be effective. By expediting the trial, the Democrats just botched the whole thing, and deprived themselves of the resources of explaining why exactly the Trump administration was corrupt and dangerous. Yes, it was one of the things that is "self-evident" to many non-Trumpist, but there is immense value for democracy in rehashing these reasons, and indexing the principles to the mundane matters of how a government is run. So much of Trump's power stemmed from just how opaque, and divorced from principle is can be. Rushing through the whole thing will not have disturbed this impression.
It's only a waste of time if politics is only defined by outcome. Cleaning the rot at the heart of the republic will require more than outcome driven process; something easy to miss if anything else is seen as posturing. I think there is a need for pedagogy - which I think people like Katie Porter, or AOC have only begun to understand.
Even if Mitch & Republicans bear moral responsibility for obstruction, one can still criticize Democratic leadership for being "outplayed" based on results. AR's belief that holding the trial was a tactical mistake doesn't absolve the GOP of anything.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 23, 2021, 11:29:01 AM
There was no compelling reason to hold the trial now except Valmy's argument "to rip the bandaid" and get this behind us asap. Well guess what? That didn't happen because the trial was not thorough and now there is going to a deeper congressional inquiry. That didn't need to be the case if the trial was held a few months from now.
Well there is the political advantages to have it while it is still fresh in the news.
But generally I am getting very anxious the Democrats are blowing their chance here. I would be much more comfortable with us getting our confirmations and legislative agenda done as soon as humanly possible, preferably while ignoring the Republicans entirely. Quickly get done everything we can and then double back and work on the hard things, including a big trial for the former President.
Instead we are month in and still no stimulus checks despite promising to deliver these one week 1. I am getting nervous about 2022, we seem on the way of handing power back to Trump's supporters. That needs to be priority #1, showing good results with big successes to point to. Pointing to where the Republicans foiled our plans doesn't do anything for us.
Just to re-state we just barely won Georgia on the back of a promise of stimulus checks in the first week. We have broken our promise and thus are the biggest friend Donald Trump and his Republican allies have. If you want to hurt Donald Trump and our political enemies you do that by delivering on your promises to the people, not fucking around doing lost causes.
And let me remind you this was no implied promise, Joe Biden went down to Georgia in person and made this promise. His failure either means he is a liar or a failure. Not a great look.
But hey still a few months to go, so still time to get done what we need to get done before the summer but I am very nervous so far.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 23, 2021, 01:48:57 PM
Even if Mitch & Republicans bear moral responsibility for obstruction, one can still criticize Democratic leadership for being "outplayed" based on results. AR's belief that holding the trial was a tactical mistake doesn't absolve the GOP of anything.
Only if you assume the being "outplayed" means "Not going along with GOP demands to back burner the impeachment trial".
AR's belief that this was a mistake is based on his desire to find a reason to blame the Dems for what the GOP is doing. Had they not held the trial, and the nominations would have gone through, but the POTUS would basically have been exonerated politically for insurrection, then he would be sitting here telling us how Schumer, if he is smart, will go along with the next thing that McConnell demands.
Schumer is a fool if he ever agrees to anything McConnell demands, because there is no compromise with him. He will only take whatever you offer on your end of the "compromise", then immediately ignore whatever he promised the instant it becomes expedient to do so. The only way to beat McConnell at McConnell games is to refuse any accommodation other than what can be immediately enforced in the particular moment. His word is garbage.
And telling the American people that the President's attempt to murder members of Congress can wait a few months to be acted upon is fucking stupid. It absolutely drains the "trial" of any political weight it could have, and since the outcome was already stated by the GOP to be acquittal no matter what, getting them to have to pay whatever political cost there was to pay was worth the price.
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 23, 2021, 12:46:57 PM
(though not because I had placed bets on the outcome)
What I find absolutely fascinating is the fierce partisanship of Berkut on this, just assuming any criticism of the democratic leadership is endorsement of McConnell, to the extent his is saying I deserve a brown star for my shirt, which I guess is a Nazi allusion?
It was very early in the Biden administration and I wanted to participate in a betting market on cabinet approvals--so I researched the rules and scenarios rather obsessively. I have bet ~$26k on the cabinet outcomes--most of the bets were relatively low risk: like Vilsack would be the sworn in Secretary of Agriculture on 3/1 at the end of the day. On most bets I risked the max amount of $850 to make $75 or so.
The risk seemed to be that if Schumer through some combination held a trial in February, took a one week recess, and had covid relief come up a couple times, there would be no time left for confirmations. My calculation at the time was the obvious priorities of the country would be 1) covid relief, 2) confirmations, 3) the trial (which was not pressing) and the trial would be pushed off. When they announced going with a one week trial in February, that didn't make sense to me, and I posted that here. I obviously bet money, but my issue was that I don't think Schumer is acting as an effective leader.
I think I'm being even handed about this - I'm getting bailed out massively by the nominations getting approved today - but I would not criticize Schumer for putting them off had covid relief come back to the Senate (as it was originally scheduled to this week) - obviously that is a higher priority than the UN Ambassador and Secretary of Agriculture.
The intensity of the partisanship to just assume that any criticism of someone on team democrat is an endorsement of team republican must be corrosive.
Dude, piece of advice: nobody gives a shit about your bets. Kindly shut the fuck up about it.
Thanks.
I care. It is quite entertaining.
Il est épuisant avec ses histoires. On s'en calisse!
Quote from: Zoupa on February 23, 2021, 02:32:30 PM
Dude, piece of advice: nobody gives a shit about your bets. Kindly shut the fuck up about it.
Thanks.
I imagine if no one truly cared about AR's bets, then no one here would be endlessly blabbing on about "you're just saying that because you made a bad bet". To Berkut's credit, though, he didn't blab on about AR's bets, he just invented a differently reality altogether to justify his abusive behavior.
Tell me more about your bets Fredo. I can't get enough of this stuff.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 23, 2021, 03:35:22 PM
Tell me more about your bets Fredo. I can't get enough of this stuff.
I don't want to make Zoupa unhappy. :(
I just had $1.7k pay out today with the two confirmations, but still have bets of $25,840.82 outstanding. I'm really sweating it out right now! :) The dust should mostly settle by Monday night.
Such a degenerate.
:lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on February 23, 2021, 03:44:26 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 23, 2021, 03:35:22 PM
Tell me more about your bets Fredo. I can't get enough of this stuff.
I don't want to make Zoupa unhappy. :(
I just had $1.7k pay out today with the two confirmations, but still have bets of $25,840.82 outstanding. I'm really sweating it out right now! :) The dust should mostly settle by Monday night.
Hopefully your efforts to hurry the confirmations along in this thread will work out for you.
Once you convince Berkut of something the rest of the world is easy. :berkut:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 23, 2021, 03:35:22 PM
Tell me more about your bets Fredo. I can't get enough of this stuff.
<_<
Quote from: alfred russel on February 23, 2021, 11:52:11 AM
There is going to be a criminal trial, right? Do you think they will have witnesses there? Do you think it will be wrapped up in one week?
Is the additional congressional inquiry going to have witnesses?
Give me a break...you know the trial was cut way short because there are too many political pressures on the Senate (covid relief, confirmations) to make tolerable a long trial right now.
Very unlikely there will be a criminal trial of Trump on this issue. If there was then obviously it would like quite different due to the rules of evidence.
I assume the congressional inquiry will have a much broader scope but we will see.
This impeachment was quite different from the Ukraine one. On the Ukraine affair, the relevant conduct occurred in secret, outside the public eye. The real problem was that even though some witnesses came forward - enough to prove the case - the President was allowed to withhold the documents that would have shown what really happened and to order the key witnesses like Meadows and the OMB guys not to cooperate.
On this impeachment, the relevant conduct occurred out in the open - Trump made public statements in speeches and in the debates, in tweets, in court papers, and in the rally itself. The trial itself was mostly superfluous - packaging and reminding us what we already knew happened. The question is whether sufficient numbers of GOP senators would have the courage to do the obvious. There wasn't and no procedural rejiggering would change that. The other question that Oex raises is to the potential political impact of a more elaborate trial, even if it would not affect outcome. That is a different question.
I don't think AR is going on about this because of his bets, he is going on about this because this is the standard way you attack Dems. They are fools, and weak, and if only they would do what McConnell wants them to do, then everything would be better.
This is bullshit. The GOP wanted the trial to go away, because they knew they would acquit no matter what, and the least cost they could pay to get away with that, the better.
So McConnell did his thing, and AR bought it. Oh yeah, if only Schumer was clever enough to do exactly what McConnell demanded, why, that would be ever so much better for everyone! The cabinet would have been confirmed for sure!
Horseshit. This is just him going after Dems.
I could not give two shits about Schumer or the Dems for that matter. Despising McConnell and the modern GOP is not about being a partisan Dem, it is about being a partisan American who cares about America.
And I am perfectly happy to admit that I will default to the position that if McConnell wants it, history shows that anyone not a GOPtard Trump tool should probably want exactly the opposite.
Quote from: Berkut on February 23, 2021, 05:49:35 PM
And I am perfectly happy to admit that I will default to the position that if McConnell wants it, history shows that anyone not a GOPtard Trump tool should probably want exactly the opposite.
Umm, yeah, I think that's been pretty obvious for awhile there Berkut.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 23, 2021, 03:44:26 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 23, 2021, 03:35:22 PM
Tell me more about your bets Fredo. I can't get enough of this stuff.
I don't want to make Zoupa unhappy. :(
I just had $1.7k pay out today with the two confirmations, but still have bets of $25,840.82 outstanding. I'm really sweating it out right now! :) The dust should mostly settle by Monday night.
You might want to see a doctor about that. That's not normal human behavior.
Neither is renting a property a couple miles from a vacant one that you own. Dorsey has too much money, he needs to find ways to lose it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 23, 2021, 04:41:25 PM
Very unlikely there will be a criminal trial of Trump on this issue. If there was then obviously it would like quite different due to the rules of evidence.
Why not? Ford pardoned Nixon to avoid a criminal trial.
Quote
I assume the congressional inquiry will have a much broader scope but we will see.
This impeachment was quite different from the Ukraine one. On the Ukraine affair, the relevant conduct occurred in secret, outside the public eye. The real problem was that even though some witnesses came forward - enough to prove the case - the President was allowed to withhold the documents that would have shown what really happened and to order the key witnesses like Meadows and the OMB guys not to cooperate.
On this impeachment, the relevant conduct occurred out in the open - Trump made public statements in speeches and in the debates, in tweets, in court papers, and in the rally itself. The trial itself was mostly superfluous - packaging and reminding us what we already knew happened. The question is whether sufficient numbers of GOP senators would have the courage to do the obvious. There wasn't and no procedural rejiggering would change that. The other question that Oex raises is to the potential political impact of a more elaborate trial, even if it would not affect outcome. That is a different question.
Uh...the republican senators clearly and openly stated the answer to that before the trial began--only a handful would even concede the trial was constitutional. Your assertion is the trial had to be "right now!" to solve the question of how GOP senators would vote? That was never an unanswered question either.
Witnesses could add quite a bit of context. Speech writers could provide evidence on where the language in the speeches came from, what direction Trump gave them, what edits he made, etc. Advisors could give evidence on the information that was being provided to Trump. Obviously there seems to have been unconstructive communication between republican members of congress and trump during Jan. 6.
Quote from: Berkut on February 23, 2021, 05:49:35 PM
I don't think AR is going on about this because of his bets, he is going on about this because this is the standard way you attack Dems. They are fools, and weak, and if only they would do what McConnell wants them to do, then everything would be better.
The standard way to attack democrats is to complain about Schumer's management of the Senate? I deserve a brown star for this? :hmm:
This is all deeply disturbing and hurtful for me, from someone who has known me 20 years. By this time you should know I'm much less interested in partisanship, or even money, and much more by being able to say, "I told you so!"
Quote from: Berkut on February 23, 2021, 05:49:35 PM
I don't think AR is going on about this because of his bets, he is going on about this because this is the standard way you attack Dems. They are fools, and weak, and if only they would do what McConnell wants them to do, then everything would be better.
There is the corrosiveness of not being able to criticize your team's leader without getting awarded brown stars for supporting the other side. I also disagree with the characterization that the slow progress is primarily due to republicans (on the confirmations so far at least). But whether McConnell is being an asshole here seems really irrelevant.
Me: Don't drive the lane or your shot will get blocked.
Others: Nah, it won't get blocked.
*The team drives the lane and the shot gets blocked.*
Me: They were idiots for driving the lane, I said if they did that the shot would get blocked.
Berkut: The other team had Mutumbo in the lane and he blocks everything that comes his way! You can't criticize someone for that! You should be in the Hawks fan club Hall of Fame!
Speaking on behalf of Yi, I'd like to say a few words: "Pft Aika Zang! Chev Nya-Nya-Qork"
Quote from: Zoupa on February 24, 2021, 08:03:00 AM
You're taking all this very seriously dude. Chill.
Yi would like you to know he's very chill.
Quote from: Jacob on February 24, 2021, 10:48:39 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on February 24, 2021, 08:03:00 AM
You're taking all this very seriously dude. Chill.
Yi would like you to know he's very chill.
Yi would like you to give him a nickname few will understand.
Quote from: Zoupa on February 24, 2021, 08:03:00 AM
You're taking all this very seriously dude. Chill.
You're not taking all this seriously enough. Be a mensch.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 24, 2021, 07:17:23 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 23, 2021, 05:49:35 PM
I don't think AR is going on about this because of his bets, he is going on about this because this is the standard way you attack Dems. They are fools, and weak, and if only they would do what McConnell wants them to do, then everything would be better.
There is the corrosiveness of not being able to criticize your team's leader without getting awarded brown stars for supporting the other side. I also disagree with the characterization that the slow progress is primarily due to republicans (on the confirmations so far at least). But whether McConnell is being an asshole here seems really irrelevant.
Me: Don't drive the lane or your shot will get blocked.
Others: Nah, it won't get blocked.
*The team drives the lane and the shot gets blocked.*
Me: They were idiots for driving the lane, I said if they did that the shot would get blocked.
Berkut: The other team had Mutumbo in the lane and he blocks everything that comes his way! You can't criticize someone for that! You should be in the Hawks fan club Hall of Fame!
No, thats not right.
Its more like saying "Hey, if you drive the lane, you are going to get fouled because they fucking cheat!
Yeah, but do it anyway, because we need to force the refs to make the call.
Drives lane, gets fouled, ref makes call, you miss the free throws
SEE I TOLD YOU YOU SHOULD JUST STOP DRIVING THE LANE!
Maybe there was someone open near the basket.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 24, 2021, 02:54:21 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on February 24, 2021, 08:03:00 AM
You're taking all this very seriously dude. Chill.
You're not taking all this seriously enough. Be a mensch.
How would I take it more seriously? Real question, I'm not even sure what that means.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 24, 2021, 06:53:04 AM
Uh...the republican senators clearly and openly stated the answer to that before the trial began--only a handful would even concede the trial was constitutional. Your assertion is the trial had to be "right now!" to solve the question of how GOP senators would vote? That was never an unanswered question either.
I don't think I made that assertion. The discussion we were having was whether there should have been a more elaborate trial. The fact that the outcome was predetermined seems to favor my position.
Separately I did support doing the trial right away but that had nothing to do with how the GOP senators would vote. I thought it best to get it done right away rather than have it linger on. Whenever the Senate scheduled the trial it would impact on business. Approving executive appointments is important but so is passing legislation, reviewing treaties, approving judicial appointments etc.
QuoteWitnesses could add quite a bit of context. Speech writers could provide evidence on where the language in the speeches came from, what direction Trump gave them, what edits he made, etc. Advisors could give evidence on the information that was being provided to Trump.
The Senate would never see those witnesses for years if ever. Trump and the the lawyers would have asserted executive privilege.
Quote from: Zoupa on February 24, 2021, 03:09:46 PM
How would I take it more seriously? Real question, I'm not even sure what that means.
You would stop speaking for other people. You would realize this is not a good thing to do.
No more "nobody gives a shit about your bets." "Everybody here doesn't care about this or that." If people don't give a shit about Fredo's bets they can say so themselves. You don't have that right.
https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1364657790900449282
QuoteRoger Marshall's argument for not raising the minimum wage is that he had a minimum wage job and it paid for his entire college tuition.
When he graduated from Kansas State University, tuition was $898/year. It is now $10,000/year. The minimum wage then was $3.35. It's now $7.25
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 24, 2021, 03:23:08 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on February 24, 2021, 03:09:46 PM
How would I take it more seriously? Real question, I'm not even sure what that means.
You would stop speaking for other people. You would realize this is not a good thing to do.
No more "nobody gives a shit about your bets." "Everybody here doesn't care about this or that." If people don't give a shit about Fredo's bets they can say so themselves. You don't have that right.
I kinda take that right when it comes to Dorsey, mostly to take a dump on him since I don't really like him.
Quote from: Zoupa on February 24, 2021, 03:33:25 PM
I kinda take that right when it comes to Dorsey, mostly to take a dump on him since I don't really like him.
If a person asking you nicely to stop doing something isn't enough, think about the fact that the only posters who do this are you and grumbler.
All remaining election law suits dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 24, 2021, 03:46:40 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on February 24, 2021, 03:33:25 PM
I kinda take that right when it comes to Dorsey, mostly to take a dump on him since I don't really like him.
If a person asking you nicely to stop doing something isn't enough, think about the fact that the only posters who do this are you and grumbler.
Oooh! A drive-by lie. Hope that burn attempt was worth it.
I don't say that "no one here cares about" whatever.
I did say, in 2009, that "No one really cares about opinions that are rooted in absurd premises and lack any evidence of careful consideration," but that's clearly a figure of speech (and untrue, of course).
How about you (and Tamas, for that matter) stop using my name as some sort of stick to beat people with? "Only you and grumbler [do that]" is almost always a lie, and just a sad anguish cliché used by lazy people with no actual concern for what I
do say.
To be fair, grumbler, and I don't mean to dump on you, but at least in the past you did have the tendency to go "we can all see that you're weaseling here" or something to that nature. I don't recall you doing that in the last couple of years, however, so maybe you don't do that anymore.
Quote from: DGuller on February 24, 2021, 04:51:34 PM
To be fair, grumbler, and I don't mean to dump on you, but at least in the past you did have the tendency to go "we can all see that you're weaseling here" or something to that nature. I don't recall you doing that in the last couple of years, however, so maybe you don't do that anymore.
I still call a weaseling a weaseling. But that's hardly unique to me (even if others might use other words). I don't pretend to speak for others, and don't call out uninvolved people as being archetypes of some bad habit. I may say something along the lines of "I think that it's clear to everyone..." but that's clearly a statement of
what I think, not a statement of fact. That's permissible in polite conversation.
https://comb.io/QtO16K
Everybody generalizes sometimes.
Quote from: DGuller on February 24, 2021, 04:51:34 PM
To be fair, grumbler, and I don't mean to dump on you, but at least in the past you did have the tendency to go "we can all see that you're weaseling here" or something to that nature. I don't recall you doing that in the last couple of years, however, so maybe you don't do that anymore.
Oh, and I appreciate your moderation in this. You and I haven't always seen eye to eye. In fact, I've been more brutal with you than I am comfortable with.
Quote from: grumbler on February 24, 2021, 07:53:38 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 24, 2021, 04:51:34 PM
To be fair, grumbler, and I don't mean to dump on you, but at least in the past you did have the tendency to go "we can all see that you're weaseling here" or something to that nature. I don't recall you doing that in the last couple of years, however, so maybe you don't do that anymore.
Oh, and I appreciate your moderation in this. You and I haven't always seen eye to eye. In fact, I've been more brutal with you than I am comfortable with.
:hug:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 24, 2021, 03:46:40 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on February 24, 2021, 03:33:25 PM
I kinda take that right when it comes to Dorsey, mostly to take a dump on him since I don't really like him.
If a person asking you nicely to stop doing something isn't enough, think about the fact that the only posters who do this are you and grumbler.
I think you're too nice to the likes of Dorsey or Mono, but yeah sure, next time I take a swipe at them I'll write more accurately.
Quote from: Berkut on February 23, 2021, 05:49:35 PM
I don't think AR is going on about this because of his bets, he is going on about this because this is the standard way you attack Dems. They are fools, and weak, and if only they would do what McConnell wants them to do, then everything would be better.
I do think the Dems look fool and weak, in face of the Republicans, as in, they seem to cower in fear of what they do, or, simply, take punches and don't fight back, hoping, just like Rocky, that the ennemy will tire of this and they'll end up somehow exploiting that weakness before the 12th round.
But I am not a GOPtard, at least, I wouldn't define myself as such, ever since I started following US politics, I kinda rooted for the Dems, except when they were being dickheads like Bernie&Trump ranting about how evil Canada is for doing what is allowed under NAFTA while the US keeps losing arbitration trials. But that's another matter, entirely :P
I just think you and most people here are a little unfair toward AR on this. Frankly, from up here, he looks like one of the sane ones, the few left in the Republican Party.
Quote from: Zoupa on February 24, 2021, 10:11:14 PM
I think you're too nice to the likes of Dorsey or Mono, but yeah sure, next time I take a swipe at them I'll write more accurately.
Thanks.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 24, 2021, 10:27:32 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on February 24, 2021, 10:11:14 PM
I think you're too nice to the likes of Dorsey or Mono, but yeah sure, next time I take a swipe at them I'll write more accurately.
Thanks.
I note the response to Zoupa about accuracy but not to me.
Feel free to ignore what I wrote, but don't think that nobody sees that.
Quote from: viper37 on February 24, 2021, 10:17:15 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 23, 2021, 05:49:35 PM
I don't think AR is going on about this because of his bets, he is going on about this because this is the standard way you attack Dems. They are fools, and weak, and if only they would do what McConnell wants them to do, then everything would be better.
I do think the Dems look fool and weak, in face of the Republicans, as in, they seem to cower in fear of what they do, or, simply, take punches and don't fight back, hoping, just like Rocky, that the ennemy will tire of this and they'll end up somehow exploiting that weakness before the 12th round.
But I am not a GOPtard, at least, I wouldn't define myself as such, ever since I started following US politics, I kinda rooted for the Dems, except when they were being dickheads like Bernie&Trump ranting about how evil Canada is for doing what is allowed under NAFTA while the US keeps losing arbitration trials. But that's another matter, entirely :P
I just think you and most people here are a little unfair toward AR on this. Frankly, from up here, he looks like one of the sane ones, the few left in the Republican Party.
I don't think he's actually a Republican.
Quote from: Berkut on February 24, 2021, 02:55:15 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 24, 2021, 07:17:23 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 23, 2021, 05:49:35 PM
I don't think AR is going on about this because of his bets, he is going on about this because this is the standard way you attack Dems. They are fools, and weak, and if only they would do what McConnell wants them to do, then everything would be better.
There is the corrosiveness of not being able to criticize your team's leader without getting awarded brown stars for supporting the other side. I also disagree with the characterization that the slow progress is primarily due to republicans (on the confirmations so far at least). But whether McConnell is being an asshole here seems really irrelevant.
Me: Don't drive the lane or your shot will get blocked.
Others: Nah, it won't get blocked.
*The team drives the lane and the shot gets blocked.*
Me: They were idiots for driving the lane, I said if they did that the shot would get blocked.
Berkut: The other team had Mutumbo in the lane and he blocks everything that comes his way! You can't criticize someone for that! You should be in the Hawks fan club Hall of Fame!
No, thats not right.
Its more like saying "Hey, if you drive the lane, you are going to get fouled because they fucking cheat!
Yeah, but do it anyway, because we need to force the refs to make the call.
Drives lane, gets fouled, ref makes call, you miss the free throws
SEE I TOLD YOU YOU SHOULD JUST STOP DRIVING THE LANE!
Man this metaphor is getting complicated!
What you seem oblivious to is that the republicans haven't been generally obstructionist on the nominees (they have on some like Mayorkas and Becerra).
The republicans have agreed to expedited timing on most of the nominees. For example Garland finished his hearings on Tuesday. The process goes to him receiving written questions, and after receiving responses the committee votes. Garland committed to returning responses on Friday, and Republicans agreed to a committee vote on Monday, though by the rules they could have insisted on a week to review them.
The reason Garland has been so delayed (he is the last of the major cabinet positions) is the hearings were delayed due to Republicans fighting tooth and nail over Judiciary Committee rules, which is probably because they intend to be maximally difficult on judicial nominees.
A guy like Vilsack is illustrative of what is going on. He had his hearing on February 2 and the committee unanimously approved him the same day. Nothing was preventing Schumer from bringing him up for a vote since February 4 but that didn't happen until February 23 - when he was approved 92-7. Rouse was approved by her committee 24-0 on February 4 and is still waiting for a vote.
OK, so some background on why I went off an AR so hard. Probably unfairly hard, but I think this is important.
In my view, the GOP for the last decade at least and probably longer has been infected by this cult of populism, anti-science, and anti-government pseudo libertarianism "Tea Party" bullshit. This has manifested in all kinds of shitty ways.
But specifically around how the Senate and House GOP members have chosen to govern, it means that they have embraced a form of bad faith partisanship that says that when in power, they will do almost nothing, except those things that most crassly benefits their donor base. And not much more than that. When not in power, they will take it as their mission to obstruct, sabotage, and actively destroy democratic institutions as a way to make sure that their narrative that government is universally bad and incompetent is supported, while pandering to their remaining minority base who thinks politics is now pretty much just about sticking it to the libs.
Now, the reason this should not work is that in normal circumstances, there should be a political cost to this kind of utter bullshit. Senators and Representatives have to answer to voters. And *normally* just trying to stick it to the other guy while letting the house burn down only gets you cheers from a radical fringe, and you need votes from more then just them. But today, the radical fringe is the party. There are a bunch of non-radicals, but they have bought into this poisoned narrative that the alternative are Dems intent on turning the USA into Venezuela. With a combination of legacy broken representative systems like the Senate being stupidly skewed right and the electoral college being accidently "modified" to help exactly what it was originally designed to explicitly prevent, the GOP has become a party of minority rule.
Here is the part that upsets me. McConnell and people like him know that continuing to pursue this "strategy" of embrace of minority rule while telling most American to go fuck themselves and ignoring of norms of behavior can lead, in the end, to only two possible long term outcomes:
1. The destruction of the GOP, or
2. The destruction of what remains of democratic rule in the USA.
But they have decided they don't care, because the only way they can remain in power in the meantime, regardless of either outcome, is to continue to run out the course they've painted themselves into. They don't have any way to save the GOP or American democracy and stay in power, because their political base is now so extreme, and they've pandered to it exclusively for so long, that there is no path back to sanity that leaves them in power in the process.
So what they care about is staying in power. McConnell wants to run the Senate, or barring that be the minority leader. Running America, or even saving the GOP, is a secondary concern.
His path to doing that is relying on the same things he has done for the last decade plus. He will lie, he will play the Dems, he will obstruct, he will not govern in good faith. But he gets away with this because he has convinced his base that whenever something doesn't get done, why, it's because the Dems are stupid and incompetent and fools! If there are no witnesses for Trumps first impeachment, that must be because there isn't any evidence, not because the GOP illegally denied subpoenas, and then had their GOP SC say that the redress to ignoring subpoenas was impeachment!
They key to this strategy working is that they keep their hard core base mollified with this total bullshit, and they keep a bunch of people who mostly don't pay that much attention at least kind of buying into this shallow narrative that the Dems are incompetent and lazy and probably a bunch of liars about what they claim, but cannot seem to prove. So we see 74 million people vote for more of that.
What does this have to do with AR?
He is *exactly* supporting *exactly* the narrative Mitch wants to send. He could not support McConnell any better if AR was a McConnell sock puppet. The story Mitch is selling is the story AR is repeating word for word. Don't have the trial of the President! Lets do that later, when surely there won't be anything important going on! And if you DO have the trial, why, it will just fail anyway. And golly, wouldn't it be a shame if we just could not possibly vote on those nominations in the meantime! And this is because the Dems are so dumb dumb dumb!
I am absolutely positive that if they waited three months, there would be some other "critical" business that would gee, cannot possibly get done if you want to have a trial! Which we are telling you ahead of time we won't convict on btw, so how about we just do it later maybe? I mean, Trump is out of office, so how important can it be? Don't you want a vote on those judges? And that new climate treaty? Is this really important? Oh, we aren't going to vote for that climate treaty anyway, but maybe if we pretend like maybe we will...lets unite and come together on this! <SUCKER>
And back to my earlier point - this is all in service to two possible outcomes:
1. The eventual destruction of the GOP when their minority finally implodes, or
2. The eventual destruction of what remains of democracy in America if it does not.
Obviously I prefer option #1. I think Mitch doesn't care at this point, he figures he will be gone before either happens, or that is what he is playing for - to hang onto power, as much as he can, for as long as he can, and the consequences be damned.
So yeah, I think non-fucking crazy ass Trumper/Mitch sycophants have only 1 real option, and that is to try to make #1 happen before #2. That is not a "Dem" thing, that is a not-modern GOP thing.
And I think #1 won't happen until at least some of the people willing to buy into this "story" that Mitch and the GOP has sold that when nothing gets done, why, its the Dems fault for not going along with whatever THEY want! rejects that narrative completely. Because that is the only way we will see the GOP pay the *political* cost for their actions, and that political cost is them being voted out of office in large enough numbers to destroy the modern GOP and force a new moderate party to emerge.
AR, and people like AR, are a huge part of why Mitch and the GOP are succeeding at what they are doing. They are selling the narrative Mitch wants them to sell.
Quote from: Berkut on February 25, 2021, 09:42:06 AM
OK, so some background on why I went off an AR so hard. Probably unfairly hard, but I think this is important.
Here is why you are a fucking idiot.
-There weren't just 7 approved nominees at the start of the week because of GOP obstructionism. The GOP has not been obstructing nominees, for the most part. I'd be happy to speculate as to the reasons they haven't been, but the reality is nominees just haven't gotten put to the senate floor because all the floor time has been used for other shit -- and besides recess the biggest chunk went to the impeachment trial.
-McConnell and almost the entire GOP delegation went on record as considering the trial to be unconstitutional. Delaying the trial was not their position. It was that the entire process should never take place as it was illegitimate.
-At the beginning of the Biden administration, I looked at the scenario and thought holding the trial in February was not in the interest of the Democrats, the incoming administration, or the actual trial. I bet ~$25k thinking they would follow what I thought was their best interest. When it looked like they would hold the trial anyway, I posted that I thought it was a mistake because we were destined to end up in the scenario we are now. I was told I was wrong, and yet here we are.
Your interpretation of what has been happening in the Senate is wrong, your interpretation of my thought process is wrong, and your statement that I'm mirroring McConnell's position is wrong. You saying that I should get a brown star for my shirt is absurd.
Why is he an idiot because the GOP delegation are obstructists liars?
Mitch is please with your work. Keep it up.
Its not the GOPs fault, golly no! It's those dumb Dems! Vote for us again! We went on record saying this was unconstitutional, so heck, it must be so! I mean, we would not GO ON THE RECORD otherwise!
Quote from: alfred russel on February 25, 2021, 10:17:40 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 25, 2021, 09:42:06 AM
OK, so some background on why I went off an AR so hard. Probably unfairly hard, but I think this is important.
Here is why you are a fucking idiot.
And just when Berkut, DG and Grumbler were doing their best to de-escalate.
Quote from: Berkut on February 25, 2021, 10:30:44 AM
Mitch is please with your work. Keep it up.
Its not the GOPs fault, golly no! It's those dumb Dems! Vote for us again! We went on record saying this was unconstitutional, so heck, it must be so! I mean, we would not GO ON THE RECORD otherwise!
McConnell: a senate trial should never be held and violates the constitution.
Me: holding the trial in February is counterproductive and a bad idea, because time sensitive priorities will be delayed and putting them on pause will cause the trial to be rushed.
Berkut: The story Mitch is selling is the story AR is repeating word for word. AR should wear a brown star on his shirt!
Quote from: alfred russel on February 25, 2021, 10:46:10 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 25, 2021, 10:30:44 AM
Mitch is please with your work. Keep it up.
Its not the GOPs fault, golly no! It's those dumb Dems! Vote for us again! We went on record saying this was unconstitutional, so heck, it must be so! I mean, we would not GO ON THE RECORD otherwise!
McConnell: a senate trial should never be held and violates the constitution.
Me: holding the trial in February is counterproductive and a bad idea, because time sensitive priorities will be delayed and putting them on pause will cause the trial to be rushed.
Berkut: The story Mitch is selling is the story AR is repeating word for word. AR should wear a brown star on his shirt!
But nobody, even Mitch, believes that it is unconstitutional. Well - you might.
That is NOT the story Mitch is selling, of course. That is his excuse for acquiting Trump, which you seem to accept as being the "real" reason. Which is funny - since not even Mitch thinks that is true, and neither does even his most ardent sycophants.
The story he is selling is that the trial is a waste of time, and the Dems are dumb dumb dumb for even making him go through with it, since the outcome was pre-ordained, and there was all this super duper critical things that can only possibly be done if they do NOT have a trial.
Of look - that is exactly what you are telling us.
But we know, and you have admitted in fact, that the trial could have been held AND they could have gotten through those nominations, with adequate basic cooperation - or even just not taking off for a week.
And it's all good - it's not like the story you are so fond of actually has to make any sense, you just have to keep repeating it as if it does. Well done.
Berkut, he literally went on the floor of the US Senate and cast a vote that it was unconstitutional.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=117&session=1&vote=00057
I really have no idea regarding the laundry list of arguments McConnell stated at various points in time, but he went on record that the trial should not be held because it was unconstitutional. That isn't a timing or practicality argument, and if he made those as well, it would seem they were ancillary to this point.
Wow, so as long as McConnell voted a certain way, the that is all the evidence you need that he believes it to be true?
I don't even think YOU believe that, but I guess it reinforces your narrative, so you don't really care whether it is true or not. Funny how that works.
Quote from: Berkut on February 25, 2021, 10:54:01 AM
But we know, and you have admitted in fact, that the trial could have been held AND they could have gotten through those nominations, with adequate basic cooperation - or even just not taking off for a week.
I have not admitted that under current rules they could have gotten through very many more nominations with adequate basic cooperation--which I think they have been getting in any event. It would have helped not taking off a week, but the minority leader doesn't get to send the senate into recess.
It looks like they are going to take tomorrow off as well. I realize getting the Secretary of Commerce confirmed a day later is not a crisis of government, and but I was focused on this because I had $1700 riding on her getting confirmed by Monday midnight. Based on the order they are to be processed it looks like that could have been Monday if they worked Friday, but will now likely be Tuesday (or Wednesday if they are less diligent, or much later if they take up covid relief before they get to her). It is indicative of the lack of urgency.
Quote from: Berkut on February 25, 2021, 11:04:34 AM
Wow, so as long as McConnell voted a certain way, the that is all the evidence you need that he believes it to be true?
I don't even think YOU believe that, but I guess it reinforces your narrative, so you don't really care whether it is true or not. Funny how that works.
No I don't think that McConnell really thinks the trial is unconstitutional. I think that if the shoe was on the other foot he would try to convict a democratic president, if he believed that was to his advantage.
But by the same measure, if he ever made the arguments I've been making, I don't think he believes them either. I think he is the ultimate partisan, doing whatever it takes to get every narrow advantage for the GOP.
His ultimate argument was that the trial was illegitimate and unconstitutional. I don't think that is the case. If McConnell didn't believe that, I'm not sure why are you are saying I'm somehow I'm following his party line by arguing something he may have secondarily argued, but likely didn't believe either.
Because McConnell doesn't care if it is true or not, he just counts on there being people out there who will reinforce his overall narrative to justify their obstruction in general: The Dems are all dumb, and this is really their fault, and if only they were willing to cooperate and compromise, why, surely these kinds of things would not happen.
At the end of the day, your claim is that somehow getting some nominations done is so critical that the Dems should have gone along with McConnells demand to back burner the trial.
1. They aren't that critical, and certainly nowhere near as critical as holding the POTUS to account directly for an actual attack on the Capitol, and
2. The idea that if Schumer had gone along with McConnell, he could then trust McConnell to cooperate is completely stupid. Schumer should assume that nothing McConnell ever says is true, that he will always renege on his word the moment it is convenient to do so, and in general, if McConnell/GOP want something, barring some extraordinary evidence otherwise, he should assume that he should oppose it.
This is exactly like playing a multiplayer wargame with someone who has shown that they are willing to make a deal, get their side of the deal, and then immediately simply refuse to honor their own side. The moment that happens, you have to then continue playing the game assuming that they will always break their word, and deal with them appropriately.
Quote from: Berkut on February 25, 2021, 11:41:43 AM
Because McConnell doesn't care if it is true or not, he just counts on there being people out there who will reinforce his overall narrative to justify their obstruction in general: The Dems are all dumb, and this is really their fault, and if only they were willing to cooperate and compromise, why, surely these kinds of things would not happen.
At the end of the day, your claim is that somehow getting some nominations done is so critical that the Dems should have gone along with McConnells demand to back burner the trial.
His demand wasn't to back burner the trial, it was to not hold it at all, which he considered illegitimate / unconstitutional.
But I guess no one can question democratic strategy at any point in time, because that plays into McConnell's narrative somehow?
You have McConnell derangement syndrome. You see McConnell acolytes under every rock, and seem to think McConnell has some sort of magical control of the senate. Schumer is the majority leader, and could set the timetable of the trial and nomination approvals without the agreement of McConnell. Neither the trial nor nominations would be subject to a filibuster. Schumer is still constrained by Senate rules, which have the support of the majority of Senators, and limit the pace of proceedings so it is very difficult to process many things at the start of a new administration quickly.
Schumer is the majority leader of a Senate that is split, and would need to call on the VP every time they needed to break a tie without some basic cooperation from the "minority".
Mitch is going to exploit that of course, and he will do so in the same manner he did when he was the previous minority leader, and when he was the majority leader - in whatever manner is necessary to allow him as much control as possible.
I notice you keep just cutting out my posts that are talking about WHY this is a problem, and why we should not be just rolling over for Mitch, even if we did bet heavily on him.
Quote from: Berkut on February 25, 2021, 12:11:10 PM
Schumer is the majority leader of a Senate that is split, and would need to call on the VP every time they needed to break a tie without some basic cooperation from the "minority".
Mitch is going to exploit that of course, and he will do so in the same manner he did when he was the previous minority leader, and when he was the majority leader - in whatever manner is necessary to allow him as much control as possible.
I notice you keep just cutting out my posts that are talking about WHY this is a problem, and why we should not be just rolling over for Mitch, even if we did bet heavily on him.
I didn't bet heavily on Mitch. If you think that Mitch somehow kept the democrats from approving many nominees, which I don't, I bet against Mitch. Which just highlights what a dumbass you are.
Mitch can not command 50 votes on most issues in any event--there haven't been any nominations that went through with less than 56 votes. People like Romney and Murkowski have voted for every nominee. Murkowski dropped some hints that she is open to leaving the party. It is the same as Schumer, who can't dictate the votes of all 50 democrats--and thus it looks like the Tanden nomination will fail (she seems to be the first candidate with unified republican opposition and Manchin is opposed).
Quote from: Berkut on February 25, 2021, 09:42:06 AM
OK, so some background on why I went off an AR so hard. Probably unfairly hard, but I think this is important.
Oh, I agree with everything you said about the GOP.
Quote
What does this have to do with AR?
He is *exactly* supporting *exactly* the narrative Mitch wants to send. He could not support McConnell any better if AR was a McConnell sock puppet. The story Mitch is selling is the story AR is repeating word for word. Don't have the trial of the President! Lets do that later, when surely there won't be anything important going on! And if you DO have the trial, why, it will just fail anyway. And golly, wouldn't it be a shame if we just could not possibly vote on those nominations in the meantime! And this is because the Dems are so dumb dumb dumb!
I am absolutely positive that if they waited three months, there would be some other "critical" business that would gee, cannot possibly get done if you want to have a trial! Which we are telling you ahead of time we won't convict on btw, so how about we just do it later maybe? I mean, Trump is out of office, so how important can it be? Don't you want a vote on those judges? And that new climate treaty? Is this really important? Oh, we aren't going to vote for that climate treaty anyway, but maybe if we pretend like maybe we will...lets unite and come together on this! <SUCKER>
And back to my earlier point - this is all in service to two possible outcomes:
1. The eventual destruction of the GOP when their minority finally implodes, or
2. The eventual destruction of what remains of democracy in America if it does not.
Obviously I prefer option #1. I think Mitch doesn't care at this point, he figures he will be gone before either happens, or that is what he is playing for - to hang onto power, as much as he can, for as long as he can, and the consequences be damned.
So yeah, I think non-fucking crazy ass Trumper/Mitch sycophants have only 1 real option, and that is to try to make #1 happen before #2. That is not a "Dem" thing, that is a not-modern GOP thing.
And I think #1 won't happen until at least some of the people willing to buy into this "story" that Mitch and the GOP has sold that when nothing gets done, why, its the Dems fault for not going along with whatever THEY want! rejects that narrative completely. Because that is the only way we will see the GOP pay the *political* cost for their actions, and that political cost is them being voted out of office in large enough numbers to destroy the modern GOP and force a new moderate party to emerge.
AR, and people like AR, are a huge part of why Mitch and the GOP are succeeding at what they are doing. They are selling the narrative Mitch wants them to sell.
Here is where I think you are a bit unfair toward him, re: Impeachment.
The Dems could control the agenda. They knew the GOP would not vote to impeach. That wasn't a certainty, but a near-certainty. Imho, the best strategy was to expose that level of corruption with a long hearing, dragging witnessess and exposing Trump's corruption and manipulation of the crazies AND pointing how all of that was made possible by the Republican enablers. That was the goal, imho.
Now, what did we have? An expedited trial were the Dems rushed through the process because they were in a hurry to get their nominations passed.
There was a good reason to not delay the trial, because the longer they wait, the more the GOP's spin could work: it was the work of Antifa. And Antifa = Democratic Party = AOC = The Squad whatever boogeywoman they can use at the time. Of course McConnell wanted to drag things along. But just agreeing that right now, before the nominations are confirmed is too soon does not mean is an enabler. It's too early to tell.
Now, the result of the impeachment process... Tt was, at best, a draw. The GOP is solidly rallying behind Trump and Taylor-Greene is exhonorated by her party, free to keep up with her harassment bullshit. The Dems are solidly convinced Trump and Trumpism are a moral stain on your country and will keep doing business as usual, playing by the rules, hoping the GOP will somehow self-clean its act, all on its own. AR did say something like that would happen, and he criticized the Dems strategy for it. This is how I see his position.
Won't happen, of course. And I doubt the 2022 mid-terms are going to radically change the portrait of the Congress. The Dems did lose seats in the House and made moderate gains in the Senate. Shouting victory and going on a triumph over flipping 2 seats in Georgia is premature. I sincerely doubt Georgia is now a solid blue State with 2 guaranteed seats to the Dems for the next senate elections over there. And I doubt these Senate gains will automatically translate into house gains in the mid-terms. The Republicans are fighting back all over the country by trying to change electoral laws to suppress votes. Lots of things are in movement in Georgia and Pennsylvania to deter absentee mail vote, for example.
Hearing Stacey Abrams claim she has the recipe to turn a State from Red to Blue makes me cringe, because I fear a repeat of 2016. And I don't think anyone criticizing the democratic strategy in the US is an enabler of Moscow Mitch ;)
I did not say anyone criticizing Dem strategy is an enabler, I said parroting the GOP narrative is enabling them.
It is a very specific kind of criticism, that excuses the GOP for anything they do (by never criticizing them, or doing so only in passing as you move along to how dumby dumb dumb those Dems are) while criticizing the Dems for not doing what the GOP oh so reasonably demanded that they do.
That is the key here - that AR's critique is not in general, it is very specific - that the Dems refused the GOPs demand that they set the schedule. He is claiming not that the Dems made a mistake, but that their specific mistake was to not go along with exactly what Moscow Mitch said, and casting that as the Dems being their normal, dumb Dem selves. If only they would just listen to Mitch Fucking McConnell, why, THAT would clearly be the strategically smart move and then we would all be saying "Gee, look at that Schumer! He is a bright guy, letting McConnell tell him how and when to schedule things!"
Not buying it.
Quote from: Berkut on February 27, 2021, 10:59:09 AM
I did not say anyone criticizing Dem strategy is an enabler, I said parroting the GOP narrative is enabling them.
It is a very specific kind of criticism, that excuses the GOP for anything they do (by never criticizing them, or doing so only in passing as you move along to how dumby dumb dumb those Dems are) while criticizing the Dems for not doing what the GOP oh so reasonably demanded that they do.
That is the key here - that AR's critique is not in general, it is very specific - that the Dems refused the GOPs demand that they set the schedule. He is claiming not that the Dems made a mistake, but that their specific mistake was to not go along with exactly what Moscow Mitch said, and casting that as the Dems being their normal, dumb Dem selves. If only they would just listen to Mitch Fucking McConnell, why, THAT would clearly be the strategically smart move and then we would all be saying "Gee, look at that Schumer! He is a bright guy, letting McConnell tell him how and when to schedule things!"
Not buying it.
You are a worthless piece of shit.
I can't find anything indicating I'm parroting the requests of McConnell. I've seen:
-McConnell requesting the trial be held mid February so that Trump's team had more time to prep for the trial, which in fact happened, and
-McConnell saying the entire thing shouldn't be held at all.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/21/us/politics/trump-impeachment-trial-mcconnell-senate.html#:~:text=Senator%20Mitch%20McConnell%E2%80%99s%20call%20to%20delay%20former%20President,to%20the%20request%20to%20delay%20the%20impeachment%20trial.
The link above is the first point, I've already linked to the actual vote he cast on the senate floor for the second.
Maybe at a certain point he commented that the trial should be delayed until after covid relief and the biden administration put into place...but at that point he would have argued for basically for a timing from mid February to not at all so any point I raised would have been in line with some McConnell argument at some point.
McConnell saying it should not be held at all.
Which goes right along with trying to delay it as long as possible.
It's not like you know what went on behind the scenes. I like how you insist that we all just take poor Mitch at his word - he is SAYS something, why, that MUST be what he actually believes!
Buck keep up with it, you are doing Gods Work.
Quote from: Berkut on February 27, 2021, 02:17:40 PM
McConnell saying it should not be held at all.
Which goes right along with trying to delay it as long as possible.
It's not like you know what went on behind the scenes. I like how you insist that we all just take poor Mitch at his word - he is SAYS something, why, that MUST be what he actually believes!
Buck keep up with it, you are doing Gods Work.
I criticize an approach taken by Schumer, you allude to me as a Nazi for "parroting" McConnell's line, I point out that McConnell's lines were actually other stuff, and somehow now you are saying I am taking McConnell at his word?
Lets be real about the situation. If there were three competing priorities at the start of the Biden administration:
-covid relief
-impeachment trial
-getting the administration officials in place
I don't think covid relief has been in any way held up by scheduling. But getting the administration officials in place is clearly at a historically slow pace.
So was the much abbreviated impeachment trial worth it?
https://nypost.com/2021/02/16/trump-remains-top-2024-choice-with-gop-voters-poll-finds/
QuoteFormer President Donald Trump's popularity with Republicans has increased in the wake of his impeachment trial, with 59 percent of GOP voters wanting Trump to play a major role in the party going forward, a new poll found.
A Politico/Morning Consult poll conducted in the days after the Senate trial in which he was acquitted Saturday found 59 percent of GOP voters want Trump to be heavily involved in the party's future direction — up 18 percentage points from a poll conducted on Jan. 7, the day after the Capitol siege over which he was impeached and then tried.
The betting odds on Trump getting the GOP nomination in 2024 went from 20% at the start of the trial to currently 34%.
The abbreviated trial actually left Trump in a stronger position than he was prior to the trial.
Question: which dog lets go of the bone first?
So AR do you think a long drawn out trial would have convinced Trump's base and caused his support to wane?
Or the opposite?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 28, 2021, 11:11:31 AM
So AR do you think a long drawn out trial would have convinced Trump's base and caused his support to wane?
Or the opposite?
His base? Probably not. I do think additional evidence can cause his support to wane. If the general public is impervious to facts and reason then why should we keep democracy?
His base is not 74 million strong.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 28, 2021, 10:27:00 PM
His base is not 74 million strong.
And yet it was sufficient to cause him to win 2 presidential nominations.
We are nearly 5 years from the time that Trump openly committed a criminal act - asking a foreign power to break into his opponent's computer systems and release the information stolen. He has since committed multiple criminal acts culminating in an attempted coup against the constitution and a violent insurrection in the nation's capital. He also demonstrated the most staggering incompetence the US has ever seen in a high public official - admittedly a tough standard and yet one Trump easily surmounted.
AR's argument is that millions of people who continued to support him after all that would finally turn against him if one of his speechwriters gave unfriendly testimony to the prosecution in the Senate. I don't find that argument credible.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 28, 2021, 10:34:36 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 28, 2021, 10:27:00 PM
His base is not 74 million strong.
And yet it was sufficient to cause him to win 2 presidential nominations.
We are nearly 5 years from the time that Trump openly committed a criminal act - asking a foreign power to break into his opponent's computer systems and release the information stolen. He has since committed multiple criminal acts culminating in an attempted coup against the constitution and a violent insurrection in the nation's capital. He also demonstrated the most staggering incompetence the US has ever seen in a high public official - admittedly a tough standard and yet one Trump easily surmounted.
AR's argument is that millions of people who continued to support him after all that would finally turn against him if one of his speechwriters gave unfriendly testimony to the prosecution in the Senate. I don't find that argument credible.
My argument was that holding a trial in February would be counterproductive because it would sideline other actually pressing priorities and force a short trial due to those pressing priorities.
If your argument is that the trial could not move public opinion in whatever form it was held, and acquittal was a preordained outcome, then why was it so important to hold in February?
I think I've answered that a few times in this thread.
A trial had to be held because the rule of law requires such a fundamental assault of the integrity of the nation to be tried, even if it is known that some jurors will turncoat and other will chicken out. And it is better to get it done soon and quickly.
There are always pressing priorities. There were pressing priorities in February, there are pressing priorities in March, and there will be pressing priorities in April, May, June and every month beyond.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 28, 2021, 11:19:13 PM
I think I've answered that a few times in this thread.
A trial had to be held because the rule of law requires such a fundamental assault of the integrity of the nation to be tried, even if it is known that some jurors will turncoat and other will chicken out. And it is better to get it done soon and quickly.
And yet you expressed earlier that there wouldn't be a criminal trial.... :hmm:
QuoteThere are always pressing priorities. There were pressing priorities in February, there are pressing priorities in March, and there will be pressing priorities in April, May, June and every month beyond.
Almost all floor time used in the US Senate is dedicated to legislation and nominations.
Yes there will be competing demands in April, May, and June. Holding a trial in those months would cause other priorities to be delayed. However, at the current moment you have demands of approving an entire incoming administration and a $1.6 trillion covid relief bill that needs to be approved by March 14 to prevent benefits from expiring. It is likely there will not be any greater demand for floor time in the US Senate than in February and March of this year until the next administration.
You are acting as though they didn't feel pressure to abridge the trial because of these pressures. You are acting as though you didn't tell me that the Senate could walk and chew gum at the same time before the trial started when I warned that we would end up in this situation, and yet here we are.
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 23, 2021, 12:46:57 PMI strongly disagree, and find myself agreeing a lot with AR here. (though not because I had placed bets on the outcome) If the only possible result is the verdict, then yes. Justice requires indeterminacy. But that's such a narrow view when it comes to corruption and political matters. If this was a show trial, it was a very poor show.
[...]
It's only a waste of time if politics is only defined by outcome. Cleaning the rot at the heart of the republic will require more than outcome driven process; something easy to miss if anything else is seen as posturing. I think there is a need for pedagogy - which I think people like Katie Porter, or AOC have only begun to understand.
I agree with this but I don't think it works in practice. A longer trial would have been one with witnesses - unlike in the Russia/Ukraine impeachment basically all of the people the Democrats would be calling as witnesses would be hostile. There are no Vindmans or Fiona Hills - it would be the Republican operatives, staffers and politicians around Trump on January 6. Democrats would have little to no idea what they would say and I'm not convinced those witnesses would take the risk of perjury seriously. It would not have the sort of lesson that I think people would want - I think it'd be a shitshow of people like Kevin McCarthy challenging the very basis of the trial and, frankly, probably lying. It's the same challenge that pervades so much of US politics - how does it work when one side stops operating in good faith. And that would just be the Democrats' witnesses.
The Trump legal team would also have the opportunity to bring witnesses and I think that would be entirely designed to muddy the waters and throw other unfounded allegations around.
I think in this case looking at what having witnesses would mean and the outcome would lead to the same conclusion - it's not worth the risk. Instead you make opening and closing statements where you can play the minute-by-minute storming the Capitol plus Trump's speech/Trump's tweets, you get to make the most persuasive case you can.
QuoteCorruption is one of the hardest thing to investigate and judge through the ordinary means of justice. If the appropriate judgement of corruption is political, it requires a whole lot of pedagogy to be effective. By expediting the trial, the Democrats just botched the whole thing, and deprived themselves of the resources of explaining why exactly the Trump administration was corrupt and dangerous. Yes, it was one of the things that is "self-evident" to many non-Trumpist, but there is immense value for democracy in rehashing these reasons, and indexing the principles to the mundane matters of how a government is run. So much of Trump's power stemmed from just how opaque, and divorced from principle is can be. Rushing through the whole thing will not have disturbed this impression.
Perhaps - but we see today Sarko being convicted. I believe there have been corruption convictions for Kohl, Chirac, Berlusconi, the King of Spain, multipe British former cabinet ministers, an Israeli President and the current Israeli Prime Minister. There are many countries that have or believe they have similar systems to the US that have managed to investigate former politicians, heads of state or government for corruption or other crimes and has managed to punish them.
I think there are two things going on for me - one is that I don't think corruption should be fundamentally a political judgement and I think it can go through the normal justice process. The issue in the US, it seems to me, is that there is no trust or belief by Republicans - so about 30-40% of the population - that either the criminal justice or the political system is capable of investigating and judging fairly. That's a bigger issue that I'm not sure how you solve, it reflects what we've all talked about with the GOP before. The other point is that I think impeachment is a political not a criminal process and the reason for that is because it's not necessarily linked to crimes and the punishment is political: removing a validly elected President from office or barring someone from running for office. I think that is the right approach in theory - how it works now with US politics as they are I don't know.
I think the only solution is ultimately political and relies on voters - the Republicans need to lose (at state, local, congressional and national levels) and lose so badly that they change. But I'm not sure that's likely.
I frankly think to some degree "we" pick on the Dems too much. A lot of things that get labeled Dem "stupidity" are actually just caused by the Dem being a big (and growing) tent party with lots of internal divisions that can't be easily papered over when it comes to tactics.
The GOP is fracturing off people in a more concrete sense, but those are the people prone to disagreement, so the GOP will only be getting more unified in rhetoric and goals. When people like AOC and myself support the same party now, you have an extremely broad ideological scope which will make lots of situations much more difficult to manage. I know a lot of people don't believe it now, but I do think this is long term a good thing for the Dems. The less tolerant the GOP becomes of any ideological impurity, the harder and harder I think it is for them to find winning coalitions. With gerrymandering and the unequal distribution of voters in the states, the GOP is going to continue to wield far outsize influence for a good while, much longer than most people want. But the fact they are doubling down now (as you can see from CPAC) on pure white nationalism really means they have no long term future. A decade or more being an openly white nationalist party is going to make the GOP brand massively toxic to any voters who grow up in this environment. Someone who comes into politics and sees white nationalism as the brand of the Republican party is going to be far less likely to ever be open to voting Republican throughout the course of their entire lifetime.
This sort of effect is real by the way--the damage done to the Republican brand by Herbert Hoover created a huge crop of voters who aligned with the Dems, but not only that--a huge crop of voters who never considered a Republican (other than Eisenhower) for any office at any level ever again.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2021, 09:03:43 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 23, 2021, 12:46:57 PMI strongly disagree, and find myself agreeing a lot with AR here. (though not because I had placed bets on the outcome) If the only possible result is the verdict, then yes. Justice requires indeterminacy. But that's such a narrow view when it comes to corruption and political matters. If this was a show trial, it was a very poor show.
[...]
It's only a waste of time if politics is only defined by outcome. Cleaning the rot at the heart of the republic will require more than outcome driven process; something easy to miss if anything else is seen as posturing. I think there is a need for pedagogy - which I think people like Katie Porter, or AOC have only begun to understand.
I agree with this but I don't think it works in practice. A longer trial would have been one with witnesses - unlike in the Russia/Ukraine impeachment basically all of the people the Democrats would be calling as witnesses would be hostile. There are no Vindmans or Fiona Hills - it would be the Republican operatives, staffers and politicians around Trump on January 6. Democrats would have little to no idea what they would say and I'm not convinced those witnesses would take the risk of perjury seriously. It would not have the sort of lesson that I think people would want - I think it'd be a shitshow of people like Kevin McCarthy challenging the very basis of the trial and, frankly, probably lying. It's the same challenge that pervades so much of US politics - how does it work when one side stops operating in good faith. And that would just be the Democrats' witnesses.
The Trump legal team would also have the opportunity to bring witnesses and I think that would be entirely designed to muddy the waters and throw other unfounded allegations around.
I think in this case looking at what having witnesses would mean and the outcome would lead to the same conclusion - it's not worth the risk. Instead you make opening and closing statements where you can play the minute-by-minute storming the Capitol plus Trump's speech/Trump's tweets, you get to make the most persuasive case you can.
QuoteCorruption is one of the hardest thing to investigate and judge through the ordinary means of justice. If the appropriate judgement of corruption is political, it requires a whole lot of pedagogy to be effective. By expediting the trial, the Democrats just botched the whole thing, and deprived themselves of the resources of explaining why exactly the Trump administration was corrupt and dangerous. Yes, it was one of the things that is "self-evident" to many non-Trumpist, but there is immense value for democracy in rehashing these reasons, and indexing the principles to the mundane matters of how a government is run. So much of Trump's power stemmed from just how opaque, and divorced from principle is can be. Rushing through the whole thing will not have disturbed this impression.
Perhaps - but we see today Sarko being convicted. I believe there have been corruption convictions for Kohl, Chirac, Berlusconi, the King of Spain, multipe British former cabinet ministers, an Israeli President and the current Israeli Prime Minister. There are many countries that have or believe they have similar systems to the US that have managed to investigate former politicians, heads of state or government for corruption or other crimes and has managed to punish them.
I think there are two things going on for me - one is that I don't think corruption should be fundamentally a political judgement and I think it can go through the normal justice process. The issue in the US, it seems to me, is that there is no trust or belief by Republicans - so about 30-40% of the population - that either the criminal justice or the political system is capable of investigating and judging fairly. That's a bigger issue that I'm not sure how you solve, it reflects what we've all talked about with the GOP before. The other point is that I think impeachment is a political not a criminal process and the reason for that is because it's not necessarily linked to crimes and the punishment is political: removing a validly elected President from office or barring someone from running for office. I think that is the right approach in theory - how it works now with US politics as they are I don't know.
I think the only solution is ultimately political and relies on voters - the Republicans need to lose (at state, local, congressional and national levels) and lose so badly that they change. But I'm not sure that's likely.
I think where people are going wrong is they are equating what happens in the Senate with a trial. It is isn't a trial - show or otherwise. It is purely a political process. There are speeches, not cross examination of witnesses - even if they are present. If the Senate had the procedure to hold an actual trial (or something closer to a trial) then I think Oex's argument would be much stronger.
I mean the Senate does have procedures for conducting a form of trial for impeachment, it just chose not to use them. Lawfare blog did a good podcast on "Late Impeachments" that covered some of this, impeachment as per Senate rules is conducted much like a trial. It's not the same form of trial we use in our ordinary criminal or civil courts, but it has counsel for both sides, an adjudicator, rules of procedure, the ability to submit evidence and call witnesses, to mount a defense, etc etc.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 01, 2021, 11:39:47 AM
I mean the Senate does have procedures for conducting a form of trial for impeachment, it just chose not to use them. Lawfare blog did a good podcast on "Late Impeachments" that covered some of this, impeachment as per Senate rules is conducted much like a trial. It's not the same form of trial we use in our ordinary criminal or civil courts, but it has counsel for both sides, an adjudicator, rules of procedure, the ability to submit evidence and call witnesses, to mount a defense, etc etc.
If you are referring to the process where Senators have 5 minutes to ask questions of witnesses, you and I have very different ideas of what a cross examination looks like.
The Senators are jurors, the actual counsel in a normal impeachment trial can do more cross examining. In a typical trial the jurors don't ask many questions at all.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 01, 2021, 11:46:08 AM
The Senators are jurors, the actual counsel in a normal impeachment trial can do more cross examining. In a typical trial the jurors don't ask many questions at all.
You are correct, in a typical trial the jurors don't ask questions, never publicly take a position before they have heard the evidence presented at trial, and certainly don't meet with the defendant.
But of course all of that happens in a Senate hearing and so I don't find your answer very compelling.
I mean like I said it's a form of trial, I specifically said it is not the same kind of trials you'll find in civil or criminal courts.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 01, 2021, 11:49:23 AM
I mean like I said it's a form of trial, I specifically said it is not the same kind of trials you'll find in civil or criminal courts.
That avoids the question. It is a form of trial in a very very remote sense.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2021, 09:03:43 AM
I agree with this but I don't think it works in practice. It's the same challenge that pervades so much of US politics - how does it work when one side stops operating in good faith. And that would just be the Democrats' witnesses.
It's true that in the current operating mode of the American democracy, the process would have required a thorough deconstruction. The temptation to turn this into grandstanding, cheap one-liners, infantile presentations may have been too strong on both sides of the aisle, and the compulsion of 24h news network would have been to exhaust every possible talking point within a couple of days. But I still think that part of the solution - in this case - would have been to stretch procedures to a very long time. Or perhaps to simply hold the same type of trial, but removed from the immediate moment, if only for Democrats to hone the message and the delivery. Some things take a long time to set in. Let some police inquiries unfold. Get some of the Capitol stormers arrested. Use that time to hone message and delivery.
QuoteI think there are two things going on for me - one is that I don't think corruption should be fundamentally a political judgement and I think it can go through the normal justice process.
Just a nuance: corruption is a fundamentally political judgment because it concerns the appropriate uses of authority, which transforms what is either theft, or a personal act, like gift-giving, into something reprehensible. And it thrives on ambiguity and time (which is why people indicted for corruption have usually left office). This is why it is often quite difficult to prove, in courts, and why the idea that someone is corrupt ought to rest upon non-judiciary criteria. In other words, one should be able to judge Sarkozy as corrupt, even if courts don't find him guilty of such. Danger comes when either people think politicians are *all* corrupt (and thus, like Berlusconi, it doesn't matter much), or that corruption is only a legalistic matter - for which a ton of loopholes and reasonable doubt can easily be found.
QuoteI think the only solution is ultimately political and relies on voters - the Republicans need to lose (at state, local, congressional and national levels) and lose so badly that they change. But I'm not sure that's likely.
Indeed, it's not likely at all. This is why any hope of change requires a multi-pronged strategy by Democrats. Aggressively disempower Republicans at every level, which requires dropping a lot of stupid ideals about bipartisanship. Aggressively invest in local politics, which Democrats have abandoned for much too long. And a continuous effort of education in the media and in the institutions about principles. Reclaim the language of ideals and the Constitution. Democrats have been afraid to talk of big ideas, because they always feared to be tarred with the brush of the evil "Isms". The Republicans were the party of principles. That is clearly gone now. Republicans can't claim principles. They don't have good parry against such speech today.
Oex, I disagree with both the proposition that corruption is fundamentally a political judgment and the proposition that it is difficult to prove.
There have been a number of convictions now for leaders who have engaged in corruption. It does not seem to be all that difficult to prove. The reason these prosecutions occur after a person leaves office is because of immunities which attach to the office which make prosecution while a person is in office very difficult.
As for judging someone to be corrupt even if tried and not convicted, that is problematic. On what basis would one do that? Simple belief based on whatever incomplete information one might have at hand?
There's a difference in the United States between 'ethical corruption' and 'legal corruption.' Trump has done both. However, it's worth noting that both things for which Trump was impeached, any sort of conviction in a regular criminal court would have been very unlikely. Other than the article referring to obstruction in the Ukraine impeachment, Trump was really being accused of an ethical lapse. His dealings with Ukraine fall into vague areas of law that would be difficult to prosecute on in a normal court (even a prosecutor looking to try the case after he left the White House.) Inciting a riot is an actual crime, but it's one with a lot of precedential protections for the accused and a broad assumption to try not to infringe on speech except where absolutely necessary. With that framework getting convictions for inciting a riot is incredibly difficult at all in the United States, even moreso in a case like Trump's.
These are because of "process failures" in our politics, it's because the specific things Trump did and how they did them, don't easily constitute unambiguous violations of law, at least sufficient to overcome the burden of proof on the prosecution. Note that right now I'm restricting myself to the two things he was impeached for--and in the case of Ukraine there were two articles of impeachment--in a traditional criminal court he'd have been in more peril of being convicting on the obstruction article than anything else he was impeached for, but even that has barriers.
I do think Trump committed crimes while President that would result in fairly easy convictions, but I think a lot of the evidence of those crimes was successfully stonewalled out of making it into the public eye for the entirety of Trump's Presidency. One big process failure Trump really exposed is the absolute inability of Congress to get any information from an unwilling executive, about any matter. The norm used to be the executive was entitled to secrecy around things relating to his advisors giving him advice on running the country, things of that nature. Not refusing to let entire agencies of government respond to normal congressional inquiries.
Trump also almost certainly has a long list of business related crimes he committed prior to his Presidency, some of which I suspect will see the inside of a criminal court.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2021, 12:01:03 PMThere have been a number of convictions now for leaders who have engaged in corruption. It does not seem to be all that difficult to prove.
It is very difficult to prove. Corruption is a quid pro quo exchange, which - if you are wise - you never really tie very explicitly. It also frequently evolves very gradually from acceptable forms of sociability: people you meet, services you give, people that have mutual friends. A service is rendered that may easily be camouflaged under a lot of others. It requires considerable resources to go through books, administrative correspondance, etc. It usually involves people who have extraordinary means at their disposal. Compared with other types of crimes, it requires a ton of efforts. Quebec recently had a whole extraordinary commission tasked with analyzing corruption in the construction industry, tied to political parties. It mobilized considerable resources, and ended up with precious few results. It wasn't the first time. I had followed closely the sponsorship scandal in Canada, and it followed the same script. A lot of things revealed to be clearly unethical, and money disappearing for little service rendered. Very few condemnation. One guy plead guilty to save a lot of others.
QuoteAs for judging someone to be corrupt even if tried and not convicted, that is problematic. On what basis would one do that? Simple belief based on whatever incomplete information one might have at hand?
Yes. :) That's the essence of political judgment. The same way that I could judge Andrew Scheer to be less than straightforward about his intention regarding social conservatism, or that I can say that Trudeau's involvement in the appointment of judges is a form of ordinary political corruption.
To illustrate: I think it very clear that Trump is incredibly corrupt. I also think it is very likely, considering all of the above, that he is never found guilty of corruption in a court of law. Would I therefore reserve my judgement, and find Trump fit to serve? Absolutely not. If not found guilty in a court of law, I don't think he should go to jail. But I don't think he should be rewarded with office, time, or consideration.
If you are proposing making judgments on rumour and innuendo rather than a fact based analysis (which occurs in a real trial) then that is definitely where we part company. I don't think that approach is any better than the Q nutters. Truth then becomes a matter of whoever has the best pitch devoid of facts.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2021, 12:46:01 PM
If you are proposing making judgments on rumour and innuendo rather than a fact based analysis (which occurs in a real trial) then that is definitely where we part company. I don't think that approach is any better than the Q nutters. Truth then becomes a matter of whoever has the best pitch devoid of facts.
This is not what I wrote. Not all facts are those established by a court of law. Nor are political judgments reducible to facts. Some facts are incontrovertible and yet, will support very different political judgement about whether or not one is fit for governing or not. That's the essence of the philosophical problem of the "reasonable nazi". And some "facts" are quite open for interpretation - those of the court being only one among many.
I can judge Trump unfit for duty based on his demonstrable behavior, even if the very same facts may not land him in jail. It doesn't mean either that such judgment is only whim and detached from principle. An impeachment procedure, even if the outcome is foreordained, plays that role. Much like the Charbonneau commission was able to expose the mechanism of corruption, even if few people were convicted. We are far from QAnon territory.
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 01, 2021, 01:59:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2021, 12:46:01 PM
If you are proposing making judgments on rumour and innuendo rather than a fact based analysis (which occurs in a real trial) then that is definitely where we part company. I don't think that approach is any better than the Q nutters. Truth then becomes a matter of whoever has the best pitch devoid of facts.
This is not what I wrote. Not all facts are those established by a court of law. Nor are political judgments reducible to facts. Some facts are incontrovertible and yet, will support very different political judgement about whether or not one is fit for governing or not. That's the essence of the philosophical problem of the "reasonable nazi". And some "facts" are quite open for interpretation - those of the court being only one among many.
I can judge Trump unfit for duty based on his demonstrable behavior, even if the very same facts may not land him in jail. It doesn't mean either that such judgment is only whim and detached from principle. An impeachment procedure, even if the outcome is foreordained, plays that role. Much like the Charbonneau commission was able to expose the mechanism of corruption, even if few people were convicted. We are far from QAnon territory.
I am not sure I see a distinction. You agreed that even if a court does not find someone guilty, people should still make their own judgment based on whatever information they have at hand. How is that any different from making judgments based on rumour and innuendo. I have no problem with political judgments being made based on facts. But it must be based on facts. For example, I have no problem with someone taking the view that ,after reading a decision of the court, they come to the conclusion that the court got it wrong. But all too often people come to a conclusion based on what they read on social media. Hardly a fact based analysis.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2021, 02:09:23 PM
I am not sure I see a distinction. You agreed that even if a court does not find someone guilty, people should still make their own judgment based on whatever information they have at hand. How is that any different from making judgments based on rumour and innuendo. I have no problem with political judgments being made based on facts. But it must be based on facts. For example, I have no problem with someone taking the view that ,after reading a decision of the court, they come to the conclusion that the court got it wrong. But all too often people come to a conclusion based on what they read on social media. Hardly a fact based analysis.
Do you think Trump is unfit for office? Even if he hasn't been convicted in a court of law?
Quote from: Jacob on March 01, 2021, 02:19:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2021, 02:09:23 PM
I am not sure I see a distinction. You agreed that even if a court does not find someone guilty, people should still make their own judgment based on whatever information they have at hand. How is that any different from making judgments based on rumour and innuendo. I have no problem with political judgments being made based on facts. But it must be based on facts. For example, I have no problem with someone taking the view that ,after reading a decision of the court, they come to the conclusion that the court got it wrong. But all too often people come to a conclusion based on what they read on social media. Hardly a fact based analysis.
Do you think Trump is unfit for office? Even if he hasn't been convicted in a court of law?
I think that is a different and purely political question. I think he is unfit for reasons other than whether he can be proven to be corrupt.
The question I posed to Oex was a hypothetical of what occurs after a court has made its finding and only on the question of whether or not he was corrupt.
I should add that five years ago I probably would have agreed with you Oex. But, particularly in the US, the news has been viewed as something which is created to serve a political agenda. If there is no reporter of record which people trust as a source for factual information, then you are just left with Trump world where facts are irrelevant.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2021, 02:28:02 PM
The question I posed to Oex was a hypothetical of what occurs after a court has made its finding and only on the question of whether or not he was corrupt.
I don't know how to answer that. Has the person been left off the hook on technicality? Has it been decided at the end of a super transparent process? Do I think that the law is too lenient? Is it okay for a Prime Minister to spend so much time with that private citizen with a clear political interest? Or even: do I think that the end justified the means - which, I should note, is the conclusion that many thought re: wartime profiteering.
I think you are making this too strict an either/or proposition. Either it's decided in a court, and therefore facts, or it's all hearsay, therefore fake news. By its very nature, corruption cannot fit neatly in these boxes.
(As an aside, I recommend Zephyr Teachout's Corruption in America for a neat intro to the matters of corruption in (US) democracy.)
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 01, 2021, 02:52:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2021, 02:28:02 PM
The question I posed to Oex was a hypothetical of what occurs after a court has made its finding and only on the question of whether or not he was corrupt.
I don't know how to answer that. Has the person been left off the hook on technicality? Has it been decided at the end of a super transparent process? Do I think that the law is too lenient? Is it okay for a Prime Minister to spend so much time with that private citizen with a clear political interest? Or even: do I think that the end justified the means - which, I should note, is the conclusion that many thought re: wartime profiteering.
I think you are making this too strict an either/or proposition. Either it's decided in a court, and therefore facts, or it's all hearsay, therefore fake news. By its very nature, corruption cannot fit neatly in these boxes.
(As an aside, I recommend Zephyr Teachout's Corruption in America for a neat intro to the matters of corruption in (US) democracy.)
Fair questions. lets assume for our hypothetical that no evidence was excluded because it was unlawfully obtained and so there was a full record of all the evidence. The process is transparent in the sense that the court set out all the evidence of importance in its decision that was available (as is the usual practice).
I don't think I am being overly restrictive at all. Rather I am pointing out that a court process is much preferable to anything that might be achieved in a Senate impeachment trial. After such a process the facts come out and can be known by the public. The alternative is the word of rumour and innuendo (and actually worse, false facts) which I think leads further to the destruction of Liberal Democracy.
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 01, 2021, 11:54:04 AM
It's true that in the current operating mode of the American democracy, the process would have required a thorough deconstruction. The temptation to turn this into grandstanding, cheap one-liners, infantile presentations may have been too strong on both sides of the aisle, and the compulsion of 24h news network would have been to exhaust every possible talking point within a couple of days. But I still think that part of the solution - in this case - would have been to stretch procedures to a very long time. Or perhaps to simply hold the same type of trial, but removed from the immediate moment, if only for Democrats to hone the message and the delivery. Some things take a long time to set in. Let some police inquiries unfold. Get some of the Capitol stormers arrested. Use that time to hone message and delivery.
Perhaps. My counter would be the trial gets power from its immediacy - I think that is part of the reason why McConnell didn't deal with it when the House voted up charges on January 7. I think it's possible that you can construct a better argument and you can develop that, but I think it's equally likely that through 24 news, multiple news cycles and nomination fights and politics as usual between January 6 and a trial that the shock and the impact of the Capitol being stormed dissipates. I think there is a risk that it just becomes memory holed.
I'm not convinced of what was right, but I think there's good arguments for "rushing" it and for not wanting witnesses. Plus I think there's a Sorkin tendency on the American left that one act of political theatre or speech will be enough to transform things. I don't believe that and I think some - not you or AR - of the people who'd like a longer trial imagine that there could be a successful impeachment and it would serve that purpose.
QuoteJust a nuance: corruption is a fundamentally political judgment because it concerns the appropriate uses of authority, which transforms what is either theft, or a personal act, like gift-giving, into something reprehensible. And it thrives on ambiguity and time (which is why people indicted for corruption have usually left office). This is why it is often quite difficult to prove, in courts, and why the idea that someone is corrupt ought to rest upon non-judiciary criteria. In other words, one should be able to judge Sarkozy as corrupt, even if courts don't find him guilty of such. Danger comes when either people think politicians are *all* corrupt (and thus, like Berlusconi, it doesn't matter much), or that corruption is only a legalistic matter - for which a ton of loopholes and reasonable doubt can easily be found.
The other side to Berlusconi - which I think Trump plays on - is that his argument is all politicians are corrupt, and the legal system is corrupt and (or perhaps because) it is political.
But I think the US is quite far gone in both of the dangers you've highlighted (I think the UK is pretty far gone down the "all politicians are corrupt" route).
QuoteIndeed, it's not likely at all. This is why any hope of change requires a multi-pronged strategy by Democrats. Aggressively disempower Republicans at every level, which requires dropping a lot of stupid ideals about bipartisanship. Aggressively invest in local politics, which Democrats have abandoned for much too long. And a continuous effort of education in the media and in the institutions about principles. Reclaim the language of ideals and the Constitution. Democrats have been afraid to talk of big ideas, because they always feared to be tarred with the brush of the evil "Isms". The Republicans were the party of principles. That is clearly gone now. Republicans can't claim principles. They don't have good parry against such speech today.
There's a lot I agree with here - though as a long-standing Labour party member I come out in hives at people suggesting "political education" as a solution to almost anything :lol:
But I actualy think the most helpful thing would be if Democrats were able to get things done. The GOP has in many ways run against the idea of government and even of politics as a way of doing anything for a long time. And I know technocracy and populism are normally seen as enemies but there's huge overlap: they're both very sceptical of politics, politicians and ideology which is the way, in a democratic, we negotiate alternative visions of our future. Trump was in a way a technocratic and populist candidate - "I alone can fix it". But he wasn't a million miles away from Romney's campaign focusing on his time as a consultant/businessman/Olympic-Games-Saviour or, for that matter, McCain's which emphasised that he's a different kind of politician (because of his military history) who'd put country first. I think America is uniquely susceptible to this type of technocratic pitch - the generals have been successful with this pitch, so have some businessmen like Hoover - but every election there's a yearning for the technocrat who, allied with the people, can resolve political issues - Bloomberg most recently, Clark not too long ago etc. The European equivalent is probably the Central Banker summoned to save his country.
One way to counter that I think would actually be to achieve things - just pass legislation (and sell it in the media).
Glad the House finally passed Covid Relief. Better late than never. Now pass a version in Senate ASAP. We needed this a month ago. Get something out there Dems.
Any chance you could get a Marijuana decriminalization bill out there as well? And I only mean a FEDERAL decriminalization. Texas can still lock up all the potheads it wants, as is its right.
I would LOVE that. I usually connect thru Denver when I fly to California, and I'd love to toke up in the airport.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/65/OzzyOsbourne_FlyingHighAgain_Single_1981.jpg)
Well you probably still cannot smoke anything in an Airport Cal :P
Also this business with the minimum wage is why I wanted these bills passed on day one. Suddenly the Senate cannot pass it because of some rule. Better to pass the bill first and ask for forgiveness later. Now moderate Dems can easily refuse it on principle.
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2021, 04:32:01 PM
Well you probably still cannot smoke anything in an Airport Cal :P
Something tells me that if the federal ban on marijuana is abolished, DEN will suddenly have some smoking rooms. :sleep:
If not, I'll settle for gummies I guess. :)
Did Denver finally close down its smoking bar? They had one when I flew through a while back.
Quote from: Caliga on March 01, 2021, 04:35:07 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2021, 04:32:01 PM
Well you probably still cannot smoke anything in an Airport Cal :P
Something tells me that if the federal ban on marijuana is abolished, DEN will suddenly have some smoking rooms. :sleep:
If not, I'll settle for gummies I guess. :)
You strike me more of a brownie guy anyway. :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2021, 04:07:58 PMPlus I think there's a Sorkin tendency on the American left that one act of political theatre or speech will be enough to transform things. I
That's very true. I seem to recall Jill Lepore making a similar point - perhaps on the Talking Politics/LRB podcast which I think you listen to.
Quoteas a long-standing Labour party member I come out in hives at people suggesting "political education" as a solution to almost anything :lol:
I'd call it "reeducation" but I suspect it may be objectionable.
In all seriousness, it's a fair reaction - but I think mostly because the left (and it is the same here) imagines their/our perspective to be self-evidently superior, and thus simply in need to be taught to the ignorant awaiting their epiphany. I'd perhaps characterize what I favor as "indexing", i.e., linking policy to principle.
QuoteOne way to counter that I think would actually be to achieve things - just pass legislation (and sell it in the media).
Sure. But you'd have to ruthelessly exploit the division between the rump Republicans and the Trump Republicans.
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 01, 2021, 05:53:43 PM
That's very true. I seem to recall Jill Lepore making a similar point - perhaps on the Talking Politics/LRB podcast which I think you listen to.
Quite possibly - normally I consciously steal ideas from there but this one may be sub-conscious :lol:
QuoteIn all seriousness, it's a fair reaction - but I think mostly because the left (and it is the same here) imagines their/our perspective to be self-evidently superior, and thus simply in need to be taught to the ignorant awaiting their epiphany. I'd perhaps characterize what I favor as "indexing", i.e., linking policy to principle.
I agree with that I think that's a better way of putting it. But yeah I've spoken to enough people on the left who basically think that if we do enough screenings of Ken Loach we'll end up winning elections again.
QuoteSure. But you'd have to ruthelessly exploit the division between the rump Republicans and the Trump Republicans.
Yes. And that's just good politics in my view and it's the basic pre-condition for anything else the Democrats do to work. Given that, I am profoundly pessimistic.
"Stop what you're doing, or I'll be even more outraged than I already am!"
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2021, 04:53:38 PM
Did Denver finally close down its smoking bar? They had one when I flew through a while back.
Dunno.... if there's one there, I don't know where. All I know is that there's a killer tamale restaurant and a good coffee place called Moose coffee or some shit.
Looks like they still had the Smokin' Bear Lounge in 2018, but killed it since then.
Everyone knows smoking weed doesn't hurt your lungs. At least everyone here in Santa Cruz knows that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2021, 04:53:38 PM
Did Denver finally close down its smoking bar? They had one when I flew through a while back.
Warsaw has wonderfully small glass cages situated in the middle of the walking corridors where maybe half a dozen people fit at a time, to be then visible to everyone as the addicts who just had to. Sufficiently humiliating for a disgusting habit.
That's like, not cool man.
Quote from: Tamas on March 03, 2021, 11:23:43 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2021, 04:53:38 PM
Did Denver finally close down its smoking bar? They had one when I flew through a while back.
Warsaw has wonderfully small glass cages situated in the middle of the walking corridors where maybe half a dozen people fit at a time, to be then visible to everyone as the addicts who just had to. Sufficiently humiliating for a disgusting habit.
I used to fly to Bosnia fairly often to see a friend which meant changing in Vienna airport. The bit that connects to London is a really sleek, ultra-modern recently constructed airport that (like the best transport infrastructure) looks like the setting for a near future dystopia. In that section there are or were smoking rooms/booths which basically have jet powered extractor fan air conditioning.
But for the flights to the Balkans you need to move to the older terminal which is just very 70s. There the smoking booth was in a coffee shop area and, instead of having, an extractor fan just had holes in the glass walls :lol:
Liz Warren is pushing her wealth tax again.
She also wants to ban stock buybacks.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2021, 06:16:21 PM
Liz Warren is pushing her wealth tax again.
She also wants to ban stock buybacks.
Both sound like very good ideas.
Taxing wealth is something we really need to work out how to do well.
Why do you want to ban stock buybacks?
Quote from: alfred russel on March 04, 2021, 09:07:55 AM
Why do you want to ban stock buybacks?
What's their benefit to the economy?
I'd also be open to not banning them but making them very unattractive through tax policy.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 04, 2021, 09:09:41 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 04, 2021, 09:07:55 AM
Why do you want to ban stock buybacks?
What's their benefit to the economy?
I'd also be open to not banning them but making them very unattractive through tax policy.
So you are a leader of a corporation with excess cash that you don't have a useful way to reinvest.
-You can keep the cash sitting idle in the business (unattractive, and not a good use of resources)
-You can make dumb investments anyway, or even better give the money to consultants you will tell you to use the rest on stupid M&A activity
You correctly resist the above two strategies as being stupid. You decide to return the cash to shareholders. You have a couple options:
-dividends
-stock buybacks
Absent taxes, $100 spent on dividends will give your shareholders $100. $100 spent on buybacks will result in stock appreciation of $100. Your shareholders should be more or less indifferent (again ignoring taxes). There are advantages in sometimes using a stock buyback versus a dividend: a one time / extraordinary dividend has administrative costs, and can increase the volatility of the stock by creating a "lottery event" of a windfall dividend payment - traders will want to own the stock on that date. There is a good argument to align taxation of capital gains and dividends.
Companies that pay dividends usually keep them consistent: this year we pay $1 a share, next year we pay $1.05 a share, etc. If they have an extraordinary year/build up excess cash, they use that for buybacks so that the dividend stays consistent.
Of course there are reasons as CEO you may prefer buybacks: your stock options become more valuable with a buyback, but less valuable with a dividend.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 04, 2021, 09:40:15 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 04, 2021, 09:09:41 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 04, 2021, 09:07:55 AM
Why do you want to ban stock buybacks?
What's their benefit to the economy?
I'd also be open to not banning them but making them very unattractive through tax policy.
So you are a leader of a corporation with excess cash that you don't have a useful way to reinvest.
-You can keep the cash sitting idle in the business (unattractive, and not a good use of resources)
-You can make dumb investments anyway, or even better give the money to consultants you will tell you to use the rest on stupid M&A activity
You correctly resist the above two strategies as being stupid. You decide to return the cash to shareholders. You have a couple options:
-dividends
-stock buybacks
Absent taxes, $100 spent on dividends will give your shareholders $100. $100 spent on buybacks will result in stock appreciation of $100. Your shareholders should be more or less indifferent (again ignoring taxes). There are advantages in sometimes using a stock buyback versus a dividend: a one time / extraordinary dividend has administrative costs, and can increase the volatility of the stock by creating a "lottery event" of a windfall dividend payment - traders will want to own the stock on that date. There is a good argument to align taxation of capital gains and dividends.
Companies that pay dividends usually keep them consistent: this year we pay $1 a share, next year we pay $1.05 a share, etc. If they have an extraordinary year/build up excess cash, they use that for buybacks so that the dividend stays consistent.
Of course there are reasons as CEO you may prefer buybacks: your stock options become more valuable with a buyback, but less valuable with a dividend.
What about investing it in the people who actually made all that money? You know, the employees?
A company does not exist to make the employees more qualified, a company exists to make money for its owners. It would be extraordinarily irresponsible if Volvo sent all its employees on a knitting course for its owners money.
And employees who have invested in the company get money as shareholders.
I think the IMF has estimated that about a third of US stock buy-backs are funded by bonds, so it's not always just cash-rich companies making this decision. Given that a significant proportion is being funded by debt I'm not sure that it's companies lacking a way to usefully re-invest as much as a preference for buybacks which have hugely increased in the last 20 years. In addition from studies done by groups like the IMF it is a large drain on corporate treasury.
Also shareholders' reaction would depend on the type of shareholder - shareholders that are holding as long-term investment (often included as part of employee schemes) benefit more from dividends than a buyback. Shareholders that are looking to or able to sell (pension funds, institutional investors, senior leadership/management) benefit from buybacks more than dividends.
But all of those benefit (some) shareholders of the company which is fine for the company to care about, from a regulatory/government perspective though I think it should be looking at what is the benefit to the economy. It's not clear there is one - so banning might be a bit strong - but I'd certainly look at tax incentives to make buybacks very unattractive compared to dividends or re-investment.
Quote from: Maladict on March 04, 2021, 09:49:24 AM
What about investing it in the people who actually made all that money? You know, the employees?
How much you should invest in employees shouldn't really be a function of how much excess cash you have on hand. It's either a worthwhile investment or it isn't. Whatever is a worthwhile investment in employees wouldn't be counted as excess cash anyway, excess cash is the money that you can't invest at the required return.
Quote from: Threviel on March 04, 2021, 09:54:13 AM
A company does not exist to make the employees more qualified, a company exists to make money for its owners. It would be extraordinarily irresponsible if Volvo sent all its employees on a knitting course for its owners money.
If the company had a particularly good year they would be wise to share the rewards with the employees. So they don't have to deal with those employees taking their skills elsewhere, if nothing else. But we might well be talking about different things here.
Quote from: DGuller on March 04, 2021, 10:02:45 AM
How much you should invest in employees shouldn't really be a function of how much excess cash you have on hand. It's either a worthwhile investment or it isn't. Whatever is a worthwhile investment in employees wouldn't be counted as excess cash anyway, excess cash is the money that you can't invest at the required return.
Fair enough, if that's the definition.
Quote from: Maladict on March 04, 2021, 10:09:10 AM
If the company had a particularly good year they would be wise to share the rewards with the employees. So they don't have to deal with those employees taking their skills elsewhere, if nothing else. But we might well be talking about different things here.
Bonus?
Quote from: alfred russel on March 04, 2021, 09:40:15 AM
So you are a leader of a corporation with excess cash that you don't have a useful way to reinvest.
Unless the company is a dying cash cow, how could it be that there are no useful investment options for a profitable company?
Quote$100 spent on buybacks will result in stock appreciation of $100.
What is the mechanism that ensures that result? If the company spends $100 on a buyback, it acquires stock worth $100 but loses cash worth $100. It's a wash - EPS may tick up but it is offset by the loss of cash or increased leverage. The selling shareholder(s) gets the $100 but what do the remaining shareholders get? The transaction makes sense if and only if the company stock is undervalued by the market, and if there are no other better investment opportunities in the world.
The reason why stock prices tend to go up on a buyback is that buybacks are often interpreted as a signal from management (insiders) of their confidence in the company. But sometimes it is perceived as a gambit and there is little or no effect.
QuoteOf course there are reasons as CEO you may prefer buybacks: your stock options become more valuable with a buyback, but less valuable with a dividend.
Now you've got your finger on the issue. And that is why a left populist like Warren sees a target.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2021, 10:31:11 AM
Unless the company is a dying cash cow, how could it be that there are no useful investment options for a profitable company?
There aren't any that exceed the working average cost of capital. Seems like a common occurrence...
Quote$100 spent on buybacks will result in stock appreciation of $100.
What is the mechanism that ensures that result? If the company spends $100 on a buyback, it acquires stock worth $100 but loses cash worth $100. It's a wash - EPS may tick up but it is offset by the loss of cash or increased leverage. The selling shareholder(s) gets the $100 but what do the remaining shareholders get? The transaction makes sense if and only if the company stock is undervalued by the market, and if there are no other better investment opportunities in the world.
The reason why stock prices tend to go up on a buyback is that buybacks are often interpreted as a signal from management (insiders) of their confidence in the company. But sometimes it is perceived as a gambit and there is little or no effect.
[/quote]
Theoretically the benefit of either a dividend or a stock buyback is getting cash that is unable to invested effectively by management out of the entity and to shareholders who can reinvest appropriately.
As a shareholder, I invest in a corporation making paperboard with expected equity returns of 10%. It has cash that is unable to be invested to generate sufficient returns to provide that return. It can hold the cash in money market accounts -- which is inefficient because they aren't a cash management company and that isn't what I want to be invested in (I invested in a paperboard company) -- maybe it could also invest in computer software, but I think we can all agree a computer software company might have better expertise to do that.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 04, 2021, 09:58:34 AM
I think the IMF has estimated that about a third of US stock buy-backs are funded by bonds, so it's not always just cash-rich companies making this decision. Given that a significant proportion is being funded by debt I'm not sure that it's companies lacking a way to usefully re-invest as much as a preference for buybacks which have hugely increased in the last 20 years. In addition from studies done by groups like the IMF it is a large drain on corporate treasury.
Also shareholders' reaction would depend on the type of shareholder - shareholders that are holding as long-term investment (often included as part of employee schemes) benefit more from dividends than a buyback. Shareholders that are looking to or able to sell (pension funds, institutional investors, senior leadership/management) benefit from buybacks more than dividends.
But all of those benefit (some) shareholders of the company which is fine for the company to care about, from a regulatory/government perspective though I think it should be looking at what is the benefit to the economy. It's not clear there is one - so banning might be a bit strong - but I'd certainly look at tax incentives to make buybacks very unattractive compared to dividends or re-investment.
Debt is super cheap and readily available. I don't think it takes an Ivy League MBA to see that companies are going to want to shift their debt / equity ratio in this environment toward debt.
While share bybacks might theoretically benefit a shareholder, if management does it like Buffett does - only use it as an option when he makes an assessment that the market value has undervalued the the share price. A problematic proposition for those who believe the market is always right, but I digress. In those limited circumstances shareholders are not harmed. But of course the reality is that it is mainly used as a tool by the executives controlling the public corp to maximize their pay packages which have been designed to incentivize short term thinking, amply demonstrated by AF's example of it actually being a virtue to use cash for this purpose. As Buffett has famously observed, corporate America shows an embarrassing record of doing exactly the opposite of what he does in their approach to bybacks.
If the owners want short term thinking and even put bonus systems in place to achieve it, then why deny them this pleasure?
Quote from: alfred russel on March 04, 2021, 10:48:03 AM
Theoretically the benefit of either a dividend or a stock buyback is getting cash that is unable to invested effectively by management out of the entity and to shareholders who can reinvest appropriately.
Correct, but in the case of stock buybacks only the selling shareholders get the benefit of the cash. The loyal shareholders who remain get nothing.
QuoteAs a shareholder, I invest in a corporation making paperboard with expected equity returns of 10%.
I'm not familiar with the manufacturing process but is there no possible way to make the process more efficient? No way to improve distribution or product quality? Has paperboard manufacturing remained exactly the same for a century?
It's possible that the answers to some or all of those questions are yes but is that uniformly true for all companies that buyback shares?
In recent years, the companies with the largest buyback programs in terms of dollars were Apple and Microsoft. Part of the reason is that they are such big companies that if they do a buyback it will look big. But are these companies that really have absolutely no other investment possibilities?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2021, 11:06:47 AM
Correct, but in the case of stock buybacks only the selling shareholders get the benefit of the cash. The loyal shareholders who remain get nothing.
That isn't true. Imagine there are two groups of shareowners: call them A and B. Both expect 10% returns on their investment (the risk adjusted market rate for an entity such as this). The ownership is divided evenly between the two groups.
The company's value (absent excess cash) is $100. The company has excess cash of $100 - the returns of which are negligible.
The company's equity is worth $200. Each shareholder group thus has stock with a market value of $100.
If the Company keeps operating as it is, without a dividend or buyback, it will produce returns of 5% -- below market and neither investor will be happy.
If the Company buys back the stock of shareholder group B for $100, they then get the market value for their investment which they can reinvest to get a market rate of return.
Shareholder group A is left with a company with a value of $100 - and that will be the value of its equity (unchanged). But the company without excess cash should be able to produce the 10% returns that are expected by shareholders and in line with market rates.
Both groups of shareholders are made better off by the buyback.
There was a recent story about how TSMC of Taiwan is spending $24 billion on a new chip fabrication plant in Taiwan. That is no happening in the US. There are fabrications plants in the US - TSMC built or is building two of them and the other major player is US registered company that is actually owned by Abu Dhabi. I'm not saying that a US company *must* be involved in building such plants in the US but they do have strategic value in an era of heightened conflict with China and there isn't any good reason why US companies shouldn't be involved in this kind of investment. The money though substantial is no real obstacle - Apple alone spent more than three times that amount in share buybacks in 2019.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2021, 11:06:47 AM
I'm not familiar with the manufacturing process but is there no possible way to make the process more efficient? No way to improve distribution or product quality? Has paperboard manufacturing remained exactly the same for a century?
It's possible that the answers to some or all of those questions are yes but is that uniformly true for all companies that buyback shares?
In recent years, the companies with the largest buyback programs in terms of dollars were Apple and Microsoft. Part of the reason is that they are such big companies that if they do a buyback it will look big. But are these companies that really have absolutely no other investment possibilities?
Absolutely there are ways to improve paperboard process and generate better returns for shareholders!!!
But there are diminishing returns to the investments that can be made, and at a certain point they will fall below the cost of capital. At that point it is counterproductive to continue investing, which results in excess cash being generated.
In my career, I've never seen a major investment initiative without accompanying projections of the effect on future cash flows and whether the benefits exceed the estimated cost of capital. I've probably seen hundreds of them. I'm sure that Apple and Microsoft are doing these analyses as well.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 04, 2021, 11:19:11 AM
Shareholder group A is left with a company with a value of $100 - and that will be the value of its equity (unchanged). But the company without excess cash should be able to produce the 10% returns that are expected by shareholders and in line with market rates.
You've just described the theoretical benefits to ROI of greater vs lesser leverage and not any specific benefit to share buybacks as a mechanism. You could get the same result from a leveraged recap or an old fashioned MBO/LBO.
If Modigliani-Miller holds, changing the capital structure should not change value. In your example, EPS should go up as it typically does in a share buyback but there is greater risk because if the company experiences an adverse event - e.g. an unplanned global pandemic - it has no reserves and could be forced to liquidate assets.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2021, 11:28:22 AM
You've just described the theoretical benefits to ROI of greater vs lesser leverage and not any specific benefit to share buybacks as a mechanism. You could get the same result from a leveraged recap or an old fashioned MBO/LBO.
I didn't explain why a share buyback is a better mechanism for some corporations than a leveraged recap or an old fashioned MBO/LBO because I think that is obvious.
Companies sitting on cash that can't be invested in an efficient way need a way to return that to shareholders. I don't think we want a legal structure where companies are like, "well we've accumulated a ton of excess cash that we can't efficiently reinvest, time to find someone to do a leveraged buyout of our company!"
Quote
If Modigliani-Miller holds, changing the capital structure should not change value. In your example, EPS should go up as it typically does in a share buyback but there is greater risk because if the company experiences an adverse event - e.g. an unplanned global pandemic - it has no reserves and could be forced to liquidate assets.
Well no shit. Usually the capital structure of a company balances higher EPS from greater leverage versus higher risks due to greater leverage. But I don't think the way to ensure those decisions are appropriately made is to stop buy backs. If the government is concerned that corporate boards are not able to determine appropriate capital structures, perhaps a better reform is for the government to take control of the boards? :hmm:
Quote from: alfred russel on March 04, 2021, 11:24:35 AM
and whether the benefits exceed the estimated cost of capital.
Which raises the question of how cost of capital is measured. The debt component is pretty straightforward - and in recent years has been quite cheap. But the equity component comes down to what percentage returns the company decides it should (or "needs" to) deliver to shareholders. If on a national basis the economy is run on the assumption that the private sector should do nothing unless the ROI exceeds 15%, you end up with an economy where equity holders earn very fat returns but where a lot of worthwhile investment projects that could return 12% (and employ people and purchase goods and services from other businesses) don't get done. And that justifiably feeds into the belief of the Elizabeth Warrens of the world that there national economic implications to this kind of thinking.
AR I think you just set forth a good arguments why dividends should not be tax disadvantaged as compared to other forms of corporate cash distributions. Which is my personal position.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2021, 11:41:34 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 04, 2021, 11:24:35 AM
and whether the benefits exceed the estimated cost of capital.
Which raises the question of how cost of capital is measured. The debt component is pretty straightforward - and in recent years has been quite cheap. But the equity component comes down to what percentage returns the company decides it should (or "needs" to) deliver to shareholders. If on a national basis the economy is run on the assumption that the private sector should do nothing unless the ROI exceeds 15%, you end up with an economy where equity holders earn very fat returns but where a lot of worthwhile investment projects that could return 12% (and employ people and purchase goods and services from other businesses) don't get done. And that justifiably feeds into the belief of the Elizabeth Warrens of the world that there national economic implications to this kind of thinking.
I'm the real world, I've seen wacc rates under 5% in some countries (we use different waccs based on country). Our auditors generally push back that they are too low. The bias is to go low for a long list of reasons.
Quick google search indicates that hurdle rates in the US private sector have held pretty consistently in the 12-14 percent range. I would not be in the least surprised to learn that similar rates are lower elsewhere. Hence the TSMC example.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2021, 12:16:29 PM
Quick google search indicates that hurdle rates in the US private sector have held pretty consistently in the 12-14 percent range. I would not be in the least surprised to learn that similar rates are lower elsewhere. Hence the TSMC example.
I'd have to look up our us wacc but I would bet it is under 6%. For a large multi national like apple or Microsoft, I'd be surprised if it is double digits. The debt side of the equation is going to be trivial and for equity they aren't exactly start ups.
Private companies are obviously a different ball game. But this really gets back to the question of how to lower the cost of capital for smaller and midsize businesses, and I don't think restricting buybacks is the way to get there.
Quote from: The Brain on March 04, 2021, 11:03:53 AM
If the owners want short term thinking and even put bonus systems in place to achieve it, then why deny them this pleasure?
If only the world of publicly traded companies worked that way.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 04, 2021, 12:39:46 PM
I'd have to look up our us wacc but I would bet it is under 6%. For a large multi national like apple or Microsoft, I'd be surprised if it is double digits. The debt side of the equation is going to be trivial and for equity they aren't exactly start ups.
Double digits according to this 2011 survey: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6717216.pdf
Same according to this in 2017: https://www.cfo.com/budgeting/2017/09/getting-hurdle-rates/
Reports wacc around 10% but investment hurdles a bit higher at 12-13.5% (median/mean)
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 04, 2021, 12:59:57 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 04, 2021, 11:03:53 AM
If the owners want short term thinking and even put bonus systems in place to achieve it, then why deny them this pleasure?
If only the world of publicly traded companies worked that way.
Every decision made in the board rooms are shaped by the current regulatory and tax environment. Changing the regulations and tax legislation will shape the decisions to be different, but there's nothing about the current state of affairs that's particularly objective or neutral or anything.
So the answer to the Brain's question is "because it's in society's interest to deny them this pleasure." Just like it - apparently - has been in society's interest previously to encourage them to indulge in that pleasure (that, or because society has messed up the way they've implemented various regulatory schemes).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2021, 11:06:47 AM
Correct, but in the case of stock buybacks only the selling shareholders get the benefit of the cash. The loyal shareholders who remain get nothing.
They have the option to sell at the new, higher price. :huh:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2021, 02:12:25 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 04, 2021, 12:39:46 PM
I'd have to look up our us wacc but I would bet it is under 6%. For a large multi national like apple or Microsoft, I'd be surprised if it is double digits. The debt side of the equation is going to be trivial and for equity they aren't exactly start ups.
Double digits according to this 2011 survey: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6717216.pdf
Same according to this in 2017: https://www.cfo.com/budgeting/2017/09/getting-hurdle-rates/
Reports wacc around 10% but investment hurdles a bit higher at 12-13.5% (median/mean)
The 2017 figure doesn't indicate large multinationals...it could include private companies as well. Also we've significantly revised down our WACC estimate in recent years...I wouldn't be surprised if others have as well.
Looking up Apple, their effective interest rate on debt appears to be below 3%: they had $2.8 billion of interest cost on $106 billion of debt. The beta of apple is 1.25, so if you use an estimated market return of 8% for an S&P 500 company, they are probably around 10% on equity. I really doubt they are over 10% for WACC as the debt will drag the weighted average down.
For Microsoft, their beta is 0.81 so I'd expect their WACC to be lower (I didn't look up their effective interest rate but assume it is roughly in line with Apple).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 04, 2021, 02:26:14 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2021, 11:06:47 AM
Correct, but in the case of stock buybacks only the selling shareholders get the benefit of the cash. The loyal shareholders who remain get nothing.
They have the option to sell at the new, higher price. :huh:
That assumes that the price goes up on a buyback, covered above.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 04, 2021, 02:41:49 PM
Looking up Apple, their effective interest rate on debt appears to be below 3%: they had $2.8 billion of interest cost on $106 billion of debt. The beta of apple is 1.25, so if you use an estimated market return of 8% for an S&P 500 company, they are probably around 10% on equity. I really doubt they are over 10% for WACC as the debt will drag the weighted average down.
For Microsoft, their beta is 0.81 so I'd expect their WACC to be lower (I didn't look up their effective interest rate but assume it is roughly in line with Apple).
The fact is we don't know what hurdle rate Apple or Microsoft are using in evaluating investment projects. What we do know is that they elected to spend well over $100 billion in a year to buy their own shares. I have a hard time believing that those two companies lack the ability to find investment projects that could return 5-8%. And if THEY can't, the future of the American economy is more bleak than I thought.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2021, 03:32:58 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 04, 2021, 02:41:49 PM
Looking up Apple, their effective interest rate on debt appears to be below 3%: they had $2.8 billion of interest cost on $106 billion of debt. The beta of apple is 1.25, so if you use an estimated market return of 8% for an S&P 500 company, they are probably around 10% on equity. I really doubt they are over 10% for WACC as the debt will drag the weighted average down.
For Microsoft, their beta is 0.81 so I'd expect their WACC to be lower (I didn't look up their effective interest rate but assume it is roughly in line with Apple).
The fact is we don't know what hurdle rate Apple or Microsoft are using in evaluating investment projects. What we do know is that they elected to spend well over $100 billion in a year to buy their own shares. I have a hard time believing that those two companies lack the ability to find investment projects that could return 5-8%. And if THEY can't, the future of the American economy is more bleak than I thought.
I think that's actually a problem for Apple. They have more money than they know what to do with. They like having a fairly narrow focus on a few specific products or categories, and they like having enormous profit margins from those areas. I'm sure they could find plenty of investment projects that would return 5-8% - but that would actually dilute their overall profitability.
I agree BB and that's a problem. Because the talent and resources that Apple has built up as an organization could bring significant economic benefits if deployed more aggressively and bring more gross profits to Apple, even if it might depress their percentage ROI. That's why even though I find Elon Musk pretty deplorable as a human being, I admire the business drive - that's a guy who knows how to put money to work.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2021, 03:32:58 PM
The fact is we don't know what hurdle rate Apple or Microsoft are using in evaluating investment projects. What we do know is that they elected to spend well over $100 billion in a year to buy their own shares. I have a hard time believing that those two companies lack the ability to find investment projects that could return 5-8%. And if THEY can't, the future of the American economy is more bleak than I thought.
We don't, though I suspect the hurdle rate for Apple is higher than 5-8%. However, their financials are publicly available:
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000032019320000096/aapl-20200926.htm
Last year they had about $7.3 billion in capital expenditures, $1.5 billion in acquisitions, and $18.8 billion in R&D expenses.
They had $72.3 billion in stock repurchases (in line with the previous several years), and are sitting on almost $200 billion in cash and marketable securities.
Apple is obviously having enormous success, but I'm not sure they could deploy an extra ~$70 billion every year and do so effectively. If you exclude the cash and marketable securities it is sitting on, the assets of the company are only ~$180 billion. You are talking about radically increasing the size of the company in a very short time, which not only seems likely to lead to ineffectiveness in the new ventures but also distract from the highly profitable current ones.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2021, 03:47:29 PM
I agree BB and that's a problem. Because the talent and resources that Apple has built up as an organization could bring significant economic benefits if deployed more aggressively and bring more gross profits to Apple, even if it might depress their percentage ROI. That's why even though I find Elon Musk pretty deplorable as a human being, I admire the business drive - that's a guy who knows how to put money to work.
I'm sure that there are spreadsheets in Apple headquarters showing that the decision making path being followed by Apple is maximizing total shareholder returns.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2021, 03:30:15 PM
That assumes that the price goes up on a buyback, covered above.
A pretty safe assumption in my experience. Are you aware of any stock buybacks that have not raised the share price?
Your statement that the increase in EPS is a wash with the cash pile is pretty cavalier. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't book value the lowest valuation metric?
Quote from: alfred russel on March 04, 2021, 04:04:44 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2021, 03:32:58 PM
The fact is we don't know what hurdle rate Apple or Microsoft are using in evaluating investment projects. What we do know is that they elected to spend well over $100 billion in a year to buy their own shares. I have a hard time believing that those two companies lack the ability to find investment projects that could return 5-8%. And if THEY can't, the future of the American economy is more bleak than I thought.
We don't, though I suspect the hurdle rate for Apple is higher than 5-8%. However, their financials are publicly available:
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000032019320000096/aapl-20200926.htm
Last year they had about $7.3 billion in capital expenditures, $1.5 billion in acquisitions, and $18.8 billion in R&D expenses.
They had $72.3 billion in stock repurchases (in line with the previous several years), and are sitting on almost $200 billion in cash and marketable securities.
Apple is obviously having enormous success, but I'm not sure they could deploy an extra ~$70 billion every year and do so effectively. If you exclude the cash and marketable securities it is sitting on, the assets of the company are only ~$180 billion. You are talking about radically increasing the size of the company in a very short time, which not only seems likely to lead to ineffectiveness in the new ventures but also distract from the highly profitable current ones.
Those are kind of crazy amounts of money.
News reports Apple wants to enter the car business, but is having trouble finding someone to manufacture their car for them.
They could basically take that stock buyback money for one year and go out and buy GM (total market value $74 billion, though obviously you'd pay more on a takeover). Ford would be even cheaper, but I think the Ford Family still has control over the company.
Quote from: Barrister on March 04, 2021, 05:14:39 PM
Those are kind of crazy amounts of money.
News reports Apple wants to enter the car business, but is having trouble finding someone to manufacture their car for them.
They could basically take that stock buyback money for one year and go out and buy GM (total market value $74 billion, though obviously you'd pay more on a takeover). Ford would be even cheaper, but I think the Ford Family still has control over the company.
Exactly.
But who would be better at running GM, Apple management or GM management? Cynicism aside--the expertise of Apple is software and GM automotive--presumably the answer is GM.
Rather than Apple buying GM, wouldn't it be better to give the shareowners of Apple the $74 billion to invest in GM, or whatever company they want? Or for their kids college, a new house, etc.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 04, 2021, 05:25:43 PM
But who would be better at running GM, Apple management or GM management? Cynicism aside--the expertise of Apple is software and GM automotive--presumably the answer is GM.
I know Apple has basically no experience in manufacturing... but this is GM management we're talking about. I'm not so sure about that answer.
GE?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2021, 11:22:44 AM
There was a recent story about how TSMC of Taiwan is spending $24 billion on a new chip fabrication plant in Taiwan. That is no happening in the US. There are fabrications plants in the US - TSMC built or is building two of them and the other major player is US registered company that is actually owned by Abu Dhabi. I'm not saying that a US company *must* be involved in building such plants in the US but they do have strategic value in an era of heightened conflict with China and there isn't any good reason why US companies shouldn't be involved in this kind of investment. The money though substantial is no real obstacle - Apple alone spent more than three times that amount in share buybacks in 2019.
I agree that strategically it's very important for there to be a big chip fabrication capacity in the US, just like it should've been important for Canada to have a vaccine production capacity. I don't see how stock buybacks have anything to do with this, however. Companies typically don't make investment for the sake of strategic interests of some country out of the goodness of their heart; typically the country has to offer subsidies to companies if it wants to have more manufacturing capacity than what they get organically from the private sector.
Quote from: Jacob on March 04, 2021, 02:25:26 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 04, 2021, 12:59:57 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 04, 2021, 11:03:53 AM
If the owners want short term thinking and even put bonus systems in place to achieve it, then why deny them this pleasure?
If only the world of publicly traded companies worked that way.
Every decision made in the board rooms are shaped by the current regulatory and tax environment. Changing the regulations and tax legislation will shape the decisions to be different, but there's nothing about the current state of affairs that's particularly objective or neutral or anything.
So the answer to the Brain's question is "because it's in society's interest to deny them this pleasure." Just like it - apparently - has been in society's interest previously to encourage them to indulge in that pleasure (that, or because society has messed up the way they've implemented various regulatory schemes).
There are two different issues here. One is the one you have identified which is that the regulation is in the best interests of society in general. I don't disagree with that at all.
However, I was addressing the second issue of whether it is even in the narrow interests of the shareholders. I don't think that it is as a general rule, and so even if one discounts the benefit to society, and fixates entirely on what is best for shareholders, Warren's proposal still makes good sense.
Brain somewhat naively posits a situation in which shareholders somehow run the show. There are a lot of efforts being made by shareholders' rights lobbyists and activists (if we can use that term in this context) who are pushing for greater shareholder rights, but we are a very long way away from the "owners" getting the corporate decision making they want.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 04, 2021, 05:25:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 04, 2021, 05:14:39 PM
Those are kind of crazy amounts of money.
News reports Apple wants to enter the car business, but is having trouble finding someone to manufacture their car for them.
They could basically take that stock buyback money for one year and go out and buy GM (total market value $74 billion, though obviously you'd pay more on a takeover). Ford would be even cheaper, but I think the Ford Family still has control over the company.
Exactly.
But who would be better at running GM, Apple management or GM management? Cynicism aside--the expertise of Apple is software and GM automotive--presumably the answer is GM.
Rather than Apple buying GM, wouldn't it be better to give the shareowners of Apple the $74 billion to invest in GM, or whatever company they want? Or for their kids college, a new house, etc.
Yeah, who would ever think a tech guy could run a car company and become the richest man in the world. Crazy talk!
And Apple has in fact been looking at autonomous driving and made some tentative investments.
If you guys think that Apple's competitive advantage is superior management skill and they are better placed to run companies in unrelated industries, you don't have to convince me. Apple has the money to make it happen: you just need to convince their board and shareholders, who are presumably unconvinced at this stage.
The three principal places where people use electronic devices and interactive services are the home, the office and the car. If I were on the Apple board I would want to know what we are doing on category 3 and why we are behind.
The premise stated earlier - "who would be better at running GM, Apple management or GM management? Cynicism aside--the expertise of Apple is software and GM automotive--presumably the answer is GM" is mistaken because it distinguishes between "software" and "automotive". "Automotive" - to the extent that it connotes the substantial expertise and knowhow relating to the production of mechanically complex internal combustion engines is rapidly becoming obsolete. The modern electric car is basically software on wheels. The key value add components are battery technology, software, and interior design. GM doesn't really have historical expertise in any of those areas except the latter, and even there GM outsources a lot of that work.
Elon Musk correctly saw that the kind of skills and expertise found in Silicon Valley would be critical to the next generation of automobiles and that the traditional car companies would have to struggle to adapt themselves. I would question why Apple didn't see that and why the roads are filling up with "Teslas" instead of "iCars"
Another way to look at it is imagine it is 2005. Apple has become the dominant player in the music industry with the hugely successful iPod and the iTunes store. They also have a profitable niche line of premium computing products.
At this point someone goes to the board and suggests that Apple should enter into a completely new market. One that is presently characterized by razor thin margins and brutal competition from powerful well resourced companies like Nokia and Motorola: mobile phone handsets.
If Apple had followed AR's reasoning, that suggestion would have laughed out of the board room.
This line of discussion strikes me as a silly rabbit hole. Taking the chain of logic from the beginning to end, it seems like we're saying that Elizabeth Warren is right to want to forbid stock buybacks because Apple needs help understanding where they can make profitable investments. We think Apple management is smart enough to be able to do a better job in an industry completely foreign to its core competency, but dumb enough to not realize it.
Quote from: DGuller on March 05, 2021, 11:37:51 AM
This line of discussion strikes me as a silly rabbit hole. Taking the chain of logic from the beginning to end, it seems like we're saying that Elizabeth Warren is right to want to forbid stock buybacks because Apple needs help understanding where they can make profitable investments.
I think it is more that rejection of the Warren position that stock buybacks should be restricted based on the presumption that companies are all super smart and know best what is best for everyone is pretty easily refuted with some examples that in fact companies often do not make optimal decisions, and there is no particular reason to believe that buying back stock is somehow magically a thing where simply because a company does it, we should a priori assume that was the best possible use of that money for all stakeholders involved.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 05, 2021, 11:21:24 AM
The three principal places where people use electronic devices and interactive services are the home, the office and the car. If I were on the Apple board I would want to know what we are doing on category 3 and why we are behind.
The premise stated earlier - "who would be better at running GM, Apple management or GM management? Cynicism aside--the expertise of Apple is software and GM automotive--presumably the answer is GM" is mistaken because it distinguishes between "software" and "automotive". "Automotive" - to the extent that it connotes the substantial expertise and knowhow relating to the production of mechanically complex internal combustion engines is rapidly becoming obsolete. The modern electric car is basically software on wheels. The key value add components are battery technology, software, and interior design. GM doesn't really have historical expertise in any of those areas except the latter, and even there GM outsources a lot of that work.
Elon Musk correctly saw that the kind of skills and expertise found in Silicon Valley would be critical to the next generation of automobiles and that the traditional car companies would have to struggle to adapt themselves. I would question why Apple didn't see that and why the roads are filling up with "Teslas" instead of "iCars"
For what it's worth - and Zanza will know a lot more - the whole connected car market and use of software in vehicles, but also use of data from vehicles is from my understanding very big and very important for the car manufacturers (and insurers) now.
From a quick look at Wiki the US manufacturers seem a little behind the South Korean, Japanese and German ones in getting into this market.
QuoteAnother way to look at it is imagine it is 2005. Apple has become the dominant player in the music industry with the hugely successful iPod and the iTunes store. They also have a profitable niche line of premium computing products.
Yeah - this also goes for other areas like payments where they're not dominant but you would not have expected them at a certain point. And it's a big fear of the banks that a company like Apple or Amazon moves into the profitable areas and the banks get turned into low-margin utilities businesses like water or electricity companies.
Quote from: DGuller on March 05, 2021, 11:37:51 AM
This line of discussion strikes me as a silly rabbit hole. Taking the chain of logic from the beginning to end, it seems like we're saying that Elizabeth Warren is right to want to forbid stock buybacks because Apple needs help understanding where they can make profitable investments. We think Apple management is smart enough to be able to do a better job in an industry completely foreign to its core competency, but dumb enough to not realize it.
So my point isn't that it's about the companies but about the economy. There may be lots of good reasons for individual companies to make this decision - looking at it from a macro/regulatory perspective do those decisions help or harm the economy in general and then we should try to create incentives for decisions that do and restrict decisions that don't or at least make them unattractive.
This is why my question to AR wasn't what are the benefits to a company for doing buybacks, but what are the benefits to the economy for buybacks because I think that's the frame that government should look at things.
Edit: Just as a tiny example - AR could be right that the companies using bonds to fund buybacks are actually just making a smart decision given the cost of debt right now. That may be true on an individual level but does it create credit risk looked at from a wider perspective - are there companies issuing speculative to fund this, is there concentration in specific markets, how much are companies already leveraged etc.
Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2021, 11:40:22 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 05, 2021, 11:37:51 AM
This line of discussion strikes me as a silly rabbit hole. Taking the chain of logic from the beginning to end, it seems like we're saying that Elizabeth Warren is right to want to forbid stock buybacks because Apple needs help understanding where they can make profitable investments.
I think it is more that rejection of the Warren position that stock buybacks should be restricted based on the presumption that companies are all super smart and know best what is best for everyone is pretty easily refuted with some examples that in fact companies often do not make optimal decisions, and there is no particular reason to believe that buying back stock is somehow magically a thing where simply because a company does it, we should a priori assume that was the best possible use of that money for all stakeholders involved.
I don't know if anyone is saying that companies are super smart about their stock buybacks, but you don't need to say that in any case to defend their right to buy back stock. When you say that companies shouldn't be able to buy back stock, you're basically saying that some entity other than those companies in general know the best how the corporate money should be invested.
All of us who worked in corporations know that the decisions made are often suboptimal, it's just that there is no evidence that Elizabeth Warren or Minsky making investment decisions for corporations is an approach that would reduce the number of such suboptimal decisions. When you have systems with people making decisions, every system is the worst, but some are more worst than others.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2021, 11:46:47 AM
This is why my question to AR wasn't what are the benefits to a company for doing buybacks, but what are the benefits to the economy for buybacks because I think that's the frame that government should look at things.
The benefit to the economy is that companies aren't forced to make investments that are suboptimal because they have no other means of getting rid of the excess cash. Every suboptimal investment decision is ultimately a waste on the economy level, sooner or later that percolates down to lower productivity, and productivity is ultimately what determines the standard of living. The capital that dilettantes use to dabble in areas they know little about is the capital that can't be used by more competent actors, or by Elon Musks of this world.
Quote from: DGuller on March 05, 2021, 11:52:53 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2021, 11:40:22 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 05, 2021, 11:37:51 AM
This line of discussion strikes me as a silly rabbit hole. Taking the chain of logic from the beginning to end, it seems like we're saying that Elizabeth Warren is right to want to forbid stock buybacks because Apple needs help understanding where they can make profitable investments.
I think it is more that rejection of the Warren position that stock buybacks should be restricted based on the presumption that companies are all super smart and know best what is best for everyone is pretty easily refuted with some examples that in fact companies often do not make optimal decisions, and there is no particular reason to believe that buying back stock is somehow magically a thing where simply because a company does it, we should a priori assume that was the best possible use of that money for all stakeholders involved.
I don't know if anyone is saying that companies are super smart about their stock buybacks, but you don't need to say that in any case to defend their right to buy back stock. When you say that companies shouldn't be able to buy back stock, you're basically saying that some entity other than those companies in general know the best how the corporate money should be invested.
All of us who worked in corporations know that the decisions made are often suboptimal, it's just that there is no evidence that Elizabeth Warren or Minsky making investment decisions for corporations is an approach that would reduce the number of such suboptimal decisions. When you have systems with people making decisions, every system is the worst, but some are more worst than others.
No, there is nothing about this policy about what a company ought to invest in. This is about restricting one of those options - the ability of the executive of a company to act against the interests of shareholders and general societal interests. That is the point of regulation. The company can make what ever other investments it wants.
Quote from: DGuller on March 05, 2021, 11:58:27 AM
The benefit to the economy is that companies aren't forced to make investments that are suboptimal because they have no other means of getting rid of the excess cash. Every suboptimal investment decision is ultimately a waste on the economy level, sooner or later that percolates down to lower productivity, and productivity is ultimately what determines the standard of living. The capital that dilettantes use to dabble in areas they know little about is the capital that can't be used by more competent actors, or by Elon Musks of this world.
But surely that applies to any way of returning capital to shareholders? So in what ways is this better for the market (including all shareholders) than other methods of doing that such as dividends?
My understanding is that stock buybacks were illegal until the 1980s and have been controversial ever since. I usually hear that some company fired tons of people or got some big bailout and then used the money it saved to buy back stock.
So I guess my question is why was it originally illegal and why was the decision made it should be legal? What benefit does society actually get from it?
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2021, 12:52:32 PM
My understanding is that stock buybacks were illegal until the 1980s and have been controversial ever since. I usually hear that some company fired tons of people or got some big bailout and then used the money it saved to buy back stock.
In the UK they're allowed but there's a lot of process and transparency around them. Also in the sort of guidance by investment trade bodies - so associations of asset managers, pension fund managers etc - they are generally viewed negatively and dividends are preferred.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2021, 12:42:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 05, 2021, 11:58:27 AM
The benefit to the economy is that companies aren't forced to make investments that are suboptimal because they have no other means of getting rid of the excess cash. Every suboptimal investment decision is ultimately a waste on the economy level, sooner or later that percolates down to lower productivity, and productivity is ultimately what determines the standard of living. The capital that dilettantes use to dabble in areas they know little about is the capital that can't be used by more competent actors, or by Elon Musks of this world.
But surely that applies to any way of returning capital to shareholders? So in what ways is this better for the market (including all shareholders) than other methods of doing that such as dividends?
It's desirable for dividends to be stable and predictable. You don't want to ramp them way up one year and ramp them way down the next year. However, your excess cash may not come and go on such a precise schedule.
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2021, 12:52:32 PM
My understanding is that stock buybacks were illegal until the 1980s and have been controversial ever since. I usually hear that some company fired tons of people or got some big bailout and then used the money it saved to buy back stock.
So I guess my question is why was it originally illegal and why was the decision made it should be legal? What benefit does society actually get from it?
The law used to do a better job protecting shareholders. Then de-regulation hit, riding high on the market knows best - the best government involvement is no government involvement mantra. Some of that regulation was built back after Enron, but has since largely been gutted again.
The greatest ill is the fantasy that there is a perfect market in which all decisions ought to be made.
Yes I am aware of all that. I was just curious about the legalization of stock buy backs and why they were illegal in the first place specifically.
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2021, 01:20:42 PM
Yes I am aware of all that. I was just curious about the legalization of stock buy backs and why they were illegal in the first place specifically.
I imagine that a lot of financial regulations that existed at one time were well-intentioned but ill-advised. Just because the regulatory regime was more robust 50 years ago, and arguably better served the interests of society overall, doesn't mean that every regulation from that time was benefitting society. The development of taxpayer-insured casino economy in the financial industry definitely hasn't been a good thing for society, but I fail to see how stock buybacks are in any way the culprit.
Quote from: DGuller on March 05, 2021, 01:24:30 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2021, 01:20:42 PM
Yes I am aware of all that. I was just curious about the legalization of stock buy backs and why they were illegal in the first place specifically.
I imagine that a lot of financial regulations that existed at one time were well-intentioned but ill-advised. Just because the regulatory regime was more robust 50 years ago, and arguably better served the interests of society overall, doesn't mean that every regulation from that time was benefitting society. The development of taxpayer-insured casino economy in the financial industry definitely hasn't been a good thing for society, but I fail to see how stock buybacks are in any way the culprit.
Yeah I wasn't saying we should outlaw buy backs I was just curious what the rationale was for outlawing them and why it is a good thing they are currently legal, or at least not a bad thing.
Quote from: DGuller on March 05, 2021, 01:03:52 PM
It's desirable for dividends to be stable and predictable. You don't want to ramp them way up one year and ramp them way down the next year. However, your excess cash may not come and go on such a precise schedule.
the concept of a special (extraordinary) dividend has been around for a long time.
Quote from: DGuller on March 05, 2021, 11:52:53 AM
All of us who worked in corporations know that the decisions made are often suboptimal, it's just that there is no evidence that Elizabeth Warren or Minsky making investment decisions for corporations is an approach that would reduce the number of such suboptimal decisions. When you have systems with people making decisions, every system is the worst, but some are more worst than others.
That's a strawman argument, no one is taking that position.
Every economic system consists of a set of rules, norms and practices: the question is at any given time is whether those rules, norms and practices are working they way they should to give economic actors the proper incentives.
The US has struggled to maintain full employment since recovering from the 08 financial crisis. It has succeeded in keeping unemployment rates down but the employment rate never returned to pre crisis levels - and even that was achieved by running continuously large government deficits. This all points to a chronic post-crisis weakness in private investment and raises the policy question of whether economic policy should be oriented towards encouraging more productive investment and less financial card shuffling. The alternative is a future where the government has to assume a increasing role as investor of last resort while the private sector retreats into expertly managed and profit generating stagnation.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 05, 2021, 02:13:02 PM
The US has struggled to maintain full employment since recovering from the 08 financial crisis. It has succeeded in keeping unemployment rates down but the employment rate never returned to pre crisis levels - and even that was achieved by running continuously large government deficits. This all points to a chronic post-crisis weakness in private investment and raises the policy question of whether economic policy should be oriented towards encouraging more productive investment and less financial card shuffling. The alternative is a future where the government has to assume a increasing role as investor of last resort while the private sector retreats into expertly managed and profit generating stagnation.
Also the employment rate is significantly below the UK, Germany and Japan which was not historically the case. In part this may be partly because the US had more unemployment and less job protection policies in 2008, which raises a risk that the same happens after covid.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 05, 2021, 02:13:02 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 05, 2021, 11:52:53 AM
All of us who worked in corporations know that the decisions made are often suboptimal, it's just that there is no evidence that Elizabeth Warren or Minsky making investment decisions for corporations is an approach that would reduce the number of such suboptimal decisions. When you have systems with people making decisions, every system is the worst, but some are more worst than others.
That's a strawman argument, no one is taking that position.
Every economic system consists of a set of rules, norms and practices: the question is at any given time is whether those rules, norms and practices are working they way they should to give economic actors the proper incentives.
The US has struggled to maintain full employment since recovering from the 08 financial crisis. It has succeeded in keeping unemployment rates down but the employment rate never returned to pre crisis levels - and even that was achieved by running continuously large government deficits. This all points to a chronic post-crisis weakness in private investment and raises the policy question of whether economic policy should be oriented towards encouraging more productive investment and less financial card shuffling. The alternative is a future where the government has to assume a increasing role as investor of last resort while the private sector retreats into expertly managed and profit generating stagnation.
Maybe I didn't interpret your posts properly, but didn't you pretty much come out and say here that Apple would manage GM better than GM would, and that Apple senior management is making a mistake by not taking over increasingly diverse swathes of the economy to put their management magic to use?
I'm not arguing against the notion that there is a lot of dead wood thinking in the industries such as car making, but at the same time there is also a lot of know-how. When you're making machines with thousands of moving parts (there is a lot more to cars than IC engine), the boring know-how from engineers that interests no one other than said engineers adds up to a pretty penny.
I myself work in an insurance industry, which is second only to automakers in blind stupid stubbornness in doing things the way they've always been done, and yet all the fresh "disruptors" so far are more of a joke than a threat. Does it mean that insurance industry can't be disrupted by outsiders? Not at all, in fact I believe that one day it will happen (hopefully with my help), and the old farts in the industry will absolutely deserve their fate, but it's not going to be easy. The reason old-fartism can persist in the market is precisely because that old-fartism is coupled with a lot of specific domain know-how, and sometimes it takes the genius of someone like Elon Musk to overcome it.
Speaking of the universally-applicable management magic of Apple senior management, I just remembered this example of how the Apple uber-manager fixed up a company in the dying industry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Johnson_(businessman).
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2021, 01:20:42 PM
Yes I am aware of all that. I was just curious about the legalization of stock buy backs and why they were illegal in the first place specifically.
I thought I answered that, they were illegal because they are generally not in the best interests of shareholders or the general public. They were and are properly viewed as a form of stock manipulation.
So apparently during the Senate debate of the Covid relief bill some Republican senator from Wisconsin demanded that the entire 600 page bill be read out aloud in the chamber, just to delay the process and be an asshole about it. When the Senate clerks started to read it, which will take them around 10 hours, he just left the floor without paying any attention. Lovely human being all around.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2021, 02:46:43 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2021, 01:20:42 PM
Yes I am aware of all that. I was just curious about the legalization of stock buy backs and why they were illegal in the first place specifically.
I thought I answered that, they were illegal because they are generally not in the best interests of shareholders or the general public. They were and are properly viewed as a form of stock manipulation.
Ok gotcha.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2021, 11:46:47 AM
So my point isn't that it's about the companies but about the economy. There may be lots of good reasons for individual companies to make this decision - looking at it from a macro/regulatory perspective do those decisions help or harm the economy in general and then we should try to create incentives for decisions that do and restrict decisions that don't or at least make them unattractive.
This is why my question to AR wasn't what are the benefits to a company for doing buybacks, but what are the benefits to the economy for buybacks because I think that's the frame that government should look at things.
Edit: Just as a tiny example - AR could be right that the companies using bonds to fund buybacks are actually just making a smart decision given the cost of debt right now. That may be true on an individual level but does it create credit risk looked at from a wider perspective - are there companies issuing speculative to fund this, is there concentration in specific markets, how much are companies already leveraged etc.
It is beneficial to the economy because idle cash is returned to the shareholders who can then seek more profitable ways to use these funds.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 05, 2021, 04:03:08 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2021, 11:46:47 AM
So my point isn't that it's about the companies but about the economy. There may be lots of good reasons for individual companies to make this decision - looking at it from a macro/regulatory perspective do those decisions help or harm the economy in general and then we should try to create incentives for decisions that do and restrict decisions that don't or at least make them unattractive.
This is why my question to AR wasn't what are the benefits to a company for doing buybacks, but what are the benefits to the economy for buybacks because I think that's the frame that government should look at things.
Edit: Just as a tiny example - AR could be right that the companies using bonds to fund buybacks are actually just making a smart decision given the cost of debt right now. That may be true on an individual level but does it create credit risk looked at from a wider perspective - are there companies issuing speculative to fund this, is there concentration in specific markets, how much are companies already leveraged etc.
It is beneficial to the economy because idle cash is returned to the shareholders who can then seek more profitable ways to use these funds.
There is the untenable assumption that cash is "idle" and must be used immediately for short term purposes raising its ugly head again.
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2021, 12:52:32 PM
My understanding is that stock buybacks were illegal until the 1980s and have been controversial ever since. I usually hear that some company fired tons of people or got some big bailout and then used the money it saved to buy back stock.
So I guess my question is why was it originally illegal and why was the decision made it should be legal? What benefit does society actually get from it?
There used to be lots of strange regulations: fixed brokerage commissions, share prices quoted in sixths of a dollar ( :wacko:).
Won't money circulating rather than sitting idle increase inflation?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 05, 2021, 06:26:35 PM
Won't money circulating rather than sitting idle increase inflation?
I think the economy can handle a bit of inflation at the moment.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 05, 2021, 06:26:35 PM
Won't money circulating rather than sitting idle increase inflation?
In 2020 Microsoft was, on Yi's view of the world, sitting on over 100 billion in idle cash - did that cause inflation?
Other way around. If that money was getting spent instead of sitting idle, it would increase inflation, much like printing money does.
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2021, 01:20:42 PM
Yes I am aware of all that. I was just curious about the legalization of stock buy backs and why they were illegal in the first place specifically.
They were never illegal, they just left mangers in the position whereby they could be accused of manipulating the value of their stocks. So they were rare between 1934 (when price manipulation was made illegal in the wake of the 1929 crash) and 1982 when the rules were changed to allow low levels of stock buybacks without creating liability for charges of manipulation.
It isn't as simple as the black-and-white thinkers want you to believe. I personally believe that the pre-1982 rules were better, but there are economists who would disagree with me, and have some reason on their side.
Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2021, 07:24:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2021, 01:20:42 PM
Yes I am aware of all that. I was just curious about the legalization of stock buy backs and why they were illegal in the first place specifically.
They were never illegal, they just left mangers in the position whereby they could be accused of manipulating the value of their stocks. So they were rare between 1934 (when price manipulation was made illegal in the wake of the 1929 crash) and 1982 when the rules were changed to allow low levels of stock buybacks without creating liability for charges of manipulation.
It isn't as simple as the black-and-white thinkers want you to believe. I personally believe that the pre-1982 rules were better, but there are economists who would disagree with me, and have some reason on their side.
Very interesting, a regulatory offence is not illegal conduct. What is it, just sort of outside the law? A minor deviation that is not quite legal and also not illegal? Some other rabbit hole?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 05, 2021, 06:51:16 PM
Other way around. If that money was getting spent instead of sitting idle, it would increase inflation, much like printing money does.
We've just been printing money for a decade with not much sign of inflation.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 05, 2021, 06:51:16 PM
Other way around. If that money was getting spent instead of sitting idle, it would increase inflation, much like printing money does.
I see, I apologize. I misread your post.
Even if all corps who are cash rich injected all that cash into the economy, it would pale in comparison to all the money being pumped into the economy by governments through various methods - quantitative easy and just plain old printing of money.
The concern has been to create some inflation, not avoid it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2021, 07:37:31 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 05, 2021, 06:51:16 PM
Other way around. If that money was getting spent instead of sitting idle, it would increase inflation, much like printing money does.
We've just been printing money for a decade with not much sign of inflation.
I suspect part of the reason is in how we define the inflation. If all the money we print is for now used to inflate the stock of Tesla or Gamestop, then it doesn't show up as inflation, since Tesla stocks are not part of the consumer basket of goods. Of course, it's a ticking time bomb; if we ever distributed that printed money away from those who are so bored with their wealth that they trade in stocks, to those who are so poor they spend all their income on consumption, then we may well go "oh, turns out it's not different this time, yikes".
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2021, 07:37:03 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2021, 07:24:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2021, 01:20:42 PM
Yes I am aware of all that. I was just curious about the legalization of stock buy backs and why they were illegal in the first place specifically.
They were never illegal, they just left mangers in the position whereby they could be accused of manipulating the value of their stocks. So they were rare between 1934 (when price manipulation was made illegal in the wake of the 1929 crash) and 1982 when the rules were changed to allow low levels of stock buybacks without creating liability for charges of manipulation.
It isn't as simple as the black-and-white thinkers want you to believe. I personally believe that the pre-1982 rules were better, but there are economists who would disagree with me, and have some reason on their side.
Very interesting, a regulatory offence is not illegal conduct. What is it, just sort of outside the law? A minor deviation that is not quite legal and also not illegal? Some other rabbit hole?
Very interesting. Someone who claims to be a lawyer is ignorant of the difference between a regulatory offense and an activity that makes the actor subject to increased regulatory scrutiny, without the act being itself forbidden. Too hungover to attend class that day?
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2021, 07:37:31 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 05, 2021, 06:51:16 PM
Other way around. If that money was getting spent instead of sitting idle, it would increase inflation, much like printing money does.
We've just been printing money for a decade with not much sign of inflation.
Yes. One can increase inflationary pressures without causing inflation, because all else is not equal.
Quote from: DGuller on March 05, 2021, 07:53:52 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2021, 07:37:31 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 05, 2021, 06:51:16 PM
Other way around. If that money was getting spent instead of sitting idle, it would increase inflation, much like printing money does.
We've just been printing money for a decade with not much sign of inflation.
I suspect part of the reason is in how we define the inflation. If all the money we print is for now used to inflate the stock of Tesla or Gamestop, then it doesn't show up as inflation, since Tesla stocks are not part of the consumer basket of goods. Of course, it's a ticking time bomb; if we ever distributed that printed money away from those who are so bored with their wealth that they trade in stocks, to those who are so poor they spend all their income on consumption, then we may well go "oh, turns out it's not different this time, yikes".
Agreed. To me that shows that the way we print money is basically broken. It needs to go directly to consumers, not financial isntitutions.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 05, 2021, 11:30:24 AM
Another way to look at it is imagine it is 2005. Apple has become the dominant player in the music industry with the hugely successful iPod and the iTunes store. They also have a profitable niche line of premium computing products.
At this point someone goes to the board and suggests that Apple should enter into a completely new market. One that is presently characterized by razor thin margins and brutal competition from powerful well resourced companies like Nokia and Motorola: mobile phone handsets.
If Apple had followed AR's reasoning, that suggestion would have laughed out of the board room.
That isn't a fair representation of my reasoning.
Entering a new and evolving market is one thing. Establishing joint ventures to gain expertise in legacy industries that you want to move in another direction also makes sense.
Straight up buying a $75 billion company that has a ton of political interest and is one of the most high profile companies in the world, has operations across the globe, and many times your number of employees is something completely different.
Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2021, 08:00:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2021, 07:37:03 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2021, 07:24:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2021, 01:20:42 PM
Yes I am aware of all that. I was just curious about the legalization of stock buy backs and why they were illegal in the first place specifically.
They were never illegal, they just left mangers in the position whereby they could be accused of manipulating the value of their stocks. So they were rare between 1934 (when price manipulation was made illegal in the wake of the 1929 crash) and 1982 when the rules were changed to allow low levels of stock buybacks without creating liability for charges of manipulation.
It isn't as simple as the black-and-white thinkers want you to believe. I personally believe that the pre-1982 rules were better, but there are economists who would disagree with me, and have some reason on their side.
Very interesting, a regulatory offence is not illegal conduct. What is it, just sort of outside the law? A minor deviation that is not quite legal and also not illegal? Some other rabbit hole?
Very interesting. Someone who claims to be a lawyer is ignorant of the difference between a regulatory offense and an activity that makes the actor subject to increased regulatory scrutiny, without the act being itself forbidden. Too hungover to attend class that day?
Don't choose law as a new career Grumbles, the activity that will amount to a regulatory offence is the activity that is illegal.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2021, 09:23:41 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2021, 08:00:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2021, 07:37:03 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2021, 07:24:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2021, 01:20:42 PM
Yes I am aware of all that. I was just curious about the legalization of stock buy backs and why they were illegal in the first place specifically.
They were never illegal, they just left mangers in the position whereby they could be accused of manipulating the value of their stocks. So they were rare between 1934 (when price manipulation was made illegal in the wake of the 1929 crash) and 1982 when the rules were changed to allow low levels of stock buybacks without creating liability for charges of manipulation.
It isn't as simple as the black-and-white thinkers want you to believe. I personally believe that the pre-1982 rules were better, but there are economists who would disagree with me, and have some reason on their side.
Very interesting, a regulatory offence is not illegal conduct. What is it, just sort of outside the law? A minor deviation that is not quite legal and also not illegal? Some other rabbit hole?
Very interesting. Someone who claims to be a lawyer is ignorant of the difference between a regulatory offense and an activity that makes the actor subject to increased regulatory scrutiny, without the act being itself forbidden. Too hungover to attend class that day?
Don't choose law as a new career Grumbles, the activity that will amount to a regulatory offence is the activity that is illegal.
Do you actually get people to pay you to mouth truisms like this? I can do that easily, so maybe law
should be my next career! :lol:
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 05, 2021, 06:26:35 PM
Won't money circulating rather than sitting idle increase inflation?
Nah, I tried that. On several occasions I left my wallet in my pants and threw them in the washing machine. The cash circulated like mad, but when I took it out there wasn't more of it. It just got soggy.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2021, 09:33:26 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 05, 2021, 06:26:35 PM
Won't money circulating rather than sitting idle increase inflation?
Nah, I tried that. On several occasions I left my wallet in my pants and threw them in the washing machine. The cash circulated like mad, but when I took it out there wasn't more of it. It just got soggy.
It takes some technical skills to properly launder money.
Quote from: grumbler on March 06, 2021, 12:40:40 PM
Do you actually get people to pay you to mouth truisms like this? I can do that easily, so maybe law should be my next career! :lol:
Sure. What is stopping you.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EwJ7qe9XEAI5pQZ?format=jpg&name=small)
THANK YOU PRESIDENT TRUMP! :wub:
Someone checked and the text actually fits in a tweet. :bleeding:
I don't follow the logic — he isn't President but we are getting the shots.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 11, 2021, 10:58:33 AM
I don't follow the logic — he isn't President but we are getting the shots.
I take it that you didn't notice who sent this, what with your reference to "logic" and such.
Who is this Trump person again?
Quote from: Syt on March 11, 2021, 10:57:02 AM
Someone checked and the text actually fits in a tweet. :bleeding:
God that almost makes it sad.
There's something very Gloria Swanson about that statement. Fully expect they'll find a body in the pool at Mar-a-Lago at some point soon.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 11, 2021, 11:17:40 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 11, 2021, 10:57:02 AM
Someone checked and the text actually fits in a tweet. :bleeding:
God that almost makes it sad.
There's something very Gloria Swanson about that statement. Fully expect they'll find a body in the pool at Mar-a-Lago at some point soon.
(https://i.imgur.com/MDsx0S6.jpg)
Quote from: Zoupa on March 11, 2021, 04:09:11 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 11, 2021, 11:17:40 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 11, 2021, 10:57:02 AM
Someone checked and the text actually fits in a tweet. :bleeding:
God that almost makes it sad.
There's something very Gloria Swanson about that statement. Fully expect they'll find a body in the pool at Mar-a-Lago at some point soon.
(https://i.imgur.com/MDsx0S6.jpg)
[spoiler]He won't be the one that dies and he's pretty much already insane.[/spoiler]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/03/10/what-is-in-the-stimulus/
Stimulus passes.
$1,400 free money yes, $300 unemployment through September 6, no minwage increase
That $1,400 is such a bizarre remnant of Trump's presidency.
Better late than never I say.
Kind of embarrassing for Biden to be dunked on on one of his key campaign promises, the minimum wage increase. But if we get everybody vaccinated and the economy opened again quickly maybe everybody will be thinking good things about Democrats come 2022. We'll see.
Zoupa hasn't seen the movie.
But someone should tell Kanye to keep his distance
I liked Biden's speech last night. It's nice being able to listen to a presidential speech again. :)
Quote from: Caliga on March 12, 2021, 08:56:25 AM
I liked Biden's speech last night. It's nice being able to listen to a presidential speech again. :)
I keep expecting the bizarre ranting to start, and I keep being pleasantly surprised when it doesn't! 😄
Centrist dads - unite! Biden is proposing the literal dream apparently:
QuoteSenator Ted Cruz
@SenTedCruz
Three words to describe the first weeks of the Biden administration: boring but radical.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EwXwWzHWgAE5iHe?format=jpg&name=small)
More seriously this is just the latest iteration of the GOP struggling to find an attack line v Biden.
Boring but radical doesn't sound so bad to me.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 13, 2021, 12:10:37 PM
More seriously this is just the latest iteration of the GOP struggling to find an attack line v Biden.
Clever but stupid.
The most common attack line is clearly dementia and he is just a puppet.
I don't have a television and just consume internet nonsense, so I rarely do anything more than read about Biden. When I do see him, in debates or making speeches, it is shocking that he succeeds in putting sentences together. The attack line is undermined by having to eventually meet reality.
It's true of all the Republican attack lines - they just don't match what is either reality or the public perception of Biden which will be really difficult to move given that it's been shaped by decades of him being in the public eye. I think they probably need to work out some others.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 13, 2021, 03:01:56 PM
The most common attack line is clearly dementia and he is just a puppet.
I don't have a television and just consume internet nonsense, so I rarely do anything more than read about Biden. When I do see him, in debates or making speeches, it is shocking that he succeeds in putting sentences together. The attack line is undermined by having to eventually meet reality.
Do you read newspapers, or have any link to reality?
Languish is my link to reality.
Don't fail me guys.
Reality and I had a falling out a few years back, so I blocked her on my cell phone.
Just as well, being as she was convicted of espionage. :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 13, 2021, 12:10:37 PM
Centrist dads - unite! Biden is proposing the literal dream apparently:
QuoteSenator Ted Cruz
@SenTedCruz
Three words to describe the first weeks of the Biden administration: boring but radical.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EwXwWzHWgAE5iHe?format=jpg&name=small)
More seriously this is just the latest iteration of the GOP struggling to find an attack line v Biden.
He's a smarmy and obviously carefully constructed "personality" that I loathe, but Ben Shapiro was pretty accurate on Biden like a year ago on the Joe Rogan show when he was addressing the risks to Trump in a campaign against Biden. Specifically that it's very difficult to make anyone afraid of Joe Biden. Most of the deranged conservatives I still have minimal association with in my personal life repeat a lot of silly conspiracy theories about Biden, but it's almost just performative, there's very little real vitriol there. They certainly hate Democrats as a concept, and hate that Trump lost, but their Biden antipathy is just never going to be what it was for people like Hillary and nothing is ever going to change that.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-15/biden-eyes-first-major-tax-hike-since-1993-in-next-economic-plan
QuoteBiden Eyes First Major Tax Hike Since 1993 in Next Economic Plan
By Nancy Cook and Laura Davison
March 15, 2021, 7:00 AM GMT+1 Updated on March 15, 2021, 5:22 PM GMT+1
President Joe Biden is planning the first major federal tax hike since 1993 to help pay for the long-term economic program designed as a follow-up to his pandemic-relief bill, according to people familiar with the matter.
Unlike the $1.9 trillion Covid-19 stimulus act, the next initiative, which is expected to be even bigger, won't rely just on government debt as a funding source. While it's been increasingly clear that tax hikes will be a component -- Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has said at least part of the next bill will have to be paid for, and pointed to higher rates -- key advisers are now making preparations for a package of measures that could include an increase in both the corporate tax rate and the individual rate for high earners.
With each tax break and credit having its own lobbying constituency to back it, tinkering with rates is fraught with political risk. That helps explain why the tax hikes in Bill Clinton's signature 1993 overhaul stand out from the modest modifications done since.
For the Biden administration, the planned changes are an opportunity not just to fund key initiatives like infrastructure, climate and expanded help for poorer Americans, but also to address what Democrats argue are inequities in the tax system itself. The plan will test both Biden's capacity to woo Republicans and Democrats' ability to remain unified.
(https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ispYexhqnGro/v2/pidjEfPlU1QWZop3vfGKsrX.ke8XuWirGYh1PKgEw44kE/620x-1.png)
"His whole outlook has always been that Americans believe tax policy needs to be fair, and he has viewed all of his policy options through that lens," said Sarah Bianchi, head of U.S. public policy at Evercore ISI and a former economic aide to Biden. "That is why the focus is on addressing the unequal treatment between work and wealth."
While the White House has rejected an outright wealth tax, as proposed by progressive Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, the administration's current thinking does target the wealthy.
The White House is expected to propose a suite of tax increases, mostly mirroring Biden's 2020 campaign proposals, according to four people familiar with the discussions.
The tax hikes included in any broader infrastructure and jobs package are likely to include repealing portions of President Donald Trump's 2017 tax law that benefit corporations and wealthy individuals, as well as making other changes to make the tax code more progressive, said the people familiar with the plan.
The following are among proposals currently planned or under consideration, according to the people, who asked not to be named as the discussions are private:
- Raising the corporate tax rate to 28% from 21%
- Paring back tax preferences for so-called pass-through businesses, such as limited-liability companies or partnerships
- Raising the income tax rate on individuals earning more than $400,000
- Expanding the estate tax's reach
- A higher capital-gains tax rate for individuals earning at least $1 million annually. (Biden on the campaign trail proposed applying income-tax rates, which would be higher)
White House economist Heather Boushey underlined that Biden doesn't intend to boost taxes on people earning less than $400,000 a year. But for "folks at the top who've been able to benefit from this economy and haven't been this hard hit, there's a lot of room there to think about what kinds of revenue we can raise," she said in a Bloomberg TV interview Monday.
An independent analysis of the Biden campaign tax plan done by the Tax Policy Center estimated it would raise $2.1 trillion over a decade, though the administration's plan is likely to be smaller. Bianchi earlier this month wrote that congressional Democrats might agree to $500 billion.
The overall program has yet to be unveiled, with analysts penciling in $2 trillion to $4 trillion. No date has yet been set for an announcement, though the White House said the plan would follow the signing of the Covid-19 relief bill.
An outstanding question for Democrats is which parts of the package need to be funded, amid debate over whether infrastructure ultimately pays for itself -- especially given current borrowing costs, which remain historically low. Efforts to make the expanded child tax credit in the pandemic-aid bill permanent -- something with a price tag estimated at more than $1 trillion over a decade -- could be harder to sell if pitched as entirely debt-financed.
Democrats would need at least 10 Republicans to back the bill to move it under regular Senate rules. But GOP members are signaling they are prepared to fight.
"We'll have a big robust discussion about the appropriateness of a big tax increase," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said last month, predicting Democrats would pursue a reconciliation bill that forgoes the GOP and would aim for a corporate tax even higher than 28%.
Kevin Brady, the top Republican on the House Ways & Means Committee, said, "There seems to a be a real drive to tax investment of capital gains at marginal income rates," and called that a "terrible economic mistake."
While about 18% of the George W. Bush administration's tax cuts were allowed to expire in a 2013 deal, and other legislation has seen some increases in levies, 1993 marks the last comprehensive set of increases, experts say. That bill passed on a two-vote margin in the House and required the vice president to break a tie in the Senate.
"I don't think it is an understatement to say the current partisan environment is more severe than 1993" said Ken Kies, managing director of the Federal Policy Group, a former chief of staff of the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. "So you can draw your own conclusions" about prospects for a deal this year, he said.
Still, there could be some tax initiatives Republicans could get behind. One is a shift from a gasoline tax to a vehicle-miles-traveled fee to help fund highway projects.
Another is more money for Internal Revenue Service enforcement -- a way to boost revenue without raising rates. Estimates have found that for every additional $1 spent on IRS audits, the agency brings in an additional $3 to $5.
Democrats are also looking to revise tax laws that they say don't do enough to stop U.S. companies from shifting jobs and profits offshore as another way to raise revenue, one aide said. Republicans could potentially support incentives, though it's unclear whether they'd back penalties.
White House officials including deputy director of the National Economic Council, David Kamin -- who wrote a 2019 paper on "Taxing the Rich" -- are in the process of fleshing out the Biden tax plans.
As for timing, if passed, tax measures would likely take effect in 2022 -- though some lawmakers and Biden supporters outside the administration have argued for holding off while unemployment remains high due to the pandemic.
Lawmakers have their own ideas for tax reforms. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden wants to consolidate energy tax breaks and require investors to pay taxes regularly on their investments including stocks and bonds that have unrealized gains.
"A nurse pays taxes with every single paycheck. A billionaire in an affluent suburb on the other hand can defer paying taxes month after month to the point where their paying taxes is pretty much optional," Wyden told Bloomberg in an interview. "I don't think that's right."
Warren has pitched a wealth tax, while House Financial Services Committee Chair Maxine Waters has said she would like to consider a financial-transaction tax.
Democratic strategists see the next package as effectively the last chance to reshape the U.S. economy on a grand scale before lawmakers turn to the 2022 mid-term campaign.
"Normally, the party in power gets one or two shots to do major legislative packages," said Chuck Marr, senior director of Federal Tax Policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "This is the next shot."
Quote from: Iormlund on March 14, 2021, 02:32:30 PM
Languish is my link to reality.
Don't fail me guys.
You'ree doomed!:D
wooing Republicans with a tax hike, really? :blink: If we'd listen to them, the entire government should run without funding.
I guess Kamala will have to visit the Senate! :P
Don't worry, China will pay the tax.
At this time in the Trump presidency we were on page 162. We've gone 3 full days without a post in the Biden thread.
Isn't it great!
Quote from: frunk on March 18, 2021, 05:29:31 PM
At this time in the Trump presidency we were on page 162. We've gone 3 full days without a post in the Biden thread.
Languish is dying :(
Quote from: frunk on March 18, 2021, 05:29:31 PM
At this time in the Trump presidency we were on page 162. We've gone 3 full days without a post in the Biden thread.
Nature is healing
Quote from: frunk on March 18, 2021, 05:29:31 PM
At this time in the Trump presidency we were on page 162. We've gone 3 full days without a post in the Biden thread.
That's what we voted for!
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 18, 2021, 08:18:03 PM
Quote from: frunk on March 18, 2021, 05:29:31 PM
At this time in the Trump presidency we were on page 162. We've gone 3 full days without a post in the Biden thread.
That's what we voted for!
Only because the GOP couldn't disenfranchise you effectively!
Quote from: frunk on March 18, 2021, 05:29:31 PM
At this time in the Trump presidency we were on page 162. We've gone 3 full days without a post in the Biden thread.
And there were pages and pages of discussion about stock buybacks here with very little connection to Biden. :D
Quote from: frunk on March 18, 2021, 05:29:31 PM
At this time in the Trump presidency we were on page 162. We've gone 3 full days without a post in the Biden thread.
"May you live in interesting times" is curse ... 😄
Biden is giving us 1.5 million vaccines.
We'll vote for him forever.
Listening to Biden's press conference - it very nice to have a thoughtful person in that office again.
FOX "News" complaining that Biden has traveled to Delaware six weekends since he became president:
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1376183718218506241?s=20
I do worry he may become distracted by the crazy nightlife of Wilmington.
I'm not sure where this is supposed to go, but has anyone brought up the Matt Gaetz "controversies" yet?
https://news.yahoo.com/matt-gaetz-sex-trafficking-investigation-185303973.html
Sometimes I guess people turn out to be exactly what they seem. :lol:
Florida Man gonna Florida Man.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 01, 2021, 09:39:01 PM
I'm not sure where this is supposed to go, but has anyone brought up the Matt Gaetz "controversies" yet?
https://news.yahoo.com/matt-gaetz-sex-trafficking-investigation-185303973.html
Sometimes I guess people turn out to be exactly what they seem. :lol:
Yes, in the GOP thread.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 01, 2021, 10:47:22 PM
Florida Man gonna Florida Man.
Don't disparage all men from Florida. I'm from Florida. My avatar, Ray Lewis, is from Florida.
I wonder which of the three of you has the highest body count. :ph34r:
Quote from: alfred russel on April 02, 2021, 08:38:06 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 01, 2021, 10:47:22 PM
Florida Man gonna Florida Man.
Don't disparage all men from Florida. I'm from Florida. My avatar, Ray Lewis, is from Florida.
:zipped:
Baseball All Star game pulled from Atlanta over voting law.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EyJJx1DXMAUQ9S4?format=png&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EyJJz9IWgAMNJ9G?format=png&name=small)
Genuine class.
Peace be with you, commie scum.
My favourite was his Good Friday message:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EyA31BRWYAEZFYM?format=jpg&name=small)
As Matt Zeitlin put it "other than that, Happy Easter!" is up there with "very legal and very cool" and "one of the wettest we've ever seen, from the standpoint of water" :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2021, 09:58:10 PM
Baseball All Star game pulled from Atlanta over voting law.
Wasn't aware the MLB leant liberal.
Quote from: celedhring on April 05, 2021, 02:45:57 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2021, 09:58:10 PM
Baseball All Star game pulled from Atlanta over voting law.
Wasn't aware the MLB leant liberal.
The only reason the MLB is in Atlanta is because Georgia caved to the MLB's demand in 1965 for a desegregated stadium.
The US seeks global minimum corporate taxes via the OECD. The US also prepares to levy tariffs against Austria, Britain, India, Italy, Spain and Turkey as well as earlier against France over their introduction of a digital tax, targeting digital services revenue. It will be interesting if the Biden administration actually has the diplomatic clout and finesse to achieve its foreign policy goals with Europe. So far, they continue a lot of Trumpian policies and just use nicer words. That alone might not be sufficient.
Agree on the digital tax. I think the US is open to something on a global level but no-one can do anything until that's agreed which, frankly I'd take the tariffs.
Bot on the global tax I'm a big fan of the plan to increase rate to 28% in the US, tax profits booked by US firms abroad at 21%, country by country and push for strong global minimum tax (with penalties for uncooperative countries). Itwould be great news and it'd wipe out a lot of the rationale for running businesses through tax havens.
The idea of global corporate tax harmonisation is good and working through the OECD is good, but America does not even participate in OECD initiatives on corporate taxation like Common Reporting Standards. The US normally guards its sovereignty against most international regulation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Reporting_Standard
And we cannot even pull off harmonized corporate taxes within the European Union, so I doubt that the OECD will now be the right institution to implement and enforce this.
Agreed and I don't think tax harmonisation is likely. In addition a big issue in the US in relation to tax havens is state level laws that allow for a lot of opacity - Delaware and Nevada are especially key.
My guess is what the Americans will want is possibly more like the OECD grey list of tax havens where they basically set out minimum standards including a minimum rate and then publishes an updated grey list. I doubt that'll be effective or enough but it's positive they're at least willing to join the conversation.
I also think that cracking down on tax evasion/off-shore finance centres (or Delaware/Nevada) is actually a huge foreign policy issue for the UK and the US (and to a lesser extent the EU which has more corporate than individual tax havens).
I don't know much about Nevada, but most significant US companies are registered in Delaware. I'm not really used to anyone referring to it as a tax haven or an "opaque" location: if it is opaque, then that defines the US as well because of how it dominates.
There are a few states without income taxes. Nevada is one because taxation on casinos and gambling has generally been enough for the state. But states like Washington, Florida and Texas also don't have income taxes (I know for personal, they could for corporate--Tennessee does for corporate but not for personal). I don't think calling the "tax havens" is really fair: corporations in those states pay US taxes of course which are the bulk of taxes in every state. State tax demands are just a lot less than federal.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 06, 2021, 06:25:51 AM
I don't know much about Nevada, but most significant US companies are registered in Delaware. I'm not really used to anyone referring to it as a tax haven or an "opaque" location: if it is opaque, then that defines the US as well because of how it dominates.
Agreed. The tax and opacity issues are slightly separate. You always see Delaware (and occasionally Nevada) if there's any US presence because they are generally business friendly. The opacity is specifically about the level of information about individuals that you have to provide - especially of directors, officers, owners and ultimate beneficial owners. It's very limited in Delaware especially, but also Nevada. So they are very convenient locations to set up shell companies and pass ill-gotten gains from, say, corruption in some other country into the US where it's safe and hidden. The UK equivalent is off-shore locations like Jersey or Bermuda, in the EU it's probably Cyprus and Malta.
QuoteThere are a few states without income taxes. Nevada is one because taxation on casinos and gambling has generally been enough for the state. But states like Washington, Florida and Texas also don't have income taxes (I know for personal, they could for corporate--Tennessee does for corporate but not for personal). I don't think calling the "tax havens" is really fair: corporations in those states pay US taxes of course which are the bulk of taxes in every state. State tax demands are just a lot less than federal.
Honestly I'm not sure of the tax advantages. I suspect it's more to do with Delaware - and possibly Nevada - having laws that are more friendly to very complex corporate structures designed to minimise tax often with a BVI company at the top.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 06, 2021, 04:22:33 AM
I also think that cracking down on tax evasion/off-shore finance centres (or Delaware/Nevada) is actually a huge foreign policy issue for the UK and the US (and to a lesser extent the EU which has more corporate than individual tax havens).
What is the UK doing towards cracking down on tax havens? They are the facilitators of tax havens like the Cayman islands, Channel islands, etc. When the UK left, the EU could finally start to target these.
Quote from: Zanza on April 06, 2021, 08:54:26 AM
What is the UK doing towards cracking down on tax havens? They are the facilitators of tax havens like the Cayman islands, Channel islands, etc. When the UK left, the EU could finally start to target these.
They've never been part of the EU because they're not part of the UK. They all have their own elected legislatures etc. The UK is only responsible for foreign policy and defence. So, for example, weirdly Jersey and Guernsey both have data protection adequacy decisions, I think they've got equivalence in some financial services, have information sharing treaties with several EU countries and are part of the Single Euro Payments Area - all of which doesn't apply to the UK.
So absolutely smash them and I hope the UK government does the same - the worst they can do is declare independence. The UK's done some stuff in the area of sanctions (now UK not EU sanctions) because that is foreign policy - so in 2018 they were basically told that they needed to have a publicly available register of ultimate beneficial owners within 5 years and if they didn't have a law by 2020 to implement it by 2023 at the latest then the UK would impose the requirement from UK law.
But there's not much the UK can do about the problematic laws themselves without trampling over their constitutional position. That's why I'd rather sanction them until they change or declare independence.
Okay, I am not really knowledgeable enough to continue that discussion and I guess it does not fit the Biden Presidency thread anyway.
What does fit and is also related to Janet Yellens initiative on global corporate taxation is this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/04/05/corporations-federal-taxes/
QuoteDozens of America's biggest businesses paid no federal income tax — again
55 corporations had zero federal tax liability in 2020, including household names like Nike, FedEx and Dish Network, analysis finds
White House press secretary Jen Psaki points to a corporate tax rate chart last week during a news briefing. Last year, 55 of the nation's largest corporations paid no federal income tax on more than $40 billion in profits, research shows.
By
Christopher Ingraham
April 5, 2021 at 12:00 p.m. GMT+2
Fifty-five of the nation's largest corporations paid no federal income tax on more than $40 billion in profits last year, according to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a progressive think tank.
In fact, they received a combined federal rebate of more than $3 billion, for an effective tax rate of about negative 9 percent.
"Their total corporate tax breaks for 2020, including $8.5 billion in tax avoidance and $3.5 billion in rebates, comes to $12 billion," according to the study's authors, Matthew Gardner and Steve Wamhoff.
The findings also underscore the favorable tax environment for big businesses in the wake of the 2017 Trump tax cuts. Twenty-six corporations have paid no federal income taxes since 2017, according to the report, including such household names as Nike, FedEx and Dish Network. Combined, the 26 companies have booked more than $77 billion in profits since 2018, while receiving nearly $5 billion in rebates, for an effective three-year tax rate of negative 6 percent.
A FedEx spokesman shared a statement from the company noting that "FedEx pays all of its taxes owed to local, state, federal, and foreign governments," and that "through the third quarter of fiscal year 2021, FedEx has paid nearly $2 billion in U.S. federal income tax in the last 10 years."
Representatives from Dish Network declined to comment, while Nike did not respond to a request for comment.
"By all appearances, the companies described in this report appear to be using entirely legal means to reduce their tax bills," Gardner, the study's lead author, said via email. But that doesn't mean the companies are "blameless," he added. "Many of the tax provisions these companies are using exist because they themselves have lobbied heavily for their creation."
Those provisions include tax breaks for stock options given to chief executives as part of their pay packages, credits for research and experimentation, and write-offs for renewable energy and capital investments. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act's dramatic cut to the corporate income tax rate, from 35 to 21 percent, also plays a role in the limited tax liabilities facing many major corporations.
But Gardner says the generous carve-outs, not the baseline rate itself, are driving much of the phenomenon.
"We all want to see businesses investing more in the U.S., whether it's creating productive capacity or just creating jobs," he said. "Similarly, all Americans want to see businesses engaging in more research and development, and the R&D tax credit is another prominent factor driving the tax avoidance we see here."
But there's little evidence demonstrating that these provisions actually boost investment or R&D, Gardner says. Following the Trump tax cuts, for instance, many businesses opted to send cash to their shareholders and lay off employees rather than make long-term investments.
Speaking last month before the Senate Finance Committee, Kimberly A. Clausing, a deputy assistant secretary for tax analysis at the U.S. Treasury, said the Trump tax cuts roughly halved corporate tax revenue as a share of gross domestic product. While other wealthy nations typically raise roughly 3 percent of GDP through corporate taxes, in the United States that share fell to just 1 percent following the 2017 changes to the tax code.
She also noted that before the pandemic, corporate profits as a share of GDP were running roughly twice as high as in the period from 1980 to 2000.
Nearly 7 in 10 Americans say corporations are paying too little in taxes, according to Gallup polling.
President Biden has called for a higher corporate tax rate to fund his package of infrastructure investments, as well as a higher minimum tax on income earned by American companies overseas. Speaking to reporters Friday, Biden said "we are asking corporate America to pay their fair share."
His proposal "wouldn't directly repeal any tax breaks," Gardner said, "but would reduce the cost of many existing breaks. If this is what's politically doable, it's certainly better than doing nothing at all."
What's in Biden's $2 trillion jobs and infrastructure plan?
Biden's proposal is already generating opposition among business groups. "By significantly increasing taxes on corporations, the proposal would be counterproductive to the goal of increasing economic growth and job creation," said Business Roundtable chief executive Joshua Bolten in a statement.
However, progressive groups have been supportive of the plan. In a statement, a group of left-leaning think tanks wrote that "robust taxation of corporations and the wealthy can directly counter damaging inequality, rebalance power in our economy, and increase the competitiveness of American workers."
Let's see what the current administration can achieve here. As it is, this does not seem to be a credible base for a global tax harmonisation initiative.
Quote from: Zanza on April 06, 2021, 09:28:49 AM
Okay, I am not really knowledgeable enough to continue that discussion and I guess it does not fit the Biden Presidency thread anyway.
Yeah sorry - I suppose there is a bit of an analogy with the US situation (or the EU) of ultimately I don't think the Federal government can force Delaware to change its laws, the UK can't force the Cayman Islands to change their laws and the EU can't force the Netherlands or Malta to change their laws. They're for slightly different reasons but broadly similar.
But all of those top-level states can agree to create a set of minimum standards with penalties if you don't comply (not sure how it'd work for the US in fairness) or possibly fines for the companies?
Well why would the Feds need Delaware to change anything? The Feds can tax those companies all they want without giving a shit about what Delaware does. If there is some minimum tax level the corporations need to pay then the Feds can do it themselves. It is not like being in Delaware exempts you from anything.
Quote from: Valmy on April 06, 2021, 09:48:57 AM
Well why would the Feds need Delaware to change anything? The Feds can tax those companies all they want without giving a shit about what Delaware does. If there is some minimum tax level the corporations need to pay then the Feds can do it themselves. It is not like being in Delaware exempts you from anything.
Maybe. I think there is something more to it with Delaware - but I'm not a tax expert - because I know it's popular with very aggressive tax avoidance structuring where you have an absolute tonne of entities in different jurisdictions for tax reasons.
But you're right the main issue there is actually around AML and transparency.
Quote from: Valmy on April 06, 2021, 09:48:57 AM
Well why would the Feds need Delaware to change anything? The Feds can tax those companies all they want without giving a shit about what Delaware does. If there is some minimum tax level the corporations need to pay then the Feds can do it themselves. It is not like being in Delaware exempts you from anything.
Indeed. Delaware is attractive (my own LLC considered incorporating there before settling on Pennsylvania for other reasons) because Delaware makes it easy and cheap to incorporate, and has a great business conflict resolution (Chancery) system. Some companies may value the privacy elements of Delaware incorporation. Taxes are not much of a consideration (state taxes on corporations are pretty miniscule).
Quote from: Zanza on April 06, 2021, 09:37:29 AM
Fifty-five of the nation's largest corporations paid no federal income tax on more than $40 billion in profits last year, according to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a progressive think tank.
In fact, they received a combined federal rebate of more than $3 billion, for an effective tax rate of about negative 9 percent.
That is a dishonest analysis. I think it is disgraceful for the Washington Post to run that without clarification (I assume the "analysis" section isn't akin to "opinion" - if it is, this is less bad)
Book income for a large number of reasons is different than tax income. They are taking the book income for the consolidated operations of public companies and comparing it to federal taxes paid, which has problems. Some of the bigger ones:
-book income includes foreign profits, which if taxed overseas, likely won't be in the US -- this is a complicated area, but if you earn $100 in Japan, you pay $30.40 in taxes there, and then nothing in the US. According to this analysis, they would say, "hey, this corporation earned $100 and paid no federal tax." While true, that is misleading to the point of being deceitful.
-There are significant timing differences in expense recognition between book and tax. For instance, the depreciation schedules are completely different. So a $100 asset may be fully depreciated in year 1 for tax but over 2 years for book. The effect is that in year 1, for book you get $50 of extra income that you don't get in year 1 for tax, but in year 2 you have $50 of extra expense. These timing differences are often massive, but over the long run balance. So yeah you can pick 55 companies that pay less in a given year due to timing, but you can also pick some that pay more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81LoIGJIS-o
Matt Gaetz asked for a blanket pardon in the last days of the Trump administration.
I haven't watched the whole thing.
Quote from: Valmy on April 06, 2021, 09:48:57 AM
Well why would the Feds need Delaware to change anything?
To have a national standard concerning the obligations and duties of corporate directors and officers, for one. Delaware is the de facto national standard but it could be argued that having such significant policy decided by a tiny state legislature and a handful of chancery court judges in Wilmington is not optimal.
This seems like the random collection of political shit thread now so I saw two articles in the Washington Post today about the increasing rupture between corporate America and the GOP:
QuoteMore than 100 corporate executives hold call to discuss halting donations and investments to fight controversial voting bills
By
Todd C. Frankel
April 11, 2021 at 4:26 p.m. EDT
More than 100 chief executives and corporate leaders gathered online Saturday to discuss taking new action to combat the controversial state voting bills being considered across the country, including the one recently signed into law in Georgia.
Executives from major airlines, retailers and manufacturers — plus at least one NFL owner — talked about potential ways to show they opposed the legislation, including by halting donations to politicians who support the bills and even delaying investments in states that pass the restrictive measures, according to four people who were on the call, including one of the organizers, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a Yale management professor.
While no final steps were agreed upon, the meeting represents an aggressive dialing up of corporate America's stand against controversial voting measures nationwide, a sign that their opposition to the laws didn't end with the fight against the Georgia legislation passed in March.
It also came just days after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned that firms should "stay out of politics" — echoing a view shared by many conservative politicians and setting up the potential for additional conflict between Republican leaders and the heads of some of America's largest firms. This month, former president Donald Trump called for conservatives to boycott Coca-Cola, Major League Baseball, Delta Air Lines, Citigroup, ViacomCBS, UPS and other companies after they opposed the law in Georgia that critics say will make it more difficult for poorer voters and voters of color to cast ballots. Baseball officials decided to move the All-Star Game this summer from Georgia to Colorado because of the voting bill.
The online call between corporate executives on Saturday "shows they are not intimidated by the flak. They are not going to be cowed," Sonnenfeld said. "They felt very strongly that these voting restrictions are based on a flawed premise and are dangerous."
Leaders from dozens of companies such as Delta, American, United, Starbucks, Target, LinkedIn, Levi Strauss and Boston Consulting Group, along with Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank, were included on the Zoom call, according to people who listened in.
The discussion — scheduled to last one hour but going 10 minutes longer — was led at times by Kenneth Chenault, the former chief executive of American Express, and Kenneth Frazier, the chief executive of Merck, who told the executives that it was important to keep fighting what they viewed as discriminatory laws on voting. Chenault and Frazier coordinated a letter signed last month by 72 Black business executives that made a similar point — a letter that first drew attention to the voting bills in executive suites across the country.
The call's goal was to unify companies that had been issuing their own statements and signing on to drafted statements from different organizations after the action in Georgia, Sonnenfeld said. The leaders called in from around the country — some chimed in from Augusta, Ga., where they were attending the Masters golf tournament.
"There was a defiance of the threats that businesses should stay out of politics," Sonnenfeld said. "They were obviously rejecting that even with their presence (on the call). But they were there out of concern about voting restrictions not being in the public interest."
One Georgia-based executive talked about how the final version of Georgia's legislation — which Gov. Brian Kemp (R) has said actually expands voting access, a claim that many have challenged — was much worse than expected, and how that should serve as a warning to other chief executives as more states consider adopting their own voting bills, according to people on the call.
Access to the polls has emerged as a major national issue. Republican state lawmakers are trying to pass legislation they say is designed to combat voting fraud — which Trump has baselessly and frequently claimed is a problem. GOP-backed bills in various statehouses aim to ban ballot drop boxes, limit voting periods, restrict absentee voting or stiffen requirements for voter identification. Five bills with new voter restrictions have been passed nationwide so far, with 55 restrictive bills in 24 states being considered by legislatures, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and policy institute.
Companies have jumped into hot-button political debates before, such as the corporate backlash to a 2016 North Carolina bill banning transgender people from using the public restroom that corresponds with their gender identities. After the Capitol riot in January, many companies pledged to stop donating to politicians who spurred doubts about the outcome of the presidential election.
Now, it is voting rights. Many of the corporate leaders who joined the call seemed to view the voting restrictions as attacks on democracy, rather than as a partisan issue, according to people who listened in.
Mike Ward, cofounder of the Civic Alliance, a nonpartisan group of businesses focused on voter engagement, said he felt there was a broad consensus at the end of the call that company leaders plan to continue working against voting bills they think are restrictive — "to lean into this, not lean away from this."
And an Opinion piece:
Quote
Opinion: Why corporate America is declaring independence from the GOP
Opinion by
Michele L. Norris
Columnist
If you want a sense of the endgame in the ongoing showdown between aggrieved Republicans and corporate leaders willing to criticize the party's efforts to roll back voting rights, just flip on your TV and watch the ads.
The outcome in easy to see in the stream of multicultural and often mixed-raced families buying cars, taking vacations, planning their retirements, doing laundry and laughing at the dinner table.
You don't watch television? Just pay attention to the pop-up ads when you surf the Web. See the smiling faces — the sea of Black, Brown, tan and golden faces — that make it clear that corporate America knows that scenes of White families are no longer the only aspirational groupings that make customers want to open their wallets.
The GOP and corporate America have been engaged in two very interesting but very different branding exercises over the past decade. For years, these two campaigns allowed both sides to maintain their mutually beneficial arrangement. In recent days, however, the two branding campaigns have collided over the most basic question in our democracy: Who gets to vote and how? Which brand will emerge from this collision in better shape is already a foregone conclusion. But the reason may have less to do with right and wrong than profit and loss.
Under the old arrangement, corporate America would reliably deliver huge sums of money to GOP campaigns and causes, and Republicans would deliver lower taxes on income and capital gains in return. If big companies did not endorse everything the party stood for, they remained mostly silent in service of their bottom line.
But after a brief period of experimenting with big-tent politics during the first and second Bush presidencies, the Republican Party has lurched dramatically rightward since the election of Barack Obama. The GOP narrowed its goals to serve a largely White, largely evangelical and largely nonurban base that is hostile to immigration, science, foreign engagement and anything associated with the Black Lives Matter movement.
At the same time, many big corporate firms have come to see themselves as allies of immigration, science and foreign engagement and have worked to signal their virtues through ads and statements of solidarity following the protests sparked by the killing of George Floyd.
After Georgia lawmakers passed a law that disproportionately limits ballot access for people of color based on false claims of voter fraud, Delta Air Lines and Coca-Cola at first tried to skirt the issue and then finally cried foul. Major League Baseball moved the summer All-Star Game out of Georgia in protest. And almost 200 companies — including HP, Salesforce and Under Armour — signed a statement that denounced similar efforts underway to limit ballot access in other states.
These steps hit the GOP where it must have caused some pain. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned corporate America to stay out of politics but quickly backtracked to clarify that he was "not talking about political contributions." That was a reminder that Republicans who accuse corporations of trying to stay on the right side of the woke police fail to understand that there are much larger forces at work.
Part of what is going on here is that corporations are protecting their bottom lines as America steams toward the majority-minority tipping point sometime around 2047. The Census Bureau projects that the U.S. population will increase by about 24 percent by 2060; adults and their children who are not White will likely account for most of that growth. That multiculti future has already arrived for America's youngest citizens; White children are now a minority of Americans under the age of 17.
Any company interested in cultivating the multihued, multiethnic, cross-marrying, immigrant consumer of the future would have to think hard about continuing to move in lockstep with a Republican Party that is determined to time-travel back to the 1950s, when white supremacy was thought to be permanent.
America's real future is more colorful, more vibrant, more diverse than the continuing tableau of overwhelmingly White GOP conventions, fundraisers and leadership summits. But let us also admit that the recent spate of corporate activism does not signal a deeper commitment to liberal causes. Some of the CEOs who have spoken out against repressive voting schemes must do a better job of diversifying their own leadership teams and workforces.
This much is clear: The demographic reshuffling already underway will alter our culture, our politics and who has the reins of power. Much of the Republican agenda is fueled by a fear of this future. Corporations that want to embrace that future — and the wave of consumers it will bring — cannot continue to partner with a party that is only interested in representing the part of America it finds acceptable.
Diversity is not even about domestic politics. Most of those companies have employees and customers all over the world.
Quote from: Iormlund on April 18, 2021, 03:32:00 AM
Diversity is not even about domestic politics. Most of those companies have employees and customers all over the world.
Yeah, the article would have been better if "Any company interested in cultivating the multihued, multiethnic, cross-marrying, immigrant consumer of the future..." had read "Any company interested in cultivating consumers beyond the narrow GOP bubble in the future..."
Quote from: Iormlund on April 18, 2021, 03:32:00 AM
Diversity is not even about domestic politics. Most of those companies have employees and customers all over the world.
Yeah. Minoritarian power is built into US politics and the GOP can have a lot of sway by winning the Senate and occasionally the Presidency while never winning the popular vote again. One way to do that would be to keep a minority base very agitated and motivated. But that isn't generally a winning strategy if you are trying to sell things to people you want as many people as possible.
Quote from: Iormlund on April 18, 2021, 03:32:00 AM
Diversity is not even about domestic politics. Most of those companies have employees and customers all over the world.
If you're suggesting that mixed marriages generate the same warm and fuzzy feelings in the rest of the world as it does in Europe and parts of the US, I'm not sure I agree.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 19, 2021, 12:24:07 PM
If you're suggesting that mixed marriages generate the same warm and fuzzy feelings in the rest of the world as it does in Europe and parts of the US, I'm not sure I agree.
Definitely not in Korea. But even in Korea (and other places where mixed marriages may not be as sexy, as per your suggesion), they'll be sensitive to "this flavour of white people are better than you". I think that in practice, running an explicitly pro-diversity multinational megacorporation is going to be easier than trying to manage N parallel national focused ones.
Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2021, 12:44:55 PM
Definitely not in Korea. But even in Korea (and other places where mixed marriages may not be as sexy, as per your suggesion), they'll be sensitive to "this flavour of white people are better than you". I think that in practice, running an explicitly pro-diversity multinational megacorporation is going to be easier than trying to manage N parallel national focused ones.
Of course. I'm trying to draw a distinction between ads that show someone from Sierra Leone building a car or giving a sales pitch and ads that show interracial couples enjoying delicious breakfast cereal together.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 19, 2021, 01:19:52 PM
Of course. I'm trying to draw a distinction between ads that show someone from Sierra Leone building a car or giving a sales pitch and ads that show interracial couples enjoying delicious breakfast cereal together.
Fair enough.
Personally, I don't think the point of the article is as much about showing interracial couples or LGTBQ+ folks in advertising, as it is about the core values of the corporation itself. The car company is probably not going to try to sell cars with ads showing interacial couples in places where that's highly controversial (or maybe they'll use fewer such adds) and they probably won't be pushing LGTBQ+ stuff in places that are super homophobic. But they aren't going to run any ads that say "stick to your own" or "gay people are yucky" even where that might play well with local audiences, and inside the company they'll do their best to be tolerant and diverse to attract and maintain talent.
Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2021, 01:25:23 PM
Fair enough.
Personally, I don't think the point of the article is as much about showing interracial couples or LGTBQ+ folks in advertising, as it is about the core values of the corporation itself. The car company is probably not going to try to sell cars with ads showing interacial couples in places where that's highly controversial (or maybe they'll use fewer such adds) and they probably won't be pushing LGTBQ+ stuff in places that are super homophobic. But they aren't going to run any ads that say "stick to your own" or "gay people are yucky" even where that might play well with local audiences, and inside the company they'll do their best to be tolerant and diverse to attract and maintain talent.
I don't think you need to talk about attracting and retaining talent to explain anything.
Megacorp isn't going to run ads in the Middle East advocating stoning gay people even if that has local commercial appeal because those ads will make it back to the west and interfere with their business in what are far more lucrative markets.
Positve LGTBQ+ ads run in western markets absolutely interfere with business in the Middle East - in a broad sense there is local concern about western values being imported and a backlash against western companies in general. But in a sense this negative association is unavoidable: a megacorp company based in London (for example) simply isn't going to embody local values in a very different market. But there is also an offsetting tailwind these companies have in (mostly) developing countries: their is an appeal they have as upmarket and high quality products from perceived better places.
I think there's a management cultural thing as well. A typical Fortune 500 CEO is an Ivy League graduate in their 50s or 60s, these may not be "woke" guys but they aren't Stars and Bars on their truck types either. I think there's some element to which these guys are feeling like they've funneled a lot of money to the GOP for its pro-business policies, but they want to send a message that while they might agree with the GOP business agenda they aren't really interested in a party that's all but openly embracing white nationalism as a core ideology.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 20, 2021, 09:12:48 AM
I think there's a management cultural thing as well. A typical Fortune 500 CEO is an Ivy League graduate in their 50s or 60s, these may not be "woke" guys but they aren't Stars and Bars on their truck types either. I think there's some element to which these guys are feeling like they've funneled a lot of money to the GOP for its pro-business policies, but they want to send a message that while they might agree with the GOP business agenda they aren't really interested in a party that's all but openly embracing white nationalism as a core ideology.
Yeah - and this is a recruitment angle as well. It may be less of an issue in a mass-market, consumer goods company but if you're in a business where you rely on hiring bright graduates from elite universities to do grunt work then you either need to sort of align with their values/make Harvard kids feel welcome through your inclusion program or whatever. The alternative is you pay more than competitors who do the cheap culture stuff instead.
Mass market consumer goods companies (e.g. P&G) also recruit out of business schools and as a consumer facing organization are probably even more wary of aligning themselves with a white nationalist message. There is a reason why Trump's core support in the corporate sector comes from family-dominated businesses like MyPillow, Goya, or HobbyLobby.
The Chauvin trial jury is about to make public it's decision.
I expect the US will burn tonight following acquittal.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 20, 2021, 03:40:50 PM
The Chauvin trial jury is about to make public it's decision.
I expect the US will burn tonight following acquittal.
On gage?
No.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 20, 2021, 03:40:50 PM
The Chauvin trial jury is about to make public it's decision.
I expect the US will burn tonight following acquittal.
He'll get convicted of something.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 20, 2021, 03:58:18 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 20, 2021, 03:40:50 PM
The Chauvin trial jury is about to make public it's decision.
I expect the US will burn tonight following acquittal.
He'll get convicted of something.
I think just "something" still leads to riots.
Guilty on all charges.
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2021, 03:59:25 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 20, 2021, 03:58:18 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 20, 2021, 03:40:50 PM
The Chauvin trial jury is about to make public it's decision.
I expect the US will burn tonight following acquittal.
He'll get convicted of something.
I think just "something" still leads to riots.
Well I guess we will never know.
Quote from: Valmy on April 20, 2021, 04:35:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2021, 03:59:25 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 20, 2021, 03:58:18 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 20, 2021, 03:40:50 PM
The Chauvin trial jury is about to make public it's decision.
I expect the US will burn tonight following acquittal.
He'll get convicted of something.
I think just "something" still leads to riots.
Well I guess we will never know.
Nope.
I haven't been following the case but I do wonder how they get to second degree murder. Using the law I know I don't see where you'd get intent to kill, but MN may have some kind of constructive murder that we don't.
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2021, 04:47:50 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 20, 2021, 04:35:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2021, 03:59:25 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 20, 2021, 03:58:18 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 20, 2021, 03:40:50 PM
The Chauvin trial jury is about to make public it's decision.
I expect the US will burn tonight following acquittal.
He'll get convicted of something.
I think just "something" still leads to riots.
Well I guess we will never know.
Nope.
I haven't been following the case but I do wonder how they get to second degree murder. Using the law I know I don't see where you'd get intent to kill, but MN may have some kind of constructive murder that we don't.
he maintained pressure on his neck despite multiple pleas from the victim that he couldn't breath. it's not premeditated, but it's still murder right there. He can't claim he didn't know what he was doing.
Quote from: viper37 on April 20, 2021, 05:27:45 PM
he maintained pressure on his neck despite multiple pleas from the victim that he couldn't breath. it's not premeditated, but it's still murder right there. He can't claim he didn't know what he was doing.
Oh he knew what he was doing - that's what makes it homicide.
But did he intend to kill? Hard to see that IMO. But like I said they may have some kind of constructive murder law.
I know nothing - but in England I think (based on very out of date law school) that the intent for murder is intent to injure or cause serious harm, even if they don't necessarily intend that but their actions make more or less inevitable. Is it not similar in Canada?
Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2021, 12:44:55 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 19, 2021, 12:24:07 PM
If you're suggesting that mixed marriages generate the same warm and fuzzy feelings in the rest of the world as it does in Europe and parts of the US, I'm not sure I agree.
Definitely not in Korea. But even in Korea (and other places where mixed marriages may not be as sexy, as per your suggesion), they'll be sensitive to "this flavour of white people are better than you". I think that in practice, running an explicitly pro-diversity multinational megacorporation is going to be easier than trying to manage N parallel national focused ones.
I've never had any problems. There is a super famous tv show that follows around a bunch of mixed families and their children in there daily life.
Quote from: viper37 on April 20, 2021, 05:27:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2021, 04:47:50 PM
I haven't been following the case but I do wonder how they get to second degree murder. Using the law I know I don't see where you'd get intent to kill, but MN may have some kind of constructive murder that we don't.
he maintained pressure on his neck despite multiple pleas from the victim that he couldn't breath. it's not premeditated, but it's still murder right there. He can't claim he didn't know what he was doing.
The charge was second-degree unintentional murder apparently, whatever that means.
Minnesota has really weird homicide laws as far as I can tell. While obviously each state is different, in most states the differing degrees of Murder are close to uniform. 1st Degree is fairly clear cut: intentional, pre-meditation. 2nd Degree is typically intentional, without pre-meditation.
Chauvin was charged with a few crimes, including 3rd Degree Murder (a charge that doesn't exist in most states) which is:
Quote(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.
I think for example in Virginia Manslaughter laws would cover that.
He was also charged with 2nd Degree Murder, which in Minnesota (again, atypically) has both an
intentional stipulation and an
unintentional, the unintentional reads:
QuoteSubd. 2.Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or
He was also charged with 2nd Degree Manslaughter:
Quote609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:
(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; or
(2) by shooting another with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as a result of negligently believing the other to be a deer or other animal; or
(3) by setting a spring gun, pit fall, deadfall, snare, or other like dangerous weapon or device; or
(4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner's premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; or
(5) by committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.
From what I have read in Minnesota the judge decides the sentencing, and Minnesota has established sentencing guidelines for crimes. The two murder charges have differing max sentences, but the sentencing guidelines for both would probably mean 12.5 years for Chauvin on those counts. The manslaughter charge the sentencing guidelines would suggest 4 years. Expectedly all of these would be served concurrently. From what I can tell unlike many states, you don't get a sentence, go to prison, and then after X % of sentence served get a parole hearing. There is no parole board in Minnesota. Instead terms of parole are issued at sentencing time by the sentencing judge, so the judge basically has discretion in determining at what point in the sentence Chauvin would be eligible to get paroled, and Chauvin would have to meet certain conditions to get paroled (good behavior in prison etc.)
My understanding is there is no legal bar to the judge assessing a higher sentence than the sentencing guidelines. Minnesota gives judges a lot of leeway there, in apparently in Minnesota a judge can even assess a sentence
longer than the statutory maximum if he feels there are justifiable conditions--that would be unusual and not at all expected in this case. Just pointing it out because it seems like Minnesota gives a lot of leeway to its judges in the sentencing phase.
How can one be guilty on separate charges of both murder and manslaughter, on one victim, at the same time? (honest question) :hmm:
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 21, 2021, 11:27:37 AM
How can one be guilty on separate charges of both murder and manslaughter, on one victim, at the same time? (honest question) :hmm:
In many ways law is like The Matrix. You just have to believe.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 21, 2021, 11:27:37 AM
How can one be guilty on separate charges of both murder and manslaughter, on one victim, at the same time? (honest question) :hmm:
I am guessing that Minnesota doesn't have lesser included offenses, and charged with multiple charges to avoid having the invalidation of one charge invalidate the entire conviction. I don't think the judge can order consecutive sentences for the same act.
Yeah, my understanding is it's a strategic sort of move by the prosecutor. I don't know for sure if MN doesn't have lesser included offenses at all, but it would make the move even more logical. The idea being you charge three crimes you think the defendant is guilty of, for the same act. The jury has leeway to decide if the crime actually matches the definition of all three crimes, in which case you get three convictions. But maybe the statutory definition of 2nd Degree Unintentional Murder the jury doesn't quite buy Chauvin's actions qualify for that, so they acquit for that, but convict on the other two. It's also a protection from the appellate process to a degree, obviously some issues on appeal could apply to the entire trial in which they'd have to do a retrial. But in case an appellate court decides that it was an error of law for him to be found guilty of say, 3rd Degree Murder, that would leave the other two convictions intact.
As grumbler said I'm fairly certain he can't be sentenced to consecutive sentences for three convictions covering the same material act.
If I have been reading true things, the judge can raise the sentence for committing a violent crime with minors witnessing.
Quote from: PDH on April 21, 2021, 01:37:42 PM
If I have been reading true things, the judge can raise the sentence for committing a violent crime with minors witnessing.
If they came out of the mine to watch, that's on them.
Quote from: PDH on April 21, 2021, 01:37:42 PM
If I have been reading true things, the judge can raise the sentence for committing a violent crime with minors witnessing.
They don't belong in the courtroom IMHO.
Quote from: The Brain on April 21, 2021, 02:54:55 PM
Quote from: PDH on April 21, 2021, 01:37:42 PM
If I have been reading true things, the judge can raise the sentence for committing a violent crime with minors witnessing.
They don't belong in the courtroom IMHO.
Agreed. Judges should be out on the streets enforcing the law.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 21, 2021, 03:06:46 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 21, 2021, 02:54:55 PM
Quote from: PDH on April 21, 2021, 01:37:42 PM
If I have been reading true things, the judge can raise the sentence for committing a violent crime with minors witnessing.
They don't belong in the courtroom IMHO.
Agreed. Judges should be out on the streets enforcing the law.
Old Stoner-face. :wub:
Caitlyn Jenner has announced she is running for governor of California as a Republican. :D
Sure, why not.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 23, 2021, 11:00:22 PM
Caitlyn Jenner has announced she is running for governor of California as a Republican. :D
That's a doomed campaign if I ever saw one.
Germany and France have backed a global minimum corporation tax :w00t:
What a shocker!
The one that matters is Ireland. There whole economic miracle is based on low corporate tax.
Although, as The Economist pointed out, at 12.5% the proposed minimum is so low as to be almost meaningless.
The proposed minimum is 21% :hmm:
I have different information. :hmm:
Mega quick googlify suggests Yellin just proposed 21% yesterday.
If enough countries get in on the compact, then can't they just strangle the tax havens (even as big as Ireland) with regulation? For example, if your company is "headquartered" on a patch of sand off of the bigger patch of sand off of the Isle of Man, you're free to conduct business on that patch of sand or in other countries outside of that compact, but you'll need to work out an arrangement with a compact country before you can do business there.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2021, 05:33:43 PM
Mega quick googlify suggests Yellin just proposed 21% yesterday.
Which is the current rate in the US. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2021, 05:32:45 PM
I have different information. :hmm:
That is what you get for relying on information that is at least a week late.
Good interview with James Carville on wokeness: https://www.vox.com/22338417/james-carville-democratic-party-biden-100-days. When woke people ask why the left can't win when obviously the left's ideas are generally popular, the answer is usually a mirror away.
:bleeding: ad nauseam infinitum
Quote from: Zoupa on April 27, 2021, 08:15:32 PM
:bleeding: ad nauseam infinitum
You know what's funny? You were JUST SAYING that the Dems have to fight dirty and get better at messaging. Which is EXACTLY what Carville is saying. Hell, almost word for word:
QuoteAnd look, part of the problem is that lots of Democrats will say that we have to listen to everybody and we have to include every perspective, or that we don't have to run a ruthless messaging campaign. Well, you kinda do. It really matters.
I always tell people that we've got to stop speaking Hebrew and start speaking Yiddish. We have to speak the way regular people speak, the way voters speak. It ain't complicated. That's how you connect and persuade.
It's funny how people want what they want, and then when someone tries to give it to them, its all "OH WAIT! I didn't mean ME! *I* don't need to change! It's all those other dumbasses!"
Shit, I challenge someone to read what Carville says and honestly find fault in it.
QuoteTake someone like Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She's obviously very bright. She knows how to draw a headline. In my opinion, some of her political aspirations are impractical and probably not going to happen. But that's probably the worst thing that you can say about her.
Now take someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene, the new Republican congresswoman from Georgia. She's absolutely loonier than a tune. We all know it. And yet, for some reason, the Democrats pay a bigger political price for AOC than Republicans pay for Greene. That's the problem in a nutshell. And it's ridiculous because AOC and Greene are not comparable in any way.
QuoteRight, but we can't say, "Republicans are going to call us socialists no matter what, so let's just run as out-and-out socialists." That's not the smartest thing to do. And maybe tweeting that we should abolish the police isn't the smartest thing to do because almost fucking no one wants to do that.
Here's the deal: No matter how you look at the map, the only way Democrats can hold power is to build on their coalition, and that will have to include more rural white voters from across the country. Democrats are never going to win a majority of these voters. That's the reality. But the difference between getting beat 80 to 20 and 72 to 28 is all the difference in the world.
So they just have to lose by less — that's all.
Here is the tweet he is talking about:
QuoteRashida Tlaib
@RashidaTlaib
·
Apr 12
It wasn't an accident. Policing in our country is inherently & intentionally racist.
Daunte Wright was met with aggression & violence. I am done with those who condone government funded murder.
No more policing, incarceration, and militarization. It can't be reformed.
He is absolutely right.
This is a great example of what I think the Dems ought to be doing when it comes to playing mean (rather then dirty):
QuoteYeah, that's a problem. We can only do what we can do. People always say to me, "Why don't Democrats just lie like Republicans?" Because if they did, our voters wouldn't stand for it. But I'm not saying we need to lie like they do. I'm saying, why not go after Gaetz and Jordan and link them to Hastert and the Republican Party over and over and over again? We have to take these small opportunities to define ourselves and the other side every damn time. And we don't do it. We just don't do it.
This is exactly what DG was saying. The Left can't get away with just lying all the time like the right does. But they can get nastier, and they can also get their message under more control. "No more policing" does not win a single vote.
I mean you are not going to win those rural white voters, struggling under economic problems that are devastating the rural areas of this country, without promising government action to assist them. Otherwise they are just going to vote on culture war issues. So I don't really get the avoid socialism thing...granted what exactly Carville means by socialism there is not clear. Promising the stimulus checks won Georgia.
I do agree that the main way we lose is by doing the toxic culture war stuff and since now the Republicans do it non-stop it is a good time to show the working class people what the Democrats can do for them, because the Republicans are all about doing jack shit right now.
I think he meant the messaging. American voters like social programs, but not the word socialism.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on April 27, 2021, 09:43:31 PM
I think he meant the messaging. American voters like social programs, but not the word socialism.
Indeed.
And if the Republicans are going to go around bleating about socialists everywhere because there are a lot of Americans who like social programs, but don't like "socialism", then why insist on helping them stick you with a politically damaging label? If most Americans are in favor of most of the actual policies that sane progressives lump under the term "defund the police", but lots of Americans think "defund the police" means, you know, removing funding from the police, and not at all what YOU mean by the term....then stop using the fucking term. And tell dumbshits who say stuff like "No more policing!" to STFU. Who are you freaking signalling with that crap? Who is going to respond positively to that message who wasn't voting for you already? Nobody. Who are you going to turn off with that? The very people you need to swing over to your side to overcome the GOP minority rule.
It would be cool if people could opt out of police protection.
From the snippets that have been posted, I'm not sure what is so impressive about James Carville's statements. They seem pretty much in line with the received wisdom that to win Dems need 100% message discipline while Republicans can act like crazy people and still get elected.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2021, 11:19:16 PM
It would be cool if people could opt out of police protection.
If we're going to go to benefits to the individual, I'm still waiting on the day that a police officer does something to help me personally. I think that might make a nice change from berating me, lying to me, pressuring me into making bad decisions and racially profiling me.
Talking about playing dirty...
QuoteNew York Post reporter quits citing pressure to write incorrect story about Kamala Harris
Laura Italiano claimed she was forced to write a report about migrant children being given a copy of the VP's book as part of a welcome kit
A reporter at Rupert Murdoch's New York tabloid has resigned after she claimed she was forced to write an incorrect story about migrants and Kamala Harris.
The New York Post published a story on 23 April headlined "Kam on in", which claimed that migrant children were being given a copy of the vice-president's 2019 book, Superheroes Are Everywhere, as part of a welcome kit in Los Angeles.
Laura Italiano was credited with writing the story but on Tuesday she announced on Twitter that being told to write the "incorrect story" was her "breaking point" over working at the tabloid.
"Today I handed in my resignation to my editors at the New York Post," she said. "The Kamala Harris story — an incorrect story I was ordered to write and which I failed to push back hard enough against — was my breaking point.
"It's been a privilege to cover the City of New York for its liveliest, wittiest tabloid—a paper filled with reporters and editors I admire deeply and hold as friends. I'm sad to leave."
The story was followed up by several rightwing outlets such as Fox News. One of the cable channel's reporter's asked a question about the alleged use of Harris's book at a White House press briefing.
But the story was based on a single photograph of the book taken at a temporary immigration facility at the Long Beach convention center in Southern California, and was revealed as being incorrect.
The Daily Beast reported that it had been taken off the Post's website but was later reinstated with a footnote.
"The original version of this article said migrant kids were getting Harris' book in a welcome kit but has been updated to note that only one known copy of the book was given to a child," the editor's note said.
An investigation by the Washington Post revealed that the book had turned up at the Long Beach facility as part of a book and toy drive for migrant children.
"The city of Long Beach, in partnership with the Long Beach convention and visitors bureau, has a city-wide book and toy drive that is ongoing to support the migrant children who are temporarily staying in Long Beach at the US Department of Health and Human Services shelter," city spokesman Kevin Lee told the Washington Post.
"The book you reference is one of hundreds of books that have already been donated. The book was not purchased by HHS or the City."
Quote from: Berkut on April 27, 2021, 08:42:45 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on April 27, 2021, 08:15:32 PM
:bleeding: ad nauseam infinitum
You know what's funny? You were JUST SAYING that the Dems have to fight dirty and get better at messaging. Which is EXACTLY what Carville is saying. Hell, almost word for word:
QuoteAnd look, part of the problem is that lots of Democrats will say that we have to listen to everybody and we have to include every perspective, or that we don't have to run a ruthless messaging campaign. Well, you kinda do. It really matters.
I always tell people that we've got to stop speaking Hebrew and start speaking Yiddish. We have to speak the way regular people speak, the way voters speak. It ain't complicated. That's how you connect and persuade.
It's funny how people want what they want, and then when someone tries to give it to them, its all "OH WAIT! I didn't mean ME! *I* don't need to change! It's all those other dumbasses!"
Take a breath my man. I was reacting to DGuller's words, not Carville.
Quote from: garbon on April 28, 2021, 02:48:33 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2021, 11:19:16 PM
It would be cool if people could opt out of police protection.
If we're going to go to benefits to the individual, I'm still waiting on the day that a police officer does something to help me personally. I think that might make a nice change from berating me, lying to me, pressuring me into making bad decisions and racially profiling me.
It would be cool if people could opt out of racist policing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2021, 11:19:16 PM
It would be cool if people could opt out of police protection.
Hard pass.
Would open up too many crooks to coerce their victims to opt out.
I'm not for the abolition of the police, but IMO existing policing needs to be reformed by fire and brand. There's a whole lot of rot that needs to be ripped out, people need to lose their careers, and people need to be prosecuted. This is not something that needs a bit more funding for sensitivity seminars or a three-days-a-year mandatory deescalation workshops.
You get caught displaying callous disregard for the people in your responsibilty (mocking people's suffering), you get disciplined with loss of pay and eventually - say three strikes - you're out.
You fire a single bullet? Plenty of tedious paperwork to document that you followed proper process.
You fail to follow best practices to ensure there's reviewable material for your conduct (oh, you forgot to turn on your body cam)? Suspensions without pay at the very least.
You conduct yourself in a way that comes across as bigoted, racist, or non-inclusive by modern corporate America standards? You're fired and lose your pension.
You are shown to have lied to protect your "brethren in blue"? You've tampered with evidence? You carry shit to plant on people to frame them? You say something happened when it didn't? Fired and you lose your pension, and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
You create an environment through words and actions that encourages the behaviour above? Disciplinary action, set-back to career progress.
Basically individual officers need to have clear, significant, and consistent consequences for even remotely dubious behaviour.
I'm pretty confident that there are a number of US and Canadian police departments that operate along those lines - or at least somewhat close to it - but the ones that don't need to be beaten into shape. The police need to be professional, courteous, responsible, honest, and accountable.
America: PASS
Quote from: Jacob on April 28, 2021, 11:53:42 AM
I'm not for the abolition of the police, but IMO existing policing needs to be reformed by fire and brand. There's a whole lot of rot that needs to be ripped out, people need to lose their careers, and people need to be prosecuted. This is not something that needs a bit more funding for sensitivity seminars or a three-days-a-year mandatory deescalation workshops.
You get caught displaying callous disregard for the people in your responsibilty (mocking people's suffering), you get disciplined with loss of pay and eventually - say three strikes - you're out.
You fire a single bullet? Plenty of tedious paperwork to document that you followed proper process.
You fail to follow best practices to ensure there's reviewable material for your conduct (oh, you forgot to turn on your body cam)? Suspensions without pay at the very least.
You conduct yourself in a way that comes across as bigoted, racist, or non-inclusive by modern corporate America standards? You're fired and lose your pension.
You are shown to have lied to protect your "brethren in blue"? You've tampered with evidence? You carry shit to plant on people to frame them? You say something happened when it didn't? Fired and you lose your pension, and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
You create an environment through words and actions that encourages the behaviour above? Disciplinary action, set-back to career progress.
Basically individual officers need to have clear, significant, and consistent consequences for even remotely dubious behaviour.
I'm pretty confident that there are a number of US and Canadian police departments that operate along those lines - or at least somewhat close to it - but the ones that don't need to be beaten into shape. The police need to be professional, courteous, responsible, honest, and accountable.
Look, I think I have a pretty good idea that police forces are not perfect. I review their actions almost daily. I've written several opinions on the likelihood of charges.
But let me give you the following comments:
-'callous disregard' Look police deal with severely disadvantaged people every single day. Compassion fatigue is a very real problem in their line of work (and to a much lesser degree my own). Part of being a professional means acting like a professional, but really "three strikes and your out" for not having a professional demeanour? What other profession has anything like that.
-'tons of paperwork for firing a bullet'. You have no much paperwork has to be filed for just pulling a gun out of your holster - it's a lot. I can't even imagine what would happen for an officer shooting. I think that automatically triggers an ASIRT investigation (an independent police oversight body).
-'fail to follow best practices' - your answer is suspension without pay. Name me one profession where if you don't follow best practices you automatically get suspended without pay. We're not talking about a major mistake, just not following best practices. 'I'm sorry you forgot to file your TPS reports last week - I guess that's 3 days without pay for you. Try to do better next time'. There's a wide range of effective penalties far short of that.
-'conduct yourself as non-inclusive = you're fired' So I take it you're a big fan of "cancel culture then"? Problem here is I'm only guessing at what you're meaning because your language is very vague. I could immediately leap to "make a slightly off-colour joke in public while off duty and you're fired". Is that what you intended? We had a situation in Edmonton where two cops were caught by a door cam. They were on duty but no one else was around and they didn't know they were being recorded. They were talking about how whites would no longer be in the majority soon (which is true). One oddly said something about yeah, he would urge his son to get an asian wife to fit in. They then go out of camera range. Should those officers be fired?
-'lie under oath / hide evidence' - I mean we do this already. I have never run into a situation where I think officers have faked evidence. In fact I once tried to prosecute a case where I thought the officer was being so truthful I was using his own notes against him. Bigger problem is one of "blue silence" where the officers just don't say anything, which is a harder problem to solve.
-'create an environment'... even vaguer.
I agree there should be clear consequences for misdeeds. We need to have a system to encourage greater accountability. I do think body and dash cams can be a big part of that.
But when your immediate reaction is to attack an officers livelihood through a system of suspensions without pay and summary dismissal (and I didn't even get into 'and lose your pension' with is just vindictive) you're going to immediately create overwhelming police hostility. Any successful police reform initiative has to have a certain level of buy-in both from the wider community, but from police themselves.
Quote from: Jacob on April 28, 2021, 11:53:42 AM
You conduct yourself in a way that comes across as bigoted, racist, or non-inclusive by modern corporate America standards? You're fired and lose your pension.
A lot of the other things you mentioned I'm fully onboard, but this? WTF? We're going to fire people from civil service jobs, and confiscate their pensions, based on a quickly-evolving standard set by amoral entities that make decisions to make the problems for their shareholders go away rather than to treat their employee under fire fairly? That's thought NKVD level shit right there. I don't think modern corporate American standards should even be applied to modern American corporations, let alone a government job.
Quote from: Barrister on April 28, 2021, 12:25:00 PM
Any successful police reform initiative has to have a certain level of buy-in both from the wider community, but from police themselves.
How likely is that going to be?
I agree with lots of your point. Three of my uncles have been police officers. Adding more paperwork to fill just produces more incentives to routinize the treatment of paperwork, by all who are involved. People fill out paperwork with the ritualized words necessary to pass review. What you describe as compassion fatigue is very real. It's even more real if "compassion" isn't really why you entered the police force, or if it's folded into all sorts of performances of machismo, power fantasies, and a very real spite for the kinds of people you are entrusted to "police". Once an influential group of peers heaps scorn and spite on groups of the population you are supposed to serve - whether black or indigenous people, poor inner city people, leftwing students who don't share in your values, drug addicts, etc. it becomes very hard to fight, and I wouldn't file that under "compassion fatigue".
But the argument that "no other profession" has this or that shouldn't be a guiding principle, precisely because no other profession has the possibility of legitimately kill another citizen. Police offices have extraordinary power, and thus should be subjected to extraordinary scrutiny, and extraordinary accountability. Their rights to a livelihood has to be balanced about the fact that they are armed, and entitled to wield the coercive strength of the arguments. Even a mistaken arrest can fuck you up way more than what an incompetent plumber or an incompetent civil servant can do. And many of the arguments you raise suggest precisely taking some of that power *away* from the police, in order to make use of people trained to deal with mental illness, drug addiction, cultural mediation.
That would require taking the considerable resources we devote to police and rechannel them to these forms and structures. I would call that "defunding the police", but apparently it creates dangeous allergic reactions. Let's call that "rechanneling resources away from police". And no institution that I know of will ever argue for resources being taken away from them, nor arguing for more oversight, or more accountability. On the contrary, police unions have fought tooth and nail against any suggestion that there needs to be any form of police reform... except perhaps these meaningless, three-day cultural sensitivity seminars, who are often framed in such ways as to already invite scorn about them.
Quote from: Valmy on February 11, 2021, 11:53:07 AM
Gambling is a very bad investment dude...unless you already know the results but you don't strike me as the 21st century Arnold Rothstein.
So was getting excited about posting an update here...after losing massively with the failure of my timing bets of Biden's cabinet confirmations with the delay due to the impeachment trial, I had come back. Coming into today I was up a total of $8,700, with winnings attributed to the following:
2020 election stuff (some placed after the election/including that Trump's challenges would lose): $7,058
Cabinet and other nominee stuff: $759
vote fraud shit (like what senators would vote to accept election results, and vote to convict trump): $710
foreign and local shit: $173
So I was feeling pretty good, especially since I've come all the way back in the cabinet stuff despite being a few k in the hole at the start of March, and was going to wait on posting an update until I was up $10k....
But the cloture vote on Samantha Power as US AID administrator went horribly wrong for me and it looks like I'll lose ~$700 in the vote at 330 today. However, I shall press on!
Oex,
I think it's *possible*. Police are a part of the same world we live in. They know the moment we are in. They feel frustrated that they are not being supported by the public and politicians. A lot of them know of fellow colleagues who do not necessarily bring honour to their service. If framed as a way to get that support back I think you could get sufficient levels of buy-in.
"Defund the police" is done as a useful slogan. It was clunky language to begin with, but then when you had it bubble up from the George Floyd protests you had certain activists try to argue as you do, while others said 'no we really mean abolish the police'. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html
And I think "no other profession" is valid. Perfection is impossible. People make mistakes because that's how we are. If your only answer to preventing or fixing mistakes is increasing levels of punishment you're not going to get anywhere. Now deliberate acts are different, and I'm all for prosecuting police crimes fully.
Quote from: Jacob on April 28, 2021, 11:53:42 AM
I'm not for the abolition of the police, but IMO existing policing needs to be reformed by fire and brand. There's a whole lot of rot that needs to be ripped out, people need to lose their careers, and people need to be prosecuted. This is not something that needs a bit more funding for sensitivity seminars or a three-days-a-year mandatory deescalation workshops.
You get caught displaying callous disregard for the people in your responsibilty (mocking people's suffering), you get disciplined with loss of pay and eventually - say three strikes - you're out.
You fire a single bullet? Plenty of tedious paperwork to document that you followed proper process.
You fail to follow best practices to ensure there's reviewable material for your conduct (oh, you forgot to turn on your body cam)? Suspensions without pay at the very least.
You conduct yourself in a way that comes across as bigoted, racist, or non-inclusive by modern corporate America standards? You're fired and lose your pension.
You are shown to have lied to protect your "brethren in blue"? You've tampered with evidence? You carry shit to plant on people to frame them? You say something happened when it didn't? Fired and you lose your pension, and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
You create an environment through words and actions that encourages the behaviour above? Disciplinary action, set-back to career progress.
Basically individual officers need to have clear, significant, and consistent consequences for even remotely dubious behaviour.
I'm pretty confident that there are a number of US and Canadian police departments that operate along those lines - or at least somewhat close to it - but the ones that don't need to be beaten into shape. The police need to be professional, courteous, responsible, honest, and accountable.
It seems the places that have issues are the places that have been run by people with very progressive politics and would probably agree with you in spirit (if not on every point). If you take Atlanta, which I think is probably representative of a lot of big cities, the reality is that the police department has been understaffed for many years (it can't get recruits for all of its positions) and morale is notoriously low. The cost of living in Atlanta is super high compared to the rest of the state and the top priority for elected officials in the rest of the state is to "back the blue".
I'm not giving a solution--I don't have one--just that the problems are pretty intractable.
Quote from: Barrister on April 28, 2021, 01:08:04 PM
I think it's *possible*.
Maybe. Not extremely optimistic, but I also acknowledge that some places may have more open culture about this sort of reform.
Quote"Defund the police" is done as a useful slogan.
Of course it is. This goes back to the endless discussion we are having: for some, the language of activists is always unhelpful, and they would rather spend considerable amount of time and energy distancing themselves from it, for fear of being, *gasp* too far left. The people who endlessly complain the left eats its own always seem to want to secure a seat at the table.
I don't give a shit if a slogan becomes discredited - but I do care if it succeeds in pushing these ideas to the forefront, and would rather that more time was spent by people who sympathize with the goal in pushing the sprit of the slogan than simply assert themselves as good centrist afraid of those horrible woke people. People like Caville can lecture about message discipline, but the message discipline they always favor is one that is lab-grown through study groups and weaponized in backroom deals. The ideas they say are popular in the country never appeared magically, but through grassroot work and, yes, the horrible, terrible language of activists.
QuotePerfection is impossible. [quotes] Sure. But the stakes of imperfection are different. "Shit, I cut this length of pipe too short for the sink. This is the third time!" vs "Shit, this intervention I lead escalated to violence for the third time"...
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 28, 2021, 02:37:20 PM
Sure. But the stakes of imperfection are different. "Shit, I cut this length of pipe too short for the sink. This is the third time!" vs "Shit, this intervention I lead escalated to violence for the third time"...
True. And?
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2021, 12:34:45 PM
A lot of the other things you mentioned I'm fully onboard, but this? WTF? We're going to fire people from civil service jobs, and confiscate their pensions, based on a quickly-evolving standard set by amoral entities that make decisions to make the problems for their shareholders go away rather than to treat their employee under fire fairly? That's thought NKVD level shit right there. I don't think modern corporate American standards should even be applied to modern American corporations, let alone a government job.
I mean modern America corporate standards as they're applied, not as they're spoken about. Whatever shit you think you can get away with at your job should be about the baseline for police as well, along with the consequences. I don't know, is that NKVD level shit?
At my job if I call someone at work a [racial epitaph] [sexual slur] at the very least I get a talking to by HR and will probably have to explain that I know I shouldn't do that and make some sort of excuse. If I do it in a way that results in a PR disaster for the company or if it's part of a repeated pattern, I'll probably have to adhere to an improvement plan or lose my job.
If someone in a position of power (other than the police - so say a social worker, a doctor, a caregiver, a professor, a manager) makes jokes about sexually assaulting or physically assaulting the people they have power over typically there are questions raised about their suitability. I don't see why the police should be exempt from that level of professional expectations.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 28, 2021, 01:24:28 PM
It seems the places that have issues are the places that have been run by people with very progressive politics and would probably agree with you in spirit (if not on every point). If you take Atlanta, which I think is probably representative of a lot of big cities, the reality is that the police department has been understaffed for many years (it can't get recruits for all of its positions) and morale is notoriously low. The cost of living in Atlanta is super high compared to the rest of the state and the top priority for elected officials in the rest of the state is to "back the blue".
I'm not giving a solution--I don't have one--just that the problems are pretty intractable.
I'm fine with paying more money - yes, out of my taxes - to the police if they live up to those standards.
Low morale, hard to recruit for organizations that regularly act in a socially harmful ways are rife for serious reform IMO. As I understand it, there are police forces - including in North America - that do better than the current reputation of the US police. If they have a better approach, I'm more than happy to take a cue from them.
Quote from: Barrister on April 28, 2021, 02:50:25 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 28, 2021, 02:37:20 PM
Sure. But the stakes of imperfection are different. "Shit, I cut this length of pipe too short for the sink. This is the third time!" vs "Shit, this intervention I lead escalated to violence for the third time"...
True. And?
And so, beyond the generic recognition that to err is human, that mistakes can and will be made, the tolerance for said mistakes should be much lower for police agents, and I have no problem if the consequences for certain mistakes are quite harsh, "livelihood" be damned. I do not agree with Jacob about pensions.
Quote from: Jacob on April 28, 2021, 02:51:12 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2021, 12:34:45 PM
A lot of the other things you mentioned I'm fully onboard, but this? WTF? We're going to fire people from civil service jobs, and confiscate their pensions, based on a quickly-evolving standard set by amoral entities that make decisions to make the problems for their shareholders go away rather than to treat their employee under fire fairly? That's thought NKVD level shit right there. I don't think modern corporate American standards should even be applied to modern American corporations, let alone a government job.
I mean modern America corporate standards as they're applied, not as they're spoken about. Whatever shit you think you can get away with at your job should be about the baseline for police as well, along with the consequences. I don't know, is that NKVD level shit?
At my job if I call someone at work a [racial epitaph] [sexual slur] at the very least I get a talking to by HR and will probably have to explain that I know I shouldn't do that and make some sort of excuse. If I do it in a way that results in a PR disaster for the company or if it's part of a repeated pattern, I'll probably have to adhere to an improvement plan or lose my job.
If someone in a position of power (other than the police - so say a social worker, a doctor, a caregiver, a professor, a manager) makes jokes about sexually assaulting or physically assaulting the people they have power over typically there are questions raised about their suitability. I don't see why the police should be exempt from that level of professional expectations.
I'm not saying that some acts of racism shouldn't be sanctioned, but US corporate standards sometimes mean that a weather guy on a local TV station is fired for saying Martin Luther King a little too quickly, or a former racecar driver is fired for something he said 34 years ago while being new to the country. I don't think too many people know what they can truly get away with at work; I suspect the answer is they they can get away with too much in some circumstances, and be disposed of completely unfairly in others.
Quote from: Barrister on April 28, 2021, 12:25:00 PM
-'callous disregard' Look police deal with severely disadvantaged people every single day. Compassion fatigue is a very real problem in their line of work (and to a much lesser degree my own). Part of being a professional means acting like a professional, but really "three strikes and your out" for not having a professional demeanour? What other profession has anything like that.
I think three (and probably two, maybe one) strike like this is sufficient that someone should be out: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/04/26/new-video-shows-colorado-police-laughing-at-violent-arrest-of-73-year-old-with-dementia/?sh=75a3f1ec578e
Quote'tons of paperwork for firing a bullet'. You have no much paperwork has to be filed for just pulling a gun out of your holster - it's a lot. I can't even imagine what would happen for an officer shooting. I think that automatically triggers an ASIRT investigation (an independent police oversight body).
There's a fair number of bullet storm police incidents in the US. I don't think the paperwork is sufficiently ornerous, to be honest. I expect it's fine in Canada, though.
Quotefail to follow best practices' - your answer is suspension without pay. Name me one profession where if you don't follow best practices you automatically get suspended without pay. We're not talking about a major mistake, just not following best practices. 'I'm sorry you forgot to file your TPS reports last week - I guess that's 3 days without pay for you. Try to do better next time'. There's a wide range of effective penalties far short of that.
Sure, I'm open to a reasonable and proportionate scale. Main thing is the scale as it exists in a number of US police forces seems to be laughable. I think erring a bit on the side of draconic is appropriate right now.
Quote'conduct yourself as non-inclusive = you're fired' So I take it you're a big fan of "cancel culture then"? Problem here is I'm only guessing at what you're meaning because your language is very vague. I could immediately leap to "make a slightly off-colour joke in public while off duty and you're fired". Is that what you intended? We had a situation in Edmonton where two cops were caught by a door cam. They were on duty but no one else was around and they didn't know they were being recorded. They were talking about how whites would no longer be in the majority soon (which is true). One oddly said something about yeah, he would urge his son to get an asian wife to fit in. They then go out of camera range. Should those officers be fired?
Imagine yourself saying something racist at work, racist enough that you'd get reassigned or otherwise suffer HR related consequences. Now imagine yourself doing it enough times - or perhaps stepping the intensity up a bit - sufficiently that you'd get fired for it. That's the bar I'd like to see applied to the police not this overly sensitive stuff you're worried about.
Quote'lie under oath / hide evidence' - I mean we do this already. I have never run into a situation where I think officers have faked evidence. In fact I once tried to prosecute a case where I thought the officer was being so truthful I was using his own notes against him. Bigger problem is one of "blue silence" where the officers just don't say anything, which is a harder problem to solve.
Yet, the amount of times individual officers and police departments have made statements (with very convincing levels of certainty) that have proven to be flat out the opposite of the truth when actual evidence showed up is way too high. The stories of officers carrying spare guns or bags of weed to plant on people after arrests are entirely too high as well. The consequences for being party to that should be servere enough to undermine blue silence, IMO.
Quote'create an environment'... even vaguer.
Yes, I'm not writing policy here, I'm throwing out a bunch of ideas off the cuff. But yeah, if you encourage people around you to plant evidence and to lie to cover your fellow officers then you should face sanctions even if you don't do it yourself. And if you witness it and don't report it, that should have some consequences too, especially if they're people you supervise.
QuoteI agree there should be clear consequences for misdeeds. We need to have a system to encourage greater accountability. I do think body and dash cams can be a big part of that.
Yeah, and I think the potenential consequences for fucking up should be high enough that the body and dash cams are seen as reassurances from the cops that the cams are what protects them from unfair consequences from doing their job, rather than an impediment. I know a UK cop who views them as such (and I'm sure he's not the only one) - he very much prefers having cameras on because they protect him against spurious accusations of misbehavour.
QuoteBut when your immediate reaction is to attack an officers livelihood through a system of suspensions without pay and summary dismissal (and I didn't even get into 'and lose your pension' with is just vindictive) you're going to immediately create overwhelming police hostility. Any successful police reform initiative has to have a certain level of buy-in both from the wider community, but from police themselves.
There's room for fine tuning and figuring out what works best and so on, sure. But since they're not civilians, I think a dishonourable discharge equivalent should very much be on the table. And obviously it'd be best if we can get buy-in from the police themselves, but only if that buy-in is not contingent on protecting rotten apples, corruption, and abuse of power. Chuck the rotten apples with extreme prejudice, then work on getting buy-in from the non-rotten apples that remain.
Quote from: Jacob on April 28, 2021, 02:55:28 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 28, 2021, 01:24:28 PM
It seems the places that have issues are the places that have been run by people with very progressive politics and would probably agree with you in spirit (if not on every point). If you take Atlanta, which I think is probably representative of a lot of big cities, the reality is that the police department has been understaffed for many years (it can't get recruits for all of its positions) and morale is notoriously low. The cost of living in Atlanta is super high compared to the rest of the state and the top priority for elected officials in the rest of the state is to "back the blue".
I'm not giving a solution--I don't have one--just that the problems are pretty intractable.
I'm fine with paying more money - yes, out of my taxes - to the police if they live up to those standards.
Low morale, hard to recruit for organizations that regularly act in a socially harmful ways are rife for serious reform IMO. As I understand it, there are police forces - including in North America - that do better than the current reputation of the US police. If they have a better approach, I'm more than happy to take a cue from them.
I hear ya--urban areas paying more to police to compensate them for the generally tougher job they have and higher cost of living etc is a good idea for both recruitment and morale. But that is the opposite of the current zeitgeist: urban voters wanting to reduce funding to police forces and rural areas wanting to "back the blue".
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 28, 2021, 03:01:22 PM
And so, beyond the generic recognition that to err is human, that mistakes can and will be made, the tolerance for said mistakes should be much lower for police agents, and I have no problem if the consequences for certain mistakes are quite harsh, "livelihood" be damned. I do not agree with Jacob about pensions.
I guess I'm being too cavalier about pensions. Probably because I'm in a line of work where I don't get one beyond what I put away myself.
If it's that big a deal, sure only put it on the table for the most egregious of situations. Or don't put it on the table, that's fine too. As long as the consequences for being a police rotten apple are severe enough that they give some pause.
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2021, 03:09:07 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 28, 2021, 02:51:12 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2021, 12:34:45 PM
A lot of the other things you mentioned I'm fully onboard, but this? WTF? We're going to fire people from civil service jobs, and confiscate their pensions, based on a quickly-evolving standard set by amoral entities that make decisions to make the problems for their shareholders go away rather than to treat their employee under fire fairly? That's thought NKVD level shit right there. I don't think modern corporate American standards should even be applied to modern American corporations, let alone a government job.
I mean modern America corporate standards as they're applied, not as they're spoken about. Whatever shit you think you can get away with at your job should be about the baseline for police as well, along with the consequences. I don't know, is that NKVD level shit?
At my job if I call someone at work a [racial epitaph] [sexual slur] at the very least I get a talking to by HR and will probably have to explain that I know I shouldn't do that and make some sort of excuse. If I do it in a way that results in a PR disaster for the company or if it's part of a repeated pattern, I'll probably have to adhere to an improvement plan or lose my job.
If someone in a position of power (other than the police - so say a social worker, a doctor, a caregiver, a professor, a manager) makes jokes about sexually assaulting or physically assaulting the people they have power over typically there are questions raised about their suitability. I don't see why the police should be exempt from that level of professional expectations.
I'm not saying that some acts of racism shouldn't be sanctioned, but US corporate standards sometimes mean that a weather guy on a local TV station is fired for saying Martin Luther King a little too quickly, or a former racecar driver is fired for something he said 34 years ago while being new to the country. I don't think too many people know what they can truly get away with at work; I suspect the answer is they they can get away with too much in some circumstances, and be disposed of completely unfairly in others.
Can you at least get an update example?
Quote from: Jacob on April 28, 2021, 03:26:48 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 28, 2021, 03:01:22 PM
And so, beyond the generic recognition that to err is human, that mistakes can and will be made, the tolerance for said mistakes should be much lower for police agents, and I have no problem if the consequences for certain mistakes are quite harsh, "livelihood" be damned. I do not agree with Jacob about pensions.
I guess I'm being too cavalier about pensions. Probably because I'm in a line of work where I don't get one beyond what I put away myself.
If it's that big a deal, sure only put it on the table for the most egregious of situations. Or don't put it on the table, that's fine too. As long as the consequences for being a police rotten apple are severe enough that they give some pause.
The thing you have to remember about pensions is that the beneficiary contributes to them as well.
So look - it would be pretty hard to lose a job you've had for 20 years, but hopefully you can get a new one.
But to lose a job you've had for 20 years - but to also lose the 20 years of savings you were counting on to retire with? You can get a new job, but you can't ever make up for those 20 years.
Biden expected to ban menthol cigarettes (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/biden-expected-to-ban-menthol-cigarettes/ar-BB1g9sRZ)
Just out of curiosity; are menthol cigarettes still legal in Canada?
Quote from: Savonarola on April 28, 2021, 03:37:47 PM
Biden expected to ban menthol cigarettes (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/biden-expected-to-ban-menthol-cigarettes/ar-BB1g9sRZ)
Just out of curiosity; are menthol cigarettes still legal in Canada?
Nope. Banned 4-5 years ago.
No, since 2017.
Quote from: Barrister on April 28, 2021, 03:39:05 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on April 28, 2021, 03:37:47 PM
Biden expected to ban menthol cigarettes (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/biden-expected-to-ban-menthol-cigarettes/ar-BB1g9sRZ)
Just out of curiosity; are menthol cigarettes still legal in Canada?
Nope. Banned 4-5 years ago.
Ah well, my dreams of being a bootlegger are crushed. :(
Legalizing pot, but banning menthol seem to be moving in somewhat contradictory directions of substance abuse tolerance. :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on April 28, 2021, 03:33:43 PM
The thing you have to remember about pensions is that the beneficiary contributes to them as well.
So look - it would be pretty hard to lose a job you've had for 20 years, but hopefully you can get a new one.
But to lose a job you've had for 20 years - but to also lose the 20 years of savings you were counting on to retire with? You can get a new job, but you can't ever make up for those 20 years.
Fair.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 28, 2021, 02:37:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 28, 2021, 01:08:04 PM
I think it's *possible*.
Maybe. Not extremely optimistic, but I also acknowledge that some places may have more open culture about this sort of reform.
Quote"Defund the police" is done as a useful slogan.
Of course it is. This goes back to the endless discussion we are having: for some, the language of activists is always unhelpful, and they would rather spend considerable amount of time and energy distancing themselves from it, for fear of being, *gasp* too far left. The people who endlessly complain the left eats its own always seem to want to secure a seat at the table.
I don't give a shit if a slogan becomes discredited - but I do care if it succeeds in pushing these ideas to the forefront, and would rather that more time was spent by people who sympathize with the goal in pushing the sprit of the slogan than simply assert themselves as good centrist afraid of those horrible woke people. People like Caville can lecture about message discipline, but the message discipline they always favor is one that is lab-grown through study groups and weaponized in backroom deals. The ideas they say are popular in the country never appeared magically, but through grassroot work and, yes, the horrible, terrible language of activists.
This is kind of bullshit.
You are disparaging the motives, and basically calling people like myself and DG and Carville liars.
You are claiming that my objection is not based on me actually wanting to fucking win (which is what I claim), but rather because I am oh so anxious to be seen as a "centrist", like my ego is terrified of being seen as woke enough to count as the bad ass Bernie Bros and their super awesome brave courage at calling things all "real".
You are wrong. I have a pretty damn good idea why I think the way I do, and you might not agree with me, but if you wonder why I make the arguments I make, you can just ask me - I am not terribly shy about my views, and am not hiding my true fear of being seen as too lefty.
I think language matters when it comes to convincing people to vote for your side. And language that only specifically appeals to those you have already convinced is just dumb. I don't know what "lab grown" or "weaponized in back room deals" even means.
And no, I do NOT think the "ideas" behind "defund the police" came from the language "Defund the police!". Language follows ideas, and well crafted language drives the adoption of those ideas. Really well crafted language (Gasp!) even drives the adoption of those ideas OUTSIDE the originators idea bubbles! Poorly crafter language fails, and just makes your ideas sound crazy to the people they are trying to actually convince.
This is NOT a debate about policy, at least not directly.
And yes...the people who complain about how the left "eats its own" or fails to execute politics well, yes...they DO in fact want a seat at the progressive table. You know why?
Because they are progressives as well, and want those ideas to win, not just make them feel like they are members of the elite club of right thinkers. And they recognize that the lefty ivory towers are nice and comfy for those living in them, but most people don't live in them, and in a democracy, "most" people are kind of the point when it comes to well executed elections. And in a democracy like we have in the US, where we *already* have a problem with a minority on the right ruling over the majority, and the only way to fix that is to win more elections, then yes - language does matter.
Like in any operation, when it comes to safety and security people don't have to like it. They just have to do as they're told.
Police forces don't exist for the sake of police officers, they exist to do a job. If you don't want to do that job then work somewhere else. Please, because the force will be better off without you.
My instinct, my personality, and my understanding of people say that positive measures are awesome. But you must never be afraid to act very firmly when it comes to unacceptable behavior.
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2021, 04:03:00 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 28, 2021, 02:37:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 28, 2021, 01:08:04 PM
I think it's *possible*.
Maybe. Not extremely optimistic, but I also acknowledge that some places may have more open culture about this sort of reform.
Quote"Defund the police" is done as a useful slogan.
Of course it is. This goes back to the endless discussion we are having: for some, the language of activists is always unhelpful, and they would rather spend considerable amount of time and energy distancing themselves from it, for fear of being, *gasp* too far left. The people who endlessly complain the left eats its own always seem to want to secure a seat at the table.
I don't give a shit if a slogan becomes discredited - but I do care if it succeeds in pushing these ideas to the forefront, and would rather that more time was spent by people who sympathize with the goal in pushing the sprit of the slogan than simply assert themselves as good centrist afraid of those horrible woke people. People like Caville can lecture about message discipline, but the message discipline they always favor is one that is lab-grown through study groups and weaponized in backroom deals. The ideas they say are popular in the country never appeared magically, but through grassroot work and, yes, the horrible, terrible language of activists.
This is kind of bullshit.
You are disparaging the motives, and basically calling people like myself and DG and Carville liars.
You are claiming that my objection is not based on me actually wanting to fucking win (which is what I claim), but rather because I am oh so anxious to be seen as a "centrist", like my ego is terrified of being seen as woke enough to count as the bad ass Bernie Bros and their super awesome brave courage at calling things all "real".
You are wrong. I have a pretty damn good idea why I think the way I do, and you might not agree with me, but if you wonder why I make the arguments I make, you can just ask me - I am not terribly shy about my views, and am not hiding my true fear of being seen as too lefty.
I think language matters when it comes to convincing people to vote for your side. And language that only specifically appeals to those you have already convinced is just dumb. I don't know what "lab grown" or "weaponized in back room deals" even means.
And no, I do NOT think the "ideas" behind "defund the police" came from the language "Defund the police!". Language follows ideas, and well crafted language drives the adoption of those ideas. Really well crafted language (Gasp!) even drives the adoption of those ideas OUTSIDE the originators idea bubbles! Poorly crafter language fails, and just makes your ideas sound crazy to the people they are trying to actually convince.
This is NOT a debate about policy, at least not directly.
And yes...the people who complain about how the left "eats its own" or fails to execute politics well, yes...they DO in fact want a seat at the progressive table. You know why?
Because they are progressives as well, and want those ideas to win, not just make them feel like they are members of the elite club of right thinkers. And they recognize that the lefty ivory towers are nice and comfy for those living in them, but most people don't live in them, and in a democracy, "most" people are kind of the point when it comes to well executed elections. And in a democracy like we have in the US, where we *already* have a problem with a minority on the right ruling over the majority, and the only way to fix that is to win more elections, then yes - language does matter.
You'll never convince the True Believers. You are either a Purple Drazi like themselves or a Green Drazi. It doesn't matter the actual color of your sash; if it's not purple, they only see green.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 28, 2021, 02:37:20 PM
This goes back to the endless discussion we are having: for some, the language of activists is always unhelpful, and they would rather spend considerable amount of time and energy distancing themselves from it, for fear of being, *gasp* too far left.
Have you ever entertained the notion that maybe some people on the left just plain disagree with what is understood to be woke left? Maybe they don't view woke left as a good idea taken too far, maybe they view it as a bad idea taken too far.
I'm on the left because the left approaches problems with critical thinking, and with understanding that nuance exists and that it is helpful to recognize it. I don't see those qualities on the woke left. The fact that the woke left happens to be in my political tent is certainly an annoyance and a complication, but it's an annoyance because they don't stand for what I stand for, not because I'm too chicken to take it as far as they bravely take it.
It is interesting how 'woke' has now been slotted in by white people where 'playing the race card' used to sit.
Quote from: garbon on April 28, 2021, 05:00:18 PM
It is interesting how 'woke' has now been slotted in by white people where 'playing the race card' used to sit.
Now that is fucking irony right there.
Quote from: garbon on April 28, 2021, 05:00:18 PM
It is interesting how 'woke' has now been slotted in by white people where 'playing the race card' used to sit.
I'm going to tip my hat to you, I couldn't have managed to condense so much of what is wrong with woke culture into a single sentence of normal length.
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2021, 05:17:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 28, 2021, 05:00:18 PM
It is interesting how 'woke' has now been slotted in by white people where 'playing the race card' used to sit.
I'm going to tip my hat to you, I couldn't have managed to condense so much of what is wrong with woke culture into a single sentence of normal length.
Racist.
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2021, 05:17:11 PM
I'm going to tip my hat to you, I couldn't have managed to condense so much of what is wrong with woke culture into a single sentence of normal length.
I'd love for you to explain. I have a few assumptions, but they don't all align and I don't want to go on the wrong one.
Quote from: Jacob on April 28, 2021, 05:32:33 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2021, 05:17:11 PM
I'm going to tip my hat to you, I couldn't have managed to condense so much of what is wrong with woke culture into a single sentence of normal length.
I'd love for you to explain. I have a few assumptions, but they don't all align and I don't want to go on the wrong one.
Explain what?
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2021, 05:35:59 PM
Explain what?
Your strong reaction to garbon's comment about "woke" having slotted into how white people previously used "playing the race card."
Personally I can see arguments of how both of those terms are or have been used in a similar fashion. I mean, digging into them a bit I'd say there's probably some nuance differences here and there, and also occasions where they have different meanings or functions in a conversation, but I can also see how it's used as a way to dismiss folks by saying "what you're saying is disingenuous/ self-serving/ counter-productive/ too militant/ shuts down conversation by making it about race at the wrong time/ et. al.". But, like, even if garbon is incorrect I'm missing how it "condenses so much of what is wrong with woke culture into a single sentence".
Possibly because I'm too woke myself, I dunno.
I don't know about the US - but in the UK it is exclusively used by its critics which is normally an indicator that a term isn't useful it just means "I don't like this". It's a bit like "neo-liberal" on the left. They may both have meanings but I think they're kind of debased and detached from them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 28, 2021, 05:59:27 PM
I don't know about the US - but in the UK it is exclusively used by its critics which is normally an indicator that a term isn't useful it just means "I don't like this". It's a bit like "neo-liberal" on the left. They may both have meanings but I think they're kind of debased and detached from them.
Yeah, I was initially a bit surprised by the way "woke" is used on languish by reasonable centrists exactly the same way it's used by the American right.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 28, 2021, 05:59:27 PM
I don't know about the US - but in the UK it is exclusively used by its critics which is normally an indicator that a term isn't useful it just means "I don't like this". It's a bit like "neo-liberal" on the left. They may both have meanings but I think they're kind of debased and detached from them.
Neo-liberal to me just means empathetic but cognizant of the harsh realities of market forces. "The Washington Consensus" is essentially neo-liberalism.
Perhaps the UK is different than the US is because a) your woke people are not quite as strident, b) your reasonable centrists are more intimidated or fewer in number, or c) a combination.
Jake, to take a crack at explaining DGulller's post, I think it has to do with the conflict between critical thinking and ideology/faith. You and I can look at these various police videos and have a back and forth about which police actions were justified and which were not. I can acknowledge the vallidty of your points, even if my position remains unchanged. Hopefullly the same is true for you. Woke people cannot do this because their position is based on a belief system, a belief system that divides the world into good and evil, and therefore anyone who questions or critiques a particular judgement or conclusion is by definition evil.
Quote from: Jacob on April 28, 2021, 05:56:35 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2021, 05:35:59 PM
Explain what?
Your strong reaction to garbon's comment about "woke" having slotted into how white people previously used "playing the race card."
Personally I can see arguments of how both of those terms are or have been used in a similar fashion. I mean, digging into them a bit I'd say there's probably some nuance differences here and there, and also occasions where they have different meanings or functions in a conversation, but I can also see how it's used as a way to dismiss folks by saying "what you're saying is disingenuous/ self-serving/ counter-productive/ too militant/ shuts down conversation by making it about race at the wrong time/ et. al.". But, like, even if garbon is incorrect I'm missing how it "condenses so much of what is wrong with woke culture into a single sentence".
Possibly because I'm too woke myself, I dunno.
Here are some things that immediately come to mind, all from one sentence:
1) Highlighting that a white person said what I said. Responding to an argument by having one's identity focused on is definitely a very woke thing, and it's a very toxic woke thing.
2) Being a person who accuses others of "playing a race card" is generally not what you want to be. Someone who is described to be such a person is never portrayed in a positive light, and often it's implied that such person is a racist. So here garbon equated me with that kind of a person. Shutting down discussions by making one party defend itself against insinuations of racism or other kind of bigotry is again a very woke thing.
3) The general refusal to accept that the other party may be disagreeing in good faith, or that they may even have a point and aren't mistaken in good faith. If the woke are feeling particularly magnanimous towards you, they'll just chalk it up to "unconscious bias", but that's about as good as it'll ever get for you.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 28, 2021, 06:15:33 PM
Neo-liberal to me just means empathetic but cognizant of the harsh realities of market forces. "The Washington Consensus" is essentially neo-liberalism.
And if there's one person I'd go to to understand what Jacobin means by neo-liberal it'd be you :P
QuotePerhaps the UK is different than the US is because a) your woke people are not quite as strident, b) your reasonable centrists are more intimidated or fewer in number, or c) a combination.
How does that follow? There are 4-5 candidates for London Mayor primarily running as "anti-woke" candidates. From a quick Google the Daily Mail seems to run about 3 stories on some new "woke" outrage every day.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 28, 2021, 06:24:30 PM
And if there's one person I'd go to to understand what Jacobin means by neo-liberal it'd be you :P
I'm pretty they use it as a way to slur and dismiss market based arguments they don't understand and are afraid will expose their house of cards.
QuoteHow does that follow? There are 4-5 candidates for London Mayor primarily running as "anti-woke" candidates. From a quick Google the Daily Mail seems to run about 3 stories on some new "woke" outrage every day.
Yeah, but that's all coming from the right, yeah?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 28, 2021, 06:29:14 PM
I'm pretty they use it as a way to slur and dismiss market based arguments they don't understand and are afraid will expose their house of cards.
:lol: Of course.
Quote
Yeah, but that's all coming from the right, yeah?
Yeah - which was my point. Is yours that in the US people you'd describe as "woke" would also non-ironically describe themselves in that way? Because I don't think I've ever seen that - it always seems to be a description imposed on people normally to belittle.
On the theology point - I was listening to a podcast by two relatively prominent historians in the UK. They did an episode on the culture wars and one thought that basically all of British politics since the 17th century is basically a sort of theological culture war and it's just more extreme in America because the US is still more overtly religious, but basically the US is still in that argument among Calvinists frame of politics. The other agreed to a point but thought that the culture wars were fundamentally a theological/Christian civil war which is why people care so much. I don't know how much I agree - but I'm not entirely unconvinced either.
If we are to communicate effectively, then at some point we have to assign labels to things. I think it's generally understood what ideological cluster the people classified as "woke" belong to, so debating the term and who uses it and in what way just strikes me as diversionary.
SHelf, I am not sure what your point is about people on the right using the term "woke".
So what?
If there is a problem with the left around this, then of course the right is going to beat them up with it. That doesn't make the problem something made up by the right.
I mean, if I argue with someone on the right that gun nuts are damaging the image and should chill out, and they respond "gun nut! That is what the left calls anyone who cares about the Constitution!" does that prove that the idea that there are people on the right who are gun nuts is just some leftist hysteria?
It's interesting that this has been neatly turned into a question not about tactics (which is where it started) but rather about identity and whether or not the word "woke" is at issue, and apparently, whether or not caring about how language is used tactically in politics makes you a racist and probably fake progressive. You could not craft a more perfect example of the entire problem with this intellectually empty approach if you hired a team of writers to do so.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 28, 2021, 06:37:39 PM
Yeah - which was my point. Is yours that in the US people you'd describe as "woke" would also non-ironically describe themselves in that way? Because I don't think I've ever seen that - it always seems to be a description imposed on people normally to belittle.
I can't provide you with examples of people using "woke" unironically, though I do have vague recollections of it happening. I can however give you an example of politically correct being used unironically.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkzaOwAmDmA
I'm sure the exact same dynamic will play out with woke as did with PC. It will start off with people celebrating wokeness, then once the backlash and the satire starts, they will disavow the term, claim only racists use the term, then rebrand. Wash and repeat.
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2021, 06:22:10 PM
Here are some things that immediately come to mind, all from one sentence:
1) Highlighting that a white person said what I said. Responding to an argument by having one's identity focused on is definitely a very woke thing, and it's a very toxic woke thing.
2) Being a person who accuses others of "playing a race card" is generally not what you want to be. Someone who is described to be such a person is never portrayed in a positive light, and often it's implied that such person is a racist. So here garbon equated me with that kind of a person. Shutting down discussions by making one party defend itself against insinuations of racism or other kind of bigotry is again a very woke thing.
3) The general refusal to accept that the other party may be disagreeing in good faith, or that they may even have a point and aren't mistaken in good faith. If the woke are feeling particularly magnanimous towards you, they'll just chalk it up to "unconscious bias", but that's about as good as it'll ever get for you.
That makes sense. I mean, I think you may potentially be reading too much into it, but I see where you're coming from. Thanks.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 28, 2021, 06:59:53 PM
I can't provide you with examples of people using "woke" unironically, though I do have vague recollections of it happening. I can however give you an example of politically correct being used unironically.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkzaOwAmDmA
I'm sure the exact same dynamic will play out with woke as did with PC. It will start off with people celebrating wokeness, then once the backlash and the satire starts, they will disavow the term, claim only racists use the term, then rebrand. Wash and repeat.
As I understand it, woke was used unironically in certain Black circles, begain seeing wider adoption among activists and social justice advocates, and then was quickly siezed upon by the right and turned into a word describing the worst of the left (both real and imagined) turning it into a smear, at which point people on the left stopped using it (though it may still be used by the original users).
It's a pretty common cycle for left-wing descriptors to be turned into a smear, as I'm sure you'll all agree.
Quote from: Jacob on April 28, 2021, 07:04:16 PM
It's a pretty common cycle for left-wing descriptors to be turned into a smear, as I'm sure you'll all agree.
Thinking about this, isn't this true of all self-applied labels?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 28, 2021, 07:09:34 PM
Thinking about this, isn't this true of all self-applied labels?
Sure, though I think it happens at varying speeds and his wider social uptake with different terms.
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2021, 06:42:39 PM
If we are to communicate effectively, then at some point we have to assign labels to things. I think it's generally understood what ideological cluster the people classified as "woke" belong to, so debating the term and who uses it and in what way just strikes me as diversionary.
Okay but for those labels to work doesn't there need to be some agreement between people over what they mean. In addition I've never seen anyone self-describe as "woke" which I think is an issue if their ideas are being given a label. I've no doubt you just mean it as a neutral adjective.
But I think in general if there is no consensus, it's mainly used by people who are opposed to whatever they're describing and it's never used by those people - then it's not a very useful label. I think it's worth so I think it needs to be labelled better and more precisely. I think it's about as helpful as the way too many on the left blame everything on "neo-liberalism" or call many things "fascist". Labels only matter if they have content.
QuoteSHelf, I am not sure what your point is about people on the right using the term "woke".
So what?
If there is a problem with the left around this, then of course the right is going to beat them up with it. That doesn't make the problem something made up by the right.
I mean, if I argue with someone on the right that gun nuts are damaging the image and should chill out, and they respond "gun nut! That is what the left calls anyone who cares about the Constitution!" does that prove that the idea that there are people on the right who are gun nuts is just some leftist hysteria?
It doesn't help understand what the issue is. It's like socialist I suppose in the US - there are socialists on the left, there's a lot of thought around what socialism is but if I see a Republican or someone on Fox News complaining about socialism I have no idea what they mean because it can cover almost anything and just means something the speaker doesn't like. That's a useless label for someone to try and understand what they're talking about.
QuoteIt's interesting that this has been neatly turned into a question not about tactics (which is where it started) but rather about identity and whether or not the word "woke" is at issue, and apparently, whether or not caring about how language is used tactically in politics makes you a racist and probably fake progressive. You could not craft a more perfect example of the entire problem with this intellectually empty approach if you hired a team of writers to do so.
I totally agree with Carville's take on tactics. But I don't think they really had much to do with "wokeness" except in what I'm saying - I read them as speak in plain English. Don't use the language of academic seminars or critical theory. They may be helpful - in the same way as academic seminars on neo-classical endogenous growth theory might be helpful for the Clinton administration but the job of the politician is to communicate those ideas in a way that people can understand, tell a story they buy into, win power and deliver.
I think Latinx is a great example (and it's a bit like "woke" in this sense) - I remember some polling that only a tiny minority of people who are Latinx would ever use that word. It's developed from English (Mx) and is not used by the people it is describing. I don't think that's a helpful label - I think it's mostly used to signal to your peers "I've done the reading", rather than to engage with the people you are trying to describe.
Even in that interview Carville didn't use "woke" until he was prompted: "sound's like you've got a problem with wokeness." "Wokeness is a problem" (headline). Isn't this his core point:
QuoteWe have to talk about race. We should talk about racial injustice. What I'm saying is, we need to do it without using jargon-y language that's unrecognizable to most people — including most Black people, by the way — because it signals that you're trying to talk around them. This "too cool for school" shit doesn't work, and we have to stop it. [...]
James Carville
Wokeness is a problem and everyone knows it. It's hard to talk to anybody today — and I talk to lots of people in the Democratic Party — who doesn't say this. But they don't want to say it out loud.
Sean Illing
Why not?
James Carville
Because they'll get clobbered or canceled. And look, part of the problem is that lots of Democrats will say that we have to listen to everybody and we have to include every perspective, or that we don't have to run a ruthless messaging campaign. Well, you kinda do. It really matters.
I always tell people that we've got to stop speaking Hebrew and start speaking Yiddish. We have to speak the way regular people speak, the way voters speak. It ain't complicated. That's how you connect and persuade. And we have to stop allowing ourselves to be defined from the outside.
This is exactly the point I'm making - wokeness is a definition from the outside being imposed on Democrats and I agree with him on the academic style speech. I think this is an issue of the Brahmin left in general. I'd reject the talk of wokeness from the outside and bring it back to the issues and the examples around racial justice or gender equality - always take the critic back to the point and work out which bit of "wokeness" they oppose.
The language matters because it goes your message.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 28, 2021, 06:15:33 PM
You and I can look at these various police videos and have a back and forth about which police actions were justified and which were not. I can acknowledge the vallidty of your points, even if my position remains unchanged. Hopefullly the same is true for you.
:hug: :cheers:
Quote from: Jacob on April 28, 2021, 07:15:02 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 28, 2021, 07:09:34 PM
Thinking about this, isn't this true of all self-applied labels?
Sure, though I think it happens at varying speeds and his wider social uptake with different terms.
Yeah and if we're at the stage where I was in a book club using "woke" as a joke about a decade ago and the British government is briefing that they want a "war on woke" I think we're past the point of it having any real currency :lol:
Edit: Oh and Boris Johnson saying there's nothing wrong "with being woke" when asked if his stance might hurt his relations with the "woke President" (Joe Biden! :blink:)
Shelf, I think your request for more precision and concensus on the meaning of woke is a defense lawyer's tactic. :P
No definition of woke that includes negatives is goiing to be acceptable to the woke community because they don't see themselves as flawed. They think they are doing the work of the almighty.
But I think outrage is a good starting point. I think there's a large overlap between woke and outrageaholic. Outrage about perceived social injustice. Outrage that others don't perceive it the same way. Outrage that others mock their outrage.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 28, 2021, 07:15:08 PM
The language matters because it goes your message.
I'm glad you agree with me. Garbon probably thinks you must be a racist.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 28, 2021, 07:31:28 PM
Shelf, I think your request for more precision and concensus on the meaning of woke is a defense lawyer's tactic. :P
No definition of woke that includes negatives is goiing to be acceptable to the woke community because they don't see themselves as flawed. They think they are doing the work of the almighty.
But I think outrage is a good starting point. I think there's a large overlap between woke and outrageaholic. Outrage about perceived social injustice. Outrage that others don't perceive it the same way. Outrage that others mock their outrage.
Conversely, do you think the term "woke" is sometimes applied to dismiss folks who are in fact not addicted to outrage, who are not trying to paint everyone who disagrees with them as racist and so on?
Is it possible that someone would dismiss f. ex. you, me, Berkut, garbon, DGuller as being "woke" even if we're not?
On a different note - is there an equivalent term for outrageaholics on the right? And is there a term that initially was a self-identifier that has now become perjorative?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 28, 2021, 07:31:28 PM
But I think outrage is a good starting point. I think there's a large overlap between woke and outrageaholic. Outrage about perceived social injustice. Outrage that others don't perceive it the same way. Outrage that others mock their outrage.
Outrageaholicism isn't exclusively from the left though. Plenty of outrage about taking away guns, "fake" trans invading bathrooms and women's sporting events, socialist agendas, baby murder factories and many other nonsense problems. In fact I think that's the core of where Carville has it wrong. You can run on how nuts MTG and the reactionary right is, but it won't reach anybody that doesn't already know it. The media headlines are driven by big ridiculous stories, and that isn't going to get any traction when MTG already says what she says to get the attention. It's why the extremes are getting more play, we have a whole industry emphasizing it.
Quote from: frunk on April 28, 2021, 07:50:06 PM
Outrageaholicism isn't exclusively from the left though. Plenty of outrage about taking away guns, "fake" trans invading bathrooms and women's sporting events, socialist agendas, baby murder factories and many other nonsense problems. In fact I think that's the core of where Carville has it wrong. You can run on how nuts MTG and the reactionary right is, but it won't reach anybody that doesn't already know it. The media headlines are driven by big ridiculous stories, and that isn't going to get any traction when MTG already says what she says to get the attention. It's why the extremes are getting more play, we have a whole industry emphasizing it.
I agree.
"Outrage in pursuit of social justice."
Quote from: frunk on April 28, 2021, 07:50:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 28, 2021, 07:31:28 PM
But I think outrage is a good starting point. I think there's a large overlap between woke and outrageaholic. Outrage about perceived social injustice. Outrage that others don't perceive it the same way. Outrage that others mock their outrage.
Outrageaholicism isn't exclusively from the left though. Plenty of outrage about taking away guns, "fake" trans invading bathrooms and women's sporting events, socialist agendas, baby murder factories and many other nonsense problems. In fact I think that's the core of where Carville has it wrong. You can run on how nuts MTG and the reactionary right is, but it won't reach anybody that doesn't already know it. The media headlines are driven by big ridiculous stories, and that isn't going to get any traction when MTG already says what she says to get the attention. It's why the extremes are getting more play, we have a whole industry emphasizing it.
I don't think anyone is arguing that outrage is unique to the left. Far, far, far from it. It is radically worse on the right.
Quote from: Jacob on April 28, 2021, 07:48:56 PM
Conversely, do you think the term "woke" is sometimes applied to dismiss folks who are in fact not addicted to outrage, who are not trying to paint everyone who disagrees with them as racist and so on?
Yes
QuoteOn a different note - is there an equivalent term for outrageaholics on the right? And is there a term that initially was a self-identifier that has now become perjorative?
"Loony right." "Gun nuts." "Abortion clinic bombers." "Angry old white men."
"Tea Party"
Religious bigots
Gun nut whackos
Creationists
Assholes
Douchebags
Anti-democracy pieces of shit I am frankly ashamed I ever even remotely identified with.
I am kind of drunk. Funny how fast whiskey works.
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2021, 07:51:56 PM
Quote from: frunk on April 28, 2021, 07:50:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 28, 2021, 07:31:28 PM
But I think outrage is a good starting point. I think there's a large overlap between woke and outrageaholic. Outrage about perceived social injustice. Outrage that others don't perceive it the same way. Outrage that others mock their outrage.
Outrageaholicism isn't exclusively from the left though. Plenty of outrage about taking away guns, "fake" trans invading bathrooms and women's sporting events, socialist agendas, baby murder factories and many other nonsense problems. In fact I think that's the core of where Carville has it wrong. You can run on how nuts MTG and the reactionary right is, but it won't reach anybody that doesn't already know it. The media headlines are driven by big ridiculous stories, and that isn't going to get any traction when MTG already says what she says to get the attention. It's why the extremes are getting more play, we have a whole industry emphasizing it.
I don't think anyone is arguing that outrage is unique to the left. Far, far, far from it. It is radically worse on the right.
To me Yi's statement "there's a large overlap between woke and outrageaholic" implied that outrageaholicism was connected to wokeness rather than being a more general problem.
Quote from: frunk on April 28, 2021, 08:00:04 PM
To me Yi's statement "there's a large overlap between woke and outrageaholic" implied that outrageaholicism was connected to wokeness rather than being a more general problem.
Yes, that was a failure of communication on my part.
Quote from: frunk on April 28, 2021, 08:00:04 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2021, 07:51:56 PM
Quote from: frunk on April 28, 2021, 07:50:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 28, 2021, 07:31:28 PM
But I think outrage is a good starting point. I think there's a large overlap between woke and outrageaholic. Outrage about perceived social injustice. Outrage that others don't perceive it the same way. Outrage that others mock their outrage.
Outrageaholicism isn't exclusively from the left though. Plenty of outrage about taking away guns, "fake" trans invading bathrooms and women's sporting events, socialist agendas, baby murder factories and many other nonsense problems. In fact I think that's the core of where Carville has it wrong. You can run on how nuts MTG and the reactionary right is, but it won't reach anybody that doesn't already know it. The media headlines are driven by big ridiculous stories, and that isn't going to get any traction when MTG already says what she says to get the attention. It's why the extremes are getting more play, we have a whole industry emphasizing it.
I don't think anyone is arguing that outrage is unique to the left. Far, far, far from it. It is radically worse on the right.
To me Yi's statement "there's a large overlap between woke and outrageaholic" implied that outrageaholicism was connected to wokeness rather than being a more general problem.
I can't speak for Yi, but I suspect that is not what he meant.
I mean really, there is not way you can even compare the two. My bitch about the left is based in no way on any kind of comparative analysis with the right.
It is based on
1. Tactics. I want the left to win, and I think this harms their chances of doing so.
2. Objective, rational, and reasoned appeals to actual logic and free discourse. I think the behavior of the "woke" left is harmful to actual progress, which should be based on reason, data, analysis, and rigor and open and comfortable exchange of ideas without fear. That makes it actually in contravention to the actual values that I believe make me a progressive to begin with.
Everybody enjoying Joe's speech?
Joe who?
Sorry to post about Joe Biden in the wokeaholic thread.
Anyway I thought he did well and even got Ted Cruz to go to sleep.
Quote from: Valmy on April 28, 2021, 09:18:01 PM
Sorry to post about Joe Biden in the wokeaholic thread.
Anyway I thought he did well and even got Ted Cruz to go to sleep.
Summary please :)
https://youtu.be/hGUDujDCfFE
(https://youtu.be/hGUDujDCfFE)
Here y'all go. People using woke unironically to describe themselves.
Quote from: Jacob on April 28, 2021, 10:22:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 28, 2021, 09:18:01 PM
Sorry to post about Joe Biden in the wokeaholic thread.
Anyway I thought he did well and even got Ted Cruz to go to sleep.
Summary please :)
Promised social support and some progressive legislation. Said we are getting out of Afghanistan but God is still blessing the US military and we still kick ass. That kind of thing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 28, 2021, 07:31:28 PM
Shelf, I think your request for more precision and concensus on the meaning of woke is a defense lawyer's tactic. :P
:lol: I'm mainly a contract lawyer - I just like defined terms so we all know what we mean and what we don't mean.
I think it matters because I think it's easy to talk in the abstract about labels - when we each maybe mean something quite different by that label. But actually when you get to the issues (like the actual bodycam videos) there is far more commonality and broad agreeement.
And I think Carville's point is right - Biden's first 100 days has been more succesful and more radical than I expected by focusing on the sort of brass tacks. From what I can see Republicans have struggled to find a way to attack things most people support and do seem to be casting about for some way that Biden's agenda is a woke outrage etc.
QuoteBut I think outrage is a good starting point. I think there's a large overlap between woke and outrageaholic. Outrage about perceived social injustice. Outrage that others don't perceive it the same way. Outrage that others mock their outrage.
Interesting - do you think it's possible to be woke and not on social media?
Because again things that have been attacked woke in UK discourse (which is all I know in real detail - much as I love watching and reading America) include Prince Harry, the BBC, Joe Biden, the National Trust, English Heritage and certain fad diets. None of which, I'd suggest, are particularly outrage-driven.
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/04/27/sid-miller-farmers-lawsuit/
QuoteTexas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller alleges aid to farmers of color discriminates against white farmers in suit against Biden administration
The conservative Republican and rancher states in the lawsuit filed Monday in Fort Worth federal court that he is suing in his capacity as a private citizen — not on behalf of the state.
Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller is suing the federal government claiming that the Biden administration's COVID-19 relief plan passed last month discriminates against white farmers and ranchers.
Miller, a conservative Republican and rancher, states in the lawsuit filed Monday in Fort Worth federal court that he is suing in his capacity as a private citizen — not on behalf of the state.
Among several other major provisions, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 offers relief to "socially disadvantaged" farmers and ranchers, which the plan defines as people of color. Miller's complaint against the U.S. Department of Agriculture says the definition in the program fails to include "white ethnic groups that have unquestionably suffered" because of their ethnicity, such as those of Irish, Italian, German, Jewish and eastern European heritage.
Attorneys are seeking class-action status for the suit on behalf of white farmers and ranchers.
The lawsuit is sponsored by America First Legal — a group founded by Stephen Miller, Donald Trump's former senior adviser, along with other Trump officials to be a conservative response to the ACLU.
"America First Legal opposes discrimination in all forms," AFL President Stephen Miller said in a statement.
Black farmers in America make up about a quarter of disadvantaged farmers targeted in the relief bill and have lost more than 12 million acres of farmland over the past century, according to the Washington Post. Agricultural experts and advocates for Black farmers say this stems from systemic racism, biased government policy and social and business practices that have denied African Americans equitable access to markets.
The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 is a $1.9 trillion economic stimulus bill signed by President Joe Biden last month, which would provide an estimated $10.4 billion for agricultural and food supply-chain programs. Nearly half would go to relief for farmers of color. While Congress passed last year's $2.2 trillion CARES Act with significant buy-in from both political parties while Donald Trump was in the White House, the American Rescue Plan passed solely with Democratic votes in both the House and Senate this year, after Biden was elected.
The lawsuit says that the exclusion of white ranchers and farmers in the program is unfair and asks the court to declare benefits targeting only people of color unconstitutional.
"Doing so will promote equal rights under the law for all American citizens and promote efforts to stop racial discrimination, because the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," :hmm: the lawsuit states, saying the program "lurches America dangerously backward."
The lawsuit was assigned to U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor, whose court became a favorite for the conservative Texas Attorney General's Office for federal lawsuits fought during the Obama administration. A 2007 appointee of President George W. Bush, O'Connor handed Texas several major wins over the federal government opposing Democratic policies, including gutting Obamacare, ruling against family leave benefits for gay or lesbian couples and blocking guidelines to allow transgender students to use bathrooms aligning with their gender identity.
Miller has repeatedly been criticized in the past for sharing or amplifying racist memes, as well as misinformation and unfounded conspiracy theories on his social media accounts.
Spokespeople for Miller, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the American Farm Bureau Federation did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The complaint asks the court that if it doesn't rule the definition unconstitutional to "at least" expand it to include those of Anglo Saxon heritage that have experienced historical discrimination or include those with "any discernible trace of minority ancestry."
"An interpretation of the underlying statutes that excludes plaintiffs like Miller because he is not 'black enough' would raise grave constitutional concerns under Bolling v. Sharpe and it should be rejected for that reason alone," the complaint states, referencing a lawsuit where the U.S. Supreme Court case held that the Constitution prohibited segregated public schools in Washington, D.C. "The statutes should not be construed to empower the Department of Agriculture to choose a minimum threshold of minority ancestry when determining eligibility for benefits."
https://americanindependent.com/sid-miller-stephen-texas-agriculture-commissioner-bigotry-lawsuit-racism/
Quote[...]
In 2015, Miller shared a photo on his Facebook page of an atomic bomb mushroom cloud with the caption, "Japan has been at peace with the U.S. since August 9, 1945. It's time we made peace with the Muslim world."
[...]
While supporting Donald Trump's campaign in 2016, Miller referred to Sec. Hillary Clinton using the misogynistic slur "cunt" in a tweet. Miller blamed the posting on a hacker and then later on a staffer.
But in a tweet a few days before the incident, Miller wrote on Twitter, "My thoughts are my own," calling into question his attempts to blame the posting on others.
"It's disrespectful and not something I would want my name attached to. We apologize for that," he later told the Houston Chronicle.
In 2017 Miller posted a story to his Facebook page alleging that a group of hunters had been attacked by Mexican immigrants at their campsite. In a comment posted alongside the story, Miller endorsed Donald Trump's border wall.
"This is why we need the wall to secure our borders," he wrote. "There are violent criminals and members of drug cartels coming in."
But the story was false. The sheriff's department that investigated the claim found that the injuries that had occurred were due to an incident of friendly fire among the men.
In June 2020, Miller promoted the debunked conspiracy theory that liberal philanthropist George Soros had financed protests over the death of George Floyd.
"I have no doubt in my mind that George Soros is funding these so-called 'spontaneous' protests," Miller wrote. "Soros is pure evil and is hell-bent on destroying our country!"
And in December 2015, Miller tweeted, "If one more person says Happy Holidays to me I just might slap them. Either tell me Merry Christmas or just don't say anything."
Quote from: garbon on April 28, 2021, 05:00:18 PM
It is interesting how 'woke' has now been slotted in by white people where 'playing the race card' used to sit.
I know I sort of lobbed this in right before I went to sleep last night and then haven't yet addressed as demands of work have prevented me from finding a quiet moment.
I have been reading Languish recently with increasing feelings of disquiet as we have repeatedly decry woke individuals and breezily note that they are not the least bit woke.
Before I went to sleep last night, I stumbled on the following article which I think gave a bit of a voice to what I've been feeling as of late. Note, I'll just be pulling in some selected passages but I think this article and the others I'll be posting are relevant reads.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danabrownlee/2021/04/19/why-white-people-should-stop-using-the-term-wokeimmediately/?sh=59edc6777794
QuoteExhibit A Bill Maher: Why White People Should Stop Using The Term 'Woke'...Immediately
As a 50-year-old Black woman, I have to confess that for years every time I heard the term "race card" interjected into a conversation, it felt like nails on a chalkboard. Immediately, the hairs stood up on the back of my neck, and my amygdala warned me that the person I was engaging with was both insensitive and dangerous. Now, our society is arguably in the midst of a racial reckoning nearly a year after George Floyd's murder, and the public relations winds have radically shifted. Companies and individuals who previously eschewed (if not demonized) racial justice platforms/protests like Black Lives Matter and Colin Kaepernick have instead raced to affirm their support and solidarity with anti-racism related hashtags, social media posts and donations. No, we don't hear the phrase "race card" mentioned much in daily conversation any longer, but a new term, just as insidious, has cropped up to take its place—woke.
Woke is problematic for two primary reasons. First, it's an offensive cultural appropriation. As is disturbingly often the case, White people (or any racial group outside the term's origin) will sometimes begin using a term that originated in a community of color often as a term of pride, endearment, or self-empowerment years or decades later while either willfully or inadvertently distorting the original meaning of the term. While any significant analysis of what cultural appropriation is and why it's problematic is beyond the scope of this article, suffice it to say that hearing White people randomly label individuals and organizations "woke" is very often an unsettling, if not infuriating experience.
I first heard the term "stay woke" within the Black community more than a decade ago to mean "stay vigilant", "don't be fooled", or "don't sleep" (to revive an even older relic of colloquial Black parlance). Soon, the term "woke" found its way into broader society to connote someone who is racially conscious.
...
However, in more recent months, the term has increasingly traded it's more positive-intentioned "conscious" connotation for a pejorative, condescending one. Increasingly, influencers (oftentimes but not always White) have latched onto the term "woke" and weaponized it as an easy way to dismiss or discount a racial issue, platform or grievance offhand as extreme or utterly nonsensical. To be fair, are there issues, platforms, or grievances on the topic of race that are extreme and utterly nonsensical? Certainly, as that would be true of any topic, but this deceptively simple four-letter word has become the anti-racism napalm that we don't need in the struggle for heightened awareness and sensitivity around complex racial issues.
Second, the term's use often prevents the deep, honest, sometimes uncomfortable conversation that arguably is our only pathway to real reconciliation. Let's face it – engaging in sensitive, nuanced conversations around race is challenging enough without the irresponsible insertion of the term "woke" providing an ideological off ramp that shuts down any real listening, learning or self-reflection on issues that really require all three for authentic progress. "Throwing terms like 'woke' around as a way to dismiss the very real and consequential concerns of an entire group of people is just another way of saying, 'I don't want to be inconvenienced by your pain,'" insists equity consultant and C-suite advisor, Tara Jaye Frank. In fact, when White people weaponize the term "woke" during a discussion, it doesn't just disrespectfully discount that specific person or issue but also sends a not-so-subtle message to their peers that if something feels extreme to you, you have license to just discount it. This type of signaling is counterproductive if not dangerous. After all, White people prioritizing their feelings over racial justice progress is arguably what has held us in a purgatory of racial inequity for centuries.
...
Any student of the American civil rights struggle should be well acquainted with the White liberal's history of complicated and capricious commitment to true anti-racism progress. Arguably, this current boomerang effect of sorts may be the result of White progressives deeming themselves to be "woke" (in the sense of being racially conscious and progressive) and therefore in a position to become the arbiter of what is "too much" on the road to racial equity.
...
While there's very little to be certain of in this moment of racial reckoning, I'm certain that real progress will require more listening, not less, an inclination towards learning, not a stubborn resistance to new ideas, more opening up, less shutting down, more introspection, less defensiveness, more facts and truth, less visceral dismissiveness, more grace and respect and less self-righteous indignation. Using the term "woke" to stigmatize someone else's perspective is immature and offensive. It feels dehumanizing...just like "the race card" because after all, for many of us racism isn't a game.
The fact that any particular ideology, policy or idea can go too far or lose the benefit-cost ratio battle should go without saying, and it's preposterous to even entertain the suggestion that simply because a person of color suggests or promotes an idea or platform, it should automatically be adopted (again, beyond obvious). So, when you find yourself in disagreement with an idea, platform or policy related to race, just say so. If the issue is that flawed, it should be easy enough to pick it apart on the merits, right? Everyone is entitled to their opinion and offering a different perspective, asking questions, analyzing pros and cons all show a basic level of respect for all parties involved, but labeling something as "woke" as a means of arrogantly dismissing it often feels like a convenient cop out for those who seem allergic to self-reflection, thoughtful analysis....or maybe accountability.
As such it feels like woke has deviated from any original meaing to a symbol to note that a person has gone to far. Here's a list from the guardian showing some of the original purpose but then some of how it has been contorted when it has gone mainstream:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/nov/21/how-woke-became-the-word-of-our-era
QuoteHow 'woke' became the word of our era
...
1. Woke extends to conversations around art, politics, economic and social class, gender inequality, trans rights and environmentalism. But woke in its original incarnation rests on activism and blackness.
2. The essence of woke is awareness. What you are newly aware of (a pay gap, systemic racism, unchecked privilege, etc) and what to do with that newfound knowledge is the question. And the answer keeps changing depending on who you talk to. But regardless, you've answered the wakeup call, pushed your way out of bed and are now listening.
3. To be woke, in the original sense, is to understand James Baldwin's declaration: "To be a Negro in this country and to be relatively conscious is to be in a rage almost all the time." It is to understand the unique kind of exhaustion that comes from being perpetually attuned to discrimination. It is to be weary and wary. To be woke is to long for a day when one doesn't have to stay woke.
...
6. The goal is to wake up and then stay that way. As in, be on guard, ready to recognise, call out and actively resist the biases, fake news and inequalities as they come, as members of the Black Lives Matter movement do, posting smartphone footage of unlawful killings, assaults and arrests, sometimes with the hashtag #StayWoke, and campaigning for legislative change. Woke is serious business. Often said aloud with a raised closed fist reminiscent of the famous black power salute at the 1968 Mexico City Games.
...
12. Woke is often the result of cultural appropriation – which is tragically ironic, given this is one of the very things the act of staying woke would be on high alert against. See woke's journey from black political circles to white internet slang via headlines in mainstream media. Also see the Evening Standard's "woke-ometer", which measured people on a scale of "asleep" (Theresa May) to "woke" (JK Rowling) ... and included no people of colour.
13. Not only is woke a political state of mind – it has been commodified. When Nike featured Colin Kaepernick, the NFL star who protested against police brutality by refusing to stand for the national anthem during his nationally televised games, many accused the brand of woke-washing, the act of cashing in on social justice.
14. But woke is at its most powerful, and valuable, when it is lived and not mentioned. When it's not viewed as a quality to be smug about. Martin Luther King Jr, Steve Biko and Angela Davis didn't declare themselves activists – they didn't have to, their actions defined them. Woke people know not to, and need not, describe themselves as woke.
15. Woke has been weaponised, used in conservative media circles as an insult, often placed within quotation marks, to mean rigid, uptight and socially and politically puritanical. When the Duke and Duchess of Sussex decided to step away from their roles, the Daily Mail complained that Harry went from "fun loving bloke to the Prince of Woke".
...
17. Dropping the word "woke" into conversation among strangers in a social setting is a pretty easy way to determine where someone sits on the political spectrum without having to invest too much time in uncomfortable debates. Just watch for the nods, stiffened smiles or eye rolls.
...
20. Ultimately, wokeness is rooted in love – of self, family, humanity – just as injustice is rooted in hate.
21. Despite its inherently pessimistic nature, woke is hopeful. To search for Badu's beautiful world requires the belief that one is out there – or at least, capable of being made.
Then from Vox (which also follows a history of the term):
QuoteA history of "wokeness"
...
For instance, consider how the phrase "woke discourse" gets used on social media: The "discourse" can be about a zillion different things, but attaching "woke" to it usually denotes a perception of embittered exhaustion at progressive semantics and arguments.
What's telling is that the exhaustion seems to come from moderates and leftists themselves as often as from conservatives — as if there's a shared agreement that embodying wokeness is a kind of trap, no matter what side of the aisle you're on.
...
Prior told me she likewise was leery of the ostentatious behavior associated with "woke" — but was more distressed by the increasing tendency of conservatives to use "woke" as an insult. "I have had private conversations with pastors who have used it as a term of insult," she said, "because it's hard — it is hurtful to use a term that is so meaningful to people and to use it in an entirely different way, it's just simply wrong."
"On the one hand," miles-hercules said, the term "has been commodified in marketing to connote a host of associations to things like diversity, inclusion, and so on, in order to turn a profit by appealing to progressive sensibilities. Additionally, it has been plundered into conservative and right-wing discourse as a means of mocking and satirizing the politics of those on the other side of the proverbial aisle."
...
It seems, then, that the evolution of "woke" since 2014 is almost a direct reflection of a larger cultural evolution during the same period. Since Ferguson, the ideas and idealism behind various social justice movements have frequently been co-opted and distorted. In the case of the Black Lives Matter movement, conservatives have even reframed the protests as being a contributor to — even the cause of — the violent system they inherently oppose. This has typically been done through petty, disingenuous, exhausting semantic arguments, assisted by bad actors, bots, and trolls, and all of it has been done through and around the word "woke."
It strikes me all as such ugliness over non-whites just wanting to live the same sort of lives what white people live - to not be put at a disadvantage, to not be the subject of violence, to not die because of the color of one's skin. And it pains me to see posters at Languish mimic such posturing when I know they are not racist.
I also read the Carville interview now and noticed that he doesn't even have a solution on what words should be used to advanced the Democratic agenda beyond noting that they should be terms that speak to white America / Joe Manchin. Oddly(?) when speaking about terminology the only Democrats he namechecks are AOC (where he doesn't really even cover anything she has said, but almost like her name is enough of a talisman to know she says nothing of value - well maybe he gives her a backhanded compliment over Greene), Kamala Harris (though he doesn't actually cite anything she's said, just that supporters in Miami deified her as a liberal god) and Maxine Waters (where he oddly praises her for telling a Republican to shut up - which seems exactly the sort of language that doesn't fit in civilized discussions). I came away seeing yet another old white man telling me that women of color aren't using the right terms but offering nothing up as a solution.
On that point, I thought this 538 article had a good point:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-attacking-cancel-culture-and-woke-people-is-becoming-the-gops-new-political-strategy/amp/
QuoteWhy Attacking 'Cancel Culture' And 'Woke' People Is Becoming The GOP's New Political Strategy
...
First and perhaps most important, focusing on cancel culture and woke people is a fairly easy strategy for the GOP to execute, because in many ways it's just a repackaging of the party's long-standing backlash approach. For decades, Republicans have used somewhat vague terms ("dog whistles") to tap into and foment resentment against traditionally marginalized groups like Black Americans who are pushing for more rights and freedoms. This resentment is then used to woo voters (mostly white) wary of cultural, demographic and racial change.
In many ways, casting people on the left as too woke and eager to cancel their critics is just the present-day equivalent of attacks from the right against "outside agitators" (civil rights activists in 1960s), the "politically correct" (liberal college students in the 1980s and '90s) and "activist judges" (liberal judges in the 2000s). Liberals pushing for, say, calling people by the pronoun they prefer or reparations for Black Americans serve as the present-day analogies to aggressive school integration programs and affirmative action. These are ideas that are easy for the GOP to run against, because they offer few direct benefits (the overwhelming majority of Americans aren't transgender and/or Black) but some costs to the (white) majority of Americans. In many ways, we are just watching an old GOP strategy with new language and different issues.
I feel like the semantic argument is a losing game as it appears all too easy for the opposition to twist words to eventually mean the exact opposite of the concept they were supporting.
I find it hard to believe there is a magical phrasing that is just waiting to be discovered that will get rural whites to suddenly care about racial issues absent a fundamental change in how we value the humanity of our fellow citizens.I'll conclude by saying that I find it perplexing to suggest that one's identity should be removed from the situation when discussing issues of racial justice as they are, by their very nature, fundamentally about identity whether inwardly or outwardly constructed/imposed.
As an aside, facebook reminded me that it has been 2 years since my father, sister and I were trailed by a security guard throughout a whole art museum in upstate New York. :(
Quote from: garbon on April 29, 2021, 10:57:41 AM
As an aside, facebook reminded me that it has been 2 years since my father, sister and I were trailed by a security guard throughout a whole art museum in upstate New York. :(
If you only stopped being black, these kind of things would not happen!
Sorry to hear that, that sucks.
Is this whinging about woke people really a new strategy?
Hasn't culture war bollocks being the centre of republican strategy since Reagen? Its long been known its the best way to get people to vote for economics that are detrimental to themselves.
Related but I read this the other day. Nothing ground breaking but does frame things in a easy to understand and logical manner.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/apr/20/the-invention-of-whiteness-long-history-dangerous-idea
Yeah it was "political correctness GONE MAD!!!111" now it is "Wokeness GONE MAD!!!111"
Just more culture war branding shit.
Bullshit.
Fucking bullshit.
QuoteTo be fair, are there issues, platforms, or grievances on the topic of race that are extreme and utterly nonsensical? Certainly, as that would be true of any topic, but this deceptively simple four-letter word has become the anti-racism napalm that we don't need in the struggle for heightened awareness and sensitivity around complex racial issues.
I never brought up the term woke - and neither did Carville. Someone else did. If you don't like the word, don't use it. It's ironic that the argument that Carville WAS making, that language matters and we should consider how we label things and how we talk to people we want to convince of something, is EXACTLY the same argument being made here!
You can't get pissed that your term is being used in a useful way in an argument where your claim is that the terms being used don't matter, it is the ideas behind them!
Let me repeat what she said:
QuoteTo be fair, are there issues, platforms, or grievances on the topic of race that are extreme and utterly nonsensical? Certainly...
So what are we arguing about?
*I* am arguing EXACTLY about those things on THIS topic (and it isn't even about race at all) that are in fact "extreme and utterly nonsensical". Calling for the abolition of the police is extreme and utterly nonsensical, and further, it fucking harms what we are trying to accomplish.
That is it. You cannot pin all that other crap on me, because I am not owning it. I am not trying to use this as a clever way to disguise my secret "white people" racism.
https://www.vox.com/22338417/james-carville-democratic-party-biden-100-days
QuoteSean Illing
Sounds like you got a problem with "wokeness," James.
James Carville
Wokeness is a problem and everyone knows it. It's hard to talk to anybody today — and I talk to lots of people in the Democratic Party — who doesn't say this. But they don't want to say it out loud.
Quote from: Berkut on April 29, 2021, 12:31:56 PM
That is it. You cannot pin all that other crap on me, because I am not owning it. I am not trying to use this as a clever way to disguise my secret "white people" racism.
Who is trying to pin all that other crap on you?
What's the problem with being called woke, anyway? It's like being called a SJW. Yeah, I'm so offended by being called a person who supports social justice. :lmfao:
Or this:
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tlso77Ap6sA/VstBJp6BJWI/AAAAAAAABTo/zqdRhNK9WiQ/s1600/suvakki.jpg)
Quote from: garbon on April 29, 2021, 10:51:16 AM
I'll conclude by saying that I find it perplexing to suggest that one's identity should be removed from the situation when discussing issues of racial justice as they are, by their very nature, fundamentally about identity whether inwardly or outwardly constructed/imposed.
The reason why identity should be removed from any discussion if at all possible is because otherwise you can't have a fair or useful discussion. When one side is allowed to present arguments in a way that cannot be challenged by someone else not belonging to their identity, you can't have a discussion.
Even if your identity or unique life experience does give you the right to say something unimpeachable, you really shouldn't, because then the conversation becomes a lecture. Your lecture isn't going to convince people who didn't agree with you before, but it's going to make them resentful that you now made it impossible for them to continue arguing with you without them looking like assholes. It doesn't apply just to race, it also applies to Russian immigrants who go "I know socialism when I see it, I lived it", or it used to apply to Holocaust survivors who had the final say on what is or isn't oppression.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 29, 2021, 12:52:29 PM
What's the problem with being called woke, anyway? It's like being called a SJW. Yeah, I'm so offended by being called a person who supports social justice. :lmfao:
Or this:
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tlso77Ap6sA/VstBJp6BJWI/AAAAAAAABTo/zqdRhNK9WiQ/s1600/suvakki.jpg)
Yeah, "wokeness", "PC", "SJW", "identity politics" etc. used as pejoratives is echoing alt-right propaganda and I have a hard time taking seriously any argument that uses these terms.
SJW was used ironically to make fun of hypocrites who used social issues as a stick to fight internet wars in a dishonest way.
Then almost immediately it got deployed on anybody who doesn't hate gays, trans, and non-white people appropriately, which is kind of typical how these things go.
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2021, 01:41:50 PM
SJW was used ironically to make fun of hypocrites who used social issues as a stick to fight internet wars in a dishonest way.
Then almost immediately it got deployed on anybody who doesn't hate gays, trans, and non-white people appropriately, which is kind of typical how these things go.
As I say - UK discourse may be different, but I've seen everything from avocadoes to my entire generation ("The self-pitying 'woke' generation needed a war – and in coronavirus they've got one" - I'd say they've done pretty well and behaved responsibly to protect elders) described as woke :lol:
Quote from: garbon on April 29, 2021, 12:41:25 PM
https://www.vox.com/22338417/james-carville-democratic-party-biden-100-days
QuoteSean Illing
Sounds like you got a problem with "wokeness," James.
James Carville
Wokeness is a problem and everyone knows it. It's hard to talk to anybody today — and I talk to lots of people in the Democratic Party — who doesn't say this. But they don't want to say it out loud.
How is someone else bringing up the term evidence to refute the statement that he didn't bring up the term?
Quote from: garbon
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-attacking-cancel-culture-and-woke-people-is-becoming-the-gops-new-political-strategy/amp/ (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-attacking-cancel-culture-and-woke-people-is-becoming-the-gops-new-political-strategy/amp/)
This is exactly what is so offensive about your attittude towards people like myself.
How is citing an article about GOP strategy in response to my issues around messaging anything other than an accusation that I am lying about what I think and why I find this is an issue? If the GOP says the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, does that make me a GOPtard if I note that it does in fact do that?
The GOP wants to attack the left because they are against the IDEAS behind the progressive agenda. In the context of race, they are the ones we are actually fighting - the ones who think everything is fine, and black people really should just calm down and quit complaining so much. The ones who are the actual racists or at least pretty ok with racism.
So when I or DG or whomever brings up an issues, and you respond with an article about what the GOP is doing, you are making a classic ad hom fallacy, and one that is grossly insulting to boot - you are saying that we are lying about why we care about this issue, and in fact, what we really are trying to do is use the issue as cover for our secret identities as GOP racists.
You did the same thing in the back room discussion about China - that if I did not agree with your views on working in China, why, it could not be because of the reasons that I listed and tried to carefully explain, it MUST BE because I condone genocide and my arguments were just "rationalizations". This is the fucking crux of what is wrong with this kind of intolerant left (I will carefully avoid using and words to label this) - that you cannot disagree with ANYTHING, because if you do, why, then you must actually be a stalking horse member of the right. There is no room for just disagreeing.
We saw this with Bernie Bros in the primaries, where they spent a lot of energy trying to actually tell people to not bother voting if Bernie didn't win, because Biden is just a double secret Republican anyway.
And we are seeing it right now, with your response to this entire thing being the accusation that this cannot be a good faith argument about strategy, it MUST be an attempt to attack the ideas behind the progressive movement.
I agree. It's essentially saying wokeness can not be legitimately critiqued. In other words, wokeness is perfect.
Quote from: Berkut on April 29, 2021, 02:08:32 PM
How is citing an article about GOP strategy in response to my issues around messaging anything other than an accusation that I am lying about what I think and why I find this is an issue? If the GOP says the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, does that make me a GOPtard if I note that it does in fact do that?
You are just getting a taste of your own medicine--suck it up. Can't really sympathize with someone who debates dishonestly getting some dishonesty thrown his way.
It was just the start of March when you were going off on me for following McConnell's line (which as far as I know he actually never advocated) when I came back to spike the football that my prediction in late January was right that if Schumer held an impeachment trial in February the trial would be rushed and Biden's cabinet would be delayed getting into place. You even said I should get a brown star for my shirt.
Btw, I've got more bad news for you: Texas covid cases have continued to plunge post restriction lifting: by significantly more than the national average (and are below the national average).
Quote from: garbonI also read the Carville interview now and noticed that he doesn't even have a solution on what words should be used to advanced the Democratic agenda
Of course he did. He cited specific examples, which I actually cited as well, and you strangely left out of your response.
Do you in fact think that politicians calling to "abolish the police" are useful in getting more progressives elected? The solution is to not say things like that. Are you really arguing that there isn't any other possible words to advance the Democratic agenda then "abolish the police"?
The solution is simple, and he stated it - the Dems should be more disciplined, and more willing to call people like that up and say "Hey, stop with that bullshit".
But you know what? People DO NOT say that to those utterly nonsensical prattles. You know why they don't say that? Because when they do, the response they get is "It is interesting how 'woke' has now been slotted in by white people where 'playing the race card' used to sit."
That is why the left can't get rid of the " issues, platforms, or grievances on the topic of race that are extreme and utterly nonsensical". Because the moment you try to talk about it, you are accused of being a closet racist.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 29, 2021, 02:21:17 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 29, 2021, 02:08:32 PM
How is citing an article about GOP strategy in response to my issues around messaging anything other than an accusation that I am lying about what I think and why I find this is an issue? If the GOP says the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, does that make me a GOPtard if I note that it does in fact do that?
You are just getting a taste of your own medicine--suck it up. Can't really sympathize with someone who debates dishonestly getting some dishonesty thrown his way.
It was just the start of March when you were going off on me for following McConnell's line (which as far as I know he actually never advocated) when I came back to spike the football that my prediction in late January was right that if Schumer held an impeachment trial in February the trial would be rushed and Biden's cabinet would be delayed getting into place. You even said I should get a brown star for my shirt.
Btw, I've got more bad news for you: Texas covid cases have continued to plunge post restriction lifting: by significantly more than the national average (and are below the national average).
:yawn:
Quote from: alfred russel on April 29, 2021, 02:21:17 PM
Btw, I've got more bad news for you: Texas covid cases have continued to plunge post restriction lifting: by significantly more than the national average (and are below the national average).
I feel a bit tired explaining this to people but the restriction lifting did not really change anything. My office is still operating at below capacity just as before and we are a state office so one would at least expect us to be impacted by this supposed restriction lifting, we are actually re-opening shortly after labor day...which is the actual date the governor set to re-open. On the other hand we are doing a big vaccination drive. The whole "lifting restrictions" thing was just a political effort by Abbott to save his ass politically after the winter storm and gave the talking heads on each side of the culture war something to babble about but did not actually change anything. Everybody is doing pretty much what they were doing before it. Currently 48% of all Texans over 16 have at least one vaccine shot and 33.3% are fully vaccinated, both numbers well ahead of the national average.
So everybody doing what they were doing before and doing well getting vaccinated? Sounds like a recipe for falling covid cases.
Also can we keep this endless circular debate to the designated thread? I mean nobody is putting in thread COVID restrictions but it would be nice.
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2021, 03:21:02 PM
I feel a bit tired explaining this to people but the restriction lifting did not really change anything. My office is still operating at below capacity just as before and we are a state office so one would at least expect us to be impacted by this supposed restriction lifting, we are actually re-opening shortly after labor day...which is the actual date the governor set to re-open. On the other hand we are doing a big vaccination drive. The whole "lifting restrictions" thing was just a political effort by Abbott to save his ass politically after the winter storm and gave the talking heads on each side of the culture war something to babble about but did not actually change anything. Everybody is doing pretty much what they were doing before it. Currently 48% of all Texans over 16 have at least one vaccine shot and 33.3% are fully vaccinated, both numbers well ahead of the national average.
So everybody doing what they were doing before and doing well getting vaccinated? Sounds like a recipe for falling covid cases.
I don't know why you feel like you have to keep explaining this because I understand it--it is actually kind of my point. I live in the state that ran the original experiment in human sacrifice, getting rid of almost all restrictions a year ago, but is roughly at the national average in deaths/capita. I'm quite aware that this had a limited impact on the high risk activities people do (it may be september before I go back to the office).
People like Berkut and MM fell for the other side of the culture war bullshit are unable to come to grips with the lack of negative results from the lifting of the Texas mandate.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 29, 2021, 03:41:59 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2021, 03:21:02 PM
I feel a bit tired explaining this to people but the restriction lifting did not really change anything. My office is still operating at below capacity just as before and we are a state office so one would at least expect us to be impacted by this supposed restriction lifting, we are actually re-opening shortly after labor day...which is the actual date the governor set to re-open. On the other hand we are doing a big vaccination drive. The whole "lifting restrictions" thing was just a political effort by Abbott to save his ass politically after the winter storm and gave the talking heads on each side of the culture war something to babble about but did not actually change anything. Everybody is doing pretty much what they were doing before it. Currently 48% of all Texans over 16 have at least one vaccine shot and 33.3% are fully vaccinated, both numbers well ahead of the national average.
So everybody doing what they were doing before and doing well getting vaccinated? Sounds like a recipe for falling covid cases.
I don't know why you feel like you have to keep explaining this because I understand it--it is actually kind of my point. I live in the state that ran the original experiment in human sacrifice, getting rid of almost all restrictions a year ago, but is roughly at the national average in deaths/capita. I'm quite aware that this had a limited impact on the high risk activities people do (it may be september before I go back to the office).
People like Berkut and MM fell for the other side of the culture war bullshit are unable to come to grips with the lack of negative results from the lifting of the Texas mandate.
I am tired because it became a big point for the chattering classes to dig into and I spent a lot of time trying to get people from out of this state, and even some inside the state, to realize that Abbott's announcement had no practical impact on anything even for the state government itself. The outrage machine often misses the small print.
After some thought, I do agree with Grab On's point that there is a parallel between calling someone woke and saying they are playing the race card. But I'm pretty sure he won't be pleased by the reason for my agreement.
Both those actions, calling someone woke and saying they are playing the race card, entail the possibility of false positives and false negatives.
To explain further, there can be cases when a person tries to inject race into a situation where it has no relevance to the issue at hand in an effort to elicit sympathy. Conversely a person can claim the race card is being played to deligitimize a legitimate grievance.
What the woke community refuses to acknowledge is the existence of the true positive. That there are actual instances of the first case, where race is injected into an issue in which it has no relevance.
This is all probably just a repackaging of things already said in this thread, but I liked the idea about false positiives and false negatives. Plus I like to post.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 29, 2021, 12:52:29 PM
What's the problem with being called woke, anyway? It's like being called a SJW. Yeah, I'm so offended by being called a person who supports social justice. :lmfao:
Or this:
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tlso77Ap6sA/VstBJp6BJWI/AAAAAAAABTo/zqdRhNK9WiQ/s1600/suvakki.jpg)
Soon being aware will be problematic too.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 29, 2021, 04:07:56 PM
After some thought, I do agree with Grab On's point that there is a parallel between calling someone woke and saying they are playing the race card. But I'm pretty sure he won't be pleased by the reason for my agreement.
Both those actions, calling someone woke and saying they are playing the race card, entail the possibility of false positives and false negatives.
To explain further, there can be cases when a person tries to inject race into a situation where it has no relevance to the issue at hand in an effort to elicit sympathy. Conversely a person can claim the race card is being played to deligitimize a legitimate grievance.
As you say, there are cases of false negatives (people saying race is relevant when it's not) but there are also false positives (people dismissing race as being irrelevant, even though it is in fact relevant). Seems to me "woke" is frequently being used to dismiss claims that race is relevant by those who think it is not, whether it's a false positives or a false negatives.
I think the real political battleground - as well as the primary area of potential confusion and frustration for people who potentially mostly agree - is who determines when race is relevant and when it is not (not to mention in which way it's relevant). There are significant area of the debate where reasonable arguments can be made that race is or isn't relevant. IMO, dismissing those who think it's relevant as being perjoratively woke is just as surefire a way to derail any constructive dialogue as is accusing those who think it isn't as being racist.
Huh, and I always thought that "Woke" was just cultural appropriation of the Anglo-Saxon hero Hereward the Wake. You learn something everyday I suppose.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 29, 2021, 12:52:29 PM
What's the problem with being called woke, anyway? It's like being called a SJW. Yeah, I'm so offended by being called a person who supports social justice. :lmfao:
Or this:
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tlso77Ap6sA/VstBJp6BJWI/AAAAAAAABTo/zqdRhNK9WiQ/s1600/suvakki.jpg)
The German equivalent is Gutmensch, i.e. good-person, though it seems to have fallen out of favor a bit in recent years because if you call someone a good-person, what does that make you? :P
I think it's fairly obvious that if a positive term is used derisively, it's meant to imply that the person being derided is not as virtuous as they imagine themselves to be (or alternatively they may be virtuous about exactly the wrong things).
I'm told that in Mandarin the term "White Left" is used in a similar way.
Quote from: DGuller on April 29, 2021, 11:56:37 PM
I think it's fairly obvious that if a positive term is used derisively, it's meant to imply that the person being derided is not as virtuous as they imagine themselves to be (or alternatively they may be virtuous about exactly the wrong things).
Yes, that is in fact fairly obvious :lol:
Quote from: Jacob on April 29, 2021, 11:57:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 29, 2021, 11:56:37 PM
I think it's fairly obvious that if a positive term is used derisively, it's meant to imply that the person being derided is not as virtuous as they imagine themselves to be (or alternatively they may be virtuous about exactly the wrong things).
Yes, that is in fact fairly obvious :lol:
That what I started off thinking, but then I saw Solmyr being confused, so I put a weasel word in just to be safe.
Quote from: DGuller on April 29, 2021, 11:56:37 PM
I think it's fairly obvious that if a positive term is used derisively, it's meant to imply that the person being derided is not as virtuous as they imagine themselves to be (or alternatively they may be virtuous about exactly the wrong things).
It's these hard hitting insights and revelations why I come to Languish. :P
In the vein of people never bringing up the term woke to use as a cudgel, I give you my lastest work.
Title of the work: you called me a closet racist when you said you knew I wasn't racist (2021)
Artist: garbon
Media: found text
Quote from: Berkut on April 05, 2021, 04:12:51 PM
That is really nuts about how woke the left has become.
The immigration debate certainly went this way - once the right adopted "WE FUCKING HATE IMMIGRANTS!" as a rallying cry, the left decided anything other then "ALL IMMIGRANTS ARE OSSUM!!!" is fascist.
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2021, 12:10:45 PM
This is another example of how the left sabotages their own arguments. They get so wokeraged that they take basically good ideas and radicalize their message, which just lets the other side trivially point out that the left is full of shit.
Quote from: Berkut on November 05, 2020, 11:13:59 PM
Although the identity politics woke left is pretty terrifying in their own way.
Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2019, 08:41:19 PM
It seems to me like a woke effort to make sure that the only grounds for discussion are the identity politics acceptable grounds - that it is all racism, all the time, and actual true facts that could be taken even in theory as distracting from that are to be attacked vigorously.
Quote from: Berkut on December 11, 2019, 02:21:36 AM
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/
Zoupa is exactly typical of the average over-woke lefty liberal:
Male, and white, and privileged.
It's really quite amusing that the people most concerned about political correctness and the forms of racial justice rather than the actual content of it are rich white lefties. Not surprising, but definitely amusing.
Quote from: Berkut on December 11, 2019, 11:17:37 PM
This is racial identity politics as championed by the modern radical left. You are either a woke racial politics warrior, or you are in fact not just wrong, but the true enemy. For them, the Buttigieg and Berkuts of the world are in fact the real enemy, not the Trumps of the world. Trump is at least fighting the same fight, just for the other side.
Quote from: Berkut on April 27, 2021, 11:57:39 AM
I am not very woke, to say the least
Quote from: Berkut on July 03, 2019, 12:17:44 AM
Look, he clearly is not woke enough, so must be purged, regardless of his actual record on civil rights issues.
Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2019, 02:27:22 PM
I am the #1 cheerleader on Languish for bashing identity politics and the stifling of free speech on the left.
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2021, 06:42:39 PM
If we are to communicate effectively, then at some point we have to assign labels to things. I think it's generally understood what ideological cluster the people classified as "woke" belong to, so debating the term and who uses it and in what way just strikes me as diversionary.
Quote from: DGuller on November 04, 2020, 04:16:43 PM
I wonder to what extent woke culture already contributed to scaring the conservatives. It scares the hell out of me, and I'm sitting here on the verge of a stroke every time Trump's percentage goes up a point.
Quote from: DGuller on October 05, 2020, 08:10:02 PM
:wacko: I think we've reached peak woke here.
Quote from: DGuller on March 22, 2020, 03:20:21 PM
I use "woke" a lot, definitely always disparagingly. I think it's a very useful term to quickly describe the militant left as encountered on Twitter, hostile to any non-self-censored discussion of a wide range of topics. I think it would be a very woke thing to equate the criticism of such a crowd to being a racist.
The average 'over-woke' person is male, white and privileged.
I choose to see it as a compliment when called woke, as in the original meaning of the word, before scared wypipo decided to make it derisive. :frog:
Quote from: garbon on April 30, 2021, 03:01:37 AM
In the vein of people never bringing up the term woke to use as a cudgel, I give you my lastest work.
Where did someone say people "never" bring up the term woke? I did not say that. You made a specific claim in about a specific conversation that I did, I pointed out that I did not, and now you cite a bunch of other conversations out of context where the term was used as evidence to refute a claim that was never even made about a term that has nothing to do with the discussion until YOU made the discussion about it?
And you do realize that in plenty of those examples you so painstakingly searched out, it isn't being used as a cudgel? Or isn't even being used at all?
Of course you do. You are just being dishonest at this point. You care more about being able to use your imaginary leftness to beat up on others then you do about actually solving any of the problems you pretend to care so much about.
Quote from: Zoupa on April 30, 2021, 06:12:32 AM
I choose to see it as a compliment when called woke, as in the original meaning of the word, before scared wypipo decided to make it derisive. :frog:
In a weird coincidence I just saw a centre right person in the UK tweeting that they would like it if there was a word they could use to criticise what is meant by "wokeness" without having to be associated with the people who use the word "woke" :lol:
Quote from: Zoupa on April 30, 2021, 06:12:32 AM
I choose to see it as a compliment when called woke, as in the original meaning of the word, before scared wypipo decided to make it derisive. :frog:
You should - if someone used it about me as a compliment, I would certainly take it as such. Why not?
It is vague enough that it can be used either way.
To the extent that it is a useful label is that it is ever so perfectly suited to describe those who care more about signalling their ideological purity then they do about actually doing anything about the actual issues and ideas, or actively working against solutions by caring more about proper signalling then actually accomplishing anything.
Note the anger and vitriol towards Carville for suggesting that actually winning elections is important, and not a peep from you all about a prominent politician communicating that we should abolish the police. It is perfectly illuminating that you find "We should consider how our language can be used to effectively convince people to vote for us" as a issue to spend vast time combatting, but "ABOLISH THE POLICE" as perfectly fine coming from a actual politician.
Signaling >>>>> winning.
Now lets have a 16 page discourse on the abuse of the word "signalling" and the sins of those who culturally appropriate that word. Because that is what is really important.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 30, 2021, 07:41:30 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on April 30, 2021, 06:12:32 AM
I choose to see it as a compliment when called woke, as in the original meaning of the word, before scared wypipo decided to make it derisive. :frog:
In a weird coincidence I just saw a centre right person in the UK tweeting that they would like it if there was a word they could use to criticise what is meant by "wokeness" without having to be associated with the people who use the word "woke" :lol:
Meta signalling!
It goes to show how effective the left is at really getting at what is important - demonizing people who don't use *their* words the right way!
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 07:40:04 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 30, 2021, 03:01:37 AM
In the vein of people never bringing up the term woke to use as a cudgel, I give you my lastest work.
Where did someone say people "never" bring up the term woke? I did not say that. You made a specific claim in about a specific conversation that I did, I pointed out that I did not, and now you cite a bunch of other conversations out of context where the term was used as evidence to refute a claim that was never even made about a term that has nothing to do with the discussion until YOU made the discussion about it?
And you do realize that in plenty of those examples you so painstakingly searched out, it isn't being used as a cudgel? Or isn't even being used at all?
Of course you do. You are just being dishonest at this point. You care more about being able to use your imaginary leftness to beat up on others then you do about actually solving any of the problems you pretend to care so much about.
Oh darling, I wouldn't do anything that recalled painstaking effort for you. I did a search on one term and two posters. We are talking about 10 minutes worth of effort. :hug:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 30, 2021, 07:41:30 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on April 30, 2021, 06:12:32 AM
I choose to see it as a compliment when called woke, as in the original meaning of the word, before scared wypipo decided to make it derisive. :frog:
In a weird coincidence I just saw a centre right person in the UK tweeting that they would like it if there was a word they could use to criticise what is meant by "wokeness" without having to be associated with the people who use the word "woke" :lol:
It feels like the issue is that it is being used to describe a largely amorphous set of despised behaviors. After all it is being used to describe negatively black people calling for de funding the police all the way to 'privileged' individuals like Zoupa as the prototypical example.
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 07:46:39 AMMeta signalling!
That's what we do with language - U or non-U as updated to modern tastes. Tea/dinner/supper - who do you want to be associated with or, more importantly, who don't you want to be associated with? It's just political Hyacinth Bucket-ing.
I mean we do it with opinions too - most people because they're sensible and have busy lives don't really look into any political issues or necessarily see all the films they talk about. We borrow opinions just like we borrow words from people we want to associate with - received wisdom or common sense is normally nothing more than high status opinions (and we've seen a few of them go through the wringer this year).
QuoteIt goes to show how effective the left is at really getting at what is important - demonizing people who don't use *their* words the right way!
I think that's nonsense. The left is no more effective at shaping the discourse than right-wing tabloids. They're part of it but more typically if a word is only used non-ironically by one community (in this case, gammons) then it'll be associated with them - and people who don't want to be associated with that group will avoid that word even if they kind of agree with what it's getting at. As I say I think Latinx is actually another example of this.
In terms of the background to the word Garbo posted - it makes me think of "right on" which was a real phrase in the 60s. I think again it came from jazz circles and the black community, I think it then moved to being used to sort of describe the white kids hanging around jazz circles. It's still used in the UK but exclusively by right-wing tabloids normally to describe "right on lefties" or "right on human rights lawyers" etc. It's not been used by normal people in probably the last 50 years but is part of tabloid langauge :lol:
This conversation for a while has reminded me of a Russian joke.
QuoteThe teacher asks the class to produce a word that starts with the letter "A": Vovochka happily raises his hand and says "Arse!" ("Жопа" in the original)
The teacher, shocked, responds "For shame! There's no such word!"
"That's strange," says Vovochka thoughtfully, "the arse exists, but the word doesn't!"
Quote from: DGuller on April 30, 2021, 08:05:03 AM
This conversation for a while has reminded me of a Russian joke.
QuoteThe teacher asks the class to produce a word that starts with the letter "A": Vovochka happily raises his hand and says "Arse!" ("Жопа" in the original)
The teacher, shocked, responds "For shame! There's no such word!"
"That's strange," says Vovochka thoughtfully, "the arse exists, but the word doesn't!"
It's kind of amazing how the entire discussion just perfectly highlights exactly what the problem is with the virtue signalling left politics.
There is a real nastiness to it - fanaticism towards the form and language at the expense of the actual problems themselves.
I mean, the basic response to "We should not have politicians calling to abolish the police if we want to convince non-left wing people to vote for progressive politicians" has been a jihad against the wrong way to use the word "woke".
Quote from: garbon on April 30, 2021, 07:53:35 AM
After all it is being used to describe negatively black people calling for de funding the police
Who did that?
Quote from: garbon on April 30, 2021, 07:53:35 AM
It feels like the issue is that it is being used to describe a largely amorphous set of despised behaviors. After all it is being used to describe negatively black people calling for de funding the police all the way to 'privileged' individuals like Zoupa as the prototypical example.
Yeah - exactly this is why I want to know what people mean by it. As I say here I've seen it cover everything - avocadoes, veganism, the BBC, health and safety laws.
The issue here isn't the "left" somehow regulating the way people use it. It's that a prominent group of writers (Spiked, Toby Young, Richard Littlejohn, Dominic Lawson) have used it as shorthand for all the things they dislike - rathter than something specific. And the same thing has previously happened with political correctness, SJW, right on. It'll happen to another word in the next few years too.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 30, 2021, 08:12:58 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 30, 2021, 07:53:35 AM
It feels like the issue is that it is being used to describe a largely amorphous set of despised behaviors. After all it is being used to describe negatively black people calling for de funding the police all the way to 'privileged' individuals like Zoupa as the prototypical example.
Yeah - exactly this is why I want to know what people mean by it. As I say here I've seen it cover everything - avocadoes, veganism, the BBC, health and safety laws.
The issue here isn't the "left" somehow regulating the way people use it. It's that a prominent group of writers (Spiked, Toby Young, Richard Littlejohn, Dominic Lawson) have used it as shorthand for all the things they dislike - rathter than something specific. And the same thing has previously happened with political correctness, SJW, right on. It'll happen to another word in the next few years too.
So your objection is you just don't know what people mean when they don't use the word "woke", but instead talk about extremely specific behavior, and even actually quote the exact words used, and then in order to avoid that a bunch of other people start railing and ranting about how people use the word woke?
Really? I am skeptical that is "exactly" what you want to know.
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 08:18:16 AMSo your objection is you just don't know what people mean when they don't use the word "woke", but instead talk about extremely specific behavior, and even actually quote the exact words used, and then in order to avoid that a bunch of other people start railing and ranting about how people use the word woke?
I'm not railing and ranting :lol:
But yeah - basically - I think it's a bit like "defund the police" in that way. I want to know what people mean by that because I think it's a slogan that is used by activists and protesters on the left but seems to cover about a million different ideas - so I'm dubious as to useful it is as a slogan and, it seems to me, it's probably more of a shibboleth or a signifier of "I'm on this side". Similarly with "woke" it's a word that is used to describe almost anything to the point that I think it's effectively meaningless and is instead basically saying I don't like this.
I think there's more to be gained by talking about what we actually mean rather than in code or shibboleths like "defund the police" or "woke".
It is also, at least in this country, a word associated sort of low-status right wing columnists in forming opinion. So people who think they are thoughtful, or don't want to be associated with that don't use it. This was the issue the centre-right guy had when, in response, someone shared an article on why "woke" is a useful word: "Thanks. I think you miss my objection, which is that using the term groups you in with very low level eejits. In debates as sensitive as this it's important to me to not be associated with people who I think are dumbasses, with opinions I think are really stupid."
QuoteReally? I am skeptical that is "exactly" what you want to know.
Yes - it is difficult to believe that an English literature grad and current Jesuitical lawyer would get very interested in understanding the "meaning" of words :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 30, 2021, 08:28:48 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 08:18:16 AMSo your objection is you just don't know what people mean when they don't use the word "woke", but instead talk about extremely specific behavior, and even actually quote the exact words used, and then in order to avoid that a bunch of other people start railing and ranting about how people use the word woke?
I'm not railing and ranting :lol:
But yeah - basically - I think it's a bit like "defund the police" in that way. I want to know what people mean by that because I think it's a slogan that is used by activists and protesters on the left but seems to cover about a million different ideas - so I'm dubious as to useful it is as a slogan and, it seems to me, it's probably more of a shibboleth or a signifier of "I'm on this side". Similarly with "woke" it's a word that is used to describe almost anything to the point that I think it's effectively meaningless and is instead basically saying I don't like this.
I think there's more to be gained by talking about what we actually mean rather than in code or shibboleths like "defund the police" or "woke".
OK, so I guess that makes you right there on he side of Carville. Which makes you probably a racist.
Quote
It is also, at least in this country, a word associated sort of low-status right wing columnists in forming opinion. So people who think they are thoughtful, or don't want to be associated with that don't use it. This was the issue the centre-right guy had when, in response, someone shared an article on why "woke" is a useful word: "Thanks. I think you miss my objection, which is that using the term groups you in with very low level eejits. In debates as sensitive as this it's important to me to not be associated with people who I think are dumbasses, with opinions I think are really stupid."
Isn't that what I said? This effort to attack people because they use a word (or in this particular case, DID NOT use a word, but we won't let that stop us from our bigotry).
That's what is so funny about this. The debate is about using the term you just said you thought was problematic (or rather a term), except that Tlaib actually ratcheted her rhetoric up from "defund" to actually calling for police to be abolished.
The discussion was not about using the word woke at all. That was assigned in order to do exactly what you are doing now - why, people who use the word woke are "low level eejits"! That makes it easy to just dismiss their views, and the fact that they didn't even use bring up the term in the debate is no reason to just not pretend they did, right? It's just so damn useful to dismiss them as morons rather then address the issue, so lets do that.
QuoteReally? I am skeptical that is "exactly" what you want to know.
Yes - it is difficult to believe that an English literature grad and current Jesuitical lawyer would get very interested in understanding the "meaning" of words :P
[/quote]
My skepticism remains.
You are working really hard to avoid the actual subject of the conversation, which you tangentially claim to agree with, while focusing on how you can safely assume that anyone who has ever used the word "woke" is a "ejeet" and "dumbasses". How...convenient.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 30, 2021, 08:12:58 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 30, 2021, 07:53:35 AM
It feels like the issue is that it is being used to describe a largely amorphous set of despised behaviors. After all it is being used to describe negatively black people calling for de funding the police all the way to 'privileged' individuals like Zoupa as the prototypical example.
Yeah - exactly this is why I want to know what people mean by it. As I say here I've seen it cover everything - avocadoes, veganism, the BBC, health and safety laws.
The issue here isn't the "left" somehow regulating the way people use it. It's that a prominent group of writers (Spiked, Toby Young, Richard Littlejohn, Dominic Lawson) have used it as shorthand for all the things they dislike - rathter than something specific. And the same thing has previously happened with political correctness, SJW, right on. It'll happen to another word in the next few years too.
Virtue signaling is another term that fits nicely into the category of a phrase which has become meaningless. It is now being used as a slur along with "woke" to mean things the person using the phrase (usually someone on the right) does not like - whatever that might be.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 30, 2021, 08:28:48 AM
I think there's more to be gained by talking about what we actually mean rather than in code or shibboleths like "defund the police" or "woke".
I agree. When words and phrases have no fixed meaning and thus mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean without being clear to the listener what the speaker wants them to mean, they are no longer useful as words. They become, as you say, code words.
It's clear to me that "woke" is used somewhat differently in the UK than in the US. I have students who are proud to call themselves "woke" because to them it still means "to be aware of the pervasiveness of social injustice." In the UK, it seems to mean only dismissing people who are to the left of the speaker.
In the US, I don't think that the left will ever out-codeword the right, and so shouldn't try. I like the approach Biden took in his speech Wednesday: use actual facts to make your points, rather than making up shot about how dishwashers and toilets don't work anymore. I think that, slowly, swing voters will recognize the difference.
Biden is kind of awesome. I think I was wrong to rate him as my second to last choice in the Dem candidates.
Biden has a very unenviable task: actually getting things done in the face of pure obstructionism from the imploding right, and at the same time keeping the progressive left in check, so they do not piss off enough voters to drive them to the right - all while avoiding being classified by the progressives as really no different in substance to the right.
So far, he's done very well. Surprisingly so.
I tried to tell you guys he was awesome when the primaries started. :sleep:
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 09:05:21 AM
OK, so I guess that makes you right there on he side of Carville. Which makes you probably a racist.
I've repeatedly said in this thread that I basically agree with Carville's point. I also don't think Carville's central point is anything to do with wokeness or that he introduces it - it's a word that generates interest which is why it's the headline (and, puckishly, the interview) not his more central point - speak simply about the issues, with discipline and you'll win (which is what Biden has done and so far is doing in office).
QuoteThe discussion was not about using the word woke at all. That was assigned in order to do exactly what you are doing now - why, people who use the word woke are "low level eejits"! That makes it easy to just dismiss their views, and the fact that they didn't even use bring up the term in the debate is no reason to just not pretend they did, right? It's just so damn useful to dismiss them as morons rather then address the issue, so lets do that.
That isn't the point he's making or that I'm making. I'm not coming at this from bigotry or political expediency.
QuoteYou are working really hard to avoid the actual subject of the conversation, which you tangentially claim to agree with, while focusing on how you can safely assume that anyone who has ever used the word "woke" is a "ejeet" and "dumbasses". How...convenient.
That's not what I'm saying. And that's not what he's saying either and again he works at a libertarian think-tank so we're not talking about someone on the left here.
And you know you've said in this thread that people are making bad faith readings of what you're saying - and I'm trying not to - I do try to understand people's views on their own terms even if I disagree with them, whether they're posting here or whether they're people we're talk - like Republicans or Brexiteers or Corbynistas.
But also maybe offer that back as well - normally if I'm posting on something it's because I find it interesting, if I jump in on a specific point it's because I either think I know something, have a question about it or find it the most interesting bit (and I will very rarely post just to say I agree with someone because I'm a withholding bastard :P). I'm not working really hard to try and do anything, I'm commenting on the bit I find interesting.
QuoteIt's clear to me that "woke" is used somewhat differently in the UK than in the US. I have students who are proud to call themselves "woke" because to them it still means "to be aware of the pervasiveness of social injustice." In the UK, it seems to mean only dismissing people who are to the left of the speaker.
Okay that's interesting - the first thing I said on this was that it may be different in the UK and the US. But yeah my experience here is that it is - like "right on" - one of those words you never really see in the wild. It's just in tabloid lexicon - a bit like "romp" (as in "sex romp" or "Tory minister caught in three in the bed romp") - no-one uses that word unless they write for a tabloid.
Given that - when you use it, that's what you're signalling even if you don't mean to. If you're aware of the tabloid use and associations then you try and avoid the word because you don't want people to make that link or perception about you.
Edit: It is why, for example, I'd also normally try to qualify or explain "neo-liberal" if I used that because I normally want to mean something specific and not just sound like a tankie and I don't want to sound like a tankie, but I think it's the best word in that situation. (Except if I do want to sound like a tankie for some reason :ph34r:)
QuoteIn the US, I don't think that the left will ever out-codeword the right, and so shouldn't try. I like the approach Biden took in his speech Wednesday: use actual facts to make your points, rather than making up shot about how dishwashers and toilets don't work anymore. I think that, slowly, swing voters will recognize the difference.
Agreed. I think Biden is right to focus on getting things done. I also think, and as someone on the centre-left, I've always thought that the best course for the left is to campaign and speak moderately, while governing radically. Not least because there is nothing the left love more than obscure doctrinal arguments - so if you speak like them you lose loads of voters who don't care about that stuff - and I think that trend has increased with the rise of Brahmin left. And from the left's perspective I think they've been very canny in campaigning for and supporting Biden and then using their political capital from that to get stuff done. Neither of those lessons have been learned in the UK where a significant chunk of the left still mourns Corbyn who I have issues with in terms of his personal beliefs, but during elections they just gave the impression of being very left while their manifestoes were boring and moderate - which is the wrong way round. Similarly the left would rather they win the internal battle against Keir Starmer than support him, beat Johnson and use their leverage :bleeding:
I also think in the US that Democrats have realised that what voters want is government that gets stuff done and I think that means they have been a little bit better than under Obama at not getting distracted by having a big internal row about some policy minutiae and also are more focused on passing legislation than trying to win one Republican vote to say it's bipartisan (and frankly voters aren't stupid - they see through that).
Quote from: Caliga on April 30, 2021, 09:55:59 AM
I tried to tell you guys he was awesome when the primaries started. :sleep:
I've always liked Biden - but I'm not sure how much of that is because I like actual existing Biden and how much is because I like the Onion Biden :lol:
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 09:41:39 AM
Biden is kind of awesome. I think I was wrong to rate him as my second to last choice in the Dem candidates.
I agree, I definitely misjudged him as well. It wasn't the first misjudgment I made in the 2020 Democratic primary. I probably caught some foam splatter from the "poor Joe has been dragged from the nursing home to run for president" propaganda, and bought into it enough to form the wrong impression.
I haven't paid much attention to politics since Biden was sworn in. What has he done that's convinced you guys he's not as bad?
I do like the way he's been speaking, mind, but I don't know how much of that is just listening to a guy who sounds like a normal human.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 30, 2021, 10:55:57 AM
I haven't paid much attention to politics since Biden was sworn in. What has he done that's convinced you guys he's not as bad?
I do like the way he's been speaking, mind, but I don't know how much of that is just listening to a guy who sounds like a normal human.
He is absolutely NOT succumbing to the demands from the <insert word other then woke to describe exactly what we all know that word describes in this context> crowd to make a bunch of dumbass speeches about defunding the police or abolishing cops or cancelling anyone.
He IS coming up with sane, rational, but surprisingly progressive policies and proposals for actually making things better, without getting all wild eyed and bonkers about it - just the facts, ma'am kind of approach.
But really, coupled with some pretty damn progressive policies.
Fingers are crossed he can keep it up.
I would like to see a lot more aggression on climate change though.
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 10:59:52 AM
He is absolutely NOT succumbing to the demands from the <insert word other then woke to describe exactly what we all know that word describes in this context> crowd to make a bunch of dumbass speeches about defunding the police or abolishing cops or cancelling anyone.
Not succumbing to black people?
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 10:59:52 AM
He IS coming up with sane, rational, but surprisingly progressive policies and proposals for actually making things better, without getting all wild eyed and bonkers about it - just the facts, ma'am kind of approach.
But really, coupled with some pretty damn progressive policies.
I'm fading on Biden honestly.
I think I read he's proposed 6 or 7 trillion dollars in spending. That's just :bleeding:
Yes, no need to point out that the former guy was hardly any better in terms of reckless spending.
Only beef I have with Joe right now is that throwing around Trillion dollar plans make me kind of queasy. I really wish there was a Republican party that could contribute to these bills, but there isn't. Democrats learned during the Obama years that any negotiations with the GOP are fruitless as the GOP does not act in good faith. I'm not sure how to fix that. Obviously removing Mitch McConnel would be a good start, but that doesn't seem likely.
As a loud and proud budget hawk, I no longer give a shit about what most other budget hawks think because most of them were/are clueless Trumpists.
If we're going to quibble about spending, it's not at a time when interest rates are at historic lows and the economy is facing a generational challenge of a pandemic.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 30, 2021, 11:16:18 AM
As a loud and proud budget hawk, I no longer give a shit about what most other budget hawks think because most of them were/are clueless Trumpists.
If we're going to quibble about spending, it's not at a time when interest rates are at historic lows and the economy is facing a generational challenge of a pandemic.
I don't disagree with you. Still, its a bitter medicine.
Quote from: garbon on April 30, 2021, 11:03:29 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 10:59:52 AM
He is absolutely NOT succumbing to the demands from the <insert word other then woke to describe exactly what we all know that word describes in this context> crowd to make a bunch of dumbass speeches about defunding the police or abolishing cops or cancelling anyone.
Not succumbing to black people?
Yes, that's right. That is the only possible thing that anything can be about. It's all about you, always.
We have to stabilize the political and economic situation then balance the budget.
Quote from: Caliga on April 30, 2021, 09:55:59 AM
I tried to tell you guys he was awesome when the primaries started. :sleep:
The opinion of Kentucky has been noted.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 30, 2021, 11:16:18 AM
As a loud and proud budget hawk, I no longer give a shit about what most other budget hawks think because most of them were/are clueless Trumpists.
If we're going to quibble about spending, it's not at a time when interest rates are at historic lows and the economy is facing a generational challenge of a pandemic.
Yeah I totally agree - and after the pandemic the energy transition.
My view is that the signal from the market is: spend, and that frankly helping through the pandemic and then the energy transition are basically like wartime. The only thing big enough to act on these things is the state. I keep on coming back to it but look at these hundreds of millions of vaccines being given now - that would happen without the state backing the research massively and then basically entirely de-risking huge chunks of the manufacturing. We should be learning from this and thinking how we can apply it to energy (obviously having said that - it's easier to say from the UK where fossil fuel production is not a big political issue anymore thanks to Maggie :lol: and what we do is arguably almost a side-show to the changes China will make).
And I think there's been a transformation in mainstream economic thinking on this - I think that the dominant ideas are now the left. Adam Tooze did a fascinating sort of intellectual history of Yellen, Krugman and Draghi from their perspectives in the 80s and 90s to now, and I think they are sort of emblematic of the priestly profession of economics.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 30, 2021, 11:16:18 AM
As a loud and proud budget hawk, I no longer give a shit about what most other budget hawks think because most of them were/are clueless Trumpists.
If we're going to quibble about spending, it's not at a time when interest rates are at historic lows and the economy is facing a generational challenge of a pandemic.
The choices right now seem to be between those who want to run up massive deficits buying military hardware and cutting taxes for the ultra wealthy, and those who want to run up massive deficits on badly overdue social spending and infrastructure.
It's an easy choice for me.
And to demonstrate my point that the GOP can't be dealt with:
Quote(CNN)Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is wading into the culture wars Friday morning.
In a letter obtained by CNN, the Republican leader asks Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to abandon curriculum in American schools that McConnell argues tells a revisionist history of America's founding.
McConnell claims these programs such as The New York Times 1619 Project "re-orient" the view of American History "away from their intended purposes toward a politicized and divisive agenda." Politico was the first to report on the letter.
The 1619 project has become a hot button issue for conservatives across America and politicians have fought efforts by school districts to make it a part of history curriculum in public school districts.
The project, launched by The New York Times in 2019, reframes American history around the date of August 1619 when the first slave ship arrived on America's shores, and it has launched a fierce debate over the legacy that slavery has played in shaping America, particularly as it relates to its treatment of Black citizens.
Republicans have misleadingly suggested there are widespread efforts to install the program in schools across the country. Former President Donald Trump made it a rallying cry during the 2020 election. While some states, like California, have used the project as part of their learning plan, the federal government has not directly instructed or promoted schools to use it, as it does not play a role in specific curriculum planning in local schools. Those decisions are largely made at the state level.
However, the Education Department, under the Biden administration, has proposed offering grant programs to states and local schools that would incentivize them to use tools like the 1619 Project in their classrooms.
McConnell is calling on the education secretary to abandon the idea.
"Actual, trained, credentialed historians with diverse political views have debunked the project's many factual and historical errors, such as the bizarre and inaccurate notion that preserving slavery was a primary driver of the American Revolution," McConnell writes. "One renowned historian called the project 'so wrong in so many ways.' Citing this debunked advocacy confirms that your Proposed Priorities would not focus on critical thinking or accurate history, but on spoon-feeding students a slanted story."
CNN has reached out to the Education Department for response to McConnell's letter. The White House referred CNN to the Education Department.
McConnell did not limit his criticism to the 1619 Project. He also attacked state level programs that he argues demonstrates a pattern of public schools attempting to indoctrinate children with liberal policies.
"Families did not ask for this divisive nonsense. Voters did not vote for it. Americans never decided our children should be taught that our country is inherently evil."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/30/politics/mcconnell-1619-project-education-secretary/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/30/politics/mcconnell-1619-project-education-secretary/index.html)
This stupid, pointless culture war bullshit is all the GOP has these day. Who the fuck cares if some affluent school district in California teaches this? Besides, I thought these assholes were for more local control of schools, not less. Still, It really pisses me off. There is a laser focus on the irrelevant and at best an ambivalence toward actually governing the country. More often it's outright hostility to running the government.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 30, 2021, 09:10:31 AM
Virtue signaling is another term that fits nicely into the category of a phrase which has become meaningless. It is now being used as a slur along with "woke" to mean things the person using the phrase (usually someone on the right) does not like - whatever that might be.
Yeah for sure. As I understand it the derogatory usage originated on the alt-right internet and now it has gained wider currency to disparage anyone taking up positions further to the left with accusations of just wanting to be seen as being right, rather than actually mean what they say.
There's a lot of that going around these days, it seems. And while I agree that there are flakes and counter productive zealots on the left and far left, I don't the term isn't deployed particularly precisely IMO.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 30, 2021, 10:02:24 AM
Agreed. I think Biden is right to focus on getting things done. I also think, and as someone on the centre-left, I've always thought that the best course for the left is to campaign and speak moderately, while governing radically.
I concur.
I think there are times and places for the drawn out inquiries, but not on centre stage.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 30, 2021, 11:25:01 AM
And I think there's been a transformation in mainstream economic thinking on this - I think that the dominant ideas are now the left. Adam Tooze did a fascinating sort of intellectual history of Yellen, Krugman and Draghi from their perspectives in the 80s and 90s to now, and I think they are sort of emblematic of the priestly profession of economics.
I read the Tooze article in the LRB yesterday and I thought it was fascinating and extremely on-point for the times. He included Jerome Powell, a Republican, as well. Interesting times.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 30, 2021, 11:25:01 AM
My view is that the signal from the market is: spend, and that frankly helping through the pandemic and then the energy transition are basically like wartime. The only thing big enough to act on these things is the state. I keep on coming back to it but look at these hundreds of millions of vaccines being given now - that would happen without the state backing the research massively and then basically entirely de-risking huge chunks of the manufacturing. We should be learning from this and thinking how we can apply it to energy (obviously having said that - it's easier to say from the UK where fossil fuel production is not a big political issue anymore thanks to Maggie :lol: and what we do is arguably almost a side-show to the changes China will make).
This, exactly, especially the market signals to spend. If done correctly or even 70% correctly, spending immense amounts at a time when money is essentially free of long-term costs can fix things for decades to come. I am glad that Biden seems to understand that, even if some of the areas of spending are different from what I'd choose. I also think Biden's spending package is far less graft-heavy and corrupt than Trump's, and that shouldn't really surprise anyone.
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 30, 2021, 11:45:32 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 30, 2021, 11:25:01 AM
And I think there's been a transformation in mainstream economic thinking on this - I think that the dominant ideas are now the left. Adam Tooze did a fascinating sort of intellectual history of Yellen, Krugman and Draghi from their perspectives in the 80s and 90s to now, and I think they are sort of emblematic of the priestly profession of economics.
I read the Tooze article in the LRB yesterday and I thought it was fascinating and extremely on-point for the times. He included Jerome Powell, a Republican, as well. Interesting times.
I'm one of those men on the internet with an intellectual crush on Tooze :blush:
I love Crashed - am very excited by his upcoming book on the pandemic - and will read his books on the post-WW1 and the German economy in WW2. I have them both on my to read list.
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 11:18:56 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 30, 2021, 11:03:29 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 10:59:52 AM
He is absolutely NOT succumbing to the demands from the <insert word other then woke to describe exactly what we all know that word describes in this context> crowd to make a bunch of dumbass speeches about defunding the police or abolishing cops or cancelling anyone.
Not succumbing to black people?
Yes, that's right. That is the only possible thing that anything can be about. It's all about you, always.
You misuse a term, when I tell you that's hurtful, you then double down on it. I guess the other option is that you are just a dick?
Hurtful? :yeahright:
Quote from: Eddie Teach on April 30, 2021, 12:08:43 PM
Hurtful? :yeahright:
You may have missed that in my wall of text.
Quote from: Caliga on April 30, 2021, 09:55:59 AM
I tried to tell you guys he was awesome when the primaries started. :sleep:
You did, and I thought you were crazy.
But it turns out he is exactly the right person, in the right place at the right time. The right just cannot find a way to target him. They can't find a way to transition from Sleepy Joe. And Sleepy Joe is the most transformative president is a very long time.
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 30, 2021, 11:45:32 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 30, 2021, 11:25:01 AM
And I think there's been a transformation in mainstream economic thinking on this - I think that the dominant ideas are now the left. Adam Tooze did a fascinating sort of intellectual history of Yellen, Krugman and Draghi from their perspectives in the 80s and 90s to now, and I think they are sort of emblematic of the priestly profession of economics.
I read the Tooze article in the LRB yesterday and I thought it was fascinating and extremely on-point for the times. He included Jerome Powell, a Republican, as well. Interesting times.
I have been meaning to subscribe to that. This is exactly the prompt I need. :)
Quote from: Habbaku on April 30, 2021, 11:16:18 AM
As a loud and proud budget hawk, I no longer give a shit about what most other budget hawks think because most of them were/are clueless Trumpists.
If we're going to quibble about spending, it's not at a time when interest rates are at historic lows and the economy is facing a generational challenge of a pandemic.
But we're well past the pandemic relief bill.
What's being proposed now is trillions in new, ongoing spending.
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2021, 12:19:27 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 30, 2021, 11:16:18 AM
As a loud and proud budget hawk, I no longer give a shit about what most other budget hawks think because most of them were/are clueless Trumpists.
If we're going to quibble about spending, it's not at a time when interest rates are at historic lows and the economy is facing a generational challenge of a pandemic.
But we're well past the pandemic relief bill.
What's being proposed now is trillions in new, ongoing spending.
Sure, but look at the situation years of trickle down economic thinking has created that now needs to be addressed.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on April 30, 2021, 12:08:43 PM
Hurtful? :yeahright:
Why question when someone says it is hurtful? Isn't that like the stereotypical man saying "No I'm not" when the wife says "you are hurting me!"
Quote from: garbon on April 30, 2021, 11:57:47 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 11:18:56 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 30, 2021, 11:03:29 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 10:59:52 AM
He is absolutely NOT succumbing to the demands from the <insert word other then woke to describe exactly what we all know that word describes in this context> crowd to make a bunch of dumbass speeches about defunding the police or abolishing cops or cancelling anyone.
Not succumbing to black people?
Yes, that's right. That is the only possible thing that anything can be about. It's all about you, always.
You misuse a term, when I tell you that's hurtful, you then double down on it. I guess the other option is that you are just a dick?
I did not use the term, as I stated time and again. You are not even the least bit hurt, and are happy to repeat over and over and over again that I must be a racist if I don't agree with you.
Frankly, I really could not fucking care less if you pretend to be "hurt" while you accuse me of being a closet GOP racist every fucking time a conversation comes up that I don't align with your views, even when it is a subject that I don't even consider to be ABOUT those views. It's exhausting, and I am done.
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2021, 12:19:27 PM
But we're well past the pandemic relief bill.
What's being proposed now is trillions in new, ongoing spending.
Necessary. Especially with regard to infrastructure.
I wish I had a magic wand to wave away all the challenges we are facing but unfortunately we have to pay the price.
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 11:25:20 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 30, 2021, 11:16:18 AM
As a loud and proud budget hawk, I no longer give a shit about what most other budget hawks think because most of them were/are clueless Trumpists.
If we're going to quibble about spending, it's not at a time when interest rates are at historic lows and the economy is facing a generational challenge of a pandemic.
The choices right now seem to be between those who want to run up massive deficits buying military hardware and cutting taxes for the ultra wealthy, and those who want to run up massive deficits on badly overdue social spending and infrastructure.
It's an easy choice for me.
When it comes time to vote you can lecture me about it being a "binary choice".
But not when it comes to a general discussion about what public policy choices I want to see implemented.
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2021, 12:27:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2021, 12:19:27 PM
But we're well past the pandemic relief bill.
What's being proposed now is trillions in new, ongoing spending.
Necessary. Especially with regard to infrastructure.
I wish I had a magic wand to wave away all the challenges we are facing but unfortunately we have to pay the price.
Only a small percentage of the infrastructure bill goes to what would ordinarily be considered infrastructure.
And that's the thing - you're NOT paying the price. It's all going on the national debt.
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 12:26:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 30, 2021, 11:57:47 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 11:18:56 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 30, 2021, 11:03:29 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 10:59:52 AM
He is absolutely NOT succumbing to the demands from the <insert word other then woke to describe exactly what we all know that word describes in this context> crowd to make a bunch of dumbass speeches about defunding the police or abolishing cops or cancelling anyone.
Not succumbing to black people?
Yes, that's right. That is the only possible thing that anything can be about. It's all about you, always.
You misuse a term, when I tell you that's hurtful, you then double down on it. I guess the other option is that you are just a dick?
I did not use the term, as I stated time and again. You are not even the least bit hurt, and are happy to repeat over and over and over again that I must be a racist if I don't agree with you.
Frankly, I really could not fucking care less if you pretend to be "hurt" while you accuse me of being a closet GOP racist every fucking time a conversation comes up that I don't align with your views, even when it is a subject that I don't even consider to be ABOUT those views. It's exhausting, and I am done.
Funny how you say I called you a racist when the only mention of that was me saying that I know people using the term on Languish are not racist.
But yeah dick it is. Explains the genocide stance too.
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2021, 12:30:24 PM
Only a small percentage of the infrastructure bill goes to what would ordinarily be considered infrastructure.
And that's the thing - you're NOT paying the price. It's all going on the national debt.
I don't want it to to the national debt, I want taxes raised to cover the necessary expenses. But I lack dictatorial powers.
However even if it goes into the debt we will be paying the price eventually.
However the future security of the state is on the line. If these problems are not corrected the whole rotten structure is due for a reckoning.
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2021, 12:30:24 PM
Only a small percentage of the infrastructure bill goes to what would ordinarily be considered infrastructure.
Isn't this just a GOP talking point though? They don't consider broadband (telecoms) or water (utilities) or EVs "infrastructure". Which is a take - that allows them to say that actually only the spending on roads, or rail or ports is "infrastructure" which is a small (but not insignificant) bit of the bill.
QuoteAnd that's the thing - you're NOT paying the price. It's all going on the national debt.
Generally yes - but doesn't that bill actually also include tax increases?
Edit: And from a European perspective the really striking thing is how timid the European proposals are in comparison both the EU recovery fund and the UK government's decisions (though both are welcome).
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2021, 12:30:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2021, 12:27:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2021, 12:19:27 PM
But we're well past the pandemic relief bill.
What's being proposed now is trillions in new, ongoing spending.
Necessary. Especially with regard to infrastructure.
I wish I had a magic wand to wave away all the challenges we are facing but unfortunately we have to pay the price.
Only a small percentage of the infrastructure bill goes to what would ordinarily be considered infrastructure.
And that's the thing - you're NOT paying the price. It's all going on the national debt.
How is the price not being paid. Isn't that exactly what debt represents? I think what you are really saying is the price should not exceed the present ability to pay. And that is an entirely different discussion.
I am not sure how one can characterize that spending as not being infrastructure spending, unless one takes a very narrow view the GOP is trying to sell. We are not living in the 19th century. Instructure includes a lot more than roads.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 30, 2021, 12:46:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2021, 12:30:24 PM
Only a small percentage of the infrastructure bill goes to what would ordinarily be considered infrastructure.
Isn't this just a GOP talking point though? They don't consider broadband (telecoms) or water (utilities) or EVs "infrastructure". Which is a take - that allows them to say that actually only the spending on roads, or rail or ports is "infrastructure" which is a small (but not insignificant) bit of the bill.
QuoteAnd that's the thing - you're NOT paying the price. It's all going on the national debt.
Generally yes - but doesn't that bill actually also include tax increases?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/politics/infrastructure-proposal-biden-explainer/index.html
It includes $400 billion on home care
$218 billion on R&D
$100 billion on workforce development
Bill includes tax increases, but a lot of it comes from cracking down on hiding income offshore. Good luck with that.
Yeah that is why I think we need another way to get corporations to pay and just get rid of corporate taxes. It is really just a tax on corporations that are insufficiently globalized.
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2021, 12:58:21 PM
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/politics/infrastructure-proposal-biden-explainer/index.html
It includes $400 billion on home care
$218 billion on R&D
$100 billion on workforce development
Right - which is collectively around a third. So even if you say there's no infrastructure in that chunk it's hardly right to say that the amount spent on infrastrucutre is only a small percentage if it's about two-thirds.
QuoteBill includes tax increases, but a lot of it comes from cracking down on hiding income offshore. Good luck with that.
There's a corporate tax rise.
I don't agree that the rest is about hiding income offshore, I think that is an approach goverments take about cracking down on aggressive tax avoidance schemes or artificial corporate structures solely designed to reduce the tax bill. That's been going on in Europe for the best part of the last decade with some results. We've not really seen before an American president aiming to collect more corporate tax globally so there may be some results on that but I think Biden's approach is more ambitious with trying to get the big economies to agree to a minimum global tax rate and then punish countries who don't help. Again this is something that's already started to be tried in Europe (and this is in part Biden's offer on this) where big tech companies make a lot of revenue but don't pay any tax. I think that approach is actually simpler and more likely to result in more revenues than the cracking down on tax avoidance schemes/very artificial corporate structures.
Having said that I know that tax lawyers in the UK can't do things they'd routinely propose ten years ago and spend a lot of time trying to work out what structures are acceptable to European revenue authorities and which ones will prompt an investigation.
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2021, 01:03:54 PM
Yeah that is why I think we need another way to get corporations to pay and just get rid of corporate taxes. It is really just a tax on corporations that are insufficiently globalized.
Or just figuring out a way to tax on world wide corporate profit - your system is part way there already.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 30, 2021, 01:08:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2021, 01:03:54 PM
Yeah that is why I think we need another way to get corporations to pay and just get rid of corporate taxes. It is really just a tax on corporations that are insufficiently globalized.
Or just figuring out a way to tax on world wide corporate profit - your system is part way there already.
I am open to any solutions.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 30, 2021, 01:05:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2021, 12:58:21 PM
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/politics/infrastructure-proposal-biden-explainer/index.html
It includes $400 billion on home care
$218 billion on R&D
$100 billion on workforce development
Right - which is collectively around a third. So even if you say there's no infrastructure in that chunk it's hardly right to say that the amount spent on infrastrucutre is only a small percentage if it's about two-thirds.
QuoteBill includes tax increases, but a lot of it comes from cracking down on hiding income offshore. Good luck with that.
There's a corporate tax rise.
I don't agree that the rest is about hiding income offshore, I think that is an approach goverments take about cracking down on aggressive tax avoidance schemes or artificial corporate structures solely designed to reduce the tax bill. That's been going on in Europe for the best part of the last decade with some results. We've not really seen before an American president aiming to collect more corporate tax globally so there may be some results on that but I think Biden's approach is more ambitious with trying to get the big economies to agree to a minimum global tax rate and then punish countries who don't help. Again this is something that's already started to be tried in Europe (and this is in part Biden's offer on this) where big tech companies make a lot of revenue but don't pay any tax. I think that approach is actually simpler and more likely to result in more revenues than the cracking down on tax avoidance schemes/very artificial corporate structures.
Having said that I know that tax lawyers in the UK can't do things they'd routinely propose ten years ago and spend a lot of time trying to work out what structures are acceptable to European revenue authorities and which ones will prompt an investigation.
Yep, same thing in Canada. It looks like the US is now moving in that direction, so looks hopeful.
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2021, 01:10:11 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 30, 2021, 01:08:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2021, 01:03:54 PM
Yeah that is why I think we need another way to get corporations to pay and just get rid of corporate taxes. It is really just a tax on corporations that are insufficiently globalized.
Or just figuring out a way to tax on world wide corporate profit - your system is part way there already.
I am open to any solutions.
As Sheilbh mentioned, there is a lot of good work going on in the rest of the world on this point. A large part is having the political will to actually create a tax code that works. I think that public policy makers are now coming around to that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 30, 2021, 01:08:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2021, 01:03:54 PM
Yeah that is why I think we need another way to get corporations to pay and just get rid of corporate taxes. It is really just a tax on corporations that are insufficiently globalized.
Or just figuring out a way to tax on world wide corporate profit - your system is part way there already.
What is a profit?
Quote from: alfred russel on April 30, 2021, 01:14:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 30, 2021, 01:08:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2021, 01:03:54 PM
Yeah that is why I think we need another way to get corporations to pay and just get rid of corporate taxes. It is really just a tax on corporations that are insufficiently globalized.
Or just figuring out a way to tax on world wide corporate profit - your system is part way there already.
What is a profit?
?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 30, 2021, 01:18:00 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 30, 2021, 01:14:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 30, 2021, 01:08:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2021, 01:03:54 PM
Yeah that is why I think we need another way to get corporations to pay and just get rid of corporate taxes. It is really just a tax on corporations that are insufficiently globalized.
Or just figuring out a way to tax on world wide corporate profit - your system is part way there already.
What is a profit?
?
The reason I'm skeptical this is going to happen is that there is no common definition of profit for tax purposes. I think most jurisdictions use something like "revenue less expenses", with those terms being defined by (in the US case) thousands of pages of tax rules and regulations. Those aren't going to be replaced by a global tax code any time soon and we aren't going to get a global taxing authority with its own rules etc.
What seems more likely is individual jurisdictions extending their reach globally, and large countries pressuring small tax advantaged jurisdictions into playing by their norms.
Why not just tax the individuals that make up those corporations appropriately (however one thinks is fair), instead of taxing entities that we should not be treating as something akin to "persons"?
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 12:26:43 PM
I did not use the term, as I stated time and again. You are not even the least bit hurt, and are happy to repeat over and over and over again that I must be a racist if I don't agree with you.
Could you point out where garbon called you a racist? I must've missed those posts over and over and over again.
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2021, 12:29:35 PM
When it comes time to vote you can lecture me about it being a "binary choice".
But not when it comes to a general discussion about what public policy choices I want to see implemented.
History suggests that Berkut can lecture you whenever he feels like it.
Quote from: Jacob on April 30, 2021, 01:48:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 12:26:43 PM
I did not use the term, as I stated time and again. You are not even the least bit hurt, and are happy to repeat over and over and over again that I must be a racist if I don't agree with you.
Could you point out where garbon called you a racist? I must've missed those post over and over and over again.
Berkut can speak for himself, of course, but from the sidelines, I would guess that he interpreted...
QuoteNot succumbing to black people?
...as implying his comment that that was a response to, as being cloaked racism.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 30, 2021, 01:51:20 PM
Berkut can speak for himself, of course, but from the sidelines, I would guess that he interpreted...
QuoteNot succumbing to black people?
...as implying his comment that that was a response to, as being cloaked racism.
And "woke" people are the ones who're supposed to be thin skinned? Jesus fucking christ.
Deficit spending is an intergenerational transfer. We are robbing future generations to pay for goodies in the present.
Does that mean that if I take out that huge mortgage to buy a house, that I am robbing my future self in order to have a goodie home in the present? :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 30, 2021, 01:55:31 PM
Deficit spending is an intergenerational transfer. We are robbing future generations to pay for goodies in the present.
True, but investment spending will reduce other costs to those future generations, sometimes more than the value of the deficit.
For instance, future generations will have to pay for the costs of imprisoning current pre-K kids who grow up to be crooks. Running courts and prisons is expensive. If the current generation can deficit-spend $100 billion to save the future generation $200 billion in court and prison expenses, then the future generation should be delighted with the decision.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 30, 2021, 01:58:12 PM
Does that mean that if I take out that huge mortgage to buy a house, that I am robbing my future self in order to have a goodie home in the present? :P
That's what it means - you could have saved that money and have more cash in the future. But the costs of renting, not buying, may end up greater than the costs of buying, so the home becomes an investment, not a cost.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 30, 2021, 01:45:23 PM
Why not just tax the individuals that make up those corporations appropriately (however one thinks is fair), instead of taxing entities that we should not be treating as something akin to "persons"?
Two reasons:
1) Individual income from corporations is generally considered the dividends they pay, not their current earnings. That is, if you have a business that is not a corporation, and it makes $10, you pay personal tax on $10. But if you are a shareholder in GE, and it earns $10 but doesn't pay you a dividend, you have gotten no money and thus have no income. If you don't tax GE at all, then corporations are highly favored because they get effective deferral of their income taxes versus small businesses/non corporations.
2) The political atmosphere isn't really conducive to removing all corporate taxation.
Yeah, I kinda realized the flaw in my reasoning...as then the "income" generated and held by the corporation would not be taxed in any form...unless it is paid out in dividends/salaries/bonuses, or whatever.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 30, 2021, 10:55:57 AM
I haven't paid much attention to politics since Biden was sworn in. What has he done that's convinced you guys he's not as bad?
I do like the way he's been speaking, mind, but I don't know how much of that is just listening to a guy who sounds like a normal human.
For me it's the apparent willingness to adapt his positions to current realities. Campaigning on "return to normalcy" did not fill me with hope, but I am much less leery now
I think it would make sense to have really low corporate tax rates (say 10-15%) and then get rid of capital gains rates and reduced rates on dividends. That way you improve your tax competitiveness as a jurisdiction and reduce the ability and incentive of corporations to avoid taxes.
In the fantasyland that we move to such a setting it is helpful that the US has worldwide taxation of individuals. For countries without such a worldwide regime it would be easily exploited by individuals setting up an awesome company, not paying dividends, moving to a low tax jurisdiction, and then paying it all out.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 30, 2021, 01:58:12 PM
Does that mean that if I take out that huge mortgage to buy a house, that I am robbing my future self in order to have a goodie home in the present? :P
Well, it's analogous in that your future self didn't have a vote on your decision to buy a house.
Quote from: garbon on April 30, 2021, 12:32:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 12:26:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 30, 2021, 11:57:47 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 11:18:56 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 30, 2021, 11:03:29 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 10:59:52 AM
He is absolutely NOT succumbing to the demands from the <insert word other then woke to describe exactly what we all know that word describes in this context> crowd to make a bunch of dumbass speeches about defunding the police or abolishing cops or cancelling anyone.
Not succumbing to black people?
Yes, that's right. That is the only possible thing that anything can be about. It's all about you, always.
You misuse a term, when I tell you that's hurtful, you then double down on it. I guess the other option is that you are just a dick?
I did not use the term, as I stated time and again. You are not even the least bit hurt, and are happy to repeat over and over and over again that I must be a racist if I don't agree with you.
Frankly, I really could not fucking care less if you pretend to be "hurt" while you accuse me of being a closet GOP racist every fucking time a conversation comes up that I don't align with your views, even when it is a subject that I don't even consider to be ABOUT those views. It's exhausting, and I am done.
Funny how you say I called you a racist when the only mention of that was me saying that I know people using the term on Languish are not racist.
But yeah dick it is. Explains the genocide stance too.
Thanks for making it clear how uninterested in you are in actual discussion. Yes, I am totally an advocate for genocide because I don't agree that your posturing while doing nothing yourself is the end game of how to react to it.
Quote from: Jacob on April 30, 2021, 01:54:09 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 30, 2021, 01:51:20 PM
Berkut can speak for himself, of course, but from the sidelines, I would guess that he interpreted...
QuoteNot succumbing to black people?
...as implying his comment that that was a response to, as being cloaked racism.
And "woke" people are the ones who're supposed to be thin skinned? Jesus fucking christ.
You think not enjoying being called a racist makes me think skinned? I suspect that you would not be nearly so "tough" if the tables were turned.
Quote from: Jacob on April 30, 2021, 01:49:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2021, 12:29:35 PM
When it comes time to vote you can lecture me about it being a "binary choice".
But not when it comes to a general discussion about what public policy choices I want to see implemented.
History suggests that Berkut can lecture you whenever he feels like it.
Yes, I am the only person on languish who "lectures" anyone. Of course.
I see we are in the full on ad hom part of the discussion.
Hey Jake, do you think garbon's assessment of me being a dick because I didn't agree with his evaluation of my contemplating working in China in regards to genocide was a fair conclusion? Do you feel like his basic response to my own reasons why I didn't agree with him (the accusation that I was just rationalizing my support for genocide) was fair and reasonable?
You literally said I should get a brown star for my shirt a few weeks ago because I disagreed with the tactic of holding the impeachment trial in February versus a few months later.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 30, 2021, 03:38:03 PM
You literally said I should get a brown star for my shirt a few weeks ago because I disagreed with the tactic of holding the impeachment trial in February versus a few months later.
:yawn:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 30, 2021, 01:55:31 PM
Deficit spending is an intergenerational transfer. We are robbing future generations to pay for goodies in the present.
I have no quarrel with Future-Raz, but that guy hates my guts. He blames me for everything!
Quote from: Razgovory on April 30, 2021, 03:40:59 PM
I have no quarrel with Future-Raz, but that guy hates my guts. He blames me for everything!
That dudes a cunt. Don't worry present Raz, we have your back.
Future Raz has better dance moves.
What does Present Raz think about Past Raz?
Going to put this here as we don't have a more generic US election thread:
Quote'Disgusting' robocall accuses Texas candidate Wright of causing husband's death
Wright supporters reported receiving the calls the day before the special election in Texas' 6th District.
04/30/2021 02:18 PM EDT
Updated: 04/30/2021 03:38 PM EDT
Texas Republican congressional candidate Susan Wright is seeking help from federal law enforcement the day before her special election, after supporters reported receiving robocalls that accused her of being responsible for the death of her late husband.
Wright's campaign reached out to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice on Friday after discovering robocalls baselessly alleging that she had "murdered" her husband, the late GOP Rep. Ron Wright. Wright is running in the special election to succeed Wright, who passed away in February after being diagnosed with coronavirus.
Wright aides say they found out about the robocalls on Friday morning, a day before Saturday's crowded all-party primary.
"This is illegal, immoral, and wrong. There's not a sewer too deep that some politicians won't plumb," Wright said in a statement.
A female voice begins the minute-long robocall by saying that Wright "murdered her husband," and that "she's now running for Congress to cover it up." The robocalls do not have a "paid-for" attribution saying who is paying for the attacks.
The robocall then claims that "according to confidential sources," Wright "obtained a $1 million life insurance policy on the life of her husband...six months before his death." It then says that Wright "tearfully confided in a nurse that she had purposely contracted the coronavirus."
It adds that the hospital "has made a formal criminal referral to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and they have now opened a formal criminal inquiry into the matter," before concluding: "It is clear that the voters of Texas' 6th Congressional District deserve to know the truth about Susan Wright and her involvement in the death of her husband."
Recipients of the calls say they are being made from a blocked number. In addition to reaching out to the FBI and the Department of Justice, the Wright campaign has been in touch with the Tarrant County Sheriff's Department.
"When we heard reports of this criminal smear of a voicemail attacking Susan, we immediately referred the matter to law enforcement and started cooperating with authorities," Matt Langston, a Wright campaign consultant, said in a statement. "Susan's opponents are desperate and resorting to disgusting gutter politics because they know she's the frontrunner.
Wright has received the endorsement of former President Donald Trump, who appeared with her on a conference call earlier this week held by the anti-tax Club for Growth, which is also supporting her. She is running in a Republican field that includes businessman Michael Wood, former Trump administration official Brian Harrison, and retired pro wrestler Dan Rodimer.
The race has been a relatively tame affair until now. The candidates have taken few direct shots at one another in their television ads, though the Club for Growth has been attacking GOP candidate Jake Ellzey, casting him as an anti-Trump Republican because he received a donation from Trump critic Bill Kristol.
Ellzey said he was shocked to hear about the robocall while on the campaign trail with former Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
"This is horrible," Ellzey said. "It's unbelievable that anybody would stoop so low."
Former Trump official Brian Harrison, another leading GOP candidate, also condemned the call.
"Voters are sick of candidates resorting to disgraceful negative attacks," he said in a statement. "And I'm proud our campaign has focused on my conservative achievements and ability to defeat Biden's radical agenda."
Wright has been running as someone who could continue the legacy of her husband. The two have been active in local GOP politics in the community for decades, and Trump touted their strong relationship in the tele-town hall held with Wright and the Club for Growth on Thursday night.
"It's a great honor to be with Susan," Trump said. "It's a great honor to help a friend of mine who thought so much, not only in terms of he loves Susan, but he respected Susan. He respected everything she said and that's Ron Wright, who served us so well for a long period of time."
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/30/texas-election-robocol-susan-wright-husband-485113
Damn. I hate how personal and dirty politics can be.
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 03:22:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 30, 2021, 12:32:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 12:26:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 30, 2021, 11:57:47 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 11:18:56 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 30, 2021, 11:03:29 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 10:59:52 AM
He is absolutely NOT succumbing to the demands from the <insert word other then woke to describe exactly what we all know that word describes in this context> crowd to make a bunch of dumbass speeches about defunding the police or abolishing cops or cancelling anyone.
Not succumbing to black people?
Yes, that's right. That is the only possible thing that anything can be about. It's all about you, always.
You misuse a term, when I tell you that's hurtful, you then double down on it. I guess the other option is that you are just a dick?
I did not use the term, as I stated time and again. You are not even the least bit hurt, and are happy to repeat over and over and over again that I must be a racist if I don't agree with you.
Frankly, I really could not fucking care less if you pretend to be "hurt" while you accuse me of being a closet GOP racist every fucking time a conversation comes up that I don't align with your views, even when it is a subject that I don't even consider to be ABOUT those views. It's exhausting, and I am done.
Funny how you say I called you a racist when the only mention of that was me saying that I know people using the term on Languish are not racist.
But yeah dick it is. Explains the genocide stance too.
Thanks for making it clear how uninterested in you are in actual discussion. Yes, I am totally an advocate for genocide because I don't agree that your posturing while doing nothing yourself is the end game of how to react to it.
There is never a point in any discussions with you. You are convinced you are always right and never have anything to learn.
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 03:35:40 PM
Hey Jake, do you think garbon's assessment of me being a dick because I didn't agree with his evaluation of my contemplating working in China in regards to genocide was a fair conclusion? Do you feel like his basic response to my own reasons why I didn't agree with him (the accusation that I was just rationalizing my support for genocide) was fair and reasonable?
I don't think you support genocide. I do think you find it easy to not care about issues that don't personally affect you.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 30, 2021, 01:58:12 PM
Does that mean that if I take out that huge mortgage to buy a house, that I am robbing my future self in order to have a goodie home in the present? :P
If you take a reverse mortgage on your house, you are effectively transferring your debt to your heirs.
As for mortgage in itself, banks won't loan you for more than you are expecting to repay withing a reasonable time frame (max 25 years over here), so the point is moot, they won't loan 800k$ at 75 yo when you only have a modest rent, but expect someone else to pay it back. ;)
I don't think that a mortgage makes a good analogy. Mortgages always come paired with assets. Taking out a reverse mortgage doesn't saddle your children with debt, it merely takes a portion of your house out of their inheritance.
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2021, 04:15:55 PM
Going to put this here as we don't have a more generic US election thread:
:contract:
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,15715.0.html
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 30, 2021, 04:53:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2021, 04:15:55 PM
Going to put this here as we don't have a more generic US election thread:
:contract:
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,15715.0.html
QuoteTopic: US Elections 2020
:contract:
Y'all should follow Canada's lead and have a US politics Redux thread.
The American Overlord Government is too big and important, thus we need to have a new thread every election cycle. :sleep:
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 30, 2021, 04:58:08 PM
We're too big and important, thus we need to have a new thread every election cycle. :sleep:
The real reason is there no American Josephus who keeps us in one thread through sheer force of his personal will.
Quote from: garbon on April 30, 2021, 04:21:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 03:35:40 PM
Hey Jake, do you think garbon's assessment of me being a dick because I didn't agree with his evaluation of my contemplating working in China in regards to genocide was a fair conclusion? Do you feel like his basic response to my own reasons why I didn't agree with him (the accusation that I was just rationalizing my support for genocide) was fair and reasonable?
I don't think you support genocide. I do think you find it easy to not care about issues that don't personally affect you.
I think you have to believe that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a "dick" or "doesn't care about genocide". Even when they tell you why they don't agree with you with actual reasons, and you just ignore those reasons and say "Yeah, you just don't care". Not like YOU of course, who TOTALLY care so much you are doing...what exactly, about it? Other then lecturing us about how little we care?
You know, it's possible that you are just not always right. That other people have different opinions about things, and they are not just that they don't care, or are closet racists, or any other derogatory thing you can imagine - they might just not agree with you for perfectly good reasons arrived at in good faith.
You don't have a monopoly an social intelligence.
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 03:30:29 PM
You think not enjoying being called a racist makes me think skinned? I suspect that you would not be nearly so "tough" if the tables were turned.
Suggesting "woke" is used to mean "Black" is not the cleanest rhetorical move, but by Languish standards it's pretty trivial IMO. Beyond that - and I don't think that amounts to calling you a racist (and it came way after you said he called you a racist) - I still haven't seen where garbon called you racist.
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 03:35:40 PM
Hey Jake, do you think garbon's assessment of me being a dick because I didn't agree with his evaluation of my contemplating working in China in regards to genocide was a fair conclusion? Do you feel like his basic response to my own reasons why I didn't agree with him (the accusation that I was just rationalizing my support for genocide) was fair and reasonable?
No I don't. As I think you'll probably see if you read my posts in the relevant thread.
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 03:33:49 PM
Yes, I am the only person on languish who "lectures" anyone. Of course.
I see we are in the full on ad hom part of the discussion.
In no way did I suggest you were the only one. The joke was that no one tells you what to do on languish, not that you lecture people.
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 03:30:29 PM
You think not enjoying being called a racist makes me think skinned? I suspect that you would not be nearly so "tough" if the tables were turned.
I don't think you're being called a racist.
I think that is exactly what I am being called, and I cannot think of anything it could possibly mean otherwise.
His claim is that I am using the term "woke" in the context of objecting to the actions of people who are "woke" as a placeholder for "black people". There is no fucking other way to interpret the claim that he thinks my issue is not with people with overly extreme social strategies is actually an issue with "black people". That is exactly what he is saying.
The entire discussion from the start was specifically about Tlaib making a specific comment. He said my issue was with the fact that she was black, rather then what she said. If that is the case, then in fact that means I am a racist.
Well I don't think you're a racist, but you're definitely not invited to the cookout anytime soon.
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 06:21:08 PM
I think that is exactly what I am being called, and I cannot think of anything it could possibly mean otherwise.
I can.
QuoteHis claim is that I am using the term "woke" in the context of objecting to the actions of people who are "woke" as a placeholder for "black people". There is no fucking other way to interpret the claim that he thinks my issue is not with people with overly extreme social strategies is actually an issue with "black people". That is exactly what he is saying.
The entire discussion from the start was specifically about Tlaib making a specific comment. He said my issue was with the fact that she was black, rather then what she said. If that is the case, then in fact that means I am a racist.
That's cool, but when you said...
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2021, 07:40:08 PM
I'm glad you agree with me. Garbon probably thinks you must be a racist.
... that was way before the Tlaib article was posted. It kind of makes it seem like you decided garbon was calling you a racist already.
Quote from: garbonIt is interesting how 'woke' has now been slotted in by white people where 'playing the race card' used to sit.
It is hardly the first time we've been down this road before.
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 07:02:21 PM
Quote from: garbonIt is interesting how 'woke' has now been slotted in by white people where 'playing the race card' used to sit.
It is hardly the first time we've been down this road before.
Yeah that looks to be a precipitating statement for the trip down that road this time.
I am genuinely hard pressed to see how that sentence is calling you a racist.
If someone put words in my mouth that I praised Biden for not succumbing to black people, I would absolutely take it like Berkut would. Most reasonable people would, I suspect. And just to clear up on the timeline, Berkut wasn't the first recipient of a casually thrown racism allusion, I was, so that's why the discussion about garbon accusing people of racism was already active.
I think it may be wise to pause focusing on people's thin skin for a second, and consider it from the POV of the people with the thin skin. Maybe people in the US just really don't like fielding accusation of racism of varying subtlety as part of a debate? :hmm:
Quote from: Jacob on April 30, 2021, 07:04:17 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 07:02:21 PM
Quote from: garbonIt is interesting how 'woke' has now been slotted in by white people where 'playing the race card' used to sit.
It is hardly the first time we've been down this road before.
Yeah that looks to be a precipitating statement for the trip down that road this time.
I am genuinely hard pressed to see how that sentence is calling you a racist.
I am genuinely not even remotely convinced you are hard pressed to understand that at all.
Sure, there is the veneer of barely plausible deniability thrown over it, just like the right will tell you that the new voting restrictions have nothing to do with suppressing minority voting. After all, the laws say nothing about black people at all!
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 07:02:21 PM
Quote from: garbonIt is interesting how 'woke' has now been slotted in by white people where 'playing the race card' used to sit.
It is hardly the first time we've been down this road before.
While I'm loathe to ever take garbon's side, that isn't accusing you of racism. He is just associating your use of a word to another rhetorical device that a lot of POC find infuriating.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 30, 2021, 03:43:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 30, 2021, 03:40:59 PM
I have no quarrel with Future-Raz, but that guy hates my guts. He blames me for everything!
That dudes a cunt. Don't worry present Raz, we have your back.
He's lazy bastard who eats too much!
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2021, 04:15:55 PM
Going to put this here as we don't have a more generic US election thread:
Quote'Disgusting' robocall accuses Texas candidate Wright of causing husband's death
Wright supporters reported receiving the calls the day before the special election in Texas' 6th District.
04/30/2021 02:18 PM EDT
Updated: 04/30/2021 03:38 PM EDT
Texas Republican congressional candidate Susan Wright is seeking help from federal law enforcement the day before her special election, after supporters reported receiving robocalls that accused her of being responsible for the death of her late husband.
Wright's campaign reached out to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice on Friday after discovering robocalls baselessly alleging that she had "murdered" her husband, the late GOP Rep. Ron Wright. Wright is running in the special election to succeed Wright, who passed away in February after being diagnosed with coronavirus.
Wright aides say they found out about the robocalls on Friday morning, a day before Saturday's crowded all-party primary.
"This is illegal, immoral, and wrong. There's not a sewer too deep that some politicians won't plumb," Wright said in a statement.
A female voice begins the minute-long robocall by saying that Wright "murdered her husband," and that "she's now running for Congress to cover it up." The robocalls do not have a "paid-for" attribution saying who is paying for the attacks.
The robocall then claims that "according to confidential sources," Wright "obtained a $1 million life insurance policy on the life of her husband...six months before his death." It then says that Wright "tearfully confided in a nurse that she had purposely contracted the coronavirus."
It adds that the hospital "has made a formal criminal referral to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and they have now opened a formal criminal inquiry into the matter," before concluding: "It is clear that the voters of Texas' 6th Congressional District deserve to know the truth about Susan Wright and her involvement in the death of her husband."
Recipients of the calls say they are being made from a blocked number. In addition to reaching out to the FBI and the Department of Justice, the Wright campaign has been in touch with the Tarrant County Sheriff's Department.
"When we heard reports of this criminal smear of a voicemail attacking Susan, we immediately referred the matter to law enforcement and started cooperating with authorities," Matt Langston, a Wright campaign consultant, said in a statement. "Susan's opponents are desperate and resorting to disgusting gutter politics because they know she's the frontrunner.
Wright has received the endorsement of former President Donald Trump, who appeared with her on a conference call earlier this week held by the anti-tax Club for Growth, which is also supporting her. She is running in a Republican field that includes businessman Michael Wood, former Trump administration official Brian Harrison, and retired pro wrestler Dan Rodimer.
The race has been a relatively tame affair until now. The candidates have taken few direct shots at one another in their television ads, though the Club for Growth has been attacking GOP candidate Jake Ellzey, casting him as an anti-Trump Republican because he received a donation from Trump critic Bill Kristol.
Ellzey said he was shocked to hear about the robocall while on the campaign trail with former Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
"This is horrible," Ellzey said. "It's unbelievable that anybody would stoop so low."
Former Trump official Brian Harrison, another leading GOP candidate, also condemned the call.
"Voters are sick of candidates resorting to disgraceful negative attacks," he said in a statement. "And I'm proud our campaign has focused on my conservative achievements and ability to defeat Biden's radical agenda."
Wright has been running as someone who could continue the legacy of her husband. The two have been active in local GOP politics in the community for decades, and Trump touted their strong relationship in the tele-town hall held with Wright and the Club for Growth on Thursday night.
"It's a great honor to be with Susan," Trump said. "It's a great honor to help a friend of mine who thought so much, not only in terms of he loves Susan, but he respected Susan. He respected everything she said and that's Ron Wright, who served us so well for a long period of time."
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/30/texas-election-robocol-susan-wright-husband-485113 (https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/30/texas-election-robocol-susan-wright-husband-485113)
That may be the worst slander I've ever seen in American politics. I would much rather have a crazy Trump supporter than a Democrat who sank this low.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 30, 2021, 07:25:39 PM
He's lazy bastard who eats too much!
Or at least he will be!
Kind of smells like a false flag.
It doesn't necessarily smell like one, but I would definitely not assume that whoever happens to be the opponent is behind it. False flag assassination attempts and the like do happen in elections.
Quote from: DGuller on April 30, 2021, 07:50:17 PM
It doesn't necessarily smell like one, but I would definitely not assume that whoever happens to be the opponent is behind it. False flag assassination attempts and the like do happen in elections.
My reasoning is it's hard to see that benefitting anyone other than Wright, and while it's easy to underestimate stupidity in some cases there's a lot of national attention on this particular race.
She was the heavy favorite to win. I'm not going to assume rationality, but if there is rationality she wouldn't do a false flag attack on herself right before an election she was supposed to win.
This is also the race with that super fake Dan Rodimer guy.
Quote from: DGuller on April 30, 2021, 07:07:13 PM
If someone put words in my mouth that I praised Biden for not succumbing to black people, I would absolutely take it like Berkut would. Most reasonable people would, I suspect. And just to clear up on the timeline, Berkut wasn't the first recipient of a casually thrown racism allusion, I was, so that's why the discussion about garbon accusing people of racism was already active.
I think it may be wise to pause focusing on people's thin skin for a second, and consider it from the POV of the people with the thin skin. Maybe people in the US just really don't like fielding accusation of racism of varying subtlety as part of a debate? :hmm:
And really, even if you don't care about anyone's thin skin, being blatantly insulting isn't even the point.
The question is....why? What is the purpose for responding to the debate about whether some prominent politician should be calling to abolish the police with these comments about race?
Notice that garbon wasn't trying to argue that we should abolish the police, or that whether we should or not it was a good thing to say, or even denying the point that it is politically damaging. He was not trying to address the argument at all. Why bother?
He was just trying to shame those involved from making the argument to begin with. Whether or not we ought or ought not to be angry about being implied to be racist isn't even the point. The point is that there is no purpose to the observation except to try to force the people arguing for a perspective to STFU and stop challenging the accepted orthodoxy. It is an outright attack on free expression, and it is something that the <intolerant left> has been doing for some time now. If you don't like someone's ideas, don't argue better ideas, just force them to shut up. Cancel them. Shame them. Attack them. You don't have to argue that they are wrong, just do your best to make sure they are not heard.
Quote from: DGuller on April 30, 2021, 07:50:17 PM
It doesn't necessarily smell like one, but I would definitely not assume that whoever happens to be the opponent is behind it. False flag assassination attempts and the like do happen in elections.
I read up on this and it one of those things where a bunch of people are running, both Democrat and Republican. So it could really be anyone. It could just be some crazy person, but it could be something much worse. What's worse? It could be a perfectly sane person who is blazing a trail of new awfulness, a trail that would be tread by a large number of politicians in the future.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 30, 2021, 08:36:34 PM
She was the heavy favorite to win. I'm not going to assume rationality, but if there is rationality she wouldn't do a false flag attack on herself right before an election she was supposed to win.
This is also the race with that super fake Dan Rodimer guy.
I wouldn't expect it to be her, but someone who really didn't want her opponent to win.
From the article it's not clear who is in second or that the race is close.
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 07:08:13 PM
I am genuinely not even remotely convinced you are hard pressed to understand that at all.
Well, I mean I'm in the process of constructing an explanation that makes sense to me, especially given how similarly you and DGuller reacted. There's obviously something there. But the explanation isn't that garbon was calling you a racist (I don't think he was) but it's also not that you and DGuller are racists (you aren't).
But this is in fact the first time I've seen reaction like yours and DGuller's to something like what garbon posted and it startled the hell out of me. Maybe I'm living in a woke bubble or something, but it's not something I've seen before.
From my perspective, garbon was adding some fairly innocuous commentary, with a bit of cattiness thrown in (but less than standard for him, IMO). You and DGuller completely overreacted, and you went on to become downright abusive. Obviously from your perspective you felt viciously attacked, and reacted appropriately. And obviously, there's a bit of a gap there.
QuoteSure, there is the veneer of barely plausible deniability thrown over it, just like the right will tell you that the new voting restrictions have nothing to do with suppressing minority voting. After all, the laws say nothing about black people at all!
I think you're accusing me of having some sort of agenda here and disingenuously pretending not to, and saying that makes me equivalent to GOP efforts to suppress the Black vote. Or did I misunderstand you?
Quote from: DGuller on April 30, 2021, 07:07:13 PM
If someone put words in my mouth that I praised Biden for not succumbing to black people, I would absolutely take it like Berkut would. Most reasonable people would, I suspect. And just to clear up on the timeline, Berkut wasn't the first recipient of a casually thrown racism allusion, I was, so that's why the discussion about garbon accusing people of racism was already active.
Yeah, I was somewhat surprised by your reaction as well. I obviously don't agree that your reaction and Berkut's were reasonable. They seemed pretty unreasonable to me, in fact. But I know you and Berkut to be pretty reasonable people so there's something to be figured out.
I mean, it could be that I'm just a disingenuous virtue signalling wokeist or some such but (unsurprisingly, I hope) I don't think that's it either.
QuoteI think it may be wise to pause focusing on people's thin skin for a second, and consider it from the POV of the people with the thin skin. Maybe people in the US just really don't like fielding accusation of racism of varying subtlety as part of a debate? :hmm:
Yes indeed. Maybe the time has come to consider the point of view of heterosexual middle class white men whose voices have been so viciously suppressed in recent times :lol:
That's the kind of thing that you object to, right? I linked your argument to your identity, and suggested that maybe that makes it less relevant or persuasive. I mean I get it. That's me too, and I get shit like that thrown at me as well at times. It can be annoying, frustrating, and sometimes pernicious depending on the context.
Personally, though, the shit garbon posted doesn't even fucking rate. Your mileage obviously differs. I don't think what I said about "the time has come to consider the feelings of white folks..." etc to rate either. Not sure how you take it.
But maybe you're right. Maybe wokeness is a counter-productive plague that undermines the ability of the non-Fascist centre and left to get good and useful things done. Maybe the pendulum has swung too far and average white dudes like us are being pushed around too much by people wielding cries of racism as a cudgel (and other -isms, for that matter). It does kind of feel like it sometimes. But at the same time, the long tradition of white folks telling non-white folks that they're incorrect in the way they react to the racism they experience continues going strong. And non-white folks still seem to be experiencing some pretty egregious shit, in spite of how far we've gotten. And if you care about that - and I believe you do - then that's a circle that has to be squared... and I don't really think the readings you took from garbon's posts helped that.
Then again, this is languish and maybe the point is to get into shit-fights rather than anything constructive. I guess there's that.
Whenever I hear a white person from the US telling us he/she knows better, or disparages wokeism, I always come back to this video, which I encourage anyone to watch and re-watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llci8MVh8J4
God that's a mess.
Good to know.
Quote from: Jacob on April 30, 2021, 09:31:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 07:08:13 PM
I am genuinely not even remotely convinced you are hard pressed to understand that at all.
Well, I mean I'm in the process of constructing an explanation that makes sense to me, especially given how similarly you and DGuller reacted. There's obviously something there. But the explanation isn't that garbon was calling you a racist (I don't think he was) but it's also not that you and DGuller are racists (you aren't).
But this is in fact the first time I've seen reaction like yours and DGuller's to something like what garbon posted and it startled the hell out of me. Maybe I'm living in a woke bubble or something, but it's not something I've seen before.
From my perspective, garbon was adding some fairly innocuous commentary, with a bit of cattiness thrown in (but less than standard for him, IMO). You and DGuller completely overreacted, and you went on to become downright abusive. Obviously from your perspective you felt viciously attacked, and reacted appropriately. And obviously, there's a bit of a gap there.
QuoteSure, there is the veneer of barely plausible deniability thrown over it, just like the right will tell you that the new voting restrictions have nothing to do with suppressing minority voting. After all, the laws say nothing about black people at all!
I think you're accusing me of having some sort of agenda here and disingenuously pretending not to, and saying that makes me equivalent to GOP efforts to suppress the Black vote. Or did I misunderstand you?
I am saying I am not convinced that you don't understand the intent of garbons post. I am saying it is perfectly obvious what he is doing, and your working hard to come up with a way you can act like it is something other than what it rather obviously is. I don't know that that qualifies as an "agenda", but no, I am not saying it is "equivalent" to trying to suppress black voting - it is simply similar in that both cases have this fake attempt at deniability that nobody actually believes - not even the people claiming to believe it.
In your case it is because you are defending your fellow lefty and you are heavily emotionally invested in the idea that all this concern by everyone over the problems in left wing culture is just right wing bullshit, and in fact there is nothing at all wrong that needs to be addressed. That is incorrect, but hardly as morally reprehensible as the GOP trying to discourage minority voting.
Quote from: Jacob on April 30, 2021, 10:51:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 30, 2021, 07:07:13 PM
If someone put words in my mouth that I praised Biden for not succumbing to black people, I would absolutely take it like Berkut would. Most reasonable people would, I suspect. And just to clear up on the timeline, Berkut wasn't the first recipient of a casually thrown racism allusion, I was, so that's why the discussion about garbon accusing people of racism was already active.
Yeah, I was somewhat surprised by your reaction as well. I obviously don't agree that your reaction and Berkut's were reasonable. They seemed pretty unreasonable to me, in fact. But I know you and Berkut to be pretty reasonable people so there's something to be figured out.
I mean, it could be that I'm just a disingenuous virtue signalling wokeist or some such but (unsurprisingly, I hope) I don't think that's it either.
QuoteI think it may be wise to pause focusing on people's thin skin for a second, and consider it from the POV of the people with the thin skin. Maybe people in the US just really don't like fielding accusation of racism of varying subtlety as part of a debate? :hmm:
Yes indeed. Maybe the time has come to consider the point of view of heterosexual middle class white men whose voices have been so viciously suppressed in recent times :lol:
That's the kind of thing that you object to, right? I linked your argument to your identity, and suggested that maybe that makes it less relevant or persuasive. I mean I get it. That's me too, and I get shit like that thrown at me as well at times. It can be annoying, frustrating, and sometimes pernicious depending on the context.
Personally, though, the shit garbon posted doesn't even fucking rate. Your mileage obviously differs. I don't think what I said about "the time has come to consider the feelings of white folks..." etc to rate either. Not sure how you take it.
But maybe you're right. Maybe wokeness is a counter-productive plague that undermines the ability of the non-Fascist centre and left to get good and useful things done. Maybe the pendulum has swung too far and average white dudes like us are being pushed around too much by people wielding cries of racism as a cudgel (and other -isms, for that matter). It does kind of feel like it sometimes. But at the same time, the long tradition of white folks telling non-white folks that they're incorrect in the way they react to the racism they experience continues going strong. And non-white folks still seem to be experiencing some pretty egregious shit, in spite of how far we've gotten. And if you care about that - and I believe you do - then that's a circle that has to be squared... and I don't really think the readings you took from garbon's posts helped that.
Then again, this is languish and maybe the point is to get into shit-fights rather than anything constructive. I guess there's that.
I cannot even begin to square all that with garbon accusing people of racism because they object to prominent democratic politicians calling to dissolve the police on the grounds that it is counter-productive.
You keep wanting to extend the specific to the general. We all agree on the general!
That doesn't not mean that any particular action taken is by definition useful. And observing that some SPECIFIC action (or set of actions) are counter-productive is not making the claim that the entire general effort is counter productive.
What is the purpose in trying to insist that any particular objection to some specific example of where the rhetoric becomes counter-productive means that the person making the claim must then believe that there is some *general* claim that "Maybe wokeness is a counter-productive plague that undermines the ability of the non-Fascist centre and left to get good and useful things done."
Can't it be that there are SOME things that are counter productive, and if in fact we want to get good and useful things done, we should identify those things and endeavor not to do them? We don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater, right? Can't we just pick out the counter-productive things, and keep the rest? Is that an observation that warrants the immediate suggestion that because I am white I cannot possibly have an opinion that is legitimate about what works in convincing, I don't know, other white Americans that maybe they should pay attention and vote? And whether it makes me a racist or not - is the implication good for actual discourse and discussion?
How is this even up for debate. Someone observed that prominent Democrats calling to actually abolish the police is fucking stupid. Nobody even bothered to try to claim that it isn't - just that SAYING IT IS STUPID is actually the bigger problem.
Quote from: Zoupa on April 30, 2021, 11:25:46 PM
Whenever I hear a white person from the US telling us he/she knows better, or disparages wokeism, I always come back to this video, which I encourage anyone to watch and re-watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llci8MVh8J4
I've seen that before.
How does that relate to prominent democrats alienating non-left wing voters by calling for abolishing the police?
And what does that have to do with "white people" having an opinion about whether or not a particular political message is useful to achieving actual political goals?
Would my objection been acceptable if the words had come from Bernie Sanders mouth instead of hers?
Heres the thing.
All we can do is talk. If you guys have decided that white people have fucked things up so badly that it is legitimate to simply ignore them and what they think about any possible topic that might touch on race (which is, of course, all topics)....ok.
So then what?
How do you go about actually convincing others if you have decided that they aren't allowed to be involved in a discussion?
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 09:41:39 AM
Biden is kind of awesome. I think I was wrong to rate him as my second to last choice in the Dem candidates.
Who really expected him to be this awesome?
Most seemed to either view him as the safe anti-Trump choice or the moderate choice.
Now if only the Senate would get rid of the filibuster, and be more than 50-50...
Quote from: Razgovory on April 30, 2021, 07:32:15 PM
That may be the worst slander I've ever seen in American politics. I would much rather have a crazy Trump supporter than a Democrat who sank this low.
I almost hate to say this, but...
this is a primary race. Wright's opponent accusing her of murdering her husband is almost certainly supporting another republican.
Quote from: Berkut on May 01, 2021, 12:06:32 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on April 30, 2021, 11:25:46 PM
Whenever I hear a white person from the US telling us he/she knows better, or disparages wokeism, I always come back to this video, which I encourage anyone to watch and re-watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llci8MVh8J4
I've seen that before.
How does that relate to prominent democrats alienating non-left wing voters by calling for abolishing the police?
And what does that have to do with "white people" having an opinion about whether or not a particular political message is useful to achieving actual political goals?
Would my objection been acceptable if the words had come from Bernie Sanders mouth instead of hers?
I'm not as eloquent as Oex, garbon, or Kimberly Jones (the lady in the video). All I can talk to is my opinion/experience as a white guy that's on the left of the political spectrum.
It's exhausting having to cater (as a leftist) to non-left-wing voters. Oh let's be careful folks, we don't want to alienate the centrists (read suburban white folks).
It's exhausting always having to be the ones making concessions, while the other side NEVER budges.
It's exhausting having to explain for the millionth time what slogans mean, and focusing on that instead of the incredible issues present in police departments and mentality. There's at least as much ink and electrons used to discuss "defund the police" and how "radical" leftists are so naive and stupid about the issue than about police mentality, behaviour, shootings, procedures, ass-covering and straight-up criminal activities like planting evidence.
It's exhausting seeing the dripping condescension when you guys post stuff like wokeism and associated buzzwords.
It's exhausting and I'm a white male. So when someone who doesn't have your lifelong privilege tells you "hey man can just stop using those terms? It kind of hurtful and annoying", how about you just be a decent dude and do it?
You're not being a maverick, refusing to bow to outrage culture, you're just being an asshole.
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 11:48:39 PM
I am saying I am not convinced that you don't understand the intent of garbons post. I am saying it is perfectly obvious what he is doing, and your working hard to come up with a way you can act like it is something other than what it rather obviously is. I don't know that that qualifies as an "agenda", but no, I am not saying it is "equivalent" to trying to suppress black voting - it is simply similar in that both cases have this fake attempt at deniability that nobody actually believes - not even the people claiming to believe it.
In your case it is because you are defending your fellow lefty and you are heavily emotionally invested in the idea that all this concern by everyone over the problems in left wing culture is just right wing bullshit, and in fact there is nothing at all wrong that needs to be addressed. That is incorrect, but hardly as morally reprehensible as the GOP trying to discourage minority voting.
Okay, so you're saying it's obvious to me that your interpretation of garbon's post is correct but I've been arguing against it it because I want to defend my fellow lefty. This is because my emotional investment in leftwing culture means I have to defend it, and I'm doing it with fake deniability that I don't actually believe in.
Thank you for the clarification. I mean, I don't agree, but I'm sure that doesn't surprise you.
I do appreciate your additional clarification that you don't think I'm as bad as racist supporting GOP suppression of Black voters. That's something we agree on. I also don't think I'm as bad as those fuckers and I am happy to say that I don't think you are either.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 01, 2021, 01:16:30 AM
I'm not as eloquent as Oex, garbon, or Kimberly Jones (the lady in the video). All I can talk to is my opinion/experience as a white guy that's on the left of the political spectrum.
It's exhausting having to cater (as a leftist) to non-left-wing voters. Oh let's be careful folks, we don't want to alienate the centrists (read suburban white folks).
It's exhausting always having to be the ones making concessions, while the other side NEVER budges.
It's exhausting having to explain for the millionth time what slogans mean, and focusing on that instead of the incredible issues present in police departments and mentality. There's at least as much ink and electrons used to discuss "defund the police" and how "radical" leftists are so naive and stupid about the issue than about police mentality, behaviour, shootings, procedures, ass-covering and straight-up criminal activities like planting evidence.
It's exhausting seeing the dripping condescension when you guys post stuff like wokeism and associated buzzwords.
It's exhausting and I'm a white male. So when someone who doesn't have your lifelong privilege tells you "hey man can just stop using those terms? It kind of hurtful and annoying", how about you just be a decent dude and do it?
You're not being a maverick, refusing to bow to outrage culture, you're just being an asshole.
I mean I sympathize, playing politics is a magnificent amount of tiresome bullshit, but the thing more exhausting than playing politics is losing. I certainly have little interest in finding what bullshit slogan will get public opinion going in the right direction but it is what it is. I doubt it is ever fun.
I don't really see that the other side never budges the conversation has been going in your direction for awhile. I mean we have public support for police reform, we have more and more people wanting marijuana legalized, we have gay marriage, we have more and more support for trans rights, we have more and more support for more medical access. I don't see how we the enlightened centrists have NEVER compromised and NEVER made any motion your way.
The only morally correct position is to never vote GOP.
That doesn't mean the Dems are always good, or always right, but at least they're not actively working in lockstep towards a fascist hellscape.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 01, 2021, 01:16:30 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 01, 2021, 12:06:32 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on April 30, 2021, 11:25:46 PM
Whenever I hear a white person from the US telling us he/she knows better, or disparages wokeism, I always come back to this video, which I encourage anyone to watch and re-watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llci8MVh8J4
I've seen that before.
How does that relate to prominent democrats alienating non-left wing voters by calling for abolishing the police?
And what does that have to do with "white people" having an opinion about whether or not a particular political message is useful to achieving actual political goals?
Would my objection been acceptable if the words had come from Bernie Sanders mouth instead of hers?
I'm not as eloquent as Oex, garbon, or Kimberly Jones (the lady in the video). All I can talk to is my opinion/experience as a white guy that's on the left of the political spectrum.
It's exhausting having to cater (as a leftist) to non-left-wing voters. Oh let's be careful folks, we don't want to alienate the centrists (read suburban white folks).
It's exhausting always having to be the ones making concessions, while the other side NEVER budges.
It's exhausting having to explain for the millionth time what slogans mean, and focusing on that instead of the incredible issues present in police departments and mentality. There's at least as much ink and electrons used to discuss "defund the police" and how "radical" leftists are so naive and stupid about the issue than about police mentality, behaviour, shootings, procedures, ass-covering and straight-up criminal activities like planting evidence.
It's exhausting seeing the dripping condescension when you guys post stuff like wokeism and associated buzzwords.
It's exhausting and I'm a white male. So when someone who doesn't have your lifelong privilege tells you "hey man can just stop using those terms? It kind of hurtful and annoying", how about you just be a decent dude and do it?
You're not being a maverick, refusing to bow to outrage culture, you're just being an asshole.
:hug:
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2021, 01:30:23 AM
I mean I sympathize, playing politics is a magnificent amount of tiresome bullshit, but the thing more exhausting than playing politics is losing. I certainly have little interest in finding what bullshit slogan will get public opinion going in the right direction but it is what it is. I doubt it is ever fun.
I don't really see that the other side never budges the conversation has been going in your direction for awhile. I mean we have public support for police reform, we have more and more people wanting marijuana legalized, we have gay marriage, we have more and more support for trans rights, we have more and more support for more medical access.
Well recall this video had a context, several years of Trump and it seeming possible we'd end up with an additional 4 years + had/have a supreme court tilted the right. To say the left was winning was a frought proposition and perhaps one more of faith. And while electing Biden was a positive step, a significant portion of our country still voted for Trump despite all of his unsuitablity for president and personally disgusting behaviors.
I put that one bit in bold because will we actually see it happen? How many dead bodies do there need to be before we move that care beyond rhetoric to change? Similarly how many people do we need imprisoned over marijuana before things actually change there? Gay marriage is a tough one as I recall living in one our 'loony left' states where the populace voted to get rid of gay marriage. Only got reinstated when the judges got involved and only became law of the land when our Supreme Court weighed in. Compare and contrast that to the UK which voted in gay marriage.
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2021, 01:30:23 AMI don't see how we the enlightened centrists have NEVER compromised and NEVER made any motion your way.
Zoupa probably was a bit strong there but the reality is that is a group slow to promote social change into actual change.
Quote from: garbon on May 01, 2021, 02:02:06 AM
How many dead bodies do there need to be before we move that care beyond rhetoric to change?
Either infinite or zero, depending on how you look at it.
Infinite, because there will never be a change that satisfies everyone.
Or zero, because there already has been change.
When you consider history, today's society is actually changing at a whirlwind pace.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 01, 2021, 03:09:10 AM
When you consider history, today's society is actually changing at a whirlwind pace.
Happily we don't live in the past so not sure the relevance.
That you'd be a lot happier comparing what is to what was rather than what could be.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 01, 2021, 03:16:36 AM
That you'd be a lot happier comparing what is to what was rather than what could be.
Is asking for equality thst big of an ask? I mean I'm better off than had I been born in Indonesia but not sure how focusing on that does anything but try to make me content with discrimination.
Of course not.
I was really speaking more to the dejection some are expressing. You're winning the war.
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2021, 01:30:23 AM
I don't really see that the other side never budges the conversation has been going in your direction for awhile. I mean we have public support for police reform, we have more and more people wanting marijuana legalized, we have gay marriage, we have more and more support for trans rights, we have more and more support for more medical access. I don't see how we the enlightened centrists have NEVER compromised and NEVER made any motion your way.
I don't think those are compromises or making a motion to the left (I hope not).
Isn't that more that public opinion has changed (and on gay rights changed massively and quickly)?
QuoteGay marriage is a tough one as I recall living in one our 'loony left' states where the populace voted to get rid of gay marriage. Only got reinstated when the judges got involved and only became law of the land when our Supreme Court weighed in. Compare and contrast that to the UK which voted in gay marriage.
Although the other side of that is it's acknowledged as a constitutional right in the US while in the UK it was a political issue voted on by parliament.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 01, 2021, 01:16:30 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 01, 2021, 12:06:32 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on April 30, 2021, 11:25:46 PM
Whenever I hear a white person from the US telling us he/she knows better, or disparages wokeism, I always come back to this video, which I encourage anyone to watch and re-watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llci8MVh8J4
I've seen that before.
How does that relate to prominent democrats alienating non-left wing voters by calling for abolishing the police?
And what does that have to do with "white people" having an opinion about whether or not a particular political message is useful to achieving actual political goals?
Would my objection been acceptable if the words had come from Bernie Sanders mouth instead of hers?
I'm not as eloquent as Oex, garbon, or Kimberly Jones (the lady in the video). All I can talk to is my opinion/experience as a white guy that's on the left of the political spectrum.
It's exhausting having to cater (as a leftist) to non-left-wing voters. Oh let's be careful folks, we don't want to alienate the centrists (read suburban white folks).
It's exhausting always having to be the ones making concessions, while the other side NEVER budges.
It's exhausting having to explain for the millionth time what slogans mean, and focusing on that instead of the incredible issues present in police departments and mentality. There's at least as much ink and electrons used to discuss "defund the police" and how "radical" leftists are so naive and stupid about the issue than about police mentality, behaviour, shootings, procedures, ass-covering and straight-up criminal activities like planting evidence.
It's exhausting seeing the dripping condescension when you guys post stuff like wokeism and associated buzzwords.
It's exhausting and I'm a white male. So when someone who doesn't have your lifelong privilege tells you "hey man can just stop using those terms? It kind of hurtful and annoying", how about you just be a decent dude and do it?
You're not being a maverick, refusing to bow to outrage culture, you're just being an asshole.
I don't think I am being a maverick, and again, that isn't my motivation. And you aren't being a defender of the downtrodden with all your passionate signalling, you are just being an asshole. See, two can play at that game.
If you find politics exhausting - here is a helpful tip. Win more. Winning is much less exhausting.
If you think defending stupid slogans like "Abolish the police and prisons!" is exhausting, then perhaps get behind encouraging the left to stop fucking coming up with slogans designed to appeal to only the farthest of the left. I mean really - I agree with you! It is fucking tiresome to have to explain over and over and over again that "Defund the police" doesn't actually mean what it pretty much exactly sounds like it means.
If you think compromise is exhausting, I don't know what to say. But your claim that the "other side" NEVER has to budge....well, that is simply not true. Incredible progress has been made on a variety of social issues in the last, say, 30 years. And THEY would say THEY have done all of the movement.
Politics is exhausting. Convincing people that don't agree with you to change their mind is a tiresome business, especially when there are others out there arguing in bad faith in order to keep them from changing their minds, and you are by necessity up against them.
Make it LESS exhausting by having the moral courage to stand up against bullshit, EVEN WHEN IT IS YOUR SIDES BULLSHIT. The truth really does matter.
I am continually fascinated by ideologues insistence that their biggest enemy is their allies. This is historically very consistent among extremists. Almost a marker.
I will note this however - the strategy works really, really well.
If you want to just refuse to address specific issues, shifting the entire argument away from those issues to focus on how anyone bringing up any issue at all is BY DEFINITION an asshole for daring to question the left orthodoxy works every single time.
It is an incredibly effective way of simply owning the discourse and not having to defend your position on its merits at all.
Quote from: Berkut on May 01, 2021, 08:52:15 AM
I am continually fascinated by ideologues insistence that their biggest enemy is their allies. This is historically very consistent among extremists. Almost a marker.
You've mentioned a bunch how it's up to the left and ideologues to reach out, to build bridges, to not alienate their allies, and now to not proclaim their allies their biggest enemies. Which is fair enough.
I wonder, to what degree should people a little further towards the centre try to build bridges, try to reach out, try not to alienate their allies? Is this only supposed to be a one way street?
Because if it's a two way street I submit to you that going all out with "you're calling me racist", continually claiming that those you disagree with are arguing in bad faith or just "virtue signalling", and leaning into hyperbole like "oh so you're saying that white people should not be involved in discussing any topic" is pretty counter productive to any such bridge building.
Quote from: Jacob on May 01, 2021, 10:14:52 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 01, 2021, 08:52:15 AM
I am continually fascinated by ideologues insistence that their biggest enemy is their allies. This is historically very consistent among extremists. Almost a marker.
You've mentioned a bunch how it's up to the left and ideologues to reach out, to build bridges, to not alienate their allies, and now to not proclaim their allies their biggest enemies. Which is fair enough.
I wonder, to what degree should people a little further towards the centre try to build bridges, try to reach out, try not to alienate their allies? Is this only supposed to be a one way street?
Because if it's a two way street I submit to you that going all out with "you're calling me racist", continually claiming that those you disagree with are arguing in bad faith or just "virtue signalling", and leaning into hyperbole like "oh so you're saying that white people should not be involved in discussing any topic" is pretty counter productive to any such bridge building.
This is what is known as an
ad hominem argument. What Berkut says about the content of specific posts isn't relevant to the larger issue of the extent to which various groups on the left should be willing to compromise some of their goals in the interest of winning elections. The argument
ad hominem is considered a logical fallacy, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone reading your post.
And, to answer the generalized question that preceded your ad hom argument, of course it is a two-way street. The problem, however, isn't that the center-left is unwilling to entertain the ideas of the far left, but that they don't accept them unconditionally, and the far left then breaks off negotiations because they feel that they get "exhausted" when they have to defend their positions to people outside their tribe.
Is this really a position of extremists if we are looking at BLM and a goal of having fewer black people killed/have their lives ruined by police. Why is that a partisan issue? I can get how the center can take issue with 'defund the police' but it isn't as though the center hasn't had decades (centuries?) to tackle the issue themselves. We aren't talking about a novel problem.
Also, I'd cut around it in the first article I posted but this notion that recognizing that the center can be an opposition to progress isn't all that extreme. While doubtless the following was judged extreme at the time it was penned, that doesn't really hold true today:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/01/15/martin-luther-king-jr-s-scathing-critique-of-white-moderates-from-the-birmingham-jail/
QuoteFirst, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
And it is exhausting to then have this echoed in the 21st century:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/opinion/civil-rights-protest-resistance.html
QuoteOur complaint here is not about the right-wing media outlets that we know will continue to delegitimize anti-racist protest in any form — whether it's peacefully sitting during the national anthem, marching in the streets, staging boycotts or simply making the apparently radical claim that "black lives matter." Rather, our concern at this moment is with our moderate brothers and sisters who voice support for the cause of racial justice but simultaneously cling to paralyzingly unrealistic standards when it comes to what protest should look like.
Quote from: garbon on May 01, 2021, 11:35:35 AM
Is this really a position of extremists if we are looking at BLM and a goal of having fewer black people killed/have their lives ruined by police. Why is that a partisan issue? I can get how the center can take issue with 'defund the police' but it isn't as though the center hasn't had decades (centuries?) to tackle the issue themselves. We aren't talking about a novel problem.
The simple fact is no one knows what to do. If there were a simple solution we would have done it already.
I can think of two simple solutions that have been proposed: defund the police, and abolish the police. I and others think these are not very good solutions, for obvious reasons.
Quote from: Berkut on May 01, 2021, 08:57:45 AM
I will note this however - the strategy works really, really well.
If you want to just refuse to address specific issues, shifting the entire argument away from those issues to focus on how anyone bringing up any issue at all is BY DEFINITION an asshole for daring to question the left orthodoxy works every single time.
It is an incredibly effective way of simply owning the discourse and not having to defend your position on its merits at all.
Alright, let's address the issue. We're talking about the slogan "defund the police".
I agree with you that the slogan is pretty off-putting to a bunch of people in the centre (and left for that matter), and is potentially motivating and a useful recruitment tool for people on the far right. I also agree with you that the extreme versions (no police at all) are a complete no go, and that less extreme versions (lower funding for police and pulling them out of a whole set of responsibilities, with attendant increase in funding for other services to deal with those issues and potentially prevent them in the first place) is one that needs to be handled with delicacy and thought if they are to work; even in its lesser form (and even with a different slogan than "defund the police") it is definitely not a panacea.
So let's take defunding the police off the table. We still have a large number of Black folks killed by the police in the US. There's a non-trivial number of non-Black folks killed as well for that matter. There's a wide perception that the police can abuse their power with impunity unless something becomes a media storm. There's the issue of sympathizers in police forces aiding and abetting right wing terrorism. So what do we do? What's the action or plan proposed by or acceptable to the reasonable centre?
I put out a bunch of suggestions upthread that weren't "defund the police" - in fact I agreed with increasing funding to the police if necessary. Some of the ideas were rejected as bad (no taking away people's pensions), which is fine. I have a few more ideas (which may or may not be practical) - maybe make it a federal offence to abuse police power? But I'm not the centre in this discussion. What are the proposals you support to address the issues that "defund the police" is reacting to?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2021, 01:36:14 PM
The simple fact is no one knows what to do. If there were a simple solution we would have done it already.
For sure. So we need non-simple solutions. Where should we go?
QuoteI can think of two simple solutions that have been proposed: defund the police, and abolish the police. I and others think these are not very good solutions, for obvious reasons.
So those are not very good solutions, fair enough. Depending on where we draw the lines when it comes to "defund the police" I may even agree.
Because if the answer to "defund the police" is "that's a terrible idea, we can't" then the question becomes "what do we do instead?" And if the answer to that is "I don't know... nothing I guess" then "defund the police" may continue strong for quite a while, with all the attendant issues.
Quote from: Jacob on May 01, 2021, 01:51:45 PM
For sure. So we need non-simple solutions. Where should we go?
There is no place to go. We're it.
I've made some proposals upstream, you've made some proposals, DGuller proposed not hiring e-GIs. Hopefully people with more voice and more clout also make proposals. Then we stew on them, pick them apart, mull over them, in an attempt to reach some kind of consensus. I think this is a situation ripe for demonstration projects: the more woke cities like Portland and Seattle try out something radical and unproven, but plausible, then the rest of us look at their results.
In other words BLM outrage is just going to be a fact of life for a long time to come.
Quote from: Jacob on May 01, 2021, 01:44:04 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 01, 2021, 08:57:45 AM
I will note this however - the strategy works really, really well.
If you want to just refuse to address specific issues, shifting the entire argument away from those issues to focus on how anyone bringing up any issue at all is BY DEFINITION an asshole for daring to question the left orthodoxy works every single time.
It is an incredibly effective way of simply owning the discourse and not having to defend your position on its merits at all.
Alright, let's address the issue. We're talking about the slogan "defund the police".
But that is NOT what this argument is about at all. It is about the comments made by Tlaib to abolish the police altogether, along with incarceration, and whether comments like that are useful in the context of modern US politics.
This is NOT about "defund the police". I have issues with that as well, but when THAT is seen by some to be too tame, then we have real problems.
How anyone can argue that a call to actually abolish the police made by a prominent and respect democratic is so sacrosanct that it cannot be remarked on....is still beyond me.
Quote from: Jacob on May 01, 2021, 01:44:04 PM
I also agree with you that the extreme versions (no police at all) are a complete no go,
Jesus Fucking Christ Jake.
This is MY position, and the exact issue that started this entire debate and got zoupa calling me an asshole and garbon implying that I must be some kind of racist uninterested in fixing anything (and yes, I am still going to go there - only a racist would be uninterested in fixing these problems, so if you accuse me of wanting to maintain the status quo that I agree is systemically and often specifically racist....then that would in fact make me a racist, or so close that the distinction is irrelevant).
This entire thing was started in response to Tlaib saying
"It wasn't an accident, policing in our country is inherently and intentionally racist." She ended the tweet with
"No more policing, incarceration, it can't be reformed."No, apparently even SHE thinks that is too far as well, since she walked it back once the inevitable backlash started.
Part of the backlash was the observation that many people have made that this kind of rhetoric is not just wrong - it is actively helpful to the very people who do in fact want to dismiss the *ideas* behind BLM and even re-allocating funding away from aggressive policing and towards more pro-active services - WHICH I SUPPORT COMPLETELY - despite what garbon claims about "my" groups responsibility, apparently, for not fixing racism already.
Christ, you've spent the last 48 hours vehemently arguing about something that garbon, if he was honest about how he approaches this, should be telling you right now that your "white people" perspective is hurtful and the real problem.
[/b]
Quote from: Jacob on May 01, 2021, 01:51:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2021, 01:36:14 PM
The simple fact is no one knows what to do. If there were a simple solution we would have done it already.
For sure. So we need non-simple solutions. Where should we go?
We should talk about it, openly and honestly.
But apparently, saying "abolishing the police is a bad idea, and further, saying that is a terrible way to convince voters to support you. And no matter WHAT the solution is, winning elections is a necessary condition to implementing any of them - so that is kind of important"
is "white people" code for "playing the race card" so that centrists can continue to fight tooth and nail to make sure racism doesn't get fixed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2021, 02:10:31 PM
In other words BLM outrage is just going to be a fact of life for a long time to come.
But doesn't that basically divorce BLM outrage from the cause of the outrage which is (predominately) black people being killed by the police? I don't think the protests are entirely sort of abstract/in the ether - I think they have a cause.
And you may absolutely be right. From the outside it seems like the US, as a society, has decided that mass shootings are going to be a fact of life because that is more tolerable than the political cost or willingness to take measures that reduce the likelihood or the scale of mass shootings. It may be that, in a similar way, the US basically decides to tolerate a higher level of killings by the police.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 01, 2021, 06:01:25 PM
But doesn't that basically divorce BLM outrage from the cause of the outrage which is (predominately) black people being killed by the police? I don't think the protests are entirely sort of abstract/in the ether - I think they have a cause.
I feel like you cropped out the part of the post that was in essence my answer to this question.
QuoteAnd you may absolutely be right. From the outside it seems like the US, as a society, has decided that mass shootings are going to be a fact of life because that is more tolerable than the political cost or willingness to take measures that reduce the likelihood or the scale of mass shootings. It may be that, in a similar way, the US basically decides to tolerate a higher level of killings by the police.
If by lacking political will then you mean a constitutionally protected right to bear arms and a blocking minority that favors gun ownership over eliminating mass shootings, then yes. If by lacking political will you mean something different, then no, it's not about political will, it's about a constitutional right and a blocking minority.
Quote from: Jacob on May 01, 2021, 10:14:52 AM
I wonder, to what degree should people a little further towards the centre try to build bridges, try to reach out, try not to alienate their allies? Is this only supposed to be a one way street?
we do try.
not just to the hard left, but to the hard right too. But making compromises with the far right makes you look weak in their eyes and evil for compromising on your ideology by the left wing of your party.
Fringe types seem more content in having a reason to whine than truly fixing things, left or right.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2021, 06:06:51 PM
I feel like you cropped out the part of the post that was in essence my answer to this question.
Is it? I thought it was the explanation of why it'd carry on for a while. There'd be a sort of let a thousand flowers bloom approach to policing which means that police killings of (mainly) black people will continue for a long time to come, so will BLM protests.
Do you think it's more likely that after the policy experimentation in all these local jurisdictions that an answer will be found, or there'll just end up being a sort-of tolerance for these killings?
QuoteIf by lacking political will then you mean a constitutionally protected right to bear arms and a blocking minority that favors gun ownership over eliminating mass shootings, then yes. If by lacking political will you mean something different, then no, it's not about political will, it's about a constitutional right and a blocking minority.
A fairly novel constitutional right developed by a politically appointed court - and an elected blocking minority. Both of those are political things, but also there's never been a polital movement strong to significantly change or pressure that situation. Neither of the things you've described are divorced from politics - they could act otherwise if they so chose - or voters could change them.
OK Shelf, then maybe I didn't parse that question correctly. Please rephrase it in a way that I can understand.
As to the second part, you mention voters, which I thought was directly rebutted by the blocking minority. As to installing Supreme Court justices with more liberal views on gun control, sure, we could do that. If they could sneak past the blocking minority that dominates the Senate. So I still don't see how "political will" has much to do with anything.
Frankly, political will just seems like a more highbrow way of saying "fight harder!" The progressive tendency is to say that the solution to all difficult political issues is to fight!
Problem!
Outrage!
Fight!
Profit!
You can substitute political will into that flow chart and it would mean exactly the same thing.
That was maybe a little more aggressive than I intended.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2021, 06:25:29 PM
As to the second part, you mention voters, which I thought was directly rebutted by the blocking minority. As to installing Supreme Court justices with more liberal views on gun control, sure, we could do that. If they could sneak past the blocking minority that dominates the Senate. So I still don't see how "political will" has much to do with anything.
Frankly, political will just seems like a more highbrow way of saying "fight harder!" The progressive tendency is to say that the solution to all difficult political issues is to fight!
Problem!
Outrage!
Fight!
Profit!
You can substitute political will into that flow chart and it would mean exactly the same thing.
Let me re-phrase it: political choice or political agency. It is not a Newtonian law to which politics must adhere - political actors such as the Supreme Court, Republicans, some Democrats and many voters (who elect the blocking minority) have agency and the ability to choose otherwise. They don't - so despite, from what I've seen, polls of up to 80% supporting various gun control measures the political will is lacking to actual change the situation (for a variety of reasons: sincere belief in an untrammelled right to hold arms regardless of the consequence, fear of commies, mainly caring about x other issue so this is on the backburner) and instead there is (from the outside) almost a resigned acceptance of mass shootings.
I suppose my point is do you think that the US will end up choosing your suggestions, or DGs, or Jakes, or any of thousand flowers - or is it more likely that the root case of BLM protests will continue and, like mass shootings, there will just be a number of black people being killed by cops that has minimal effect on politics and will basically be tolerated? However many bodycam videos come out.
QuoteThat was maybe a little more aggressive than I intended.
No worries :hug:
Please explain what you mean root cause of BLM protests. That's sort of burying a premise.
I think I get what you mean by political will now. It means gun nuts change their minds. So yes, gun nuts are not changing their minds, and by that definition we "lack political will."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2021, 07:23:43 PM
Please explain what you mean root cause of BLM protests. That's sort of burying a premise.
This was the point I was making about your post - you were sort of saying BLM protests will be something that you kind of just have for a while. My point was that they are caused by something - they're not some event conjured out of the ether - and what they're caused by (or the root cause) is (predominately) black people being killed by the police.
So just living with BLM outrage also means ultimately just living with black people being killed - which causes the BLM outrage. As I say, I think that's possible - it could be like mass shootings.
QuoteI think I get what you mean by political will now. It means gun nuts change their minds. So yes, gun nuts are not changing their minds, and by that definition we "lack political will."
Not gun nuts - they're a given. But everyone else who enables the gun nuts to have a block on the Supreme Court and legislation.
For me, Sandy Hook changed my opinion utterly - if that didn't cause change then nothing would. And it wasn't enough to shift the calculation for gun moderates (gun legumes?) or for people who aren't gun nuts but are in a coalition with gun nuts to re-evaluate/shift/make demands of the comrades.
If some gun control measures have 80% support - I don't think we can credibly blame the 20% of people for blocking them because they're still a small minority. It's the other 20-30% who are allied to that 20% and decide that political coalition which delivers in other policy areas is worth it.
"Just living with black people being killed" makes no distinction between justified killing and unjustified killing. I suspect we will have people protesting what I consider to be justified killings for eternity. I suspect we will have people protesting what I consider to be just sentences for unjustified killing for eternity.
I agree with you about gun nuts and fellow travellers. That was the basis of my proposal way upstream for a technological solution that would alllow us to grant licenses on some sort of psychological test that could predict whether a person would shoot up Walmart or not.
And we certainly didn't "just live" with the death of George Floyd. Chauvin was charged, prosecuted and convicted.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2021, 08:03:01 PM
"Just living with black people being killed" makes no distinction between justified killing and unjustified killing. I suspect we will have people protesting what I consider to be justified killings for eternity. I suspect we will have people protesting what I consider to be just sentences for unjustified killing for eternity.
Yeah - and I did think about specifying unlawful killings, but my understanding is very few are found unlawful.
Justification is ultimately in the eyes of the public and subjective and not particularly relevant except in forming perceptions which shapes the politics around this. If there were fewer killings there would be fewer protests/less "outrage" even if there were still events where there was bodycam of police dealing with a situation without violence, where you might think it would be justified/appropriate for them to kill someone.
QuoteI agree with you about gun nuts and fellow travellers. That was the basis of my proposal way upstream for a technological solution that would alllow us to grant licenses on some sort of psychological test that could predict whether a person would shoot up Walmart or not.
Not to get sidetracked - but doesn't that go to whether or not this is an unfettered constitutional right? If it is, which other constitutional rights should be conditional on psychological tests? If it's not then that expands the realm of the possible.
I also feel like we're proably nowhere near that technological solution being developed. One simple change I'd look at is ban who have domestic abuse convictions/convictions for violence against women - the number of mass shooters and terrorists who have those previous convictions is really startling.
Sure, if there were fewer shootings there would be less protesting. Hence the hypnotic pull of simple, end point solutions. We could eliminate all shootings by cops by abolishing police forces. We could disarm all cops. We could institute the death penalty for any cop that shoots a black man, justification be damned. Those would all address the outrage. Obviously that might inconvenience some of us. Especially the executed cops..
That's where the divorce between the outrage and the issue comes in, which might get us back to your original question. "The issue," as I see it, is how do we eliminate, or greatly minimize shootings of black people consonant with the populations's need for police protection, the value of officer's lives, and their right to not be punished unjustly. That's the conundrum my personal proposals have been aimed at solving.
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 08:42:31 PM
The question is....why? What is the purpose for responding to the debate about whether some prominent politician should be calling to abolish the police with these comments about race?
LOL. She is only prominent because she is one of the most left wing members of the democratic caucus and makes provocative statements that republicans like to use it ads to scare people. She is just a backbench activist.
I've got a question for you Shelf, one that just popped into my mind.
Would you be in favor or opposed to throwing a cop who you believed was justified in killing a black person under the bus?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 01, 2021, 08:36:38 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2021, 08:42:31 PM
The question is....why? What is the purpose for responding to the debate about whether some prominent politician should be calling to abolish the police with these comments about race?
LOL. She is only prominent because she is one of the most left wing members of the democratic caucus and makes provocative statements that republicans like to use it ads to scare people. She is just a backbench activist.
Any member of Congress would be considered prominent in their community.
So every member of congress is a prominent politician?
Pretty much.
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2021, 09:04:50 PM
So every member of congress is a prominent politician?
Prominent enough that when they lodly proclaim something really fucking stupid they are going to be noticed.
Jesus, is THIS where we are now? It was ok because she wasn't "prominent" enough? It is going to get replayed on every right wing show and plenty of non-right wing shows for, well, forever. It will, I predict, result in Democrats not being elected who might have been elected otherwise.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2021, 08:45:19 PM
I've got a question for you Shelf, one that just popped into my mind.
Would you be in favor or opposed to throwing a cop who you believed was justified in killing a black person under the bus?
What do you mean by throwing them under the bus?
I mean I'm not sure that justification matters very much. So I can definitely imagine deaths which I could see being lawful but unjustified - in England there was a case where a police marksman killed a man carrying a table leg in a plastic bag, the marksmen had been told that was a rifle. There is no justification to kill an unarmed man walking with a table leg - there's no good reason for it. But I can see why it is lawful and the failure isn't personally on that marksman but on the wider operation/it's an institutional failure. I think this is probably the case with the de Menezes shooting as well (of course the gold commander on that operation not only didn't face consequences for the failures of that operation - she's now Met Commissioner <_<).
Quote from: Berkut on May 01, 2021, 09:13:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2021, 09:04:50 PM
So every member of congress is a prominent politician?
Prominent enough that when they lodly proclaim something really fucking stupid they are going to be noticed.
Jesus, is THIS where we are now? It was ok because she wasn't "prominent" enough? It is going to get replayed on every right wing show and plenty of non-right wing shows for, well, forever. It will, I predict, result in Democrats not being elected who might have been elected otherwise.
Democrats are also going to pretend all Republicans are Marjorie Taylor-Greene. It is just how it goes. 100% party discipline is impossible with these huge big tent parties. There are always going to be fringe members of congress saying nutty things.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 01, 2021, 09:21:21 PM
What do you mean by throwing them under the bus?
I mean I'm not sure that justification matters very much. So I can definitely imagine deaths which I could see being lawful but unjustified - in England there was a case where a police marksman killed a man carrying a table leg in a plastic bag, the marksmen had been told that was a rifle. There is no justification to kill an unarmed man walking with a table leg - there's no good reason for it. But I can see why it is lawful and the failure isn't personally on that marksman but on the wider operation/it's an institutional failure. I think this is probably the case with the de Menezes shooting as well (of course the gold commander on that operation not only didn't face consequences for the failures of that operation - she's now Met Commissioner <_<).
By throwing them under the bus I mean imposing a harsher penalty than would be fair.
What do you mean by saying you're not sure that justification matters very much? Surely you can't mean that all police killings are unjustified, but I can't figure out how else to interpret that.
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2021, 09:22:29 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 01, 2021, 09:13:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2021, 09:04:50 PM
So every member of congress is a prominent politician?
Prominent enough that when they lodly proclaim something really fucking stupid they are going to be noticed.
Jesus, is THIS where we are now? It was ok because she wasn't "prominent" enough? It is going to get replayed on every right wing show and plenty of non-right wing shows for, well, forever. It will, I predict, result in Democrats not being elected who might have been elected otherwise.
Democrats are also going to pretend all Republicans are Marjorie Taylor-Greene. It is just how it goes. 100% party discipline is impossible with these huge big tent parties. There are always going to be fringe members of congress saying nutty things.
How many Republicans do you think would vote differently than Greene on a police reform bill? I'm putting the number at around 0.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2021, 09:25:42 PMBy throwing them under the bus I mean imposing a harsher penalty than would be fair.
So I think the way to establish what's fair is investigations and trials if a crime's been committed, possibly firing/internal disciplinaries if it's not a crime but not what we should expect of a police officer. I can see an argument where someone gets moved or assigned permanent desk duty even if it's found they did nothing wrong because there's just no trust in them/perceptions - they are a public service and they need to maintain public confidence or they can't do their job.
And I think the same goes for doctors or nurses and negligence - and there have been a number of scandals here where I think the doctors have got off very, very lightly.
QuoteWhat do you mean by saying you're not sure that justification matters very much? Surely you can't mean that all police killings are unjustified, but I can't figure out how else to interpret that.
I think justification is in the eye of the beholder and its moral and a question of is it right to kill someone. I don't think that's a particularly helpful frame for looking at the police - and to be honest that is stuff I don't want the police to be thinking about, because that's not their job. To me justification applies more to a Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman sort of situation - is someone who isn't, on occasion, authorised to kill people justified in doing so.
The job of the police is protecting the public and investigating crimes. In doing that there may be times when it is necessary for the police to use force and kill people. And we've set out rules of when they can and can't do that. So for me the key questions are whether are operating within those rules and if those rules are fit for purpose (for example is there a route to deal with institutional failures like de Menezes).
I don't think there's much point in assessing each incident separately for whether it is justified or not (and, as I say, I don't think it's appropriate for the police). Rather are they within the rules of when we allow the police to kill people or not? If they are, then it seems to me that the rules are too lax.
I get the feeling this line of inquiry makes you very uncomfortable.
Yes, trials are great. But we have people saying that the results of certain trials (or the decision to not press charges at all) was immoral and unethical. So just leaving it to trials doesn't absolve us of the moral responsibility to judge for ourselves.
The same applies to the second part, which you sort of stumbled into with your comment about the rules being too lax. If you think the rules are too lax, you need to make a moral judgement about what rule would be just right.
The problem, of course, is history. There is a large body of evidence that the system has not treated persons of color fairly over the past century (and more), and so while the people who have not been treated badly do not see systematic problems, for those who have there is always the undercurrent of "cover-up" and "two systems" at play.
I have not heard how we address this.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2021, 10:09:43 PM
I get the feeling this line of inquiry makes you very uncomfortable.
Yes, trials are great. But we have people saying that the results of certain trials (or the decision to not press charges at all) was immoral and unethical. So just leaving it to trials doesn't absolve us of the moral responsibility to judge for ourselves.
The same applies to the second part, which you sort of stumbled into with your comment about the rules being too lax. If you think the rules are too lax, you need to make a moral judgement about what rule would be just right.
Is "certain" your codeword for "unfair", "flawed" or "unjust". Or are you suggesting that all trials ever held in the history of your country (or anywhere else for that matter) have been fair, properly conducted and just?
Quote from: Berkut on May 01, 2021, 09:13:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2021, 09:04:50 PM
So every member of congress is a prominent politician?
Prominent enough that when they lodly proclaim something really fucking stupid they are going to be noticed.
Jesus, is THIS where we are now? It was ok because she wasn't "prominent" enough? It is going to get replayed on every right wing show and plenty of non-right wing shows for, well, forever. It will, I predict, result in Democrats not being elected who might have been elected otherwise.
And once again, we're back to not alienating centrists. Listen dude, people have agency. If they choose to vote R even after the display of the last 4 years, they were never going to vote D.
"Well I was going to vote D but then a congresswoman said she wants to abolish the police!!! Now I have to vote with the folks that stormed the Capitol, I have no choice! The evil Democrats made me do it!"
Give me a break. Those folks could vote third party, not vote, vote D and advocate for changes within the party etc.
That one tweet from a relatively unknown congresswoman is not what will make them vote R.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2021, 12:20:29 AM
Give me a break. Those folks could vote third party, not vote, vote D and advocate for changes within the party etc.
:hmm: You do know that if those folks vote third party or not vote, that's half the effect of them voting for R, right?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 01, 2021, 09:53:37 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2021, 09:25:42 PMBy throwing them under the bus I mean imposing a harsher penalty than would be fair.
So I think the way to establish what's fair is investigations and trials if a crime's been committed, possibly firing/internal disciplinaries if it's not a crime but not what we should expect of a police officer. I can see an argument where someone gets moved or assigned permanent desk duty even if it's found they did nothing wrong because there's just no trust in them/perceptions - they are a public service and they need to maintain public confidence or they can't do their job.
And I think the same goes for doctors or nurses and negligence - and there have been a number of scandals here where I think the doctors have got off very, very lightly.
QuoteWhat do you mean by saying you're not sure that justification matters very much? Surely you can't mean that all police killings are unjustified, but I can't figure out how else to interpret that.
I think justification is in the eye of the beholder and its moral and a question of is it right to kill someone. I don't think that's a particularly helpful frame for looking at the police - and to be honest that is stuff I don't want the police to be thinking about, because that's not their job. To me justification applies more to a Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman sort of situation - is someone who isn't, on occasion, authorised to kill people justified in doing so.
The job of the police is protecting the public and investigating crimes. In doing that there may be times when it is necessary for the police to use force and kill people. And we've set out rules of when they can and can't do that. So for me the key questions are whether are operating within those rules and if those rules are fit for purpose (for example is there a route to deal with institutional failures like de Menezes).
I don't think there's much point in assessing each incident separately for whether it is justified or not (and, as I say, I don't think it's appropriate for the police). Rather are they within the rules of when we allow the police to kill people or not? If they are, then it seems to me that the rules are too lax.
I have to be honest, I have no idea WTF you're saying. We have rules under which police can kill people, but if police do kill people, then these rules are too lax? :hmm: This sounds very confused.
Quote from: DGuller on May 02, 2021, 12:25:19 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2021, 12:20:29 AM
Give me a break. Those folks could vote third party, not vote, vote D and advocate for changes within the party etc.
:hmm: You do know that if those folks vote third party or not vote, that's half the effect of them voting for R, right?
Yes I know that. My point is very few people do.
Come on guys, are we really going to compare the extremes of both parties here? So Tlaib says something dumb, and people are going to vote for the party of Gaetz and Taylor-Greene?
Quote from: Habbaku on April 30, 2021, 10:55:57 AM
I haven't paid much attention to politics since Biden was sworn in. What has he done that's convinced you guys he's not as bad?
I do like the way he's been speaking, mind, but I don't know how much of that is just listening to a guy who sounds like a normal human.
Not going for Austerity as feared. Instead he's going full LBJ and investing in the country.
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2021, 11:21:40 AM
We have to stabilize the political and economic situation then balance the budget.
He has proposed tax increases to the eye popping levels of the Clinton presidency! :o
They would pay for his proposed programs.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2021, 12:38:25 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 02, 2021, 12:25:19 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2021, 12:20:29 AM
Give me a break. Those folks could vote third party, not vote, vote D and advocate for changes within the party etc.
:hmm: You do know that if those folks vote third party or not vote, that's half the effect of them voting for R, right?
Yes I know that. My point is very few people do.
Come on guys, are we really going to compare the extremes of both parties here? So Tlaib says something dumb, and people are going to vote for the party of Gaetz and Taylor-Greene?
Forget about people voting for R for a moment. What about the actual consequence of people saying dumb shit on governing policies? It seems like sometimes people forget that innocent people get killed by entities other than police from time to time. If you shoot from the hip at police reform and get it way wrong in the excitement of it all, you're going to have a whole bunch of innocent people paying the price for your purity, not to mention that you're going to discredit the concept of liberalism, like it has been discredited after the last crime wave.
QuoteWhat about the actual consequence of people saying dumb shit on governing policies?
Your country elected Donald Trump my man.
He's polling around 85% in Republican voters. We don't live in a vacuum where I can just "forget about people voting Republican". Republicans are very good at disguising their motives. How many people justified their Trump vote by saying "I just can't vote for Hillary", including some posters here?
After 4 years of this shit, he gained voters. Millions of them. They weren't voting against Biden's radical agenda (lol btw). They voted FOR republicans.
So that Tlaib comment might get some traction from the usual suspects, but I don't buy that it can actually move the needle in so-called centrists. If you're really a centrist in 2021, you vote Democrat. The other side is just not even worthy of comparison.
I think DGuller is talking about reacting to her comment as an actual policy proposal, not a meaningless slogan.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 02, 2021, 01:57:13 AM
I think DGuller is talking about reacting to her comment as an actual policy proposal, not a meaningless slogan.
Did she actually put forth a policy? Like an actual paper that lists the steps she wants to take, how to replace police with other initiatives/instances, budget allocation etc? Did she submit a bill?
Genuine question, as I thought it was a just a not well thought-out tweet.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2021, 03:07:36 AM
Did she actually put forth a policy? Like an actual paper that lists the steps she wants to take, how to replace police with other initiatives/instances, budget allocation etc? Did she submit a bill?
Genuine question, as I thought it was a just a not well thought-out tweet.
Yes, she put forth a policy in the form of a tweet.
When Elizabeth Warren says "let's impose a wealth tax," that's a policy proposal. When Bernie Sanders says corporations with workers who collect food stamps or other forms of welfare and who's names rhyme with Bamazon should pay additional taxes, that's a policy proposal. It doesn't matter if they've written memos (though I suspect they have stuff on their website on it) or if they've drafted bills, or any of that stuff. Jake, DGuller and I have batted around some ideas and we're all perfectly comfortable with calling them policy proposals. Because that's what they are.
Now it's very possible she didn't want it to be treated as a policy proposal, and in her true inner mind she thinks it would not be a good idea. Which of course means that she's lying to whomever was the target of that tweet.
Or maybe there's some inner logic of the woke community that I just don't get. Maybe the point is to be outrageous and rattle people because it's so damn edgy? Like the outrage is real but solving the problem is actually a big joke?
So it was just a not well thought out tweet. Not sure it warrants a deep dive like this.
I submit that a poll asking americans "Do you support abolishing police departments?" would garner about 1-3% support. As to your last paragraph, whatever. Who can tell what was in her mind when she posted it. Haven't we done enough reacting and analyzing twitter bullshit over the past decade?
That we have, and every time Trump said we should put alligators in the moat and later said he was joking we called him a buffoon and a liar.
Thinking about an idea before you propose it is a pretty low bar.
I've noticed you have this tendency when you realize you're defending something indefensible that you exaggerate your opponent's reactions. Her tweet doesn't warrant a deep dive, whatever that is. It warrants saying her idea is retarded. Until someone comes along to defend it or spin it, then we all start diving deeper and deeper.
I withdraw the "whatever that means" part. That could be construed as put down about language ability.
I'm not sure what we're arguing at this point. I'm not in favour of abolishing police, hence yes I think that idea is stupid. I'm not defending her statement/idea, not sure where you got that.
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2021, 09:22:29 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 01, 2021, 09:13:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2021, 09:04:50 PM
So every member of congress is a prominent politician?
Prominent enough that when they lodly proclaim something really fucking stupid they are going to be noticed.
Jesus, is THIS where we are now? It was ok because she wasn't "prominent" enough? It is going to get replayed on every right wing show and plenty of non-right wing shows for, well, forever. It will, I predict, result in Democrats not being elected who might have been elected otherwise.
Democrats are also going to pretend all Republicans are Marjorie Taylor-Greene. It is just how it goes. 100% party discipline is impossible with these huge big tent parties. There are always going to be fringe members of congress saying nutty things.
What does that have to do with anything? People are going to do all kinds of things that are stupid but since we know people do dumb things, we should not note that they are dumb and suggest that perhaps we ought to do less dumb things?
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2021, 12:20:29 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 01, 2021, 09:13:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2021, 09:04:50 PM
So every member of congress is a prominent politician?
Prominent enough that when they lodly proclaim something really fucking stupid they are going to be noticed.
Jesus, is THIS where we are now? It was ok because she wasn't "prominent" enough? It is going to get replayed on every right wing show and plenty of non-right wing shows for, well, forever. It will, I predict, result in Democrats not being elected who might have been elected otherwise.
And once again, we're back to not alienating centrists. Listen dude, people have agency. If they choose to vote R even after the display of the last 4 years, they were never going to vote D.
"Well I was going to vote D but then a congresswoman said she wants to abolish the police!!! Now I have to vote with the folks that stormed the Capitol, I have no choice! The evil Democrats made me do it!"
Give me a break. Those folks could vote third party, not vote, vote D and advocate for changes within the party etc.
That one tweet from a relatively unknown congresswoman is not what will make them vote R.
So its all hopeless, you cannot possibly convince anyone of anything, so we should not care what anyone says.
If she had said "We should probably have the state start randomly killing white people!" you would make the same argument, right? I mean, nobody ever changes their vote anyway, so what difference does it make.
Of course....we know that isn't true. Those hated centrists and others who don't look at politics the way you do (Or I do for that matter) in fact change their votes all the time, and they in fact decide elections.
You can demand that they all "be smarter" and not vote for anyone other than Team Zoupa because they just ought to be better, smarter, more w...errrh progressive. Sure. Don't bother trying to convince them because if they are not already convinced, well, they are too dumb to bother with.
That's all great if your goal is to be smugly right. If you want to actually win elections, and hence get people into power who can actually effect the change we want though...you know, actually CHANGE something instead of just sitting there feeling superior and right, you are going to have to convince some of those people you so righteously despise. And not even that many of them....but some of them.
That is where I come at this - I have to question the actual commitment to actual change from someone who clearly cares more about making signalling their position on the spectrum then they do about actually getting anything done.
If you decide that fixing problems is more important than signalling how loudly you are on the side of justice, then getting control of the message is absolutely necessary. And yeah, I know, that is going to mean not alienating "centrists". (That is such a pejorative word, used to just slander people who used the term as a positive, it kind of hurts when you say that). That is how voting and democracy works.
You do realize you just made my argument for me....right? Yes - if you want to win elections, you do in fact have to not alienate the exact people who you wish would vote for you, who might not. They are, basically by definition, "centrists".
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2021, 12:38:25 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 02, 2021, 12:25:19 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2021, 12:20:29 AM
Give me a break. Those folks could vote third party, not vote, vote D and advocate for changes within the party etc.
:hmm: You do know that if those folks vote third party or not vote, that's half the effect of them voting for R, right?
Yes I know that. My point is very few people do.
Come on guys, are we really going to compare the extremes of both parties here? So Tlaib says something dumb, and people are going to vote for the party of Gaetz and Taylor-Greene?
Yes. That is exactly right.
They won't look at it that way, of course. They will look at it like "Well, sure, Republicans have some weirdos, but those Dems want to actually abolish the fucking police!"
And again, as Carville said, it isn't about convincing all of them. If you can convince just a few percent of them, we would see a tidal wave of change. Right now the GOP is hanging on to power by being a *minority* party. A very small shift in voting would result in a huge change in numbers.
And again, we are not talking about the hard core here - we are talking about the middle. It is often commented, but there were a LOT of people who voted for Obama, then voted for Trump. It makes no fucking sense to me, but whatever.
I don't know how many of the 74 million Americans who voted for Trump are reachable. But it has to be a decent chunk. Getting just a few percent to switch would make a crushing difference.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2021, 07:11:57 AM
I'm not sure what we're arguing at this point. I'm not in favour of abolishing police, hence yes I think that idea is stupid. I'm not defending her statement/idea, not sure where you got that.
<boggle>
That has been the subject of this entire debate.
That her tweet was stupid. Not just from the standpoint of the idea itself, but from the standpoint of it being politically damaging to progressive efforts. And from that example, the observation that Dems (and this is something that has been observed long before she strolled into the picture) kind of suck at this part of the political game - they (as a group) lack political discipline and say stupid shit that own goals them.
I think the quote "Dems like to win arguments, and Republicans like to win elections" is like....30 years old.
This problem, IMO, really has almost nothing to do with race at all. The current topic they are fucking up on is around race, yes - but the issue is not the subject, it is the way it is handled.
And honestly, if you can have Trump in office for four years being as spectacularly bad at everything that he is, and STILL manage to almost lose to him....something is wrong. And yeah, you can say "The something that is wrong are those fucking stupid voters!" And you know what? You would be right. Congrats! You won the argument! Here is a gold star. You are a winner!
Hey....how did we end up with 6 Supreme Court justices from the Tea Party when we won that damn argument so convincingly! How is it that the Senate is half fucking Trump troglodytes when we keep winning our argument so thoroughly????
I want to win elections. Fuck the arguments. That is hard while also holding true to the ideas that we want to win elections in order to actually effect. Some might even call it exhausting. But there it is.
Quote from: Berkut on May 02, 2021, 08:11:39 AM
Hey....how did we end up with 6 Supreme Court justices from the Tea Party when we won that damn argument so convincingly! How is it that the Senate is half fucking Trump troglodytes when we keep winning our argument so thoroughly????
You only win arguments in your own mind. You lack self reflection, launch deeply insulting and unwarranted insults against people, and pound out walls of text that are basically substance free.
:hmm:
The irony is thick today.
So the first round of the Texas special election are in. As a baseline it was a Trump 51% Biden 48% district.
No one got a majority so it will go to a runoff. Since the first two vote getters were republicans, it is going to be a republican vs. republican runoff.
The combined republicans got 61.95% of the vote and the combined democrats got 37.28%.
I guess they heard about Rashida Tlaib's comments down in Texas. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Habbaku on May 02, 2021, 09:38:15 AM
The irony is thick today.
There are different types of arguments. There are those ultimately rooted in values, for example whether abortion should be legal, which you can't really be proven right or wrong by future events. You can't really win such an argument--there isn't a reason to go beyond polite discussion.
But sometimes arguments cross into facts and predictions, which can be shown to be correct. For example when someone says that Alabama is going to have a lot more deaths per capita than New York, or someone posts fatality rates that are now understood to be too high, or someone projects fatality numbers that don't come to pass. I'm more than happy to admit when I'm wrong on those, but I'm going to spike the football really fucking hard if you are and you refuse to admit it.
I'm confident I can see both sides of arguments. In my time here I've had alt accounts that have had a wide variety of politics. I really just like the arguments. I'd be happy to take up the politics of AOC on the forum, or the policies of Trumpland (I don't think I can defend the personalities). About the only issue in my life I've felt extremely passionate about are the covid lockdowns being abusive in the early stages.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 02, 2021, 12:47:12 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2021, 11:21:40 AM
We have to stabilize the political and economic situation then balance the budget.
He has proposed tax increases to the eye popping levels of the Clinton presidency! :o
They would pay for his proposed programs.
I wish they were that high. We need to return tax levels to the 1990s.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 02, 2021, 09:39:06 AM
So the first round of the Texas special election are in. As a baseline it was a Trump 51% Biden 48% district.
No one got a majority so it will go to a runoff. Since the first two vote getters were republicans, it is going to be a republican vs. republican runoff.
The combined republicans got 61.95% of the vote and the combined democrats got 37.28%.
I guess they heard about Rashida Tlaib's comments down in Texas. :rolleyes:
Yeah and what was the turnout? These off-year elections can be weird.
Quote from: Berkut on May 02, 2021, 07:45:29 AM
What does that have to do with anything? People are going to do all kinds of things that are stupid but since we know people do dumb things, we should not note that they are dumb and suggest that perhaps we ought to do less dumb things?
Just what I said. That your goal is impossible. There will always be things the right can use to scare people, and if there aren't they will just make some up anyway. If there are no politicians saying scary things they will find somebody on Twitter or TikTok saying them.
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2021, 01:26:47 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 02, 2021, 09:39:06 AM
So the first round of the Texas special election are in. As a baseline it was a Trump 51% Biden 48% district.
No one got a majority so it will go to a runoff. Since the first two vote getters were republicans, it is going to be a republican vs. republican runoff.
The combined republicans got 61.95% of the vote and the combined democrats got 37.28%.
I guess they heard about Rashida Tlaib's comments down in Texas. :rolleyes:
Yeah and what was the turnout? These off-year elections can be weird.
78k versus 338k in the November election.
Yeah that is going to make a difference. Besides there were about 20 candidates in that race, some of the Republican candidates might have appealed to Biden voters.
Still not a good result in a suburban district.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2021, 10:09:43 PM
I get the feeling this line of inquiry makes you very uncomfortable.
Not at all :lol: It's interesting and makes me think which is good. To be honest I can't think any chat about a political issue that would make me uncomfortable :hmm:
QuoteYes, trials are great. But we have people saying that the results of certain trials (or the decision to not press charges at all) was immoral and unethical. So just leaving it to trials doesn't absolve us of the moral responsibility to judge for ourselves.
But I mean you were talking imposing harsher penalties than is fair - and I wouldn't support doing something that's unfair. I think politically it could be an argument for it from a sort of pour encourager les autres approach, but that's not a good general approach.
I think the bigger issue, as you say, is whether the current approach delivers fair results and I think that's a social question - not about whether we individually think individual incidents were dealt with fairly, but whether there is a perception that they were dealt with fair
QuoteThe same applies to the second part, which you sort of stumbled into with your comment about the rules being too lax. If you think the rules are too lax, you need to make a moral judgement about what rule would be just right.
Isn't the point you look at the results of the rules as they are and ask if, in general, those are the right results? If not then we need to make a change.
So for example my understanding is the US rules on whether police killings are broadly the same in all states and very similar to the UK. There's some differences for other approaches but it's basically the same standard as self defence - so it's whether the police had an "honest belief" that they or another person was in immediate danger. I wonder if actually for the police the standard should be a little bit higher - perhaps an objective reasonableness standard. From what I've read the big difference from the UK and US on this is that the US allow the use of force if a suspect is evading capture and they think they may go on to commit other crimes - again I wonder if that's a little broad.
Then separate to that there'll be the internal rules and training of that police department - and I think that should be far stricter than the legal minimum of a lawful killing.
QuoteThe problem, of course, is history. There is a large body of evidence that the system has not treated persons of color fairly over the past century (and more), and so while the people who have not been treated badly do not see systematic problems, for those who have there is always the undercurrent of "cover-up" and "two systems" at play.
Yeah - but even away from race that's true. I cannot think of a controversy or a killing involving the Met where the initial investigation and public statements have not later turned out to be false - it happened with Ian Tomlinson, de Menezes, Mark Duggan etc. And, as I say, there don't seem to be consequences for that. The gold commander during the de Menezes shooting is now the Met Commissioner.
It may be different in the US. But one change I would make within police forces is zero tolerance for false statements - a one strike and your fired approach. Because they are utterly corrosive to public trust and they do lead to lots of attempted or successful cover-ups.
QuoteI have to be honest, I have no idea WTF you're saying. We have rules under which police can kill people, but if police do kill people, then these rules are too lax? :hmm: This sounds very confused.
Soz - I should not post after going to a friend's birthday drinks :lol:
Basically my point was asking whether the rules are functioning in the way they're intended to, or are they actually drawn too broadly or applied too laxly by police and prosecutors investigating themselves? Is this working as intended or are there issues with it? Part of that may be the factors who they're recruiting, internal training and guidance etc - but I think another part of it is whether the rules around when the use of force and killing is lawful are perhaps too broad?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 02, 2021, 02:19:15 PM
I think the bigger issue, as you say, is whether the current approach delivers fair results and I think that's a social question - not about whether we individually think individual incidents were dealt with fairly, but whether there is a perception that they were dealt with fair
What is a perception other than an amalgamation of individual thoughts?
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2021, 07:11:57 AM
I'm not sure what we're arguing at this point. I'm not in favour of abolishing police, hence yes I think that idea is stupid. I'm not defending her statement/idea, not sure where you got that.
Fair enough. But by the same token I think you are trying to do damage control.
It's too bad that this is in a virtual form and we won't be able to print it out for warmth when the climate implodes.
Quote from: Berkut on May 02, 2021, 08:11:39 AM
Hey....how did we end up with 6 Supreme Court justices from the Tea Party when we won that damn argument so convincingly! How is it that the Senate is half fucking Trump troglodytes when we keep winning our argument so thoroughly????
Because of the structural issues within your system? I mean you have a President that lost the popular vote, nominating SC judges by having Wyoming senators overrule California senators.
Tlaib can be on message all she wants, it's not going to flip Wyoming.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2021, 11:36:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 02, 2021, 08:11:39 AM
Hey....how did we end up with 6 Supreme Court justices from the Tea Party when we won that damn argument so convincingly! How is it that the Senate is half fucking Trump troglodytes when we keep winning our argument so thoroughly????
Because of the structural issues within your system? I mean you have a President that lost the popular vote, nominating SC judges by having Wyoming senators overrule California senators.
Tlaib can be on message all she wants, it's not going to flip Wyoming.
Trump had a greater percentage of the vote than Trudeau's party did. :P
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 03, 2021, 03:22:32 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2021, 11:36:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 02, 2021, 08:11:39 AM
Hey....how did we end up with 6 Supreme Court justices from the Tea Party when we won that damn argument so convincingly! How is it that the Senate is half fucking Trump troglodytes when we keep winning our argument so thoroughly????
Because of the structural issues within your system? I mean you have a President that lost the popular vote, nominating SC judges by having Wyoming senators overrule California senators.
Tlaib can be on message all she wants, it's not going to flip Wyoming.
Trump had a greater percentage of the vote than Trudeau's party did. :P
But neither Trudeau nor Trump ever themselves faced a nationwide popular vote. Heads of Government are indirectly elected in both countries. Same with the UK and France. A lot of people don't appear to know this, which surprises me.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2021, 11:36:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 02, 2021, 08:11:39 AM
Hey....how did we end up with 6 Supreme Court justices from the Tea Party when we won that damn argument so convincingly! How is it that the Senate is half fucking Trump troglodytes when we keep winning our argument so thoroughly????
Because of the structural issues within your system? I mean you have a President that lost the popular vote, nominating SC judges by having Wyoming senators overrule California senators.
Tlaib can be on message all she wants, it's not going to flip Wyoming.
If he is on message, and the rest f the party is on message, then it can most certainly flip plenty of states that are not Wyoming.
I don't understand how this isn't just obvious.
Quote from: grumbler on May 03, 2021, 06:52:30 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 03, 2021, 03:22:32 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2021, 11:36:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 02, 2021, 08:11:39 AM
Hey....how did we end up with 6 Supreme Court justices from the Tea Party when we won that damn argument so convincingly! How is it that the Senate is half fucking Trump troglodytes when we keep winning our argument so thoroughly????
Because of the structural issues within your system? I mean you have a President that lost the popular vote, nominating SC judges by having Wyoming senators overrule California senators.
Tlaib can be on message all she wants, it's not going to flip Wyoming.
Trump had a greater percentage of the vote than Trudeau's party did. :P
But neither Trudeau nor Trump ever themselves faced a nationwide popular vote. Heads of Government are indirectly elected in both countries. Same with the UK and France. A lot of people don't appear to know this, which surprises me.
I know. My glib remark was meant more as a riposte on the fact we have different political structures (aimed at Zoupa's criticism), that don't translate equally. Certainly those structures can be criticized as to which is superior, or works better, but that gets more into the realm of political/opinion and philosophy, and away from the factual.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 03, 2021, 08:18:37 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 03, 2021, 06:52:30 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 03, 2021, 03:22:32 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2021, 11:36:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 02, 2021, 08:11:39 AM
Hey....how did we end up with 6 Supreme Court justices from the Tea Party when we won that damn argument so convincingly! How is it that the Senate is half fucking Trump troglodytes when we keep winning our argument so thoroughly????
Because of the structural issues within your system? I mean you have a President that lost the popular vote, nominating SC judges by having Wyoming senators overrule California senators.
Tlaib can be on message all she wants, it's not going to flip Wyoming.
Trump had a greater percentage of the vote than Trudeau's party did. :P
But neither Trudeau nor Trump ever themselves faced a nationwide popular vote. Heads of Government are indirectly elected in both countries. Same with the UK and France. A lot of people don't appear to know this, which surprises me.
I know. My glib remark was meant more as a riposte on the fact we have different political structures (aimed at Zoupa's criticism), that don't translate equally. Certainly those structures can be criticized as to which is superior, or works better, but that gets more into the realm of political/opinion and philosophy, and away from the factual.
More importantly, once you start talking about how political systems work, you immediately go into how to make them work in order to win elections (at least nominally democratic ones).
...which then we end up right back with exasperated centrists asking the left to think a bit about actually winning elections instead of arguments when prominent left wing politicians (and yes, she is prominent enough that people notice what she says) start spouting off stupid shit like abolishing the police. Hell, even SHE knows it was a dumb thing to say, since she walked it back the next day.
I am not trying to step into the Tlaib/Centrist quagmire that ya'll have set up here. :P
I am more tired of the "ZOMG THA POTUS DIDNT EVEN WIN THE POPULAR VOTE!!11" arguments, and the subsequent smugness about the superiorness of their political systems, when those same systems have what could easily be argued is even more removed from directly electing their executive than the one we have.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 03, 2021, 08:31:40 AM
I am not trying to step into the Tlaib/Centrist quagmire that ya'll have set up here. :P
I am more tired of the "ZOMG THA POTUS DIDNT EVEN WIN THE POPULAR VOTE!!11" arguments, and the subsequent smugness about the superiorness of their political systems, when those same systems have what could easily be argued is even more removed from directly electing their executive than the one we have.
Fair enough. Although our system really is fucked up.
But that quagmire is, as Zoupa notes, exhausting.
But its the one we have, so we have to figure out how to work inside it, especially if we want to contemplate trying to change it.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 03, 2021, 03:22:32 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2021, 11:36:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 02, 2021, 08:11:39 AM
Hey....how did we end up with 6 Supreme Court justices from the Tea Party when we won that damn argument so convincingly! How is it that the Senate is half fucking Trump troglodytes when we keep winning our argument so thoroughly????
Because of the structural issues within your system? I mean you have a President that lost the popular vote, nominating SC judges by having Wyoming senators overrule California senators.
Tlaib can be on message all she wants, it's not going to flip Wyoming.
Trump had a greater percentage of the vote than Trudeau's party did. :P
Yeah but there is a pretty big difference: another party did not get more votes than Trudeau's did.
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2021, 08:58:11 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 03, 2021, 03:22:32 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2021, 11:36:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 02, 2021, 08:11:39 AM
Hey....how did we end up with 6 Supreme Court justices from the Tea Party when we won that damn argument so convincingly! How is it that the Senate is half fucking Trump troglodytes when we keep winning our argument so thoroughly????
Because of the structural issues within your system? I mean you have a President that lost the popular vote, nominating SC judges by having Wyoming senators overrule California senators.
Tlaib can be on message all she wants, it's not going to flip Wyoming.
Trump had a greater percentage of the vote than Trudeau's party did. :P
Yeah but there is a pretty big difference: another party did not get more votes than Trudeau's did.
:lol:
You better check again. :contract:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Canadian_federal_election
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2021, 08:58:11 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 03, 2021, 03:22:32 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2021, 11:36:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 02, 2021, 08:11:39 AM
Hey....how did we end up with 6 Supreme Court justices from the Tea Party when we won that damn argument so convincingly! How is it that the Senate is half fucking Trump troglodytes when we keep winning our argument so thoroughly????
Because of the structural issues within your system? I mean you have a President that lost the popular vote, nominating SC judges by having Wyoming senators overrule California senators.
Tlaib can be on message all she wants, it's not going to flip Wyoming.
Trump had a greater percentage of the vote than Trudeau's party did. :P
Yeah but there is a pretty big difference: another party did not get more votes than Trudeau's did.
If we follow that logic, though, it's worth noting that Hillary Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote either.
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2021, 09:45:02 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2021, 08:58:11 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 03, 2021, 03:22:32 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2021, 11:36:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 02, 2021, 08:11:39 AM
Hey....how did we end up with 6 Supreme Court justices from the Tea Party when we won that damn argument so convincingly! How is it that the Senate is half fucking Trump troglodytes when we keep winning our argument so thoroughly????
Because of the structural issues within your system? I mean you have a President that lost the popular vote, nominating SC judges by having Wyoming senators overrule California senators.
Tlaib can be on message all she wants, it's not going to flip Wyoming.
Trump had a greater percentage of the vote than Trudeau's party did. :P
Yeah but there is a pretty big difference: another party did not get more votes than Trudeau's did.
:lol:
You better check again. :contract:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Canadian_federal_election
Crazy, how inefficient the CP vote is.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 03, 2021, 10:00:14 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2021, 08:58:11 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 03, 2021, 03:22:32 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2021, 11:36:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 02, 2021, 08:11:39 AM
Hey....how did we end up with 6 Supreme Court justices from the Tea Party when we won that damn argument so convincingly! How is it that the Senate is half fucking Trump troglodytes when we keep winning our argument so thoroughly????
Because of the structural issues within your system? I mean you have a President that lost the popular vote, nominating SC judges by having Wyoming senators overrule California senators.
Tlaib can be on message all she wants, it's not going to flip Wyoming.
Trump had a greater percentage of the vote than Trudeau's party did. :P
Yeah but there is a pretty big difference: another party did not get more votes than Trudeau's did.
If we follow that logic, though, it's worth noting that Hillary Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote either.
It is worth noting. I would vastly prefer ranked choice voting or a runoff instead of FPTP.
Having one singular powerful office with vast arbitrary power, like the POTUS, without even a minority plurality support, is dangerous to the long term health of our goverment. I don't see why that isn't obvious.
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2021, 09:45:02 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2021, 08:58:11 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 03, 2021, 03:22:32 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2021, 11:36:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 02, 2021, 08:11:39 AM
Hey....how did we end up with 6 Supreme Court justices from the Tea Party when we won that damn argument so convincingly! How is it that the Senate is half fucking Trump troglodytes when we keep winning our argument so thoroughly????
Because of the structural issues within your system? I mean you have a President that lost the popular vote, nominating SC judges by having Wyoming senators overrule California senators.
Tlaib can be on message all she wants, it's not going to flip Wyoming.
Trump had a greater percentage of the vote than Trudeau's party did. :P
Yeah but there is a pretty big difference: another party did not get more votes than Trudeau's did.
:lol:
You better check again. :contract:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Canadian_federal_election
Sorry I missed that one. I was going off 2015 since I have been kind of distracted by all the nonsense going on in my country since then.
Quote from: Berkut on May 03, 2021, 07:41:57 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2021, 11:36:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 02, 2021, 08:11:39 AM
Hey....how did we end up with 6 Supreme Court justices from the Tea Party when we won that damn argument so convincingly! How is it that the Senate is half fucking Trump troglodytes when we keep winning our argument so thoroughly????
Because of the structural issues within your system? I mean you have a President that lost the popular vote, nominating SC judges by having Wyoming senators overrule California senators.
Tlaib can be on message all she wants, it's not going to flip Wyoming.
If he is on message, and the rest f the party is on message, then it can most certainly flip plenty of states that are not Wyoming.
I don't understand how this isn't just obvious.
Not only is tis not obvious, it's also not true.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 03, 2021, 08:31:40 AM
I am not trying to step into the Tlaib/Centrist quagmire that ya'll have set up here. :P
I am more tired of the "ZOMG THA POTUS DIDNT EVEN WIN THE POPULAR VOTE!!11" arguments, and the subsequent smugness about the superiorness of their political systems, when those same systems have what could easily be argued is even more removed from directly electing their executive than the one we have.
There are a couple of reasons why the popular vote is a more meaningful data point in the US system than the comparator you selected - Canada.
First, Americans cast a ballot for who they want to be president. As a result it is a head to head competition for people to vote for who they wish to be President. One of the things that results from this is that Americans can split their vote between the local person they want to represent them, who may belong to a different party, and the person they want to be their President. The other consequence is we know exactly how many people voted for each Presidential candidate and so there is no need to think about it in terms of a proxy vote. In Canada, and other Parliamentary Democracies, the only people who vote for person who will become PM are the people in the PMs riding. The leaders of the other parties do not run in the same riding and so there is no head to head competition. There is also no possibility to split ones vote between a strong local candidate who might belong to a different party and the PM. We only vote for a local candidate. One of the results is that local politics matter a lot and people might might vote for a local candidate they like why not liking the leader of the party very much. We never talk about the leader of a party winning the popular vote because that would be a nonsense. We talk about the party winning x percentage of the vote.
Second, the US is a two party state. Yes there are other fringe candidates but only members of the two parties win elections. As a result it is striking when there is a head to head competition for President and the person who loses the popular vote can, because of your Electoral College system, end up winning the office. In Canada there are five parties who have elected members sitting in Parliament. One of those parties is a dominant political force in our second most populated province and it will never form government. As a result it is not that remarkable that the party who forms government did not win the popular vote. That would actually be a fairly remarkable outcome in a first past the post system with multiple parties.
Quote from: Berkut on May 03, 2021, 08:23:56 AMMore importantly, once you start talking about how political systems work, you immediately go into how to make them work in order to win elections (at least nominally democratic ones).
...which then we end up right back with exasperated centrists asking the left to think a bit about actually winning elections instead of arguments when prominent left wing politicians (and yes, she is prominent enough that people notice what she says) start spouting off stupid shit like abolishing the police. Hell, even SHE knows it was a dumb thing to say, since she walked it back the next day.
Is that true though? It feels to me that becaus the US has a strong counter-majoritarian element in its constitution that actually one wing of American politics has decided not to try and win elections. The last Republican leader I can think of who was talking about building a Republican majority was W.
I suppose to flip this to the other side - the UK, Germany, Japan etc show that there's nothing to stop conservatives/the right consistently winning elections and forming governments (from a European perspective it's the centre left that is in crisis and locked out of power in most countries). Given what you think about the loony left - isn't the striking thing not that the left struggle to win elections, which is the case across developed democracies with a few exceptions, but that the right stopped trying? Instead of making a single compromise with the electorate (like the Tories, the CDU, the LDP etc) they've chosen to really lean into the minoritarian bits of the US constitution: the Senate, the Supreme Court and occasionally winning the electoral college (plus now trying to further restrict voters).
I also feel like in times when there is a prominent "loony left" however close they are to power that normally results in a period of conservative/right-wing rule. I just keep thinking what if Trump had actually delivered on infrastructure week :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 03, 2021, 11:41:49 AM
Is that true though? It feels to me that becaus the US has a strong counter-majoritarian element in its constitution that actually one wing of American politics has decided not to try and win elections. The last Republican leader I can think of who was talking about building a Republican majority was W.
I remember reading a W staffer (was probably David Frum, but not sure) who commented that they were very aware in 2001 that they did not win a majority of the votes and were really trying to reach across the aisle and be more bipartisan to make up for that lack of legitimacy. No Child Left Behind was the big example of that.
Then of course 9/11 hit and everything changed. But it was quite a comparison with Trump who really didn't care (except to lie and say he really did win the popular vote).
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2021, 11:45:26 AM
I remember reading a W staffer (was probably David Frum, but not sure) who commented that they were very aware in 2001 that they did not win a majority of the votes and were really trying to reach across the aisle and be more bipartisan to make up for that lack of legitimacy. No Child Left Behind was the big example of that.
Then of course 9/11 hit and everything changed. But it was quite a comparison with Trump who really didn't care (except to lie and say he really did win the popular vote).
Yeah it was W's entire pitch before 9/11 - compassionate conservatism, NCLB, immigration reform, the "soft bias of low expectations", even the humble foreign policy etc. They had a theory.
As you say 9/11 changed everything (though 2004 is the only Presidential election since 1988 when the GOP did win the popular vote), but also I think Social Security reform was a killer.
Edit: And a contrast to Trump - perhaps. But as I say if Trump followed through on his promises by caring about actually doing things (which was impossible) and two wars end, plus spending on infrastructure to let the economy - that could be another majority I think. It's the rest of the GOP that held back on that because I think their focus is ultimately only what they delivered: tax cuts and judges.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 03, 2021, 10:40:16 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 03, 2021, 07:41:57 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2021, 11:36:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 02, 2021, 08:11:39 AM
Hey....how did we end up with 6 Supreme Court justices from the Tea Party when we won that damn argument so convincingly! How is it that the Senate is half fucking Trump troglodytes when we keep winning our argument so thoroughly????
Because of the structural issues within your system? I mean you have a President that lost the popular vote, nominating SC judges by having Wyoming senators overrule California senators.
Tlaib can be on message all she wants, it's not going to flip Wyoming.
If he is on message, and the rest f the party is on message, then it can most certainly flip plenty of states that are not Wyoming.
I don't understand how this isn't just obvious.
Not only is tis not obvious, it's also not true.
So your position is that there is no point in trying to win elections? It's hopeless...we should just have a revolution or something instead?
What is your point, now that you retreated from your rabid defense of "abolish the police!"
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 03, 2021, 11:41:49 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 03, 2021, 08:23:56 AMMore importantly, once you start talking about how political systems work, you immediately go into how to make them work in order to win elections (at least nominally democratic ones).
...which then we end up right back with exasperated centrists asking the left to think a bit about actually winning elections instead of arguments when prominent left wing politicians (and yes, she is prominent enough that people notice what she says) start spouting off stupid shit like abolishing the police. Hell, even SHE knows it was a dumb thing to say, since she walked it back the next day.
Is that true though? It feels to me that becaus the US has a strong counter-majoritarian element in its constitution that actually one wing of American politics has decided not to try and win elections. The last Republican leader I can think of who was talking about building a Republican majority was W.
I suppose to flip this to the other side - the UK, Germany, Japan etc show that there's nothing to stop conservatives/the right consistently winning elections and forming governments (from a European perspective it's the centre left that is in crisis and locked out of power in most countries). Given what you think about the loony left - isn't the striking thing not that the left struggle to win elections, which is the case across developed democracies with a few exceptions, but that the right stopped trying? Instead of making a single compromise with the electorate (like the Tories, the CDU, the LDP etc) they've chosen to really lean into the minoritarian bits of the US constitution: the Senate, the Supreme Court and occasionally winning the electoral college (plus now trying to further restrict voters).
I also feel like in times when there is a prominent "loony left" however close they are to power that normally results in a period of conservative/right-wing rule. I just keep thinking what if Trump had actually delivered on infrastructure week :lol:
Im not really sure what you are saying here.
I don't think the left by and large is loony at all - I think there are elements that I take issue with on both philosophical levels and more importantly, practical levels in that I tink the shit they do makes it harder to win elections. I've argued both in different contexts before, my argument right now however is completely practical.
And I don't even know what I am arguing against. It is starting to feel like there is a demand that we not try to win elections at all, because apparently it doesn't matter anyway? I'm not entirely sure at this point.
Berkut, do you think democracy is important? Even when it doesn't go your way?
Quote from: Berkut on May 03, 2021, 12:59:14 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 03, 2021, 11:41:49 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 03, 2021, 08:23:56 AMMore importantly, once you start talking about how political systems work, you immediately go into how to make them work in order to win elections (at least nominally democratic ones).
...which then we end up right back with exasperated centrists asking the left to think a bit about actually winning elections instead of arguments when prominent left wing politicians (and yes, she is prominent enough that people notice what she says) start spouting off stupid shit like abolishing the police. Hell, even SHE knows it was a dumb thing to say, since she walked it back the next day.
Is that true though? It feels to me that becaus the US has a strong counter-majoritarian element in its constitution that actually one wing of American politics has decided not to try and win elections. The last Republican leader I can think of who was talking about building a Republican majority was W.
I suppose to flip this to the other side - the UK, Germany, Japan etc show that there's nothing to stop conservatives/the right consistently winning elections and forming governments (from a European perspective it's the centre left that is in crisis and locked out of power in most countries). Given what you think about the loony left - isn't the striking thing not that the left struggle to win elections, which is the case across developed democracies with a few exceptions, but that the right stopped trying? Instead of making a single compromise with the electorate (like the Tories, the CDU, the LDP etc) they've chosen to really lean into the minoritarian bits of the US constitution: the Senate, the Supreme Court and occasionally winning the electoral college (plus now trying to further restrict voters).
I also feel like in times when there is a prominent "loony left" however close they are to power that normally results in a period of conservative/right-wing rule. I just keep thinking what if Trump had actually delivered on infrastructure week :lol:
Im not really sure what you are saying here.
I don't think the left by and large is loony at all - I think there are elements that I take issue with on both philosophical levels and more importantly, practical levels in that I tink the shit they do makes it harder to win elections. I've argued both in different contexts before, my argument right now however is completely practical.
And I don't even know what I am arguing against. It is starting to feel like there is a demand that we not try to win elections at all, because apparently it doesn't matter anyway? I'm not entirely sure at this point.
If the only goal of a party is to win, then what?
Quote from: The Brain on May 03, 2021, 01:02:14 PM
Berkut, do you think democracy is important? Even when it doesn't go your way?
Of course.
I mean...the last couple decades have shaken my faith in the good sense of my fellow man, but its not like I see a better alternative to it. Why?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2021, 01:05:41 PM
If the only goal of a party is to win, then what?
Wouldn't that be a better question for someone who believes that the only goal of a party is to win?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2021, 01:05:41 PM
If the only goal of a party is to win, then what?
I'd probably go alont with the only goal of a party is to win - I think that might be the secret to the success of the "natural parties of government" around the world (Tories, Liberals, CDU, LDP, historically Fianna Fail). They may have sort of guiding principles but they never allow the theological debate around that to distract them for winning - or at least not for too long.
I think that kind of has to be the only goal in big-tent, two-party coalition politics like the US because otherwise what's the point of the big tent? The only reason is because it's a two-party system and the purpose is to win.
Even in a FPTP parliamentary system like the UK or Canada I think generally governments lose elections, rather than oppositions winning them - but the least the opposition has to do is be ready to present a credible alternative come election day.
QuoteAnd I don't even know what I am arguing against. It is starting to feel like there is a demand that we not try to win elections at all, because apparently it doesn't matter anyway? I'm not entirely sure at this point.
Maybe because I wasn't really arguing with you? :mellow:
Quote from: Berkut on May 03, 2021, 01:09:38 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 03, 2021, 01:02:14 PM
Berkut, do you think democracy is important? Even when it doesn't go your way?
Of course.
I mean...the last couple decades have shaken my faith in the good sense of my fellow man, but its not like I see a better alternative to it. Why?
That makes you part of a fairly small minority these days. My experience is that being in this minority can be a very frustrating experience.
The democrats could really reduce the lines of attack against themselves if they expelled people like AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and the other 3 squad members. They could also do without Bernie Sanders in the Senate--he is in a lot of attack ads.
Of course they would then lose their majority in both houses, and republicans would still run attack ads anyway.
Berkut, don't the democrats control the house senate and white house? Didn't they just win?
Quote from: Berkut on May 03, 2021, 01:10:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2021, 01:05:41 PM
If the only goal of a party is to win, then what?
Wouldn't that be a better question for someone who believes that the only goal of a party is to win?
I may have misunderstood your point. Isn't your argument that the Dems should condition their actions and statements on winning above all else?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 03, 2021, 01:15:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2021, 01:05:41 PM
If the only goal of a party is to win, then what?
I'd probably go alont with the only goal of a party is to win - I think that might be the secret to the success of the "natural parties of government" around the world (Tories, Liberals, CDU, LDP, historically Fianna Fail). They may have sort of guiding principles but they never allow the theological debate around that to distract them for winning - or at least not for too long.
I think that kind of has to be the only goal in big-tent, two-party coalition politics like the US because otherwise what's the point of the big tent? The only reason is because it's a two-party system and the purpose is to win.
Even in a FPTP parliamentary system like the UK or Canada I think generally governments lose elections, rather than oppositions winning them - but the least the opposition has to do is be ready to present a credible alternative come election day.
QuoteAnd I don't even know what I am arguing against. It is starting to feel like there is a demand that we not try to win elections at all, because apparently it doesn't matter anyway? I'm not entirely sure at this point.
Maybe because I wasn't really arguing with you? :mellow:
I agree it is certainly the recipe for success of the Canadian Liberal party. But it also result in some bad public policy choices. It is an interesting tension.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2021, 02:20:58 PM
I agree it is certainly the recipe for success of the Canadian Liberal party. But it also result in some bad public policy choices. It is an interesting tension.
Yes - but ultimately the goal of politics is power. I can think of far more bad public policy choices because the Labour Party decided to have the odd decade of self-indulgence.
As I say from where I'm sitting the US is doing pretty well at really kind of avoiding that. They ran a moderate-talking campaign and are now delivering quite radically. The left campaigned for the moderate candidate and helped him win, now they've got some capital and leverage to use.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 03, 2021, 02:31:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2021, 02:20:58 PM
I agree it is certainly the recipe for success of the Canadian Liberal party. But it also result in some bad public policy choices. It is an interesting tension.
Yes - but ultimately the goal of politics is power. I can think of far more bad public policy choices because the Labour Party decided to have the odd decade of self-indulgence.
As I say from where I'm sitting the US is doing pretty well at really kind of avoiding that. They ran a moderate-talking campaign and are now delivering quite radically. The left campaigned for the moderate candidate and helped him win, now they've got some capital and leverage to use.
I am not so sure. The NDP have never formed government Federally and so have never held power. But they have been instrumental in the creation of much of what makes up Canadian public policy. If they had simply sought power the public policy initiatives they pushed probably would never have been adopted.
I think there is a real danger if everyone tries to be "moderates" whatever that might be.
Quote from: Berkut on May 03, 2021, 12:56:14 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 03, 2021, 10:40:16 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 03, 2021, 07:41:57 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2021, 11:36:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 02, 2021, 08:11:39 AM
Hey....how did we end up with 6 Supreme Court justices from the Tea Party when we won that damn argument so convincingly! How is it that the Senate is half fucking Trump troglodytes when we keep winning our argument so thoroughly????
Because of the structural issues within your system? I mean you have a President that lost the popular vote, nominating SC judges by having Wyoming senators overrule California senators.
Tlaib can be on message all she wants, it's not going to flip Wyoming.
If he is on message, and the rest f the party is on message, then it can most certainly flip plenty of states that are not Wyoming.
I don't understand how this isn't just obvious.
Not only is tis not obvious, it's also not true.
So your position is that there is no point in trying to win elections? It's hopeless...we should just have a revolution or something instead?
What is your point, now that you retreated from your rabid defense of "abolish the police!"
Oh fuck off already. What's the point of discussing anything with you man. When have I defended "abolish the police"? You argue in such bad faith and with such unsolicited attacks I really don't get it. Pat yourself on the back, you won yet again!
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2021, 02:19:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 03, 2021, 01:10:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2021, 01:05:41 PM
If the only goal of a party is to win, then what?
Wouldn't that be a better question for someone who believes that the only goal of a party is to win?
I may have misunderstood your point. Isn't your argument that the Dems should condition their actions and statements on winning above all else?
No.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 03, 2021, 02:46:07 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 03, 2021, 12:56:14 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 03, 2021, 10:40:16 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 03, 2021, 07:41:57 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2021, 11:36:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 02, 2021, 08:11:39 AM
Hey....how did we end up with 6 Supreme Court justices from the Tea Party when we won that damn argument so convincingly! How is it that the Senate is half fucking Trump troglodytes when we keep winning our argument so thoroughly????
Because of the structural issues within your system? I mean you have a President that lost the popular vote, nominating SC judges by having Wyoming senators overrule California senators.
Tlaib can be on message all she wants, it's not going to flip Wyoming.
If he is on message, and the rest f the party is on message, then it can most certainly flip plenty of states that are not Wyoming.
I don't understand how this isn't just obvious.
Not only is tis not obvious, it's also not true.
So your position is that there is no point in trying to win elections? It's hopeless...we should just have a revolution or something instead?
What is your point, now that you retreated from your rabid defense of "abolish the police!"
Oh fuck off already. What's the point of discussing anything with you man. When have I defended "abolish the police"? You argue in such bad faith and with such unsolicited attacks I really don't get it. Pat yourself on the back, you won yet again!
In this debate you've called me an asshole several times, and NOW you are going to get all bent out of shape and offended? Awesome.
The entire discussion started with the observation that Tlaib is doing harm to the progressive cause by tweeting inane shit like calling to get rid of the police. That has been the subject all along, and the entire content of the objections raised against what YOU AND GARBON said was "woke" culture was around that comment specifically.
Like I said, if you are now coming over to our side - great. I am glad I was able to convince you even if you won't admit to having been wrong. Whatever. I don't care. I'm just confused as to why you are still arguing. You are saying I am right....but that it doesn't matter anyway, because it is not possible to convince anyone anyway? Really, I am genuinely confused what your point IS at this point.
I will go back to the beginning: If the Dems want to win and keep winning, and win by even more in a somewhat broken system where being a majority apparently is not enough....they need to figure out how to convince at least a few more percent of voters who are willing to vote either way (the magical people who we are told voted for both Obama AND Trump, as hard as that is to fathom) to embrace the Left.
Strides have been made. A moderate is President, and he is being very....moderate in his language, while being pretty not moderate in his policies. So far. This is awesome! This is just what we need. Progressive policies, sold well as being just good sense policies, not fire and brimstone socialism down with the capitalists! bombast. This works.
So this is good. Now we need more of it. We need to get better at keeping the vocal part of the left under reasonable control, while continuing to sell progressive policy as just good common sense. If we can get the Tlaibs and AOCs on board (I actually think AOC is damn good at this, actually - others not so much) with understanding the strategy, what I think can happen (and frankly must happen if we are to have any hope) is the actual destruction of the modern GOP as a viable political entity, to be replaced by a center-right progressive party.
If we can do this, we can imagine a future where the two parties (assuming we are stuck with this two party system) going head to head with each other, will be a fight between moderate/centrist progressives (the Biden/Buttigieg flavor of "progressives") up against the more progressive progressives (Warren/Sanders/AOC). That is the debate we should be having.
And THEN you guys can really legit hate me, because then at least we will be on actual different sides - but it will be between two different flavors of what we would call "progressives" today.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 03, 2021, 01:53:47 PM
Berkut, don't the democrats control the house senate and white house? Didn't they just win?
Barely, and not with enough of a win to effect a lot of the change needed. And that was against, literally, the Worst. President. In. American. History.
Someone just as bad as Trump, but not actually a fucking mentally ill moron, would have won. And one of the reasons they would have won, and one of the reasons Trump beat Clinton to begin with, is the bonkers crazy rhetoric and the bonkers crazy nutjob cancel culture identity politics of the far left that let the right scare the shit out of a bunch of people in the middle who for whatever dumb fucking reason actually are worried about double secret commies and immigrants and godless socialists. A lot of them cannot be reached, at least not in any kind of ethical manner, but some of them CAN be reached.
And again, you don't have to convince that many to absolutely blow up the GOP strategy. 5% 3%?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2021, 02:37:00 PM
I am not so sure. The NDP have never formed government Federally and so have never held power. But they have been instrumental in the creation of much of what makes up Canadian public policy. If they had simply sought power the public policy initiatives they pushed probably would never have been adopted.
Yeah and I think there is a role for that type of party that is aiming to change the discourse by their influence on other parties. I think in Europe the biggest impact has been the far/populist right - without those parties I don't think we have Brexit or the various fortress Europe policies or a Social Democrat government in Denmark deporting Syrian refugees because it's "safe" now (and considering measures to limit the size of "non-western" communities in disadvantaged areas). Some have formed governments but some just operate like a little gravity well pulling politics in their direction.
But I think if you're a party aiming to form government that has to be your number one priority, because you believe the other guys will make bad decisions - that's kind of the point.
QuoteI think there is a real danger if everyone tries to be "moderates" whatever that might be.
Agreed and there is a history of throwing minorities under the bus to be "moderate" - so in the UK in the 80s the Greater London Council was a regular tabloid story of being under control of the loony left. A lot of the policies that attracted that attention are now standard even for conservatives such promoting tolerance for the gays etc. Mainly because it's easy - it's reasonably easy to signal on a cultural issue (although maybe not convincingly) compared to shifting the public's views of your economic policies.
I also think there tends to be an incorrect perception by the political class of where the centre is - and that it moves. Re-hashed Blairism or New Democrats won't work because the world is different. People have moved politically. I think the key to understanding the popularity of the Tory government - especially in covid times - is that if you actually look at the polls, the British people (and this will vary country by country) are basically authoritarian social democrats - and they perceive all parties as broadly clustering around a liberal centre.
Quote from: Berkut on May 03, 2021, 03:26:38 PM
Like I said, if you are now coming over to our side - great. I am glad I was able to convince you even if you won't admit to having been wrong. Whatever. I don't care.
You really can't help yourself can you. You can't really believe this, so basically you're trolling. Aren't you rounding 50 dude? Grow up.
QuoteAnd one of the reasons they would have won, and one of the reasons Trump beat Clinton to begin with, is the bonkers crazy rhetoric and the bonkers crazy nutjob cancel culture identity politics of the far left
:lol: Once again, let's blame the lefties for Trump. Fucking hilarious how the folks who voted for him are never responsible in your book, somehow it's always the left's fault. As if Fox & co would not have smeared the Dems in any case, and as if Clinton ran and messaged anywhere near "crazy nutjob cancel culture identity politics". Just because you want something to be true does not make it so.
You focus on what you can control, and you kick yourself for not controlling what you could've controlled. I can't control the rain, but I can bring an umbrella. If I get wet, then of course the rain is the primary party that's responsible, but somehow it's not reasonable to blame the rain. At the end of the day, is it more productive to criticize the rain, or to criticize myself for not packing an umbrella?
Analogy doesn't work. People voting for Trump & co. is a conscious choice, not a natural phenomenon.
Way I see it, the progressives' best argument for using more extreme rhetoric is that it pushes the Overton window in their direction. It may piss people off, but if everyone is all moderate all the time nothing would ever change.
The other side of the coin though is that shifting the Overton window is a long term strategy and elections are won or lost in the short term. Those on the right are busy shifting the Overton window in their direction with extreme rhetoric as well. If both sides are doing that, what you get is a chorus of cacophony in which nothing can be done - which is how non-progressive liberals tend to see it.
Another problem is that progressives and non-progressive liberals may not, in fact, be on the same "side". This always comes as a surprise to non-progressive liberals, but I think that it may in large measure be true. They differ not on specific policies, but in their whole outlook on society - progressives have a tendency to view current society as basically irreparably broken in several ways (on race, social class, the environment, etc.) and so only a radical reordering of society will work. Non progressive liberals agree that these are all problems, but tend to believe that a lot of progress has been made and will continue to be made - in short, that radical reordering of society is not necessary or desirable, in that it is likely to be rife with unintended consequences.
In this, progressives have something in common with the right in the US - which also believes that current society is irredeemable (while of course disagreeing in every respect with both progressives and liberals as to what the problems are and what solutions should be attempted). The right in the US has so abandoned current society, it has proved willing to actively destroy democratic institutions.
It is natural that progressives should come to define liberals as 'the enemy', despite the fact that liberals tend to agree with them on what the problems are. The liberals, certainly more than the right, act as a brake on the radical reordering the progressives believe to be necessary. The liberals are more plausible than the right in the US and they appeal to a similar audience (the right has abandoned any connection with rationality and so its rhetoric appeals only to itself). That very plausibility can look sinister. If one believes that society is irredeemably racist, for example, then supporting the continued existence of that society and not its radical reordering is basically racist - no matter how much such supporters claim they are not personal racist, believe that racism is a serious problem, and wish to create practical solutions for it.
Liberals of course see things completely differently. To them, practical solutions are most important, which means winning elections, building consensus within whatever systems exist for positive change, etc. For progressives, this just looks like putting a bunch of band-aids on a gaping wound and calling it a day - to the point where they doubt the liberals really care about the problems in the first place.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 03, 2021, 04:49:22 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 03, 2021, 03:26:38 PM
Like I said, if you are now coming over to our side - great. I am glad I was able to convince you even if you won't admit to having been wrong. Whatever. I don't care.
You really can't help yourself can you. You can't really believe this, so basically you're trolling. Aren't you rounding 50 dude? Grow up.
QuoteAnd one of the reasons they would have won, and one of the reasons Trump beat Clinton to begin with, is the bonkers crazy rhetoric and the bonkers crazy nutjob cancel culture identity politics of the far left
:lol: Once again, let's blame the lefties for Trump. Fucking hilarious how the folks who voted for him are never responsible in your book, somehow it's always the left's fault. As if Fox & co would not have smeared the Dems in any case, and as if Clinton ran and messaged anywhere near "crazy nutjob cancel culture identity politics". Just because you want something to be true does not make it so.
You can't help yourself can you?
You know exactly what i am saying, since it is posted right there and you quoted it, yet you blatantly lie about it because the strawman is just so much easier.
I am not blaming lefties for Trump, and said that perfectly clearly. I said "one of the reasons". You do know that most things are complicated, right? Not everything is just "those people are bad! Bad!". You do what you can, you pull the levers you can control.
What is ironic is that you are bitching that I am not blaming "the people who voted for Trump" (which you know is a lie since I've blamed them like....a thousand times on Languish, but whatever), *because* I am trying to explain that doing shit that drives people to vote for Trump is a mistake and people should avoid doing that if they want people to not vote for Trump.
I don't even believe that you cannot see this. You just want to pretend you cannot? I'm not even sure.
The way I look at it is similar to Malthus.
I personally feel the defining characteristic of the centrist to examine issues in a cost/benefit framework. Is this change worth the cost? What are the unintended consequences? How do these measure up against the intended consequences.
Whereas progressives don't think this way. They think in terms of righting wrongs, of pursuing THE GOOD. And since by definition a cost/benefit will at best (from a progressive's standpoiint) qualify the good, hedge it in, limit it, it is easy enough for progressives to view cost benefit as the reaction of evil against the good.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 03, 2021, 05:20:34 PM
Analogy doesn't work. People voting for Trump & co. is a conscious choice, not a natural phenomenon.
People are a natural phenomenon. It's all natural phenomenons, all the way down.
I think you refuse to see this because you just really like feeling morally superior without any need to take an ounce of actual responsibility yourself. Nothing that happens is because of you or your beliefs, it is 100% those damn bastards evil fuckers who don't agree with you.
Congrats on that - you keep winning those arguments while those assholes on the right keep winning elections they have no business winning, and you can feel outraged by it, and get really mad at the people who actually think trying to get something done is worth some effort and nuanced thinking.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 03, 2021, 05:20:34 PM
Analogy doesn't work. People voting for Trump & co. is a conscious choice, not a natural phenomenon.
Doesn't matter, what matters is that you have no control over it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2021, 05:40:01 PM
The way I look at it is similar to Malthus.
I personally feel the defining characteristic of the centrist to examine issues in a cost/benefit framework. Is this change worth the cost? What are the unintended consequences? How do these measure up against the intended consequences.
That is not a centrist view, that is conservative ideology at its core.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2021, 05:43:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2021, 05:40:01 PM
The way I look at it is similar to Malthus.
I personally feel the defining characteristic of the centrist to examine issues in a cost/benefit framework. Is this change worth the cost? What are the unintended consequences? How do these measure up against the intended consequences.
That is not a centrist view, that is conservative ideology at its core.
Conservative ideology is violently overthrowing democracy and establishing a rule by certified retards. Conservative ideology may have been something else once, in the Beforetime, in the Long Long Ago, but in 2021? Nah.
Quote from: Malthus on May 03, 2021, 05:25:18 PM
Way I see it, the progressives' best argument for using more extreme rhetoric is that it pushes the Overton window in their direction. It may piss people off, but if everyone is all moderate all the time nothing would ever change.
The other side of the coin though is that shifting the Overton window is a long term strategy and elections are won or lost in the short term. Those on the right are busy shifting the Overton window in their direction with extreme rhetoric as well. If both sides are doing that, what you get is a chorus of cacophony in which nothing can be done - which is how non-progressive liberals tend to see it.
Another problem is that progressives and non-progressive liberals may not, in fact, be on the same "side". This always comes as a surprise to non-progressive liberals, but I think that it may in large measure be true. They differ not on specific policies, but in their whole outlook on society - progressives have a tendency to view current society as basically irreparably broken in several ways (on race, social class, the environment, etc.) and so only a radical reordering of society will work. Non progressive liberals agree that these are all problems, but tend to believe that a lot of progress has been made and will continue to be made - in short, that radical reordering of society is not necessary or desirable, in that it is likely to be rife with unintended consequences.
In this, progressives have something in common with the right in the US - which also believes that current society is irredeemable (while of course disagreeing in every respect with both progressives and liberals as to what the problems are and what solutions should be attempted). The right in the US has so abandoned current society, it has proved willing to actively destroy democratic institutions.
It is natural that progressives should come to define liberals as 'the enemy', despite the fact that liberals tend to agree with them on what the problems are. The liberals, certainly more than the right, act as a brake on the radical reordering the progressives believe to be necessary. The liberals are more plausible than the right in the US and they appeal to a similar audience (the right has abandoned any connection with rationality and so its rhetoric appeals only to itself). That very plausibility can look sinister. If one believes that society is irredeemably racist, for example, then supporting the continued existence of that society and not its radical reordering is basically racist - no matter how much such supporters claim they are not personal racist, believe that racism is a serious problem, and wish to create practical solutions for it.
Liberals of course see things completely differently. To them, practical solutions are most important, which means winning elections, building consensus within whatever systems exist for positive change, etc. For progressives, this just looks like putting a bunch of band-aids on a gaping wound and calling it a day - to the point where they doubt the liberals really care about the problems in the first place.
I think this is a great point, and largely agree with it....the problem I have is....what is it that the "progressives" (I am not sure I like the label, since I consider myself a progressive, but I realize that other terms are fraught and you don't want to damage your credentials by saying the wrong thing around some people) imagine is the means by which they will fix that gaping wound if it is not through getting progressives elected and passing different laws?
What's the alternative? Revolution? The guillotine?
My entire argument here revolves around getting people elected and actually making change. Getting liberals onto the SC instead of right wing proto-fascists. If that is an unacceptable band-aid...then what is the acceptable cure?
Quote from: Berkut on May 03, 2021, 05:46:10 PM
What's the alternative? Revolution? The guillotine?
My entire argument here revolves around getting people elected and actually making change. Getting liberals onto the SC instead of right wing proto-fascists. If that is an unacceptable band-aid...then what is the acceptable cure?
Many many people want revolution. Democracy isn't very popular these days.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2021, 05:43:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2021, 05:40:01 PM
The way I look at it is similar to Malthus.
I personally feel the defining characteristic of the centrist to examine issues in a cost/benefit framework. Is this change worth the cost? What are the unintended consequences? How do these measure up against the intended consequences.
That is not a centrist view, that is conservative ideology at its core.
No, conservative ideology at its core is that the way things Used to Be was great, and we should not be looking to change, or if we are, it should be in an effort to get back to The Good Old Days.
It is most definitely not centrist.
I consider myself a practical progressive. I think we have *serious* problems that need to be fixed, and I think the world is seriously fucked if we don't make pretty radical changes.
I think that is as far away from "conservative" as someone can be.
So I look at climate change, race, the changing economy, globalization, and a host of problems that are really fucking hard to solve if we DID have a political system capable of making significant change possible, and I despair that our current system can ever reform fast enough to have a chance. My fear is that if we do not, we will become the victims of other historical examples where countries and societies were unable to adapt fast enough, and the change turned violent, often horrifically so. Except now we are talking about potential violent change in a world with lots of nukes and insane over-crowding and a economic system that MIGHT be damn near obsolete.
I am not sure humanity can survive a global French Revolution or Russian Revolution or Reformation or whatever. It won't be localized to just one country. It will be the world, and all happening in the middle of a true global crisis of climate change that could be existential in nature.
I don't think radical violence is going to work. Even if it did work, it would really, really fucking suck for the people who have to live through it.
So what is the alternative to working the system and getting more progressives elected, and more importantly, convincing more people that the conservative/right wing ideas about the world are not just bad ideas, but actually existentially dangerous? They have to be convinced, and hence we have to think about how to convince them. There isn't another alternative that I am aware of - if you have one, I would love to hear it.
Quote from: Berkut on May 03, 2021, 05:46:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 03, 2021, 05:25:18 PM
Way I see it, the progressives' best argument for using more extreme rhetoric is that it pushes the Overton window in their direction. It may piss people off, but if everyone is all moderate all the time nothing would ever change.
The other side of the coin though is that shifting the Overton window is a long term strategy and elections are won or lost in the short term. Those on the right are busy shifting the Overton window in their direction with extreme rhetoric as well. If both sides are doing that, what you get is a chorus of cacophony in which nothing can be done - which is how non-progressive liberals tend to see it.
Another problem is that progressives and non-progressive liberals may not, in fact, be on the same "side". This always comes as a surprise to non-progressive liberals, but I think that it may in large measure be true. They differ not on specific policies, but in their whole outlook on society - progressives have a tendency to view current society as basically irreparably broken in several ways (on race, social class, the environment, etc.) and so only a radical reordering of society will work. Non progressive liberals agree that these are all problems, but tend to believe that a lot of progress has been made and will continue to be made - in short, that radical reordering of society is not necessary or desirable, in that it is likely to be rife with unintended consequences.
In this, progressives have something in common with the right in the US - which also believes that current society is irredeemable (while of course disagreeing in every respect with both progressives and liberals as to what the problems are and what solutions should be attempted). The right in the US has so abandoned current society, it has proved willing to actively destroy democratic institutions.
It is natural that progressives should come to define liberals as 'the enemy', despite the fact that liberals tend to agree with them on what the problems are. The liberals, certainly more than the right, act as a brake on the radical reordering the progressives believe to be necessary. The liberals are more plausible than the right in the US and they appeal to a similar audience (the right has abandoned any connection with rationality and so its rhetoric appeals only to itself). That very plausibility can look sinister. If one believes that society is irredeemably racist, for example, then supporting the continued existence of that society and not its radical reordering is basically racist - no matter how much such supporters claim they are not personal racist, believe that racism is a serious problem, and wish to create practical solutions for it.
Liberals of course see things completely differently. To them, practical solutions are most important, which means winning elections, building consensus within whatever systems exist for positive change, etc. For progressives, this just looks like putting a bunch of band-aids on a gaping wound and calling it a day - to the point where they doubt the liberals really care about the problems in the first place.
I think this is a great point, and largely agree with it....the problem I have is....what is it that the "progressives" (I am not sure I like the label, since I consider myself a progressive, but I realize that other terms are fraught and you don't want to damage your credentials by saying the wrong thing around some people) imagine is the means by which they will fix that gaping wound if it is not through getting progressives elected and passing different laws?
What's the alternative? Revolution? The guillotine?
My entire argument here revolves around getting people elected and actually making change. Getting liberals onto the SC instead of right wing proto-fascists. If that is an unacceptable band-aid...then what is the acceptable cure?
There are not really good labels for the groups that are emerging these days. I use "progressives" because they largely use that term for themselves; what to call the liberals who are not "progressives" I am not sure - for now, I just retain "liberals" for them. The term "progressives" does tend to assert those who are not them are against progress!
The problem liberals tend to have with progressives (and I am in this definition a "liberal" here) is that they (we) cannot see that the progressives are advocating any actual road map for how to get where they want to go. They know where they want to go - a radical reordering of society along lines that are more just and equitable - just not how we can get there from here; only that we must try.
This is why the liberal critique of progressivism is that they constantly make the perfect the enemy of the good, with the result that not even the good is actually achieved. The progressive response would probably be that the good is easy to achieve, if it is defined as merely smearing some lipstick on a pig and calling that a beauty ...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2021, 05:40:01 PM
The way I look at it is similar to Malthus.
I personally feel the defining characteristic of the centrist to examine issues in a cost/benefit framework. Is this change worth the cost? What are the unintended consequences? How do these measure up against the intended consequences.
Whereas progressives don't think this way. They think in terms of righting wrongs, of pursuing THE GOOD. And since by definition a cost/benefit will at best (from a progressive's standpoiint) qualify the good, hedge it in, limit it, it is easy enough for progressives to view cost benefit as the reaction of evil against the good.
I don't agree. I think there may be an element of what Malthus it in terms of the slight religious overtones. But I think the defining feature of American politics is that both sides feel powerless while the other side thinks they have immense power.
The Democrats even though they've won an election are unlikely to be able to pass the sort of political agenda they'd actually want to on issues like healthcare or gun reform or voting rights because Republicans have the Supreme Court and typically are quite good at winning back a blocking minority position. Even in 2008 they were not able to achieve the political agenda they want.
The Republicans have that blocking minority but they're political agenda is basically just tax cuts at this point. On the other hand despite holding the Supreme Court for the best part of 50 years they have not been able to move politics on culture/social issues. Abortion and Roe v Wade still stand and gay marriage is now a constitutional right. Plus the general sense that they are losing cultural battles.
I think an ideologically coherent two-party system (which is relatively new) is always going to move to zero-sum politics, especially when both sides think they are very weak and their opponents very strong.
I also think the other sort of key axis in politics is more technocratic style politics v more populist styles - and this forum is exceptionally technocratic.
QuoteNo, conservative ideology at its core is that the way things Used to Be was great, and we should not be looking to change, or if we are, it should be in an effort to get back to The Good Old Days.
I think that's really only in America for the mainstream conservative party. That's pretty reactionary. I'd say conservatism is basically what Yi said - that's not centrism that's maistream conservatism.
It's Lord Salisbury and the Leopard. So "whatever happens will be for the worse, and therefore it is in our interest that as little should happen as possible." It's not that things used to be great but that change normally leads to unexpected consequences, the loss of inherited wisdom and experience in favour of the new which will inevitbaly mean losses. Mixed in with that is the Leopard's "if we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change." So you change enough to try and preserve what you have and avoid the risks of sudden change or revolution. I think that is actually the core of the right-wing/conservative parties around the world who still try and win elections - the Tories, the CDU, the LDP. They're all parties that in large part react to voters, take advantage and keep the ship steady.
I think the Republicans are a reactionary party with more in common with Fidesz and Lega and RN than mainstream conservatism.
Quote from: Berkut on May 03, 2021, 05:55:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2021, 05:43:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2021, 05:40:01 PM
The way I look at it is similar to Malthus.
I personally feel the defining characteristic of the centrist to examine issues in a cost/benefit framework. Is this change worth the cost? What are the unintended consequences? How do these measure up against the intended consequences.
That is not a centrist view, that is conservative ideology at its core.
No, conservative ideology at its core is that the way things Used to Be was great, and we should not be looking to change, or if we are, it should be in an effort to get back to The Good Old Days.
It is most definitely not centrist.
I consider myself a practical progressive. I think we have *serious* problems that need to be fixed, and I think the world is seriously fucked if we don't make pretty radical changes.
I think that is as far away from "conservative" as someone can be.
So I look at climate change, race, the changing economy, globalization, and a host of problems that are really fucking hard to solve if we DID have a political system capable of making significant change possible, and I despair that our current system can ever reform fast enough to have a chance. My fear is that if we do not, we will become the victims of other historical examples where countries and societies were unable to adapt fast enough, and the change turned violent, often horrifically so. Except now we are talking about potential violent change in a world with lots of nukes and insane over-crowding and a economic system that MIGHT be damn near obsolete.
I am not sure humanity can survive a global French Revolution or Russian Revolution or Reformation or whatever. It won't be localized to just one country. It will be the world, and all happening in the middle of a true global crisis of climate change that could be existential in nature.
I don't think radical violence is going to work. Even if it did work, it would really, really fucking suck for the people who have to live through it.
So what is the alternative to working the system and getting more progressives elected, and more importantly, convincing more people that the conservative/right wing ideas about the world are not just bad ideas, but actually existentially dangerous? They have to be convinced, and hence we have to think about how to convince them. There isn't another alternative that I am aware of - if you have one, I would love to hear it.
I think you are confusing what it means in the US Republican party with its real meaning.
Conservative ideology does not deny all change, but is suspicious of change and demands good reasons for doing so, along with a fear of unintended consequences of even changes that are well reasoned. So pretty much exactly what Yi described.
edit: Sheilbh put it better
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 03, 2021, 06:18:25 PM
I don't agree. I think there may be an element of what Malthus it in terms of the slight religious overtones.
This sounds very much like my description of progressives.
QuoteI also think the other sort of key axis in politics is more technocratic style politics v more populist styles - and this forum is exceptionally technocratic.
This sounds very much like what I described.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2021, 06:24:54 PM
This sounds very much like my description of progressives.
I think it affects all American politics not just progressives.
Quote
This sounds very much like what I described.
How so?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 03, 2021, 06:26:42 PM
I think it affects all American politics not just progressives.
Please elaborate.
Quote
How so?
Technocratic is the boring uninspiring business of nibbling away at large, important, seemingly intractable problems. Populism is the appeal to emotion, an attempt to boil complex choices down to the battle between good and evil.
Which one is the good one?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2021, 06:33:48 PM
Please elaborate.
As Malthus says both sides seem to have something of a view that society is in need of redemption, both sides love conversion stories, plus the individual experience is really important etc. I think it's not just politics - I think that Protestant stuff is wound up in American culture.
QuoteTechnocratic is the boring uninspiring business of nibbling away at large, important, seemingly intractable problems. Populism is the appeal to emotion, an attempt to boil complex choices down to the battle between good and evil.
But there are progressive and conservative technocrats? Unless you mean all progressives are populists (Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden, Obama?)
My take is technocrats work in areas where there is broad consensus because the political decision is decided. The end goal is known and the technocrats can decide what works. It works in central banking. In the UK it works for pension reform - a boring subject where there's broad consensus. In Europe it works for trade.
But if you apply technocracy to other political issues - you end up with one side is legitimate because it's actually interested in what works, while the other side isn't because it's hidebound, ideological and just appealing to emotion. That's how Tony Blair positioned himself all the way through his time in office - and it's incredibly effective when it works.
And in that way I think it's fair to say that technocracy is actually quite like populism - again Tony Blair, or Macron - one side is correct and their opponents are wrong. Edit: And of course technocrats and populists both thinks that elected politicians/politicis as usual is what stands in the way of smart, successful polices/delivering what people want.
But it avoids the core political question of what type of society do we want to live in - what is the sort of teleological purpose of those policies? There is no pure centrist technocractic answer - someone on Bill Clinton's team will come up with different, effective solutions to someone from, I don't know, Mitt Romney's (I can't really think of the last time the GOP had a technocrat) would have very different solutions. It's just something people think to reassure themselves that they're virtuous and interested in solutions not the grubby ideological bit of politics.
In a similar way populism can actually avoid politics - they're just vessels for the people. Whether that's through plebiscites or the M5S's magical blog.
I think those people you mentioned are all pretty centrist.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2021, 07:34:12 PM
I think those people you mentioned are all pretty centrist.
I think all of them would say they're progressives. And that's the difference between them and, say, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Glenn Hubbard.
They'd pursue very different policies.
Heh there is a real problem defining what conservatism really is. The term is used for such irreconcilable things these days, depending on where you are!
In the US, the current Republicans are not "conservative" in the sense of Burkean traditional conservatism - the distrust of revolutionary change, the desire to make incremental improvements, these aspects of Burkean conservatism have in large part migrated to what I have called non-progressive liberals.
How then do non-progressive liberals differ from traditional conservatives?
Simple - traditional conservatives were not just about an incremental approach to change and a distrust of revolutions, they were first and foremost about grounding society in tradition and establish custom and considered existing hierarchies and institutions as proper; all based on a moral order that emphasizes society over the individual. That does not describe modern liberals well at all.
For better or worse, actual traditional conservatives such as that have no real political home in the US any more. The current Republicans spit on any notion of a traditional moral order, otherwise they could never have come to approve of an immoral grifter like Trump. Trumpites are not "conservatives", they are radicals; they want to reorder society, and have nothing but contempt for existing institutions.
@Shelf:
You think Larry Summers would self describe as a progressive? He fired Cornel West at Harvard!
And there was a time when Hillary was asked during the primaries or the general if she considered herself a "liberal," and she just puked all over herself.
edit: And Bubba helped found The Democratic Study Group, or The Third Way, or whatever the hell that was called.
Quote from: DGuller on May 03, 2021, 05:43:02 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 03, 2021, 05:20:34 PM
Analogy doesn't work. People voting for Trump & co. is a conscious choice, not a natural phenomenon.
Doesn't matter, what matters is that you have no control over it.
By that logic you shouldn't really worry too much about what the woke left does either.
Maybe a better angle for you to take with the woke folks who bother you is not to try to reason them into taking less woke positions, but use them to make your own more centrist positions more palatable to a broader spectrum by contrast.
I really don't get what Berkut wants. The DNC can tell people not to vote for Tlaib because she doesn't represent their values and she will win her primary (and general election) anyway. Bernie Sanders made a serious run at the Democratic nomination but was (and is) not even a democrat in the senate roster.
You can refuse to let those sorts of people join the caucus with you: in which case you will be back to being a minority now, or you can try to eliminate the primary process when choosing candidates and hand pick them at the DNC (good luck with that). People like the squad members and bernie sanders are getting elected because they are popular in their districts, just like Trump nuts are winning on the GOP side. It is obviously a much bigger issue on the republican side.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 03, 2021, 09:01:06 PM
I really don't get what Berkut wants. The DNC can tell people not to vote for Tlaib because she doesn't represent their values and she will win her primary (and general election) anyway. Bernie Sanders made a serious run at the Democratic nomination but was (and is) not even a democrat in the senate roster.
You can refuse to let those sorts of people join the caucus with you: in which case you will be back to being a minority now, or you can try to eliminate the primary process when choosing candidates and hand pick them at the DNC (good luck with that). People like the squad members and bernie sanders are getting elected because they are popular in their districts, just like Trump nuts are winning on the GOP side. It is obviously a much bigger issue on the republican side.
I think the originaly article/interview with Carville that sent garbon Et Al into such a rage elucidates very well what I want.
I am pretty sure nothing I said aligns to your imagination of "what Berkut wants" since I certainly never suggested that the DNC tell anyone how to vote, and I don't think Sanders is even remotely the problem (some of Sanders followers, however....)
I think your error Fredo is in assuming Carville meant the powers that be should impose discipline. I read it to mean members of the party should discipline themselves.
Please note I am not endorsing what Carville wrote.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 03, 2021, 01:15:21 PM
I'd probably go alont with the only goal of a party is to win - I think that might be the secret to the success of the "natural parties of government" around the world (Tories, Liberals, CDU, LDP, historically Fianna Fail). They may have sort of guiding principles but they never allow the theological debate around that to distract them for winning - or at least not for too long.
I think that kind of has to be the only goal in big-tent, two-party coalition politics like the US because otherwise what's the point of the big tent? The only reason is because it's a two-party system and the purpose is to win.
"If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power." --- Eisenhower
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2021, 07:42:37 PM
@Shelf:
You think Larry Summers would self describe as a progressive? He fired Cornel West at Harvard!
And there was a time when Hillary was asked during the primaries or the general if she considered herself a "liberal," and she just puked all over herself.
edit: And Bubba helped found The Democratic Study Group, or The Third Way, or whatever the hell that was called.
This is a slight tangent, and I could be wrong.
But I swear politicians on the centre-left in the 90s and 2000s used to be more comfortable describing themselves as "progressive" because it didn't carry the same legacy of "liberal". Now it's sort of switched and the left own "progressive" while mocking centrist "liberals"?
In the context of progressives now - probably not (though that is something Hilary said in 2016). In contrast to equivalent conservative/right-wing technocrats - yes. The goals of their policies are different. There is a reason why Larry Summers is neo-Keynesian and has worked for Democratic administrations. It isn't because he thinks they'll be more receptive to his technocratic ideas than a Republican administration, but because they disagree on fundamental points.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2021, 10:18:15 PM
I think your error Fredo is in assuming Carville meant the powers that be should impose discipline. I read it to mean members of the party should discipline themselves.
Please note I am not endorsing what Carville wrote.
I was assuming that Carville was just talking.
I was assuming that Berkut wanted the party to actually do something different. Berkut mentioned that he thinks dems should be more disciplined...considering there are democratic districts where the messaging that wins the district is not the type of messaging the Berkut & Carville consortium want nationally, self discipline isn't going to get there.
Thinking about it, more party discipline is not the answer. I think it would have the same deleterious effect it had on the Republican party, where the loudest, dumbest, media attention grabbing ideas become the strongest. If the party enforces a single message it means the crazies will fight much harder to take over the party to avoid being kicked out and to increase the strength of their message. The way the Democrats are currently constructed the extreme versions get the play, but the rest of the party is able to continue without being sucked in that direction.
Quote from: frunk on May 04, 2021, 07:07:19 AM
Thinking about it, more party discipline is not the answer. I think it would have the same deleterious effect it had on the Republican party, where the loudest, dumbest, media attention grabbing ideas become the strongest. If the party enforces a single message it means the crazies will fight much harder to take over the party to avoid being kicked out and to increase the strength of their message. The way the Democrats are currently constructed the extreme versions get the play, but the rest of the party is able to continue without being sucked in that direction.
What is a little odd about Carville's statement is that he was a Clinton guy and Bill Clinton very successfully used the louder voices on the left to position himself as a centrist (the third way) and he wound up being a two term relatively popular president.
I think the real reason that the democrats are a gerontocracy is because the base of the party has two conflicting desires:
1) win elections
2) push hard toward progressivism - the status quo is not acceptable
But at the same time can reflect on the past several decades and recognize significant progress on a lot of fronts.
So a more moderate guy like Joe Biden can win because, while his track record may have some stuff that is problematic to the base, he can overcome that because he has a track record of being an ally when things were actually getting done and progress getting made. But such people are simply old now.
A younger guy who was just starting out in politics 15 years ago and not supporting gay marriage at the time is not going to have that same credibility--that attack will cut much deeper. And of course your more activist members are going to have problems winning elections.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 04, 2021, 07:25:03 AM
Quote from: frunk on May 04, 2021, 07:07:19 AM
Thinking about it, more party discipline is not the answer. I think it would have the same deleterious effect it had on the Republican party, where the loudest, dumbest, media attention grabbing ideas become the strongest. If the party enforces a single message it means the crazies will fight much harder to take over the party to avoid being kicked out and to increase the strength of their message. The way the Democrats are currently constructed the extreme versions get the play, but the rest of the party is able to continue without being sucked in that direction.
What is a little odd about Carville's statement is that he was a Clinton guy and Bill Clinton very successfully used the louder voices on the left to position himself as a centrist (the third way) and he wound up being a two term relatively popular president.
Yeah it's a big thing in UK politics too - Blair was particularly good and inspired by Clinton. Define yourself against your internal opponents because it creates an image of "change" from the last guy/leadership figures. But almost run against both your actual opponents and the "vested interests"/old ideologies holding your own party back. Michael Portillo who went from being the most ultra-Thatcherite to a strong Tory reformer used to always call for the Tories to adopt a similar blood on the carpet strategy, which they never really fully did.
Theory: when the left does this they contrast themsleves against the far-left who are blocking a left-wing government from taking office and changing because of their niche ideological obsessions/purity tests (Clinton, Blair etc); but when the right does it it's normally someone running against the party/Beltway establishment/centrists who are blocking a properly reforming right-wing government (Thatcher, Regan, Trump etc)?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 04, 2021, 07:37:27 AM
I think the real reason that the democrats are a gerontocracy is because the base of the party has two conflicting desires:
1) win elections
2) push hard toward progressivism - the status quo is not acceptable
But at the same time can reflect on the past several decades and recognize significant progress on a lot of fronts.
So a more moderate guy like Joe Biden can win because, while his track record may have some stuff that is problematic to the base, he can overcome that because he has a track record of being an ally when things were actually getting done and progress getting made. But such people are simply old now.
A younger guy who was just starting out in politics 15 years ago and not supporting gay marriage at the time is not going to have that same credibility--that attack will cut much deeper. And of course your more activist members are going to have problems winning elections.
I think this is true - but I wonder if it's actually more true for minority voters and especially African-American in key states for the Democrats? Whatever else you say about Biden or Clinton they've spent years building contacts, networks and credibility among black voters and as you say being allies, which is why they both absolutely trounced Sanders. He hasn't done that work on a national level before 2016 and he's a Senator from a very white state so doesn't have the credibility locally. Ultimately he's a candidate who is only capable of exciting the left-activist and white college educated bit of the Democratic wing and that's not enough.
The same thing as goes for Sanders goes - even though they're different types of politician - for Buttigieg.
I also think Obama - and now Biden - have failed to use their appointments to build a bench. We are still talking about Clinton appointees. John Kerry at the age of 77 is in, what, his third major role. I could be wrong but I think Clinton appointed a young team around him (no doubt part of his brand) which is why so many are still prominent figures. I don't think that's happened so much with Obama and Biden. I always remember reading policy wonks get very excited about some 60 something Obama appointed to one department who, from his academic background, could not be more perfect for the role etc etc - and just thinking, you know, that's only part of the job and possibly not the most important part. In the case of Biden, it's probably complicated by the desire to draw a contrast with Trump - so appointing people with lots of experience.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 04, 2021, 07:42:03 AM
Theory: when the left does this they contrast themsleves against the far-left who are blocking a left-wing government from taking office and changing because of their niche ideological obsessions/purity tests (Clinton, Blair etc); but when the right does it it's normally someone running against the party/Beltway establishment/centrists who are blocking a properly reforming right-wing government (Thatcher, Regan, Trump etc)?
In all of these cases it really is a case of posture and optics though. When push came to shove Clinton, Blair, Thatcher, and Reagan still expected to get the votes from their full caucus.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 04, 2021, 08:08:32 AM
In all of these cases it really is a case of posture and optics though. When push came to shove Clinton, Blair, Thatcher, and Reagan still expected to get the votes from their full caucus.
For sure - and generally they do. I think in a democracy most of politics is posture and optics. That side is key, it's how you earn a hearing from the public, win votes and build political capital/power.
Quote from: Berkut on May 03, 2021, 05:42:35 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 03, 2021, 05:20:34 PM
Analogy doesn't work. People voting for Trump & co. is a conscious choice, not a natural phenomenon.
People are a natural phenomenon. It's all natural phenomenons, all the way down.
I think you refuse to see this because you just really like feeling morally superior without any need to take an ounce of actual responsibility yourself. Nothing that happens is because of you or your beliefs, it is 100% those damn bastards evil fuckers who don't agree with you.
Congrats on that - you keep winning those arguments while those assholes on the right keep winning elections they have no business winning, and you can feel outraged by it, and get really mad at the people who actually think trying to get something done is worth some effort and nuanced thinking.
This is also an
ad hom. Can't we debate arguments rather than personalities?
On the same topic, only in a Canadian context - an op-ed calling on the NDP to stop acting as a national left wing conscience, and start trying to actually win elections, as allegedly former (very popular) leader Jack Layton would have done:
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/opinion/article-ten-years-after-his-orange-wave-the-ndp-must-recommit-to-jack-laytons/
You can see the obvious tension here - committing to winning means staying within the Overton window, which means discarding policies that are "in advance" of those that would attract the general public - in short, it required compromising principle (assuming some of that principle lies outside the window). The difficulty is that within the party itself, where it chooses leaders and candidates, compromise of principle to get level required to win seats may not be a winning strategy.
Layton was able to do it because he had immense personal prestige built up over many years, so he was able to more easily shrug off criticism that he was lukewarm on principle. It isn't clear whether any of his successors could do the same, though until they do, the NDP is pretty well doomed to never actually govern directly.
I'm never sure if the Overton window is a real thing - or at least a useful tool for understanding political parties.
I think it's relevant to sort of elite level discourse - so think tanks and columnists etc. But I think in the context of political parties - moving the Overton window is normally the same as winning votes. Either you win office and create new facts on the ground or you win enough votes from your opponents that you force them to move to try and consolidate their vote (e.g. the far/populist right in Europe). But I think it's one of those things that the left tends to obsess over while the right just does it.
But political parties simply talking about things doesn't "move the Overton window" or make anything happen because most people ignore it. It makes me wonder if actually the better route for a party like the NDP might be trying to set up a think tank/policy infrastructure around them which can amplify or develop their views.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 04, 2021, 09:26:25 AM
I'm never sure if the Overton window is a real thing - or at least a useful tool for understanding political parties.
I think it's relevant to sort of elite level discourse - so think tanks and columnists etc. But I think in the context of political parties - moving the Overton window is normally the same as winning votes. Either you win office and create new facts on the ground or you win enough votes from your opponents that you force them to move to try and consolidate their vote (e.g. the far/populist right in Europe). But I think it's one of those things that the left tends to obsess over while the right just does it.
But political parties simply talking about things doesn't "move the Overton window" or make anything happen because most people ignore it. It makes me wonder if actually the better route for a party like the NDP might be trying to set up a think tank/policy infrastructure around them which can amplify or develop their views.
I take the Overton window to simply mean that range of opinions that are considered reasonable and practical by enough of the general public to get elected.
Politicians do not 'move the Overton window', so much as attempt to stay within it, so as to win elections.
Mass movements certainly attempt to move the Overton window - tat is exactly the point of holding large scale, highly visible marches and protests: our point of view is not done weird outlier, see how many people support it.
The job of a politician, assuming they have any purpose other than merely to gain power for themselves, appears to be to take the views they hold, communicate those views in such a way as to ensure that they are perceived as falling within the Overton window, and get elected so they can carry out policies based on those views.
The problem being if the views of the party the politician belongs to falls outside the window - which is what it is being indirectly argued in this op-ed that the NDP parties' policies do (they at as a "conscience" rather than trying to "win elections"). The op-ed again indirectly argues that the NDP ought to temper their principles (discard anything that does not contribute to winning votes) because otherwise, they will never have the opportunity to enact their policies (except to the extent they can exercise leverage in a minority government situation).
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 04, 2021, 05:35:50 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2021, 07:42:37 PM
@Shelf:
You think Larry Summers would self describe as a progressive? He fired Cornel West at Harvard!
And there was a time when Hillary was asked during the primaries or the general if she considered herself a "liberal," and she just puked all over herself.
edit: And Bubba helped found The Democratic Study Group, or The Third Way, or whatever the hell that was called.
This is a slight tangent, and I could be wrong.
But I swear politicians on the centre-left in the 90s and 2000s used to be more comfortable describing themselves as "progressive" because it didn't carry the same legacy of "liberal". Now it's sort of switched and the left own "progressive" while mocking centrist "liberals"?
In the context of progressives now - probably not (though that is something Hilary said in 2016). In contrast to equivalent conservative/right-wing technocrats - yes. The goals of their policies are different. There is a reason why Larry Summers is neo-Keynesian and has worked for Democratic administrations. It isn't because he thinks they'll be more receptive to his technocratic ideas than a Republican administration, but because they disagree on fundamental points.
And I become more convinced that we are living the Orwellian nightmare where words become meaningless or at least significantly lose any common understanding of their meaning. I wonder if that was the goal of the American right all along - so confuse the language of political discourse as to make it largely meaningless.
I think it is too simplistic to say that it is or is not a "real thing". It is certainly a real thing - the term was created to describe an observed process after all. You can argue about how much it moves the discussion, or is just a reflection of the discussion moving.
What's amusing about all this is that I think I can make a better argument to defend Tlaib's comments then those who have been so angry about it the rather mild observation that her comments aren't terribly helpful to actually winning elections.
But that isn't really the point.
Political Parties are not there to "just" win. That turns it all into just a football match, except with stakes that determine how people lives will be lived. Nor is it useful to simply ignore the need to get elected in the interests of ideological purity.
It's weird that this has to be said. Isn't it obvious? There is a tension in all parties between these two things. You have to get elected in order to do anything, but if you don't stand for anything other then being elected, then why should anyone care? So you have to play this game - this game we call politics - between those two basic pressures. If you do it badly, you fail and either don't get elected, or get elected standing for nothing (this, IMO, is the GOP right now in the US - they don't actually stand for anything anymore other than getting power).
The Dems need to thread this needle, and by and large, are doing it well. I think Biden is doing it well. He is doing just what we would want - pushing progressive policies, while being moderate in his tone and message. And it's not like you have to be THAT moderate.
What is odd is how frothing mad the left gets, but very inconsistently so. After all, Biden just got elected being the one guy on the left who was most willing to just outright condemn rioting and protest violence.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 04, 2021, 07:25:03 AM
What is a little odd about Carville's statement is that he was a Clinton guy and Bill Clinton very successfully used the louder voices on the left to position himself as a centrist (the third way) and he wound up being a two term relatively popular president.
Yeah, I think the Clinton approach - of managing and contrasting with the leftists - is going to work out better than hectoring them.
Conversely, I think the leftists are going to get further by being strategic in their hectoring, and managing their support to get progress on issues they care about.
To me it seems Tlaib, AOC, Sanders et. al. are doing a reasonably decent job of it on the left, and so is Biden with his more centrist positioning. Less so for certain sub-sets of both leftist and centrist punditry.
Quote from: Berkut on May 04, 2021, 10:00:22 AM
What's amusing about all this is that I think I can make a better argument to defend Tlaib's comments then those who have been so angry about it the rather mild observation that her comments aren't terribly helpful to actually winning elections.
Wikipedia says she won her primary by 33% and her general election by 60%. Her comments seem to be pretty good at winning elections in her district.
I don't think AOC should be lumped with the rest. Despite her portrayal on the right, and her willing association with the rest of the squad on the left, she has a far more nuanced understanding of politics than she's given credit for.
The median voter is something like a 55 year old white person without a college degree in a mid size city/town making $60k a year. The tipping point state in the last election was Wisconsin, so the math at one level is pretty easy: to maximize electoral effectiveness, say things that appeal to 55 year old white people without college degrees in Green Bay, and don't say things that offend them.
That is probably cool to Berkut because he probably has a lot in common with that median voter. Both the median voter and Berkut are probably turned off by ideas like defunding the police. But Rashida Tlaib's district is a lot different: it is majority black, has truly urban constituents with a part of Detroit, and is not well off with a median household income of $39k.
The context is that her constituents don't necessarily have the same political goals as the middle aged & middle income white people of Green Bay. Telling her to shut up and get on board the national electability train is wrong for a whole host of reasons.
Quote from: DGuller on May 04, 2021, 11:27:19 AM
I don't think AOC should be lumped with the rest. Despite her portrayal on the right, and her willing association with the rest of the squad on the left, she has a far more nuanced understanding of politics than she's given credit for.
I think she is brilliant and the future of the party. Unlike Tlaib and Omar.
Schumer seems terrified of a primary challenge from her.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 04, 2021, 11:48:37 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 04, 2021, 11:27:19 AM
I don't think AOC should be lumped with the rest. Despite her portrayal on the right, and her willing association with the rest of the squad on the left, she has a far more nuanced understanding of politics than she's given credit for.
I think she is brilliant and the future of the party. Unlike Tlaib and Omar.
Yeah I think I agree. I don't really see much about Tlaib and Omar. But AOC is clearly a star.
AOC is the most charismatic and articulate of the leading figures on the left fringe, but that doesn't make her more nuanced, I don't believe. She claims to favor social democracy, but her goals seem to be purely socialist. She has stated that capitalism is irredeemable and needs to be replaced. Her Green New Deal (net zero carbon emissions by 2030) proposal is impossible on the face of it. Her proposal for a federal jobs guarantee flies in the face of repeated national experiences (including in the socialist countries she seeks to emulate) demonstrating that it doesn't work. She favors MMT when even its proponents concede that it's actual basic tenet (that people will accept a fiat currency even in the face of uncertainty about its future value) is, at best, unproven.
It may be that AOC is staking out these extreme positions to give herself room to negotiate for what she actually wants, but I doubt it. She seems more honest than that. However, pragmatic is not a word one would associate with her. She is of more use to the Democrats as a gadfly than a serious legislator, and if she is the future of the Democratic Party, then Hod help the Democrats.
I've gotta take the curmudgeon/grumbler side on the AOC analysis. :sleep:
She dramatically changed the game as a freshman house member with the green new deal. No nothing got enacted and nothing ever would get enacted under the trump administration (and with a filibuster in the senate it is unlikely anything major is possible now). From an advocacy perspective it was brilliant. Hell, Schumer said at the start of this term that his #1 priority was climate: when he said that AOC was almost certainly in the back of his mind. Honestly she is probably living in his head right now, which is pretty amazing for someone at this point in her career.
She also was instrumental in killing the Amazon HQ2 move to NYC.
For a junior backbench house member, with an activist mentality, she is doing very well.
(for the record I would not vote for the green new deal nor do i think that killing the Amazon HQ2 move was a positive for her constituents)
If you're arguing that she has managed to leverage her media attraction to expand influence/introduce ideas more effectively than other House members of similar tenure, sure.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 04, 2021, 12:42:10 PM
She dramatically changed the game as a freshman house member with the green new deal. No nothing got enacted and nothing ever would get enacted under the trump administration (and with a filibuster in the senate it is unlikely anything major is possible now). From an advocacy perspective it was brilliant. Hell, Schumer said at the start of this term that his #1 priority was climate: when he said that AOC was almost certainly in the back of his mind. Honestly she is probably living in his head right now, which is pretty amazing for someone at this point in her career.
She also was instrumental in killing the Amazon HQ2 move to NYC.
For a junior backbench house member, with an activist mentality, she is doing very well.
(for the record I would not vote for the green new deal nor do i think that killing the Amazon HQ2 move was a positive for her constituents)
Yeah I think she's just clearly very good at politics. I also don't think her primary win should be underestimated because the Democrats don't really have a history of doing that type of thing and I'm not convinced it was inevitable that if someone on the left ran they'd win.
Plus I've mentioned before but I think Green New Deal is superb rhetorical framing of climate - I'd probably be tempted to try and link it to covid and the vaccines now. But it's had huge impact not just in the US but across European politics too where the concept of a Green New Deal is now part of our politics in one form another, using that rhetorical framing.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 04, 2021, 12:58:42 PM
I also don't think her primary win should be underestimated because the Democrats don't really have a history of doing that type of thing and I'm not convinced it was inevitable that if someone on the left ran they'd win.
Yeah just winning that primary was a shot across the bow of the party.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 04, 2021, 12:58:42 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 04, 2021, 12:42:10 PM
She dramatically changed the game as a freshman house member with the green new deal. No nothing got enacted and nothing ever would get enacted under the trump administration (and with a filibuster in the senate it is unlikely anything major is possible now). From an advocacy perspective it was brilliant. Hell, Schumer said at the start of this term that his #1 priority was climate: when he said that AOC was almost certainly in the back of his mind. Honestly she is probably living in his head right now, which is pretty amazing for someone at this point in her career.
She also was instrumental in killing the Amazon HQ2 move to NYC.
For a junior backbench house member, with an activist mentality, she is doing very well.
(for the record I would not vote for the green new deal nor do i think that killing the Amazon HQ2 move was a positive for her constituents)
Yeah I think she's just clearly very good at politics. I also don't think her primary win should be underestimated because the Democrats don't really have a history of doing that type of thing and I'm not convinced it was inevitable that if someone on the left ran they'd win.
Plus I've mentioned before but I think Green New Deal is superb rhetorical framing of climate - I'd probably be tempted to try and link it to covid and the vaccines now. But it's had huge impact not just in the US but across European politics too where the concept of a Green New Deal is now part of our politics in one form another, using that rhetorical framing.
Agreed. She is the class of the political field. I am very happy she emerged - she gives me a lot of hope for the future of what politics can become.
I really like James Carville because he's frankly much smarter than any of us about how politics really works. He actually prescribed some very specific advice, all of you left of center folk then spent over a week and several hundred posts whinging about use of the word woke. I'm still a conservative--but I haven't been a Republican since 2013 or so, and I don't view the Republican party as a conservative party. Maybe because I'm from that side of the aisle I get it. I think the Lincoln Project guys get it too, so maybe conservatives are just better at fighting, I don't know.
But let me actually illuminate for a second--Carville's advice that was posted was to fucking fight back, it was not to fight on terms favorable to Republicans. The Democrats have had zany, stupid, crazy lefties for longer than I've been alive. That used to basically not matter because the whole fucking party wasn't perennially tarred by their existence. The emergence of the culture wars in the late 80s, Limbaugh, Fox News, Drudge, TheGatewayPundit, Breitbart, Daily Caller, manufatured outrage, OAN, Newsmax etc dramatically changed how Republicans attack. It has worked.
The core reality of all the attacks by those groups is they are built on lies, dishonesty, and poison pill debates that you can never win, because just engaging in them makes you weaker. The correct response about Jim Jordan blasting Democrats over woke culture isn't to whinge about woke culture. It's to fucking ignore his argument, and respond with a better one: Hey Jim, you were on the coaching staff at Ohio State when young men were raped by the team doctor, why did you do nothing?
Jim Jordan should not be allowed to speak in public without being asked "Why did you do nothing about student athletes being raped?" "Why do you support rape?" Hillary Clinton faced permanent conspiracy theory opprobrium from the right wing outrage machine for far fucking less. I don't much care if Jim Jordan knew that the team doctor was raping the wrestlers, what I care about is if we talk about it all the time, it hurts Jim Jordan. That is how Republicans think, and that's how you should think. When someone asks you a bullshit question--you punch them in the fucking face. You don't argue about their bullshit question. When Trump says Make America Great again, why wasn't the response, "Why do you employ illegal immigrants? Why do you have Chinese bank accounts?" Why wasn't stuff like that the topic of discussion every day for four years? Because Democrats are cucks that don't know how to fight.
You might want to consider learning.
And by the way, somewhere, somehow, someone "got to Obama" in 2012 and his people learned this exact fucking thing. Because how did they beat Romney? By ignoring all the shit Romney tried to throw at him--which was frequently at least some of the same bullshit Jim Jordan and other asshats manufactured against Obama, just packaged in a nicer way, and continually running attacks not to brush back bullshit claims, but to just fuck Romney up head on. Romney is an out of touch rich guy. He calls 47% of the country parasites. Romney said something that was a little out of context, and Obama's team just fucked him up the ass with it for months, and it absolutely beat him. It's identical to how the GOP used the "close a lot of coal mines" comment from Hillary. Why would you mess around in the mud of an argument that's toxic and stupid for you when you could just hit them from another angle that is far worse for them?
You describe a reprehensible politics.
You might consider learning from AOC
No I describe fighting in a modern day cold civil war, in which if you aren't firing bullets you might as well give up.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 04, 2021, 05:04:53 PM
You describe a reprehensible politics.
You might consider learning from AOC
I'm going to circle back to go ahead and tell you to fuck off. Your attitude is pretty consistently bad and stupid. You are a morally sanctimonious bitch and people like you represent a lot of why my country is going to hell in a hand basket. We've had a generation of imbeciles like you lined up to fight Rush, Jim Jordan, Sean Hannity, O'Reilly et. al. and I've watched them let my country slip into the fucking toilet. You are not needed or wanted in this battle. Luckily you're in Canada so you're irrelevant and pointless, but the virus in your mind that makes you weak affects far too much of the American left too.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 04, 2021, 05:01:34 PM
The core reality of all the attacks by those groups is they are built on lies, dishonesty, and poison pill debates that you can never win, because just engaging in them makes you weaker. The correct response about Jim Jordan blasting Democrats over woke culture isn't to whinge about woke culture. It's to fucking ignore his argument, and respond with a better one: Hey Jim, you were on the coaching staff at Ohio State when young men were raped by the team doctor, why did you do nothing?
Jim Jordan should not be allowed to speak in public without being asked "Why did you do nothing about student athletes being raped?" "Why do you support rape?"
I think a better question is:
"Four of the worst sex abuse scandals in US history: Jerry Sandusky at PSU; Larry Nassar at MSU; Richard Strauss at OSU; Robert Anderson at Michigan, were on Big 10 campuses. How many other scandals is the Big 10 hiding, and at this point how can we not conclude it is primarily a joint criminal enterprise for the sexual abuse of young people?"
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 04, 2021, 05:04:23 PM
And by the way, somewhere, somehow, someone "got to Obama" in 2012 and his people learned this exact fucking thing. Because how did they beat Romney? By ignoring all the shit Romney tried to throw at him--which was frequently at least some of the same bullshit Jim Jordan and other asshats manufactured against Obama, just packaged in a nicer way, and continually running attacks not to brush back bullshit claims, but to just fuck Romney up head on. Romney is an out of touch rich guy. He calls 47% of the country parasites. Romney said something that was a little out of context, and Obama's team just fucked him up the ass with it for months, and it absolutely beat him. It's identical to how the GOP used the "close a lot of coal mines" comment from Hillary. Why would you mess around in the mud of an argument that's toxic and stupid for you when you could just hit them from another angle that is far worse for them?
Problem with this strategy is that it risks ending up with both sides being more or less the same - and both unpleasant.
I prefer Biden's apparent strategy, which seems to have worked, at least so far.
Quote from: Malthus on May 04, 2021, 05:37:26 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 04, 2021, 05:04:23 PM
And by the way, somewhere, somehow, someone "got to Obama" in 2012 and his people learned this exact fucking thing. Because how did they beat Romney? By ignoring all the shit Romney tried to throw at him--which was frequently at least some of the same bullshit Jim Jordan and other asshats manufactured against Obama, just packaged in a nicer way, and continually running attacks not to brush back bullshit claims, but to just fuck Romney up head on. Romney is an out of touch rich guy. He calls 47% of the country parasites. Romney said something that was a little out of context, and Obama's team just fucked him up the ass with it for months, and it absolutely beat him. It's identical to how the GOP used the "close a lot of coal mines" comment from Hillary. Why would you mess around in the mud of an argument that's toxic and stupid for you when you could just hit them from another angle that is far worse for them?
Problem with this strategy is that it risks ending up with both sides being more or less the same - and both unpleasant.
I prefer Biden's apparent strategy, which seems to have worked, at least so far.
Otto is describing a strategy that works, though is unsavory. Biden, I agree, has a more tolerable strategy, which may work. AOC has the Trump mirror-image strategy of promising the moon without actually proposing anything. That also works, but is also unsavory.
I, like you, prefer Biden's strategy, and I think that maybe it is the last hope for avoiding a decent into all shit, all the time.
I agree that Biden's strategy worked for Biden and it worked against Trump. I am not sure it works for everyone against everyone. I think Biden in some ways was the perfect foil for Trump, most of the people that Trump turned off hated his constant lies, bombast, egotism, his embrace of base stupidity. Some of them that were "centrists" or even lapsed Republicans, were looking for a Democrat they could "get to yes on", and I think Biden made that really easy for them. But I also think this is an ephemeral group to court, and I am not sure just having a non-scary white guy will always work in all situations. I think like Carville adeptly said, you don't have to win a broader base of the population, you just need to lose some groups less--like for the Dems to win 50% of rural voters they would have to really abandon core principles, but could they do better than 20%? I think so. If we just didn't get our asses kicked so crazy hard in rural areas, it actually eviscerates the GOP, it makes it hard for gerrymandering to work, it puts their Senate majority in permanent peril, their ability to control the House in permanent peril, in ways that few other things do. Carville specifically mentions our voters won't put up with the exact same shit as Republican voters, Democrats shouldn't run as Republicans or even Republicans-lite to win a few percent more rural voters. But I do think there is space in the culture war for riling up blue collar people about a party that pervasively services only the ultra wealthy, I think if you even do that a bit better, you hurt the GOP everywhere that it is currently competitive, and in a way that leaves them much less pivot room. And I think arguments like that can't be delivered by Joe Biden, you need someone like a Sherrod Brown who decides to get real nasty, someone in that mold.
I think AOC is actually a good model too for a certain segment of the spectrum, I am not sure she can attain say Presidential level success, but I'm not sure she needs to to effect some of the changes she wants. AOC will never appeal to some of the people I'm talking about, but I do think she's making an important, working class oriented argument.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 04, 2021, 05:01:34 PM
I really like James Carville because he's frankly much smarter than any of us about how politics really works. He actually prescribed some very specific advice, all of you left of center folk then spent over a week and several hundred posts whinging about use of the word woke. I'm still a conservative--but I haven't been a Republican since 2013 or so, and I don't view the Republican party as a conservative party. Maybe because I'm from that side of the aisle I get it. I think the Lincoln Project guys get it too, so maybe conservatives are just better at fighting, I don't know.
<snip>
I agree with more or less all of this.
But I think part of the challenge is what you've identified. Republicans consume Limbaugh, Fox News, Drudge, TheGatewayPundit, Breitbart, Daily Caller etc. So it's easy to be shameless because your base is reading and sharing a media that is equally shameless and partisan. Democrat voters read the NYT, Washington Post, CNN. I think those bits of the media have been pretty weak in actually covering Biden so far, but they are far more even-handed and have an idea of objectiveness. That's a challenge for the Dems because basically the rules only apply to them, because who votes for them.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 04, 2021, 05:26:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 04, 2021, 05:04:53 PM
You describe a reprehensible politics.
You might consider learning from AOC
I'm going to circle back to go ahead and tell you to fuck off. Your attitude is pretty consistently bad and stupid. You are a morally sanctimonious bitch and people like you represent a lot of why my country is going to hell in a hand basket. We've had a generation of imbeciles like you lined up to fight Rush, Jim Jordan, Sean Hannity, O'Reilly et. al. and I've watched them let my country slip into the fucking toilet. You are not needed or wanted in this battle. Luckily you're in Canada so you're irrelevant and pointless, but the virus in your mind that makes you weak affects far too much of the American left too.
Why did you bother responding? :hmm:
My post was mainly for others to note that the politics you are suggesting are destructive.
Pretty sure he responded to tell you to fuck off. It's in the first sentence.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 04, 2021, 06:36:44 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 04, 2021, 05:01:34 PM
I really like James Carville because he's frankly much smarter than any of us about how politics really works. He actually prescribed some very specific advice, all of you left of center folk then spent over a week and several hundred posts whinging about use of the word woke. I'm still a conservative--but I haven't been a Republican since 2013 or so, and I don't view the Republican party as a conservative party. Maybe because I'm from that side of the aisle I get it. I think the Lincoln Project guys get it too, so maybe conservatives are just better at fighting, I don't know.
<snip>
I agree with more or less all of this.
But I think part of the challenge is what you've identified. Republicans consume Limbaugh, Fox News, Drudge, TheGatewayPundit, Breitbart, Daily Caller etc. So it's easy to be shameless because your base is reading and sharing a media that is equally shameless and partisan. Democrat voters read the NYT, Washington Post, CNN. I think those bits of the media have been pretty weak in actually covering Biden so far, but they are far more even-handed and have an idea of objectiveness. That's a challenge for the Dems because basically the rules only apply to them, because who votes for them.
I think to some degree those mainstream media sources are no longer particularly useful for the politics of today. The last time America had a period of intense hyperpartisanship, in the final decades of the 19th century, pretty much every major newspaper of record was extremely partisan for one side or the other. I know it may feel like we lose something by giving it up, but I think to a degree the fact that the "genteel Harvard journalism grads" who dominate those "major national outlets" want to fight by the Marquess of Queensberry rules genuinely hurts Democrats ability to message against Republicans. Democrats need fighters. I actually think they specifically need people like the Lincoln Project guys (if not
those guys personally, since I think some level of skepticism should be cast on them), meaning they need fighters who aren't Rashida Tlaib and AOC. The Democrats have had far lefty fighters for ages, but I think despite what the far left wants, the party isn't there, and neither is the country. That's part of why a lot of the really rancorous anti-Bush types were so ineffective, mainstream Dems tuned out shit like Daily Kos because it was just too far left. You need someone who is a mainstream liberal or even a centrist who is willing to just aggressively shit all over the Republicans. To some degree someone in the vein of Bill Maher could serve that role, but Maher's specific podium and his specific personal picadilloes mean he isn't the person to carry that sword. Maher is only vaguely aligned with the party, and his show gets too much of its viewership from poking fun at woke liberalism for him to fully become an anti-Republican warrior. Rush Limbaugh didn't emerge out of establishment conservative media, to some degree he made his own lane. I do think outlets like MSNBC could also get more down in the mud, their viewership is already deeply liberal, they might as well focus on becoming more of a platform for liberal fire brands than wasting a lot of air time with more shit you can find on CNN or ABC News.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 04, 2021, 05:04:23 PM
And by the way, somewhere, somehow, someone "got to Obama" in 2012 and his people learned this exact fucking thing. Because how did they beat Romney? By ignoring all the shit Romney tried to throw at him--which was frequently at least some of the same bullshit Jim Jordan and other asshats manufactured against Obama, just packaged in a nicer way, and continually running attacks not to brush back bullshit claims, but to just fuck Romney up head on. Romney is an out of touch rich guy. He calls 47% of the country parasites. Romney said something that was a little out of context, and Obama's team just fucked him up the ass with it for months, and it absolutely beat him. It's identical to how the GOP used the "close a lot of coal mines" comment from Hillary. Why would you mess around in the mud of an argument that's toxic and stupid for you when you could just hit them from another angle that is far worse for them?
Yep. And note that none of this is lying. It isn't making something up. It is nasty politics, but it isn't dishonest politics.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 04, 2021, 07:06:51 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 04, 2021, 06:36:44 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 04, 2021, 05:01:34 PM
I really like James Carville because he's frankly much smarter than any of us about how politics really works. He actually prescribed some very specific advice, all of you left of center folk then spent over a week and several hundred posts whinging about use of the word woke. I'm still a conservative--but I haven't been a Republican since 2013 or so, and I don't view the Republican party as a conservative party. Maybe because I'm from that side of the aisle I get it. I think the Lincoln Project guys get it too, so maybe conservatives are just better at fighting, I don't know.
<snip>
I agree with more or less all of this.
But I think part of the challenge is what you've identified. Republicans consume Limbaugh, Fox News, Drudge, TheGatewayPundit, Breitbart, Daily Caller etc. So it's easy to be shameless because your base is reading and sharing a media that is equally shameless and partisan. Democrat voters read the NYT, Washington Post, CNN. I think those bits of the media have been pretty weak in actually covering Biden so far, but they are far more even-handed and have an idea of objectiveness. That's a challenge for the Dems because basically the rules only apply to them, because who votes for them.
I think to some degree those mainstream media sources are no longer particularly useful for the politics of today. The last time America had a period of intense hyperpartisanship, in the final decades of the 19th century, pretty much every major newspaper of record was extremely partisan for one side or the other. I know it may feel like we lose something by giving it up, but I think to a degree the fact that the "genteel Harvard journalism grads" who dominate those "major national outlets" want to fight by the Marquess of Queensberry rules genuinely hurts Democrats ability to message against Republicans. Democrats need fighters. I actually think they specifically need people like the Lincoln Project guys (if not those guys personally, since I think some level of skepticism should be cast on them), meaning they need fighters who aren't Rashida Tlaib and AOC. The Democrats have had far lefty fighters for ages, but I think despite what the far left wants, the party isn't there, and neither is the country. That's part of why a lot of the really rancorous anti-Bush types were so ineffective, mainstream Dems tuned out shit like Daily Kos because it was just too far left. You need someone who is a mainstream liberal or even a centrist who is willing to just aggressively shit all over the Republicans. To some degree someone in the vein of Bill Maher could serve that role, but Maher's specific podium and his specific personal picadilloes mean he isn't the person to carry that sword. Maher is only vaguely aligned with the party, and his show gets too much of its viewership from poking fun at woke liberalism for him to fully become an anti-Republican warrior. Rush Limbaugh didn't emerge out of establishment conservative media, to some degree he made his own lane. I do think outlets like MSNBC could also get more down in the mud, their viewership is already deeply liberal, they might as well focus on becoming more of a platform for liberal fire brands than wasting a lot of air time with more shit you can find on CNN or ABC News.
You are saying I need some kind of media outlet. Hmmmm......
So basically the Dems need more CountdeMoneys?
I can buy that argument.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 04, 2021, 05:21:31 PM
No I describe fighting in a modern day cold civil war, in which if you aren't firing bullets you might as well give up.
I agree with your take on this.
I don't think dishing more dirt on Republicans would do much frankly. Gaetz has been getting 24 hour coverage on his weirdo love slave thing, but I'm willing to bet his district either reelects him or elects another Trumpist wacko.
The only time it might make a difference is during a general election, like Roy Moore and revelations about his evangelical child bride boner.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2021, 09:32:09 PM
I don't think dishing more dirt on Republicans would do much frankly. Gaetz has been getting 24 hour coverage on his weirdo love slave thing, but I'm willing to bet his district either reelects him or elects another Trumpist wacko.
The only time it might make a difference is during a general election, like Roy Moore and revelations about his evangelical child bride boner.
I don't think it's just about "dishing more dirt". It's about putting the work into figuring out what the most effective attack vectors are and going for them. If that's more dirt, do it. If it's rousing populist socialist rhetoric, do it. If it's intricate 5-year policy plans, do them. If it's Vanity Fair cover stories, do them. If it's putting the time in shaking hands, do it. If it's funding shady meme campaigns, do it. If And if it's micro-targeted social media campaigns to provide specific groups with whatever works for them specifically, do it.
More importantly, I think, it's getting ahead of the GOP on the definition game - both defining the Dems and defining the GOP. Dirt can work there, but it doesn't have to be dirty. But if it does, do it (in the appropriately removed way to prevent splash back, of course).
I was responding to Biscuit. Sorry not clear.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2021, 09:44:36 PM
I was responding to Biscuit. Sorry not clear.
No it was clear :)
I just chose to interpret the word of Biscuit and argue my interpretation :D
Quote from: Jacob on May 04, 2021, 09:45:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2021, 09:44:36 PM
I was responding to Biscuit. Sorry not clear.
No it was clear :)
I just chose to interpret the word of Biscuit and argue my interpretation :D
So they go low, we go lower?
Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2021, 01:28:49 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 04, 2021, 09:45:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2021, 09:44:36 PM
I was responding to Biscuit. Sorry not clear.
No it was clear :)
I just chose to interpret the word of Biscuit and argue my interpretation :D
So they go low, we go lower?
I would say its more a matter of recognizing that the fight is sometimes not as high as we would like, and unless you want to just cede that space, someone has to be willing to fight in the trenches.
How do you feel about what the Lincoln Project was doing in the last election cycle?
At its core the reality is a lot of people vote on personality, ephemera, rumor, and preconceived biases. A "just the facts, ma'am" style of campaigning that doesn't really focus on the negatives of the other candidate, basically cedes the ground to all the voters who do vote and process information that way.
We don't and probably shouldn't just run outright lies, but there's a huge gulf between "rude and mean-spirited" campaigning and outright fraud.
Quote from: Berkut on May 05, 2021, 07:55:05 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2021, 01:28:49 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 04, 2021, 09:45:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2021, 09:44:36 PM
I was responding to Biscuit. Sorry not clear.
No it was clear :)
I just chose to interpret the word of Biscuit and argue my interpretation :D
So they go low, we go lower?
I would say its more a matter of recognizing that the fight is sometimes not as high as we would like, and unless you want to just cede that space, someone has to be willing to fight in the trenches.
How do you feel about what the Lincoln Project was doing in the last election cycle?
I think it was amusing and certainly something that pissed Trump off. But I also doubt it moved the needle / they all came across as rather scummy individuals going for low blows.
Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2021, 01:28:49 AM
So they go low, we go lower?
No, it's not a competition that way. It's not that whoever goes the lowest wins.
But if there are exposed kneecaps or jugulars, go for them. Don't leave them untouched. When appropriate, hammer them. It doesn't have to be the only thing that's done, nor should it be what the candidates themselves focus on in their campaigns.
In fact, IMO non-Trumpists should start the process of perpetual character assassination on the Trump kids (there's so much to work with, but find something that resonates with their own potential supporters as well as something that fires up key Dem voting groups) so when one of them tries their inevitable run on their father's coat tails (with a dash of reinvention) there's a heavy load of accumulated baggage. It worked against Hillary, I think it's worth doing to lower the chances of any potential Trumpist dynasty.
Right, and the perception that it "doesn't work" for Democrats in my opinion isn't well tested. Like there has been low level "rough" shots taken at Trump, but nothing that compares to the way Republicans have gone after prominent Democrats. Democrats who lead investigations of Trump were far less bombastic and less prone to hyperbole in the press, just compare the way the Republicans went after the Clintons' work with the Clinton Foundation vs the broader Democratic party and the Trump Organization and Trump's adult children who 3 of them have had significant roles in the organization. Like a few scattered shots across the bow likely isn't going to get the job done.
It's hard to remember now but HRC was a fairly popular figure once, so was Bill Clinton. They weren't turned into boogeymen with one or two nasty op-eds or mean statements in a committee chamber. It was a consistent, persistent, unrelenting campaign. They've gone after other Democrats this way as well, and while Obama and Biden were both harder to go after because they weren't nearly as....compromised as the Clintons in many ways, I think the efforts did hurt both men politically.
Most of the Trump Presidency it felt like seriously looking at the juicy dirt on Trump would result in a few New York Times articles as some new piece of corruption out of the Trump Org would leak out, but then the next day the collected energies would shift to the new 'silly Trump outrage of the day.' By and large Democrats let Trump choose what topics they were going to argue about for 2015 all the up until March of 2020. The only thing that undermined Trump's ability to control the topic was the pandemic, a once in a lifetime event that Trump could never find a way to bluster away, and almost a deus ex machina you can't just expect in future contests.
And by the way, I think there may be (understandable) confusion about my claim the Democrats didn't go after Trump as reviled as he was and considering he got impeached twice. I have no issue with the stuff the Democrats did do to try to hold Trump to account, I just think it shouldn't have been all that they did. Both impeachments got bonged down in legal and constitutional issues that made a lot of non-politics people's eyes glaze over, and didn't do much to really change the state of the culture war.
I specifically think attacking Trump for being a corrupt rich man who did things like employ illegal immigrants was a line of attack that just never got the fuel it should have been given. Did you ever notice that Trump never fought about his illegal immigrant hiring stuff much? Or his Chinese business dealings? Instead he'd change the topic. He did fight about Ukraine a lot because he felt he dominated that topic because more talk about Ukraine put more attention on Joe Biden. I don't know that the Ukraine shit changed many votes at all to be honest, so I don't think Trump was right about it, but I do think it's telling that there are lines of attack that Trump never engaged in, almost like he knew better than to fight on ground that wasn't favorable to him.
In many ways it's hard to sus out how intuitively good Trump was at some of the politics shit because he had such poor impulse control and poor personal diction, that he did frequently own goal himself, but if you follow the full path of his political career it's kinda obvious certain areas he made sure just were never the topic of discussion. Why is that? Why isn't that where we struck?
The problem with going after Trump in this way was not that there was too little focus on attacking Trump. The attacks on Trump were constant. They dominated the news for four solid years. You could not turn on the news without some talking heads attacking Trump.
Problem was, these attacks didn't move the needle much. All they did was cement the fact that there were two camps that hated each other like poison. People who already hated Trump ended up hating him more; people who liked Trump took the attacks as the exact sort of baseless lies that they themselves constantly dished out against others. It just becomes schoolyard chatter in which the other side can do no right. The fact that the attacks aimed at Trump were largely true did not matter, because Trump supporters, and those susceptible to Trump support, have become unable to tell the difference between truth and fiction. For attacks on Trump and the GOP to matter, the population has to care about the difference between truth and fiction.
What sunk Trump was that, for all the noise pro and con, he was fundamentally uninterested in and incapable of actually governing so as to accomplish anything. This is fine as long as no governing needs to be done, as the US has tremendous momentum and can keep going for a while even with a wrecker at the helm. The pandemic, though, kinda demanded some minimal level of competence to attack. Few governments attacked the pandemic problem well, but few did it as badly as the Trump administration, and this could not be hidden. The difference between truth and fiction was demonstrated in a way that everyone can see - though there are plenty who will deny it even now, the sight of people dying all around is hard to ignore. At least done critical number had their minds changed.
This is why I doubt such a strategy can work now. It worked against the Democrats because the Republicans were able to build a kind of cult mentality in which truth was secondary to "owning" the other side, and this message was attractive because it appealed to ethnic tribal type loyalties: 'all lives matter' meaning 'white lives matter'.
A mirror image Democrat strategy cannot succeed, that ground is already occupied. Democrats must use other tools to convince voters who may be attracted by the GOP's ethnic message that it is worth their while to switch away from them ("reality matters for your life").
Quote from: Berkut on May 05, 2021, 07:55:05 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2021, 01:28:49 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 04, 2021, 09:45:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2021, 09:44:36 PM
I was responding to Biscuit. Sorry not clear.
No it was clear :)
I just chose to interpret the word of Biscuit and argue my interpretation :D
So they go low, we go lower?
I would say its more a matter of recognizing that the fight is sometimes not as high as we would like, and unless you want to just cede that space, someone has to be willing to fight in the trenches.
How do you feel about what the Lincoln Project was doing in the last election cycle?
You were the one who rightly argued that the Dems should not fight dirty just a few pages ago.
If the Dems do what Otto suggests what would be the difference between the Dems and the GOP other than Trump playing for the other team.
Quote from: Malthus on May 05, 2021, 10:44:39 AM
A mirror image Democrat strategy cannot succeed, that ground is already occupied. Democrats must use other tools to convince voters who may be attracted by the GOP's ethnic message that it is worth their while to switch away from them ("reality matters for your life").
Yep
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 04, 2021, 07:57:45 PM
So basically the Dems need more CountdeMoneys?
I can buy that argument.
The world definitely needs more CdMs. But I don't recall CdM being indifferent to the truth. Quite the opposite.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2021, 10:56:54 AM
You were the one who rightly argued that the Dems should not fight dirty just a few pages ago.
If the Dems do what Otto suggests what would be the difference between the Dems and the GOP other than Trump playing for the other team.
The difference would be significant: the substance of their policies and their governance.
Quote from: Malthus on May 05, 2021, 10:44:39 AM
A mirror image Democrat strategy cannot succeed, that ground is already occupied. Democrats must use other tools to convince voters who may be attracted by the GOP's ethnic message that it is worth their while to switch away from them ("reality matters for your life").
Quote from: CCYep
The argument is not to mirror the GOP, but to do one of the many things the GOP does: attack where there is weakness, relentlessly.
QuoteThe world definitely needs more CdMs. But I don't recall CdM being indifferent to the truth. Quite the opposite.
Maybe I missed the part where it was said the Dems should be indifferent to the truth. I certainly don't think they should be. But you can present the truth in different ways and in different places and frequencies.
F. ex. the statements "he is going through some marital difficulties" and "the guy is fucking prostitutes while his wife is taking care of their sick child, and his platforming on being family values" can both be true. One framing is kinder than the other. There's also a difference between mentionining it once or twice and making sure it's attached to that politician's brand.
I disagree on this stuff. Trump was viciously attacked on a routine basis for fact based stuff from corruption to abusive behavior toward women to general incompetence to...well everything. Maybe it would have been better to focus on just one or two things but that is impossible when there are 24 hour news stations.
Trump almost won reelection despite being in the middle of a pandemic and economic downturn and general civic unease because 47% of voters liked the shit he was selling.
I don't think attacks really have anything to do with this, but there might be marginal merit to Democrats going so hard after Bush, McCain, and Romney that when the real scumbag ran voters were desensitized.
Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2021, 12:07:46 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2021, 10:56:54 AM
You were the one who rightly argued that the Dems should not fight dirty just a few pages ago.
If the Dems do what Otto suggests what would be the difference between the Dems and the GOP other than Trump playing for the other team.
The difference would be significant: the substance of their policies and their governance.
Quote from: Malthus on May 05, 2021, 10:44:39 AM
A mirror image Democrat strategy cannot succeed, that ground is already occupied. Democrats must use other tools to convince voters who may be attracted by the GOP's ethnic message that it is worth their while to switch away from them ("reality matters for your life").
Quote from: CCYep
The argument is not to mirror the GOP, but to do one of the many things the GOP does: attack where there is weakness, relentlessly.
QuoteThe world definitely needs more CdMs. But I don't recall CdM being indifferent to the truth. Quite the opposite.
Maybe I missed the part where it was said the Dems should be indifferent to the truth. I certainly don't think they should be. But you can present the truth in different ways and in different places and frequencies.
F. ex. the statements "he is going through some marital difficulties" and "the guy is fucking prostitutes while his wife is taking care of their sick child, and his platforming on being family values" can both be true. One framing is kinder than the other. There's also a difference between mentionining it once or twice and making sure it's attached to that politician's brand.
You may have not read Otto's post carefully before agreeing with his approach. I quote "I don't much care if Jim Jordan knew that the team doctor was raping the wrestlers, what I care about is if we talk about it all the time, it hurts Jim Jordan."
I am all for pointing out things that are real. I am very much against character assassination based on false innuendo.
Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2021, 09:30:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 05, 2021, 07:55:05 AM
How do you feel about what the Lincoln Project was doing in the last election cycle?
I think it was amusing and certainly something that pissed Trump off. But I also doubt it moved the needle / they all came across as rather scummy individuals going for low blows.
There's evidence it moved the needle - although not that much. There was a noticeable amount of voters who switched from Trump 2016 to Biden 2020 - enough to outweigh the marginal gains Trump got in black and hispanic voters.
And I suppose more to the point Jacob, one can have some confidence in Dem policies now because they have a commitment to actual facts. But if they abandon that commitment to truth simply because they believe in the end they will be better policy makers - we get closer to Robespierre territory.
Quote from: Barrister on May 05, 2021, 12:34:31 PM
There's evidence it moved the needle - although not that much. There was a noticeable amount of voters who switched from Trump 2016 to Biden 2020 - enough to outweigh the marginal gains Trump got in black and hispanic voters.
Yeah - I don't think the Lincoln Project changed anyone's mind. I think it was preaching to the choir.
And I'm not sure the voters who were switching weren't already observable in 2018, before they started.
Quote from: Barrister on May 05, 2021, 12:34:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2021, 09:30:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 05, 2021, 07:55:05 AM
How do you feel about what the Lincoln Project was doing in the last election cycle?
I think it was amusing and certainly something that pissed Trump off. But I also doubt it moved the needle / they all came across as rather scummy individuals going for low blows.
There's evidence it moved the needle - although not that much. There was a noticeable amount of voters who switched from Trump 2016 to Biden 2020 - enough to outweigh the marginal gains Trump got in black and hispanic voters.
And the evidence that was down to the Lincoln Project?
Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2021, 12:40:39 PM
And the evidence that was down to the Lincoln Project?
As always, it's hard to be sure exactly what motivated voters to change their vote.
For what it's worth, I think the Republican Voters Against Trump ads were likely much more effective, even if not as amusing.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2021, 10:56:54 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 05, 2021, 07:55:05 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2021, 01:28:49 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 04, 2021, 09:45:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2021, 09:44:36 PM
I was responding to Biscuit. Sorry not clear.
No it was clear :)
I just chose to interpret the word of Biscuit and argue my interpretation :D
So they go low, we go lower?
I would say its more a matter of recognizing that the fight is sometimes not as high as we would like, and unless you want to just cede that space, someone has to be willing to fight in the trenches.
How do you feel about what the Lincoln Project was doing in the last election cycle?
You were the one who rightly argued that the Dems should not fight dirty just a few pages ago.
If the Dems do what Otto suggests what would be the difference between the Dems and the GOP other than Trump playing for the other team.
No, that is not correct. I think the Dems should fight mean, not dirty.
Trump and the GOP simply make shit up and lie their asses off. They invent problems like caravans and rapist immigrants and double secret pedo rings and birth certificates and Biden-Ukraine, etc., etc.
I do not think the Dems should engage in that kind of bullshit.
I DO think the Dems should play nasty and mean though, when appropriate. Every time someone talks about Cruz, mention how he sucked up to Trump after Trump insulted his wife. Talk about Graham saying Biden was the most decent man in politics, and contrast that with his fawning over Trump who he once said would destroy the Republican Party.
Etc., etc.
Talk about how Trump is terrified that his tax returns will get revealed to the public, and show what a sleazy businessman he's been. Talk about His kids being on the board of the Trump Foundation when it was shut down due to illegal activity, and how his kids had to go to Grifter Reform School to avoid prison.
And do all the attacks on the other Republicans. The diehards won't be swayed, but nothing can sway them. Convince those who can be swayed that the Republican Party is led by greedy cowards who care only about money and power. Because it's true.
I am skeptical about how effective those are though (and they have been used, if perhaps in a muted way)...it seemed pretty common for many Trump supporters to tout the line "yeah, we know he's sleazy, but he'll appoint anti-abortion judges and build a wall, so it's all good".
Quote from: Berkut on May 05, 2021, 01:32:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2021, 10:56:54 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 05, 2021, 07:55:05 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2021, 01:28:49 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 04, 2021, 09:45:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2021, 09:44:36 PM
I was responding to Biscuit. Sorry not clear.
No it was clear :)
I just chose to interpret the word of Biscuit and argue my interpretation :D
So they go low, we go lower?
I would say its more a matter of recognizing that the fight is sometimes not as high as we would like, and unless you want to just cede that space, someone has to be willing to fight in the trenches.
How do you feel about what the Lincoln Project was doing in the last election cycle?
You were the one who rightly argued that the Dems should not fight dirty just a few pages ago.
If the Dems do what Otto suggests what would be the difference between the Dems and the GOP other than Trump playing for the other team.
No, that is not correct. I think the Dems should fight mean, not dirty.
Trump and the GOP simply make shit up and lie their asses off. They invent problems like caravans and rapist immigrants and double secret pedo rings and birth certificates and Biden-Ukraine, etc., etc.
I do not think the Dems should engage in that kind of bullshit.
I DO think the Dems should play nasty and mean though, when appropriate. Every time someone talks about Cruz, mention how he sucked up to Trump after Trump insulted his wife. Talk about Graham saying Biden was the most decent man in politics, and contrast that with his fawning over Trump who he once said would destroy the Republican Party.
Etc., etc.
So yes, I was correct. You did say the Dems should not fight dirty :P
Your example is not mean or dirty. It is accurate and based on fact. Otto was proposing character assassination based on false innuendo. There is a world of difference and one that largely defines the Republicans.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 05, 2021, 01:54:28 PM
I am skeptical about how effective those are though (and they have been used, if perhaps in a muted way)...it seemed pretty common for many Trump supporters to tout the line "yeah, we know he's sleazy, but he'll appoint anti-abortion judges and build a wall, so it's all good".
You are imagining that if you cannot convince them all, it isn't worth doing. "Pretty common" means "most", not all. You don't have to convince them all.
Quote from: Berkut on May 05, 2021, 02:22:31 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 05, 2021, 01:54:28 PM
I am skeptical about how effective those are though (and they have been used, if perhaps in a muted way)...it seemed pretty common for many Trump supporters to tout the line "yeah, we know he's sleazy, but he'll appoint anti-abortion judges and build a wall, so it's all good".
You are imagining that if you cannot convince them all, it isn't worth doing. "Pretty common" means "most", not all. You don't have to convince them all.
I would not agree that I am imagining that...more musing about the difficulties that will be encountered.
I probably would agree it is worth doing...and still be disappointed in my fellow citizens that thinks the ends justify the means.
Is the slam on Jim Jordan a good one? Honest question, I know nothing about it.
I am not quite prepared to take AOC seriously yet but I'm glad to see a fellow BU alum doing so well. :)
Quote from: Caliga on May 05, 2021, 02:35:34 PM
I am not quite prepared to take AOC seriously yet but I'm glad to see a fellow BU alum doing so well. :)
Why wouldn't you?
She's too young and I don't like young people.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2021, 02:34:12 PM
Is the slam on Jim Jordan a good one? Honest question, I know nothing about it.
As I understand it, he's been protecting child molestors.
Haven't dug into it too carefully though. Someone probably should.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2021, 02:34:12 PM
Is the slam on Jim Jordan a good one? Honest question, I know nothing about it.
I think it's reasonable. He was a coach for 8 years. In all of that time the team doctor was sexually abusing athletes - largely every injury needing a genital or anal exam. The doctor also showered with them. I believe a number of former wrestlers have said that Jordan was aware. For example his locker was next to the doctor's and Jordan apparently used to joke that he'd kill the doctor if he tried anything on him.
The year after Jordan left, the doctor was placed on administrative leave following a number of complaints. Jordan's never cooperated with any of the various investigations into the abuse.
It's possible he didn't know - but I'd wonder if that was wilful blindness. I think the various former wrestlers are more credible.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2021, 02:34:12 PM
Is the slam on Jim Jordan a good one? Honest question, I know nothing about it.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/06/politics/jordan-osu-wrestlers-strauss-invs/index.html
Team doctor was abusive for years. Multiple athletes have come forward about it, and many have specifically said that Jordan made comments himself about the doctor, or was present when athletes complained.
It's certainly possibly that Jordan somehow worked with a doctor who abused athletes something like over 150 times, many of whom complained, and plenty who said that it was an open secret that the doctor was a total creep, and somehow he just never noticed or heard anything that many, many of his athletes said was common knowledge, and it is possible that those who recall specific comments made in his presence of even by him are all lying for reasonreasonsreasons.
It doesn't seem likely though. I think this is more than fair game.
Quote from: Caliga on May 05, 2021, 02:44:48 PM
She's too young and I don't like young people.
:lol:
Fair. But let me tell you something, once my kids reached a certain age and I realized how much better they understand the world than people my age and older, my view on the wisdom of age changed markedly.
Quote from: Berkut on May 05, 2021, 02:52:09 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2021, 02:34:12 PM
Is the slam on Jim Jordan a good one? Honest question, I know nothing about it.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/06/politics/jordan-osu-wrestlers-strauss-invs/index.html
Team doctor was abusive for years. Multiple athletes have come forward about it, and many have specifically said that Jordan made comments himself about the doctor, or was present when athletes complained.
It's certainly possibly that Jordan somehow worked with a doctor who abused athletes something like over 150 times, many of whom complained, and plenty who said that it was an open secret that the doctor was a total creep, and somehow he just never noticed or heard anything that many, many of his athletes said was common knowledge, and it is possible that those who recall specific comments made in his presence of even by him are all lying for reasonreasonsreasons.
It doesn't seem likely though. I think this is more than fair game.
And so the facts are important. We go from mud slinging Otto to fact based Berkut. World of difference and critical in my view.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 05, 2021, 01:54:28 PM
I am skeptical about how effective those are though (and they have been used, if perhaps in a muted way)...it seemed pretty common for many Trump supporters to tout the line "yeah, we know he's sleazy, but he'll appoint anti-abortion judges and build a wall, so it's all good".
That's true, but the Trump supporters are not going to be convinced by anything at all, so write them off. There are people who voted for Trump who won't be happy to learn that he and his whole family are just grifters. The point has been made in the past, but it hasn't been hammered on, so people mostly missed it.
Right, so a few things.
1. The "always Trumper" were never going to move no matter what, grumbler is 100% right, don't even factor them in. They are not enough to win the Presidency or hold any real power in the country.
2. A lot of the attacks against Trump where whack-a-mole shit, and most importantly they attacked Trump over the things that upset Democrats i.e.: racism, sexism, abuse of office, saying stupid things. It's actually similar to what I'd call the "Jon Stewart" model, Jon Stewart made Dems have stiffies every time his show aired during the Bush Admin and Obama Admin, he usually blasted GOP "hypocrisy" and focused on all the ways the GOP was terrible. But he did so only as it related to things that bother fairly liberal people. I don't think Jon Stewart's style of attack changed the minds, of a single person.
3. Changing minds doesn't mean making someone a Democrat, it can also just mean making someone decide not to vote at all.
4. I think the core value proposition for people who voted for Trump was: he makes libs cry and he bullies people we don't like, he is a "business man" and "he isn't another politician" and "he actually cares about the working class." The people whose main reason for supporting Trump is that he torments liberals are not balanced and healthy people, and likely are not worth messaging to, but on a lot of those other points--Trump had weaknesses. But crying about how his minions violated the Hatch Act, focusing on how he degrades women, or focusing on how he abuses the office of the Presidency in arcane ways, none of those hit at those issues, and most just sail over the heads of the voters involved. My postulation is that if you made a sustained effort to focus more on how Trump hurts working class people and is a plutocrat who is out of touch with ordinary people and just pretends to be one of them, it would have done far more damage than a thousand "Access Hollywood" tapes. Keep in mind Trump barely won the Presidency against one of the worst Democratic candidates in recent history, you actually didn't have to change much to have made Trump a 0 term President.
FWIW I don't even want this conversation to be too much about Trump, Trump was/is a charismatic demagogue and I think to some degree he is a special case. But I also think Dems spent most of his Presidency attacking him for the things they hated, they were things that even if you agreed the Dems were "right" if you were in the Trump camp you probably didn't care that much about. Most Trump voters don't actually care about bigotry or promoting violence against non-whites, for example--in fact many support those things.
I think there's a chance that Trump's boorish behavior may have cost him the white suburban middle class by some time around the 2018 midterms and I'm not actually sure he was ever getting them back, so I'm not actually sure he was ever going to win reelection in 2020. It's impossible to know, and I don't personally think the pandemic had nothing to do with it, but Trump didn't lose because of Detroit and Atlanta (cities where he actually improved his vote share, albeit marginally, with blacks), he lost because of the suburbs, and it looked like he had lost the suburbs pretty bad 2 years in to his Presidency and he never did anything to attempt to regain them. Probably the main risk for Dems in 2020 was nominating someone who would have pushed suburban whites back into "holding their nose" for Trump.
But anyway, I think you shouldn't cede 80% of rural America and the white working class to the Republican party. I think you need to attack the Republican party for its plutocracy and its support of policies that directly and predictably harm the working class, and crony capitalism. I think because of how strong culture war issues are, there's a large swathe of the white working class and rural America you will never flip, but Carville has the right of it--pushing GOP vote share down to 75% or 70% from 80% is actually big in those districts. Or even just getting more of those people to stay home.
A lot of these voters used to identify with the Democratic party and it was a sustained game of negative campaigning designed to hit upon their anxieties and biases that flipped them to Republican. Aggressive campaigning targetted at Republican weak points very likely will yield results, and it may not be in one election cycle. But by the way, the GOP didn't build this coalition in one cycle either.
I think "rough attacks" against guys like Jordan are more about not letting Republicans dominate the narrative. There are sensational and bad things out there about Jim Jordan that should be brought up for the rest of his political career. The same way Benghazi was for HRC. There is literally no reason to give a fundamentally dishonest operate like Jordan carte blanche to repeatedly "set the tone" on various debates without hitting back at him. I don't know that you unseat Jim Jordan, but you can help undermine his voice by making him known as the "lets kids get raped" wrestling coach.
Once more I agree with Otto.
I have no problems attacking GOP for policies that directly harm the working class whites who form their base. That's not controversial.
I also agree it was and is a bad strategy to attack Trump/the GOP for things that Democrats hate, rather than focusing on things that their own supporters would hate, if they understood what was happening.
It is just surprising to read, after the non stop invective on all sides (including against Trump), every single day over the last four years or more, that what is really needed is more nasty attacks. Like that is the thing we and the public have all missed hearing enough of ...
The risk you run is that the hard hiring expose of how Trump and the GOP really hurt their base will get lost in the stew of attacks flying in every direction.
When the revolution comes, I am definitely staying clear of Jacob and Sheilbh.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2021, 05:21:42 PM
When the revolution comes, I am definitely staying clear of Jacob and Sheilbh.
I am sure that they are very relieved to hear that.
There were situations that I wondered why Democrats didn't exploit. For instance, Trump saying he wanted to protect Chinese jobs or his business interests in the PRC. I don't know how much utility any attack would have, Republicans have successfully inoculated themselves from any offending information using he "Liberal Media Bias" vaccine, but I suppose it would be worth a try.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2021, 05:21:42 PM
When the revolution comes, I am definitely staying clear of Jacob and Sheilbh.
A bunch of Jacobins and Sheilbhins the lot of them!
Quote from: grumbler on May 05, 2021, 05:43:57 PM
I am sure that they are very relieved to hear that.
:lol:
But actually, CC is excellent company.
I kind of agree with Raz's point, the second half.
Trump was, for four years, a walking attack ad against himself. And people weren't fazed.
I see some tentative signs that more and more people are reevaluating their own thinking about Trump, and coming to their own conclusion that they were batshit crazy.
I don't think this organic process is helped a whole lot by Democratic attack ads pointing out how sleazy and stupid Republicans are.
Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2021, 06:30:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2021, 05:21:42 PM
When the revolution comes, I am definitely staying clear of Jacob and Sheilbh.
A bunch of Jacobins and Sheilbhins the lot of them!
:D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2021, 06:37:55 PM
Trump was, for four years, a walking attack ad against himself. And people weren't fazed.
In a way I think that was partly what kept his support and still does. You can say anything you want about Trump - but I can't think of any attack that you could really call a surprise. He was, if nothing else, utterly transparent and utterly honest about who he was. He was cruel, corrupt, venal, petty etc - all of those things the attack ads highlighted but he was pretty blatant about it.
I always felt the Democrats could have attacked him more for being weak.
The other part that helped protect him was this:
(https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/NCPXIFXVK4ZFPMDNIX64ME2KLA.jpg)
no entiendo
:unsure:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2021, 06:54:41 PM
no entiendo
:unsure:
Mr Burns' immune system. He's got such vast array of serious illnesses that they each sort of cancel each other out and none can cause him any real harm. They call it Three Stooges' Syndrome.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2021, 06:37:55 PM
I kind of agree with Raz's point, the second half.
Trump was, for four years, a walking attack ad against himself. And people weren't fazed.
I see some tentative signs that more and more people are reevaluating their own thinking about Trump, and coming to their own conclusion that they were batshit crazy.
I don't think this organic process is helped a whole lot by Democratic attack ads pointing out how sleazy and stupid Republicans are.
I mean Trump won a lot of suburban votes in 2016 that he lost in 2020. "Not fazed" is not accurate. The mouthbreathing imbeciles of his base were not fazed, but they also lack minds with which to think and reason, so it was never likely that data would change their thoughts.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 05, 2021, 07:18:48 PM
I mean Trump won a lot of suburban votes in 2016 that he lost in 2020. "Not fazed" is not accurate. The mouthbreathing imbeciles of his base were not fazed, but they also lack minds with which to think and reason, so it was never likely that data would change their thoughts.
For the four years he was grabbing metaphorical pussies, but we didn't see any real movement in his approval rating until the pandemic hit. I think your eventual switch voter wasn't fazed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2021, 07:53:46 PM
For the four years he was grabbing metaphorical pussies, but we didn't see any real movement in his approval rating until the pandemic hit. I think your eventual switch voter wasn't fazed.
But we saw 2018 which was an indicator. His approval rating floated in the low 40s for the entirety of his Presidency. And I don't think it's like things got gradually worse with him. I think week 1 people probably realised - oh this is what he's going to be like as President.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2021, 06:37:55 PM
I kind of agree with Raz's point, the second half.
Trump was, for four years, a walking attack ad against himself. And people weren't fazed.
I see some tentative signs that more and more people are reevaluating their own thinking about Trump, and coming to their own conclusion that they were batshit crazy.
Could you give an example or show some of these "tentative signs?" Genuinely curious because I haven't been paying much attention to political news recently.
Didn't Trump gain like 7 million more votes compared to 2016
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 05, 2021, 08:23:04 PM
Could you give an example or show some of these "tentative signs?" Genuinely curious because I haven't been paying much attention to political news recently.
An article in The Economist, last week's I think, talked about goings on at the Southern Baptist annual convention. Bad, oversimplified summary: rabid Trump guy running against not so much a big fan of Trump guy, chick who had some policy position on women in the church quits.
I think there are also signs in the coverage of Capitol Hill attackers legal proceedings. Most of what I hear is guys saying Trump made them do it, or they were just tourists who were waived in by the cops, they're not one of the bad ones. Or just I'm sorry please don't be so harsh. That's a big move from overturn this fraudulent election, God is on our side.
Or that antiTrump candidate in Texas. Little bit by little bit.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 05, 2021, 08:34:29 PM
Didn't Trump gain like 7 million more votes compared to 2016
More like 11 million more (74 million to 63 million). 15 million more people voted against him in 2020, though.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 05, 2021, 07:18:48 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2021, 06:37:55 PM
I kind of agree with Raz's point, the second half.
Trump was, for four years, a walking attack ad against himself. And people weren't fazed.
I see some tentative signs that more and more people are reevaluating their own thinking about Trump, and coming to their own conclusion that they were batshit crazy.
I don't think this organic process is helped a whole lot by Democratic attack ads pointing out how sleazy and stupid Republicans are.
I mean Trump won a lot of suburban votes in 2016 that he lost in 2020. "Not fazed" is not accurate. The mouthbreathing imbeciles of his base were not fazed, but they also lack minds with which to think and reason, so it was never likely that data would change their thoughts.
I don't think they are stupid, in fact I believe that intolerance of any criticism of Donald Trump indicates they knew, on at least some level, what sort of person he is. Cognitive dissonance is a term used in Psychology for when you have two irreconcilable ideas in your head at once. It causes stress and discomfort until a you reconcilable those ideas. Example:
"I am good Christian and a Trump supporter"
"Donald Trump is on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women"
The Trump supporter now has to reconcile these two ideas. They might claim that Trump never actually did what he was bragging about or that tolerating Trump's behavior is acceptable for the greater good, or that the tape was fake. Another path would be for the Trump supporter to conclude that they are not a good Christian. That second one is not very likely.
Because Trump is an avalanche of obvious awfulness his supporters constantly inundated with cognitive dissonance. This causes quite a bit of stress and to alleviate that stress Trump's supporters become more and more strident in Trump's defense. Eventually they just block out anything that could tell them bad things about Trump and retreat into fantasy. Reminding a Trump supporter that Trump stated that a judge shouldn't be allowed to oversee his case because of his ethnicity will likely cause that person to lash out. They lash out because you have, in a very real sense, hurt them.
Qanon is an perfect example of this. Trump promised that should he win the election he would imprison Hillary Clinton. When Trump was elected he did not live up to his promise and never intended to. Trump's supporters had to reconcile these two facts and did so by claiming that Trump is going after Clinton but it is in secret.
I think there was another figure in US history where this dynamic was in play: Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy had fanatical supporters who were just as strident in defending the Senator as Trump's people are today. I think William F. Buckley's first book was "Joseph McCarthy and his enemies". The 1930's and 1940's weren't exactly good for the GOP. The ideology of small government and isolationism pretty much collapsed in those decades. The idea that their reversals were orchestrated from Moscow was extremely attractive to Republicans in the 1950's. There was one problem: McCarthy was an obvious liar. His lies were inconsistent and it was clear that his list of Communists in the State Department did not exist. Still people wanted to believe McCarthy's claims and the fact that McCarthy's claims constantly changed made them defend him even more.
Quote from: Malthus on May 05, 2021, 05:02:52 PM
I have no problems attacking GOP for policies that directly harm the working class whites who form their base. That's not controversial.
I also agree it was and is a bad strategy to attack Trump/the GOP for things that Democrats hate, rather than focusing on things that their own supporters would hate, if they understood what was happening.
I think you still need to do a lot of that in order to encourage turnout on your own side.
Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2021, 04:38:22 PM
Once more I agree with Otto.
Same.
He touches on a point at the end I think is worth re-iterating. Going after Jordan isn't just about hitting the GOP in general, it is about hitting Jim Jordan in particular.
The dude is a piece of shit, regardless of the OSU stuff. This is the guy who has defended Trump's most ourageous claims about election stealing. He is a douchebag who is full on engaged in the slimiest of the GOP tactics - wondering if we should stoop to his level (we should not) when going back after him is crazy. This is a guy who straight out is lying to the American people and KNOWS he is lying to the American people. Being mean (but still honest) with him is completely legit.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 05, 2021, 06:53:41 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2021, 06:37:55 PM
Trump was, for four years, a walking attack ad against himself. And people weren't fazed.
In a way I think that was partly what kept his support and still does. You can say anything you want about Trump - but I can't think of any attack that you could really call a surprise. He was, if nothing else, utterly transparent and utterly honest about who he was. He was cruel, corrupt, venal, petty etc - all of those things the attack ads highlighted but he was pretty blatant about it.
That was a point Harris kept making at the start of the Trump Presidency.
All the things to hate about Trump are completely in the open. There is nothing to be learned about him. Secret tapes? Who cares? If someone had an actual tape of Trump pissing on prostitutes....would that tell you ANYTHING about him you did not already know? Of course not.
If someone gets his tax records, and finds out he was (gasp!) lying about his worth, or his obligations to shady Russians, or that he has shell companies setup so Chinese firms can funnel him millions in cash for "rents"....would that come as some kind of surprise to anyone at all? Nope. We all know that is true, we just don't know the specific details.
There is nothing new to be learned about Trump that anyone with half a grain doesn't already know. He is a completely known quantity.
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2021, 07:29:45 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 05, 2021, 06:53:41 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2021, 06:37:55 PM
Trump was, for four years, a walking attack ad against himself. And people weren't fazed.
In a way I think that was partly what kept his support and still does. You can say anything you want about Trump - but I can't think of any attack that you could really call a surprise. He was, if nothing else, utterly transparent and utterly honest about who he was. He was cruel, corrupt, venal, petty etc - all of those things the attack ads highlighted but he was pretty blatant about it.
That was a point Harris kept making at the start of the Trump Presidency.
All the things to hate about Trump are completely in the open. There is nothing to be learned about him. Secret tapes? Who cares? If someone had an actual tape of Trump pissing on prostitutes....would that tell you ANYTHING about him you did not already know? Of course not.
If someone gets his tax records, and finds out he was (gasp!) lying about his worth, or his obligations to shady Russians, or that he has shell companies setup so Chinese firms can funnel him millions in cash for "rents"....would that come as some kind of surprise to anyone at all? Nope. We all know that is true, we just don't know the specific details.
There is nothing new to be learned about Trump that anyone with half a grain doesn't already know. He is a completely known quantity.
This is why I think attacks on Trump, and the GOP more generally, are of limited worth.
Everyone already knows they are greedy, hypocritical grifters, who lie with every breath. Saying so, with evidence, simply won't change much. Those who will vote for them tend to have the attitude that either (a) it is all lies (these are the Trump cultist true believers) and so will not be swayed even if you present a mountain of irrefutable proof; or (b) yeah, they are scumbags, but that are
our scumbags, necessary to fight off the threats to
our rights from liberals and the dark-skinned hordes.
The former you can do nothing about - I have no idea how to reprogram those who are into a cult. The latter, though, can be shifted, by appealing to their self-interest: 'you thought these guys were "your scumbags", but in reality, they are just playing you. They are only out for themselves, and if you follow them, you will be a victim'.
It has never ceased to amaze me how so many poor whites are willing to follow these folks, who do nothing but rip them off and pander to corporate interests. To break that, I think you gotta convince their target audience about this fact. Attacks have been used so freely and politicians have grown so shameless (and the audience so habituated to attacks) that attacks have lost much of their sting.
The old saying was that where there is smoke, there is fire. Perhaps deliberately, the GOP habit of attacking all the time has raised so much smoke that actual fires are now hard to see.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 05, 2021, 08:34:29 PM
Didn't Trump gain like 7 million more votes compared to 2016
He did, but Biden also turned out a huge amount of votes vs what Hillary did as well, such that Trump did worse in the suburbs. If you go county through county through states like Ohio and Texas where Trump got a lot of this 7 million was small towns and rural communities (small towns often get overlooked I think in the national zeitgeist, but have more population in them than true rural areas, but in red states smaller towns between 5-30,000 population are often quite red.) Trump also increased his margin in almost every "urban center" with high minority populations, from Cleveland to Cincinnati to Atlanta to Philadelphia etc. That's why it's actually funny he focused so much of his ire on these higher black population cities--he actually improved both his vote totals and vote share in those cities. Now, he still lost them by large margins, but Trump had a genuine increase in votes among inner city minorities vs his 2016 results.
I fundamentally disagree all of the GOP is in a cult, because just like the Dems the GOP is a coalition party. I think attacks on the GOP help undermine the coalition, the GOP is barely able to hold on to any power at all and is aided in this by our too-minoritarian constitutional structure, if they lose much more of their coalition they are fucked in bad ways.
For example look at the segments of the GOP coalition that are likely vulnerable to messaging:
- The white middle class. The years 2017-2020 demonstrated that this voting bloc in fact is capable of changing its mind on Trump, as we saw Trump's support with them decline in the suburbs. White people with college degrees shifted away from Trump in a genuine change of opinion.
- The corporate class. There may not be a ton of "votes" of people who are upper level corporate managers or Wall Street types, but there's a hell of a lot of money and power. This group has been able to ignore a lot from the GOP in service of tax cuts and deregulation, but there's evidence that the actual men involved are getting tired of the GOP embrace of bigotry, and some are putting their money where their mouth is.
- Low propensity working class whites. People may not believe we can move these voters because they are part of a "cult", but they really aren't. Some of them did become part of a Trump cult, and some of them have been reliable anti-minority motivated voters for years. But the last 5 years saw a lot of these voters show up at the polls for two Presidential elections but not much else. The fact that they are low propensity means they frequently don't bother to vote, and that there is probably messaging that can get them back to not voting. Again, we don't have to turn them into Democrats, just getting them to stay home is a victory.
- Hispanic men. Trump lost Hispanics across the board, but improved a lot with Hispanic men, this improvement also likely swept several Republicans into House Seats and saved some Senate seats. But these men in my opinion are not as locked into party affiliation as white male conservatives. I think they were heavily influenced by the massive wave of far right messaging in Hispanic radio and media in 2020, and Biden's campaign didn't counter this at all. The charitable view is he felt that he wasn't going to win Texas / Florida anyways so didn't see the need to combat it, but the more likely view is it was just a blunder and they didn't get into the fight like they should have. Tons of surrogates in this group have really been critical of the Biden campaign basically doing nothing to counter conservative messaging at this group. I see no reason to conclude that "doing something" won't have more of an effect than "doing nothing" on these people.
- White Evangelicals. What? These are the most hardcore of all Republicans! But actually Obama built an outreach organization to them and over performed typical Democrats with them by 5 points in both of his elections. This is the kind of squeeze play Carville is talking about, you're not trying to turn them from being 80/20 Republicans into 50/50, but if you can get them to 76% GOP or 75% GOP, that's a lot of votes you have to find somewhere else if you're a Republican. And the evidence that they can be swayed is strong--they actually have been swayed in relatively recent history. If you follow the stuff around Christianity Today (the "smart" evangelical magazine), there's more reservations about Republicanism in the evangelical base than might be assumed. Like I said, you're never going to flip them, flipping them isn't the goal. Just peel a few percent off.
A semi-related point is something I find annoying about the way people talk about Trump voters and Brexit/Boris voters. If you are middle class or earning good money and you vote against your material interest, this is portrayed as a noble decision. Despite the fact you might pay more taxes, you care more about social issues or funding public services and that's a noble public spirited decision.
When working class or poor people vote against their material interest it's, at best, seen as a demonstration of some sort of idiotic credulity to the right-wing media/Russian/misinformation. We never give those voters the credit or respect that actually they might be making a similar calculation or decision - there's almost no agency involved. I think that bias influences how political parties think about those voters, especially when they have sort of proprietary attitude to them - so I think Labour still views working class voters as "ours" and them behaving otherwise is an aberration not a choice.
This is very true, and drives me crazy in an academic setting populated by people who've never approached a working class family in generations.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 06, 2021, 09:37:53 AM
A semi-related point is something I find annoying about the way people talk about Trump voters and Brexit/Boris voters. If you are middle class or earning good money and you vote against your material interest, this is portrayed as a noble decision. Despite the fact you might pay more taxes, you care more about social issues or funding public services and that's a noble public spirited decision.
When working class or poor people vote against their material interest it's, at best, seen as a demonstration of some sort of idiotic credulity to the right-wing media/Russian/misinformation. We never give those voters the credit or respect that actually they might be making a similar calculation or decision - there's almost no agency involved. I think that bias influences how political parties think about those voters, especially when they have sort of proprietary attitude to them - so I think Labour still views working class voters as "ours" and them behaving otherwise is an aberration not a choice.
This may be true in a general sense, but we are talking about poor people voting for Trump here.
Of course some are making a selfless ideological decision. However, what ideology are they supporting? Generally, an us vs them tribalism based on race. There is "agency" all right, but it is hard to see that as of equivalent worth or nobility as someone willingly giving up economic benefits to others.
Moreover, why are they making tribal decisions based on race? Certainly it is partly ingrained in the history, but in addition there are people who are deliberately stirring up racial animosity for their own gain.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 06, 2021, 09:24:24 AM
I fundamentally disagree all of the GOP is in a cult, because just like the Dems the GOP is a coalition party. I think attacks on the GOP help undermine the coalition, the GOP is barely able to hold on to any power at all and is aided in this by our too-minoritarian constitutional structure, if they lose much more of their coalition they are fucked in bad ways.
For example look at the segments of the GOP coalition that are likely vulnerable to messaging:
- The white middle class. The years 2017-2020 demonstrated that this voting bloc in fact is capable of changing its mind on Trump, as we saw Trump's support with them decline in the suburbs. White people with college degrees shifted away from Trump in a genuine change of opinion.
- The corporate class. There may not be a ton of "votes" of people who are upper level corporate managers or Wall Street types, but there's a hell of a lot of money and power. This group has been able to ignore a lot from the GOP in service of tax cuts and deregulation, but there's evidence that the actual men involved are getting tired of the GOP embrace of bigotry, and some are putting their money where their mouth is.
- Low propensity working class whites. People may not believe we can move these voters because they are part of a "cult", but they really aren't. Some of them did become part of a Trump cult, and some of them have been reliable anti-minority motivated voters for years. But the last 5 years saw a lot of these voters show up at the polls for two Presidential elections but not much else. The fact that they are low propensity means they frequently don't bother to vote, and that there is probably messaging that can get them back to not voting. Again, we don't have to turn them into Democrats, just getting them to stay home is a victory.
- Hispanic men. Trump lost Hispanics across the board, but improved a lot with Hispanic men, this improvement also likely swept several Republicans into House Seats and saved some Senate seats. But these men in my opinion are not as locked into party affiliation as white male conservatives. I think they were heavily influenced by the massive wave of far right messaging in Hispanic radio and media in 2020, and Biden's campaign didn't counter this at all. The charitable view is he felt that he wasn't going to win Texas / Florida anyways so didn't see the need to combat it, but the more likely view is it was just a blunder and they didn't get into the fight like they should have. Tons of surrogates in this group have really been critical of the Biden campaign basically doing nothing to counter conservative messaging at this group. I see no reason to conclude that "doing something" won't have more of an effect than "doing nothing" on these people.
- White Evangelicals. What? These are the most hardcore of all Republicans! But actually Obama built an outreach organization to them and over performed typical Democrats with them by 5 points in both of his elections. This is the kind of squeeze play Carville is talking about, you're not trying to turn them from being 80/20 Republicans into 50/50, but if you can get them to 76% GOP or 75% GOP, that's a lot of votes you have to find somewhere else if you're a Republican. And the evidence that they can be swayed is strong--they actually have been swayed in relatively recent history. If you follow the stuff around Christianity Today (the "smart" evangelical magazine), there's more reservations about Republicanism in the evangelical base than might be assumed. Like I said, you're never going to flip them, flipping them isn't the goal. Just peel a few percent off.
I don't think anyone is saying that all of the GOP voters are in a cult. Clearly, some are, and those will be difficult to shift; I think everyone agrees that if the non-cult GOP can be peeled away, the GOP will be finished as a party, and so the task is to target these non-cult GOP members. Just as you say, flip a few percent and the task is done.
The issue is how best to do that.
Sheilbh's point is that selflessness is no less a "tribal marker" than the sense of self-identity that informs working class voting patterns.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 06, 2021, 09:58:46 AM
Sheilbh's point is that selflessness is no less a "tribal marker" than the sense of self-identity that informs working class voting patterns.
That's an interesting argument, but it doesn't ring true. This kind of "selflessness" is a rational reaction; sacrificing short-term gain for long-term benefits (a more stable and prosperous society). Racism is the opposite; it is ignoring what the rational part of your self thinks in order to feed the irrational part.
Quote from: grumbler on May 06, 2021, 10:38:22 AM
That's an interesting argument, but it doesn't ring true. This kind of "selflessness" is a rational reaction; sacrificing short-term gain for long-term benefits (a more stable and prosperous society). Racism is the opposite; it is ignoring what the rational part of your self thinks in order to feed the irrational part.
But the point isn't that racism is irrational. It's that GOP working-class supporters vote against their material self-interest, and that such a choice is a unique marker of irrationality, whereas the other is a marker of nobility. Whether or not proponents of noble sacrifice are justified does not enter the equation: selflesness isn't a special marker of rationality. A selfless sacrifice may or may not be rational. And voting for the GOP because you think it is the best vehicle to support your racist views can be considered quite rational.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 06, 2021, 09:37:53 AM
A semi-related point is something I find annoying about the way people talk about Trump voters and Brexit/Boris voters. If you are middle class or earning good money and you vote against your material interest, this is portrayed as a noble decision. Despite the fact you might pay more taxes, you care more about social issues or funding public services and that's a noble public spirited decision.
When working class or poor people vote against their material interest it's, at best, seen as a demonstration of some sort of idiotic credulity to the right-wing media/Russian/misinformation. We never give those voters the credit or respect that actually they might be making a similar calculation or decision - there's almost no agency involved. I think that bias influences how political parties think about those voters, especially when they have sort of proprietary attitude to them - so I think Labour still views working class voters as "ours" and them behaving otherwise is an aberration not a choice.
The problem with characterizing a high income earner supporting higher taxes, funding public services etc. as noble is it necessarily adopts the notion that we are individual rational economic actors primarily motivated by our individual self interest. The same goes for the analysis of how the poor vote.
Having been both poor and not, that model of analysis has never fit my decision making process. There is plenty of research that suggests I am not alone in that.
Yeah, I think history is pretty rife with examples of individuals, communities, and classes of people being swayed by sentiment to act in ways that do not necessarily align strictly with economical self-interest. In fact, I think it's much more common than people consistently chosing strict economic self-interest.
That's not to say that economic self-interest doesn't affect how an individual determines where they stand in terms of sentiment, but it's not IMO typically a direct and linear relationship.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2021, 08:38:45 PM
Or that antiTrump candidate in Texas. Little bit by little bit.
Seriously, the anti-Trump candidate in Texas is a sign that our media is a complete shitshow but that is about it. He got national press only because covering random special election primaries in Texas is boring and won't get many clicks, unless you can work Trump into the story somehow.
I checked this after your post: Michael Wood finished in 9th place with 3% of the vote. The person who got the most votes in the primary also got Trump's endorsement.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 06, 2021, 09:37:53 AM
A semi-related point is something I find annoying about the way people talk about Trump voters and Brexit/Boris voters. If you are middle class or earning good money and you vote against your material interest, this is portrayed as a noble decision. Despite the fact you might pay more taxes, you care more about social issues or funding public services and that's a noble public spirited decision.
When working class or poor people vote against their material interest it's, at best, seen as a demonstration of some sort of idiotic credulity to the right-wing media/Russian/misinformation. We never give those voters the credit or respect that actually they might be making a similar calculation or decision - there's almost no agency involved. I think that bias influences how political parties think about those voters, especially when they have sort of proprietary attitude to them - so I think Labour still views working class voters as "ours" and them behaving otherwise is an aberration not a choice.
I think there are a couple of reasons why that is so. One reason is that the perception is that the working class is sacrificing its economic interest for reasons that are not in any way noble, and just the opposite in fact. Another reason is that I'm not sure that the wealthy really are sacrificing their self-interest; I personally would rather be moderately wealthy in a developed country than very wealthy in a country where my house needs to have walls around it with electrified barbed wire on top.
I think it's condescending, and probably wrong to accuse people who disagree with you as voting against their interests.
Quote from: Jacob on May 06, 2021, 11:47:04 AM
Yeah, I think history is pretty rife with examples of individuals, communities, and classes of people being swayed by sentiment to act in ways that do not necessarily align strictly with economical self-interest. In fact, I think it's much more common than people consistently chosing strict economic self-interest.
That's not to say that economic self-interest doesn't affect how an individual determines where they stand in terms of sentiment, but it's not IMO typically a direct and linear relationship.
Yes - and I think it's a thing the left focus on more. It's possibly a legacy of Marxism but there's been loads of left theory on why people don't vote in their self-interest to modern-ish political books like What's Wrong With Kansas? - or as Obama clumsily summarised it "clinging to guns and God". I also think theory can be quite nuanced but gets coarsened.
I think the danger is that left-wing voters become more middle class and wealthy (I don't necessarily mean the rich here), which seems to be happening around the democratic world - Piketty's Brahmin left - I think there's a risk they just self-congratulate more and more on their own nobility for supporting higher taxes etc and talk more and more among themselves.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2021, 09:29:47 PM
I think it's condescending, and probably wrong to accuse people who disagree with you as voting against their interests.
I agree and I think it is wise to listen to what they say. Sometimes they have important critiques that should be heeded and change policies. Other times it is wacky culture war shit which there is really nothing that can be done about. Right wing culture warriors are going to hate you no matter how much your policies benefit them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 06, 2021, 09:41:25 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 06, 2021, 11:47:04 AM
Yeah, I think history is pretty rife with examples of individuals, communities, and classes of people being swayed by sentiment to act in ways that do not necessarily align strictly with economical self-interest. In fact, I think it's much more common than people consistently chosing strict economic self-interest.
That's not to say that economic self-interest doesn't affect how an individual determines where they stand in terms of sentiment, but it's not IMO typically a direct and linear relationship.
Yes - and I think it's a thing the left focus on more. It's possibly a legacy of Marxism but there's been loads of left theory on why people don't vote in their self-interest to modern-ish political books like What's Wrong With Kansas? - or as Obama clumsily summarised it "clinging to guns and God". I also think theory can be quite nuanced but gets coarsened.
I think the danger is that left-wing voters become more middle class and wealthy (I don't necessarily mean the rich here), which seems to be happening around the democratic world - Piketty's Brahmin left - I think there's a risk they just self-congratulate more and more on their own nobility for supporting higher taxes etc and talk more and more among themselves.
I don't know why you choose to adopt a neo conservative view of the world when describing political motivations :P
Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2021, 09:46:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2021, 09:29:47 PM
I think it's condescending, and probably wrong to accuse people who disagree with you as voting against their interests.
I agree and I think it is wise to listen to what they say. Sometimes they have important critiques that should be heeded and change policies. Other times it is wacky culture war shit which there is really nothing that can be done about. Right wing culture warriors are going to hate you no matter how much your policies benefit them.
Yeah, like when my distant relation reported she had to vote for Trump because Hillary wanted to kill babies.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2021, 11:36:57 PM
I don't know why you choose to adopt a neo conservative view of the world when describing political motivations :P
What?! How is that neo-con?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 07, 2021, 05:33:23 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2021, 11:36:57 PM
I don't know why you choose to adopt a neo conservative view of the world when describing political motivations :P
What?! How is that neo-con?
I too am curious :)
Just any old con, griping about "tax and spend" liberals.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 07, 2021, 05:33:23 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2021, 11:36:57 PM
I don't know why you choose to adopt a neo conservative view of the world when describing political motivations :P
What?! How is that neo-con?
Your mention of self congratulatory nobility of the self sacrificing middle class/rich for supporting greater public spending/increased taxation. It was a dig at the fact you said you dislike it being cast that way, but you engage in it yourself. The only way in which the middle class/rich can be viewed as in any way noble (or self perceived as noble) is through the neo con lens that they would normally be acting in their individual economic self interests above all else. That view is wrong both as a matter of psychology (that is not how people make decisions) and as a matter of political theory (we are so much more than a bunch of individual actors).
We need a better way of analyzing that does not reference neo con fantasies of how individuals act (or in their view ought to act).
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 07, 2021, 11:51:53 AM
Your mention of self congratulatory nobility of the self sacrificing middle class/rich for supporting greater public spending/increased taxation. It was a dig at the fact you said you dislike it being cast that way, but you engage in it yourself.
I dislike it being cast that way while failing to apply a similar analysis to working class/poor voters. As much as anything else that probably reflects discourse gate-keeping of who really has a voice in our society.
QuoteThe only way in which the middle class/rich can be viewed as in any way noble (or self perceived as noble) is through the neo con lens that they would normally be acting in their individual economic self interests above all else. That view is wrong both as a matter of psychology (that is not how people make decisions) and as a matter of political theory (we are so much more than a bunch of individual actors).
I don't think that's exclusively neo-con - if it is I think it may be a legacy of the old neo-cons being Marxists back in the 60s - because to my mind the idea that people will politically act in their material self-interest is a left tradition. As I say there's vast amounts of theory on the Marxist left (Gramsci, Althusser, Jameson on the role of ideology) to explain why people don't. One of the biggest questions on the left is why politics doesn't follow economic interest - why do the minority who owns things continue to accrue benefits and protections in a democratic system when they can be outvoted? That's because the left is, I think still, a predominately materialist analysis and position.
If anything I think traditionally conservatives have perhaps been better at identifying other things - insttitutions that people value, tradition, identity, security etc - that motivate people to vote.
Neocon is a foreign policy thing.
I don't think it's rocket science. I think some people have internalized the belief that free money debases you, that an honorable person is dependent only on themselves.
Now I understand this self-image is undercut in a lot of cases by people deluding themselves that the free money they're receiving is somehow not free money, and it's only those guys over there (e.g. blacks and hispanics) who are getting truly free money, but the principle still stands.
We don't question this virtue when it applies to the son or daughter of a rich family who wants to do it by themselves.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 07, 2021, 12:47:37 PM
I don't think it's rocket science. I think some people have internalized the belief that free money debases you, that an honorable person is dependent only on themselves.
Now I understand this self-image is undercut in a lot of cases by people deluding themselves that the free money they're receiving is somehow not free money, and it's only those guys over there (e.g. blacks and hispanics) who are getting truly free money, but the principle still stands.
We don't question this virtue when it applies to the son or daughter of a rich family who wants to do it by themselves.
Yeah, "standing on your own two feet" is pretty straightforward.
Most of the work - and most of the argument - goes into what that means, what is proper support, what is just "lack of interference", and what is mollycuddling.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 07, 2021, 12:08:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 07, 2021, 11:51:53 AM
Your mention of self congratulatory nobility of the self sacrificing middle class/rich for supporting greater public spending/increased taxation. It was a dig at the fact you said you dislike it being cast that way, but you engage in it yourself.
I dislike it being cast that way while failing to apply a similar analysis to working class/poor voters. As much as anything else that probably reflects discourse gate-keeping of who really has a voice in our society.
QuoteThe only way in which the middle class/rich can be viewed as in any way noble (or self perceived as noble) is through the neo con lens that they would normally be acting in their individual economic self interests above all else. That view is wrong both as a matter of psychology (that is not how people make decisions) and as a matter of political theory (we are so much more than a bunch of individual actors).
I don't think that's exclusively neo-con - if it is I think it may be a legacy of the old neo-cons being Marxists back in the 60s - because to my mind the idea that people will politically act in their material self-interest is a left tradition. As I say there's vast amounts of theory on the Marxist left (Gramsci, Althusser, Jameson on the role of ideology) to explain why people don't. One of the biggest questions on the left is why politics doesn't follow economic interest - why do the minority who owns things continue to accrue benefits and protections in a democratic system when they can be outvoted? That's because the left is, I think still, a predominately materialist analysis and position.
If anything I think traditionally conservatives have perhaps been better at identifying other things - insttitutions that people value, tradition, identity, security etc - that motivate people to vote.
A couple of comments. First, you have made a shift from an individual based analysis - rich folks who are viewed or view themselves as noble because they support greater taxation/governmental spending and against their individual economic self interest to acting politically in their self interest. Those are not the same thing (unless you are equating individual economic benefit with political self interest which is exactly the thing I say is wrong :P)
Second Marx did not suggest groups act in their own self interest. Marx thought that capitalism would inevitably collapse through historical forces. It is hard to reconcile rational people acting in their own political interest (whatever that might be) with the same thinker who proposed that the people who would most benefit from communism were suffering from false consciousness. The idea of class conflict being used as a tool to speed up the process can be blamed on others.
I agree that traditional conservatives are closer to identifying non monetary motivations for the decisions people make. My criticism of reducing political judgments to what is economically perceived to be in an individual (or groups ) interest is similar in that it is far too narrow.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 07, 2021, 12:47:37 PM
I don't think it's rocket science. I think some people have internalized the belief that free money debases you, that an honorable person is dependent only on themselves.
Now I understand this self-image is undercut in a lot of cases by people deluding themselves that the free money they're receiving is somehow not free money, and it's only those guys over there (e.g. blacks and hispanics) who are getting truly free money, but the principle still stands.
We don't question this virtue when it applies to the son or daughter of a rich family who wants to do it by themselves.
Nobody does it by themselves. Especially not someone who has been given all the benefits that go with growing up in a wealthy family.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 07, 2021, 12:47:37 PM
I don't think it's rocket science. I think some people have internalized the belief that free money debases you, that an honorable person is dependent only on themselves.
Now I understand this self-image is undercut in a lot of cases by people deluding themselves that the free money they're receiving is somehow not free money, and it's only those guys over there (e.g. blacks and hispanics) who are getting truly free money, but the principle still stands.
We don't question this virtue when it applies to the son or daughter of a rich family who wants to do it by themselves.
It isn't the same "virtue" to say "I don't want any help" as it is to say "I don't want
them to get any help."
Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2021, 08:29:54 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 07, 2021, 12:47:37 PM
I don't think it's rocket science. I think some people have internalized the belief that free money debases you, that an honorable person is dependent only on themselves.
Now I understand this self-image is undercut in a lot of cases by people deluding themselves that the free money they're receiving is somehow not free money, and it's only those guys over there (e.g. blacks and hispanics) who are getting truly free money, but the principle still stands.
We don't question this virtue when it applies to the son or daughter of a rich family who wants to do it by themselves.
It isn't the same "virtue" to say "I don't want any help" as it is to say "I don't want them to get any help."
Some people need a little help in realizing that they shouldn't want any help.
One thing that is fairly bad for America is we are good at hiding all the ways the government subsidizes middle class / upper middle class / wealthy people, but we put tremendous attention on anyone "getting a check" from the government. Many of the programs subsidizing those upper economic groups actually cost more than major "lower class" welfare systems like SNAP and TANF.
I do agree that "making your own way" in life is a virtue. But I also think "toxic individualism" is the end state of worshipping "rugged individualism" too much. If America ever really was exemplified by rugged individualism, the actual historical record of such people would be at odds with the sort of society we have today in which it's widely understood you should only care about yourself and your nuclear family. The people who colonized the Atlantic seaboard and their descendants who settled the interior did it without a tremendous amount of government help by modern standards--and because I know someone will jump on it, I'm familiar with the military involvement and various programs granting land etc to settlers; what I'm saying is when you trek many miles into mostly untamed country away from government institutions you do not have obtain the sort of day to day government help that is available to you in modern times. However these people didn't do it without a lot of societal help. The country wasn't settled by hermits, it was settled by larger groups of people that largely developed organic societies that covered a lot of mutual assistance needs that weren't available from a more organized state at the time.
This mindset of "make it or starve in a ditch" would not have been a moral norm in any of the early colonies or later interior settler communities (it did interestingly become a norm once large cities developed, which probably speaks a bit to something in which once we reach a certain point of settlement it becomes easy to tell people to fuck off and die.)
Just got my letter from Uncle Joe patting himself on the back for giving me $1,400.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2021, 02:34:49 PM
Just got my letter from Uncle Joe patting himself on the back for giving me $1,400.
Yeah they wanted to make sure you knew where you got that money from after they didn't put his name right on the check like Trump.
QuoteI do agree that "making your own way" in life is a virtue. But I also think "toxic individualism" is the end state of worshipping "rugged individualism" too much. If America ever really was exemplified by rugged individualism, the actual historical record of such people would be at odds with the sort of society we have today in which it's widely understood you should only care about yourself and your nuclear family. The people who colonized the Atlantic seaboard and their descendants who settled the interior did it without a tremendous amount of government help by modern standards--and because I know someone will jump on it, I'm familiar with the military involvement and various programs granting land etc to settlers; what I'm saying is when you trek many miles into mostly untamed country away from government institutions you do not have obtain the sort of day to day government help that is available to you in modern times. However these people didn't do it without a lot of societal help. The country wasn't settled by hermits, it was settled by larger groups of people that largely developed organic societies that covered a lot of mutual assistance needs that weren't available from a more organized state at the time.
Good term to describe whats going on, toxic individualism is definitely a rising problem today.
I dread to think how awful it is in the US as its even getting pretty bad in the UK.
If something can be done to make you £1 better off even if it makes a million people each £100 worse off then thats a great thing and to be supported.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2021, 02:34:49 PM
Just got my letter from Uncle Joe patting himself on the back for giving me $1,400.
I got my cash but I have received no letter. Also, sending out a letters is a cheap trick.
I cannot really say enough how much I have appreciated these last few months. Yes we just had an election 10 days ago but man the political pressure seems to have been released so much since the end of January. The year after a Presidential election is always a nice time, where everybody takes a nice break out of sheer exhaustion. I know the gauntlet of continual campaigning in 2022-2024 is coming but it is nice to have a short break.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 11, 2021, 06:58:18 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2021, 02:34:49 PM
Just got my letter from Uncle Joe patting himself on the back for giving me $1,400.
I got my cash but I have received no letter. Also, sending out a letters is a cheap trick.
Agree. Put them in The Flame.
After years of ranting against Republicans that cut taxes to the rich, the Democrats finally have the opportunity to do something about it. The President is more than willing to hike corporate taxes and income taxes that were lowered by successive Republican administrations.
But the Democrats in Congress don't want to... because it would hurt them in the midterms, it seems.
There is no basis to the claim it would hurt their re-election chances but rather their fund raising chances.
Anyway feel free to link me to some evidence the Democrats who are blocking this overlap with the ranters you previously mentioned because that would be delicious.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 11, 2021, 02:34:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 11, 2021, 06:58:18 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2021, 02:34:49 PM
Just got my letter from Uncle Joe patting himself on the back for giving me $1,400.
I got my cash but I have received no letter. Also, sending out a letters is a cheap trick.
Agree. Put them in The Flame.
What if they Surrender?
Quote from: viper37 on May 11, 2021, 05:17:38 PM
After years of ranting against Republicans that cut taxes to the rich, the Democrats finally have the opportunity to do something about it. The President is more than willing to hike corporate taxes and income taxes that were lowered by successive Republican administrations.
But the Democrats in Congress don't want to... because it would hurt them in the midterms, it seems.
What is a fascinating dynamic is that it seems the parties are completely committed to arguing for incremental change no matter what situation is presented.
Corporate tax rates were 35% for a long time. Trump got them cut to 21%. Democrats obviously strongly objected. Now Biden is proposing to undo those cuts to....28%. This is seen as too radical by some in the democratic caucus and it seems like they are going to go with 25% or so.
But I have no doubt that if we were starting the second Hillary Clinton term now the rates would be 35% and no Democrat would be pushing to reduce them to even 28%.
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2021, 05:21:15 PM
Anyway feel free to link me to some evidence the Democrats who are blocking this overlap with the ranters you previously mentioned because that would be delicious.
One of the texts I read about this yesterday:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/05/11/biden-taxes-democrats/
Well I don't see much overlap with the ranters but notice how fundraising concerns were their concern and not what the voters actually want. Kind of sums up the problem in Washington right there.
Hey Sheilbh, I've just read that there's a movement amongst US Catholic bishops to excommunicate Biden for his support of abortion, with the Vatican having to come out to stop them on their tracks. Do you know more about this?
Quote from: The Larch on May 16, 2021, 11:58:26 AM
Hey Sheilbh, I've just read that there's a movement amongst US Catholic bishops to excommunicate Biden for his support of abortion, with the Vatican having to come out to stop them on their tracks. Do you know more about this?
Nothing that unusual - I think it's more that there's a group of US bishops who want to refuse him communion. His bishops (in DC and Delaware) and the Vatican oppose that. This happens with every prominent Catholic Democrat (Pelosi, Kerry etc).
I think the wider issue is there is a group of US bishops who are primarily focused on Republican culture war politics - so the only thing that matters is abortion. But they also have cast doubts on the vaccines, the most extreme attended one of Trump's "Stop the Steal" rallies, they don't care about climate etc. This wing of US Catholicism could be welded with the mainstream to an extent when the Pope was JPII or Benedict - even if neither of them were as partisan as these bishops. Under Francis it's more difficult - and my guess is the same will apply under his successors (who are now more likely to come from the global south and not care about internal US politics).
There's also a weird synergy in all this around conspiracy theories. So the very partisan bishops are encouraged by Archbishop Vigano (former nuncio in Washington) who has basically made loads of allegations about Francis - that Vigano's warnings about child sexual abuse, that there's a gay conspiracy at the heart of the Vatican - and obviously all of that links quite easily with QAnon which Vigano has sort of referenced. Plus old customary radtrad conspiracies about Jews and freemasons. It is interesting and weird.
But in the end I wouldn't be surprised if we see schism in the US church eventually. There's a wing of US Catholicism that understands their faith as part of the political identity which has primacy - and the Church position on most issues (except for abortion) doesn't really align with that political identity.
Putting this here as "general US politics".
This overview seems a bit reductive? Also, didn't know that Grant was president in the 1860s.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E1sVKRRXoAAzAw3?format=jpg&name=medium)
So it involves both the ECW and ACW. That is a very Languish topic.
Quote from: Syt on May 18, 2021, 02:13:38 PM
This overview seems a bit reductive? Also, didn't know that Grant was president in the 1860s.
He was in 1869...nice.
I'm betting all those events have a specific date. Not just "1780's".
Andrew Guiliani is running for governor of NY. ^_^
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 18, 2021, 05:34:33 PM
Andrew Guiliani is running for governor of NY. ^_^
Is he Rudy's son?
I assume so. Just saw the headline. He's the right age for a son.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 18, 2021, 05:48:16 PM
I assume so. Just saw the headline. He's the right age for a son.
Is he also a cousin?
New York really is the land of the failsons and I live in a country with a literal monarchy :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 18, 2021, 06:00:23 PM
New York really is the land of the failsons and I live in a country with a literal monarchy :P
Yeah but your monarchy is this weird symbolic thing. Being governor of New York is a real job that somebody who is qualified should probably hold.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 18, 2021, 05:48:16 PM
I assume so. Just saw the headline. He's the right age for a son.
Yep, he is. He's the little kid who acted all goofy during Rudy's mayoral inauguration.
Do we have any New Yorkers here who can tell us how likely Andrew's candidacy is?
I thought NYC generally despised Trump, and I'd expect that the Guiliani name would be pretty closely associated with Trump at this point.
Quote from: Jacob on May 18, 2021, 09:31:27 PM
Do we have any New Yorkers here who can tell us how likely Andrew's candidacy is?
I thought NYC generally despised Trump, and I'd expect that the Guiliani name would be pretty closely associated with Trump at this point.
He's never even run for elective office before. I suspect his campaign will die in the primaries. Not a new Yorker, though, so that's mostly spitballing.
My record on predicting events relating to NY governors is a bit blemished at the moment. :Embarrass: I will therefore recuse myself from offering any opinion on the matter.
:yeah:
:mad:
Quote from: grumbler on May 18, 2021, 11:00:39 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 18, 2021, 09:31:27 PM
Do we have any New Yorkers here who can tell us how likely Andrew's candidacy is?
I thought NYC generally despised Trump, and I'd expect that the Guiliani name would be pretty closely associated with Trump at this point.
He's never even run for elective office before. I suspect his campaign will die in the primaries. Not a new Yorker, though, so that's mostly spitballing.
Andrew Yang (and before him, Trump) seem to indicate that's not such a big obstacle.
But I'm not even an american.
Quote from: Barrister on May 18, 2021, 11:32:58 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 18, 2021, 11:00:39 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 18, 2021, 09:31:27 PM
Do we have any New Yorkers here who can tell us how likely Andrew's candidacy is?
I thought NYC generally despised Trump, and I'd expect that the Guiliani name would be pretty closely associated with Trump at this point.
He's never even run for elective office before. I suspect his campaign will die in the primaries. Not a new Yorker, though, so that's mostly spitballing.
Andrew Yang (and before him, Trump) seem to indicate that's not such a big obstacle.
But I'm not even an american.
Andrew yang has never been elected governor of New York (nor, in fact, has he been elected to any political office, I believe). Trump never got elected governor of anything. His presidential run was a classic black swan event.
Arnold Schwarzenegger became governor of a state without having been elected to any political office. But he and Trump were world famous celebrities. I don't think just being Rudy's kid quite has that same star power.
But we will see I guess.
He can call on every landscaper on the East Coast.
Quote from: Valmy on May 19, 2021, 06:21:42 AM
Arnold Schwarzenegger became governor of a state without having been elected to any political office. But he and Trump were world famous celebrities. I don't think just being Rudy's kid quite has that same star power.
But we will see I guess.
Schwarzenegger is an argument against my assumption, I agree. Interestingly, he never faced a primary. He was elected in a nonpartisan special election to his first term, and was unopposed by his party in the second.
I have no sense who is likely to win a GOP primary in NY. Baby Rudy has name recognition. The leading candidate is a US Rep from Long Island with a bunch of county chair endorsements all over the state. They are both in the Trumpy whacko wing of the party.
It's not like the state of New York has never elected the son of a famous politician to the position in the past... :whistle:
(man - looking up the wiki page of Andrew Cuomo the guy has worked in politics from absolutely day one after graduating from law school (Albany). He went immediately to working for his father's campaign, to being a NY asst AG, to "briefly" working for a private firm before starting a non-profit, to then working for Mayor Dinkins, then getting an appointment with Clinton...)
Quote from: Barrister on May 19, 2021, 10:57:01 AM
It's not like the state of New York has never elected the son of a famous politician to the position in the past... :whistle:
(man - looking up the wiki page of Andrew Cuomo the guy has worked in politics from absolutely day one after graduating from law school (Albany). He went immediately to working for his father's campaign, to being a NY asst AG, to "briefly" working for a private firm before starting a non-profit, to then working for Mayor Dinkins, then getting an appointment with Clinton...)
Did anyone argue that it hadn't?
Quote from: Barrister on May 19, 2021, 10:57:01 AM
It's not like the state of New York has never elected the son of a famous politician to the position in the past... :whistle:
(man - looking up the wiki page of Andrew Cuomo the guy has worked in politics from absolutely day one after graduating from law school (Albany). He went immediately to working for his father's campaign, to being a NY asst AG, to "briefly" working for a private firm before starting a non-profit, to then working for Mayor Dinkins, then getting an appointment with Clinton...)
I mean no time to waste man. Joe Biden worked as a lawyer for about a year before running for elected office.
Quote from: Barrister on May 19, 2021, 10:57:01 AM
It's not like the state of New York has never elected the son of a famous politician to the position in the past... :whistle:
Andrew Cuomo was elected to statewide office (Attorney General) before he successfully ran for governor. :whistle:
Quote(man - looking up the wiki page of Andrew Cuomo the guy has worked in politics from absolutely day one after graduating from law school (Albany). He went immediately to working for his father's campaign, to being a NY asst AG, to "briefly" working for a private firm before starting a non-profit, to then working for Mayor Dinkins, then getting an appointment with Clinton...)
You left out the fact that Cuomo was crushed in the primary when he ran for governor in 2002, without ever having held an elected office (just as I am predicting for Giuliani).
Quote from: grumbler on May 19, 2021, 01:29:16 PM
You left out the fact that Cuomo was crushed in the primary when he ran for governor in 2002, without ever having held an elected office (just as I am predicting for Giuliani).
You think he'll get crushed in the primary?
I think he'd get crushed in the general, but with the way Trump has such a pull over GOP voters, who knows how he'll do in a primary.
Well Minsky already said his opponent is also very Trumpy.
Quote from: Valmy on May 19, 2021, 01:46:00 PM
Well Minsky already said his opponent is also very Trumpy.
But policies don't matter - only proximity to the Orange Man.
Quote from: Barrister on May 19, 2021, 01:40:49 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 19, 2021, 01:29:16 PM
You left out the fact that Cuomo was crushed in the primary when he ran for governor in 2002, without ever having held an elected office (just as I am predicting for Giuliani).
You think he'll get crushed in the primary?
I think he'd get crushed in the general, but with the way Trump has such a pull over GOP voters, who knows how he'll do in a primary.
Lee Zeldin is a combat veteran, four-term congressman, and a Trump supporter who voted against certifying the 2020 election. In addition, he has, by NY Republican Party rules, already locked up the nomination (having been endorsed by more than half of the state's county party chairs). What makes you think Giuliani will even make it to the general election?
Oh, and Zeldin was one of the leaders of the Trump defense team in the 2020 House impeachment hearings.
Quote from: grumbler on May 19, 2021, 01:57:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 19, 2021, 01:40:49 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 19, 2021, 01:29:16 PM
You left out the fact that Cuomo was crushed in the primary when he ran for governor in 2002, without ever having held an elected office (just as I am predicting for Giuliani).
You think he'll get crushed in the primary?
I think he'd get crushed in the general, but with the way Trump has such a pull over GOP voters, who knows how he'll do in a primary.
Lee Zeldin is a combat veteran, four-term congressman, and a Trump supporter who voted against certifying the 2020 election. In addition, he has, by NY Republican Party rules, already locked up the nomination (having been endorsed by more than half of the state's county party chairs). What makes you think Giuliani will even make it to the general election?
If you say Zeldin's got the nomination locked up I'll believe you. I'm not discussing this from a position of strength.
But if GUiliani Jr. were to get Trump's endorsement, and if it were put to a pure primary vote of Empire State Republicans, don't you think he'd stand an excellent shot - no matter how much better qualified the other guy is?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSfGARGIu34
Joe proposes raising cap gains from 23.8% to 43.4% (how do they come up with these numbers?) and making it retroactive to the beginning of the year.
"For incomes of over a million dollars".
Kind of an important qualifier. Also it'd be retroactive to April 28th, not the beginning of the year. It's a 2 minutes clip Yi, how do you miss those 2 points :P
That money can't trickle down now. :(
The traders are committing mass seppuku as we speak.
Also is it retroactive if it applies to this tax year?
Retroactive is more of a clawback of previous years, no?
Quote from: Zoupa on June 02, 2021, 02:35:19 AM
"For incomes of over a million dollars".
Kind of an important qualifier. Also it'd be retroactive to April 28th, not the beginning of the year. It's a 2 minutes clip Yi, how do you miss those 2 points :P
He was told to panic so he panicked. :p
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 02, 2021, 04:23:22 AM
Also is it retroactive if it applies to this tax year?
Retroactive is more of a clawback of previous years, no?
Isn't it retroactive if it applies to decisions that were made before the legislation?
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 02, 2021, 04:23:22 AM
Also is it retroactive if it applies to this tax year?
Retroactive is more of a clawback of previous years, no?
Ah, the good old "retroactive vs retrospective" issue. Always fun. 😄
Retroactive = changing the legal impact of a past determination. X was deductible last year, but a retroactive regulation was passed, changing X to non-deductible for that year. The taxpayer now owes on X for last year, even though the deduction was already granted.
Retrospective = changing the current consequences of past decisions. X was deductible last year and this year. A retrospective regulation was passed making X not deductible. The taxpayer owes on X for this year, but not for last year, as that deduction was already granted.
Seems this is retroactive under those definitions. A taxpayer sells stock on June 1 which has a certain capital gains rate, makes estimated tax payments based on that sale and tax rate, and then later in the year legislation is passed that changes the rate applicable to that June 1 sale.
The taxpayer made a determination on June 1 to sell the stock, and the estimate tax payments based on the rate then, but now the taxpayer owes a different amount due to current legislation on the historic transaction.
Quote from: Zoupa on June 02, 2021, 02:35:19 AM
"For incomes of over a million dollars".
Kind of an important qualifier. Also it'd be retroactive to April 28th, not the beginning of the year. It's a 2 minutes clip Yi, how do you miss those 2 points :P
Why do you assume I missed it? I put a headline on it in case people were interested in getting more info from the link.
I did get the retroactive date wrong.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 02, 2021, 08:40:27 AM
Seems this is retroactive under those definitions. A taxpayer sells stock on June 1 which has a certain capital gains rate, makes estimated tax payments based on that sale and tax rate, and then later in the year legislation is passed that changes the rate applicable to that June 1 sale.
The taxpayer made a determination on June 1 to sell the stock, and the estimate tax payments based on the rate then, but now the taxpayer owes a different amount due to current legislation on the historic transaction.
But it's this tax year. So you're making estimated or provisional tax payments that will be confirmed when you file at the end of this tax year. I get that you might make different decisions knowing this legislation was coming but you don't know your overall tax position until the end of the year.
I don't think it's wildly uncommon for the US to be updating taxes through the tax year (because of how a lot of tax legislation is passed in the US v a parliamentary/budget model) - I know that the details of the AMT are almost patched every years and often not until August/September. I don't really see a difference between that and this.
Neither of Malthus's examples apply to a change to tax policy starting this tax year and going forward.
Sheilbh, in the US high income earners (probably almost everyone with revised tax rates under this provision) have to make quarterly tax payments and if those are not sufficient they get penalized. So they have to know their overall tax position before year end for those purposes.
Right now if a high earner sells stock eligible for capital gains the tax rate is 20%. That is already set in the statute for 2021. I don't get the theoretical difference between changing the rate for a sale last January 2021, or a sale last January 1972.
I'm not making a political point here only a semantic one. We have a discrete event (sale of an asset qualifying for long term capital gains treatment) with a defined treatment under current law. If that discrete event happened in the past and subsequent to that event a change in law also changed the defined treatment, I don't see how that is not retroactive.
But are those payments final or are they provisional/estimated pending a final calculation/reconciliation at the end of the tax year?
If they're final then I agree it's retrospective and no different than clawing back from 20 years. If they're just provisional and you can sort of adjust the rest of your payments through the year based on them, then I don't think it is retrospective. It's all part of the same year which is current not past.
And I agree this is just a semantic point not political. But making changes to taxes during the tax year seems fine to me - it's like an extended present moment and you can know with certainty at the end of the tax year the rates and the payments you should make, even if you are making payments through it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 02, 2021, 03:18:25 PM
making changes to taxes during the tax year seems fine to me - it's like an extended present moment and you can know with certainty at the end of the tax year the rates and the payments you should make, even if you are making payments through it.
That is a political judgment though.
As I make personal decisions, what matters to me is the after tax proceeds I get from a sale. In January I may have made a sale expecting after tax proceeds of $80, and now the proposal is to reduce that to $60. That is retroactive imo. Had I known that the rate would go to 40%, I may not have made the sale (I might have deferred the sale to wait for the next Republican administration to lower the rate back to 20% for example).
I think capital gains rate changes need to be this way (a bit retroactive), or everyone will just recognize gains right before the go live date and capture the lower rate.
Take my word on tax law at your peril, and this is drawing on my Canadian legal education, but I understood it was routine for a tax change to be announced in a spring budget, get passed in the summer to fall, and be proclaimed into law even later than that - and all to be retroactive to the start of the year.
If it is a truly dramatic change I think it is made retroactive to when it was first announced, but that is as far as it goes.
I can't remember a single tax change that applied to me retroactively.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 02, 2021, 03:36:53 PM
That is a political judgment though.
As I make personal decisions, what matters to me is the after tax proceeds I get from a sale. In January I may have made a sale expecting after tax proceeds of $80, and now the proposal is to reduce that to $60. That is retroactive imo. Had I known that the rate would go to 40%, I may not have made the sale (I might have deferred the sale to wait for the next Republican administration to lower the rate back to 20% for example).
I think capital gains rate changes need to be this way (a bit retroactive), or everyone will just recognize gains right before the go live date and capture the lower rate.
Sure and I agree it may be that people would behave differently. But in your description of why it's semantic and this I feel like you're slightly treating capital gains as if it was like a sales tax or something. It's assessed on your annual qualifying income which is known at the end of the tax year. Even if it is triggered by discrete events it is not taxing discrete events but the whole year. If we had tax quarters or tax months or it was like sales tax and the payments made were final then I'd agree it'd be retrspective
QuoteI can't remember a single tax change that applied to me retroactively.
The AMT patch has been passed in December, after the IRS had already printed their forms and documentation, but it applied to that tax year.
QuoteTake my word on tax law at your peril, and this is drawing on my Canadian legal education, but I understood it was routine for a tax change to be announced in a spring budget, get passed in the summer to fall, and be proclaimed into law even later than that - and all to be retroactive to the start of the year.
If it is a truly dramatic change I think it is made retroactive to when it was first announced, but that is as far as it goes.
Yeah I think that's the norm here. The Finance Bill is normally working its way through parliament in the summer/autumn - but the obviouly there's a big difference because it has been announced at the start of the tax year (and often pre-announced) because of how the parliamentary system works.
But as I say the only example I know for sure is the AMT in the US, but I'd be surprised if that's totally unique. From a very quick Google search this is not unique and has happened with capital gains rate cuts in 2017, 2012, 2003, 2001, 1998 and 1997. I get why a rate cut is easier to swallow but the principle is the same it is normal to amend tax rates within a tax year and for that change to take effect at the start of that tax year rather than either at the start of the next tax year or part-way through a tax year.
And, as AR says, there's a very good public policy reason for it. If you're trying to raise the rates to increase revenue you'd probably just see a massive amount of sales before the date it took effect; if you're trying to cut the rates to stimulate the economy or cut revenue you'd probably see a huge reduction in the run-up to the effective date. Either way it'd be a bit of the tail wagging the dog and not really what you'd be trying to do with tax policy.
Edit: And I think it would be wrong and retrospective to apply this type of change to, say, 2020 capital gains.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 02, 2021, 04:14:17 PM
Sure and I agree it may be that people would behave differently. But in your description of why it's semantic and this I feel like you're slightly treating capital gains as if it was like a sales tax or something. It's assessed on your annual qualifying income which is known at the end of the tax year. Even if it is triggered by discrete events it is not taxing discrete events but the whole year. If we had tax quarters or tax months or it was like sales tax and the payments made were final then I'd agree it'd be retrspective
But it kind of is like a sales tax. Yeah the rate is partially dependent on annual income, but right now the max rate is 20%. Most people can know the cap gains rate they will need to pay under current statutes at the time they dispose a long term capital asset. Even if I don't know, I know the potential rates are 0-20%, and a rate of 40% outside of that range.
There have been several examples of retroactive ( :) ) tax changes in the US: it isn't unprecedented, and it is really necessary from a public policy point of view.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 02, 2021, 03:59:58 PM
I can't remember a single tax change that applied to me retroactively.
I remember it being a big deal when Clinton was in office...
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax-reform-act-of-1993.asp
QuoteUnderstanding the Tax Reform Act of 1993
The Tax Reform Act of 1993 contained several major provisions for individuals. It created a 36% and 39.6% marginal tax bracket for filers, eliminated the tax cap on Medicare taxes, increased taxes on Social Security benefits, and raised gasoline taxes by 4.3 cents per gallon. It also curtailed itemized deductions and raised the corporate tax rate to 35%.3
The Act was also one of the first bills to retroactively raise taxes, effectively making the increases apply to taxpayer incomes from the beginning of the year. By 1998, the effects of the bill helped the U.S. government to produce a budget surplus, its first since 1969.2
Well I'll be danged.
Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2021, 03:42:28 PM
Take my word on tax law at your peril, and this is drawing on my Canadian legal education, but I understood it was routine for a tax change to be announced in a spring budget, get passed in the summer to fall, and be proclaimed into law even later than that - and all to be retroactive to the start of the year.
If it is a truly dramatic change I think it is made retroactive to when it was first announced, but that is as far as it goes.
I think it is pretty rare to have a change made retroactive to the beginning of the year in which the budget is released. Normally the changes apply from the day the budget is tabled in Parliament or it is prospective.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 03, 2021, 09:38:33 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2021, 03:42:28 PM
Take my word on tax law at your peril, and this is drawing on my Canadian legal education, but I understood it was routine for a tax change to be announced in a spring budget, get passed in the summer to fall, and be proclaimed into law even later than that - and all to be retroactive to the start of the year.
If it is a truly dramatic change I think it is made retroactive to when it was first announced, but that is as far as it goes.
I think it is pretty rare to have a change made retroactive to the beginning of the year in which the budget is released. Normally the changes apply from the day the budget is tabled in Parliament or it is prospective.
In the US tax laws are generally retroactive to when they are proposed in committee, to prevent both gaming the system in advance of the proposed law passing, but also not taking the public by surprise by retroactively enforcing a law unforeseeable when actions were taken. An exception seems to be laws that correct errors in previously-passed legislation, which are sometimes retroactive to the effective date of the erroneous law. Outright retroactive-to-first-of-the-tax-year legislation is rare.
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2021, 09:54:34 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 03, 2021, 09:38:33 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2021, 03:42:28 PM
Take my word on tax law at your peril, and this is drawing on my Canadian legal education, but I understood it was routine for a tax change to be announced in a spring budget, get passed in the summer to fall, and be proclaimed into law even later than that - and all to be retroactive to the start of the year.
If it is a truly dramatic change I think it is made retroactive to when it was first announced, but that is as far as it goes.
I think it is pretty rare to have a change made retroactive to the beginning of the year in which the budget is released. Normally the changes apply from the day the budget is tabled in Parliament or it is prospective.
In the US tax laws are generally retroactive to when they are proposed in committee, to prevent both gaming the system in advance of the proposed law passing, but also not taking the public by surprise by retroactively enforcing a law unforeseeable when actions were taken. An exception seems to be laws that correct errors in previously-passed legislation, which are sometimes retroactive to the effective date of the erroneous law. Outright retroactive-to-first-of-the-tax-year legislation is rare.
It used to be that all changes here were dated to budget day - the day the budget was tabled, for the reasons you described. But governments have gone more toward providing notice of the changes. So for example, changes to interest deductibility from corporate earnings was announced, is still being figured out and will become effective next year. It would be interesting to see a study that addresses how much gaming of the system goes on as a result.
Sunak announcing that G7 have reached a deal on global minimum corporate tax:
QuoteRishi Sunak
@RishiSunak
At the @G7 in London today, my finance counterparts and I have come to a historic agreement on global tax reform requiring the largest multinational tech giants to pay their fair share of tax in the UK.
The thread below explains exactly what this means. #G7UK
2/ Under the principles of the landmark reforms, the largest global firms with profit margins of at least 10% will be in scope – with 20% of any profit above the 10% margin reallocated and then subjected to tax in the countries where they make sales.
3/ The G7 also agreed to the principle of a global minimum corporation tax on large firms of at least 15% operated on a country-by-country basis – creating a more level playing field for UK firms and cracking down on tax avoidance.
4/ I've made securing an agreement on digital tax a key priority of mine for the G7 Presidency with the fairer system raising more tax to pay for public services.
This will now be discussed in further detail @G20 Financial Ministers & Central Bank Governors meeting in July.
I think the point in number 2 is key and apparently a source of opposition from countries like France and the UK because they may be the source of lots of sales but wouldn't really benefit from a global minimum corporate tax. This does something to address both sides.
It's a low rate, but I imagine it'll increase in the future. It's going to operate as a floor but I think will increase over time.
Edit: and obviously the real impact will be around aligning accounting standards on a global level.
Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2021, 03:42:28 PM
Take my word on tax law at your peril, and this is drawing on my Canadian legal education, but I understood it was routine for a tax change to be announced in a spring budget, get passed in the summer to fall, and be proclaimed into law even later than that - and all to be retroactive to the start of the year.
If it is a truly dramatic change I think it is made retroactive to when it was first announced, but that is as far as it goes.
No, it was not. It was in effect for January 1st the next year. And the budget is voted on immediately. What follows is the credit appropriation process, parliamentary commissions that approve of X$ going to Department of ABC.
Only when taxes were reduced, just before an election, were the changes retrospective to January 1st of the same year.
Just read that immigration is the one policy area Americans have a net negative opinion of Joe.
In an epoch of generalized population collapse, the nations that succeed in pulling in a regular flow of immigrants will have a critical strategic advantage; the rest will stagnate.
This sort of abstraction means very little in the face of the sort of constant fearmongering by the right.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2021, 07:58:54 PM
In an epoch of generalized population collapse, the nations that succeed in pulling in a regular flow of immigrants will have a critical strategic advantage; the rest will stagnate.
Still a bit early to call it that. Earth's population has grown 1.5 billion in past 20 years.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2021, 07:58:54 PM
In an epoch of generalized population collapse, the nations that succeed in pulling in a regular flow of immigrants will have a critical strategic advantage; the rest will stagnate.
As is evidenced by the Roman Empire.
Quote from: Tamas on June 07, 2021, 05:30:54 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2021, 07:58:54 PM
In an epoch of generalized population collapse, the nations that succeed in pulling in a regular flow of immigrants will have a critical strategic advantage; the rest will stagnate.
As is evidenced by the Roman Empire.
:huh: The Roman Empire was not a nation.
Quote from: grumbler on June 07, 2021, 05:41:15 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 07, 2021, 05:30:54 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2021, 07:58:54 PM
In an epoch of generalized population collapse, the nations that succeed in pulling in a regular flow of immigrants will have a critical strategic advantage; the rest will stagnate.
As is evidenced by the Roman Empire.
:huh: The Roman Empire was not a nation.
Also not a generalized population collapse.
:huh:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2021, 07:58:54 PM
In an epoch of generalized population collapse, the nations that succeed in pulling in a regular flow of immigrants will have a critical strategic advantage; the rest will stagnate.
It is generalized though. Practically every country in the world is having the collapse outside of Africa, and even then I think the trajectory is downward. Pretty soon we will wish we had immigrants from Latin America wanting to sneak in.
So I question the idea that a regular flow of immigrants will even be possible in a world where most countries are below replacement level.
Quote from: Tamas on June 07, 2021, 05:30:54 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2021, 07:58:54 PM
In an epoch of generalized population collapse, the nations that succeed in pulling in a regular flow of immigrants will have a critical strategic advantage; the rest will stagnate.
As is evidenced by the Roman Empire.
I mean I don't think anybody has entire mobile countries, complete with military forces capable of defeating theirs in open battle, crossing into their territory en masse.
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2021, 08:35:12 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 07, 2021, 05:30:54 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2021, 07:58:54 PM
In an epoch of generalized population collapse, the nations that succeed in pulling in a regular flow of immigrants will have a critical strategic advantage; the rest will stagnate.
As is evidenced by the Roman Empire.
I mean I don't think anybody has entire mobile countries, complete with military forces capable of defeating theirs in open battle, crossing into their territory en masse.
You appear to understand what Tamas was trying so clumsily to say, so share it with us. Was he claiming that the Roman Empire was an example of a nation (yeah, I know) that
was pulling in a regular flow of immigrants and so avoided stagnation, or that the Roman Empire didn't pull in the immigrants and therefor was stagnant for 600 years or so or something else?
Quote from: grumbler on June 07, 2021, 09:11:59 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2021, 08:35:12 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 07, 2021, 05:30:54 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2021, 07:58:54 PM
In an epoch of generalized population collapse, the nations that succeed in pulling in a regular flow of immigrants will have a critical strategic advantage; the rest will stagnate.
As is evidenced by the Roman Empire.
I mean I don't think anybody has entire mobile countries, complete with military forces capable of defeating theirs in open battle, crossing into their territory en masse.
You appear to understand what Tamas was trying so clumsily to say, so share it with us. Was he claiming that the Roman Empire was an example of a nation (yeah, I know) that was pulling in a regular flow of immigrants and so avoided stagnation, or that the Roman Empire didn't pull in the immigrants and therefor was stagnant for 600 years or so or something else?
The claim I see tossed around was that the Roman Empire was destroyed because they let all those Germanic "immigrants" move in. They eventually took over, like the recent scourge of Muslim immigrants are soon going to do.
Something like that.
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2021, 09:13:33 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 07, 2021, 09:11:59 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2021, 08:35:12 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 07, 2021, 05:30:54 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2021, 07:58:54 PM
In an epoch of generalized population collapse, the nations that succeed in pulling in a regular flow of immigrants will have a critical strategic advantage; the rest will stagnate.
As is evidenced by the Roman Empire.
I mean I don't think anybody has entire mobile countries, complete with military forces capable of defeating theirs in open battle, crossing into their territory en masse.
You appear to understand what Tamas was trying so clumsily to say, so share it with us. Was he claiming that the Roman Empire was an example of a nation (yeah, I know) that was pulling in a regular flow of immigrants and so avoided stagnation, or that the Roman Empire didn't pull in the immigrants and therefor was stagnant for 600 years or so or something else?
The claim I see tossed around was that the Roman Empire was destroyed because they let all those Germanic "immigrants" move in. They eventually took over, like the recent scourge of Muslim immigrants are soon going to do.
Something like that.
I hope for Tamas's sake it's not something that stupid. The Romans "welcomed" the German "immigrants" like the Germans "welcomed" the Western Allied "immigrants" at Normandy in June 1944
Quote from: grumbler on June 07, 2021, 09:26:37 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2021, 09:13:33 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 07, 2021, 09:11:59 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2021, 08:35:12 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 07, 2021, 05:30:54 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2021, 07:58:54 PM
In an epoch of generalized population collapse, the nations that succeed in pulling in a regular flow of immigrants will have a critical strategic advantage; the rest will stagnate.
As is evidenced by the Roman Empire.
I mean I don't think anybody has entire mobile countries, complete with military forces capable of defeating theirs in open battle, crossing into their territory en masse.
You appear to understand what Tamas was trying so clumsily to say, so share it with us. Was he claiming that the Roman Empire was an example of a nation (yeah, I know) that was pulling in a regular flow of immigrants and so avoided stagnation, or that the Roman Empire didn't pull in the immigrants and therefor was stagnant for 600 years or so or something else?
The claim I see tossed around was that the Roman Empire was destroyed because they let all those Germanic "immigrants" move in. They eventually took over, like the recent scourge of Muslim immigrants are soon going to do.
Something like that.
I hope for Tamas's sake it's not something that stupid. The Romans "welcomed" the German "immigrants" like the Germans "welcomed" the Western Allied "immigrants" at Normandy in June 1944
By disarming them, and drafting some into their army? And settling the others with their families (that presumably were on the landing craft) into new groups by breaking up family clans?
Quote from: Maladict on June 07, 2021, 09:51:03 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 07, 2021, 09:26:37 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2021, 09:13:33 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 07, 2021, 09:11:59 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2021, 08:35:12 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 07, 2021, 05:30:54 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2021, 07:58:54 PM
In an epoch of generalized population collapse, the nations that succeed in pulling in a regular flow of immigrants will have a critical strategic advantage; the rest will stagnate.
As is evidenced by the Roman Empire.
I mean I don't think anybody has entire mobile countries, complete with military forces capable of defeating theirs in open battle, crossing into their territory en masse.
You appear to understand what Tamas was trying so clumsily to say, so share it with us. Was he claiming that the Roman Empire was an example of a nation (yeah, I know) that was pulling in a regular flow of immigrants and so avoided stagnation, or that the Roman Empire didn't pull in the immigrants and therefor was stagnant for 600 years or so or something else?
The claim I see tossed around was that the Roman Empire was destroyed because they let all those Germanic "immigrants" move in. They eventually took over, like the recent scourge of Muslim immigrants are soon going to do.
Something like that.
I hope for Tamas's sake it's not something that stupid. The Romans "welcomed" the German "immigrants" like the Germans "welcomed" the Western Allied "immigrants" at Normandy in June 1944
By disarming them, and drafting some into their army? And settling the others with their families (that presumably were on the landing craft) into new groups by breaking up family clans?
No, by fighting them off as long as possible, and then retreating when forced to.
Quote from: Threviel on June 07, 2021, 06:59:01 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 07, 2021, 05:41:15 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 07, 2021, 05:30:54 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2021, 07:58:54 PM
In an epoch of generalized population collapse, the nations that succeed in pulling in a regular flow of immigrants will have a critical strategic advantage; the rest will stagnate.
As is evidenced by the Roman Empire.
:huh: The Roman Empire was not a nation.
Also not a generalized population collapse.
Well except for a couple of plagues...
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 07, 2021, 10:32:26 AM
Well except for a couple of plagues...
Well, yeah, the Antonine and Justinian plague hit the empire harder than the barbarians. But it recovered from the Antonine and the Justinian I interpreted as after the fall of the empire in this case, seeing as one often equates the fall of the west as the fall of the whole. The plagues presumably hit Persia just as hard though, and that was the only serious peer enemy.
The population of Europe decline by quite a bit in the late classical/early medieval periods. It didn't recover until the high middle ages. Plagues don't' hit all areas equally. Areas that have had significant disruptions of the food supply get hit with plagues much harder than areas where food is plentiful.
The Roman Empire doesn't really have anything to do with the issue . . . FWIW 19th century America indicates the advantage of a high immigration industrial economy over slave-based agrarian economies as a general principle. . .
It's hard to talk about immigration in ancient Rome in any meaningful way because the concept of "immigration" doesn't really translate and even if it did we don't have anything resembling useful data to say anything intelligent about it. What we can say is the the Roman polity lasted as long as it did in significant part because it was very successful in expanding the pool of talent and manpower it drew from.
Quote from: grumbler on June 07, 2021, 10:24:37 AM
Quote from: Maladict on June 07, 2021, 09:51:03 AM
By disarming them, and drafting some into their army? And settling the others with their families (that presumably were on the landing craft) into new groups by breaking up family clans?
No, by fighting them off as long as possible, and then retreating when forced to.
Well, you are both right, aren't you? Both happened.
I agree that Rome's collapse was mostly a military affair. But I think it was also socio-economic in the sense that a lot of the population ruled over had no real investment in the Roman system, since they were not beneficiary of it neither did they identify with it too much culturally.
That still had little to do with immigration but also that could not had helped with these otherwise natural processes.
I just don't think quickly absorbing as many immigrants as possible is such a clear-cut advantage for a political unit as it was made out to be by Minsky's comment. Although, depends on the timeframe as well I guess. e.g. from Hungarian history, letting the Cumans in following the Mongol destruction was a big short-term boost, a lot of medium and long-term problem but eventually a big net positive as it helped the country ("nation" if you will) survive and whatever it meant to be Cuman was eventually (in a space of 500 years) absorbed into what it meant to be Hungarian. Following the Ottoman destruction a lot of German, Slavic, and Romanian settlers were invited to what was for sure already significant populations of them, since large areas of the country were depopulated. It sure helped but in the meantime what a "nation" meant has switched from subjects of the same crown to ethnic/cultural identities and the increasing problems from these eventually destroyed what at the start of the process was considered the "nation".
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 07, 2021, 03:42:34 PM
The Roman Empire doesn't really have anything to do with the issue . . . FWIW 19th century America indicates the advantage of a high immigration industrial economy over slave-based agrarian economies as a general principle. . .
It's hard to talk about immigration in ancient Rome in any meaningful way because the concept of "immigration" doesn't really translate and even if it did we don't have anything resembling useful data to say anything intelligent about it. What we can say is the the Roman polity lasted as long as it did in significant part because it was very successful in expanding the pool of talent and manpower it drew from.
Agreed on the Roman bit but America is hardly a generic example, it was very specific and advantageous circumstances on an absolutely massive geographical scale that was pretty much impossible to repeat in written history. In other words, you have to get really lucky to have such a massive technological and biological (as in terms of viral immunities and such) advantage that you can essentially wipe an entire continent clean of contending fellow human factions.
Quote from: Tamas on June 07, 2021, 03:59:51 PM
I agree that Rome's collapse was mostly a military affair. But I think it was also socio-economic in the sense that a lot of the population ruled over had no real investment in the Roman system, since they were not beneficiary of it neither did they identify with it too much culturally.
I'd take issue with that statement - what is the evidence for it?
A distinctive characteristics of most of the "barbarian" actors in the 5th century is how invested they were in the Roman system. They weren't seeking to destroy or collapse the system - they wanted to preserve it and share in the benefits. Of course intentions can pave a road to hell. but the problem was not lack of sympathy for or investment in the system. Lack of investment in the imperial system was more an issue for traditional Roman landowners who by mid century made the calculation that they were better off making arrangement with local warlords rather than engaging with a deteriorating and erratic imperial bureaucracy.
You sometimes see Aetius referred to as the "Last of the Romans" even though he spent many of his formative years with Goths and "Huns". I scare quote Huns because they were already an ethnically polyglot grouping. On the other hand Stilicho is referred to in the historical record as a ethnic Vandal, whereas in fact he was a loyal Roman general whose efforts did much to keep Rome afloat. It is dangerous to generalize based on ethnic identification.
The Roman Empire had a lot of problems to deal with in the 5ht century; its willingness and ability to accept other ethnicities as citizens was not a cause of those problems; it was one the reasons it lasted as long as it did under adverse conditions.
Heh not only did all sorts of people accept identity as "Roman" during the empire's existence, they continued to do so for centuries, with increasingly tenuous claims to actually being "Roman".
Moscow is the third Rome! 😀
I think it was the byzantine history podcast that had the story from the Greek independence war. Supposedly some Greek military unit landed on a greek-speaking island and asked the people there what they were, presumably asking whether they were independence-minded or Ottoman loyalists.
"We are Romans" they answered.
Quote from: Malthus on June 08, 2021, 11:09:05 AM
Heh not only did all sorts of people accept identity as "Roman" during the empire's existence, they continued to do so for centuries, with increasingly tenuous claims to actually being "Roman".
Moscow is the third Rome! 😀
But in terms of % of population how many people living under Roman rule were invested/interested in keeping the Roman system going? Plenty of poor free people and slaves around who I imagine had no matching identity and especially no economic interest to fight for its survival.
I do like how we changed the topic to migration period demographics. It's such a natural segue from the Biden Presidency.
Quote from: Tamas on June 08, 2021, 11:17:03 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 08, 2021, 11:09:05 AM
Heh not only did all sorts of people accept identity as "Roman" during the empire's existence, they continued to do so for centuries, with increasingly tenuous claims to actually being "Roman".
Moscow is the third Rome! 😀
But in terms of % of population how many people living under Roman rule were invested/interested in keeping the Roman system going? Plenty of poor free people and slaves around who I imagine had no matching identity and especially no economic interest to fight for its survival.
Can you define 'invested/interested in keeping x system going'... as well as 'fight for its survival'? I'm trying to think about what % of people in say British people would fit into those two buckets and can easily think of definitions where whole swathes of the population aren't counted in either.
Quote from: garbon on June 08, 2021, 12:04:17 PM
Quote from: Tamas on June 08, 2021, 11:17:03 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 08, 2021, 11:09:05 AM
Heh not only did all sorts of people accept identity as "Roman" during the empire's existence, they continued to do so for centuries, with increasingly tenuous claims to actually being "Roman".
Moscow is the third Rome! 😀
But in terms of % of population how many people living under Roman rule were invested/interested in keeping the Roman system going? Plenty of poor free people and slaves around who I imagine had no matching identity and especially no economic interest to fight for its survival.
Can you define 'invested/interested in keeping x system going'... as well as 'fight for its survival'? I'm trying to think about what % of people in say British people would fit into those two buckets and can easily think of definitions where whole swathes of the population aren't counted in either.
I am not sure, I am going mostly by impressions based on my readings on the period, and even historians can do little more than make educated guesses, I think.
I think that just because urban centers developed under the Romans and became Romanised I don't think we can think of most of the population under Roman rule as "Roman". And that had to contribute to why the Romanised way of living disappeared.
What? The Romanised way of living dissappeared? What kind of crap have you been reading?
Gladiatorial games just aren't the same without the lions, though.
Half of Europe speaks a Romance Language. I think it is fair to say that the ancestors of these people were Romanized.
Quote from: Tamas on June 08, 2021, 11:17:03 AM
But in terms of % of population how many people living under Roman rule were invested/interested in keeping the Roman system going? Plenty of poor free people and slaves around who I imagine had no matching identity and especially no economic interest to fight for its survival.
"Rome" obviously evolved as time went on and by the late 5th early / 6th century the pope was as important as any western emperor. The Roman Catholic Church persists to this day - it is one of the most popular religions in the world - the roman system survives.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 08, 2021, 02:05:17 PM
Quote from: Tamas on June 08, 2021, 11:17:03 AM
But in terms of % of population how many people living under Roman rule were invested/interested in keeping the Roman system going? Plenty of poor free people and slaves around who I imagine had no matching identity and especially no economic interest to fight for its survival.
"Rome" obviously evolved as time went on and by the late 5th early / 6th century the pope was as important as any western emperor. The Roman Catholic Church persists to this day - it is one of the most popular religions in the world - the roman system survives.
I have the read the book and its a good read and convincing argument but considering the Catholic Church as a re-establishment of the (or rather a) Roman Empire is still a bit of a stretch imho.
Quote from: The Larch on June 08, 2021, 01:07:55 PM
What? The Romanised way of living dissappeared? What kind of crap have you been reading?
I was putting that wrongly, but "Romans" as such did disappear as a gradual process (not their influence on further generations).
Gregory of Tours (6th Century) felt himself to be Roman even though his patrons were Merovingian Franks. The local nobility of the Late Roman Period in the West simply turned from what they saw as far away and non-supportive Rome to closer by rulers (who also sought to fit in to the roman system) as Minsky said.
The real change was in the complexity of the culture that went along with the breakdown of trading over distances. The strength and ingrained nature of Roman Society can be seen in how long the West survived AS Roman before splitting apart.
Quote from: Tamas on June 08, 2021, 02:07:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 08, 2021, 02:05:17 PM
Quote from: Tamas on June 08, 2021, 11:17:03 AM
But in terms of % of population how many people living under Roman rule were invested/interested in keeping the Roman system going? Plenty of poor free people and slaves around who I imagine had no matching identity and especially no economic interest to fight for its survival.
"Rome" obviously evolved as time went on and by the late 5th early / 6th century the pope was as important as any western emperor. The Roman Catholic Church persists to this day - it is one of the most popular religions in the world - the roman system survives.
I have the read the book and its a good read and convincing argument but considering the Catholic Church as a re-establishment of the (or rather a) Roman Empire is still a bit of a stretch imho.
I haven't read the book and don't even know what book you are referring to. :)
The Catholic Church obviously isn't the Roman Empire: an empire should have an emperor and the pope doesn't qualify.
But it isn't hard to see how the church stepped into or supplanted the role previously played by the state so that there wasn't discontinuity in the roman way of life even as the secular structures of the western roman empire ceased to function.
Quote from: PDH on June 08, 2021, 02:16:57 PM
Gregory of Tours (6th Century) felt himself to be Roman even though his patrons were Merovingian Franks. The local nobility of the Late Roman Period in the West simply turned from what they saw as far away and non-supportive Rome to closer by rulers (who also sought to fit in to the roman system) as Minsky said.
The real change was in the complexity of the culture that went along with the breakdown of trading over distances. The strength and ingrained nature of Roman Society can be seen in how long the West survived AS Roman before splitting apart.
Fine. I concede the awkwardly-put point.
But what's the argument then? That the Roman Empire didn't collapse?
It didn't collapse so much as faded away. Literally in the East.
Quote from: Threviel on June 08, 2021, 11:11:56 AM
I think it was the byzantine history podcast that had the story from the Greek independence war. Supposedly some Greek military unit landed on a greek-speaking island and asked the people there what they were, presumably asking whether they were independence-minded or Ottoman loyalists.
"We are Romans" they answered.
Yeah that is a great story. Kind of different as it refers more to a Eastern Roman Orthodox Christian type identity but yeah.
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2021, 02:34:11 PM
It didn't collapse so much as faded away. Literally in the East.
Ok but it still ceased to exist at some eventual point in history, I hope we agree on that much.
Anyhow, I have long forgotten what my original point was, I am dead tired from work, had my second AZ shot this morning, and have drunk some beer. Move on. :P
Quote from: Tamas on June 08, 2021, 02:35:56 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2021, 02:34:11 PM
It didn't collapse so much as faded away. Literally in the East.
Ok but it still ceased to exist at some eventual point in history, I hope we agree on that much.
Anyhow, I have long forgotten what my original point was, I am dead tired from work, had my second AZ shot this morning, and have drunk some beer. Move on. :P
Yeah I think we can all agree it does not currently exist :P
I feel like its final death knell was the rise of national identities in Europe. Eventually a Roman identity came to be an Italian Nationalist thing (or an Orthodox Christian nationalist thing on the other end).
If you haven't, you should read Peter Heather's books on the period, Fall of Rome and Restoration of Rome in particular.
The Roman Empire in the West faded away to an ever more local system favored by the elites. This fading away lasted centuries, in my mind starting with the reforms of Diocletian who paved the way for the more local systems (peasants to elites).
As systems got progressively less complex, the trappings of the state became less important and more ceremonial. By the rise of the Carolingians, the focus change from Italy to the Rhine really shows both that Rome was fully gone, but the ideals of Rome still were powerful in the minds of people.
Quote from: PDH on June 08, 2021, 03:46:21 PM
The Roman Empire in the West faded away to an ever more local system favored by the elites. This fading away lasted centuries, in my mind starting with the reforms of Diocletian who paved the way for the more local systems (peasants to elites).
As systems got progressively less complex, the trappings of the state became less important and more ceremonial. By the rise of the Carolingians, the focus change from Italy to the Rhine really shows both that Rome was fully gone, but the ideals of Rome still were powerful in the minds of people.
The ideals of Rome have never faded and have lost none of their power in the minds of the people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA_N_QVxbKg
"Is Rome worth one good man's life? We believed it once. Make us believe it again. He was a soldier of Rome. Honor him."
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3iaifOWYAIFl2s?format=jpg&name=small)
Quote from: Syt on June 10, 2021, 12:29:34 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3iaifOWYAIFl2s?format=jpg&name=small)
Wow, we actually have some people who have confidence in both. :wacko:
Some people are just eternal optimists.
There needs to be a control group - like a stone or some other inert object.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 10, 2021, 01:50:57 PM
There needs to be a control group - like a stone or some other inert object.
The carbon rod! /Simpsons
https://imgur.com/gallery/oA5BExd
Quote from: garbon on June 08, 2021, 12:04:17 PM
Can you define 'invested/interested in keeping x system going'... as well as 'fight for its survival'? I'm trying to think about what % of people in say British people would fit into those two buckets and can easily think of definitions where whole swathes of the population aren't counted in either.
A majority of British support the monarchy, so they are invested in keeping the system going. As for fight for its survival, I do not know about today, but in the past, the British army never had major recruitement problems. If the UK's economic interests were threatened, I think, if needed, the various army branches could count on popular support and new recruits.
There was no widespread revolution in the streets of London about the war in Iraq, no political coalition promoting a cessation of hostilites as in, say, Spain.
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2021, 02:41:07 PM
Quote from: Tamas on June 08, 2021, 02:35:56 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2021, 02:34:11 PM
It didn't collapse so much as faded away. Literally in the East.
Ok but it still ceased to exist at some eventual point in history, I hope we agree on that much.
Anyhow, I have long forgotten what my original point was, I am dead tired from work, had my second AZ shot this morning, and have drunk some beer. Move on. :P
Yeah I think we can all agree it does not currently exist :P
I feel like its final death knell was the rise of national identities in Europe. Eventually a Roman identity came to be an Italian Nationalist thing (or an Orthodox Christian nationalist thing on the other end).
476 is an arbitrary date chosen because Rome, the city, fell in that year, and the Roman Emperor was deposed and replaced by a non Roman citizen who made itself Emperor of Rome. But we can all agree that by that time, there wasn't much of the Western Empire left, it was a long process and it continued for some time. I would put the definite end at the beginning of the 7th century when the Western Roman Senate ceased to exist entirely. Even though it's influence had waned since the end of the Republic, imho, that was the last vestige of the Western Roman Empire.
After that, many people may have claimed to be Roman, the new Rome, the 3rd Rome, etc, but it was just a way to use the prestige of the name. Russia's only ink to Rome was a Tsar marrying the niece of the Byzantine Emperor.
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2021, 02:34:11 PM
It didn't collapse so much as faded away. Literally in the East.
Agreed--What can be seen to have collapsed is rule in the West by an Emperor seated at Rome who, through loyal subordinates administered the vast reaches of the Empire, supported and hosted legions that served said Emperor and etc.
Most of the "successor" Kingdoms of Western European peoples went through a long period in which they used rhetoric and systems that continued right on from the time of the "centrally controlled" Western Empire and they just gradually fractured into different systems and traditions until eventually the "conception" of being Roman died too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1UFHnRg4xw
The Georgia psycho chick apologizes for the Holocaust comment.
I honestly think this is about the slowest coming political apology i can remember.
How is it possible that anyone can compare the Holocaust with mask mandates? :blink:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 11, 2021, 08:57:31 AM
Agreed--What can be seen to have collapsed is rule in the West by an Emperor seated at Rome who, through loyal subordinates administered the vast reaches of the Empire, supported and hosted legions that served said Emperor and etc.
By that measure it collapsed a lot earlier; that doesn't really describe the empire at any point after the 2nd century.
Quote from: Monoriu on June 14, 2021, 10:55:51 PM
How is it possible that anyone can compare the Holocaust with mask mandates? :blink:
Everything gets compared to the Holocaust. Even stuff that is supposed to save lives.
Speaking of Nazi analogies, Biden is the American Konrad Adenauer.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 15, 2021, 10:45:58 AM
Speaking of Nazi analogies, Biden is the American Konrad Adenauer.
Or possibly Hermann Müller.
The Senate has unanimously agreed to make Juneteenth a federal holiday.
I guess Strom Thurmond is really gone.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 15, 2021, 08:40:13 PM
I guess Strom Thurmond is really gone.
According to Wiki, he is indeed gone.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 15, 2021, 08:15:14 PM
The Senate has unanimously agreed to make Juneteenth a federal holiday.
And yet, too late for it to give us all a day off this year.
Quote from: DGuller on June 15, 2021, 09:18:47 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 15, 2021, 08:40:13 PM
I guess Strom Thurmond is really gone.
According to Wiki, he is indeed gone.
Well, he did run for President in 1948. However, it's said the dark side may lead to abilities many consider unnatural...
Quote from: Habbaku on June 15, 2021, 10:30:44 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 15, 2021, 08:15:14 PM
The Senate has unanimously agreed to make Juneteenth a federal holiday.
And yet, too late for it to give us all a day off this year.
Well it is a Saturday this year anyway.
The day the Federal Government made Texas stop it's bullshit.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E4AJTP5VoAAvezv?format=jpg&name=medium)
We are pretty big deals. We own many leather bound books and our apartments smell of rich mahogany.
As conspiracists have decided both Putin and Biden are clones controlled by the deep state, with the real Putin and Biden having died awhile ago, we do not actually know who is being photographed here.
Putin looks like a kid whose mom made him put on a suit.
The globe tilts to the United States.
Trump was right about one thing: Putin does not want to deal with Biden.
Putin looks like he's quietly but smugly admiring his manspread.
He just misses his buddy trump.
Quote from: HVC on June 16, 2021, 04:52:50 PM
He just misses his buddy trump.
Putin is pictured doing the math for how long until Trump can be elected. You can see him counting year one on his right hand.
Quote from: Valmy on June 15, 2021, 11:03:08 PM
The day the Federal Government made Texas stop it's bullshit.
You can read the future?:P
Quote from: viper37 on June 18, 2021, 02:54:22 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 15, 2021, 11:03:08 PM
The day the Federal Government made Texas stop it's bullshit.
You can read the future?:P
No. So far as I know that is the only day in all of human history the Feds have or will ever manage this.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E4QWKdoWUAAuINC?format=jpg&name=small)
:(
RIP :(
DeSantis! :yuk:
Hopefully this means Trump rips him in the media.
https://www.mediaite.com/election-2024/conservative-conference-2024-straw-poll-winner-donald-tr-no-wait-ron-desantis/
QuoteAt the Western Conservative Summit this weekend, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis beat former president Donald Trump in a presidential preference straw poll.
DeSantis just edged out Trump in the poll, conducted by the Centennial Institute at their event. The approval poll asks participants to select each potential candidate they would approve of for president in 2024.
Because each participant can choose multiple answers, the end result shows who was popular among the most people and so on.
The other candidates in the top five were Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, at #3, former secretary of state Mike Pompeo at #4, and South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott at #5.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 20, 2021, 10:17:03 PM
DeSantis! :yuk:
Hopefully this means Trump rips him in the media.
https://www.mediaite.com/election-2024/conservative-conference-2024-straw-poll-winner-donald-tr-no-wait-ron-desantis/
QuoteAt the Western Conservative Summit this weekend, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis beat former president Donald Trump in a presidential preference straw poll.
DeSantis just edged out Trump in the poll, conducted by the Centennial Institute at their event. The approval poll asks participants to select each potential candidate they would approve of for president in 2024.
Because each participant can choose multiple answers, the end result shows who was popular among the most people and so on.
The other candidates in the top five were Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, at #3, former secretary of state Mike Pompeo at #4, and South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott at #5.
Talk about a basket of deplorables....
What about that guy who is going to have his opponent murdered by the KGB? Surely that had to launch him into the GOP spotlight....
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2021, 10:20:23 PM
What about that guy who is going to have his opponent murdered by the KGB? Surely that had to launch him into the GOP spotlight....
I think he's going to join the ethics committee ;)
Since I presume this is the thread for generic US politics.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E5IluJjX0AcdSD1?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)
I'm not too sure about the last three... Truman/Ike also seem a bit too high to me. Then again, not a yank.
#4, 6, 8, 9, and 10 do not belong on that list. :sleep:
Just saw Mike Duncan posting it on Twitter. :lol:
No love for Polk, the Napoleon of the stump. :mad:
Those kinds of rankings are basically meaningless. Top 10 for what? If it's height, then Lincoln is in the right place but Truman is way too high.
These always tell us more about our time than the actual Presidents, but it feels very unlikely that any 19th century presidents (except Lincoln) will make the top 10 for the foreseeable and I think that probably cuts the field in half. So this is more the top 10 of 25 Presidents in the 20th century plus Lincoln the first 5 or so :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2021, 09:25:01 AM
No love for Polk, the Napoleon of the stump. :mad:
He's #1 in purchases of slaves while President.
What did Eisenhower do that was noteworthy?
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 09:28:54 AM
These always tell us more about our time than the actual Presidents, but it feels very unlikely that any 19th century presidents (except Lincoln) will make the top 10
That not just presentist bias - it's due to the fact that with the exception of Lincoln there weren't that many good 19th century presidents after Monroe.
Quote from: The Brain on June 30, 2021, 09:30:00 AM
What did Eisenhower do that was noteworthy?
Interstate highway system.
Avoiding nuclear war.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2021, 09:31:41 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 30, 2021, 09:30:00 AM
What did Eisenhower do that was noteworthy?
Interstate highway system.
Avoiding nuclear war.
So Hitler was great?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2021, 09:31:01 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 09:28:54 AM
These always tell us more about our time than the actual Presidents, but it feels very unlikely that any 19th century presidents (except Lincoln) will make the top 10
That not just presentist bias - it's due to the fact that with the exception of Lincoln there weren't that many good 19th century presidents after Monroe.
Sure. But I think the change in racial politics and how we view slavery and Manifest Destiny especially sink the few other successful 19th century presidents.
I think this is a shift even in the last 20 years. I don't think we would have articles now about a "Jacksonian moment" without quite a lot of caveats and contextualising.
Quote from: The Brain on June 30, 2021, 09:32:06 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2021, 09:31:41 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 30, 2021, 09:30:00 AM
What did Eisenhower do that was noteworthy?
Interstate highway system.
Avoiding nuclear war.
So Hitler was great?
Hitler never built an interstate highway system in the US.
And Ike stayed clear of invading Poland and murdering millions of innocents.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2021, 09:36:17 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 30, 2021, 09:32:06 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2021, 09:31:41 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 30, 2021, 09:30:00 AM
What did Eisenhower do that was noteworthy?
Interstate highway system.
Avoiding nuclear war.
So Hitler was great?
Hitler never built an interstate highway system in the US.
And Ike stayed clear of invading Poland and murdering millions of innocents.
Tomato, potato.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 09:28:54 AM
These always tell us more about our time than the actual Presidents, but it feels very unlikely that any 19th century presidents (except Lincoln) will make the top 10 for the foreseeable and I think that probably cuts the field in half. So this is more the top 10 of 25 Presidents in the 20th century plus Lincoln the first 5 or so :lol:
Duncan mentioned something similar on Twitter, he said that Jackson used to be a fixed presence at #5 in the past, but in recent days historians have dropped him off a cliff because of a change on how he's viewed and that has created a bit of a vacuum in the lower part of the Top 10.
In case anyone wants to check the nitty gritty details of the rankings:
https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2021/ (https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2021/)
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 09:34:45 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2021, 09:31:01 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 09:28:54 AM
These always tell us more about our time than the actual Presidents, but it feels very unlikely that any 19th century presidents (except Lincoln) will make the top 10
That not just presentist bias - it's due to the fact that with the exception of Lincoln there weren't that many good 19th century presidents after Monroe.
Sure. But I think the change in racial politics and how we view slavery and Manifest Destiny especially sink the few other successful 19th century presidents.
I think this is a shift even in the last 20 years. I don't think we would have articles now about a "Jacksonian moment" without quite a lot of caveats and contextualising.
Jacksonian moment? "-Bubbles no! He's for me!"?
Trump is 4th from the bottom, in case anyone is curious about it. Below him are Pierce, Andrew Johnson and Buchanan.
He's dead last on "Moral Authority" and "Administrative Skills".
Quote from: The Larch on June 30, 2021, 09:38:47 AM
Duncan mentioned something similar on Twitter, he said that Jackson used to be a fixed presence at #5 in the past, but in recent days historians have dropped him off a cliff because of a change on how he's viewed and that has created a bit of a vacuum in the lower part of the Top 10.
Yeah - I think Jackson was the one I was thinking of, but I think there were a few late 19th century presidents who were pretty admired/respected. That may have been about other issues like taking on corruption etc - but I think is now probably overshadowed by expansion to the West and what that meant for the native Americans.
Similarly I think the Spanish-American War is now possibly viewed differently than it used to be?
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 09:34:45 AM
Sure. But I think the change in racial politics and how we view slavery and Manifest Destiny especially sink the few other successful 19th century presidents.
I think this is a shift even in the last 20 years. I don't think we would have articles now about a "Jacksonian moment" without quite a lot of caveats and contextualising.
There was very fierce moral criticism of Polk and Jackson in their day. You don't need to invoke 21st century woke standards to criticize the DC slave trade and native genocide - that conduct that horrified many in the 1800s.
As for Manifest Destiny and the war with Mexico, recall what one of the better 19th century presidents had to say:
QuoteGenerally the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation [of Texas] was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory. Texas was originally a state belonging to the republic of Mexico. . . . An empire in territory, it had but a very sparse population, until settled by Americans who had received authority from Mexico to colonize. These colonists paid very little attention to the supreme government, and introduced slavery into the state almost from the start, though the constitution of Mexico did not, nor does it now, sanction that institution. . . . The occupation, separation and annexation were, from the inception of the movement to its final consummation, a conspiracy to acquire territory out of which slave states might be formed for the American Union.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2021, 09:25:01 AM
No love for Polk, the Napoleon of the stump. :mad:
Also belongs nowhere near the list, nor even in the office.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2021, 09:45:05 AM
As for Manifest Destiny and the war with Mexico, recall what one of the better 19th century presidents had to say:
:)
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 09:34:45 AM
Sure. But I think the change in racial politics and how we view slavery and Manifest Destiny especially sink the few other successful 19th century presidents.
I think this is a shift even in the last 20 years. I don't think we would have articles now about a "Jacksonian moment" without quite a lot of caveats and contextualising.
Why do you won't think it won't change back to the progressive interpretation of history looking more on class terms (which tended to lionize Jefferson and Jackson as being against the more capitalist federalists/emergent whigs)? Or much more likely to some new paradigm?
Probably not in the next 10 years, but I'd bet on a new paradigm emerging before most of us die.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 09:44:13 AM
Quote from: The Larch on June 30, 2021, 09:38:47 AM
Duncan mentioned something similar on Twitter, he said that Jackson used to be a fixed presence at #5 in the past, but in recent days historians have dropped him off a cliff because of a change on how he's viewed and that has created a bit of a vacuum in the lower part of the Top 10.
Yeah - I think Jackson was the one I was thinking of, but I think there were a few late 19th century presidents who were pretty admired/respected. That may have been about other issues like taking on corruption etc - but I think is now probably overshadowed by expansion to the West and what that meant for the native Americans.
Similarly I think the Spanish-American War is now possibly viewed differently than it used to be?
Checking the rankings the ones that have gone down from the top positions in recent years are Wilson (used to be 6th in 2000, is now 13th), Polk (was 12th, is now 18th) and Andrew Jackson (was 13th, is now 22nd).
On the opposite sense, Eisenhower has climbed from 9th to 5th, Reagan from 11th to 9th, Monroe from 14th to 12th and Grant from 33rd to 20th.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2021, 09:47:29 AM
Why do you won't think it won't change back to the progressive interpretation of history looking more on class terms (which tended to lionize Jefferson and Jackson as being against the more capitalist federalists/emergent whigs)? Or much more likely to some new paradigm?
Probably not in the next 10 years, but I'd bet on a new paradigm emerging before most of us die.
Oh it definitely will. As I say I think it always reveals more about the present than anything about those presidents.
All I'm talking about is the foreseeable, but the future will be a different present with different frameworks and priorities in their analysis and have different conclusions for sure.
QuoteAs for Manifest Destiny and the war with Mexico, recall what one of the better 19th century presidents had to say:
Sorry - that's me using a wrong term. I meant the general colonisation of the West not just the Mexican-American which has always been controversial.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 09:44:13 AM
Similarly I think the Spanish-American War is now possibly viewed differently than it used to be?
The war itself was not horribly unjust; the follow up war against the Philippines was.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2021, 09:45:05 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 09:34:45 AM
Sure. But I think the change in racial politics and how we view slavery and Manifest Destiny especially sink the few other successful 19th century presidents.
I think this is a shift even in the last 20 years. I don't think we would have articles now about a "Jacksonian moment" without quite a lot of caveats and contextualising.
There was very fierce moral criticism of Polk and Jackson in their day. You don't need to invoke 21st century woke standards to criticize the DC slave trade and native genocide - that conduct that horrified many in the 1800s.
As for Manifest Destiny and the war with Mexico, recall what one of the better 19th century presidents had to say:
QuoteGenerally the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation [of Texas] was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory. Texas was originally a state belonging to the republic of Mexico. . . . An empire in territory, it had but a very sparse population, until settled by Americans who had received authority from Mexico to colonize. These colonists paid very little attention to the supreme government, and introduced slavery into the state almost from the start, though the constitution of Mexico did not, nor does it now, sanction that institution. . . . The occupation, separation and annexation were, from the inception of the movement to its final consummation, a conspiracy to acquire territory out of which slave states might be formed for the American Union.
That is a perspective that isn't untrue but it is also the case that the Texas Revolution was sparked by Santa Anna revoking the constitution of Mexico and half of the rest of Mexico also revolting.
Quote from: The Larch on June 30, 2021, 09:50:03 AM
On the opposite sense, Eisenhower has climbed from 9th to 5th, Reagan from 11th to 9th, Monroe from 14th to 12th and Grant from 33rd to 20th.
Ike and Reagan have benefitted from the modern GOP's descent into idiocy - which makes them look even stateman-like in comparison; for Reagan in particular it has taken some of the harder ideological edge off. Reagan's awful response to the AIDS crisis seems to have gone into the memory hole. His credit for handling the Cold War has been solidified into historical orthodoxy, which partly is deserved and partly is a failure by historians to use probabilistic reasoning (i.e. there is good reason to think that Reagan's conduct materially increased the risk of nuclear catastrophe in the 81-84 period which is a negative even if that bad outcome wasn't realized).
Monroe had the benefit of favorable domestic and foreign context and was good at not screwing up - he's the kind of guy that will always rise when others fall.
Grant is an interesting case. The corruption issues are not insubstantial but I suspect that historians may view the debate on civil service reform (where Grant was on the "wrong" side) in a more nuanced and contextual manner - in a similar way that present day analysts are rediscovering the virtues of pork-barrels and logrolling. Grant is probably benefitting (deservedly) from his principled defense of freedmen, and is not getting enough demerit on monetary policy in this second term.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2021, 10:11:32 AM
Ike and Reagan have benefitted from the modern GOP's descent into idiocy - which makes them look even stateman-like in comparison; for Reagan in particular it has taken some of the harder ideological edge off. Reagan's awful response to the AIDS crisis seems to have gone into the memory hole. His credit for handling the Cold War has been solidified into historical orthodoxy, which partly is deserved and partly is a failure by historians to use probabilistic reasoning (i.e. there is good reason to think that Reagan's conduct materially increased the risk of nuclear catastrophe in the 81-84 period which is a negative even if that bad outcome wasn't realized).
He's another one which I think will change - I see more about the AIDS crisis in recent years percolating into mainstream awareness. It used to be something that I think was fairly limited to LGBT writers/historians.
I think what you say will continue to mean he does well - plus I think historians don't want to basically rate every Republican since Ike (except for Bush I) negatively. I suspect in the future Reagan's response to AIDS will come more to the fore and his rating will drop.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2021, 09:55:01 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 09:44:13 AM
Similarly I think the Spanish-American War is now possibly viewed differently than it used to be?
The war itself was not horribly unjust
*grumble grumble* So what about Hearst? *grumble grumble* What about the Maine? *grumble grumble*
Quote from: The Larch on June 30, 2021, 10:21:58 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2021, 09:55:01 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 09:44:13 AM
Similarly I think the Spanish-American War is now possibly viewed differently than it used to be?
The war itself was not horribly unjust
*grumble grumble* So what about Hearst? *grumble grumble* What about the Maine? *grumble grumble*
I can see why you might see it differently :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2021, 10:26:18 AM
Quote from: The Larch on June 30, 2021, 10:21:58 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2021, 09:55:01 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 09:44:13 AM
Similarly I think the Spanish-American War is now possibly viewed differently than it used to be?
The war itself was not horribly unjust
*grumble grumble* So what about Hearst? *grumble grumble* What about the Maine? *grumble grumble*
I can see why you might see it differently :)
To be honest, I think that in the long term it was good for Spain to get whalopped in the Spanish - American War, as the short term trauma made for a relatively less traumatic XXth century, which already had plenty of grief in store for the country. Or maybe in some alt-history scenario Franco languished as a colonial officer in the Philippines instead of screwing around, so who knows.
The Generation of '98 writers were also fucking great.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 10:17:34 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2021, 10:11:32 AM
Ike and Reagan have benefitted from the modern GOP's descent into idiocy - which makes them look even stateman-like in comparison; for Reagan in particular it has taken some of the harder ideological edge off. Reagan's awful response to the AIDS crisis seems to have gone into the memory hole. His credit for handling the Cold War has been solidified into historical orthodoxy, which partly is deserved and partly is a failure by historians to use probabilistic reasoning (i.e. there is good reason to think that Reagan's conduct materially increased the risk of nuclear catastrophe in the 81-84 period which is a negative even if that bad outcome wasn't realized).
He's another one which I think will change - I see more about the AIDS crisis in recent years percolating into mainstream awareness. It used to be something that I think was fairly limited to LGBT writers/historians.
I think what you say will continue to mean he does well - plus I think historians don't want to basically rate every Republican since Ike (except for Bush I) negatively. I suspect in the future Reagan's response to AIDS will come more to the fore and his rating will drop.
Ive never understood any of what sober people would consider Reagans accomplishments.
Nobody serious, I don't think, would actually argue that the downfall of Communism was the result on anything as singular as who was President of the USA. I mean...that doesn't even make sense from the standpoint of the ideology of Reaganesque anti-communists! Isn't that entire argument that Communism simply does not work? If so, then it was doomed to fail no matter who was President of the USA.
So what exactly is it that Regan was so star spangled awesome at?
Back to the presidential rankings, I get that Lincoln is basically a civil saint in the country, but I wonder if any somehow critical read of his presidency has been made, as this ranking seems to basically give him top spots by default in all categories. I mean, was he really the best US president of all time in "Economic Management" or "Administrative Skills"?
Quote from: The Larch on June 30, 2021, 10:34:57 AM
Back to the presidential rankings, I get that Lincoln is basically a civil saint in the country, but I wonder if any somehow critical read of his presidency has been made, as this ranking seems to basically give him top spots by default in all categories. I mean, was he really the best US president of all time in "Economic Management" or "Administrative Skills"?
Yes, in both cases.
He managed the economy (or put people in charge to do so) of a nation in a civil war, that ended the civil war with the Union in better economic condition then when it started.
His management of his own cabinet, and creating an entire federal infrastructure at a scale that was at least an order of magnitude greater than what he came into the office with was nothing short of astounding.
I think he gets top marks in both categories, the latter moreso than the former.
Lincoln as a President, for me personally, went like this:
- I was young, and everyone said Lincoln was TEH BESTEST so ok, he was the bestest!
- I got older, and started forming my own opinions, and being older was inclined towards "Well, popular opinion is that Lincoln was TEH BESTEST and mostly people are dumb, so I bet he really wasn't that great!"
- I actually started reading a lot of history, but nothing super specific about the ACW, and there seemed to be a lot of consensus about Lincoln even among professionals....so hmmm. Maybe he really was pretty good?
- I got a ACW itch and read a lot about the conduct of the war, and revised to "Well damn - the Union had a pretty fucking tough road there, and they won despite some pretty terrible generals, and Lincoln sure seemed to know when to interfere and when to get out of the way....so I guess he was actually pretty good!"
- I spent some effort reading a few specific Lincoln biographies, and biogrpahies of other notable US CW decision makers, and realized that not only was the outcome of his leadership exceptional, the details of HOW he did what he did are fucking amazing. His political instincts were incredible, and more importantly, how he was able to use those instincts to manipulate the other political figures around him to achieve his goals was impressive. And finally, the fact that those goals he was manipulating them towards were genuinely aligned with his views on what was best for his country, rather then just himself personally, put him over the top, IMO.
The canonical great man at the right time, combined with humility and near perfect alignment of his personal views with the greater good of his society.
How good a painter was he?
Quote from: The Brain on June 30, 2021, 10:40:09 AM
How good a painter was he?
He could paint a house in 5 hours.
Quote from: The Larch on June 30, 2021, 09:39:49 AM
In case anyone wants to check the nitty gritty details of the rankings:
https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2021/ (https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2021/)
So most of Polk's drop is due to a dip in "performance in the context of his time" - seems like more historians are coming around to my own view in that. Same dynamic but going in the other direction with Grant.
Jackson went way down on "moral authority". Cant argue that one.
Reagan went up on crisis leadership and international relations, which isn't totally unreasonable, as long as one takes the view that a key problem in the 1980s Middle East was Iran not having enough weapons. Basically Ike and Reagan are going up in international relations at the expense of Wilson, Nixon, and John Adams. Defensible but not unarguable.
Monroe went up in admin skills - was there some new bio that justified this? I always thought of Monroe as a CEO model President with a strong cabinet.
Given the criteria the B Hussein Obama ranking isn't totally whacky. He ranks well in public persuasion, moral authority, pursues equal justice, and economic management - all justifiable. Does poorly in relations with Congress.
As for Harry S - somewhere the Pendergast machine is still alive and running a protection racket on academic historians.
Quote from: PDH on June 30, 2021, 10:46:36 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 30, 2021, 10:40:09 AM
How good a painter was he?
He could paint a house in 5 hours.
Pathetic. This took me less than a minute.
(https://i.ibb.co/5MRRNdq/House.jpg)
Quote from: The Larch on June 30, 2021, 10:34:57 AM
I mean, was he really the best US president of all time in "Economic Management" or "Administrative Skills"?
The best? - hard to say - but he did really well in both areas.
Quote from: The Brain on June 30, 2021, 10:40:09 AM
How good a painter was he?
OK but not as good as Hitler.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2021, 10:49:56 AM
Given the criteria the B Hussein Obama ranking isn't totally whacky. He ranks well in public persuasion, moral authority, pursues equal justice, and economic management - all justifiable. Does poorly in relations with Congress.
If the US ends up with a single payer health system eventually (and I think it will) Obama's place in history, fair or otherwise, will be as the President who that started.
Quote
As for Harry S - somewhere the Pendergast machine is still alive and running a protection racket on academic historians.
I think Truman was a damn good President, again, working in a very, very tough time.
He managed the end of WW2 about as well as could be expected of anyone in his position, and no matter what else he did, he fucking fired MacArthur. So he will always be somewhere in the top...25%? Just for that alone.
Did he fire MacArthur in cold blood?
On economic management who are the viable candidates?
Washington - basically a proxy of one's view about the Hamiltonian program
Lincoln - the Southern economy collapsed during the war, the North came out even stronger than before. The Northern war economy funnelled enormous resources to over 2 million men fighting across the continent yet he still found the time to push forward the trans-continental railroad, land grant universities, the Homestead act, and the national banking system. Not too shabby.
FDR - polarizing choice. Inherited very bad conditions and attacked them more energetically then his predecessors, but not always effectively.
Clinton - macro numbers were excellent.
If you guys want to stay on your public health kick and knock down Reagan for HIV/AIDS, it seems Clinton should be the GOAT because of his anti smoking efforts.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2021, 11:18:50 AM
On economic management who are the viable candidates?
Washington - basically a proxy of one's view about the Hamiltonian program
It was a quantum leap forward.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2021, 11:23:39 AM
If you guys want to stay on your public health kick and knock down Reagan for HIV/AIDS, it seems Clinton should be the GOAT because of his anti smoking efforts.
Was that Clinton, or just something that happened on his watch?
What did Truman do with the buck btw?
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 11:42:39 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2021, 11:23:39 AM
If you guys want to stay on your public health kick and knock down Reagan for HIV/AIDS, it seems Clinton should be the GOAT because of his anti smoking efforts.
Was that Clinton, or just something that happened on his watch?
Clinton. Republicans wouldn't have supported such aggressive anti-smoking efforts.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2021, 11:59:42 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 11:42:39 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2021, 11:23:39 AM
If you guys want to stay on your public health kick and knock down Reagan for HIV/AIDS, it seems Clinton should be the GOAT because of his anti smoking efforts.
Was that Clinton, or just something that happened on his watch?
Clinton. Republicans wouldn't have supported such aggressive anti-smoking efforts.
Then he certainly deserves a lot of credit for that. Probably saved a lot of lives.
I wonder though if that was just him recognizing that this was were the culture was going, and he could jump on board, or how much he drove the change? I guess that is a question for really all of these accomplishments.
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 10:33:47 AM
Ive never understood any of what sober people would consider Reagans accomplishments.
Nobody serious, I don't think, would actually argue that the downfall of Communism was the result on anything as singular as who was President of the USA. I mean...that doesn't even make sense from the standpoint of the ideology of Reaganesque anti-communists! Isn't that entire argument that Communism simply does not work? If so, then it was doomed to fail no matter who was President of the USA.
So what exactly is it that Regan was so star spangled awesome at?
What was Reagan awesome at?
First of all you can't ignore just what a great communicator he was. He had a simple ease and charisma about him. He also came into office with a very specific agenda and was generally pretty good at implementing it.
The economy. He oversaw going from 70s stagflation to a really strong economy a few years later. Yes we always put too much emphasis on the ability of the President to influence the economy, but that goes for all other Presidents as well. After the 1982 recession he saw 6 further years of strong GDP growth and a steep decline in interest rates.
He reformed the tax code, reducing the number of brackets and cutting taxes for most Americans. You can argue about the need for tax cuts in 2017 when Trump did it, but not so much in 1986 when they were substantially higher.
The cold war (which you focused on). Yes, the USSR probably would have gone away on its own, but he hastened the fall (and given the moral disaster that was the USSR that's undoubtedly a good thing to free people sooner).
Despite being a Russia hawk, it should also be remembered that he helped thaw relations with Gorbachev and signed one arms deal and started negotiating another.
He signed comprehensive immigration reform (the last time that has been accomplished) which legalized millions of illegal immigrants already in the country while simultaneously trying to increase enforcement.
HIs negatives? Critics point to his response to AIDS but I don't know that any other world leaders put much emphasis on that disease. The other was Iran-Contra, which I have very little doubt he was aware of at least in an overall sense. I can sympathise with what he was trying to do (fight the Sandanistas), but the method he chose to do so was illegal and foolish.
FInally he's ranked 9th out of 45. That's a good but not great ranking, which seems to me to be about right.
After reading Hamilton I'll never be able to think of Jefferson positively again.
Similarly I think Grant deserves more props.
Love me some Truman.
One thing this list made me think though, is what a bunch of mediocrity we've had in the White House.
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 12:23:48 PM
HIs negatives? Critics point to his response to AIDS but I don't know that any other world leaders put much emphasis on that disease. The other was Iran-Contra, which I have very little doubt he was aware of at least in an overall sense. I can sympathise with what he was trying to do (fight the Sandanistas), but the method he chose to do so was illegal and foolish.
His record on AIDS is really bad compared to Maggie Thatcher who was not exactly a bleeding heart dances with homosexuals kind of leader.
Edit: Also I think Volcker is key to the move from stagflation which was a Carter appointment that Reagan sort of got the benefit of. I think at least part of the credit for the end of stagflation needs to go to Carter.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2021, 12:32:19 PM
After reading Hamilton I'll never be able to think of Jefferson positively again.
Similarly I think Grant deserves more props.
Love me some Truman.
One thing this list made me think though, is what a bunch of mediocrity we've had in the White House.
I was quickly perusing Reagan's legacy to make sure I didn't get any details wrong. What was striking is how many major bills he was able to get passed, often with broad bipartisan support. I think that's just because of the era he was in - later Presidents just haven't had that opportunity.
Reagan did a great job dealing with the stagflation issue, with some very rough and difficult short term economic pain. Taking a principled and risky stand in the service of actual coherent ideas with some scholarship behind them is something that no Republican has done ever since. I was a huge fan at the time, as a young kid who was carried away by Reagan's image, but even today I have to admire that. Lots of his other policies look really bad in retrospect but that was admirable.
One thing that definitely bothered me at the time, and looks increasingly horrible as time goes on, was his cultivation and deference to religious fanatics.
One of the chief achievements that he did was restoring public confidence in American institutions after the cynicism of the 1970s but man the outcome of that has been an even deeper and more damaging crisis of confidence since then. I kind of look back that 1970s with envy these days.
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 12:34:22 PM
I was quickly perusing Reagan's legacy to make sure I didn't get any details wrong. What was striking is how many major bills he was able to get passed, often with broad bipartisan support. I think that's just because of the era he was in - later Presidents just haven't had that opportunity.
The positive spin is that he was a great schmoozer a la Johnson. The negative spin is that he bribed Tip O'Neil and Kennedy with the Big Dig.
I also give most of the credit in the economic sphere to Volcker.
I argued long and hard with Marty when he was here about Reagan and AIDS. Funding for research skyrocketed. The principle indictment was he didn't air public service announcements to tell people something they already knew, which was that unprotected butt sex could give you AIDS.
I can most certainly ignore what a great communicator he was, because being a great communicator is not an accoplishment. It is a useful tool, but only a tool.
He used that tool to promote a economic viewpoint that is demonstrably toxic.
I mean...Hitler was a great communicator. Jim Jones was an amazingly great communicator. Being able to communicate your ideas well is an amazing skill, but it isn't an accomplishment. What you do with that skill is the accomplishment.
Economy. You say that we put too much emphasis on the President, then turn around and insist we put all the emphasis on the President? Huh?
He did cut services to the poor effectively, so he has that going for him for sure, and he was able to make the rich a LOT richer, but I don't see those as accomplishments, personally. Nor do I agree that making poor people more poor and rich people more rich is what triggered the economic growth after he wildly whacked away randomly at the tax code in his first couple of years.
I know the right wing story is that he "hastened the fall" of the USSR. And maybe he did by spending a shitload of money on missiles that the USSR felt a need to match. But I think that is FAR from an agreed upon narrative among actual historians, and even if we accept that it is accurate, if anything, he did it by accident. He did not promote building more ICBMs and tanks because he thought that would force the USSR to match it and then hasten its economic collapse. Rather, he thought more tanks and planes and ICBMs were a good thing just because he thought having lots of them were a good idea on their own merits. He never once said anything like "Build some more tanks and planes because the USSR will be forced to match it and that will cause them to collapse!"
He did sign immigration reform, I will give him that.
I am appalled at the idea that since other leaders probably did not emphasize HIV/AIDS we should give the US President a pass on actively and willfully ignoring it. I think he will rightly be villified to his role in how the epidemic was handled in the US. The US does not take our lead from "other world leaders", nor should we.
He does not deserve to be in the top 20, much less the top ten. His ranking is based on right wing mythology, not any actual sober analysis of his Presidency.
And the long term effects of his cultural ideas around homosexuality and his using those amazing communication skills to create a generation of anti-progress hatred of the government that has directly led to right wing embrace of anti-science and anti-climate policies cannot be over-stated.
Reagan ignored HIV because his religious fundamentalist base was cheering that God's judgement was being done. Ok now is that actually true? I don't know but it sure seemed like it.
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2021, 12:47:07 PM
Reagan ignored HIV because his religious fundamentalist base was cheering that God's judgement was being done. Ok now is that actually true? I don't know but it sure seemed like it.
I remember the rationale given at the time was that public service announcements about homosex would be inappropriate for children.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2021, 12:44:05 PMI argued long and hard with Marty when he was here about Reagan and AIDS. Funding for research skyrocketed. The principle indictment was he didn't air public service announcements to tell people something they already knew, which was that unprotected butt sex could give you AIDS.
Have you read The Band Played On? I'd recommend it on the failure of the Federal government (and other bits of government) in their response. It's far more than public service announcements.
But they were important because people didn't know what caused AIDS. That was part of the entire issue and led to the really tragic treatment of people dying with people wearing full PPE, or isolating patients, or wrapping bodies in bin bags - because they didn't know how it was caught. And part of that failure was actually precisely the inability of the government to say "anal sex" or "semen and blood", instead relying on the euphemism of "bodily fluids" which also had the impact on ostracisation of gay people. The focus was on "high risk" categories of people and then euphemism - but there was a genuine fear of using the same toilet as a gay person or hugging them because "bodily fluids" may well mean urine or saliva or tears.
And the emphasis of Reagan's administration was protecting "innocent victims" of AIDS - which didn't include gays, drug users or Haitians.
On the research point alone - the early years it was some administrators in the Federal government squirreling for research money and re-directing it from other programs as and when they could. The later funding was secured by appropriations bills in Congress - primarily with Henry Waxman and Ted Kennedy doing incredible work - not through Reagan or his budget requests which consistently the AIDS funding disproportionately, but the CDC/health research more generally. But Congress was appropriating funds specifically for AIDS research - and there were points where they had to really aggressively push the administration to spend it - from 1983 onwards, but 1983 is four years after the first cases in the US.
If you see personnel as policy - certainly appropriate for a hands off details guy like Reagan - then he gets credit for Baker and Brady at Treasury (the tax reform deal and the international debt relief plan) and Schultz at State. But then there is Watt, Meese, Deaver, Poindexter, Gorsuch, Stockman - overall it isn't quite Trump level awful but it ain't great either. If your big claim to fame is security and international affairs but somehow Oliver North becomes a big player in admin policy execution, something has gone awry.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2021, 12:48:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2021, 12:47:07 PM
Reagan ignored HIV because his religious fundamentalist base was cheering that God's judgement was being done. Ok now is that actually true? I don't know but it sure seemed like it.
I remember the rationale given at the time was that public service announcements about homosex would be inappropriate for children.
And right now in a by-election in this country there's a candidate who is pandering to Muslim fundamentalists on LGBT issues. It isn't because they're religious fundamentalists - he just thinks it is wrong to "teach children about anal sex".
It's the same rationale for Section 28 in the UK, for Putin's anti-LGBT law (against the "promotion of homosexuality to children") and Orban's. We tend to be better at calling it out when it's further from home.
Edit: Incidentally I would note that the US Surgeon General at the time, Everett Koop, was a very conservative Christian - who took time off his career to become a full time anti-abortion activist. However he recognised the fact that AIDS was a medical risk and issue. His response was probably the start of any significant movement by the Administration. He saw it as a public health issue and thought that people needed to know real information about it. He is really important and did very good work. That only started in 1986 - he has since said that he was trying to work on AIDS and wanted to do more from his appointment in 1982 because he thought it was a public health crisis primarily not a moral one but was prevented for political reasons.
Well, the 80s were the age of moral panics and "won't somebody think of the children" kind of scandals after all. I don't think anyone misses that.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2021, 01:04:11 PM
If you see personnel as policy - certainly appropriate for a hands off details guy like Reagan - then he gets credit for Baker and Brady at Treasury (the tax reform deal and the international debt relief plan) and Schultz at State. But then there is Watt, Meese, Deaver, Poindexter, Gorsuch, Stockman - overall it isn't quite Trump level awful but it ain't great either. If your big claim to fame is security and international affairs but somehow Oliver North becomes a big player in admin policy execution, something has gone awry.
Yeah I was fans of Baker and Brady. It was my expectation that guys like that would be back in charge that had me cautiously optimistic about Dubya. Sigh.
Quote from: The Larch on June 30, 2021, 01:07:05 PM
Well, the 80s were the age of moral panics and "won't somebody think of the children" kind of scandals after all. I don't think anyone misses that.
Here in the US it was all about Satan. Satanic cults and Satanic panic. And all that is back with Q Anon! Yeah!
Ironically the biggest danger to children at the time was the Christian Churches, might have been a bit of projection going on.
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2021, 01:09:37 PM
Quote from: The Larch on June 30, 2021, 01:07:05 PM
Well, the 80s were the age of moral panics and "won't somebody think of the children" kind of scandals after all. I don't think anyone misses that.
Here in the US it was all about Satan.
And AIDS being called "the gay plague".
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 01:02:29 PM
But they were important because people didn't know what caused AIDS. That was part of the entire issue and led to the really tragic treatment of people dying with people wearing full PPE, or isolating patients, or wrapping bodies in bin bags - because they didn't know how it was caught. And part of that failure was actually precisely the inability of the government to say "anal sex" or "semen and blood", instead relying on the euphemism of "bodily fluids" which also had the impact on ostracisation of gay people. The focus was on "high risk" categories of people and then euphemism - but there was a genuine fear of using the same toilet as a gay person or hugging them because "bodily fluids" may well mean urine or saliva or tears.
Are you claiming there was a time when the government knew exactly how it was transmitted and declined to share this information with hospitals?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2021, 01:23:31 PM
Are you claiming there was a time when the government knew exactly how it was transmitted and declined to share this information with hospitals?
No. I don't know where you'd get that from, or how it's relevant given that hospitals weren't a major transmission vector.
Edit: From Everett Koop's profile on the NIH website - this is 1986:
QuoteConcerned that an in-depth review by Reagan's domestic policy advisers would lead to the removal of crucial public health information from the report, such as on condom use, Koop submitted numbered copies of the final draft to the Domestic Policy Council, which he collected at the end of the meeting with the explanation that he sought to prevent leaks of the report to the media. The stratagem was successful: after little debate and without further revision Koop released the report at a press conference on October 22, 1986. Twenty million copies were eventually distributed to the public by members of Congress, public health organizations, and Parent-Teacher Associations. In plain language the 36-page report discussed the nature of AIDS, its modes of transmission, risk factors for contracting the disease, and ways in which people could protect themselves, including use of condoms.
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 12:44:58 PM
And the long term effects of his cultural ideas around homosexuality and his using those amazing communication skills to create a generation of anti-progress hatred of the government that has directly led to right wing embrace of anti-science and anti-climate policies cannot be over-stated.
Yeah, I think we're done here.
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 01:25:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 12:44:58 PM
And the long term effects of his cultural ideas around homosexuality and his using those amazing communication skills to create a generation of anti-progress hatred of the government that has directly led to right wing embrace of anti-science and anti-climate policies cannot be over-stated.
Yeah, I think we're done here.
If only :weep:
It just keeps going on and on.
and I got shit for saying that our current stagnation is the intended results of the Regean policies.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 01:02:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2021, 12:44:05 PMI argued long and hard with Marty when he was here about Reagan and AIDS. Funding for research skyrocketed. The principle indictment was he didn't air public service announcements to tell people something they already knew, which was that unprotected butt sex could give you AIDS.
Have you read The Band Played On? I'd recommend it on the failure of the Federal government (and other bits of government) in their response. It's far more than public service announcements.
I would have thought that the last 18 months would have taught us how difficult it is to deal with a novel viral pandemic.
And HIV was dramatically more complex to figure out than Covid. Covid is a coronavirus, a very common type of virus well understood. HIV is a retrovirus which were only really discovered by the 60s-70s.
Quotedying with people wearing full PPE, or isolating patients, or wrapping bodies in bin bags
Was this commonly done by non-hospital organizations?
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 01:31:19 PMI would have thought that the last 18 months would have taught us how difficult it is to deal with a novel viral pandemic.
And HIV was dramatically more complex to figure out than Covid. Covid is a coronavirus, a very common type of virus well understood. HIV is a retrovirus which were only really discovered by the 60s-70s.
Have you read the book? I really recommend it.
The point is that it really doesn't look that they struggled to deal with AIDS because it was difficult and novel pandemic is complicated, but because they didn't want to because of the people who it killed. And that isn't just the administration, it's also the media - the NYT were incredibly reluctant to cover it despite New York being one of the global epicentres of AIDS. People didn't want to work on a gay disease for fear they'd be pigeon-holed on gay issues which was a dead end whether your careers was politics, research, federal bureaucracy, media or whatever else. It took a long time - until the mid-80s before the magnitude of what was happening even started to outweigh reluctance to address it.
Quote from: The Brain on June 30, 2021, 01:31:39 PM
Quotedying with people wearing full PPE, or isolating patients, or wrapping bodies in bin bags
Was this commonly done by non-hospital organizations?
It was done in hospitals - I understand it was also done in Europe. But loved ones were told to pick up the body and there were cases were it was literally just dumped on the floor wrapped in bin bags because people were afraid to touch the corpse.
I think it wasn't done by other organisations necessarily - my understanding is that the hospice movement developed and learned hugely during the AIDS crisis. One of the community responses in LGBT communities around the world was caring for the dying which, especially in the early years, was done with more compassion and less fear than in the hospital sadly. It is a bit of a trope of the art around AIDS - and it was, like the families rejecting someone on their deathbed, relatively and thankfully rare - but it did happen in the early years.
Again I think if the communication was clear to everyone even within healthcare that the risk wasn't "bodily fluids" but "semen and blood" I do think that changes things.
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 01:25:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 12:44:58 PM
And the long term effects of his cultural ideas around homosexuality and his using those amazing communication skills to create a generation of anti-progress hatred of the government that has directly led to right wing embrace of anti-science and anti-climate policies cannot be over-stated.
Yeah, I think we're done here.
I thought it was very apt.
Quote from: Jacob on June 30, 2021, 01:48:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 01:25:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 12:44:58 PM
And the long term effects of his cultural ideas around homosexuality and his using those amazing communication skills to create a generation of anti-progress hatred of the government that has directly led to right wing embrace of anti-science and anti-climate policies cannot be over-stated.
Yeah, I think we're done here.
I thought it was very apt.
You would.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 01:25:27 PM
No. I don't know where you'd get that from, or how it's relevant given that hospitals weren't a major transmission vector.
I got that from this:
"But they were important because people didn't know what caused AIDS. That was part of the entire issue and led to the really tragic treatment of people dying with people wearing full PPE, or isolating patients, or wrapping bodies in bin bags - because they didn't know how it was caught. "
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 01:41:17 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 30, 2021, 01:31:39 PM
Quotedying with people wearing full PPE, or isolating patients, or wrapping bodies in bin bags
Was this commonly done by non-hospital organizations?
It was done in hospitals - I understand it was also done in Europe. But loved ones were told to pick up the body and there were cases were it was literally just dumped on the floor wrapped in bin bags because people were afraid to touch the corpse.
I think it wasn't done by other organisations necessarily - my understanding is that the hospice movement developed and learned hugely during the AIDS crisis. One of the community responses in LGBT communities around the world was caring for the dying which, especially in the early years, was done with more compassion and less fear than in the hospital sadly. It is a bit of a trope of the art around AIDS - and it was, like the families rejecting someone on their deathbed, relatively and thankfully rare - but it did happen in the early years.
Again I think if the communication was clear to everyone even within healthcare that the risk wasn't "bodily fluids" but "semen and blood" I do think that changes things.
But the information from the government to hospitals was clear, if I understand your response to Yi correctly.
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 01:51:45 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 30, 2021, 01:48:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 01:25:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 12:44:58 PM
And the long term effects of his cultural ideas around homosexuality and his using those amazing communication skills to create a generation of anti-progress hatred of the government that has directly led to right wing embrace of anti-science and anti-climate policies cannot be over-stated.
Yeah, I think we're done here.
I thought it was very apt.
You would.
I thought it was apt enough as well.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2021, 01:52:00 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 01:25:27 PM
No. I don't know where you'd get that from, or how it's relevant given that hospitals weren't a major transmission vector.
I got that from this:
"But they were important because people didn't know what caused AIDS. That was part of the entire issue and led to the really tragic treatment of people dying with people wearing full PPE, or isolating patients, or wrapping bodies in bin bags - because they didn't know how it was caught. "
Oh Okay. I don't know how they communicated to hospitals. But the CDC mainly published their developing understanding in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, through the early 80s they are clearly narrowing in on it being something to do with sex and blood primarily. That's confirmed in 1982.
They hold one public meeting on this finding (but don't reach any conclusions) in early 1983 - I believe that's the first time the CDC released information except through MMWR. Through 1983 there is lots of engagement - but it is with blood banks and the plasma industry and also publich helath bodies of different states with the focus of "how do we protect the blood supply". In particular how to protect haemophiliacs.
As far as I'm aware there was no similar engagement or campaign to inform hospitals or public health bodies from the perspective of how is it transmitted, how do stop people from transmitting and how do we behave towards the people who are ill. So my understanding is the information was available - and so it had been "shared", but I don' t think it had been actively shared.
I don't know if this is the case in the US - but in lots of Europe AIDS cases really kick off a little bit later and there are examples of hospitals behaving in that way after the late 82/early 83 confirmation that sex and blood were the two key vectors.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 02:02:50 PM
As far as I'm aware there was no similar engagement or campaign to inform hospitals or public health bodies from the perspective of how is it transmitted, how do stop people from transmitting and how do we behave towards the people who are ill. So my understanding is the information was available - and so it had been "shared", but I don' t think it had been actively shared.
We return to the fact that there were no public service announcements about the danger of unprotected anal sex.
Now as I said before it seemed like common knowledge at the time. Relatively quickly I knew, and everyone I knew knew, that unprotected anal sex was a BAD IDEA. (Only later did we learn that unprotected anal sex between two straight people that didn't share needles was not such a bad idea after all.)
You bring up the toilet seats and door knobs. My personal recollection is that only kooks thought that way, and 24 hours a day of public service announcements wouldn't have changed their minds.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2021, 02:21:07 PM
We return to the fact that there were no public service announcements about the danger of unprotected anal sex.
Now as I said before it seemed like common knowledge at the time. Relatively quickly I knew, and everyone I knew knew, that unprotected anal sex was a BAD IDEA. (Only later did we learn that unprotected anal sex between two straight people that didn't share needles was not such a bad idea after all.)
You bring up the toilet seats and door knobs. My personal recollection is that only kooks thought that way, and 24 hours a day of public service announcements wouldn't have changed their minds.
When are you talking about in terms of your memories?
And we return to this point - because it's what you've asked about. I'm happy to also dig out the information on funding and research and bureaucratic infighting to avoid being responsible for AIDS if you want to talk about those points as well. But I would largely be citing The Band Played On which is, as I say, a genuinely very good read on this and very informative. Some of its points and perspectives are wrong - especially the whole Patient Zero strand - but most of it is still valuable.
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 01:51:45 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 30, 2021, 01:48:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 01:25:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 12:44:58 PM
And the long term effects of his cultural ideas around homosexuality and his using those amazing communication skills to create a generation of anti-progress hatred of the government that has directly led to right wing embrace of anti-science and anti-climate policies cannot be over-stated.
Yeah, I think we're done here.
I thought it was very apt.
You would.
Well, I hazard to say most would think it was apt.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 02:28:00 PM
When are you talking about in terms of your memories?
I can't give you a timeline.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2021, 02:32:15 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 02:28:00 PM
When are you talking about in terms of your memories?
I can't give you a timeline.
But roughly when?
I don't mean dates or anything :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 02:33:05 PM
But roughly when?
I don't mean dates or anything :lol:
I attended college from 81 to 85. AIDS was always at least a lurking issue. At the beginning it was a terrifying issue.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2021, 02:34:55 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 02:33:05 PM
But roughly when?
I don't mean dates or anything :lol:
I attended college from 81 to 85. AIDS was always at least a lurking issue. At the beginning it was a terrifying issue.
In 81? I don't think so. I can't remember the year it became public knowledge but it was later than that. I do clearly recall it being described as something that only afflicted homosexuals and a lot of right wing evangelicals saying it was God's punishment for being gay.
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 01:31:19 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 01:02:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2021, 12:44:05 PMI argued long and hard with Marty when he was here about Reagan and AIDS. Funding for research skyrocketed. The principle indictment was he didn't air public service announcements to tell people something they already knew, which was that unprotected butt sex could give you AIDS.
Have you read The Band Played On? I'd recommend it on the failure of the Federal government (and other bits of government) in their response. It's far more than public service announcements.
I would have thought that the last 18 months would have taught us how difficult it is to deal with a novel viral pandemic.
And HIV was dramatically more complex to figure out than Covid. Covid is a coronavirus, a very common type of virus well understood. HIV is a retrovirus which were only really discovered by the 60s-70s.
Nobody expected Reagan to go stroll into the CDC and figure out AIDS.
He was expected to give it the attention it deserved, and the attention the health officials and scientists were asking for it to get, rather then laughing it off as the "gay plague" and not giving a shit.
That is not "difficult" to do.
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 01:25:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 12:44:58 PM
And the long term effects of his cultural ideas around homosexuality and his using those amazing communication skills to create a generation of anti-progress hatred of the government that has directly led to right wing embrace of anti-science and anti-climate policies cannot be over-stated.
Yeah, I think we're done here.
You provided the right wing, conservative mythology of Reagan.
I picked it apart rather thoroughly.
You then chose to only respond to that last bit where I put forth the humanist, science based evaluation of Reagan.
We are "done" because you don't like to think about how your support for things has actual, real world consequences.
There are arguments to be made about that last sentence, to be sure. Reasonable arguments, in fact.
But no actual historian outside the right wing world (and no, the world of "not-right wing" is NOT left wing) subscribes to the story of Reagan as you told it.
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 02:47:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 01:25:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 12:44:58 PM
And the long term effects of his cultural ideas around homosexuality and his using those amazing communication skills to create a generation of anti-progress hatred of the government that has directly led to right wing embrace of anti-science and anti-climate policies cannot be over-stated.
Yeah, I think we're done here.
You provided the right wing, conservative mythology of Reagan.
I picked it apart rather thoroughly.
(https://i.giphy.com/media/THUyCyf1nekNIaoOw5/200.webp)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2021, 02:34:55 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 02:33:05 PM
But roughly when?
I don't mean dates or anything :lol:
I attended college from 81 to 85. AIDS was always at least a lurking issue. At the beginning it was a terrifying issue.
Okay so I think you may be unconsciously projecting knowledge/views back especially for the early years.
I mean in 1981 it was starting to be reported in the gay press but - as The Band Played On notes - in that year there 3 articles (deep in the paper) about AIDS in the NYT. It was by then already the global epicentre of infections and deaths.
As I say the CDC really narrowed in on how it was spreading in 1982, it was known in 1983 but there wasn't a campaign for people to know about it (or to the extent it was - it was local public health people putting stuff together which happened in San Francisco especialy). So to be aware in those years would mean you were more on top of this than the sort of activist-y people in the LGBT communities of NY and San Francisco reading every article they could find - Gay Men's Health Crisis was only founded in mid-1982.
There is incredibly limited coverage until the mid-80s. The news breaking about Rock Hudson's diagnosis changed the landscape and reporting hugely in early 1985. In that year you started to have front page - but the US media seemed to move from broad indifference to not particularly informative panic, for example this famous frong page:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_YGeU2nHmk9U%2FR__kXe5uL5I%2FAAAAAAAAA3A%2FvzmSdpGMgcw%2Fs400%2FLife%2C%2BNow%2Bno%2Bone%2Bis%2Bsafe%2Bfrom%2BAIDS.jpg&hash=b5e76703a6ddc618ee249d65f9aa18c9a438cd65)
There was a similar piece in Time about "now the disease has moved out of the closet, how far will it spread?" and again it's using euphemisms:
QuoteBut most of these explanations were abandoned as evidence grew that AIDS was caused by an infectious agent that could be passed from one person to another through sexual contact or in body fluids. The evidence included a "cluster" of nine patients in and around Los Angeles; each had had sex with people who later developed AIDS-related diseases. It was bolstered by the growing number of intravenous drug users infected by the disease. Addicts share germs when they share needles. Then came the clincher: cases of AIDS in hemophiliacs and later in recipients of donor blood. The pattern resembled that of hepatitis B, a blood-borne and sexually transmissible virus that is common among drug addicts, blood recipients and gay men. AIDS cases among Haitian men and women remained a puzzle until it was discovered that many of the men, though not homosexually inclined, had warded off destitution by serving as prostitutes to gay men. Earlier this year, Haitians were dropped by the CDC as a separate risk category for AIDS.
[...]
Just how immediate a threat AIDS poses to heterosexuals is much debated. The fact is, nobody knows. "There is nothing about the biology of the virus to lead us to think anyone is immune solely on the basis of the type of sexual partner," says Volberding of San Francisco General. "Heterosexuals are clearly at risk of acquiring the disease from sexual contact." The Burk family of Cresson, Pa., is a sad case in point. Patrick, 27, a hemophiliac, contracted AIDS from a contaminated batch of blood-clotting factor, which he requires to control his condition. His wife Lauren, 24, has since developed ARC and apparently passed the virus on to their 15-month-old son Dwight, most likely during her pregnancy. Daughter Nicole, 4, is the only one in the family left untouched by the disease.
It's not clear. It's squeamish and euphemistic - and the same article has the story of a doctor who treated AIDS patients being evicted by the condo board because of the fear that he might infect them. So I don't think it was fully limited to kooks. That's in 1985.
Edit: Incidentally - the Medical reporter for the NYT did an interview with the Atlantic which touched on a lot of this:
QuoteCari Romm: What went into reporting that first story in 1981?
Lawrence Altman: When I came to work with the Times, I had time to practice medicine as well as write. In the spring of 1981, I had finished a tour at Bellevue [Hospital] and NYU ... It was just at the time when they had shot Reagan and shot the Pope. I had been intending to write about AIDS in the spring, but had to postpone it because of covering the assassination attempts. The first story I wrote was July of '81. [In June], there was a report in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report published by the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention].
Making rounds at NYU, I'd seen cases—what was apparent in New York at the time was the preponderance of Kaposi's sarcoma [a cancer often associated with AIDS]. AIDS didn't have any name at that point as a disease, and the immune deficiency was only just beginning to be recognized. But there were a sizeable group of cases in gay men that were being reported. I'd also seen cases of generalized lymphadenopathy, the lymph nodes enlarged throughout the body. We had several patients with that, and in retrospect, they were developing HIV, but we didn't know that at the time. That would have been in 1978, '79, maybe '80.
Romm: And how was your article received when it came out?
Altman: In The Village Voice, there was an article blasting me for ruining the gays' [sic] July 4 weekend over something that had no good reason. [Ed. note: The Village Voice article, as Altman quoted in one of his own stories here, described "the despicable attempt of The New York Times to wreck the July 4 holiday break for every homosexual in the Northeast."] There may have been panic among a small group, but in the general readership, I don't think it caused a huge amount of excitement. The gay community was aware of something going on, and of the fact that there was a newspaper article about it. I'm sure it heightened anxiety, but I don't believe that it created any more anxiety than existed beforehand.
Romm: When did the tone shift? When did people start reporting AIDS as a big deal?
Altman: Rock Hudson's case [in 1985] made a lot of people who were following entertainment and celebrities and so forth aware of the disease. Some people have marked that as the point. I guess that's as good as any to say that more people were aware of it. Certainly, for the first few years of coverage, there were people I met who didn't know anything about the disease, Kaposi's, the hunt for the cause. I don't know if there were any more [of them] in New York than elsewhere, but I traveled frequently as part of my job, and I know I ran into people who hadn't paid attention to it or weren't aware of the importance of it at that time.
[...]
Romm: What do you mean by "denial mechanism"?
Altman: Early on, it became apparent through epidemiologists and the CDC that the agent—it wasn't known as a virus then—that the agent that was causing the cases could be spread through blood transfusions and blood products, but the blood-bank officials originally refused to believe that. They were dealing with small numbers at the time, but the small numbers were statistically significant and important, and that was an element of denial in that branch of the medical community.
[When the disease was still appearing mostly in gay men], there would be some members in the gay community who would get sick and show symptoms, and others who didn't. And they were trying to determine, "Well, okay, why wasn't I affected?" or, "This can only affect other people and it isn't something that's going to affect me." There was that aspect to the denial. There was denial that it was an infectious disease ... And until it began to be reported in women [in 1982], there were people who said, "Well, I'm not gay, so this won't affect me. Why is this a public-health problem?" without recognizing at the time that there was a virus, and that virus could be spread through blood transfusions and "bodily fluids" as the phrase became known.
Romm: Were you able to get more specific than "bodily fluids"? What terminology could you use to talk about how the virus was transmitted?
Altman: I think "bodily fluids" was used for quite a while. The journalism community was behind for quite a while in not being more specific about what "bodily fluids" meant. But also, public-health officials weren't explicit in what they meant by "bodily fluids." It was a time when the words "penis," "vagina," "sperm," "intercourse," "rectal intercourse"—those terms weren't part of the everyday public vocabulary. They may have been in private, but it wasn't as it is today. The phrase was, morning newspapers were "breakfast-table newspapers" and they were careful of the language that they used. It wasn't just the Times—I'm talking about journalism. That changed as the cases started mounting and it became more apparent as a public-health problem.
Romm: How did the terminology used to talk about the disease itself change? When did AIDS become the name?
Altman: There were various names before AIDS was used. There was GRID, for Gay-Related Immune Deficiency. I'm not sure that anybody knows who came up with the phrase AIDS. It stands for Acquired Immune-Deficiency Syndrome, that's clear, but I don't know that anybody has ever pinned down exactly who proposed it. Those things probably get lost in the hurly-burly of everyday working when things are hectic.
I think it just evolved. GRID came up fairly early as a name and then got dropped, and AIDS first came [in a CDC report in 1982]. It became AIDS from then on. The scientists recognized that it could affect more than gay men and that [GRID] wasn't an accurate term. It was insulting to gay men, given the fact that the virus was affecting other people.
Romm: How do you think public interest has changed over the years?
Altman: There were complaints that AIDS was getting too much attention early on at the expense of other diseases. But when you're dealing with a communicable disease, there's probably going to be a disproportionate amount of attention in news media, because that's something people can take action on and do something about.
[...]
The tax reform in 1986 was a big deal. It isn't just the rate reduction--it really overhauled the tax code and basically set up the regime we have today (at least in terms of personal taxes--less so for corporate).
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 02:50:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 02:47:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 01:25:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 12:44:58 PM
And the long term effects of his cultural ideas around homosexuality and his using those amazing communication skills to create a generation of anti-progress hatred of the government that has directly led to right wing embrace of anti-science and anti-climate policies cannot be over-stated.
Yeah, I think we're done here.
You provided the right wing, conservative mythology of Reagan.
I picked it apart rather thoroughly.
(https://i.giphy.com/media/THUyCyf1nekNIaoOw5/200.webp)
People really get triggered when you point out the flaws in their faith.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2021, 02:52:11 PM
The tax reform in 1986 was a big deal. It isn't just the rate reduction--it really overhauled the tax code and basically set up the regime we have today (at least in terms of personal taxes--less so for corporate).
The question is not whether it was a big deal, the question is whether it was an accomplishment for the United States of America, such that doing so is evidence that the President responsible is deserving of recognition as a great *American* president - not as a great Repiblitrumpian President.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2021, 02:52:11 PM
The tax reform in 1986 was a big deal. It isn't just the rate reduction--it really overhauled the tax code and basically set up the regime we have today (at least in terms of personal taxes--less so for corporate).
Yeah it seriously screwed my Dad over. But we took it patriotically.
Too bad all the big promises that came with that tax reform were ultimately undermined.
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 02:58:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 02:50:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 02:47:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 01:25:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 12:44:58 PM
And the long term effects of his cultural ideas around homosexuality and his using those amazing communication skills to create a generation of anti-progress hatred of the government that has directly led to right wing embrace of anti-science and anti-climate policies cannot be over-stated.
Yeah, I think we're done here.
You provided the right wing, conservative mythology of Reagan.
I picked it apart rather thoroughly.
(https://i.giphy.com/media/THUyCyf1nekNIaoOw5/200.webp)
People really get triggered when you point out the flaws in their faith.
Yup - you certainly showed me the error of my ways!
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 03:04:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 02:58:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 02:50:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 02:47:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 01:25:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 12:44:58 PM
And the long term effects of his cultural ideas around homosexuality and his using those amazing communication skills to create a generation of anti-progress hatred of the government that has directly led to right wing embrace of anti-science and anti-climate policies cannot be over-stated.
Yeah, I think we're done here.
You provided the right wing, conservative mythology of Reagan.
I picked it apart rather thoroughly.
(https://i.giphy.com/media/THUyCyf1nekNIaoOw5/200.webp)
People really get triggered when you point out the flaws in their faith.
Yup - you certainly showed me the error of my ways!
I rather doubt that, sadly.
You really take this stuff personally though. Not sure why. He was just a human being.
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 02:43:41 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 01:31:19 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 01:02:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2021, 12:44:05 PMI argued long and hard with Marty when he was here about Reagan and AIDS. Funding for research skyrocketed. The principle indictment was he didn't air public service announcements to tell people something they already knew, which was that unprotected butt sex could give you AIDS.
Have you read The Band Played On? I'd recommend it on the failure of the Federal government (and other bits of government) in their response. It's far more than public service announcements.
I would have thought that the last 18 months would have taught us how difficult it is to deal with a novel viral pandemic.
And HIV was dramatically more complex to figure out than Covid. Covid is a coronavirus, a very common type of virus well understood. HIV is a retrovirus which were only really discovered by the 60s-70s.
Nobody expected Reagan to go stroll into the CDC and figure out AIDS.
He was expected to give it the attention it deserved, and the attention the health officials and scientists were asking for it to get, rather then laughing it off as the "gay plague" and not giving a shit.
That is not "difficult" to do.
Okay, I don't remember this time period because I was born in 1981 but did Reagan really call it the "gay plague"?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2021, 03:20:10 PM
Okay, I don't remember this time period because I was born in 1981 but did Reagan really call it the "gay plague"?
No that and "gay cancer" were how it was called by some. It's official name was Gay Related Immune Deficiency - GRID - until, I think 82/83.
Reagan didn't mention it publicly until 1985 when it came up in a press conference and didn't include it in prepared remarks until 1987. By that point it had been an epidemic (according to the CDC) for 5 years and the "number 1 health priority" of the administration for several years. Just a priority he didn't mention.
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 03:15:32 PM
You really take this stuff personally though.
I'm not taking it personally at all. Fuck you and have a nice day. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2021, 03:20:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 02:43:41 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 01:31:19 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 01:02:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2021, 12:44:05 PMI argued long and hard with Marty when he was here about Reagan and AIDS. Funding for research skyrocketed. The principle indictment was he didn't air public service announcements to tell people something they already knew, which was that unprotected butt sex could give you AIDS.
Have you read The Band Played On? I'd recommend it on the failure of the Federal government (and other bits of government) in their response. It's far more than public service announcements.
I would have thought that the last 18 months would have taught us how difficult it is to deal with a novel viral pandemic.
And HIV was dramatically more complex to figure out than Covid. Covid is a coronavirus, a very common type of virus well understood. HIV is a retrovirus which were only really discovered by the 60s-70s.
Nobody expected Reagan to go stroll into the CDC and figure out AIDS.
He was expected to give it the attention it deserved, and the attention the health officials and scientists were asking for it to get, rather then laughing it off as the "gay plague" and not giving a shit.
That is not "difficult" to do.
Okay, I don't remember this time period because I was born in 1981 but did Reagan really call it the "gay plague"?
His admin certainly did laugh it off - there are recordings of press conferences where his press secretary is cracking jokes about whether the journalist asking about the Presidents response had AIDS.
I think the knock on Reagan was mostly that he just stayed completely silent, and his administration was clearly uninterested in the problem.
And at the time, the right in America was VERY much all about the "gay plague" and how this was retribution for the sin of homosexuality.
Yeah - they did a film of the recording of that "gay plague" press conference and other press conferences:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAzDn7tE1lU&t=43s
Edit: And again - this administration didn't increase funding for research they consistently tried to cut it and were reluctant to spend money. Congress appropriate funds for research.
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 03:25:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 03:15:32 PM
You really take this stuff personally though.
I'm not taking it personally at all. Fuck you and have a nice day. :)
:lol:
Love you BB
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 03:26:47 PM
His admin certainly did laugh it off - there are recordings of press conferences where his press secretary is cracking jokes about whether the journalist asking about the Presidents response had AIDS.
I think the knock on Reagan was mostly that he just stayed completely silent, and his administration was clearly uninterested in the problem.
And at the time, the right in America was VERY much all about the "gay plague" and how this was retribution for the sin of homosexuality.
I mean I was there, though just a kid, but this is kind of how it seemed to play out.
The turning point seemed to be Magic Johnson. It was amazing how seriously everybody seemed to take things after 1991.
I'd also recommend reading and watching How To Survive a Plague which covers the late 80s and early 90s because there was an enormous amount of activism and anger that also helped focus attention. They were particularly focused on the FDA and other bits of the health bureaucracy.
But their attention grabbing was also an important factor in people taking it seriously because, I think, without that it probably would have relied on celebrity infections like Rock Hudson and Magic Johnson to get any mainstream coverage at that time.
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2021, 03:32:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 03:26:47 PM
His admin certainly did laugh it off - there are recordings of press conferences where his press secretary is cracking jokes about whether the journalist asking about the Presidents response had AIDS.
I think the knock on Reagan was mostly that he just stayed completely silent, and his administration was clearly uninterested in the problem.
And at the time, the right in America was VERY much all about the "gay plague" and how this was retribution for the sin of homosexuality.
I mean I was there, though just a kid, but this is kind of how it seemed to play out.
The turning point seemed to be Magic Johnson. It was amazing how seriously everybody seemed to take things after 1991.
Rock Hudson coming out as having AIDS seemed like a big deal in (checks) 1985.
Ninja'd by Sheilbh. <_<
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 03:36:21 PM
Rock Hudson coming out as having AIDS seemed like a big deal in (checks) 1985.
Ninja'd by Sheilbh. <_<
True. I was a kid and had never heard of Rock Hudson so that event probably didn't register with me at the time. 1985 also seems to be a turning point at least according to this thread.
My 5th grade teacher said that she was sorry for us because our generation wouldn't be able to have one night stands the way her generation did. :)
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2021, 03:37:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 03:36:21 PM
Rock Hudson coming out as having AIDS seemed like a big deal in (checks) 1985.
Ninja'd by Sheilbh. <_<
True. I was a kid and had never heard of Rock Hudson so that event probably didn't register with me at the time. 1985 also seems to be a turning point at least according to this thread.
I'd never heard of him either as a kid, but the media seemed to make a big deal about it.
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 03:25:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 03:15:32 PM
You really take this stuff personally though.
I'm not taking it personally at all. Fuck you and have a nice day. :)
It's very amusing how intentionally insulting you are towards people who disagree with you, and I don't doubt that you imagine it is in response to some kind of actual slight. But the slight is just....disagreeing with you.
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 03:42:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 03:25:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 03:15:32 PM
You really take this stuff personally though.
I'm not taking it personally at all. Fuck you and have a nice day. :)
It's very amusing how intentionally insulting you are towards people who disagree with you, and I don't doubt that you imagine it is in response to some kind of actual slight. But the slight is just....disagreeing with you.
:jaron:
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 03:41:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2021, 03:37:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 03:36:21 PM
Rock Hudson coming out as having AIDS seemed like a big deal in (checks) 1985.
Ninja'd by Sheilbh. <_<
True. I was a kid and had never heard of Rock Hudson so that event probably didn't register with me at the time. 1985 also seems to be a turning point at least according to this thread.
I'd never heard of him either as a kid, but the media seemed to make a big deal about it.
He was actually a friend of the Reagans - they had known each other for some time.
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 03:46:55 PM
He was actually a friend of the Reagans - they had known each other for some time.
Interesting. It kind of shows how political considerations can often trump personal ones.
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 03:41:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2021, 03:37:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 03:36:21 PM
Rock Hudson coming out as having AIDS seemed like a big deal in (checks) 1985.
Ninja'd by Sheilbh. <_<
True. I was a kid and had never heard of Rock Hudson so that event probably didn't register with me at the time. 1985 also seems to be a turning point at least according to this thread.
I'd never heard of him either as a kid, but the media seemed to make a big deal about it.
From what I've read it's the inflection point in public attention from indifference to panic.
Also just watching that film of press conferences (which are only audio) and a reporter was asking about whether it could transmit by saliva in December 1984 (apparently citing the CDC), which was about two years after it was clear how it transmitted and shows the issue with "bodily fluids" language. Someone jokingly shouts out "is the President going to ban mouth to mouth kissing?"
QuoteHe was actually a friend of the Reagans - they had known each other for some time.
Yeah I don't want to say it took one of his friends to die for it to be a big deal in terms of motivation, and Reagan's first mention of AIDS which was in a press conference came two weeks before Hudson disclosed his diagnosis. But there is sort of something to it in pure timing terms.
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 03:44:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 03:42:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 03:25:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 03:15:32 PM
You really take this stuff personally though.
I'm not taking it personally at all. Fuck you and have a nice day. :)
It's very amusing how intentionally insulting you are towards people who disagree with you, and I don't doubt that you imagine it is in response to some kind of actual slight. But the slight is just....disagreeing with you.
:jaron:
You are coming across rather odd in this exchange. I'm not sure why you'd want to defend the train wreck of the American Right.
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2021, 03:58:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 03:44:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 03:42:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 03:25:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 03:15:32 PM
You really take this stuff personally though.
I'm not taking it personally at all. Fuck you and have a nice day. :)
It's very amusing how intentionally insulting you are towards people who disagree with you, and I don't doubt that you imagine it is in response to some kind of actual slight. But the slight is just....disagreeing with you.
:jaron:
You are coming across rather odd in this exchange. I'm not sure why you'd want to defend the train wreck of the American Right.
:moon:
Ok moving from hilariously passive aggressive to just plain aggressive is not fun.
BB gave an opening to end it by his humorous fuck you post. But Berkut just can't help himself.
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 04:07:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2021, 03:58:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 03:44:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 03:42:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 03:25:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 03:15:32 PM
You really take this stuff personally though.
I'm not taking it personally at all. Fuck you and have a nice day. :)
It's very amusing how intentionally insulting you are towards people who disagree with you, and I don't doubt that you imagine it is in response to some kind of actual slight. But the slight is just....disagreeing with you.
:jaron:
You are coming across rather odd in this exchange. I'm not sure why you'd want to defend the train wreck of the American Right.
:moon:
It is okay to walk away from the computer when your emotions get away from you
Quote from: The Brain on June 30, 2021, 04:11:54 PM
BB gave an opening to end it by his humorous fuck you post. But Berkut just can't help himself.
Since when does BB get to decide when people should stop posting on a topic? :huh:
Every post is an opening to end the conversation as long as no one replies.
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2021, 04:13:19 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 30, 2021, 04:11:54 PM
BB gave an opening to end it by his humorous fuck you post. But Berkut just can't help himself.
Since when does BB get to decide when people should stop posting on a topic? :huh:
:hmm:
Quote from: The Brain on June 30, 2021, 04:15:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2021, 04:13:19 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 30, 2021, 04:11:54 PM
BB gave an opening to end it by his humorous fuck you post. But Berkut just can't help himself.
Since when does BB get to decide when people should stop posting on a topic? :huh:
:hmm:
I think he was President of Languish at one point. He could have closed the topic and banned us all back then.
I believe that he still is, according to himself.
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2021, 04:19:53 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 30, 2021, 04:15:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2021, 04:13:19 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 30, 2021, 04:11:54 PM
BB gave an opening to end it by his humorous fuck you post. But Berkut just can't help himself.
Since when does BB get to decide when people should stop posting on a topic? :huh:
:hmm:
I think he was President of Languish at one point. He could have closed the topic and banned us all back then.
:grr:
Fuck you too! I still AM the President of Languish! No President was ever elected to replace me! :contract:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I9AdLnjP0M
I just decided to google a reagan joke. I've heard this one before, knew exactly where it was going, and still laughed. He was really good at telling jokes.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2021, 04:26:01 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I9AdLnjP0M
I just decided to google a reagan joke. I've heard this one before, knew exactly where it was going, and still laughed. He was really good at telling jokes.
His line "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience" was an absolute masterstroke at how to take away his own disadvantage. It even elicited a laugh from Mondale.
Quote from: Jacob on June 30, 2021, 04:15:03 PM
Every post is an opening to end the conversation as long as no one replies.
:hmm: I guess that's one way to do it, but surely it's more effective to post five times that you're done with the conversation? :unsure:
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 04:29:51 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2021, 04:26:01 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I9AdLnjP0M
I just decided to google a reagan joke. I've heard this one before, knew exactly where it was going, and still laughed. He was really good at telling jokes.
His line "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience" was an absolute masterstroke at how to take away his own disadvantage. It even elicited a laugh from Mondale.
Mondale later said he knew he was dead man walking after that.
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2021, 04:35:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 04:29:51 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2021, 04:26:01 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I9AdLnjP0M
I just decided to google a reagan joke. I've heard this one before, knew exactly where it was going, and still laughed. He was really good at telling jokes.
His line "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience" was an absolute masterstroke at how to take away his own disadvantage. It even elicited a laugh from Mondale.
Mondale later said he knew he was dead man walking after that.
It's not like there was anything to worry about with Reagan's age, was there? That's another Reagan legacy: using aw-shucks to successfully laugh away serious issues.
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 04:25:00 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2021, 04:19:53 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 30, 2021, 04:15:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2021, 04:13:19 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 30, 2021, 04:11:54 PM
BB gave an opening to end it by his humorous fuck you post. But Berkut just can't help himself.
Since when does BB get to decide when people should stop posting on a topic? :huh:
:hmm:
I think he was President of Languish at one point. He could have closed the topic and banned us all back then.
:grr:
Fuck you too! I still AM the President of Languish! No President was ever elected to replace me! :contract:
I love democracy.
Quote from: DGuller on June 30, 2021, 04:39:34 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2021, 04:35:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 04:29:51 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2021, 04:26:01 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I9AdLnjP0M
I just decided to google a reagan joke. I've heard this one before, knew exactly where it was going, and still laughed. He was really good at telling jokes.
His line "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience" was an absolute masterstroke at how to take away his own disadvantage. It even elicited a laugh from Mondale.
Mondale later said he knew he was dead man walking after that.
It's not like there was anything to worry about with Reagan's age, was there? That's another Reagan legacy: using aw-shucks to successfully laugh away serious issues.
By today's standards Reagan was a bit young, that is true. But projecting current sensibilities onto the past is always risky.
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 03:41:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2021, 03:37:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 03:36:21 PM
Rock Hudson coming out as having AIDS seemed like a big deal in (checks) 1985.
Ninja'd by Sheilbh. <_<
True. I was a kid and had never heard of Rock Hudson so that event probably didn't register with me at the time. 1985 also seems to be a turning point at least according to this thread.
I'd never heard of him either as a kid, but the media seemed to make a big deal about it.
Rock Hudson was a big deal. You kids don't remember the greats :ultra:
Quote from: DGuller on June 30, 2021, 01:54:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 01:51:45 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 30, 2021, 01:48:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 01:25:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 12:44:58 PM
And the long term effects of his cultural ideas around homosexuality and his using those amazing communication skills to create a generation of anti-progress hatred of the government that has directly led to right wing embrace of anti-science and anti-climate policies cannot be over-stated.
Yeah, I think we're done here.
I thought it was very apt.
You would.
I thought it was apt enough as well.
I thought that it was way, WAY overblown. Reagan had no cultural war on homosexuality (he did change military policy when he declared that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service," but the policy change was to discharge homosexuals instead of imprisoning them). And the anti-science movement
long predated Reagan, so blaming him for the fact that it exists today seems absurd.
I thought Reagan actually had a very good first term (with the caveat that his aversion to thinking about homosexuality prevented him from even talking about AIDS), but his second term ruined any chance that he should be looked at favorably as a president.
I think it is really libelous to associate Reagan with Trump.
Reagan ran on the slogan, "Let's Make America Great Again."
Trump ran on the slogan, "Make America Great Again."
Don't tell me those are the same!
Quote from: grumbler on June 30, 2021, 05:02:06 PM
I thought that it was way, WAY overblown. Reagan had no cultural war on homosexuality (he did change military policy when he declared that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service," but the policy change was to discharge homosexuals instead of imprisoning them). And the anti-science movement long predated Reagan, so blaming him for the fact that it exists today seems absurd.
I thought Reagan actually had a very good first term (with the caveat that his aversion to thinking about homosexuality prevented him from even talking about AIDS), but his second term ruined any chance that he should be looked at favorably as a president.
I do think that you can lay on Reagan making it cool to view the government as a problem rather than a solution, to the point where it is uncritically regarded as common sense by many. I think that was ultimately the most lasting legacy of his, and also the most toxic one.
I have a question: how long do you folks think is a reasonable time that should pass before a useful historical consensus can form concerning the worth of a particular leader?
Obviously, right after they leave office is not a good time, as supporters and enemies alike will tend to exaggerate their virtues and vices. Plus, it is not enough time to see if the choices they made turned out well or not.
The converse could also be true - too much time, and they have values that are simply too alien to modern reviewers, it becomes difficult to judge them. Or they become heavily mythologized and we are judging the myth and not the leader.
Quote from: DGuller on June 30, 2021, 05:13:04 PM
I do think that you can lay on Reagan making it cool to view the government as a problem rather than a solution, to the point where it is uncritically regarded as common sense by many. I think that was ultimately the most lasting legacy of his, and also the most toxic one.
Agreed: "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."
That's had a long legacy on right and left. Not least because he was phenomenally gifted polician and remarkably charismatic.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 05:18:10 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 30, 2021, 05:13:04 PM
I do think that you can lay on Reagan making it cool to view the government as a problem rather than a solution, to the point where it is uncritically regarded as common sense by many. I think that was ultimately the most lasting legacy of his, and also the most toxic one.
Agreed: "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."
That's had a long legacy on right and left. Not least because he was phenomenally gifted polician and remarkably charismatic.
You can see BB quoting that from time to time. Ignoring Reagan's impact of thinking governments are good for nothing and should be limited as much as possible cannot be underestimated.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2021, 05:07:50 PM
I think it is really libelous to associate Reagan with Trump.
Reagan ran on the slogan, "Let's Make America Great Again."
Trump ran on the slogan, "Make America Great Again."
Don't tell me those are the same!
Though Trump's kinda suggests Reagan failed.
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2021, 05:16:39 PM
I have a question: how long do you folks think is a reasonable time that should pass before a useful historical consensus can form concerning the worth of a particular leader?
Obviously, right after they leave office is not a good time, as supporters and enemies alike will tend to exaggerate their virtues and vices. Plus, it is not enough time to see if the choices they made turned out well or not.
The converse could also be true - too much time, and they have values that are simply too alien to modern reviewers, it becomes difficult to judge them. Or they become heavily mythologized and we are judging the myth and not the leader.
To get a truly useful historical consensus you have to improve the way historians (people who research history) do history. This could be a while.
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2021, 05:16:39 PM
I have a question: how long do you folks think is a reasonable time that should pass before a useful historical consensus can form concerning the worth of a particular leader?
Obviously, right after they leave office is not a good time, as supporters and enemies alike will tend to exaggerate their virtues and vices. Plus, it is not enough time to see if the choices they made turned out well or not.
The converse could also be true - too much time, and they have values that are simply too alien to modern reviewers, it becomes difficult to judge them. Or they become heavily mythologized and we are judging the myth and not the leader.
I think it is all pointless. Earlier today I was reading a bit of Beard's "An Economic Interpretation of Jeffersonian Democracy" written in 1915. The perspective would probably seem alien to younger casual readers of history (maybe not us history nerds) but his view of Jefferson owning slaves was more along the lines of "he didn't have a capitalist perspective like his federalist opponents."
History is so deeply influenced by current values that I'm not sure last consensuses are ever possible.
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 12:23:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2021, 10:33:47 AM
Ive never understood any of what sober people would consider Reagans accomplishments.
Nobody serious, I don't think, would actually argue that the downfall of Communism was the result on anything as singular as who was President of the USA. I mean...that doesn't even make sense from the standpoint of the ideology of Reaganesque anti-communists! Isn't that entire argument that Communism simply does not work? If so, then it was doomed to fail no matter who was President of the USA.
So what exactly is it that Regan was so star spangled awesome at?
What was Reagan awesome at?
First of all you can't ignore just what a great communicator he was. He had a simple ease and charisma about him. He also came into office with a very specific agenda and was generally pretty good at implementing it.
I'll give yout hat one.
Quote
The economy. He oversaw going from 70s stagflation to a really strong economy a few years later. Yes we always put too much emphasis on the ability of the President to influence the economy, but that goes for all other Presidents as well. After the 1982 recession he saw 6 further years of strong GDP growth and a steep decline in interest rates.
He led the US and the world to the banking crisis of 1988, which led to the recession of 1990. And the banks were bailed out by the govt after 1988. Just like 2008.
Quote
He reformed the tax code, reducing the number of brackets and cutting taxes for most Americans. You can argue about the need for tax cuts in 2017 when Trump did it, but not so much in 1986 when they were substantially higher.
Reducing the number of brackets is the opposite of what I would suggest for the tax codes, to avoid steep increases as soon as you get a small pay raise.
Removing taxes on billionaires does not have any effect in local economy other than increase the deficit and increase the wealth of said billionaires. You could say it creates more billionaires, but really, buying a private island in the Carribean or buying a Ferrari or a made in Europe yacht or private jet does not do much for the US economy, the impact is quite negligeable.
Quote
The cold war (which you focused on). Yes, the USSR probably would have gone away on its own, but he hastened the fall (and given the moral disaster that was the USSR that's undoubtedly a good thing to free people sooner).
The USSR was economically done by the 70s. The Afghan war accelerated their downfall and their own idiocy. Reagan might have pushed them to overspend though, but he did by racking some huge deficits that would make our boy Justin so proud. :wub:
Quote
Despite being a Russia hawk, it should also be remembered that he helped thaw relations with Gorbachev and signed one arms deal and started negotiating another.
Takes two to tango. Gorbachev wanted the deal, Reagan agreed to negotiate.Gorbachev knew the USSR was doomed and could not compete with the US economy on weapons of any kind and was trying to stall the envitable.
Quote
He signed comprehensive immigration reform (the last time that has been accomplished) which legalized millions of illegal immigrants already in the country while simultaneously trying to increase enforcement.
Again, I'll grand you that one.
Quote
HIs negatives? Critics point to his response to AIDS but I don't know that any other world leaders put much emphasis on that disease. The other was Iran-Contra, which I have very little doubt he was aware of at least in an overall sense. I can sympathise with what he was trying to do (fight the Sandanistas), but the method he chose to do so was illegal and foolish.
-AIDS, other world leaders may not have put much emphasis on that disease in the 1980s, but they didn't actively fought against science and tried to promote abstination as a viable alternative all the while demonizing homos.
I remember the Iran-Contra being a big deal, but I don't remember much details about it, I'll give a pass. :)
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2021, 05:16:39 PM
I have a question: how long do you folks think is a reasonable time that should pass before a useful historical consensus can form concerning the worth of a particular leader?
Obviously, right after they leave office is not a good time, as supporters and enemies alike will tend to exaggerate their virtues and vices. Plus, it is not enough time to see if the choices they made turned out well or not.
The converse could also be true - too much time, and they have values that are simply too alien to modern reviewers, it becomes difficult to judge them. Or they become heavily mythologized and we are judging the myth and not the leader.
Well, people are still debating Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, Robert E. Lee, Grant, Lincoln, Napoleon and many, many, many military officers and statesmen (I'd say statesperson, but there are few women who were allowed to reach such positions in the history we know - what is written - compared to males). Millenias might be too long, a century or two might be either too long or too soon...
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 30, 2021, 05:22:57 PM
thinking governments are good for nothing and should be limited as much as possible cannot be underestimated.
The more I deal with the CRA and Revenu Québec, the more I feel he has a point there...
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 05:18:10 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 30, 2021, 05:13:04 PM
I do think that you can lay on Reagan making it cool to view the government as a problem rather than a solution, to the point where it is uncritically regarded as common sense by many. I think that was ultimately the most lasting legacy of his, and also the most toxic one.
Agreed: "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."
That's had a long legacy on right and left. Not least because he was phenomenally gifted polician and remarkably charismatic.
I agree with both of you on that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 30, 2021, 05:22:57 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 05:18:10 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 30, 2021, 05:13:04 PM
I do think that you can lay on Reagan making it cool to view the government as a problem rather than a solution, to the point where it is uncritically regarded as common sense by many. I think that was ultimately the most lasting legacy of his, and also the most toxic one.
Agreed: "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."
That's had a long legacy on right and left. Not least because he was phenomenally gifted polician and remarkably charismatic.
You can see BB quoting that from time to time. Ignoring Reagan's impact of thinking governments are good for nothing and should be limited as much as possible cannot be underestimated.
It's funny cuz I work for the government.
Yeah, I think we're done here?
(https://i.imgur.com/zjzin7e.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/lJZpuH2.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Qd4XTiS.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/GhesQ62.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Pb4b6Ln.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Rofr6Dk.jpeg)
Our debt used to be 30% of GDP. :weep:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 01, 2021, 04:27:11 AM
Our debt used to be 30% of GDP. :weep:
(https://i.redd.it/83vl4loj7kh61.jpg)
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2021, 05:16:39 PM
I have a question: how long do you folks think is a reasonable time that should pass before a useful historical consensus can form concerning the worth of a particular leader?
Obviously, right after they leave office is not a good time, as supporters and enemies alike will tend to exaggerate their virtues and vices. Plus, it is not enough time to see if the choices they made turned out well or not.
The converse could also be true - too much time, and they have values that are simply too alien to modern reviewers, it becomes difficult to judge them. Or they become heavily mythologized and we are judging the myth and not the leader.
They have to be dead, for one. Whatever they do after leaving office can still influence how their presidency will be judged.
Plus, after they're dead things will be said that couldn't be said before.
And I guess whatever duration is placed on restricting archive records to historians.
I wonder that the emotional reaction is kind of telling as to how the conservative right got to where it is today.
Beebs (as an example of the modern conservative "sane" person who is disgusted with Trump) posted kind of the "Conservative narrative" of Reagan. A story the right loves about their hero. It's not really based on much actual fact, but some. It isn't devoid of history of course, and it isn't even really particularly horrible or anything. It's just kind of a mythology - lord knows the left has their own "stories" about their figures they lionize as well.
People countered with some data that shows the standard right wing narrative is, well, suspect? when it comes to actual objective data about his "accomplishments", and in addition, added in some of the left wing narrative around Reagan.
There is a difference there - refuting the right wing narrative is simply a matter of the factual record. You point out that President don't ACTUALLY control the economy in that way, that Regan didn't ACTUALLY cause the fall of the USSR, nor did he intend to spend the commies into oblivion, etc., etc. These are NOT the left wing narrative, it is just the non-aligned narrative. Then you can bring out the actual left wing narrative - that Reagan was part of a shift in American social ideas about how government works, how he was in part responsible for how the USA reacted to AIDS, etc., etc. Again - this stuff is arguable, part of the debate.
And Beebs kind of loses his mind. If he gives the right wing story, why, that is just part of the discussion. But if you give the left wing story, that is beyond the pale, and some kind of personal attack on him.
I wonder if we are in a moment where otherwise reasonable "conservatives" are really struggling to square their support for a movement that pretty clearly went from Reaganesque small government fanaticism (and that is not meant to be pejorative, but descriptive - it was not long after Reagan that it became a requirement on the right to absolutely swear that under no possible circumstances would you ever support raising any tax ever - that is fanaticism) into the Tea Party into the current GOP identifying as a nationalist, intolerant party of bigotry right on into Trump.
Perhaps that makes any examination of that path rather painful. And you cannot really talk about Reagan outside the glowing, charismatic destroyer of Communism without stepping onto that path and where it (in hindsight) pretty clearly (if not inevitably) led.
The irony is that I firmly believe that if Reagan were alive today, he would be absolutely fucking appalled at where the GOP has gone since he was in office. He would be a McCain/Romney style opponent of modern Trumpism.
Quote from: Maladict on July 01, 2021, 07:29:58 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2021, 05:16:39 PM
I have a question: how long do you folks think is a reasonable time that should pass before a useful historical consensus can form concerning the worth of a particular leader?
Obviously, right after they leave office is not a good time, as supporters and enemies alike will tend to exaggerate their virtues and vices. Plus, it is not enough time to see if the choices they made turned out well or not.
The converse could also be true - too much time, and they have values that are simply too alien to modern reviewers, it becomes difficult to judge them. Or they become heavily mythologized and we are judging the myth and not the leader.
They have to be dead, for one. Whatever they do after leaving office can still influence how their presidency will be judged.
Plus, after they're dead things will be said that couldn't be said before.
And I guess whatever duration is placed on restricting archive records to historians.
Is there any chance that Trump's reputation will improve?
Quote from: Maladict on July 01, 2021, 07:29:58 AM
They have to be dead, for one. Whatever they do after leaving office can still influence how their presidency will be judged.
Plus, after they're dead things will be said that couldn't be said before.
And I guess whatever duration is placed on restricting archive records to historians.
Yeah I think to form a complete view you probably need them to be dead and most of their key advisers to be dead so all of the papers are available, plus restrictions lifted on sensitive internal documents. I don't think that will allow for an accurate consensus view because that's impossible and history is about the present and very shaped by the sort of framework and theory shaping our understanding of it.
QuoteIs there any chance that Trump's reputation will improve?
I suspect it will generally get worse as more papers are released and memoirs are written etc.
But there'll probably be a revisionist biography in 50-60 years.
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2021, 08:36:39 AM
Quote from: Maladict on July 01, 2021, 07:29:58 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2021, 05:16:39 PM
I have a question: how long do you folks think is a reasonable time that should pass before a useful historical consensus can form concerning the worth of a particular leader?
Obviously, right after they leave office is not a good time, as supporters and enemies alike will tend to exaggerate their virtues and vices. Plus, it is not enough time to see if the choices they made turned out well or not.
The converse could also be true - too much time, and they have values that are simply too alien to modern reviewers, it becomes difficult to judge them. Or they become heavily mythologized and we are judging the myth and not the leader.
They have to be dead, for one. Whatever they do after leaving office can still influence how their presidency will be judged.
Plus, after they're dead things will be said that couldn't be said before.
And I guess whatever duration is placed on restricting archive records to historians.
Is there any chance that Trump's reputation will improve?
That is actually an interesting question.
The thing about Trump that is kind of interesting is that all the bad stuff about him was known right from the start.
We didn't learn *anything* about Trump throughout his Presidency. He was just as terrible as everyone thought he was at the beginning - his standing as a effective, competent, moral leader could only go up from where he started.
Of course, it did not go up at all. We just learned that he was as ineffective, incompetent, and corrupt as everyone was pretty sure he was right from the start.
To some degree, the evalution can only improve, since it is starting from "Well, he is clearly the worst President anyone could pretty much imagine from his time".
If historians just conclude that he is actually only fucking terrible, rather then absolutely fucking terrible, well...that's an improvement....right?
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 01, 2021, 08:46:13 AM
But there'll probably be a revisionist biography in 50-60 years.
There will be a dozen or so authors making bank publishing books about the secret, competent, and stand up Trump who saved the world from ISIS.
Seriously....that will definitely be a thing.
My suspcion of where Trump's reputation might grow/the space for a revisionist take would be along the lines of: he was a bad leader, he was bad at the job of President and couldn't administer anything, his administration were incompetent - but he was a shock to the US system that was necessary and that, if we are now entering a period of competition/cold war with China and industrial competition/de-globalisation, he got the big ideas right at a time when they were fairly niche. The other one is possibly if we experience more pandemics (which I think is likely) there's a possibility that sort of border bio-security becomes more of an issue and again Trump is seen as ahead of his time - with all of the caveats above about he actually was as a leader.
I don't think it's particularly convincing but that would probably be the space I think a legitimate/mainstream revisionist take might appear - as opposed to just right wing hagiographies.
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2021, 08:36:39 AM
Quote from: Maladict on July 01, 2021, 07:29:58 AM
They have to be dead, for one. Whatever they do after leaving office can still influence how their presidency will be judged.
Plus, after they're dead things will be said that couldn't be said before.
And I guess whatever duration is placed on restricting archive records to historians.
Is there any chance that Trump's reputation will improve?
Only if it get worse from here on :P
But I suppose he really could have had seriously impaired mental faculties during his presidency, because of illness or age.
It wouldn't necessarily improve his reputation, but maybe he couldn't be fully held accountable either.
Quote from: Berkut on July 01, 2021, 08:47:36 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2021, 08:36:39 AM
Quote from: Maladict on July 01, 2021, 07:29:58 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2021, 05:16:39 PM
I have a question: how long do you folks think is a reasonable time that should pass before a useful historical consensus can form concerning the worth of a particular leader?
Obviously, right after they leave office is not a good time, as supporters and enemies alike will tend to exaggerate their virtues and vices. Plus, it is not enough time to see if the choices they made turned out well or not.
The converse could also be true - too much time, and they have values that are simply too alien to modern reviewers, it becomes difficult to judge them. Or they become heavily mythologized and we are judging the myth and not the leader.
They have to be dead, for one. Whatever they do after leaving office can still influence how their presidency will be judged.
Plus, after they're dead things will be said that couldn't be said before.
And I guess whatever duration is placed on restricting archive records to historians.
Is there any chance that Trump's reputation will improve?
That is actually an interesting question.
The thing about Trump that is kind of interesting is that all the bad stuff about him was known right from the start.
We didn't learn *anything* about Trump throughout his Presidency. He was just as terrible as everyone thought he was at the beginning - his standing as a effective, competent, moral leader could only go up from where he started.
Of course, it did not go up at all. We just learned that he was as ineffective, incompetent, and corrupt as everyone was pretty sure he was right from the start.
To some degree, the evalution can only improve, since it is starting from "Well, he is clearly the worst President anyone could pretty much imagine from his time".
If historians just conclude that he is actually only fucking terrible, rather then absolutely fucking terrible, well...that's an improvement....right?
The incompetent insurrection ending was a surprise, at least to me.
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2021, 08:36:39 AM
Is there any chance that Trump's reputation will improve?
Absolutely. Once the evidence comes out that the Italian satellites conspired with the Jewish orbital lasers to switch ballots from Trump to Biden, and the Dear Leader's 99% landslide victory is confirmed, Trump's reputation will rise. And his place in history will be cemented when subpoenas to the CDC force them to disgorge their secret studies showing that a combination therapy of hydroxychloroquine and bleach is more effective vs COVID than the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2021, 08:36:39 AM
Is there any chance that Trump's reputation will improve?
Of course. Recently reading about reconstruction, the path is clear: a modern day William Mahone. In early reconstruction he put together a coalition of poor whites and blacks as part of a populist Readjuster Party which favored using Virginia funds for education rather than paying bondholders (Virginia had a lot of debt after the war--the "readjustment" was on the bond payments, hence the name of the party). The party actually had success and he ended up a senator.
When the redeemers took control and blacks were ultimately disenfranchised, the party collapsed and Mahonism was a watchword in Virginia politics--with very negative implications. His corruption / personal failings were highlighted. The populism was viewed as dangerous. I think most modern historians would say, "yeah he was corrupt, but not necessarily worse than other southern politicians of the era, and he offered a positive path forward for the south that was shut down by the unfortunate early end to reconstruction and black disenfranchisement."
Something about that analogy doesn't quite work . . .
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 01, 2021, 09:23:39 AM
Something about that analogy doesn't quite work . . .
Who knows what the sensitivities will be in 150 years. It is possible this will be viewed as an extraordinarily corrupt time and Trump's corruption not necessarily notable. Maybe the rise of bureaucratic states and excessive international cooperation (moving forward to stifle innovation) will be seen as the ultimate failings of the early 21st century.
I'm definitely stretching because trump didn't actually try to do that much.
Quote from: Berkut on July 01, 2021, 07:59:12 AM
And Beebs kind of loses his mind. If he gives the right wing story, why, that is just part of the discussion. But if you give the left wing story, that is beyond the pale, and some kind of personal attack on him.
:jaron:
Maybe a better angle would be that he pushed back against the global elites that ended up cementing control of the global economy/political system for a time.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 01, 2021, 09:34:52 AM
Maybe a better angle would be that he pushed back against the global elites that ended up cementing control of the global economy/political system for a time.
Did he
Some Trump presidency positives:
1) Helped cable news ratings and newspaper sales at a time when revenues were under pressure
2) Although tariffs hurt trade, massive imports of MAGA hats helped buoy Chinese economy
3) Helped Fiona Hill get a better paying job
4) Didn't lose the presidency to Kanye West
5) Second best President in history whose last name begins in "Trum"
6) Finally got the SOB out of New York
Quote from: Maladict on July 01, 2021, 09:17:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2021, 08:36:39 AM
Quote from: Maladict on July 01, 2021, 07:29:58 AM
They have to be dead, for one. Whatever they do after leaving office can still influence how their presidency will be judged.
Plus, after they're dead things will be said that couldn't be said before.
And I guess whatever duration is placed on restricting archive records to historians.
Is there any chance that Trump's reputation will improve?
Only if it get worse from here on :P
But I suppose he really could have had seriously impaired mental faculties during his presidency, because of illness or age.
It wouldn't necessarily improve his reputation, but maybe he couldn't be fully held accountable either.
He accepted and then held onto a role where he wasn't fit to discharge his duties? How is that not on him?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 01, 2021, 09:21:58 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2021, 08:36:39 AM
Is there any chance that Trump's reputation will improve?
Absolutely. Once the evidence comes out that the Italian satellites conspired with the Jewish orbital lasers to switch ballots from Trump to Biden, and the Dear Leader's 99% landslide victory is confirmed, Trump's reputation will rise. And his place in history will be cemented when subpoenas to the CDC force them to disgorge their secret studies showing that a combination therapy of hydroxychloroquine and bleach is more effective vs COVID than the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
Yes, I can see that if mainstream shifts fully to the crazies then, of course his standing will improve as there will be no one else to say otherwise.
But I guess to some extent we're judging all the former office holders by comparison to a 'platonic form' of a president and on that he would still look bad. :P
Quote from: Barrister on July 01, 2021, 09:34:30 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 01, 2021, 07:59:12 AM
And Beebs kind of loses his mind. If he gives the right wing story, why, that is just part of the discussion. But if you give the left wing story, that is beyond the pale, and some kind of personal attack on him.
:jaron:
Sad end for a once great poster.
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2021, 08:36:39 AM
Quote from: Maladict on July 01, 2021, 07:29:58 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2021, 05:16:39 PM
I have a question: how long do you folks think is a reasonable time that should pass before a useful historical consensus can form concerning the worth of a particular leader?
Obviously, right after they leave office is not a good time, as supporters and enemies alike will tend to exaggerate their virtues and vices. Plus, it is not enough time to see if the choices they made turned out well or not.
The converse could also be true - too much time, and they have values that are simply too alien to modern reviewers, it becomes difficult to judge them. Or they become heavily mythologized and we are judging the myth and not the leader.
They have to be dead, for one. Whatever they do after leaving office can still influence how their presidency will be judged.
Plus, after they're dead things will be said that couldn't be said before.
And I guess whatever duration is placed on restricting archive records to historians.
Is there any chance that Trump's reputation will improve?
He's already a God to his supporters, so no, it won't go further. :P
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2021, 10:08:46 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 01, 2021, 09:34:30 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 01, 2021, 07:59:12 AM
And Beebs kind of loses his mind. If he gives the right wing story, why, that is just part of the discussion. But if you give the left wing story, that is beyond the pale, and some kind of personal attack on him.
:jaron:
Sad end for a once great poster.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2021, 08:36:39 AM
Is there any chance that Trump's reputation will improve?
Absolutely. If "Trumpism" remains the GOP ideology state legislatures will mandate pro-Trump lesson plans for public schools. Kids will learn that Trump is the best thing since sliced bread there by improving his reputation.
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2021, 10:04:54 AM
Quote from: Maladict on July 01, 2021, 09:17:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2021, 08:36:39 AM
Quote from: Maladict on July 01, 2021, 07:29:58 AM
They have to be dead, for one. Whatever they do after leaving office can still influence how their presidency will be judged.
Plus, after they're dead things will be said that couldn't be said before.
And I guess whatever duration is placed on restricting archive records to historians.
Is there any chance that Trump's reputation will improve?
Only if it get worse from here on :P
But I suppose he really could have had seriously impaired mental faculties during his presidency, because of illness or age.
It wouldn't necessarily improve his reputation, but maybe he couldn't be fully held accountable either.
He accepted and then held onto a role where he wasn't fit to discharge his duties? How is that not on him?
If he made those decisions with compromised mental faculties, I don't think he should necessarily be held fully accountable. Is that such a weird thing to say?
If someone with dementia walks into the wrong house, you would lock them up?
I think the argument is that if you know you have dementia, you and insist on taking on responsibilities that put people's lives at risk then you are culpable.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 01, 2021, 10:23:29 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2021, 10:08:46 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 01, 2021, 09:34:30 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 01, 2021, 07:59:12 AM
And Beebs kind of loses his mind. If he gives the right wing story, why, that is just part of the discussion. But if you give the left wing story, that is beyond the pale, and some kind of personal attack on him.
:jaron:
Sad end for a once great poster.
:rolleyes:
True he hasn't started posting blood soaked crime scenes.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 01, 2021, 10:28:16 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2021, 08:36:39 AM
Is there any chance that Trump's reputation will improve?
Absolutely. If "Trumpism" remains the GOP ideology state legislatures will mandate pro-Trump lesson plans for public schools. Kids will learn that Trump is the best thing since sliced bread there by improving his reputation.
The DeSantis administration will mandate it nationwide during his third term.
Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2021, 11:29:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 30, 2021, 05:22:57 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 30, 2021, 05:18:10 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 30, 2021, 05:13:04 PM
I do think that you can lay on Reagan making it cool to view the government as a problem rather than a solution, to the point where it is uncritically regarded as common sense by many. I think that was ultimately the most lasting legacy of his, and also the most toxic one.
Agreed: "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."
That's had a long legacy on right and left. Not least because he was phenomenally gifted polician and remarkably charismatic.
You can see BB quoting that from time to time. Ignoring Reagan's impact of thinking governments are good for nothing and should be limited as much as possible cannot be underestimated.
It's funny cuz I work for the government.
Yeah, the one area Conservatives think there is a role for government. :P
Quote from: Jacob on July 01, 2021, 10:38:47 AM
I think the argument is that if you know you have dementia, you and insist on taking on responsibilities that put people's lives at risk then you are culpable.
But it doesn't always work like that with dementia, or other diseases.
Quote from: Maladict on July 01, 2021, 11:07:38 AM
Quote from: Jacob on July 01, 2021, 10:38:47 AM
I think the argument is that if you know you have dementia, you and insist on taking on responsibilities that put people's lives at risk then you are culpable.
But it doesn't always work like that with dementia, or other diseases.
Okay but we had a president who walked back policies at least some of the time when he faced a backlash. I think it would be a mistake to try to say he wasn't aware of what he was doing.
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2021, 10:08:46 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 01, 2021, 09:34:30 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 01, 2021, 07:59:12 AM
And Beebs kind of loses his mind. If he gives the right wing story, why, that is just part of the discussion. But if you give the left wing story, that is beyond the pale, and some kind of personal attack on him.
:jaron:
Sad end for a once great poster.
I'd like my royalty check now.
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2021, 02:12:46 PM
Quote from: Maladict on July 01, 2021, 11:07:38 AM
Quote from: Jacob on July 01, 2021, 10:38:47 AM
I think the argument is that if you know you have dementia, you and insist on taking on responsibilities that put people's lives at risk then you are culpable.
But it doesn't always work like that with dementia, or other diseases.
Okay but we had a president who walked back policies at least some of the time when he faced a backlash. I think it would be a mistake to try to say he wasn't aware of what he was doing.
I'm still having trouble accepting people like Trump exist. :(
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 01, 2021, 02:32:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2021, 10:08:46 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 01, 2021, 09:34:30 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 01, 2021, 07:59:12 AM
And Beebs kind of loses his mind. If he gives the right wing story, why, that is just part of the discussion. But if you give the left wing story, that is beyond the pale, and some kind of personal attack on him.
:jaron:
Sad end for a once great poster.
I'd like my royalty check now.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/38335d674724c77c087bf1140d54d7cf/tenor.gif)
Go get em Beeb. :thumbsup:
Or ignore em.
Quote from: Berkut on July 01, 2021, 07:59:12 AMI wonder that the emotional reaction is kind of telling as to how the conservative right got to where it is today.
I wonder if part of it is he's the last good Republican president for the conservative right?
Bush I promised "no new taxes" and raised taxes. Bush II came into office as a compassionate conservative, failed to achieve most of their more conservative domestic agenda and embroiled the party in two wars. Trump is Trump. The only consistent "achievement" in the last 30 years for a sort of thoughtful conservative right (probably excluding Bush I) is taxes and judges. They have not emerged with a more circumspect role in the world, or a smaller state etc.
If Reagan is also tarnished, then you've got Ford maybe but he hardly sets conservative hearts alight. But basically the conservative right wouldn't have a President to call their own who wasn't tarnished in some way (Nixon: Watergate, Ike: didn't really undo FDR/Truman's legacy, Hoover: the Depression) you're probably reaching back to Calvin Coolidge. If you believe you're part of a living political tradition and one that somehow embodies the nation ("America is a conservative/centre-right etc country") then it's problematic if you have to reach back 90 years to Calvin Coolidge for inspiration.
Interesting point Shelf.
Too bad they don't have a boner for Ike. Ike was a near perfect Republican president. Arguably the best Republican president after Teddy and Bubba. ;)
And I supposed Teddy is too far back.
Didn't Ike basically choose at random if he'd run as a Republican or a Democrat when he entered politics?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 01, 2021, 05:15:23 PM
Go get em Beeb. :thumbsup:
Or ignore em.
I'm game for a deep, good faith political (or other) discussion any day. It's what I live for.
But if people just want to shitpost, I'm out. I've deeply soured on Languish the past few months for this reason.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 01, 2021, 05:38:47 PM
Interesting point Shelf.
Too bad they don't have a boner for Ike. Ike was a near perfect Republican president. Arguably the best Republican president after Teddy and Bubba. ;)
Modern GOP won't go for a guy with 90% marginal tax rates on the rich and who sent in the Guard to desegregate schools. Not to mention someone who put real resources into infrastructure, instead of BS talk about fake public-private partnerships.
In fairness, pretty much every domestic or foreign affairs problem can be traced back to the actions of a previous president. At least in part.
Quote from: The Larch on July 01, 2021, 05:42:01 PM
Didn't Ike basically choose at random if he'd run as a Republican or a Democrat when he entered politics?
My understanding is he had overtures from both parties and chose Republican.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 01, 2021, 05:26:20 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 01, 2021, 07:59:12 AMI wonder that the emotional reaction is kind of telling as to how the conservative right got to where it is today.
I wonder if part of it is he's the last good Republican president for the conservative right?
Bush I promised "no new taxes" and raised taxes. Bush II came into office as a compassionate conservative, failed to achieve most of their more conservative domestic agenda and embroiled the party in two wars. Trump is Trump. The only consistent "achievement" in the last 30 years for a sort of thoughtful conservative right (probably excluding Bush I) is taxes and judges. They have not emerged with a more circumspect role in the world, or a smaller state etc.
If Reagan is also tarnished, then you've got Ford maybe but he hardly sets conservative hearts alight. But basically the conservative right wouldn't have a President to call their own who wasn't tarnished in some way (Nixon: Watergate, Ike: didn't really undo FDR/Truman's legacy, Hoover: the Depression) you're probably reaching back to Calvin Coolidge. If you believe you're part of a living political tradition and one that somehow embodies the nation ("America is a conservative/centre-right etc country") then it's problematic if you have to reach back 90 years to Calvin Coolidge for inspiration.
I think he basically killed the republican party by achieving what it was all about. The mission in the 70s was lower taxes, smaller government, and a robust foreign policy. The passion for the last one kind of died with the soviet union (credited to Reagan, unfairly), but he cemented the US path to have lower taxes and lower government spending as a percent of GDP than almost every other OECD country. The US was an extreme outlier in health care of not covering most citizens until the rube goldberg "universal coverage" of Obamacare.
Clinton represented a third way -- basically conceding on small government to an extent but having a more pragmatic and compassionate approach. He conceded on lower taxes for the middle and lower class, not leaving much room to reduce taxes except for the wealthy. Republican initiatives became a bit absurd: such as privatizing a popular program like Social Security, or zillions of tax proposals that were ridiculously regressive.
A new way, unfortunately brought by Trump, was overdue.
Privatizing Social Security is not zany.
Quote from: Barrister on July 01, 2021, 05:44:12 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 01, 2021, 05:15:23 PM
Go get em Beeb. :thumbsup:
Or ignore em.
I'm game for a deep, good faith political (or other) discussion any day. It's what I live for.
That is very clearly not the case.
Someone pointing out that your narrative is not the ONLY narrative is not shit posting.
You know what is shit posting?
Telling people to fuck off. As an example.
Quote from: Berkut on July 01, 2021, 07:09:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 01, 2021, 05:44:12 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 01, 2021, 05:15:23 PM
Go get em Beeb. :thumbsup:
Or ignore em.
I'm game for a deep, good faith political (or other) discussion any day. It's what I live for.
That is very clearly not the case.
Someone pointing out that your narrative is not the ONLY narrative is not shit posting.
You know what is shit posting?
Telling people to fuck off. As an example.
Very nice trimming of the rest of my post. Definitely a good faith move on your part. :thumbsup:
In response:
Fuck off Berkut, you fucking fuckhead.
And have a nice day. :hug:
Was that an important part of your post? Did I somehow change the content by trimming it?
And YOU complaining about trimming, in THIS thread, where you have done exactly that, and trimmed the actual refutation you didn't wish to respond to time and time again?
Your tantrum is just...bizarre. It's weird how much casting some shade on Reagan has triggered you.
I wonder if that's similar to how Trumpers react when their cult leader is questioned?
Quote from: Berkut on July 01, 2021, 10:42:31 PM
Was that an important part of your post? Did I somehow change the content by trimming it?
And YOU complaining about trimming, in THIS thread, where you have done exactly that, and trimmed the actual refutation you didn't wish to respond to time and time again?
Your tantrum is just...bizarre. It's weird how much casting some shade on Reagan has triggered you.
I wonder if that's similar to how Trumpers react when their cult leader is questioned?
:moon:
I think we need to defibrillate Beeb's brain, it went into a dangerous chaotic rhythm.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 01, 2021, 06:41:36 PM
Privatizing Social Security is not zany.
It is incredibly risky. Sure all is fine so long as it goes up but the second it falls everybody would have to bail the system out or face political suicide. Also I worry about the obvious opportunities for corruption.
I would prefer we just scrap everything and just have a UBI and some kind of universal health care system myself. If you want more money for retirement get a 401k or something.
But I guess privatizing Social Security has the advantage of something that might some day actually happen. :lol:
Quote from: DGuller on July 01, 2021, 11:12:20 PM
I think we need to defibrillate Beeb's brain, it went into a dangerous chaotic rhythm.
:berkut:
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2021, 12:14:04 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 01, 2021, 11:12:20 PM
I think we need to defibrillate Beeb's brain, it went into a dangerous chaotic rhythm.
:berkut:
:rolleyes:
I love Berkut. He is just not interested in a meaningful respectful conversation. Which is his right, and entirely why we love him as a Languish poster.
But to which I also say - fuck that dude. And have a nice day. :hug:
Quote from: Barrister on July 02, 2021, 12:19:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2021, 12:14:04 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 01, 2021, 11:12:20 PM
I think we need to defibrillate Beeb's brain, it went into a dangerous chaotic rhythm.
:berkut:
:rolleyes:
I love Berkut. He is just not interested in a meaningful respectful conversation. Which is his right, and entirely why we love him as a Languish poster.
But to which I also say - fuck that dude. And have a nice day. :hug:
Says the man who supposedly has soured on Languish for the behavior he is engaging in over and over again in this thread. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2021, 12:13:29 AM
It is incredibly risky. Sure all is fine so long as it goes up but the second it falls everybody would have to bail the system out or face political suicide.
No they wouldn't. Wait 6 months to a year and it recovers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2021, 03:19:56 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2021, 12:13:29 AM
It is incredibly risky. Sure all is fine so long as it goes up but the second it falls everybody would have to bail the system out or face political suicide.
No they wouldn't. Wait 6 months to a year and it recovers.
The olds just need to wait 6 months to a year to get the money they need to pay their bills?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 01, 2021, 06:41:36 PM
Privatizing Social Security is not zany.
Yes it is.
It's a hugely popular program with immense buy-in from the general public. Wanting to privatise it is the definition of zany. You might as well want to privatise the military or nationalise cows. It's fringe as they come.
Quote from: Barrister on July 02, 2021, 12:19:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2021, 12:14:04 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 01, 2021, 11:12:20 PM
I think we need to defibrillate Beeb's brain, it went into a dangerous chaotic rhythm.
:berkut:
:rolleyes:
I love Berkut. He is just not interested in a meaningful respectful conversation.
That is completely untrue, and I think you know it is untrue.
Indeed, an accusation like that is the very definition of "not arguing in good faith".
It is a rather transparent attempt to justify not engaging in a debate and instead attacking the person making the argument.
Note that ALL of the personal attacks here have come from you. The entire lack of respect, with the "fuck yous" and selective quoting...have come from you, not me.
It is completely true. In January I was discussing the timing of the impeachment trial with a couple posters, I gave various reasons I thought February was not ideal, at the end of February I posted to point out that the guesses I made about what would happen with a February trial indeed occurred.
You jump in with absurd diatribes against me and that I deserve a brown star for my shirt.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 02, 2021, 10:07:04 AM
It is completely true. In January I was discussing the timing of the impeachment trial with a couple posters, I gave various reasons I thought February was not ideal, at the end of February I posted to point out that the guesses I made about what would happen with a February trial indeed occurred.
We had this discussion before. You predicted that mathematics would not magically cease to operate if there was an early impeachment trial. Not exactly prophecy there.
We now know that the farther away we are from the events of Jan 6 the greater the pressure on GOP legislators and the less likely to take any action perceived inimical to Trump; 7 voted to impeach back then but now only would vote to take the simple step of forming a fact-finding commission. The underlying reasoning was not sound, at least as to what the Democrats in the Senate should do, as opposed to what would be optimal for your betting positions on cabinet confirmation timing.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 02, 2021, 10:49:38 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 02, 2021, 10:07:04 AM
It is completely true. In January I was discussing the timing of the impeachment trial with a couple posters, I gave various reasons I thought February was not ideal, at the end of February I posted to point out that the guesses I made about what would happen with a February trial indeed occurred.
We had this discussion before. You predicted that mathematics would not magically cease to operate if there was an early impeachment trial. Not exactly prophecy there.
We now know that the farther away we are from the events of Jan 6 the greater the pressure on GOP legislators and the less likely to take any action perceived inimical to Trump; 7 voted to impeach back then but now only would vote to take the simple step of forming a fact-finding commission. The underlying reasoning was not sound, at least as to what the Democrats in the Senate should do, as opposed to what would be optimal for your betting positions on cabinet confirmation timing.
My point was that if the trial was held in February, it would have to be rushed due to the pressure of getting Biden's cabinet in place, and even if a rushed trial was held the cabinet confirmations would be delayed. We ended February with Trump acquitted, a rushed trial, and a historically slow pace of cabinet confirmations. Now maybe you still disagree with the merits of my arguments -- I don't mind that -- I just don't think that arguments about how to arrange the senate's calendar should result in Berkut saying i deserve a brown star for my shirt.
The fact that Trump was acquitted is meaningless because there was never any probability he would be. But the fact that 7 GOP senators voted to convict was historically unprecedented and of real significance. If the trial had been delayed and dragged out, it would have risked losing some of those votes. Note that Burr and Toomey, who both voted to convict, recently abstained from voting on the 1-8 commission rather than expose themselves to more attacks.
Meanwhile the cabinet was put into place and no damage done.
Yeah, the idea that it would have been ever so much better to delay the trial until roughly now...well, I would not be bringing THAT up as evidence of your brilliance. As everyone said, delaying it would just allow the GOP to obscure what happened and give them all more cover...and look, that is *exactly* what has happened. There is no way a trial held today would result in a better outcome.
And this was all to allow the Senate to focus on other, super duper critical items, that them NOT focusing on would result in utter disaster for the Biden administration. Uhhh....what were those critical items they did not focus on because the trial? Anyone remember the multiple disasters that befell America because they were not taken care of (although of course they COULD have been, absent McConnell sabotaging them). Something about getting some administration officials confirmed, the delay of which turned out to critically damage something or other...right?
What a load of bullshit :P
It isn't about me being brilliant. You and MM disagree with me. Good for you; maybe you are right.
It is about you being a piece of shit.
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2021, 12:13:29 AM
It is incredibly risky. Sure all is fine so long as it goes up but the second it falls everybody would have to bail the system out or face political suicide. Also I worry about the obvious opportunities for corruption.
I would prefer we just scrap everything and just have a UBI and some kind of universal health care system myself. If you want more money for retirement get a 401k or something.
But I guess privatizing Social Security has the advantage of something that might some day actually happen. :lol:
What does privatizing Social Security entail? And what advantages is it supposed to bring?
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 02, 2021, 03:53:16 AM
Yes it is.
It's a hugely popular program with immense buy-in from the general public. Wanting to privatise it is the definition of zany. You might as well want to privatise the military or nationalise cows. It's fringe as they come.
It's nothing like privatizing the military. The military is a public good and if it were privatized you would immediately have a free rider problem and hence produce less than the optimal amount. Social Security is a private good. Each individual gets their own check that they can spend how they please. By definition you can't free ride off my Social Security check.
It has been a long time since I read that the average return on Social Security contributions is 2% but I also haven't read anything that says the return has changed. I don't believe their is any annuity (which is essentially what SS is, a government administered annuity) which has a return that low.
It's a two percent *real* return - i.e. above inflation.
In addition, because social security is pay as you go, you cannot compare that return against a current market annuity return. If SS were privatized you'd have to account for the legacy commitments - which are in the trillions - and that would drag down those returns. You also have to adjust for solvency risk unless there is a government backstop guarantee - which would be another hidden cost that would have to be adjusted.
Social security is very efficiently run as government programs go and would certainly have lower admin and transaction costs than competing private annuities. The program does what it supposed to do and does it reasonably well. It's a simple case of ain't broke, don't fix.
See Jason Furman's paper on this from 2005
https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/6-2-05socsec.pdf
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2021, 12:40:21 PM
It's nothing like privatizing the military. The military is a public good and if it were privatized you would immediately have a free rider problem and hence produce less than the optimal amount. Social Security is a private good. Each individual gets their own check that they can spend how they please. By definition you can't free ride off my Social Security check.
It has been a long time since I read that the average return on Social Security contributions is 2% but I also haven't read anything that says the return has changed. I don't believe their is any annuity (which is essentially what SS is, a government administered annuity) which has a return that low.
But it's pretty zany right - it's an idea that is miles from the mainstream of popular opinion and very fringe was the point I was making.
There's a really good case for banning cars - I acknowledge that my view on that is zany and on the fringe.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 02, 2021, 12:51:33 PM
It's a two percent *real* return - i.e. above inflation.
In addition, because social security is pay as you go, you cannot compare that return against a current market annuity return. If SS were privatized you'd have to account for the legacy commitments - which are in the trillions - and that would drag down those returns. You also have to adjust for solvency risk unless there is a government backstop guarantee - which would be another hidden cost that would have to be adjusted.
Social security is very efficiently run as government programs go and would certainly have lower admin and transaction costs than competing private annuities. The program does what it supposed to do and does it reasonably well. It's a simple case of ain't broke, don't fix.
Yes, I am aware of the transitional legacy costs. Chile managed to pay them. And one thing the Furman paper fails to mention is that they are transitional: the country has to pay them for a while, but then gets to enjoy market returns in perpetuity.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 02, 2021, 12:51:33 PM
Social security is very efficiently run as government programs go and would certainly have lower admin and transaction costs than competing private annuities. The program does what it supposed to do and does it reasonably well. It's a simple case of ain't broke, don't fix.
Except that social security has been paying out more than it receives for more than a decade, and is projected to run out of money entirely by 2035. Kind of sounds like it is broke, even if you disagree about how to fix it.
Quote from: Barrister on July 02, 2021, 01:15:39 PM
Except that social security has been paying out more than it receives for more than a decade, and is projected to run out of money entirely by 2035. Kind of sounds like it is broke, even if you disagree about how to fix it.
You are mixing up the accounting fiction with the reality. There is no money to run out of.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 02, 2021, 12:59:26 PM
But it's pretty zany right - it's an idea that is miles from the mainstream of popular opinion and very fringe was the point I was making.
Zany is not a synonym for unpopular. Zany has to have some connection to irrationality.
And I would argue that the unpopularity is at least somewhat a function of the scaremongering about "the stock market casino."
Quote from: alfred russel on July 02, 2021, 11:33:06 AM
It isn't about me being brilliant. You and MM disagree with me. Good for you; maybe you are right.
It is about you being a piece of shit.
There is that "arguing in good faith" you and Beebs are such champions of!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2021, 01:14:34 PM
Yes, I am aware of the transitional legacy costs. Chile managed to pay them. And one thing the Furman paper fails to mention is that they are transitional: the country has to pay them for a while, but then gets to enjoy market returns in perpetuity.
His point is the apples to oranges nature of the comparison. If the legacy costs were wiped clean the SS system would show higher returns as well.
At the end of the day, viewed solely as a annuity program - and as Furman points out, it's more than that - social security is identical to a private annuity but with lower costs and an investment restriction that permits only investing in US treasuries.
So the case for privatization would have to be that you can get better risk adjusted returns by investing in other things. But EMH says you can't. So the case against social security can only proceed if you assume that markets aren't completely efficient. But if markets aren't efficient that reinforces the case for social security as a safe backstop.
I mean at the time of Bachelet's reform half of Chileans had no pension, 40% were not going to reach the minimum level so only 10% had a sufficient private pension (this is not what was projected when Chile was cited as a model). Since then there's been some big reforms.
But the pension issue was a huge factor in the protests in Chile and the tbd new constitution with a strong left vote. I don't think their model is anything close to socialy or politically sustainable.
QuoteYou are mixing up the accounting fiction with the reality. There is no money to run out of.
Yeah and the sooner everyone stops pretending it's a trust fund and acknowledges it's just a pension system the better.
QuoteZany is not a synonym for unpopular. Zany has to have some connection to irrationality.
Okay - I'd say zany is fringe, eccentric, out of the mainstream, a bit weird. But I accept your point - your view isn't zany. It's just fringe, eccentric, out of the mainstream, a bit weird :P
QuoteAnd I would argue that the unpopularity is at least somewhat a function of the scaremongering about "the stock market casino."
Maybe. I think it's more a function of the popularity of social security - that people don't want to and don't see the need to significantly reform it.
There's broad public support for some form of public pension/social security everywhere in the world and has been since the 30s.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 02, 2021, 01:22:53 PM
His point is the apples to oranges nature of the comparison. If the legacy costs were wiped clean the SS system would show higher returns as well.
I got that. And i repeat, what he fails to account for is the one-time nature of the transition. If recipients enjoy market returns until the sun goes supernova, then it seems to me those higher returns are not wiped out by the transition costs.
QuoteAt the end of the day, viewed solely as a annity program - and as Furman points out, it's more than that - social security is identical to a private annuity but with lower costs and an investment restriction that permits only investing in US treasuries.
So the case for privatization would have to be that you can get better risk adjusted returns by investing in other things. But EMH says you can't. So the case against social security can only proceed if you assume that markets aren't completely efficient. But if markets aren't efficient that reinforces the case for social security as a safe backstop.
I see a flaw in Furman's (BTW, how did he manage to get out from under that OJ cloud?) thinking. He seems to be positing that the risk adjusted real return on zero risk Treasuries is equal to the risk adjusted real return on equities. That is not my understanding. My understanding is that risk adjusted return on equity is higher than that on Treasures.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2021, 01:37:01 PM
My understanding is that risk adjusted return on equity is higher than that on Treasures.
That can only be true if markets are inefficient and systematically misprice asset classes.
Normally the procedure is to assume markets are efficient and calculate the risk premium for equities based on the treasury yield. In that case the risk adjusted returns are definitionally equally.
You can certainly argue that a proper risk adjustment would show that equities are systematically underpriced as an asset class, but only by breaking with the market efficiency hypothesis.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 02, 2021, 01:45:45 PM
That can only be true if markets are inefficient and systematically misprice asset classes.
Normally the procedure is to assume markets are efficient and calculate the risk premium for equities based on the treasury yield. In that case the risk adjusted returns are definitionally equally.
You can certainly argue that a proper risk adjustment would show that equities are systematically underpriced as an asset class, but only by breaking with the market efficiency hypothesis.
It can be argued that the market for Treasuries in particular is inefficient because of financial repression.
Here's another advantage of privatization that I didn't see Furman account for: it's your money and the government can't decide to claw it back.
I have a few different questions re: potentially privatizing social security in the US.
1)
If Social Security is privatized, presumably the private entities involved are going to want to take profit out of the system at some point. I rather expect they'll want to maximize their profit as well, being economically rational actors. Assuming that a privatized SS can generate a higher return the current public form can (which as per MM may not be a safe assumption), do we have anything other than optimism to indicate that that excess (and potentially more than the excess), won't be eaten up by the necessity for profit on the part of the private entities involved?
2)
Privatized SS presumably will provide more choice for the recipients. My assumption is the the economically unsophisticated and the economically disadvantaged are going to be the least able to take advantage of any such choices, and are at risk for worse outcomes than then the present situation. Are there any plans for designing this hypothetically privatized SS scheme such that the economically vulnerable do not end up worse off than they are now? Or is this an acceptable or even intended side effect of privatizing SS?
3)
The US has another system in private hands that is typically public elsewhere - the health care system. Are there any useful lessons that can be drawn from that implementation to be applied to a hypothetical privatized SS?
1. Competition. Wealth management firms charge around 1% of total assets to make decisions for you. Online brokerages charge nothing for trades.
2. That's a real moral hazard. Do you prohibit people from putting all their money in Dogecoin? I don't know the answer to that.
There is a real benefit to socializing retirement savings. On average we may live to 80 and need savings to cover 15 years of retirement. But we have a risk of living to 100, and may not make it to retirement at all.
So an individual needs to either save enough to last 30 years, or risk running out of funds. But if we all pool our risk, it is only 15 years.
Of course social security is primarily a pay as you go system, without savings, but that principle shouldn't be forgotten.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2021, 01:54:10 PM
It can be argued that the market for Treasuries in particular is inefficient because of financial repression.
Anything can be argued; what is the evidentiary support? There are no capital controls or interest rate caps in the US.
QuoteHere's another advantage of privatization that I didn't see Furman account for: it's your money and the government can't decide to claw it back.
An argument that makes no sense in a pay as you go system. There are no accounts and no money that an individual can claim to own.
Stepping back, I think we are at risk of talking past one another because at the heart of the argument is different conceptions about what the objective of social security is and what problem it is seeking to redress.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2021, 02:27:37 PM
2. That's a real moral hazard. Do you prohibit people from putting all their money in Dogecoin? I don't know the answer to that.
On second thought, maybe we are talking about the same thing after all.
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2021, 01:22:00 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 02, 2021, 11:33:06 AM
It isn't about me being brilliant. You and MM disagree with me. Good for you; maybe you are right.
It is about you being a piece of shit.
There is that "arguing in good faith" you and Beebs are such champions of!
I was talking to MM and (I think DGuller) about legislative strategy, and you come after me with a bunch of posts about my motives with some fascist allusions, but then accuse others of bad faith when they call you on it!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 02, 2021, 03:09:06 PM
Anything can be argued; what is the evidentiary support? There are no capital controls or interest rate caps in the US.
The evidentiary support is the accounting of Treasuries when calculating financial institution capital ratios and the requirement to post Treasuries as collateral when borrowing at the Fed's discount window.
QuoteAn argument that makes no sense in a pay as you go system. There are no accounts and no money that an individual can claim to own.
wut? That's exactly the thing I pointed out as a relative weakness of Social Security.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2021, 03:23:28 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 02, 2021, 03:09:06 PM
Anything can be argued; what is the evidentiary support? There are no capital controls or interest rate caps in the US.
The evidentiary support is the accounting of Treasuries when calculating financial institution capital ratios and the requirement to post Treasuries as collateral when borrowing at the Fed's discount window.
The latter is not true: https://www.frbdiscountwindow.org/pages/collateral/discount%20window%20margins%20and%20collateral%20guidelines
Risk weighting of bank capital comes from the Basel framework - the treatment of treasury securities seems reasonable to me. What is the argument that it distorts asset pricing?
Quote from: Jacob on July 02, 2021, 02:19:50 PM
I have a few different questions re: potentially privatizing social security in the US.
1)
If Social Security is privatized, presumably the private entities involved are going to want to take profit out of the system at some point. I rather expect they'll want to maximize their profit as well, being economically rational actors. Assuming that a privatized SS can generate a higher return the current public form can (which as per MM may not be a safe assumption), do we have anything other than optimism to indicate that that excess (and potentially more than the excess), won't be eaten up by the necessity for profit on the part of the private entities involved?
2)
Privatized SS presumably will provide more choice for the recipients. My assumption is the the economically unsophisticated and the economically disadvantaged are going to be the least able to take advantage of any such choices, and are at risk for worse outcomes than then the present situation. Are there any plans for designing this hypothetically privatized SS scheme such that the economically vulnerable do not end up worse off than they are now? Or is this an acceptable or even intended side effect of privatizing SS?
3)
The US has another system in private hands that is typically public elsewhere - the health care system. Are there any useful lessons that can be drawn from that implementation to be applied to a hypothetical privatized SS?
1) it would need to be a lot of small actors involved to avoid that.
as per your point 3, I think there will be an eventual consolidation for the market, negating the benefits of privatization. and as per point 2, it would require govt intervention anyway...
Unless I am mistaken about what soc sec represents in the US, I just don't see the benefit of privatization for something designed to provide the bare minimum.
Afghanistan is beginning to have echoes of South Vietnam in early 1975.
The midnight flight from Bagram doesn't have good optics.
It sucks that clearly a sustainable government couldn't take root in the country, but you can't be propping it up indefinitely.
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2021, 07:20:10 AM
It sucks that clearly a sustainable government couldn't take root in the country, but you can't be propping it up indefinitely.
You guys are still propping up Washington though?
Quote from: The Brain on July 07, 2021, 07:21:27 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2021, 07:20:10 AM
It sucks that clearly a sustainable government couldn't take root in the country, but you can't be propping it up indefinitely.
You guys are still propping up Washington though?
:huh: We laid him to rest more than 200 years ago.
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2021, 07:37:41 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 07, 2021, 07:21:27 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2021, 07:20:10 AM
It sucks that clearly a sustainable government couldn't take root in the country, but you can't be propping it up indefinitely.
You guys are still propping up Washington though?
:huh: We laid him to rest more than 200 years ago.
Ok Timmay
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2021, 11:24:08 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2021, 07:37:41 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 07, 2021, 07:21:27 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2021, 07:20:10 AM
It sucks that clearly a sustainable government couldn't take root in the country, but you can't be propping it up indefinitely.
You guys are still propping up Washington though?
:huh: We laid him to rest more than 200 years ago.
Ok Timmay
^_^
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2021, 07:20:10 AM
It sucks that clearly a sustainable government couldn't take root in the country, but you can't be propping it up indefinitely.
Why not?
Quote from: Barrister on July 07, 2021, 11:32:42 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2021, 07:20:10 AM
It sucks that clearly a sustainable government couldn't take root in the country, but you can't be propping it up indefinitely.
Why not?
Because military interventions are unsustainable on a permanent basis. Maybe things would be different if we lived in a colonial age and could keep governments in power under threat of massive and unfair punitive actions, but alas that era is in the past.
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2021, 12:27:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 07, 2021, 11:32:42 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2021, 07:20:10 AM
It sucks that clearly a sustainable government couldn't take root in the country, but you can't be propping it up indefinitely.
Why not?
Because military interventions are unsustainable on a permanent basis. Maybe things would be different if we lived in a colonial age and could keep governments in power under threat of massive and unfair punitive actions, but alas that era is in the past.
Quick research suggests the US spends $45 billion per year on its military forces in Afghanistan, down quite a bit from it's peak. That's not an insignificant sum, but seems to me to be a fair price for not allowing the Taliban back in power.
Quote from: Barrister on July 07, 2021, 01:31:11 PM
Quick research suggests the US spends $45 billion per year on its military forces in Afghanistan, down quite a bit from it's peak. That's not an insignificant sum, but seems to me to be a fair price for not allowing the Taliban back in power.
I don't see how the US gets 45 billion in benefit a year out of that deal.
Non-Taliban Afghans, instead of fighting for their country, moved to Germany.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2021, 02:27:20 PM
Non-Taliban Afghans, instead of fighting for their country, moved to Germany.
I don't think that's completely accurate....
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2021, 12:27:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 07, 2021, 11:32:42 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2021, 07:20:10 AM
It sucks that clearly a sustainable government couldn't take root in the country, but you can't be propping it up indefinitely.
Why not?
Because military interventions are unsustainable on a permanent basis. Maybe things would be different if we lived in a colonial age and could keep governments in power under threat of massive and unfair punitive actions, but alas that era is in the past.
He knows that his country is a colony, you don't have to rub it in.
Quote from: Barrister on July 07, 2021, 01:31:11 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2021, 12:27:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 07, 2021, 11:32:42 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2021, 07:20:10 AM
It sucks that clearly a sustainable government couldn't take root in the country, but you can't be propping it up indefinitely.
Why not?
Because military interventions are unsustainable on a permanent basis. Maybe things would be different if we lived in a colonial age and could keep governments in power under threat of massive and unfair punitive actions, but alas that era is in the past.
Quick research suggests the US spends $45 billion per year on its military forces in Afghanistan, down quite a bit from it's peak. That's not an insignificant sum, but seems to me to be a fair price for not allowing the Taliban back in power.
There is a lot of talk on what the founding principles of the US were, but I think there is little doubt they included self-determination. If the people of Afghanistan want the taliban, they should get the taliban.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 07, 2021, 03:05:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 07, 2021, 01:31:11 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2021, 12:27:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 07, 2021, 11:32:42 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2021, 07:20:10 AM
It sucks that clearly a sustainable government couldn't take root in the country, but you can't be propping it up indefinitely.
Why not?
Because military interventions are unsustainable on a permanent basis. Maybe things would be different if we lived in a colonial age and could keep governments in power under threat of massive and unfair punitive actions, but alas that era is in the past.
Quick research suggests the US spends $45 billion per year on its military forces in Afghanistan, down quite a bit from it's peak. That's not an insignificant sum, but seems to me to be a fair price for not allowing the Taliban back in power.
There is a lot of talk on what the founding principles of the US were, but I think there is little doubt they included self-determination. If the people of Afghanistan want the taliban, they should get the taliban.
The problem with that idea is that "the people of Afghanistan" is more than one guy, and they don't all want the same thing.
The Taliban is basically the militia of the Pashtun tribes. They have some support among the most fanatically Islamist members of other tribes, but not much. The Pashtun are the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan, bit not a majority, and not all Pashtuns support the Taliban.
So, deciding what "people of Afghanistan want" is not even possible, let alone a useful tool in determining international policy towards Afghanistan.
Taliban was in charge, pushed out by the coalition, fought for 20 years, and if they take over after all that time it seems reasonable to conclude that is as legitimate "self determination" for Afghanistan as independence was for the USA in 1776-1783.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 07, 2021, 04:36:04 PM
Taliban was in charge, pushed out by the coalition, fought for 20 years, and if they take over after all that time it seems reasonable to conclude that is as legitimate "self determination" for Afghanistan as independence was for the USA in 1776-1783.
If you go back a bit further to the USSR occupation and the US support of the resistance fighters, followed by the failure to help after the USSR withdrawl, the full magnitude of the policy failure of the West comes into full focus.
Quote from: Jacob on July 07, 2021, 02:50:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2021, 02:27:20 PM
Non-Taliban Afghans, instead of fighting for their country, moved to Germany.
I don't think that's completely accurate....
Yeah, some moved to Sweden or France as well. :P
Quote from: alfred russel on July 07, 2021, 04:36:04 PM
Taliban was in charge, pushed out by the coalition, fought for 20 years, and if they take over after all that time it seems reasonable to conclude that is as legitimate "self determination" for Afghanistan as independence was for the USA in 1776-1783.
The Taliban ruled some parts of Afghanistan after the Soviets left, true, but what you are espousing here isn't "self-determination;" what you are espousing is "might makes right." That is, of course, your choice, but you shouldn't try to fool yourself or us that you are making some generalization abourt the "founding principles of the US."
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on July 07, 2021, 05:52:19 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 07, 2021, 02:50:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2021, 02:27:20 PM
Non-Taliban Afghans, instead of fighting for their country, moved to Germany.
I don't think that's completely accurate....
Yeah, some moved to Sweden or France as well. :P
I think it eases Yi's conscience to pretend the Americans are not abandoning people.
It might be the correct policy decision, I am not sure what the correct decision is here. But he should not be pretending it does not have consequences for those left behind.
Dude on NPR just pointed out in the course of a discussion about the impending minority-majority change in the US that all three branches of the government are headed by practicing Catholics (Biden, Pelosi, and Roberts) and that this is totally unremarkable now.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2021, 07:48:21 PM
Dude on NPR just pointed out in the course of a discussion about the impending minority-majority change in the US that all three branches of the government are headed by practicing Catholics (Biden, Pelosi, and Roberts) and that this is totally unremarkable now.
Progress indeed, though I think if it happens that three Jewish Americans do the same, the conspiracy wack-jobs/ some GOPtards will go into overdrive.
What about three African-Americans? :unsure:
Quote from: Solmyr on July 09, 2021, 01:21:04 AM
What about three African-Americans? :unsure:
We can only hope. Of the many positives, it will mean the GOPtards lost and democracy in the US survived this era of chaos.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2021, 11:07:51 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on July 09, 2021, 01:21:04 AM
What about three African-Americans? :unsure:
We can only hope. Of the many positives, it will mean the GOPtards lost and democracy in the US survived this era of chaos.
:rolleyes:
The only black USSC Justice on the court was nominated by a Republican.
And the use of "tard" is highly disrespectful to those with mental or developmental difficulties. I know it has historic usage around here but I would recommend avoiding it.
Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2021, 11:16:01 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2021, 11:07:51 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on July 09, 2021, 01:21:04 AM
What about three African-Americans? :unsure:
We can only hope. Of the many positives, it will mean the GOPtards lost and democracy in the US survived this era of chaos.
:rolleyes:
The only black USSC Justice on the court was nominated by a Republican.
And the use of "tard" is highly disrespectful to those with mental or developmental difficulties. I know it has historic usage around here but I would recommend avoiding it.
Are you seriously suggesting that the success of the present day GOP and having a Black President, Chief Justices and Majority Leader are consistent with eachother?
Can you not see what has happened to the conservatives in the US?
edit: fuck off with trying to equate the racists in the GOP with people with mental disabilities. You know exactly what the insult was intended to convey.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2021, 12:00:29 PM
edit: fuck off with trying to equate the racists in the GOP with people with mental disabilities. You know exactly what the insult was intended to convey.
I know exactly what it was meant to convey. You were trying to equate the GOP as being "retards".
That word is very hurtful to people with developmental disabilities and I recommend you not use it in future.
Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2021, 12:07:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2021, 12:00:29 PM
edit: fuck off with trying to equate the racists in the GOP with people with mental disabilities. You know exactly what the insult was intended to convey.
I know exactly what it was meant to convey. You were trying to equate the GOP as being "retards".
That word is very hurtful to people with developmental disabilities and I recommend you not use it in future.
Ok, you didnt. I was equating them with racist fascists who choose to follow Trumpism in their pursuit of power.
I recommend you not defend such people in the future.
Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2021, 11:16:01 AM
The only black USSC Justice on the court was nominated by a Republican.
Sure. And Republicans passed the 13th Amendment. But that is all ancient history now. If GHW Bush was still representative of the modern party I would feel very differently about it.
Republicans are committed to the violent overthrow of the lawful US government and the polishing of Putin's scrotum. Whatever else Republicans were once in ancient history is completely irrelevant today.
Quote from: Valmy on July 09, 2021, 01:07:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2021, 11:16:01 AM
The only black USSC Justice on the court was nominated by a Republican.
Sure. And Republicans passed the 13th Amendment. But that is all ancient history now. If GHW Bush was still representative of the modern party I would feel very differently about it.
Ben Carson was briefly ahead in the polls in 2016, before people found out he was crazy.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 09, 2021, 04:30:11 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 09, 2021, 01:07:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2021, 11:16:01 AM
The only black USSC Justice on the court was nominated by a Republican.
Sure. And Republicans passed the 13th Amendment. But that is all ancient history now. If GHW Bush was still representative of the modern party I would feel very differently about it.
Ben Carson was briefly ahead in the polls in 2016, before people found out he was crazy.
Yeah with like 18% or something. And I dispute the notion that was before his positions were known or that his quick collapse were due to that.
Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2021, 11:16:01 AM
The only black USSC Justice on the court was nominated by a Republican.
Can you expand on what your point is here?
Clarence Thomas is so radically right wing that he isn't even taken seriously by other conservative judges.
Are you seriously arguing that because the GOP found a insanely right wing black person to park on the USSC, that means....what exactly, about their position on race and racial equality?
How should we balance that, for example, with the GOP's war on CRT?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2021, 12:00:29 PM
edit: fuck off with trying to equate the racists in the GOP with people with mental disabilities. You know exactly what the insult was intended to convey.
you are equating people with mental disabilities to Republicans. It is extremely insulting for the disabled people.
Quote from: viper37 on July 09, 2021, 09:22:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2021, 12:00:29 PM
edit: fuck off with trying to equate the racists in the GOP with people with mental disabilities. You know exactly what the insult was intended to convey.
you are equating people with mental disabilities to Republicans. It is extremely insulting for the disabled people.
I agree. disabled people do not share the characteristic of being unprincipled despicable human beings, unlike the modern day GOP.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2021, 10:46:18 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 09, 2021, 09:22:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2021, 12:00:29 PM
edit: fuck off with trying to equate the racists in the GOP with people with mental disabilities. You know exactly what the insult was intended to convey.
you are equating people with mental disabilities to Republicans. It is extremely insulting for the disabled people.
I agree. disabled people do not share the characteristic of being unprincipled despicable human beings, unlike the modern day GOP.
Great but GOPtard as an insult has retard as its root. And that term isn't really something thst sensible people use as an insult.
This argument is retarded.
Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2021, 11:43:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2021, 10:46:18 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 09, 2021, 09:22:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2021, 12:00:29 PM
edit: fuck off with trying to equate the racists in the GOP with people with mental disabilities. You know exactly what the insult was intended to convey.
you are equating people with mental disabilities to Republicans. It is extremely insulting for the disabled people.
I agree. disabled people do not share the characteristic of being unprincipled despicable human beings, unlike the modern day GOP.
Great but GOPtard as an insult has retard as its root. And that term isn't really something thst sensible people use as an insult.
You are right. I will stop using that term.
I see this forum has gone full woke.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2021, 02:08:34 PM
I see this forum has gone full woke.
I think we still have a few holdouts.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2021, 02:08:34 PM
I see this forum has gone full woke.
I'm half-woke at best.
I'm still pretty sleepy.
I wonder, what does it take to count as being woke? Let's say you're saying something that you feel is deeply stupid, but you're saying it because that's the only socially acceptable thing to say in your environment. Does that make you woke? Or do you have to be a true believer?
Quote from: DGuller on July 15, 2021, 02:27:13 PM
I wonder, what does it take to count as being woke? Let's say you're saying something that you feel is deeply stupid, but you're saying it because that's the only socially acceptable thing to say in your environment. Does that make you woke? Or do you have to be a true believer?
In my observation you can be dismissed as being too woke if your opinions are to the left of the speaker in matters related to the greater American culture war.
So in the case you outline, yes that makes you woke in the eyes of of those who refuse to mouth those platitudes in your environment (or who are from an environment where they are not under pressure to do so). Conversely, you will not be deemed woke by those who sincerely subscribe to the opinions you are merely mouthing (assuming they even clue into the fact that you don't actually believe what you're saying).
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2021, 02:08:34 PM
I see this forum has gone full woke.
No, I think our transgender megathread prevents us from collecting any woke badges.
Quote from: DGuller on July 15, 2021, 02:27:13 PM
I wonder, what does it take to count as being woke? Let's say you're saying something that you feel is deeply stupid, but you're saying it because that's the only socially acceptable thing to say in your environment. Does that make you woke? Or do you have to be a true believer?
You are what you do. Not what you think you are.
Quote from: garbon on July 15, 2021, 02:51:14 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2021, 02:08:34 PM
I see this forum has gone full woke.
No, I think our transgender megathread prevents us from collecting any woke badges.
Don't worry, your snarky attempts to shut down discussions won't go unnoticed when it comes time to hand out badges.
Quote from: DGuller on July 15, 2021, 03:03:26 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 15, 2021, 02:51:14 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2021, 02:08:34 PM
I see this forum has gone full woke.
No, I think our transgender megathread prevents us from collecting any woke badges.
Don't worry, your snarky attempts to shut down discussions won't go unnoticed when it comes time to hand out badges.
I don't even understand how any of that applies.
There is definitely tension between the center-left and the wokies.
With the right wing in the condition it is within the US, every rational human being is left of centre. There is bound to be disagreement within that large a tent.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 15, 2021, 05:03:18 PM
There is definitely tension between the center-left and the wokies.
Since there's no definition of "wokies" that means anything outside the circle using a given definition, I think that your "definitely" is a figment of your own desires. In fact, I am not aware of
any group that calls itself "wokies." The very name seems like a slur used by fascists (see the urban dictionary for evidence of this).
The preferred term is wokers.
I don't know why the unwoke have to make up these ridiculous terms. The woke know that the term for woke people is "woke."
Wookie?
Quote from: Jacob on July 15, 2021, 09:55:48 PM
Wookie?
Woke Wookies, or "wokies", are into cancel culture - they demand the cancellation of the
Star Wars Holiday Special.
It's Wookiee, with two e. :nerd:
Quote from: Syt on July 15, 2021, 11:14:59 PM
It's Wookiee, with two e. :nerd:
Very good, thank you for the correction :cheers:
I'm more of a "wake". As in I oppose Norman oppression.
Merkel made her final visit at the White House as chancellor of Germany.
(https://2001-2009.state.gov/cms_images/070430_bush_merkel_barroso.jpg)
(https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/imagecache/gallery_img_full/image/image_file/p020915dl-0002.jpg)
(https://www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/afp_mr2ba.jpg?w=620)
(https://im-media.voltron.voanews.com/Drupal/01live-166/styles/892x501/s3/2021-07/ap_merkel_biden.jpg)
The rug and wallpapers change more often than I thought. :P
IIRC Biden uses Clinton's rug.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 16, 2021, 06:11:19 AM
IIRC Biden uses Clinton's rug.
`
What about interns?
Meanwhile Chancellor Kurz, after speaking in front of a UN committee this week, met with mayor Bloomberg and gave an interview to an Austrian tabloid while having a cheeseburger at McD's. :D
Quote from: The Brain on July 16, 2021, 06:14:31 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 16, 2021, 06:11:19 AM
IIRC Biden uses Clinton's rug.
`
What about interns?
Hopefully they've all reached the age of maturity by now.
Quote from: Syt on July 16, 2021, 06:06:00 AM
Merkel made her final visit at the White House as chancellor of Germany.
A picture really is worth 1000 words.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 16, 2021, 10:19:55 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 16, 2021, 06:06:00 AM
Merkel made her final visit at the White House as chancellor of Germany.
A picture really is worth 1000 words.
Are four pictures worth 4,000 words, or is there a bulk discount?
Quote from: grumbler on July 16, 2021, 11:07:47 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 16, 2021, 10:19:55 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 16, 2021, 06:06:00 AM
Merkel made her final visit at the White House as chancellor of Germany.
A picture really is worth 1000 words.
Are four pictures worth 4,000 words, or is there a bulk discount?
4 pictures are worth 3,999 words. It's not a discount per se as much as following standard pricing strategies.
What I find notable is that most people change their pose when sitting in their chair during those photo ops, often crossing their legs etc.
However, Trump almost always sits like this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net%2Fwp%2F2018%2F09%2FAP_18268552187987-1000x667.jpg&hash=8a75670549093fb77a3aedd6fc58b3f077a6b917)
(https://s.abcnews.com/images/International/president-trump-int-13-bugged-abc-jc-180612_hpMain_16x9_992.jpg)
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/04/06/us/06trump1/06trump1-articleLarge.jpg)
Kinda looks like he's sitting on the crapper.
If he crossed his legs then he wouldn't look 'tough'.
Quote from: Syt on July 16, 2021, 11:48:58 AM
Kinda looks like he's sitting on the crapper.
He isn't tweeting nonsense so you can tell he isn't on the crapper.
He is probably speaking nonsense though.
Check out the Hapsburg chin in photo 2
looks like he was going for the Mussolini jut but ended up closer to Carlos II.
Quote from: Caliga on July 16, 2021, 12:08:43 PM
If he crossed his legs then he wouldn't look 'tough'.
Probably more about exposing the stomach area to full view if he were to sit up straight. Or perhaps lack of strength. Maybe both.
I mean, he stands like this:
(https://miro.medium.com/max/974/1*6-MPRi55oBECO6mrZEQfAg.png)
So, he really is a puppet?
But who is the mysterious Puppet Master? :hmm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcAUWODgzIw
A federal judge has ruled that DACA is illegal. That's Obama's executive order not to deport illegal aliens that arrived as children.
The news report says for now it just means new applications can no longer be accepted. Which I find kind of confusing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 17, 2021, 11:30:05 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcAUWODgzIw
A federal judge has ruled that DACA is illegal. That's Obama's executive order not to deport illegal aliens that arrived as children.
The news report says for now it just means new applications can no longer be accepted. Which I find kind of confusing.
That was a Federal judge in Texas. Unsurprisingly, he didn't know what DACA was in his ruling, just that Trumpeters didn't like it and so it must be unconstitutional.
Hanen has become rather infamous for declarations exhibiting political bias and animus. Unfortunately, this decision continues that trend. The state plaintiffs, led by Texas, did not argue that DACA was an arbitrary and capricious exercise of agency power - for the presumably obvious reason that it wasn't a plausible argument. Hanen's opinion, however, includes an entire section in which he suggests that it was arbitrary and capricious, while acknowledging that no party made the argument. He does so in an opinion ruling on a summary judgment motion - a motion was is supposed to be determined on a fixed record - based on his own speculation and including citations to two outside studies, neither of which was introduced into evidence of subject to any review or an opportunity to respond by the parties.
The principal study that Hanen cites is a study from Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy that conducts a cost-benefit analysis of undocumented immigrants to the State of Texas. the study claimed to find that every $1.00 of state spending un undocumented immigrants, corresponds to $1.20 of revenue to the state - i.e. that such immigration is beneficial to the state fisc. It also concludes that mass deportation would cause of $179 billion hit to the state economy. You wouldn't know that from Hanen's citation, however, because he neglects to mention the core findings. Instead, he cites to all the costs while ignoring all the fiscal gains, given the completely false impression that the study found the such immigrants were a huge fiscal burden.
I haven't reviewed the full legal merits of this decision, but this kind of judicial behavior has the consequence of undermining people's faith in fair and unbiased administration of justice.
So what does that ruling mean? Can a federal judge in any state block an executive order from being followed anywhere in the country? If so, how do any executive orders ever have any effect?
Quote from: Solmyr on July 18, 2021, 04:43:29 PM
So what does that ruling mean? Can a federal judge in any state block an executive order from being followed anywhere in the country? If so, how do any executive orders ever have any effect?
Someone will get a stay of this ruling, and another set of judges will hear this on appeal. It's mostly just scorched-earth tactics, delaying an effective implementation of DACA in hopes that more innocent people will be crushed by the weight of the federal bureaucracy.
The funny thing is that both parties in Congress say they want to make DACA law, but they refuse to enact it because the other side wants it, too.
Sounds like a lovely system. :huh:
There was another DACA case filed in the Eastern District of New York (the federal court that covers the physical territory of Long Island). That court issued an order in December 2020 directing DHS to accept first time DACA requests and and renewal requests. If Judge Hanen ruled otherwise it would create a conflict of two judicial mandates. So what Hanen did was rule:
+ DHS can accept first time requests but cannot act on them
+ DHS can grant renewal of DACA requests, pending a decision from a higher appeals court - Hanen accomplished this by issuing a partial stay of his own order
+ DACA relief still applies to existing recipients, again based on the self-stay.
Side note - Judge Hanen's decision is not text searchable, as usually required under the ECF rules. Annoying.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 19, 2021, 08:33:59 AM
+ DHS can accept first time requests but cannot act on them
What does that mean?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 22, 2021, 04:00:44 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 19, 2021, 08:33:59 AM
+ DHS can accept first time requests but cannot act on them
What does that mean?
That you can apply, but the application won't result in any action at the time being?
Quote from: Solmyr on July 19, 2021, 03:54:06 AM
Sounds like a lovely system. :huh:
The whole political mess going on in the US seems very similar to the late Roman Republic.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 22, 2021, 04:00:44 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 19, 2021, 08:33:59 AM
+ DHS can accept first time requests but cannot act on them
What does that mean?
I assume it means what Jacob said above, but the order isn't a model of clarity.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2021, 10:30:54 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 22, 2021, 04:00:44 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 19, 2021, 08:33:59 AM
+ DHS can accept first time requests but cannot act on them
What does that mean?
I assume it means what Jacob said above, but the order isn't a model of clarity.
Well it sounds like anyone applying would be adding their name to a list as undocumented without any tangible benefit. Seems like that might have a chilling effect.
Quote from: Tamas on July 22, 2021, 10:19:55 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on July 19, 2021, 03:54:06 AM
Sounds like a lovely system. :huh:
The whole political mess going on in the US seems very similar to the late Roman Republic.
How so?
Quote from: Tamas on July 22, 2021, 10:19:55 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on July 19, 2021, 03:54:06 AM
Sounds like a lovely system. :huh:
The whole political mess going on in the US seems very similar to the late Roman Republic.
How late are we talking about? We haven't even had our Tiberious Gracchus yet.
My Latin teacher claimed that our Gracchi were the Kennedys.
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2021, 05:15:27 PM
Quote from: Tamas on July 22, 2021, 10:19:55 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on July 19, 2021, 03:54:06 AM
Sounds like a lovely system. :huh:
The whole political mess going on in the US seems very similar to the late Roman Republic.
How late are we talking about? We haven't even had our Tiberious Gracchus yet.
Bernious Gracchus has come and gone. We haven't had our practical Gracchi yet, and maybe won't.
But the whole political divisiveness and the conservative's willingness to oppose their "evil" opponents through violence are eerily similar, as is he breakdown in constitutional norms. Trumpeters scoff at the
mos maiorum and delight in the idea that putting partisan morons on the judicial benches really "triggers the libs."
Quote from: Razgovory on July 22, 2021, 06:59:22 PM
My Latin teacher claimed that our Gracchi were the Kennedys.
Well they're both dead.
Is the US Supreme Court going to reconsider Roe v Wade?
This NPR article makes it sound like it could happen: https://www.npr.org/2021/07/23/1019746478/on-abortion-mississippi-swings-for-the-fences-asks-the-supreme-court-to-reverse-
How likely is it that the court will reconsider Roe v Wade?
Quote from: Jacob on July 23, 2021, 06:35:38 PM
Is the US Supreme Court going to reconsider Roe v Wade?
This NPR article makes it sound like it could happen: https://www.npr.org/2021/07/23/1019746478/on-abortion-mississippi-swings-for-the-fences-asks-the-supreme-court-to-reverse-
How likely is it that the court will reconsider Roe v Wade?
It is clear that a majority of justices want to expand government control over women's sex lives, but some don;t think it is worth setting the precedent that the political party in power overturns all rulings by past courts dominated by the other party. Fratboy would overturn in a second, I think, and not consider for that second what the long-term implications of his decision were. Church Lady would rely on the clear concept that only decisions by Republican-dominated courts are "super precedents" that she needs to consider; mere
stare decisis would not, in her mind, outweigh what Jesus is telling her to do. I think that Roberts and maybe Alito would be the roadblocks to overturning such a long-standing and oft-cited ruling.
But I can almost guarantee that, if RvW is overturned by this court, the decision to overturn will itself be overturned by the first Democratically-dominated court. Overturning RvW would be the end of any pretense that there is one Supreme Court, rather than a bunch of self-serving Supreme Court factions.
In a way I think it would be good for the SC to discredit itself. It doesn't deserve the legitimacy it still enjoys.
Quote from: DGuller on July 23, 2021, 09:18:39 PM
In a way I think it would be good for the SC to discredit itself. It doesn't deserve the legitimacy it still enjoys.
And then the rule of law totally evaporates.
Have you tried turning the US off and turning it on again?
We've had a good 240 year run. That's enough for the history books.
Quote from: The Brain on July 24, 2021, 02:45:25 AM
Have you tried turning the US off and turning it on again?
Perhaps Trump was the equivalent to turning us off. But alas, we're rebooting with an older hard drive.
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2021, 06:51:46 PM
But I can almost guarantee that, if RvW is overturned by this court, the decision to overturn will itself be overturned by the first Democratically-dominated court. Overturning RvW would be the end of any pretense that there is one Supreme Court, rather than a bunch of self-serving Supreme Court factions.
You are assuming there will be a Democratically dominated court...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 24, 2021, 02:20:22 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 23, 2021, 09:18:39 PM
In a way I think it would be good for the SC to discredit itself. It doesn't deserve the legitimacy it still enjoys.
And then the rule of law totally evaporates.
With the recent intense politicization of your Supreme Court and all federal judicial appointments, I am not sure there is much left.
"In private calls with voting rights groups and civil rights leaders, White House officials and close allies of the president have expressed confidence that it is possible to 'out-organize voter suppression'"
:wacko:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/22/us/politics/biden-voting-rights.html?referringSource=articleShare
Sounds obvious to me. What am I missing?
Because it's not? "This game is rigged! I sure hope I can win it, so I can change the rule again".
Quite aside from the fact that voter suppression is an affront to the democratic principle, and should be fought on those grounds with all possible energy, current Republican measures are all designed to prevent another Georgia 2.0. Republicans are currently making sure they take control of the certification process, which would likely be able to overturn any sort of close call. The sort of margins you get in contested territories are minuscule, and you'd need a herculean effort to offset them, which the Democratic establishment seems quite incapable to do, much less sustain - precisely because it's so timid about... everything. Considering the Republican Kool-Aid right now, I am not sure that even some huge margin - like 80% - would convince them it's not a steal.
Ah, that's a different argument than the one I was responding to.
I was saying you can out organize reduced voting hours etc.
I agree you can't out organize Republican election officials overturning election results.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2021, 10:34:27 PM
Ah, that's a different argument than the one I was responding to.
I was saying you can out organize reduced voting hours etc.
I agree you can't out organize Republican election officials overturning election results.
Ah, yes.
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 27, 2021, 10:26:43 PM
Considering the Republican Kool-Aid right now, I am not sure that even some huge margin - like 80% - would convince them it's not a steal.
On the contrary it would convince them even more that it had to be a steal.
All data is interpreted to confirm the hypothesis.
Given the average of politicians as of late, weird to think Obama isn't yet 60.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E7kGh-4XEAE7YJc?format=png&name=small)
:D
Kinda curious about that Trump mid-term "bump".
Only in You Kay right? So probably connected to his stupid tweets about Brexit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 31, 2021, 04:39:04 AM
Only in You Kay right? So probably connected to his stupid tweets about Brexit.
No - it looks like everywhere bumped at around the same time. And by the looks of it it's 2019/20. I've no idea - maybe the Arab-Israeli deal with Saudi and the UAE? :hmm:
It was the power of The Orb.
Just to go back to the ranking conversation - 1943 book "They Also Ran", where biographer Irving Stone gave his view on defeated presidential candidates and, in this amazing cover, gave a visual impression of what he thought of each of them v their opponent:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E7vRW7AVEAAz_TV?format=jpg&name=medium)
I feel like this would probably look a little different maybe - but maybe not (and good God he hated Harding :lol:)
Probably a puritan who hated Harding's hedonism.
Finding it difficult to fit a pattern to Stone's biases.
Maybe anti-slavery + idealism?
Given that it was 1943 and then updated for 1944 I sort of thought maybe some high New Deal idealism - but he doesn't really seem to rate FDR that much and it just doesn't seem to fit.
I mean it looks like a fascinating book and was last updated in 1966 - can't find a copy anywhere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Also_Ran
I particularly like that he groups them by profession/background.
But Stone wrote biographical novels like The Agony and the Ecstasy about Michaelangelo, later adapted into the film. So maybe he rated interesting/novel candidates highly (a man after my own heart :lol:)?
Man what the hell was wrong with Henry Clay Mr. Stone?
I figure Douglas and Lincoln are actual true to life scale there.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2021, 05:46:27 PM
Finding it difficult to fit a pattern to Stone's biases.
Maybe anti-slavery + idealism?
It looks to me like he thought the quality of a president was a function of the extent to which they were accused of violating the US Constitution. That's the only list that would have Lincoln, FDR, and Andrew Fucking Jackson all near the top.
Wasn't the sort of 30s/40s/mid-century America the peak of Jackson's reception though? Man of the people and an inspiration and ancestor of the huge reforming energy of progressivism and then the New Deal in taking on vested, entrenched interests and standing up for the common man. I don't know if it's when they started but wasn't it very much the age of the Jefferson-Jackson dinner?
That reception then changed as mainstream concepts of the people and the common man expanded.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 02, 2021, 07:16:02 PM
Wasn't the sort of 30s/40s/mid-century America the peak of Jackson's reception though? Man of the people and an inspiration and ancestor of the huge reforming energy of progressivism and then the New Deal in taking on vested, entrenched interests and standing up for the common man. I don't know if it's when they started but wasn't it very much the age of the Jefferson-Jackson dinner?
That reception then changed as mainstream concepts of the people and the common man expanded.
Even if you love Jackson I just found the dismissing of the Henry Clay as surprising. Maybe he just really hates high tariffs and internal improvements.
Quote from: Valmy on August 02, 2021, 07:25:34 PM
Even if you love Jackson I just found the dismissing of the Henry Clay as surprising. Maybe he just really hates high tariffs and internal improvements.
As I said about the modern rankings: they say more about us than the presidents. So it'd be interesting to know what the reception of Clay was in the 40s.
But he does group presidents by their jobs and Clay is with Bryan in the "three time loser category" :lol:
I'd love to know his take on Tilden who is on his lonesome in the "Heroes Stand Alone" section :hmm:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 02, 2021, 05:55:36 PM
So maybe he rated interesting/novel candidates highly (a man after my own heart :lol:)?
Fremont and Greeley certainly count as interesting.
And with that description one has exhausted their merits as presidential candidates.
What is the danger line?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 03, 2021, 08:54:54 AM
What is the danger line?
I presume being dangerously incompetent...again kind of vicious for Henry Clay there.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 03, 2021, 08:54:54 AM
What is the danger line?
Beyond it lies https://youtu.be/siwpn14IE7E
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 02, 2021, 05:55:36 PM
But Stone wrote biographical novels like The Agony and the Ecstasy about Michaelangelo, later adapted into the film. So maybe he rated interesting/novel candidates highly (a man after my own heart :lol:)?
Lust for Life (Van Gogh) was also a movie, he also had an Andrew Jakcson novel adapted. Hollywood has always loved their "great man" biopics, and this dude seemed to produce them industrially.
The Cuomo sex thing is back in the news, at least judging by my youtube feed, and this time it appears public opinion is against him. 59% in favor of resigning is what I've seen. Wonder what changed between now and back when DGuller handed me his life savings.
Report came out. Two months late and $25 short. :mad:
NYAG dropped an investigative report. James is out for his head.
You can see it as too many allegations to explain away or too many enemies in his own party (and no friends elsewhere) or a little of both. But however you slice it he is on the ropes and falling.
I don't understand how he hasn't already resigned - and if he keeps hanging probably needs to be impeached.
Although personally I find his "seual harassment is an essential part of Italian-American culture" amazing :lol:
But is he wrong?
Based on my research which consists of watching The Sopranos and living in New Jersey, I would say he is not wrong. :)
Quote from: Caliga on August 06, 2021, 11:23:06 AM
Based on my research which consists of watching The Sopranos and living in New Jersey, I would say he is not wrong. :)
Good thing you got out of Joisey. I'd hate for you to live in a place of national ridicule.
:mad:
Quote from: The Brain on August 06, 2021, 04:07:17 PM
Good thing you got out of Joisey. I'd hate for you to live in a place of national ridicule.
Given what's going on in the rest of the nation, it's on poor grounds to deliver ridicule.
I suspect Jersey Shore airs internationally.
Quote from: The Brain on August 06, 2021, 04:07:17 PM
Good thing you got out of Joisey. I'd hate for you to live in a place of national ridicule.
I agree. It's great living in Kentucky, a place that is never the subject of ridicule. :cool:
Cuomo just quit.
And Matt Gaetz and Jim Jordan still hold office. Says all you need to know about accountability between the the two US parties.
So how does that work in NY? Is there a Lt Governor who just takes over?
Quote from: Valmy on August 10, 2021, 01:44:26 PM
So how does that work in NY? Is there a Lt Governor who just takes over?
Yes.
Kathy Hochul will become NYS 1st female governor. I expect a political star is about to be born.
Quote from: Valmy on August 10, 2021, 01:44:26 PM
So how does that work in NY? Is there a Lt Governor who just takes over?
Yes, they've been there before.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 10, 2021, 01:46:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 10, 2021, 01:44:26 PM
So how does that work in NY? Is there a Lt Governor who just takes over?
Yes.
Kathy Hochul will become NYS 1st female governor. I expect a political star is about to be born.
A mere 95 years behind the great progressive State of Texas. Though in a typical Texas way she won her election for governor by openly campaigning as a puppet for her Husband, who had been impeached and forbidden from ever holding elected office again. A wonderful political story about not letting something like the spirit of the law getting in the way of things.
Though we elected a non-puppet female governor in 1990 so there is that. Take that New York!
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2021, 01:47:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 10, 2021, 01:44:26 PM
So how does that work in NY? Is there a Lt Governor who just takes over?
Yes, they've been there before.
Right, the blind dude who took over for the guy who was banging hookers. :) I forget both of their names.
Elliot Abrams?
Candy and Cherry Pie?
I think the governor was Spitzer and the lt. gov who replaced was Paterson.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 02, 2021, 04:04:34 PM
Just to go back to the ranking conversation - 1943 book "They Also Ran", where biographer Irving Stone gave his view on defeated presidential candidates and, in this amazing cover, gave a visual impression of what he thought of each of them v their opponent:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E7vRW7AVEAAz_TV?format=jpg&name=medium)
I feel like this would probably look a little different maybe - but maybe not (and good God he hated Harding :lol:)
Greely over Grant? WTF
Isn't there a consensus that Grant was out of his depth as President? :hmm:
I wouldn't take this guy's ratings very seriously. He rates Jackson near the top and Buchanan as anything but the worst.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 23, 2021, 01:51:28 AM
Isn't there a consensus that Grant was out of his depth as President? :hmm:
Yeah I think there's been a bit of revisionism around Grant as views on reconstruction have shifted, but I could be wrong.
I stumbled across Jean Guerrero and Latinx brouhaha on Twitter today, and if you need to encapsulate the problem with why the left sucks at politics in two tweets, she did an excellent job.
Jean Guerrero: "Democratic outreach to Latinxs is not working, none of them know what's going on."
Latinx Twitter users: "Maybe you're not reaching us because you're calling us Latinx."
Jean Guerrero: "LOL, look at all this right wing freakout about me using the word Latinx."
Quote from: DGuller on August 23, 2021, 12:27:42 PM
I stumbled across Jean Guerrero and Latinx brouhaha on Twitter today, and if you need to encapsulate the problem with why the left sucks at politics in two tweets, she did an excellent job.
Jean Guerrero: "Democratic outreach to Latinxs is not working, none of them know what's going on."
Latinx Twitter users: "Maybe you're not reaching us because you're calling us Latinx."
Jean Guerrero: "LOL, look at all this right wing freakout about me using the word Latinx."
I checked it out. Heh.
Culture War > policies to actually help people. Yes I know this.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 23, 2021, 01:51:28 AM
Isn't there a consensus that Grant was out of his depth as President? :hmm:
There is some truth to that but given who he succeeded and what came after, Grant doesn't look too shabby overall. And Greeley was a ridiculous Presidential candidate.
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2021, 12:51:32 PM
Culture War > policies to actually help people. Yes I know this.
It's more basic than that. Yes, logically speaking, the Democrats could go "Just vote for us, for fuck's sake, what the fuck is wrong with you?", and if the voters were logical, the Democrats would still win everything in a landslide. However, people are the way they are, and when you go "Hmm, your language is not sufficiently inclusive, let me fix that for you", they may understandably feel a bit patronized.
People from latin america are by and large religious and conservative. if the GOP wasn't so racist they'd rake in the first and 2nd generation vote.
Quote from: DGuller on August 23, 2021, 01:41:44 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2021, 12:51:32 PM
Culture War > policies to actually help people. Yes I know this.
It's more basic than that. Yes, logically speaking, the Democrats could go "Just vote for us, for fuck's sake, what the fuck is wrong with you?", and if the voters were logical, the Democrats would still win everything in a landslide. However, people are the way they are, and when you go "Hmm, your language is not sufficiently inclusive, let me fix that for you", they may understandably feel a bit patronized.
Exactly. We need to fix Spanish because it is too sexist. This is a very important cultural victory we must win that clearly is more important than securing health care and good paying jobs and sane immigration policies.
I think you're wildly overstating the importance and influence of that kind of activism.
Quote from: HVC on August 23, 2021, 02:36:20 PM
People from latin america are by and large religious and conservative. if the GOP wasn't so racist they'd rake in the first and 2nd generation vote.
The party leadership wanted to do that. The Republicans in Texas made big gains with an outreach program. The rank and file rose up against Bush's "Pathway to Citizenship" What a fucking waste.
I have a prediction: Republicans won't become more tolerant, they will just start considering Latinos white. Like they did with Italians.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2021, 09:15:08 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 23, 2021, 02:36:20 PM
People from latin america are by and large religious and conservative. if the GOP wasn't so racist they'd rake in the first and 2nd generation vote.
The party leadership wanted to do that. The Republicans in Texas made big gains with an outreach program. The rank and file rose up against Bush's "Pathway to Citizenship" What a fucking waste.
I have a prediction: Republicans won't become more tolerant, they will just start considering Latinos white. Like they did with Italians.
It makes sense. Lots of latinos consider themselves white. Your super old school first families of the united states that can trace their lineage to the early 1600s in the US are some mixture of european and native american, which is the same as latinos.
Quote from: The Larch on August 23, 2021, 05:29:14 PM
I think you're wildly overstating the importance and influence of that kind of activism.
:yes:
75 million people disagree with your assessment of how important "that kind of activism" is - and kind of by definition, that makes your assessment pretty clearly incorrect.
Quote from: Berkut on August 24, 2021, 07:40:13 AM
75 million people disagree with your assessment of how important "that kind of activism" is - and kind of by definition, that makes your assessment pretty clearly incorrect.
What are their names?
Quote from: The Larch on August 23, 2021, 05:29:14 PM
I think you're wildly overstating the importance and influence of that kind of activism.
If your talking to me I wildly disagree. While this is one small issue of a large whole, granted, the culture war is huge here and ruins and taints every damn thing. I wish it was not the case.
It reminds me of basically this exchange immediately after the election when it became clear that Trump had done better than expected in Latino areas. Rightly they turned to a successful Latino Rep who had managed to help drive up the Latino vote which helped win Arizona for Biden:
QuoteRuben Gallego
@RubenGallego
Az Latino vote delivered! This was a 10 year project. You tried to bury us with SB1070 you didn't realize we were seeds and ten years later we would grow to fight back. #AZBlue
QuoteZander
@zndr_a
@RubenGallegoRuben, honest question, how do we as a party improve our work with the LatinX community across the country as well as we've done in AZ? Its so frustrating to see so many republican LatinX voters, but I know its on people like me to help convince them dems are the place to be.
QuoteRuben Gallego
@RubenGallego
First start by not using the term Latinx. Second we have to be in front of them year round not just election years. That is what we did in AZ.
Followed by lots of (predominately white) lefties basically saying "no" :lol:
But I think this is a classic example of a term not being helpful if it's being used to describe people - people you're trying to convince/get on side - if they don't use or like that term themselves.
Edit: And I think there's been a number of polls that somewhere under 5% of Latinos actually use the term (and a significant plurality) don't even know it. It seems primarily a shibboleth/signal to other people who use the term rather than a way of engaging with or persuading the people it's meant to describe.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 24, 2021, 09:06:56 AM
Followed by lots of (predominately white) lefties basically saying "no" :lol:
But I think this is a classic example of a term not being helpful if it's being used to describe people - people you're trying to convince/get on side - if they don't use or like that term themselves.
I mean basically yes. What is more important? Actually helping the poor and oppressed in this country? Actually empowering them through good and wise policies? Or culture war?
The answer is clearly culture war for far too many people.
And it absolutely cuts both ways now. The right will gladly eat its own for culture war reasons now. Nice to see them get on our level.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 24, 2021, 09:06:56 AM
But I think this is a classic example of a term not being helpful if it's being used to describe people - people you're trying to convince/get on side - if they don't use or like that term themselves.
Edit: And I think there's been a number of polls that somewhere under 5% of Latinos actually use the term (and a significant plurality) don't even know it. It seems primarily a shibboleth/signal to other people who use the term rather than a way of engaging with or persuading the people it's meant to describe.
Latinos/latinas in the US overwhelmingly prefer the term Hispanic, which makes the whole "LatinX" issue even more amazing. Hispanic is gender-neutral.
Quote from: grumbler on August 24, 2021, 09:17:17 AM
Latinos/latinas in the US overwhelmingly prefer the term Hispanic, which makes the whole "LatinX" issue even more amazing. Hispanic is gender-neutral.
Exactly - and my understanding is that in Spanish the gender neutral (though not widely used) suffix would be Latine which I think would also work.
I don't know that it's particularly culture-war-y I think it's more a shibboleth - it's a way of advertising your awareness and your views to others, for want of a better word, in your group and create a nice common feeling. I think it's less like a culture war clash than the way that Trump, for example, makes tiny references to sort of Fox News deep cuts - if you're not a huge follower you won't get it, but if you do it's like a little shout out to you.
That's a part of politics and a part of the way we all use language. But I think in this case it hinders the other, more important part of language and politics which is to convince people, to build out your coalition etc. And on that front I think it is unhelpful.
Nah, I think it is left culture war shit. They are literally saying that Spanish is patriarchal as a language and should be actively changed for the better. If most of America's Spanish language speakers disagree, they just need to be "educated." It's very much "of the left" sort of culture war.
America has always struggled to name the Latino/Hispanic cohort for a few reasons that make them defy easy grouping:
-Most of them identify as racially white, although "brown" is a growing identifier
-Most of them either identify primarily as American or the specific origin country their family is from, first and foremost (i.e. Mexican American, Puerto Rican, Colombian, etc etc.)
-Both the terms Hispanic and Latino have a history of basically being created by the white community to try and label their community, and both have always had issues.
I think Hispanic is more accepted simply because it was the term the government and census came up with first, before Latino became more en vogue. Latino was needed because the logic behind the term "Hispanic" was that this was a Spanish language population, but many of these people when they hit 2nd generation, are fully bilingual with maybe a slight preference for English, and many third generation only speak limited Spanish at all. But we still want to "capture" them because they have last names like Martinez and often their skin is a little too far in the color wheel for us to be comfortable with so they must have some sort of label so we can correctly identify what sort of minority they are.
Spanish is the language of the original colonizers so it should be canceled and replaced with a truly international and inclusive language, like Esperanto or Klingon.
I think another component here is that some people consider being right to be more important than anything else (never mind the smug definition of what they consider to be right).
Quote from: FunkMonk on August 24, 2021, 12:20:54 PM
Spanish is the language of the original colonizers so it should be canceled and replaced with a truly international and inclusive language, like Esperanto or Klingon.
Klingon would be fun. But once it's widely spoken, it will lose its appeal :P
Quote from: viper37 on August 24, 2021, 12:48:31 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on August 24, 2021, 12:20:54 PM
Spanish is the language of the original colonizers so it should be canceled and replaced with a truly international and inclusive language, like Esperanto or Klingon.
Klingon would be fun. But once it's widely spoken, it will lose its appeal :P
but everyone would be able to understand the better version of Shakespear
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 24, 2021, 11:34:14 AM
I think Hispanic is more accepted simply because it was the term the government and census came up with first, before Latino became more en vogue. Latino was needed because the logic behind the term "Hispanic" was that this was a Spanish language population, but many of these people when they hit 2nd generation, are fully bilingual with maybe a slight preference for English, and many third generation only speak limited Spanish at all. But we still want to "capture" them because they have last names like Martinez and often their skin is a little too far in the color wheel for us to be comfortable with so they must have some sort of label so we can correctly identify what sort of minority they are.
Okay, so I'm probably biased because of my experience with A: a Brazillian sister-in-law, and B: having two exchange students from Spain stay with us.
But I thought the problem with "Hispanic" is that it would cover my two spanish exchange students, but exclude my Portuguese-speaking sister-in-law, when that's not really what was intended in either case. As such "Latino" meant "someone from Latin America", which was the term we were looking for.
Well yeah they are Lusotanic.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2021, 12:04:10 AM
Well yeah they are Lusotanic.
Who are you calling a lousy satanic?1?
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2021, 12:04:10 AM
Well yeah they are Lusotanic.
It's so sad that Leonardo DiCaprio died from U-boat attack.
An easy way to fix this whole US racial and semantics problems would be to adopt the French system, where it is illegal to ask those questions in the census.
Problem solved. :sleep:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 24, 2021, 09:27:29 AM
Quote from: grumbler on August 24, 2021, 09:17:17 AM
Latinos/latinas in the US overwhelmingly prefer the term Hispanic, which makes the whole "LatinX" issue even more amazing. Hispanic is gender-neutral.
Exactly - and my understanding is that in Spanish the gender neutral (though not widely used) suffix would be Latine which I think would also work.
I don't know that it's particularly culture-war-y I think it's more a shibboleth - it's a way of advertising your awareness and your views to others, for want of a better word, in your group and create a nice common feeling. I think it's less like a culture war clash than the way that Trump, for example, makes tiny references to sort of Fox News deep cuts - if you're not a huge follower you won't get it, but if you do it's like a little shout out to you.
That's a part of politics and a part of the way we all use language. But I think in this case it hinders the other, more important part of language and politics which is to convince people, to build out your coalition etc. And on that front I think it is unhelpful.
Yeah, if you just call Hispanics Hispanics you may be gender neutral but you are not virtue signalling that you are making the effort to be gender neutral. Defeats the whole purpose of talking for these attention-whores
This is one of the weird things of US politics to me, the level of interaction between presidential policy and judicial oversight, can't really tell if it's the system of checks and balances working as intended or "activist judges" as they are sometimes decried. How is it that a president changing a policy, as is his wont, can be overturned by a tribunal? Is it something purely procedural or is there a partisan application of courts to blame?
QuoteSupreme court orders Biden to revive Trump's 'remain in Mexico' policy
Justices deny president's effort to rescind Trump program
Blow to Biden as trio of liberal justices dissent in 6-3 ruling
The US supreme court on Tuesday denied Joe Biden's bid to rescind an immigration policy implemented by his predecessor, Donald Trump, that forced thousands of asylum seekers to stay in Mexico awaiting US hearings.
The court, with three liberal justices dissenting, rejected the Biden administration's effort to block a Texas-based judge's ruling requiring the government to revive Trump's "remain in Mexico" policy, formally known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program.
The court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump.
The brief order by the justices means that US district judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's ruling now goes into effect.
The court's decision referenced its 2020 ruling that thwarted Trump's bid to end a program introduced by Barack Obama that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of immigrants – often called "Dreamers" – who entered the United States without papers as children.
Both cases concern whether the government followed the correct legal process in unwinding a previous administration's policy.
Biden, who has sought since taking office in January to reverse many of Trump's hardline immigration policies, rolled back the MPP program. Republican-led Texas and Missouri challenged the Democratic president's move.
Biden's administration turned to the supreme court after Kacsmaryk ruled that the Trump policy would have to be reinstated and the New Orleans-based fifth US circuit court of appeals on August 19 denied the government's request for a delay.
The fifth circuit's decision said the Biden administration must implement the MPP program in "good faith", which leaves the government some discretion in how to move forward.
Democrats and immigration advocates criticized MPP, saying the policy subjected migrants, primarily from Central America, to dangerous conditions in Mexican border cities.
Trump's administration cited a "security and humanitarian crisis" along the US-Mexican border in refusing to allow migrants seeking asylum, because of a fear of persecution in their home countries, to enter the United States ahead of hearings before immigration judges.
Reacting to the supreme court's order, Omar Jadwat, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the Trump policy during the previous administration, said the Biden administration must "take all steps available to fully end this illegal program, including by re-terminating it with a fuller explanation".
Arrests of migrants caught crossing the US southern border have reached 20-year highs in recent months, a development that Republicans blame on Biden's reversal of MPP and other Trump immigration policies.
Biden's administration has left in place a separate Trump-era order that lets US border authorities, because of the Covid-19 public health crisis, rapidly expel migrants caught at the border without giving them a chance to seek asylum in the United States.
Quote from: The Larch on August 25, 2021, 06:21:47 AM
This is one of the weird things of US politics to me, the level of interaction between presidential policy and judicial oversight, can't really tell if it's the system of checks and balances working as intended or "activist judges" as they are sometimes decried. How is it that a president changing a policy, as is his wont, can be overturned by a tribunal? Is it something purely procedural or is there a partisan application of courts to blame?
Changing an administrative rule requires a certain process to be followed, as specified in the Administrative Procedure Act. If the APA procedures aren't followed the action isn't lawful. The courts are empowered to interpret the APA. So there is a superficial plausibility of the order.
However, there are several problems here which raise serious concerns.
1) When the Court rendered a similar opinion striking down Trump's attempt to rescind DACA, it gave an explanation of why it believed the APA had not been followed and how that problem can be corrected. The Court didn't do that here and thus left Biden in the dark about how to fix the problem. The Court may have acted this way because they were just ruling on a stay application and not the full merits but the denial of a stay here is very consequential because of the significant delay likely before reaching a final result.
2) Unlike DACA and most APA cases which involve domestic policy, the Trump rule was a program coordinated with Mexico and thus involved a significant diplomatic and foreign policy component. Diplomatic activities are not normally covered by the APA and the Court usually steers clear of meddling in the conduct of foreign policy. The DOJ warned the Court that the Mexican govt would view denial of the stay as reneging on a broader diplomatic deal but the Court ignored that warning.
3) Unlike DACA, the Trump policy itself was illegal and violated a US treaty commitment as incorporated into US law and thus whether the APA hoops were properly jumped through should not matter.
This case sounds like one where the POTUS might be in the right if it told the USSC that its own decision/order is itself is wrong/unlawful, and disregarded it.
But then, Constitutional crisis and all that...
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 25, 2021, 02:40:23 PM
This case sounds like one where the POTUS might be in the right if it told the USSC that its own decision/order is itself is wrong/unlawful, and disregarded it.
But then, Constitutional crisis and all that...
Well he cannot do that. But it is amazing what the Executive AGs discover they can do though...
https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1431011866080419840?s=20
QuoteDonald Trump Jr.
@DonaldJTrumpJr
This is what weakness looks like.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E9v5sfiXMAYFkIq?format=jpg&name=small)
It is what doing what you promised looks like, it is what actually taking risks to do the right thing looks like. Being a blowhard twitter warrior like Don Jr is what weakness looks like.
Why are you retweeting a Trump, Syt? Isn't there already a thread for that bullshit?
(https://i.imgur.com/oYplFuu.jpeg)
Quote from: Jacob on August 27, 2021, 10:03:58 AM
Why are you retweeting a Trump, Syt? Isn't there already a thread for that bullshit?
I thought this was the general thread of how people react to the Biden presidency (akin to what the Trump thread was). IMHO that includes the idiocy and repugnant morals of his political opponents (and by proxy their supporters/electors).
Quote from: Syt on August 27, 2021, 11:51:49 AM
I thought this was the general thread of how people react to the Biden presidency (akin to what the Trump thread was). IMHO that includes the idiocy and repugnant morals of his political opponents (and by proxy their supporters/electors).
:hug:
Quote from: Syt on August 27, 2021, 11:51:49 AM
the idiocy and repugnant morals of his political opponents (and by proxy their supporters/electors).
Speaking of ...
https://twitter.com/RepCawthorn/status/1431053017927856129?s=20
QuoteRep. Madison Cawthorn
@RepCawthorn
BREAKING: I just formally requested the U.S. Cabinet invoke the 25th Amendment.
Joe Biden does not simply have a pattern of poor decision-making, his mental decline is on full display.
We must not allow this mentally unstable individual to direct our country one second longer.
2:36 AM · Aug 27, 2021·Twitter Web App
That's par for the course for he who is probably the most repugnant member of Congress...even ahead of the QAnon lady in my view.
"Madison"? lol
Quote from: The Brain on August 27, 2021, 02:29:12 PM
"Madison"? lol
Check out his handwriting! :lol:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E7l42n8VgAA3iTX.png)
Very on-brand for the overgrown teenager that he is, but I am also open to the idea that his injuries have harmed his handwriting.
Quote from: Habbaku on August 27, 2021, 02:45:05 PM
Very on-brand for the overgrown teenager that he is, but I am also open to the idea that his injuries have harmed his handwriting.
Yeah, that could well be.
Also, does nobody write cursive anymore :weep:
Quote from: Syt on August 27, 2021, 02:47:53 PM
Also, does nobody write cursive anymore :weep:
That's joined up writing, right?
Like so:
(https://www.idahoednews.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/lettter.jpg)
Chaircactus would seem to be shorter.
Quote from: Habbaku on August 27, 2021, 02:45:05 PM
Very on-brand for the overgrown teenager that he is, but I am also open to the idea that his injuries have harmed his handwriting.
Party pooper. :P
Dude's already a fucking clueless Nazi. No reason to hammer him over things he can't help. :sleep:
I'm feeling attacked.
Quote from: The Brain on August 27, 2021, 02:29:12 PM
"Madison"? lol
His real first name is David, but he prefers Madison.
Like Madison Grant.
Never really have, no.
My handwriting looks like that too. :ph34r: It's been years since I've needed to write anything more than a few words by hand.
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2021, 11:50:58 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 24, 2021, 11:34:14 AM
I think Hispanic is more accepted simply because it was the term the government and census came up with first, before Latino became more en vogue. Latino was needed because the logic behind the term "Hispanic" was that this was a Spanish language population, but many of these people when they hit 2nd generation, are fully bilingual with maybe a slight preference for English, and many third generation only speak limited Spanish at all. But we still want to "capture" them because they have last names like Martinez and often their skin is a little too far in the color wheel for us to be comfortable with so they must have some sort of label so we can correctly identify what sort of minority they are.
Okay, so I'm probably biased because of my experience with A: a Brazillian sister-in-law, and B: having two exchange students from Spain stay with us.
But I thought the problem with "Hispanic" is that it would cover my two spanish exchange students, but exclude my Portuguese-speaking sister-in-law, when that's not really what was intended in either case. As such "Latino" meant "someone from Latin America", which was the term we were looking for.
Ibero-American is what you are looking for. Latin America includes Haiti and Québec as well. :P
Hispanic used to have the sense of Iberian in French, but given all US series some people don't even make the connection to Spain anymore, so Portugal is even a tougher proposition.
This is the first time I've heard Quebec described as Latin-American. I wonder how our Quebecois posters feel about that designation?
Because French is a Latin or Romance language.
Quebeckers are not Hispanics or Ibero-American, obviously.
But yes, it's mostly tongue-in-cheek these days, and not common at all.
PS: a case could be made for Italian-speakers as Latin Americans in North America as well. Not just those with roots in Latium. :P
I wouldn't call us Latin American but I do use the expression "our Latin blood" to justify different Italian/Spanish influence behaviour.
I have very little real world experience with Quebecois, who knows, maybe they're totally different, but I definitely feel a similarity between European French speakers and the Spanish and Italians.
Butt.....I've even heard Brazilians insist they're not Latin American so...ja.
Quote from: Syt on August 27, 2021, 02:59:59 PM
Like so:
I remember being taught to do that in the last years of primary school then in the first years of senior school they tell you to stop it. :hmm:
Never in my whole life I've seen Quebec grouped in any way with other American countries. The three groupings I'm aware of are:
- Latin America: Spanish speaking countries + Brazil + former French colonies like Haiti. It includes some places that are not sovereign states, such as Puerto Rico or French Guiana, but I've never seen Quebec included on it.
Sometimes when it is used more in a geographic sense than cultural it might also include places like Belize or the Dutch Caribbean islands or all the Guianas.
- Hispanic America: Spanish speaking countries by themselves (including Puerto Rico).
- Ibero America: Spanish speaking countries (including Puerto Rico) + Brazil.
AFAIK this is the only group that has a specific international org associated with it, as there's an Ibero American summit of all these countries + Spain and Portugal that takes place every year or couple of years.
Quote from: Tyr on September 07, 2021, 03:11:38 AMI definitely feel a similarity between European French speakers and the Spanish and Italians.
I shudder to think about your rationale.
Quote from: The Larch on September 07, 2021, 06:16:31 AMNever in my whole life I've seen Quebec grouped in any way with other American countries. The three groupings I'm aware of are:
- Latin America: Spanish speaking countries + Brazil + former French colonies like Haiti. It includes some places that are not sovereign states, such as Puerto Rico or French Guiana, but I've never seen Quebec included on it.
Sometimes when it is used more in a geographic sense than cultural it might also include places like Belize or the Dutch Caribbean islands or all the Guianas.
Yeah - I don't really think it's about the origin of language. If you say Latin America - people know what it means and it doesn't include Quebec. It can be a geographic expression but also something cultural - and I think Haiti's place is particularly interesting.
I'd include Puerto Rico for sure and probably Belize and the Guianas just because of their wider cultural context/links with the region.
Quote from: Jacob on August 28, 2021, 10:37:47 AM
I wonder how our Quebecois posters feel about that designation?
we are latins, or so some insists. But latin-americans is a stretch, despite the geography. We don't really have their cultural traits, we are much more influenced by mainstream american culture than anything from Mexico, the Carribeans or Spain&Portugal.
But I don't really care.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E-2P7JpWUAI_6-n?format=jpg&name=medium)
Does Kellyanne Conway have a military background? :unsure:
Swan III - Revenge of the Ugly Duckling
Forcing out? Isn't it normal to have a new administration make new appointments? Especially when we are talking about different parties.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 09, 2021, 08:56:29 AM
Does Kellyanne Conway have a military background? :unsure:
To advocate for the devil...I don't think we should trap ourselves on the idea that an advisory board to a military service academy, in a country where civilian control of the military should be a very high ideal (and is codified in law, of course), that we should require a military background for such a role.
That said, a political hack is no better than a military hack. From what I understand of these roles, they would best be filled by a mix of people with military, academic, and fiscal backgrounds.
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2021, 11:00:40 AM
Forcing out? Isn't it normal to have a new administration make new appointments? Especially when we are talking about different parties.
My sister posted a Daily Wire ( :bleeding: ) article:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-purges-trump-appointees-from-fixed-term-government-boards-in-unprecedented-departure-from-norms?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro&fbclid=IwAR0SrU66ss7jgcLZbmFYDRYBZOFRqL9S6_2VwhBuIN1t6WeWi8hjpxdjcfs
QuoteBiden Purges Trump Appointees From Education, Science Boards In 'Unprecedented' Departure From Norms
Well how did Trump get all to appoint all those people to those boards? Did all of Obama's appointees just coincidentally decide to retire on their own during a four year span?
If I recall correctly there was a USSC ruling within the last few years that said any appointment that said the President could only terminate "with cause" was unconstitutional, and converted those positions to be held at the pleasure of the President. The court case wasn't commenced by the Trump DOJ but was argued by them in the Supreme Court, and Trump was liberal with firing people associated with the Obama administration (go figure).
So it might be unprecedented, but only because the law changed in the last few years.
It is definitely not unprecedented
Weeks AFTER Trump lost the 2020 election, Trump purged the membership of the Defense Policy Board, including Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright; Adm. Gary Roughead, among other luminaries. Hard to get more petty than that.
I can't speak to each individual case but what business does Kellyane Conway have being on a service academy board? Don't the service academies have honor codes?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 09, 2021, 11:45:28 AM
It is definitely not unprecedented
If what BB has posted is true then it isn't untrue that it is unprecedented. It is just told in such a way as to convey a lie...which is the best kind of truth.
Politics in the United States is full of those kind of lies while saying factual things.
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2021, 11:30:31 AM
If I recall correctly there was a USSC ruling within the last few years that said any appointment that said the President could only terminate "with cause" was unconstitutional, and converted those positions to be held at the pleasure of the President. The court case wasn't commenced by the Trump DOJ but was argued by them in the Supreme Court, and Trump was liberal with firing people associated with the Obama administration (go figure).
So it might be unprecedented, but only because the law changed in the last few years.
This is a little off base, I believe the decision held that "unitary agency" heads, like the head of the CFPB and similar entities, cannot be protected from Presidential at will firings. I believe committee selected officials selected by congressionally created committee bodies ala the Postmaster General, Federal Reserve chair, FCC chair etc are still insulated from at will firing.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 09, 2021, 06:15:48 PM
This is a little off base, I believe the decision held that "unitary agency" heads, like the head of the CFPB and similar entities, cannot be protected from Presidential at will firings. I believe committee selected officials selected by congressionally created committee bodies ala the Postmaster General, Federal Reserve chair, FCC chair etc are still insulated from at will firing.
Its a bit more complicated. In Lucia v. SEC, the Court held that SEC administrative law judges are subject to the appointments clause and the SEC is a Congressionally created commission similar to the FCC. On the other hand, Humphrey's Executor - a case in the 30s, held that the President couldn't remove an FTC commissioner because the commissioner performed "quasi-legislative" functions.
The Supreme Court revisited this issue in the CFPB case but did not provide a clear resolution. It did distinguish the FTC based on the fact that the CFPB is not a "mere legislative aid" but possesses significant executive-type authority and because the the FTC was a multi-member commission with partisan balance. That distinction, however, is pretty dubious because the FTC obviously does exercise executive-like and enforcement authority - a fact the Supreme Court nodded to in the CFPB case by saying that finding was made "rightly or wrongly." And in Lucia the appointments clause was applied to the SEC, also a commission with partisan balance.
The reality is that the modern Court doesn't like the older precedents that restrict Presidential authority to fire officers but hasn't gotten up the gumption to over-rule them. It (fairly) views Humphrey's Executor as an anomaly - part of the 30s era Supreme Court's early New Deal backlash against FDR before the court packing threat and the "switch in time to save nine." But instead of over-ruling it, the Court just keeps distinguishing it.
These policy and service boards don't fit nicely into either box. They are neither "quasi-legislative" nor "quasi-executive" - they are just fluff. My sense is that the Court would uphold this action and they probably should if it was tested. That doesn't mean Biden was right in the way he did it; for example, I don't think its credible to say that McMaster was unqualified for that position. Biden faced a choice between firing the whole slate or making distinctions that would be perceived and criticized as personal attacks on the individuals so distinguished and opted for the former.
I should probably also note that there were 4 votes for a very different approach on Congressional power to restrict dismissals so its not entirely inconceivable that the law could go the other way.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 09, 2021, 08:56:29 AM
Does Kellyanne Conway have a military background? :unsure:
(https://assets.teenvogue.com/photos/58823f19cc8b3c425c22de50/master/w_1600%2Cc_limit/kellyanne-conway-2017-inauguration.jpg)
:lol:
Wish we still had POTM.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 12, 2021, 02:00:48 AM
:lol:
Wish we still had POTM.
I think all you need to do is do it... ask for nominations, make a poll.
I think the problem with POTM was that eventually people were crafting elaborate posts to get the nomination, and then others nominated it just to reward the effort that was involved. It took the spontaneity out of it.
Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2021, 11:25:26 AM
I think the problem with POTM was that eventually people were crafting elaborate posts to get the nomination, and then others nominated it just to reward the effort that was involved. It took the spontaneity out of it.
So you never won? Shame.
Quote from: PDH on September 12, 2021, 03:20:50 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2021, 11:25:26 AM
I think the problem with POTM was that eventually people were crafting elaborate posts to get the nomination, and then others nominated it just to reward the effort that was involved. It took the spontaneity out of it.
So you never won? Shame.
In fairness he was under orders to keep a low profile.
He shouldn't have told us that blueberry story then.
Syt: I don't think Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band counts as military.
At least it isn't US military.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 13, 2021, 02:17:46 AM
Syt: I don't think Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band counts as military.
:lol:
I thought she was cosplaying as French Line Infatry:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/62/95/5b/62955b47ddea09b3fe0578ca661ac16e.jpg)
Quote from: Syt on September 11, 2021, 05:37:26 AM
(https://assets.teenvogue.com/photos/58823f19cc8b3c425c22de50/master/w_1600%2Cc_limit/kellyanne-conway-2017-inauguration.jpg)
(https://imgix.bustle.com/lovelace/uploads/1318/699b9fb0-6ae8-0133-9015-0e17bac22e39.jpg?w=414&h=235&fit=crop&crop=faces&auto=format%2Ccompress)
:hmm:
Not sure if there was a proper announcement elsewhere or its government by twitter continuing but... Interesting one from Biden today. Bloomberg tax is on.
First returns from California
1. Should Gov. Newsom be removed from office?
Answer Total Votes Pct.
No
1,420,076
64%
Yes
800,827
36%
Wasserman says the line
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1437977687201562631
I've seen enough: the vote to recall CA Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) fails.
OMG RIGGED!!!!!11111111111
Quote from: Caliga on September 14, 2021, 10:21:48 PM
OMG RIGGED!!!!!11111111111
Getting stomped
1. Should Gov. Newsom be removed from office?
Answer Total Votes Pct.
No
5,183,353
68%
Yes
2,422,562
32%
Of course it's rigged. Not only is "No" supposedly winning, but they didn't even put me on the ballot! :mad:
Dems really made the steal obvious this time. I mean, "No" winning with 68% of the vote?? Clear and obvious voter fraud!!!!
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 14, 2021, 10:50:15 PM
Of course it's rigged. Not only is "No" supposedly winning, but they didn't even put me on the ballot! :mad:
I'm sorry, we don't need another Emperor, HMBOB, we already had Norton I and it would be downhill from there I'm afraid.
Surprised he conceded, I guess the margin was just too overwhelming
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1438006393441689600
QuoteELDER CONCEDES
"Let's be gracious in defeat," Elder says. "We may have lost the battle, but we are going to win the war."
Quote from: PDH on September 14, 2021, 11:06:25 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 14, 2021, 10:50:15 PM
Of course it's rigged. Not only is "No" supposedly winning, but they didn't even put me on the ballot! :mad:
I'm sorry, we don't need another Emperor, HMBOB, we already had Norton I and it would be downhill from there I'm afraid.
HMBOB would already have an Imperial anthem, though: https://youtu.be/NHozn0YXAeE
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 14, 2021, 10:14:34 PM
Wasserman says the line
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1437977687201562631 (https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1437977687201562631)
I've seen enough: the vote to recall CA Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) fails.
What is "the line"?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2021, 04:48:46 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 14, 2021, 10:14:34 PM
Wasserman says the line
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1437977687201562631 (https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1437977687201562631)
I've seen enough: the vote to recall CA Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) fails.
What is "the line"?
I've seen enough.
If he says that, it's over.
Quote from: Syt on September 15, 2021, 01:00:07 AM
Quote from: PDH on September 14, 2021, 11:06:25 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 14, 2021, 10:50:15 PM
Of course it's rigged. Not only is "No" supposedly winning, but they didn't even put me on the ballot! :mad:
I'm sorry, we don't need another Emperor, HMBOB, we already had Norton I and it would be downhill from there I'm afraid.
HMBOB would already have an Imperial anthem, though: https://youtu.be/NHozn0YXAeE
:lol:
Harris should over rule the parliamentarian, but she won't because the Dems are gutless
https://mobile.twitter.com/AP/status/1439748416767238150
QuoteBREAKING: Democrats can't use their $3.5 trillion package bolstering social and climate programs to give millions of immigrants a chance to become citizens, the Senate's parliamentarian has ruled.
I didn't know the parliamentarian could be overruled.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2021, 08:58:17 PM
I didn't know the parliamentarian could be overruled.
Parliamentarian ain't in the constitution, the VP can overrule or simply dismiss them at any time. The GOP dismissed the parliamentarian in 2001 IIRC.
We been through this before. You can do all sorts of stuff if you have the votes. And with 50.1 votes the Senate Democrats need complete unity and discipline to have the votes in the face of determined GOP opposition.
so... the debt ceiling showdown. will it hurt the Dems more or will it backfire on the GOP?
Everyone will look bad and no one will face consequences.
General rule is party causing the shutdown ends up looking bad.
Banana, meet republic.
Wait what happened in California?
On what bqwow are try trying a recall?
Quote from: Tyr on October 03, 2021, 01:06:57 AM
Wait what happened in California?
On what bqwow are try trying a recall?
California is a wild place, they are always doing the double try on their bqwow.
My guess:
bqwow = basis
try = they
bom chicka wow wow?
Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2021, 02:24:32 PM
My guess:
bqwow = basis
try = they
Sure but the recall is over so...
I think Tyr only got out the first sentence of that post before the hash brownies took effect.
Quote from: Tyr on October 03, 2021, 01:06:57 AM
Wait what happened in California?
On what bqwow are try trying a recall?
I'm in California, let me answer.
Wack-doodle bbq neologism cromulent. Fertig try trying leftover boom chucka boom.
I wonder how bmolsson is doing.
Quote from: Tyr on October 03, 2021, 01:06:57 AM
Wait what happened in California?
On what bqwow are try trying a recall?
On the bqwow of poor handling of covid.
If they had another celebrity candidate like Arnold they might have done it. Instead they had some obscure radical right wing black dude.
It was not well thought out.
Quote from: Valmy on October 04, 2021, 12:03:46 AM
If they had another celebrity candidate like Arnold they might have done it. Instead they had some obscure radical right wing black dude.
It was not well thought out.
"They" don't exist. There wasn't some cabal of people that were pulling the strings to get Newsom recalled, and came up with Elder as the person to replace him.
There was a recall effort which there is basically on everyone in California; for a variety of reasons it got enough signatures this time to get to a vote, and the bar was so low to getting on the ballot as a replacement that 40+ candidates did. Elder is the California version of Rush Limbaugh, which even in Republican depleted California was enough to get him millions of votes, and millions of votes in a field of 40+ made him the clear front runner, and here we are.
It is a symptom of political polarization and the lack of control of anyone. It is how Trump took control of the Republican nomination process in 2016 and Huckabee and Cruz almost did in previous cycles, and how Sanders almost did the same to the democrats in 2016 and 2020 and probably would have if the democrats didn't have politicians with a lot more stature. When you want to explain why the democrats are a gerontocracy you should probably start with that the senior politicians with stature are the only ones that can hold off the barbarians at the gates.
Oh no, these horrible barbarians who are going to raise taxes on the wealthy a bit and expand social services! SHOCK! HORROR!
Certainly comparable to the other party which is full of authoritarians trying to overthrow the government, over turn elections, and intentionally prolonging a pandemic that has killed 700k people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hMOkN5rgh4
Capitol Police officer charged with obstruction for telling his rioter buddy to delete any images and posts that could be used as evidence.
That's just common sense.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 15, 2021, 10:50:33 PM
That's just common sense.
Yes, it's common sense that the acts constituted obstruction of justice, if proven to be true.
Ok, Big Brother Grumbler.
It's generally common sense for a criminal to destroy evidence of a crime, yes. That doesn't make it not illegal to advise someone to do that.
Quote from: Jacob on October 16, 2021, 10:50:04 AM
It's generally common sense for a criminal to destroy evidence of a crime, yes. That doesn't make it not illegal to advise someone to do that.
Especially when you are advising someone to break the law using your authority as a CHP officer. It's not quite "under cover of law," but it's close.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 15, 2021, 10:50:33 PM
That's just common sense.
I may be a bit old fashioned but I remember a time when common sense did not include committing a criminal act.
18 USC 1512
Quote(c)Whoever corruptly—
(1)alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2)otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both
18 USC 1519
QuoteWhoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
18 USC 371
QuoteIf two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 18, 2021, 02:26:00 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 15, 2021, 10:50:33 PM
That's just common sense.
I may be a bit old fashioned but I remember a time when common sense did not include committing a criminal act.
To hide your culpability for a greater crime it is.
Though I don't think taking your pictures off Facebook is a crime. Obviously he was a dumbass for putting them up in the first place.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 18, 2021, 03:59:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 18, 2021, 02:26:00 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 15, 2021, 10:50:33 PM
That's just common sense.
I may be a bit old fashioned but I remember a time when common sense did not include committing a criminal act.
To hide your culpability for a greater crime it is.
Though I don't think taking your pictures off Facebook is a crime. Obviously he was a dumbass for putting them up in the first place.
What greater crime was the CHP officer hiding his culpability for?
My statement referred to the advice he gave, not the act of giving it.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 18, 2021, 05:05:15 PM
My statement referred to the advice he gave, not the act of giving it.
Well, he wasn't charged with giving bad advice, so your opaque comment turns out to be a
non sequitur.
What crawled up people's asses and died?
Let's find out! :w00t:
Heard on NPR that Manchin has killed the coal switchover penalty/subsidy portion of Biden's bill.
Was there ever any doubt?
How or why should we still support the filibuster?
Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2021, 03:00:11 AM
How or why should we still support the filibuster?
isn't it meaningless when you can't have a majority to vote for your bill?
I mean, even without filibuster, if Manchin wants to protect the coal industry of his part of Virginia, to the detriment of the enitre country, or insist on less spending so as not to upset his centrist-Republican constituants, with or without filibuster, he can still do it, no?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/business/economy/biden-inflation.html
Quote[...]
Mr. Bernstein and other advisers say many of the causes of inflation are already improving. They point to calculations by Mark Zandi, a Moody's Analytics economist, that suggest Americans who have left the labor force will begin flocking back into the job market by December or January, because they will likely have exhausted their savings by then.
[...]
Considering the types of jobs that seem to go understaffed, I somehow doubt that this demographic has much in terms of savings. :hmm:
Workers in this country have made an incredible discovery: If they all stop working at the same time they have more leverage when asking for pay raises and working conditions.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2021, 01:18:52 PM
Workers in this country have made an incredible discovery: If they all stop working at the same time they have more leverage when asking for pay raises and working conditions.
The obvious answer is not paying decent wages, but child labor:
(https://i.redd.it/2nqgg0vyg8w71.jpg)
Didn't some states loosen restrictions on how much minors can work?
To the mills with them!
Quote from: PDH on October 29, 2021, 09:22:25 AM
To the mills with them!
Are there no McDonalds, no Amazon fulfillment centres? I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course
Less about this article itself, but more on the meme. Just how immature are our politicians?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/01/southwest-airlines-pilot-lets-go-brandon-biden
QuoteSouthwest Airlines investigates pilot's use of 'Let's go Brandon' anti-Biden jibe
Southwest Airlines announced an internal investigation after a pilot was reported to have signed off a message to passengers by saying: "Let's go Brandon."
The apparent non-sequitur is in fact a rightwing meme, based on a NBC sportscaster's apparent mishearing of a chant of "Fuck Joe Biden" by a crowd at a Nascar circuit in Alabama at the start of October.
On a Southwest flight from Houston, Texas to Albuquerque, New Mexico on Friday morning, an Associated Press reporter heard the pilot end a message over the public address system with the phrase, prompting gasps from some passengers.
The reporter, Colleen Long, said she tried to ask the pilot about his comment but was "almost removed from [the] plane".
As discussion of the incident proliferated online, Southwest said in a statement it "takes pride in providing a welcoming, comfortable, safe and respectful environment for the millions of customers who fly with us each year.
"Southwest does not condone employees sharing their personal political opinions while on the job, serving our customers. And one employee's individual perspective should not be interpreted as the viewpoint of Southwest and its collective 54,000 employees.
"Southwest is conducting an internal investigation into the recently reported event."
Predictably popular among supporters of Donald Trump, the man Joe Biden soundly beat for the White House last year, "Let's go Brandon" swiftly reached the halls of Congress.
Among uses by House Republicans, the Florida representative Bill Posey ended a floor speech with a fist pump and the phrase while Jeff Duncan, from South Carolina, wore a "Let's Go Brandon" mask at the Capitol.
In the Senate, Ted Cruz of Texas posed with a sign at a World Series game while the press secretary for Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate minority leader, retweeted a photo of the phrase on a construction sign in Virginia.
Trump's fundraising committee now sells a $45 T-shirt featuring "Let's go Brandon" above an American flag. One message to supporters read: "#FJB or LET'S GO BRANDON? Either way, President Trump wants YOU to have our ICONIC new shirt."
Southwest said it would "address the situation directly with any employee involved while continuing to remind all employees that public expression of personal opinions while on duty is unacceptable.
"Southwest does not tolerate any behavior that encourages divisiveness as it does not reflect the Southwest hospitality and inclusiveness for which we are known and strive to provide each day on every flight."
That explains why my brother in law posted the slogan on Facebook; didn't make much sense to me.
Quotea chant of "Fuck Joe Biden" by a crowd at a Nascar circuit in Alabama
:o
But what about teh liberals forcing their political views on you like forcing you to sit next to a gaysexual.
So... How about that Virginia....
In 2020, Bergen County - the largest county in New Jersey went for Biden and Cory Booker (Senate) by 15+ margins; similar results for House seats.
Right now the unofficial tallies issued by the county show the Republicans leading in all the county-wide races. The margins are very small and it appears all will lose once the mail-in votes are counted. But the margin of victory will be narrow.
In case one thinks maybe the Republicans ran really good candidates, they didn't. Robert Kugler - running for sheriff, the top law enforcement officer for the county - is currently under criminal indictment for official corruption. The GOP candidate for county clerk is most famous for her role as one of the Christie aides responsible for the Bridgegate scandal.
the Democrats have less than a year to get their act together or the activist base will be pining for the days when the worst they had to deal with was Manchin and Sinema.
So what is it?
Turnout down? Republicans who just hated trump and think the coast is clear? Biden getting the blame for something?
Turnout was down in Virginia, disproportionately from Democrats. I don't know why. It's not like the Democratic candidates didn't spend money and it's not like the Republican candidates were mostly acceptable to moderate Democrats. The new governor is a man who had never run for any office ever. He got the nomination (after seven ballots) because he was rich enough to self-finance his campaign.
Two obvious factors are that nationally Biden's approval ratings are weak and with no Trump in office, there was no patrie en danger mobilization by Democrat voters and RINO segments to come out and vote blue.
The stupid CRT scaremongering and blaming Democrats for school shutdowns during the pandemic seems to have worked in driving Republican turnout in Virginia, particularly in NOVA. McAuliffe also didn't seem to run a particularly inspiring campaign, and independents started really turning to Youngkin after McAuliffe's schools gaffe.
That doesn't explain results everywhere else. Most likely Democrat enthusiasm was dampened overall by the continual lack of progress on the big bills. Biden and the Dems came into office with lots of promises, and so far there haven't been the results voters want.
Sucks because the solution is more and better Dems in office, not GOP control.
Very disappointing. I had thought the Old Dominion was solidly blue now.
The Trump bargain paid off. They got tax cuts. They got a 6-3 Supreme Court. They have a (over-represented) rural party base with a high floor that is the only outlet for dissatisfied voters. It doesn't take many suburban voters to swing for them to win things. Basically their vote can't fall much and the Democrats don't have much room for comfort.
Democrats probably need to think about why voters who were with them one year ago have flipped - some of that is just being in office and blue states sometimes like Republican governors (America's dream: GOP executive, Democrat legislature - Massachusetts, Maryland, the 80s). But I'm not seeing much self-reflection.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 03, 2021, 06:29:30 PM
The Trump bargain paid off. They got tax cuts. They got a 6-3 Supreme Court. They have a (over-represented) rural party base with a high floor that is the only outlet for dissatisfied voters. It doesn't take many suburban voters to swing for them to win things. Basically their vote can't fall much and the Democrats don't have much room for comfort.
Democrats probably need to think about why voters who were with them one year ago have flipped - some of that is just being in office and blue states sometimes like Republican governors (America's dream: GOP executive, Democrat legislature - Massachusetts, Maryland, the 80s). But I'm not seeing much self-reflection.
Where are you getting the idea that voters flipped in this election? In Virginia, the results were that Youngkin got 300,000 votes less than Trump did last year, while McAuliffe got 900,000 less votes than Biden did last year. No flipping required.
This happens in nearly every mid-term election. The party with the Presidency is sated and are less compelled to go out and vote. The party out of power is now hopping mad and is much more likely to vote. The only time I didn't see it was 2002 and that was because of the impending war with Iraq and the ongoing war in Afghanistan.
The problem now is that the GOP plans to lock in any gains as much as possible. Even "moderate" Youngkin talked about election audits. If this was 2010 and McDonnell taking office, I'd be disappointed, but eh, sometimes you lose one. Now the stakes are higher. If the GOP controls the legislature here in 2024, will they certify the results if Virginia votes blue?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 03, 2021, 06:29:30 PM
t. They have a (over-represented) rural party base with a high floor that is the only outlet for dissatisfied voters. It doesn't take many suburban voters to swing for them to win things. Basically their vote can't fall much and the Democrats don't have much room for comfort.
Another way of putting it is that they doubled down on a shrinking demographic. It's telling that the GOP policy agenda is increasingly centered around voter suppression and gerrymandering. They don't feel as confident about their electoral prospects as you do. This is a party that in the last 30 years and 8 presidential elections won the national popular vote once. A party that just last year lost two Senate elections in Georgia.
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2021, 06:45:56 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 03, 2021, 06:29:30 PM
The Trump bargain paid off. They got tax cuts. They got a 6-3 Supreme Court. They have a (over-represented) rural party base with a high floor that is the only outlet for dissatisfied voters. It doesn't take many suburban voters to swing for them to win things. Basically their vote can't fall much and the Democrats don't have much room for comfort.
Democrats probably need to think about why voters who were with them one year ago have flipped - some of that is just being in office and blue states sometimes like Republican governors (America's dream: GOP executive, Democrat legislature - Massachusetts, Maryland, the 80s). But I'm not seeing much self-reflection.
Where are you getting the idea that voters flipped in this election? In Virginia, the results were that Youngkin got 300,000 votes less than Trump did last year, while McAuliffe got 900,000 less votes than Biden did last year. No flipping required.
The exit polls give very strong evidence that voters flipped.
In 2020, for President, democrats were 36% of the electorate, republicans 34%, and independents 30%.
In 2021, the numbers for governor were identical: 36%, 34%, 30%.
The biggest changes between the years: the GOP margin among the GOP vote improved from 81% to 94%, and among independents went from -19% to +9%. It is tough to explain those swings just with changes in turnout.
When voters were asked their 2020 vote, Biden won by 4%, which is well down from the 10% he actually won by (indicating the 2021 turnout was different than the 2020 electorate), but also indicating that a lot of voters shifted from Biden to Youngkin.
https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/virginia
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2021/november/exit-polls/virginia/governor
Quote from: alfred russel on November 04, 2021, 11:33:50 AM
The exit polls give very strong evidence that voters flipped.
The exit polls give very VERY strong evidence that there was no major flip:
98% of those who voted Trump in 2020 voted Youngkin in 2021
95% of those who voted Biden in 2020 voted McAuliffe in 2021
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2021/november/exit-polls/virginia/governor (https://edition.cnn.com/election/2021/november/exit-polls/virginia/governor)
That's your source, btw. I have no idea how you could have missed that direct comparison.
The problem was that not enough of those who voted Biden in 2020 voted at all in 2021.
Democrats really need to figure out how to get their voters out to vote. If Mike Bloomberg has another few extra billions burning a hole in his pocket, it would be a good use of his money to create an organization that would hire hundreds of really smart people for the sole purpose of solving this riddle.
Quote from: DGuller on November 04, 2021, 12:22:08 PM
Democrats really need to figure out how to get their voters out to vote. If Mike Bloomberg has another few extra billions burning a hole in his pocket, it would be a good use of his money to create an organization that would hire hundreds of really smart people for the sole purpose of solving this riddle.
One thing that might help is if headlines or opening lines of articles about Dems/Biden continued to hammer home how Republican obstruction is the reason for failure of legislation passing.
As it is, all too easy to just seem the Dems as all at fault as that's all a quick scan of the headlines reveals.
Quote from: grumbler on November 04, 2021, 12:09:54 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 04, 2021, 11:33:50 AM
The exit polls give very strong evidence that voters flipped.
The exit polls give very VERY strong evidence that there was no major flip:
98% of those who voted Trump in 2020 voted Youngkin in 2021
95% of those who voted Biden in 2020 voted McAuliffe in 2021
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2021/november/exit-polls/virginia/governor (https://edition.cnn.com/election/2021/november/exit-polls/virginia/governor)
That's your source, btw. I have no idea how you could have missed that direct comparison.
The problem was that not enough of those who voted Biden in 2020 voted at all in 2021.
The exit poll indicates Biden won the 2021 electorate by 4 points. Youngkin won the 2021 race by 2. That is a significant shift in voter preference.
The numbers above tell the same story (they were part of the same exit poll) but it is tough because of rounding. The mcauliffe loss of 5% of biden voters (who were the majority) rounds to 3% of the total electorate. Youngkin lost just 2% of trump voters who were also a smaller subset of the voter pool: just those switches may have been decisive in teh election outcome -- I'd consider that significant without even looking to third party vote switching.
Quote from: garbon on November 04, 2021, 12:27:22 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 04, 2021, 12:22:08 PM
Democrats really need to figure out how to get their voters out to vote. If Mike Bloomberg has another few extra billions burning a hole in his pocket, it would be a good use of his money to create an organization that would hire hundreds of really smart people for the sole purpose of solving this riddle.
One thing that might help is if headlines or opening lines of articles about Dems/Biden continued to hammer home how Republican obstruction is the reason for failure of legislation passing.
As it is, all too easy to just seem the Dems as all at fault as that's all a quick scan of the headlines reveals.
Is it though?
A number of Republicans have voted in favour of the bipartisan infrastructure deal. It's the progressive democrats who are insisting they'll only pass that bill if they also get their Trillion-plus "human infrastructure bill". And the democrats, who have thin majorities but majorities nonetheless in both houses, who can't manage to move either bill forward.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 04, 2021, 12:32:51 PM
The exit poll indicates Biden won the 2021 electorate by 4 points. Youngkin won the 2021 race by 2. That is a significant shift in voter preference.
Or a significant shift in who voted, as the evidence indicates.
QuoteThe numbers above tell the same story (they were part of the same exit poll) but it is tough because of rounding. The mcauliffe loss of 5% of biden voters (who were the majority) rounds to 3% of the total electorate. Youngkin lost just 2% of trump voters who were also a smaller subset of the voter pool: just those switches may have been decisive in teh election outcome -- I'd consider that significant without even looking to third party vote switching.
Again, you assume that 100% of the people who voted in 2020 voted in 2021, which the evidence overwhelmingly show is not the case. The problem wasn't Biden voters flipping to Youngkin (5% is quite typical, and was even less significant because of the Trump voters who flipped to McAuliffe), the problem was the Biden voters from 2020 that didn't vote at all in 2021.
I don't know why you have this contrarian desire to fly in the face of all the evidence to make points that are clearly not true. There simply is no evidence that there was significant flipping, and lots of evidence that there was not.
Grumbler, the exit poll shows that the voters for governor in the election were Biden +4 in 2020 preference.
Considering the exit polls are the best evidence we have of what happened, and in light of a 12 point shift to Youngkin versus what Trump got in 2020, that means that:
a) 2020 Biden disproportionately failed to turn out versus 2020 Trump voters,
b) there was a net movement of 2020 biden voters to youngkin.
There is going to be a lot of noise in the numbers, but it looks like the magnitude between those two effects is roughly equal - each are responsible for about half the swing to youngkin.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 04, 2021, 10:19:03 AM
Another way of putting it is that they doubled down on a shrinking demographic. It's telling that the GOP policy agenda is increasingly centered around voter suppression and gerrymandering. They don't feel as confident about their electoral prospects as you do. This is a party that in the last 30 years and 8 presidential elections won the national popular vote once. A party that just last year lost two Senate elections in Georgia.
Absolutely - but my perspective is that's a feature not a bug. They haven't chosen voter suppression and gerrymandering because they have failed to persuade, they chose it because they would rather that than to try and expand their base (W tried - but since then tax cuts and judges which can't win a majority). Though the US system privileges rural votes.
But the flipside I would worry about if I were in the Democrats that they're non winning non-referendum elections. My understanding is that in 2016 and 2020 Trump did worse than the GOP in the House and Senate, for example. They have not been able to develop a criticism of the GOP that's landing.
I also think there's a lot to Nate Cohn's point that Youngkin may be one to watch and the CRT issue is going to stay because it is fundamentally a criticism of liberalism from the left (which I think has a lot going for it) but that does mean that there is space for a liberalish (sounding) GOP candidates who won't feel like voting from Trump for the anti-Trump types even if once in power they're perfectly aligned.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 04, 2021, 01:59:09 PM
Grumbler, the exit poll shows that the voters for governor in the election were Biden +4 in 2020 preference.
Considering the exit polls are the best evidence we have of what happened, and in light of a 12 point shift to Youngkin versus what Trump got in 2020, that means that:
a) 2020 Biden disproportionately failed to turn out versus 2020 Trump voters,
b) there was a net movement of 2020 biden voters to youngkin.
There is going to be a lot of noise in the numbers, but it looks like the magnitude between those two effects is roughly equal - each are responsible for about half the swing to youngkin.
Again, the evidence points overwhelmingly to a Democratic failure of turnout. Almost all of the Biden voters voted for McAuliffe, so there was not significant net movement of voters to Youngkin, and the ratio of exit polled voters who said they voted Biden in 2020 (48%) almost exactly matched the percentage of all voters that voted for McAuliffe (48.40%). Your guess that half of the swing to Youngkin was due to the fact that "there was a net movement of 2020 biden voters to youngkin" just don't hunt, no matter how much you want to believe it.
I'm tempted to bitch about the knuckleheads who didn't bother to vote, but people could say the same thing about my failure to vote in local elections.
Quote from: grumbler on November 04, 2021, 06:41:50 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 04, 2021, 01:59:09 PM
Grumbler, the exit poll shows that the voters for governor in the election were Biden +4 in 2020 preference.
Considering the exit polls are the best evidence we have of what happened, and in light of a 12 point shift to Youngkin versus what Trump got in 2020, that means that:
a) 2020 Biden disproportionately failed to turn out versus 2020 Trump voters,
b) there was a net movement of 2020 biden voters to youngkin.
There is going to be a lot of noise in the numbers, but it looks like the magnitude between those two effects is roughly equal - each are responsible for about half the swing to youngkin.
Again, the evidence points overwhelmingly to a Democratic failure of turnout. Almost all of the Biden voters voted for McAuliffe, so there was not significant net movement of voters to Youngkin, and the ratio of exit polled voters who said they voted Biden in 2020 (48%) almost exactly matched the percentage of all voters that voted for McAuliffe (48.40%). Your guess that half of the swing to Youngkin was due to the fact that "there was a net movement of 2020 biden voters to youngkin" just don't hunt, no matter how much you want to believe it.
I think you are an idiot who can't admit you are obviously wrong. Biden was +4 among 2021 voters (per the exit polls) and Youngkin +2. A 6 point shift is just 1 in 16 or 17 voters so I guess you can hedge that with an "almost all" but the result is the same: enjoy the almost complete republican control of your state government.
QuoteJustice Department sues Texas over new voting restrictions
(CNN)The Justice Department is suing Texas over new voting restrictions that the federal government says will disenfranchise eligible voters and violate federal voting rights law.
The lawsuit filed Thursday in federal court in San Antonio challenges the law known as SB1 passed earlier this year to overhaul election procedures in the state.
The law, which bans 24-hour and drive-thru voting, imposes new hurdles on mail-in ballots and empowers partisan poll watchers, was signed by Texas' Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in September.
The Justice Department lawsuit said the law illegally restricts voters' rights by requiring rejection of mail ballots "for immaterial errors and omissions." The law also harms the rights of voters with limited English proficiency, military members deployed away from home and voters overseas, the Justice Department alleged.
"Before SB 1, the State of Texas already imposed some of the strictest limitations in the nation on the right of certain citizens to voting assistance. SB 1 further, and impermissibly, restricts the core right to meaningful assistance in the voting booth," the Justice Department said.
Earlier this year, the DOJ sued Georgia over its new voting law, similarly arguing a violation of federal voting rights law.
The Texas law passed following a contentious debate in which some Democrats left the state to try to prevent its approval. It was among a spate of similar laws in Republican-run states aimed in response to false claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election.
"It does make it easier than ever before for anybody to go cast a ballot. It does also, however, make sure it is harder than ever for people to cheat at the ballot box," Abbott said when he signed the law.
The lawsuit is the latest legal fight between the Biden Justice Department and Texas, which are battling in court over abortion rights, immigration enforcement and vaccine mandates.
"Finally, a Justice Department that fights for justice. Texas is torpedoing American democracy and our constitutional right to vote. We are encouraged to see the DOJ pushing back," NAACP President Derrick Johnson said in a statement to CNN about the Texas lawsuit.
President Joe Biden said during a CNN town hall in late October that the US is experiencing "the greatest assault on voting rights in the history of the United States -- for real -- since the Civil War." But the President said that pushing his massive Build Back Better plan has prohibited him from putting a major focus on voting rights, while promising to focus on the issue once his agenda is passed.
Biden also signaled he would be willing to fundamentally alter or completely get rid of the filibuster, which has effectively been used as a tool to block voting rights legislation on a federal level. He had previously supported preserving the rule.
Senate Republicans blocked the John Lewis Voting Rights Act on Wednesday from advancing when the Senate took a procedural vote on whether to open debate on the legislation. The bill which would fight voter suppression and restore key parts of the landmark Voting Rights Act, originally passed in 1965, failed in 50 to 49 vote. GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska was the only Republican to vote along with Democrats.
Other changes
The law introduced new mandates requiring Texans who vote by mail to provide either their driver's license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number twice: once on their absentee ballot application forms and once on the envelope in which they return their ballots.
Those numbers will then be matched against voters' records to confirm they are who they say they are -- a change from the current signature matching process.
Under the law, the Texas secretary of state's office is required to check monthly to make sure no one is on the state's voter rolls who said they were not a citizen when obtaining or renewing their driver's license or ID card.
It also makes it a felony for a public official to send someone a mail-in ballot application the person did not request, or to pre-fill any part of any mail-in ballot application they are sending to someone.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 05, 2021, 01:18:27 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 04, 2021, 06:41:50 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 04, 2021, 01:59:09 PM
Grumbler, the exit poll shows that the voters for governor in the election were Biden +4 in 2020 preference.
Considering the exit polls are the best evidence we have of what happened, and in light of a 12 point shift to Youngkin versus what Trump got in 2020, that means that:
a) 2020 Biden disproportionately failed to turn out versus 2020 Trump voters,
b) there was a net movement of 2020 biden voters to youngkin.
There is going to be a lot of noise in the numbers, but it looks like the magnitude between those two effects is roughly equal - each are responsible for about half the swing to youngkin.
Again, the evidence points overwhelmingly to a Democratic failure of turnout. Almost all of the Biden voters voted for McAuliffe, so there was not significant net movement of voters to Youngkin, and the ratio of exit polled voters who said they voted Biden in 2020 (48%) almost exactly matched the percentage of all voters that voted for McAuliffe (48.40%). Your guess that half of the swing to Youngkin was due to the fact that "there was a net movement of 2020 biden voters to youngkin" just don't hunt, no matter how much you want to believe it.
I think you are an idiot who can't admit you are obviously wrong. Biden was +4 among 2021 voters (per the exit polls) and Youngkin +2. A 6 point shift is just 1 in 16 or 17 voters so I guess you can hedge that with an "almost all" but the result is the same: enjoy the almost complete republican control of your state government.
There are two different characteristics you are ascribing to Grumbles. The first is not true. The second is a much stronger claim.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 05, 2021, 01:18:27 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 04, 2021, 06:41:50 PM
Again, the evidence points overwhelmingly to a Democratic failure of turnout. Almost all of the Biden voters voted for McAuliffe, so there was not significant net movement of voters to Youngkin, and the ratio of exit polled voters who said they voted Biden in 2020 (48%) almost exactly matched the percentage of all voters that voted for McAuliffe (48.40%). Your guess that half of the swing to Youngkin was due to the fact that "there was a net movement of 2020 biden voters to youngkin" just don't hunt, no matter how much you want to believe it.
I think you are an idiot who can't admit you are obviously wrong. Biden was +4 among 2021 voters (per the exit polls) and Youngkin +2. A 6 point shift is just 1 in 16 or 17 voters so I guess you can hedge that with an "almost all" but the result is the same: enjoy the almost complete republican control of your state government.
And I think that you are an idiot who doesn't even know how to find the relevant data. It doesn't matter that Biden was "+4" compared to Trump, because the exit polls showed that he got the same percentage of the vote FROM THE ACTUL VOTERS that Biden did in 2020. The "+6" you keep talking about was the 3% who voted third candidate and the 3% who didn't vote in 2020. It wasn't Biden voters who flipped to Youngkin. If you actually look at the actually relevant data, instead of making up shit to avoid admitting that you are obviously wrong, you will see that there was clearly no significant "flip." What Biden voters did flip, if there were any, were made up for by Trump voters who flipped to Biden. McAuliffe's loss was caused by the failure of 600,000 of the missing 900,000 Democratic voters to show up at the polls.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FDgVwHdXoAUxQVT?format=jpg&name=medium)
Oh, her again. :yawn:
Remember when trump used to talk a lot about infrastructure then did nothing?
I have a radical idea: If Republicans don't like what's in the infrastructure bill then they should enter good-faith negotiations and ask Democrats to remove certain offending elements and in return Republicans will vote for the amended bill.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2021, 07:53:48 AM
I have a radical idea: If Republicans don't like what's in the infrastructure bill then they should enter good-faith negotiations and ask Democrats to remove certain offending elements and in return Republicans will vote for the amended bill.
Here's another radical idea: if the Republicans want a poorly run oligarchic dictatorship, then they should move to Russia and leave the rest of us to run the country.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2021, 07:53:48 AM
I have a radical idea: If Republicans don't like what's in the infrastructure bill then they should enter good-faith negotiations . . .
I think I've spotted the flaw in the proposal.
https://www.rawstory.com/elaine-chao-2655522078/
QuoteFormer Trump official tells workers it's their 'patriotic duty' to take whatever jobs are offered to them
Elaine Chao, who served as former President Donald Trump's secretary of transportation, chided workers on Monday for not snapping up available jobs on the market.
While appearing on Bloomberg TV, Chao said that while last week's big jobs report was welcome news, there still aren't enough Americans joining the labor force.
"If you look at the labor participation rate, it is still very low, about 61.6 percent," she said. "We, as a country, have to encourage people to come back to work. What we are seeing in the supply chain crisis is basically the lack of workers. There are not enough people to produce goods and services. That is putting inflationary pressures on our economy, adding to the woes of the supply chain."
She then said that it was time for Americans who don't currently have jobs to suck it up and get to work, even if they had already retired or were staying out of the labor force due to fears about the novel coronavirus.
"We basically have 5 million people now who have left the workforce, and because of COVID, some have retired early, some have decided not to come back," she said. "We are going to need these workers to do their patriotic duty to come back and help the economy."
Shouldn't the market solve this, by offering higher wages and salaries to attract employees? :P
One issue I have not seen a lot of discussion of is what effect, if any, the eviction moratorium has had on labor force participation.
Quote from: Syt on November 09, 2021, 12:26:39 PM
https://www.rawstory.com/elaine-chao-2655522078/
QuoteFormer Trump official tells workers it's their 'patriotic duty' to take whatever jobs are offered to them
Elaine Chao, who served as former President Donald Trump's secretary of transportation, chided workers on Monday for not snapping up available jobs on the market.
While appearing on Bloomberg TV, Chao said that while last week's big jobs report was welcome news, there still aren't enough Americans joining the labor force.
"If you look at the labor participation rate, it is still very low, about 61.6 percent," she said. "We, as a country, have to encourage people to come back to work. What we are seeing in the supply chain crisis is basically the lack of workers. There are not enough people to produce goods and services. That is putting inflationary pressures on our economy, adding to the woes of the supply chain."
She then said that it was time for Americans who don't currently have jobs to suck it up and get to work, even if they had already retired or were staying out of the labor force due to fears about the novel coronavirus.
"We basically have 5 million people now who have left the workforce, and because of COVID, some have retired early, some have decided not to come back," she said. "We are going to need these workers to do their patriotic duty to come back and help the economy."
Shouldn't the market solve this, by offering higher wages and salaries to attract employees? :P
What an atrocious headline. They don't even care about honestly reporting her words.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2021, 01:08:12 PM
One issue I have not seen a lot of discussion of is what effect, if any, the eviction moratorium has had on labor force participation.
Maybe a bit - I think the bigger question is addressing the impact the financial crisis had and the general decline in labour force participation in the US since 2000. The US used to be high for the developed world. It's not anymore:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E-Xf754WQAUt3OS?format=jpg&name=small)
I think it's also higher in Poland, the UK, France, Germany etc. I think productivity is still good and growing - but I think it's an important and under-discussed trend.
Right.
Labor force participation for men has been declining very steadily for men in the US since WW2. The rate of decline moderated in the 80s and 90s and there was a big drop from 2008-2014 but the overall trend is pretty consistent.
For women in the US, participation steadily increased until it hit the low 60s in the late 1990s. It stayed steady until 2009 and then declined steadily except for a brief recovery around 2019.
I think this surprisingly earnest article from CNN (https://www.cnn.com/style/article/ivy-getty-wedding-photos-san-francisco-city-hall/index.html) shows exactly where the United States is in 2021:
QuoteBillionaire heiress Ivy Getty gets married in a gown covered in mirror shards
(https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/q_auto,w_1349,c_fill,g_auto,h_759,ar_16:9/http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F211110125608-02-vogue-ivy-getty-wedding-photos-restricted.jpg)
Artist and model Ivy Love Getty put a high-fashion spin on the idea of a city hall wedding.
Getty, the great granddaughter of late billionaire oil tycoon J. Paul Getty, married photographer Tobias Alexander Engel Saturday on the ornate steps of San Francisco's City Hall, walking down the aisle in a sparkling John Galliano for Maison Margiela Haute Couture gown covered in mirror shards, according to Vogue.
US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi officiated the star-studded ceremony, at which actor Anya Taylor-Joy (the maid of honor), singer Olivia Rodrigo and California Governor Gavin Newsom were among the attendees.
(https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/q_auto,w_727,c_fit/http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F211110125615-03-vogue-ivy-getty-wedding-photos-restricted.jpg)
Getty poses in her wedding dress and accessories before the ceremony. Credit: Jose Villa/Vogue
"It's just like everything I could have dreamed of and more," Getty told Vogue. "So it's wild when something so magical comes true because you've thought about it but didn't actually think it would."
Getty's wedding style choices included references to her grandmother, who raised her and -- like Getty's father -- died in 2020. An embroidered couture veil and headdress, Christian Louboutin shoes and Getty's grandmother's jewelry were the finishing touches on the bridal look. The Persian rug-carpeted rotunda at the hall was another nod to her grandmother.
The bridesmaids dressed in gray-lilac satin Maison Margiela gowns. Even Getty's pet Chihuahua, Blue, was dressed to the nines as he delivered the wedding rings per Pelosi's request.
(https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/q_auto,w_727,c_fit/http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F211110125554-01-vogue-ivy-getty-wedding-photos-restricted.jpg)
The newlyweds stand among some of their wedding party. Credit: Jose Villa/Vogue
The couple's union was the culmination of an opulent, event-filled wedding weekend, which included a picnic lunch where Getty wore an archived Alexander McQueen gown.
Among the festivities was a British Invasion Mod Party held Thursday night at The Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco (where party-goers were reportedly required to show Covid-19 vaccination cards). Event planner Stanlee Gatti transformed the space into a silvery nightclub with 1968 sci-fi film "Barbarella" in mind. Donning '60s hallmarks such as go-go boots, sequins and big hair, guests danced the night away to music DJed by Mark Ronson and performances by Earth, Wind & Fire.
Getty was the sartorial chameleon of the night: Styled by Carrie Goldberg of CLG Creative, the oil heiress wore a vintage Emanuel Ungaro dress with coral and diamond earrings from Stephen Russell, and a vintage Emilio Pucci dress and D'Accori shoes. The outfits were references to '60s style icons Mary Quant, Twiggy and Jean Shrimpton, Goldberg said to Vogue.
"We agreed that nothing should play it safe, and that we should focus on turning up the volume on the '60s vibe Ivy's so inspired by," Goldberg told the outlet.
Who would have ever guessed that celebrities, billionaires, politicians and the news industry would get along so well? It's a beautiful world. :)
Quote from: Savonarola on November 11, 2021, 05:02:27 PM
I think this surprisingly earnest article from CNN (https://www.cnn.com/style/article/ivy-getty-wedding-photos-san-francisco-city-hall/index.html) shows exactly where the United States is in 2021:
(snip)
Who would have ever guessed that celebrities, billionaires, politicians and the news industry would get along so well? It's a beautiful world. :)
William Randolph Hurst says "hi!"
Why are the bridesmaids in American weddings
often wearing uniform dresses? :huh:
Quote from: Zanza on November 13, 2021, 02:28:56 AM
Why are the bridesmaids in American weddings
often wearing uniform dresses? :huh:
Because that's a tradition.
But that at some point BROKE tradition. It's not nice to continually piss on old customs like that.
Err, what's wrong with bridesmaid dresses?
I expect the trumpies are up in arms about that?
It's funny how much hate left leaning celebrities get. They're painted as a shadowy elite ruling the world.
The real elite of course doesn't much appear in the gossip pages these days. Well. Most of them. Trump does of course.
I think it's fair to call a literal Getty heiress part of the real elite by anyone's measure :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 14, 2021, 05:03:11 PM
I think it's fair to call a literal Getty heiress part of the real elite by anyone's measure :P
A Getty heiress whose wedding was officiated by the United States Speaker of the House, attended by the Governor of California and had Earth, Wind and Fire perform at it. The article reads like The Godfather wedding as written by Edith Wharton. In what possible sense could these people not be considered "The Real Elite
TM"?
They couldn't get Water.
Quote from: Savonarola on November 15, 2021, 02:02:43 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 14, 2021, 05:03:11 PM
I think it's fair to call a literal Getty heiress part of the real elite by anyone's measure :P
A Getty heiress whose wedding was officiated by the United States Speaker of the House, attended by the Governor of California and had Earth, Wind and Fire perform at it. The article reads like The Godfather wedding as written by Edith Wharton. In what possible sense could these people not be considered "The Real EliteTM"?
Tyr spurred boldly on, and dashed through thick and thin...
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 14, 2021, 05:03:11 PM
I think it's fair to call a literal Getty heiress part of the real elite by anyone's measure :P
Would it be making the news if not for celebrities?
It's also fair to call Nancy Pelosi part of the elite.
Quote from: Tyr on November 15, 2021, 04:31:16 PM
Would it be making the news if not for celebrities?
Of course not. You have to be someone for your wedding to make the news.
Quote from: Tyr on November 15, 2021, 04:31:16 PM
Would it be making the news if not for celebrities?
I think so - if only because of Pelosi presiding.
But also it made the news in Vanity Fair and was then picked up elsewhere. It strikes me as very much a story you'd expect Vanity Fair to pick up - attactive multi-billionaires will always attact gossip column inches. Bit weird, but appropriate, to see it given full royal wedding treatment by somewhere like CNN though.
That's my point. Regular multi billionaires who pull the strings of the global economy....you don't really hear about them because they aren't publically rubbing shoulders with celebs and aren't so overt with their political connections.
They're the true elites.
Not the chick from queen's gambit.
Quote from: Tyr on November 15, 2021, 06:48:14 PM
That's my point. Regular multi billionaires who pull the strings of the global economy....you don't really hear about them because they aren't publically rubbing shoulders with celebs and aren't so overt with their political connections.
They're the true elites.
Not the chick from queen's gambit.
:Joos
Would you mind dialing the anti-semitism down a notch there Beeb?
Quote from: Jacob on November 16, 2021, 08:24:27 PM
Would you mind dialing the anti-semitism down a notch there Beeb?
I don't think you are get what he's saying...
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2021, 09:41:21 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 16, 2021, 08:24:27 PM
Would you mind dialing the anti-semitism down a notch there Beeb?
I don't think you are get what he's saying...
I rather think I do. But perhaps I'm mistaken. Care to lay it out for me?
Quote from: Jacob on November 17, 2021, 12:41:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2021, 09:41:21 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 16, 2021, 08:24:27 PM
Would you mind dialing the anti-semitism down a notch there Beeb?
I don't think you are get what he's saying...
I rather think I do. But perhaps I'm mistaken. Care to lay it out for me?
I'm suggesting that Tyr's comments about the secret elites who secretly "pull the strings of the global economy" has echoes out of anti-semitism.
I'm not saying Tyr is an anti Semite. Just that post echoes those kind of thoughts.
In my experience the "global elite" are very happy to be front and centre in the news media. Like in this story.
I think Beeb is misunderstanding what Jacob is misunderstanding about his post... :unsure:
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2021, 01:57:23 AM
In my experience the "global elite" are very happy to be front and centre in the news media. Like in this story.
Like the Koch brothers? The Walton family who own Walmart? The Sacklers?
Quote from: Syt on November 17, 2021, 08:23:56 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2021, 01:57:23 AM
In my experience the "global elite" are very happy to be front and centre in the news media. Like in this story.
Like the Koch brothers? The Walton family who own Walmart? The Sacklers?
Like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet, Sergey Brin, etc.
My point being that like among all people there's those members of the "global elite" who crave the limelight and those who avoid it.
Quote from: DGuller on November 17, 2021, 08:14:27 AM
I think Beeb is misunderstanding what Jacob is misunderstanding about his post... :unsure:
:lol: Yep.
I have no idea what BB or Jacob is misunderstanding.
I only want to name drop the Rothchilds.
Quote from: DGuller on November 17, 2021, 08:14:27 AM
I think Beeb is misunderstanding what Jacob is misunderstanding about his post... :unsure:
Then lay it out for me...
Quote from: DGuller on November 17, 2021, 08:14:27 AM
I think Beeb is misunderstanding what Jacob is misunderstanding about his post... :unsure:
Don't misunderestimate him.
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2021, 12:09:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 17, 2021, 08:14:27 AM
I think Beeb is misunderstanding what Jacob is misunderstanding about his post... :unsure:
Then lay it out for me...
You are using false implications of anti-semitism to dismiss an argument that contains no anti-semitism. That is anti-semitic.
Suggesting that billionaires have significant political influence - including those who are not involved in celebrity culture - is not anti-semitic. Neither is the position that that influence is too great. Tyr made zero connections to any Jewish conspiracy theory, nor to any other conspiracy theory that uses stand-ins for Jews. You're the one who made any such connection.
Your retort only makes a sense if you suppose "billionaires" or "elites" is a stand-in for "Jews". You're the one who brought that to the discussion.
:hmm: Oh. It turns out it was I who was misunderstanding about Beeb's misunderstanding of Jacob's misunderstanding. To be fair, Jacob missed a crucial word in his original post which made such a misunderstanding easier.
Quote from: DGuller on November 17, 2021, 01:06:20 PM
:hmm: Oh. It turns out it was I who was misunderstanding about Beeb's misunderstanding of Jacob's misunderstanding. To be fair, Jacob missed a crucial word in his original post which made such a misunderstanding easier.
:lol:
I think I understand.
And Jake is right.
Quote from: Jacob on November 17, 2021, 12:57:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2021, 12:09:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 17, 2021, 08:14:27 AM
I think Beeb is misunderstanding what Jacob is misunderstanding about his post... :unsure:
Then lay it out for me...
You are using false implications of anti-semitism to dismiss an argument that contains no anti-semitism. That is anti-semitic.
Suggesting that billionaires have significant political influence - including those who are not involved in celebrity culture - is not anti-semitic. Neither is the position that that influence is too great. Tyr made zero connections to any Jewish conspiracy theory, nor to any other conspiracy theory that uses stand-ins for Jews. You're the one who made any such connection.
Your retort only makes a sense if you suppose "billionaires" or "elites" is a stand-in for "Jews". You're the one who brought that to the discussion.
I am very dubious about claims about "multi billionaires who pull the strings of the global economy" - which was Tyr's exact quote.
Such complaints have been made about the Jews, but not only about the Jews.
Multi billionaires certainly have influence over our politics and economy - but it's all pretty well documented.
And besides - please don't read too much into a one-smiley response. It was not intended as deep political commentary.
We must be aware of anti semitic tropes, even when Jews are not explicitly mentioned. Now more than ever. The least few years have shown they have a nasty habit of worming their way into our culture.
BB you were making a joke based on a hateful anti-sematic stereotype. We all accept it was not deep political commentary.
Beeb, I got it: you were mocking the silly conspiracy talk by invoking another silly conspiracy. Alas, I wasn't so desperate to be offended that I saw your joke as offensive. You will have to look further than me to find your virtue signalers.
Oh wonderful, anti-Semitic jokes are now a ok so long as they are made for a purpose Grumbler agrees with.
Its like 1920s America all over again.
If making jokes that use and abuse ethnic stereotypes are now frowned upon on Languish, then this is not the forum I once knew. :(
I think it was a fine joke.
I like how some people that are upset have no qualms about using a forum that has that smiley in the first place. :lol:
What I saw was BB warning Tyr about the nature of his statements.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2021, 03:03:42 PM
What I saw was BB warning Tyr about the nature of his statements.
Indeed. And while I doubt that Tyr is anti-Semitic, his complete blind spot that makes anything OK as long as the Left does it makes him for instance pooh-pooh anti-Semitism in Labour.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 17, 2021, 02:52:34 PM
I think it was a fine joke.
Same. Can we relax please. The smiley itself is made tongue in cheek.
To those of you sharing Beeb's point of view, is it okay to say that billionaires as a class wield too much political influence, or is that "anti-semitic" by itself? Or is it that the word "elite" is inappropriate by itself to use when talking about the very rich due to it being used in some dogwhistle constructions?
Quote from: Jacob on November 17, 2021, 04:53:13 PM
To those of you sharing Beeb's point of view, is it okay to say that billionaires as a class wield too much political influence, or is that "anti-semitic" by itself? Or is it that the word "elite" is inappropriate by itself to use when talking about the very rich due to it being used in some dogwhistle constructions?
I think it's the phrase "pulling the strings of the global economy" that would be a bit dogwhistley/socialism of fools for me. It also strikes me as something you could see being used in a dog-whistley way in a right-wing anti-semitic account of the problems with "globalism".
Quote from: Jacob on November 17, 2021, 04:53:13 PM
To those of you sharing Beeb's point of view, is it okay to say that billionaires as a class wield too much political influence,
Sure
Quoteor is that "anti-semitic" by itself?
No.
QuoteOr is it that the word "elite" is inappropriate by itself to use when talking about the very rich due to it being used in some dogwhistle constructions?
I don't think so. This is my 2 cents only of course, and it's a snapshot in time of what I think ppl mean when they say elite. I don't believe the word has been "corrupted" (yet. Many serious publications use it properly, which to me is a sign that it's not a dog-whistle.
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2021, 02:21:18 PM
If making jokes that use and abuse ethnic stereotypes are now frowned upon on Languish, then this is not the forum I once knew. :(
Two things:
1) I'm glad to see that you accept that you're the one making the joke that uses and abuses ethnic stereotypes.
2) Using jokes to shut down discourse you disagree with is a well established rhetorical strategy that we all use here on languish (in fact, it's probably the primary rhetorical strategy), and which is widely used to real effect on the political stage. In this case, you used a joke that used and abused Jews (aka anti-semitism) to shut down Tyr's argument that as a class billionaires have too much influence.
I mean, it's languish and it's not the biggest deal in the world, and we all know neither you nor Tyr are anti-semitic, and it's just a joke so it doesn't really matter except as the usual grist for the languish kvetching-mill.
But the point remains, IMO, that billionaires having too much influence is a valid critique to make and one that does not have any anti-semitic elements to it unless someone inserts them. And you were the one who inserted them.
I'm astonished that Jacob, one of the longtime members here and a former mod, is unaware of the joke smilies that "[use] and [abuse] ethnic stereotypes," like :bowler: and :Canuck: and :frog: and :osama: and :Joos and :alberta:
You have to be really sensitive to think that these are seriously meant as slurs, and you have to be really oblivious to not have noticed them, all these years (or, if you've noticed them, not complained about their existence and use).
I'd also question the perspicuity of someone who doesn't recognize the provenance of statements such as
QuoteRegular multi billionaires who pull the strings of the global economy....you don't really hear about them because they aren't publically rubbing shoulders with celebs and aren't so overt with their political connections.
They're the true elites.
Secret elites "who pull the strings of the global economy" should sound v ery familiar to anyone with a knowledge of history, and the sentiment itself should be instantly dismissed give the media prominence of so many of the actual multi billionaires who pull the strings of the world economy, like Musk, Gates, Bezos, Ma, Buffet, etc (yes, there are a few politically powerful multi-billionaires that shun the spotlight, but they are a definite minority, I think).
Well this discussion went different than I thought it would.
When I first saw the article I was surprised that CNN ran it. Their editorial board is usually all bent out of shape about privilege, white people, economic inequality and the poisonous effect of money on politics. Here's a story about a very privileged white billionaire heiress who had leaders of both state and federal government at her extraordinarily lavish wedding and CNN reports it with breathless rapture. (Yes, it's the Style section; but still.)
Here I'm surprised this isn't red meat for a socialist like Josq. The Getty family is old money (by Califonia standards) and obviously has close ties to the political establishment. I'm not a socialist and I think publicizing such an extravagant wedding is in poor taste in a country with low social mobility, enormous economic inequality and a population that's suffering the economic shocks of Covid (to say nothing of the personal). During the Great Depression the wealthy adopted more austere styles (hence Style Moderne); this level of ostentation (at this economic moment) seems to come straight out of the Gilded Age.
Ok, if simply expressing that they are not appropriate is not enough, then Jacob should definitely not post again.
Don't be absurd Grumbles.
I took it that barrister was joking.
If you actually do think there was anti semitism in what I said though then yeah, the anti semitism is with you. I neither know nor care how many of these people are Jewish anymore than I know or care how many of them enjoy fishing.
And yeah. Of course. I think spending any amount of money on weddings is dumb let alone this one. I have disdain for the media reporting on this stuff.
But getting worked up about this kind of visible vulgarity of flashy billionaires and Hollywood (boo hiss boo) often does more harm than good for building awareness of, and the desire to tackle, inequality. Its how the populist right subverts and perverts class awareness.
Quote from: Tyr on November 17, 2021, 07:15:24 PM
But getting worked up about this kind of visible vulgarity of flashy billionaires and Hollywood (boo hiss boo) often does more harm than good for building awareness of, and the desire to tackle, inequality. Its how the populist right subverts and perverts class awareness.
I wonder if this is why the left sucks at this stuff.
Maybe the "right" (meaning effective in the modern populist, anger and outrage driven culture wars) is that the left should get really, really, REALLY fucking worked up about this.
Exaggerate it. Build some nice lies around it. Just make some shit up, like the bride kicked a small child on her way to her car, and the groom was probably known for beating up child laborers or some such nonsense.
It is a problem. By nature the populists are selling simple answers to complex problems, always an easier thing to do than actually trying to figure out the solution to the problem.
In this case of ranting about billionaires and the over the top focus on Hollywood I guess the problem is that they put such a personal face on it (which yes. Simple psychology. It appeals to people.)
The way the trumpies would view it the problem is that THESE PEOPLE have so much money to spend on these nice things.
It's not the system that is the problem. It's not how they actually make their money day to day that is morally dubious (though there was definitely some secret corrupt one off deal somewhere which earned them 1 million dollars!) . Rather it's that it's THEM. Why don't I have all these same nice things?
They attack the elites based on jealousy and a sense of missing out. Justice would be knocking them down a peg even if it meant nobody is better off. Given half a chance though the trumpy would definitely be doing the same.
The left wing view is that the system whereby anyone can have so much money to blow on a wedding whilst others are starving is rotten.
It's basically the left vs right world view boiled down to the core. A holistic view of society vs the power of individuals.
A disproportionate focus on Hollywood works well for a world view based on individuals.
The problem with defining billionaires as THE ENEMY is they have nothing in common other than an arbitrarily cutoff minimum net worth. They don't stand for anything and don't mean anything.
"Hollywood elite" may be less precisely defined as a formal matter but it MEANS something. You can close your eyes and visualize it, close your ears and hear it. It stands is for those people who define themselves with a pride the appears to border on smugness as part of the "arts" or "creative industries" that are very eager to declare their thoughts on political matters, declarations that express hostility (or are perceived to express hostility) for guns and religion and a certain definition of exclusionary patriotism. You can argue about the fairness of the characterization or the way it is used, but we all know what is being talked about.
What makes populism effective and powerful is when you have an alignment of group of people with a positive identity, an identifiable foe to define themselves against, and a policy or set of policies as a rallying cry. For Jackson it was farmers and pioneers against money men and the policy was the Bank; for Lincoln and the Republicans free workers against aristocratic planters and the policies were curbing the slave power and internal improvement; Bryan revised Jacksonian populism against the Gold Standard; for FDR it was the working people against the combination of Old and New Money, and the policy New Deal and labor rights. Trumpism is the old Jackson-Bryan alignment again - rural and godly real (white) men against the effeminate atheists in the cities, and the policies are gun rights, free exercise and "sovereignty"
The Left is flailing about for its populist combination - the war against the billionaires doesn't cut it. No one buys the 99% - everyone knows that 99% doesn't have jack in common other than being in the same country and having less than 500K in annual income. It's a brand of populism only a actuary or life insurance salesman could love. Maybe there just isn't a populist formula that works for the left at this moment in history. It's not necessarily a bad thing. Populism is exciting. Everyone knows about Bryan's cross of gold speech; no one has the slightest clue nor cares what speech McKinley gave. But Bryan lost both elections . . .
Quote from: Savonarola on November 17, 2021, 06:21:46 PM
Well this discussion went different than I thought it would.
When I first saw the article I was surprised that CNN ran it. Their editorial board is usually all bent out of shape about privilege, white people, economic inequality and the poisonous effect of money on politics. Here's a story about a very privileged white billionaire heiress who had leaders of both state and federal government at her extraordinarily lavish wedding and CNN reports it with breathless rapture. (Yes, it's the Style section; but still.)
Here I'm surprised this isn't red meat for a socialist like Josq. The Getty family is old money (by Califonia standards) and obviously has close ties to the political establishment. I'm not a socialist and I think publicizing such an extravagant wedding is in poor taste in a country with low social mobility, enormous economic inequality and a population that's suffering the economic shocks of Covid (to say nothing of the personal). During the Great Depression the wealthy adopted more austere styles (hence Style Moderne); this level of ostentation (at this economic moment) seems to come straight out of the Gilded Age.
I don't disagree with what you've written, but question whether the CNN report was done because the Gettys wanted it, or CNN wanted it; in other words, if "publicizing such an extravagant wedding is in poor taste," whose poor taste is it: the Gettys, or CNN?
Though I'd argue that the active participation of California's political elite is in poor taste no matter who pushed the CNN coverage. Political leaders should be more circumspect in their public appearances with their owners.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68SGehy0J3I
Jimmy Kimmel shows folks on the street clips of made by Lauren Boebert herself and asks them if they think SNL went beyond good taste in their parody.
The punch line is given away at the beginning but it's still alway fun to laugh at ridiculous Trumpeciles.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2021, 11:33:40 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68SGehy0J3I
Jimmy Kimmel shows folks on the street clips of made by Lauren Boebert herself and asks them if they think SNL went beyond good taste in their parody.
The punch line is given away at the beginning but it's still alway fun to laugh at ridiculous Trumpeciles.
The funny thing is the non-Trumpeciles. The black girl starts off saying "Hey, they are public figures! They have to expect that!" then sees the video and changes to "Well...she has family who might see that! It's kind of embarassing, not really nice...that definitely went too far....". That was pretty amusing when they told her it wasn't a skit.
She was actually trying to defend her in a very reasonable, measured way.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 17, 2021, 10:16:38 PMThe Left is flailing about for its populist combination - the war against the billionaires doesn't cut it. No one buys the 99% - everyone knows that 99% doesn't have jack in common other than being in the same country and having less than 500K in annual income. It's a brand of populism only a actuary or life insurance salesman could love. Maybe there just isn't a populist formula that works for the left at this moment in history. It's not necessarily a bad thing. Populism is exciting. Everyone knows about Bryan's cross of gold speech; no one has the slightest clue nor cares what speech McKinley gave. But Bryan lost both elections . . .
The starting point of populism (and technocracy) is that normal democratic politics has failed/is failing - the normal politicians are getting in the way of solving our problems.
It is really difficult to have a form of populism if your entire project is restoring normality (Biden) or competence (Starmer). For bilionaires to be a populist "target" you need to link it to why the current system is failing. If your criticism is actually that we need to restore the system to the way it used to be, or that you just need to do it better, then it doesn't work and you just want to raise taxes on billionaires which is fine but it's not going to get you far.
Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2021, 05:33:28 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2021, 11:33:40 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68SGehy0J3I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68SGehy0J3I)
Jimmy Kimmel shows folks on the street clips of made by Lauren Boebert herself and asks them if they think SNL went beyond good taste in their parody.
The punch line is given away at the beginning but it's still alway fun to laugh at ridiculous Trumpeciles.
The funny thing is the non-Trumpeciles. The black girl starts off saying "Hey, they are public figures! They have to expect that!" then sees the video and changes to "Well...she has family who might see that! It's kind of embarassing, not really nice...that definitely went too far....". That was pretty amusing when they told her it wasn't a skit.
She was actually trying to defend her in a very reasonable, measured way.
I would have thought they were a sketch...
So apparently Biden has nominated for some financial position an academic and expert on financial regulation that was born in Kazahstan and emigrated to the US in 1991 fresh out of university. During her Senate hearing she has been grilled by some doofus Republican senator about her belonging to the Communist youth organisations of the era and basically implying that she's still a commie. :wacko:
https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1461369421889519618 (https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1461369421889519618)
Kennedy isn't a doofus, but is, in fact, very intelligent. He's playing up his Senator Aw-Shucks routine purely for the voters back home who want to see him as tough on comma-nists.
Just once, I want to see someone call them on this kind of bullshit. Confirmation hearings are pure political theater anyway, so I'm not seeing the downside.
I feel the same way about Congressional hearings. If I were ever called I would say for the record that I have contempt for this process. State sanctioned bullying is all it is.
I mean inquiry hearings, not confirmation hearings.
But I guess the same applies.
Quote from: The Larch on November 18, 2021, 09:42:36 PM
So apparently Biden has nominated for some financial position an academic and expert on financial regulation that was born in Kazahstan and emigrated to the US in 1991 fresh out of university. During her Senate hearing she has been grilled by some doofus Republican senator about her belonging to the Communist youth organisations of the era and basically implying that she's still a commie. :wacko:
https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1461369421889519618 (https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1461369421889519618)
It's funnier when you consider that Kennedy spent independence day 2018 in Moscow. :P
Quote from: Habbaku on November 18, 2021, 09:46:08 PM
Kennedy isn't a doofus, but is, in fact, very intelligent. He's playing up his Senator Aw-Shucks routine purely for the voters back home who want to see him as tough on comma-nists.
Just once, I want to see someone call them on this kind of bullshit. Confirmation hearings are pure political theater anyway, so I'm not seeing the downside.
What would call them on it mean in this context? Her reply and Warren's opening lines immediately after made it pretty clear it was an unwarranted personal attack.
Quote from: The Larch on November 18, 2021, 09:42:36 PM
So apparently Biden has nominated for some financial position an academic and expert on financial regulation that was born in Kazahstan and emigrated to the US in 1991 fresh out of university. During her Senate hearing she has been grilled by some doofus Republican senator about her belonging to the Communist youth organisations of the era and basically implying that she's still a commie. :wacko:
https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1461369421889519618 (https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1461369421889519618)
Well that's painful.
Its so bad it looks like a test if whether she can keep her cool against idiocy on camera.
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2021, 02:06:15 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on November 18, 2021, 09:46:08 PM
Kennedy isn't a doofus, but is, in fact, very intelligent. He's playing up his Senator Aw-Shucks routine purely for the voters back home who want to see him as tough on comma-nists.
Just once, I want to see someone call them on this kind of bullshit. Confirmation hearings are pure political theater anyway, so I'm not seeing the downside.
What would call them on it mean in this context? Her reply and Warren's opening lines immediately after made it pretty clear it was an unwarranted personal attack.
Getting redfaced and ranting about beer would be a good start.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2021, 09:59:38 PM
I feel the same way about Congressional hearings. If I were ever called I would say for the record that I have contempt for this process. State sanctioned bullying is all it is.
:yes:
Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2021, 10:28:27 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on November 17, 2021, 06:21:46 PM
Well this discussion went different than I thought it would.
When I first saw the article I was surprised that CNN ran it. Their editorial board is usually all bent out of shape about privilege, white people, economic inequality and the poisonous effect of money on politics. Here's a story about a very privileged white billionaire heiress who had leaders of both state and federal government at her extraordinarily lavish wedding and CNN reports it with breathless rapture. (Yes, it's the Style section; but still.)
Here I'm surprised this isn't red meat for a socialist like Josq. The Getty family is old money (by Califonia standards) and obviously has close ties to the political establishment. I'm not a socialist and I think publicizing such an extravagant wedding is in poor taste in a country with low social mobility, enormous economic inequality and a population that's suffering the economic shocks of Covid (to say nothing of the personal). During the Great Depression the wealthy adopted more austere styles (hence Style Moderne); this level of ostentation (at this economic moment) seems to come straight out of the Gilded Age.
I don't disagree with what you've written, but question whether the CNN report was done because the Gettys wanted it, or CNN wanted it; in other words, if "publicizing such an extravagant wedding is in poor taste," whose poor taste is it: the Gettys, or CNN?
Though I'd argue that the active participation of California's political elite is in poor taste no matter who pushed the CNN coverage. Political leaders should be more circumspect in their public appearances with their owners.
I had meant the Gettys. Since this was covered in Vanity Fair and Vogue as well as CNN I assumed they had hired a publicist to bring this wedding to the attention of the press. I could see the case for CNN as they glamorized the things their editorial board is (nominally) against. To be fair to both, though, Kylie Jenner has 190 million Instagram followers (and Kendall has 140 million.) A large section of the public apparently loves ostentatious displays of wealth and privilege.
Quote from: Tyr on November 19, 2021, 04:35:09 AM
Quote from: The Larch on November 18, 2021, 09:42:36 PM
So apparently Biden has nominated for some financial position an academic and expert on financial regulation that was born in Kazahstan and emigrated to the US in 1991 fresh out of university. During her Senate hearing she has been grilled by some doofus Republican senator about her belonging to the Communist youth organisations of the era and basically implying that she's still a commie. :wacko:
https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1461369421889519618 (https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1461369421889519618)
They got at least five democrats on their side and she is toast.
https://www.axios.com/democrats-omarova-occ-5755a0e4-c6a5-4ca7-b6c7-87d18d5491f9.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_content=politics-bidennominees
Well that's painful.
Its so bad it looks like a test if whether she can keep her cool against idiocy on camera.
Interesting for the swing voter discussion - new working paper:
https://twitter.com/jon_mellon/status/1465701667186233347?s=20
Looks at elections across multiple countries and finds that in about 95% of cases party switching contributes more to volatility than turnout switching (and population replacement doesn't register - though there may be some examples in Ireland which is interesting). The US is far lower than most countries on the rate but party switching still just about wins out on average but basically even there it matters as much as turnout switching and that might be switching in the 2000s.
So, will Amazon get OSHA on its ass because of its role in the death of 6 of its workers in an Illinois warehouse during the latest tornadoes?
QuoteAmazon faces scrutiny over worker safety after tornado strikes warehouse
Federal authorities investigate disaster in Edwardsville, Illinois, where six people died
Questions over worker safety at Amazon are intensifying once again after a tornado struck an Amazon warehouse in Edwardsville, Illinois, on Friday, leaving six people dead and another hospitalized.
On Monday, the federal Occupational Health and Safety Administration said it opened a workplace safety investigation into the warehouse collapse. Meanwhile, workers and activists are calling for more action.
Concerns over labor rights at the e-commerce giant have been mounting, exacerbated by allegations the company failed to "adequately notify" workers and health officials of Covid-19 cases.
"This incident calls into question so much of Amazon's practices in their warehouses," said Marcos Ceniceros, an organizer at Warehouse Workers for Justice. "This is not the first time we've seen workers suffer at Amazon and we want to make sure that they're not continuing to cut corners and putting workers at risk."
Warehouse Workers for Justice has called for a hearing in the Illinois state legislature examining what led to the deaths at Amazon's warehouse. They are also calling on the company to ensure it has safety and training protocols in place for extreme weather events and other risks, like Covid-19, in the future.
Speaking to the Intercept on Monday, 12 Amazon workers described concerns over workplace safety. Some said they had never experienced a tornado or fire drill on the job, and several said they would be uncertain of what to do in an emergency.
John Gasper, associate professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University's Tepper School of Business, cautioned that he didn't know the particulars of what happened at Amazon. But he said for companies like Amazon that have high turnover in labor, it likely is harder to conduct regular emergency training schedules, particularly during the busy holiday season when there are many seasonal workers.
"The cost of the time to do the drills is also time they are not [moving] the packages," he said. "They have to think about these tradeoffs. But I don't think any company wants to harm its employees."
Amazon said workers at the warehouse had little time to prepare when the National Weather Service declared a tornado warning on Friday night. The tornado arrived soon after, collapsing both sides of the warehouse and caving in its roof.
"There was a tremendous effort that happened that night to keep everybody safe," said John Felton, Amazon's senior vice-president of global delivery services, speaking alongside the Illinois governor, JB Pritzker, in Edwardsville on Monday and pledging a review of all the events that took place Friday.
An Amazon spokesperson, Kelly Nantel, said the warehouse received tornado warnings between 8.06pm and 8.16pm on Friday and site leaders directed workers to immediately take shelter. At 8.27pm, the tornado struck the building.
Felton said most of the 46 people in the warehouse known as a "delivery station" headed to a shelter on the north side, which ended up "nearly undamaged" and a smaller group to the harder-hit south end. The company said those are not separate safe rooms, but generally places away from windows considered safer than other parts of the plant.
Amazon has pledged to assist workers and their families affected by the tragedy, including donating $1m to the Edwardsville Community Foundation. The company declined to answer questions on Monday about its disaster plans at the plant, including whether employees were required to perform drills.
The tornado that hit Amazon's facility was part of a swarm of twisters across the midwest and south that leveled entire communities. Another tornado destroyed a candle factory in Mayfield, Kentucky, killing multiple workers on an overnight shift. Osha, which is part of the US Department of Labor, said federal investigators were not investigating the Kentucky factory collapse because the state has its own workplace safety agency.
Ceniceros said as extreme weather intensifies due to the climate crisis, hange, workers are investigating how to protect themselves and hold corporations accountable.
The Edwardsville warehouse is part of a vast patchwork of concrete-and-steel structures that have popped up in the St. Louis region over the past decade, drawn by its confluence of major highways and railroads, cheap costs and Americans' expectations for getting packages delivered soon after they click a link to order them.
A researcher who studies the warehouse industry and the pressure put on Amazon workers to meet strict productivity quotas said even if Amazon's team did everything right in responding to a devastating tornado, it raises the question about the structure of enormous warehouses popping up across the midwest as some climate experts warn of more frequent and severe storms.
"We don't think of warehousing as one of the industries that's going to be severely impacted by climate change but then you have a case like this," said Beth Gutelius, research director at the Center for Urban Economic Development at the University of Illinois-Chicago.
At the governor's press conference Monday, Nantel emphasized that the 1.1m sq ft building was "constructed consistent with code".
But Pritzker raised the possibility that current codes aren't enough to meet the dangers of increasingly devastating storms. He said there will be an investigation into updating code ,"given serious change in climate that we are seeing across the country".
Marc Wulfraat, a supply chain consultant who has studied Amazon's warehouses and distribution centers, says the one in Edwardsville appeared standard for the industry with 40ft concrete walls, not unlike many others popping up around the country as consumers shift from stores to online buying.
"It was basically a warehouse, with nothing particularly distinctive to Amazon," said Wulfratt, president of MWPVL International, a consultancy in Montreal. "They abide by code when they put these buildings up. There is no way around it."
Gutelius said she couldn't help but view the tragedy as a spillover effect of American consumer demand for getting packages shipped quickly.
"Yes, it was a freak accident, but the facts are still that these workers were making sure my dog gets a frisbee – tomorrow – and gave their life for it," she said. "It seems really kind of ridiculous when you think about what the stakes are."
My younger brother recently got a job at an Amazon warehouse. When he asked about tornado drills they snapped back that they don't have tornado where he is (Florida). He hates it there.
It seems that Amazon was not alone in that kind of shenanigans, another employer in Kentucky was willing to sacrifice its employees' lives to keep the vital supply of scented candles up and running.
QuoteMost workers escaped Kentucky candle factory, company says
Authorities were combing through debris in search of the dead and the missing Sunday after a tornado outbreak ripped through parts of the South and the Midwest late Friday and early Saturday. About 50 people have been confirmed dead in Kentucky, the state's governor said.
Many of the fatalities were estimated to have occurred at a candle factory in Mayfield, Ky., that was flattened with about 110 people inside; a spokesperson for the company that owns it said more than 90 people had been found alive. Gov. Andy Beshear (D) said no one had been rescued there since Saturday morning.
Eight bodies found and eight people missing from Kentucky candle factory, spokesperson says
A spokesperson for Mayfield Consumer Products confirmed that eight people are missing from its candle factory and that eight have died in the Kentucky facility that was hit by a tornado Friday night.
Larch, maybe you don't realize it because of unfamiliarity with tornadoes, but the proper procedure is to stay in the building.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2021, 07:47:08 AM
Larch, maybe you don't realize it because of unfamiliarity with tornadoes, but the proper procedure is to stay in the building.
I question the lunacy of keeping operations running with tornadoes running around in the area.
Edit: Cherry on top, threatening workers with firings if they left their shift due to the tornadoes? Not cool.
QuoteFactory workers threatened with firing if they left before tornado, employees say
As a catastrophic tornado approached this city Friday, employees of a candle factory — which would later be destroyed — heard the warning sirens and wanted to leave the building. But at least five workers said supervisors warned employees that they would be fired if they left their shifts early.
For hours, as word of the coming storm spread, as many as 15 workers beseeched managers to let them take shelter at their own homes, only to have their requests rebuffed, the workers said.
Fearing for their safety, some left during their shifts regardless of the repercussions.
At least eight people died in the Mayfield Consumer Products factory, which makes scented candles. The facility was leveled, and all that is left is rubble. Photos and videos of its widespread mangled remains have become symbols of the enormous destructive power of Friday's tornado system.
Quote from: The Larch on December 14, 2021, 07:48:30 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2021, 07:47:08 AM
Larch, maybe you don't realize it because of unfamiliarity with tornadoes, but the proper procedure is to stay in the building.
I question the lunacy of keeping operations running with tornadoes running around in the area.
Where would we get if we shut down vital businesses like candlemakers or Amazon every time there was a weather warning? :rolleyes:
Quote from: The Larch on December 14, 2021, 07:39:54 AM
It seems that Amazon was not alone in that kind of shenanigans, another employer in Kentucky was willing to sacrifice its employees' lives to keep the vital supply of scented candles up and running.
Can we maybe not use that kind of language before we know the details of what happened? When people go around claiming that employers sacrifice their workers' lives without really understanding what happened, it just builds up outrage fatigue and makes it harder to make more certain cases of employee abuse be taken seriously. Tornados are not like hurricanes; you don't have much warning when they come, and sometimes you're just fucking screwed because you're in the wrong place at the wrong time. People who die in their own homes when tornados hit probably didn't want to sacrifice themselves for any cause either, but they still die.
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 07:54:05 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 14, 2021, 07:39:54 AM
It seems that Amazon was not alone in that kind of shenanigans, another employer in Kentucky was willing to sacrifice its employees' lives to keep the vital supply of scented candles up and running.
Can we maybe not use that kind of language before we know the details of what happened? When people go around claiming that employers sacrifice their workers' lives without really understanding what happened, it just builds up outrage fatigue and makes it harder to make more certain cases of employee abuse be taken seriously. Tornados are not like hurricanes; you don't have much warning when they come, and sometimes you're just fucking screwed because you're in the wrong place at the wrong time. People who die in their own homes when tornados hit probably didn't want to sacrifice themselves for any cause either, but they still die.
Oh fuck off already.
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 07:54:05 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 14, 2021, 07:39:54 AM
It seems that Amazon was not alone in that kind of shenanigans, another employer in Kentucky was willing to sacrifice its employees' lives to keep the vital supply of scented candles up and running.
Can we maybe not use that kind of language before we know the details of what happened? When people go around claiming that employers sacrifice their workers' lives without really understanding what happened, it just builds up outrage fatigue and makes it harder to make more certain cases of employee abuse be taken seriously. Tornados are not like hurricanes; you don't have much warning when they come, and sometimes you're just fucking screwed because you're in the wrong place at the wrong time. People who die in their own homes when tornados hit probably didn't want to sacrifice themselves for any cause either, but they still die.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kentucky-tornado-factory-workers-threatened-firing-left-tornado-employ-rcna8581
QuoteMAYFIELD, Ky. — As a catastrophic tornado approached this city Friday, employees of a candle factory — which would later be destroyed — heard the warning sirens and wanted to leave the building. But at least five workers said supervisors warned employees that they would be fired if they left their shifts early.
For hours, as word of the coming storm spread, as many as 15 workers beseeched managers to let them take shelter at their own homes, only to have their requests rebuffed, the workers said.
Fearing for their safety, some left during their shifts regardless of the repercussions.
To be fair, Larch quoted a very different linked article when he wrote his commentary. The article he originally quoted said none of these potentially damning things.
If the supervisors kept their workers on site because they wanted them to work, then that's damning. If supervisors were just following safety policies, then it's more ambiguous.
Quote from: The Larch on December 14, 2021, 07:54:52 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 07:54:05 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 14, 2021, 07:39:54 AM
It seems that Amazon was not alone in that kind of shenanigans, another employer in Kentucky was willing to sacrifice its employees' lives to keep the vital supply of scented candles up and running.
Can we maybe not use that kind of language before we know the details of what happened? When people go around claiming that employers sacrifice their workers' lives without really understanding what happened, it just builds up outrage fatigue and makes it harder to make more certain cases of employee abuse be taken seriously. Tornados are not like hurricanes; you don't have much warning when they come, and sometimes you're just fucking screwed because you're in the wrong place at the wrong time. People who die in their own homes when tornados hit probably didn't want to sacrifice themselves for any cause either, but they still die.
Oh fuck off already.
You've become a really unpleasant poster. Yeah, yeah, I know, you're going to say the same thing about me. Whatever.
Quote from: The Larch on December 14, 2021, 07:48:30 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2021, 07:47:08 AM
Larch, maybe you don't realize it because of unfamiliarity with tornadoes, but the proper procedure is to stay in the building.
I question the lunacy of keeping operations running with tornadoes running around in the area.
Edit: Cherry on top, threatening workers with firings if they left their shift due to the tornadoes? Not cool.
QuoteFactory workers threatened with firing if they left before tornado, employees say
As a catastrophic tornado approached this city Friday, employees of a candle factory — which would later be destroyed — heard the warning sirens and wanted to leave the building. But at least five workers said supervisors warned employees that they would be fired if they left their shifts early.
For hours, as word of the coming storm spread, as many as 15 workers beseeched managers to let them take shelter at their own homes, only to have their requests rebuffed, the workers said.
Fearing for their safety, some left during their shifts regardless of the repercussions.
At least eight people died in the Mayfield Consumer Products factory, which makes scented candles. The facility was leveled, and all that is left is rubble. Photos and videos of its widespread mangled remains have become symbols of the enormous destructive power of Friday's tornado system.
I would question the lunacy of doing that as well, but nothing you've linked said they kept on working during the tornado.
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 08:03:27 AM
You've become a really unpleasant poster.
Not sure I agree there. As Languish goes, Larch strikes me as one of the more relaxed and chill ones.
Quote from: Syt on December 14, 2021, 08:17:52 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 08:03:27 AM
You've become a really unpleasant poster.
Not sure I agree there. As Languish goes, Larch strikes me as one of the more relaxed and chill ones.
If you don't challenge him, maybe. Being on the receiving end of multiple personal invectives, I'm obviously having a different take on it.
Quote from: The Larch on December 14, 2021, 07:54:52 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 07:54:05 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 14, 2021, 07:39:54 AM
It seems that Amazon was not alone in that kind of shenanigans, another employer in Kentucky was willing to sacrifice its employees' lives to keep the vital supply of scented candles up and running.
Can we maybe not use that kind of language before we know the details of what happened? When people go around claiming that employers sacrifice their workers' lives without really understanding what happened, it just builds up outrage fatigue and makes it harder to make more certain cases of employee abuse be taken seriously. Tornados are not like hurricanes; you don't have much warning when they come, and sometimes you're just fucking screwed because you're in the wrong place at the wrong time. People who die in their own homes when tornados hit probably didn't want to sacrifice themselves for any cause either, but they still die.
Oh fuck off already.
OUTRAGED MAN IS OUTRAGED!
Don't let calls for sane and reasonable discourse harsh your OUTRAGE!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2021, 08:14:09 AM
I would question the lunacy of doing that as well, but nothing you've linked said they kept on working during the tornado.
Don't harsh his OUTRAGE! with reason.
Look, there is a national shortage of outrage going on, and we cannot just let chances for more outrage go by without mining them to their full potential.
Why didn't the factory managers just shoot that tornado in its battery? WHY THE FUCK DIDNT THEY THINK OF THAT???
I am just going to go ahead and be outraged at the report Syt linked, though. I know MURRICA and all that, but still.
Quote from: Tamas on December 14, 2021, 11:43:48 AM
I am just going to go ahead and be outraged at the report Syt linked, though. I know MURRICA and all that, but still.
I am skeptical. It just sounds stupid. Not that people being stupid are that hard to imagine, but this just seems extra dumb. People who run businesses are generally not so totally ignorant of basic relations between employees and managers.
The company denies doing any such thing:
Quote"It's absolutely untrue," said Bob Ferguson, a spokesman for Mayfield Consumer Products. "We've had a policy in place since Covid began. Employees can leave any time they want to leave and they can come back the next day."
He also denied that managers told employees that leaving their shifts meant risking their jobs. Ferguson said managers and team leaders undergo a series of emergency drills that follow guidelines of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 08:03:27 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 14, 2021, 07:54:52 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 07:54:05 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 14, 2021, 07:39:54 AM
It seems that Amazon was not alone in that kind of shenanigans, another employer in Kentucky was willing to sacrifice its employees' lives to keep the vital supply of scented candles up and running.
Can we maybe not use that kind of language before we know the details of what happened? When people go around claiming that employers sacrifice their workers' lives without really understanding what happened, it just builds up outrage fatigue and makes it harder to make more certain cases of employee abuse be taken seriously. Tornados are not like hurricanes; you don't have much warning when they come, and sometimes you're just fucking screwed because you're in the wrong place at the wrong time. People who die in their own homes when tornados hit probably didn't want to sacrifice themselves for any cause either, but they still die.
Oh fuck off already.
You've become a really unpleasant poster. Yeah, yeah, I know, you're going to say the same thing about me. Whatever.
You're both pretty typical Languish posters, so... :sleep:
I don't find DG's posts at all unpleasant. :huh:
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 08:03:27 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 14, 2021, 07:54:52 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 07:54:05 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 14, 2021, 07:39:54 AM
It seems that Amazon was not alone in that kind of shenanigans, another employer in Kentucky was willing to sacrifice its employees' lives to keep the vital supply of scented candles up and running.
Can we maybe not use that kind of language before we know the details of what happened? When people go around claiming that employers sacrifice their workers' lives without really understanding what happened, it just builds up outrage fatigue and makes it harder to make more certain cases of employee abuse be taken seriously. Tornados are not like hurricanes; you don't have much warning when they come, and sometimes you're just fucking screwed because you're in the wrong place at the wrong time. People who die in their own homes when tornados hit probably didn't want to sacrifice themselves for any cause either, but they still die.
Oh fuck off already.
You've become a really unpleasant poster. Yeah, yeah, I know, you're going to say the same thing about me. Whatever.
No, I'm not going to say that you've become unpleasant. What you've become is unbearable. And what I've become is sick and tired of your continuously obtuse and condescending attitude, as well as your apparent need to police what other people say to decide if it's fair or not. Who made you forum arbiter of what can and can't be said?
I don't find Larch or Dguller unpleasant.
Quote from: The Larch on December 14, 2021, 01:54:54 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 08:03:27 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 14, 2021, 07:54:52 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2021, 07:54:05 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 14, 2021, 07:39:54 AM
It seems that Amazon was not alone in that kind of shenanigans, another employer in Kentucky was willing to sacrifice its employees' lives to keep the vital supply of scented candles up and running.
Can we maybe not use that kind of language before we know the details of what happened? When people go around claiming that employers sacrifice their workers' lives without really understanding what happened, it just builds up outrage fatigue and makes it harder to make more certain cases of employee abuse be taken seriously. Tornados are not like hurricanes; you don't have much warning when they come, and sometimes you're just fucking screwed because you're in the wrong place at the wrong time. People who die in their own homes when tornados hit probably didn't want to sacrifice themselves for any cause either, but they still die.
Oh fuck off already.
You've become a really unpleasant poster. Yeah, yeah, I know, you're going to say the same thing about me. Whatever.
No, I'm not going to say that you've become unpleasant. What you've become is unbearable. And what I've become is sick and tired of your continuously obtuse and condescending attitude, as well as your apparent need to police what other people say to decide if it's fair or not. Who made you forum arbiter of what can and can't be said?
First Rule of Holes, Larch. The guy saying "fuck off already" sounds a lot more like the guy who thinks he is "forum arbiter of what can and can't be said" than the guy saying "can we maybe not use that kind of language before we know the details of what happened?"
DGuller, maybe give some thought to dropping the condescension a notch and see how that plays.
I think DG's tone is reasonable.
Quote from: Berkut on December 14, 2021, 11:39:51 AM
Why didn't the factory managers just shoot that tornado in its battery? WHY THE FUCK DIDNT THEY THINK OF THAT???
They should have shot the workers. It's the way things are done in America. When in doubt, shoot someone.
Quote from: Berkut on December 14, 2021, 11:56:07 AM
Quote from: Tamas on December 14, 2021, 11:43:48 AM
I am just going to go ahead and be outraged at the report Syt linked, though. I know MURRICA and all that, but still.
I am skeptical. It just sounds stupid. Not that people being stupid are that hard to imagine, but this just seems extra dumb. People who run businesses are generally not so totally ignorant of basic relations between employees and managers.
You have a really rosy view of people who run businesses.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 16, 2021, 04:59:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 14, 2021, 11:56:07 AM
Quote from: Tamas on December 14, 2021, 11:43:48 AM
I am just going to go ahead and be outraged at the report Syt linked, though. I know MURRICA and all that, but still.
I am skeptical. It just sounds stupid. Not that people being stupid are that hard to imagine, but this just seems extra dumb. People who run businesses are generally not so totally ignorant of basic relations between employees and managers.
You have a really rosy view of people who run businesses.
No, I just don't have a reflexive animosity against people who run businesses.
Running a business is hard. Being bad at it generally leads to failure of the business.
The market is actually pretty damn good at weeding out stupid business owners. I doubt making candles is getting massive out of market subsidies to keep them going while they blunder around making idiotic decisions.
But hey, maybe in this case they really are dumb and the market just hadn't caught up to them yet.
Quote from: Berkut on December 16, 2021, 10:18:07 AM
No, I just don't have a reflexive animosity against people who run businesses.
Running a business is hard. Being bad at it generally leads to failure of the business.
The market is actually pretty damn good at weeding out stupid business owners. I doubt making candles is getting massive out of market subsidies to keep them going while they blunder around making idiotic decisions.
But hey, maybe in this case they really are dumb and the market just hadn't caught up to them yet.
I agree that over the long run, bad businesses and bad business practices are weeded out by market pressures, but I think there is a lot more dumb luck in the short term that most people give credit for, so this process is more like a slow evolution rather than a brutally efficient optimization algorithm.
Sometimes you can make bad decisions and prosper for a while, because other things that you have no control over happen to bestow you with good fortune. I think there are also situations where there is a collective failure to get it at the industry level, where each company is doing things stupidly for a long time, and yet inexplicably the practice doesn't get weeded out with one standout company destroying the moron competitors, or disruptors ( :x) coming in and eating their lunch.
Quote from: DGuller on December 16, 2021, 11:11:39 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 16, 2021, 10:18:07 AM
No, I just don't have a reflexive animosity against people who run businesses.
Running a business is hard. Being bad at it generally leads to failure of the business.
The market is actually pretty damn good at weeding out stupid business owners. I doubt making candles is getting massive out of market subsidies to keep them going while they blunder around making idiotic decisions.
But hey, maybe in this case they really are dumb and the market just hadn't caught up to them yet.
I agree that over the long run, bad businesses and bad business practices are weeded out by market pressures, but I think there is a lot more dumb luck in the short term that most people give credit for, so this process is more like a slow evolution rather than a brutally efficient optimization algorithm.
Sometimes you can make bad decisions and prosper for a while, because other things that you have no control over happen to bestow you with good fortune. I think there are also situations where there is a collective failure to get it at the industry level, where each company is doing things stupidly for a long time, and yet inexplicably the practice doesn't get weeded out with one standout company destroying the moron competitors, or disruptors ( :x) coming in and eating their lunch.
No question. Market pressures, like all pressures, are something that are exerted over time. At any moment in time, the local conditions could outweigh those pressures. The demand for candles could just be so great that even shitty, dumb candle makers are suceeding.
I am just saying that the overall pressure of running a business is *hard*. In general, people who run businesses are smart, driven, ambitious, and flexible - at least the ones that suceed and stay in business.
I suspect that statistically, the average business owner who has managed to stay in business for any length of time is not an idiot.
Hence, why I don't buy into the reflexive animosity and delicious angst so many have towards those dumb business owners that exist in their imagination out there doing dumb things while their brilliant workers roll their eyes and could do ever so much better if only... :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2021, 08:14:09 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 14, 2021, 07:48:30 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2021, 07:47:08 AM
Larch, maybe you don't realize it because of unfamiliarity with tornadoes, but the proper procedure is to stay in the building.
I question the lunacy of keeping operations running with tornadoes running around in the area.
Edit: Cherry on top, threatening workers with firings if they left their shift due to the tornadoes? Not cool.
QuoteFactory workers threatened with firing if they left before tornado, employees say
As a catastrophic tornado approached this city Friday, employees of a candle factory — which would later be destroyed — heard the warning sirens and wanted to leave the building. But at least five workers said supervisors warned employees that they would be fired if they left their shifts early.
For hours, as word of the coming storm spread, as many as 15 workers beseeched managers to let them take shelter at their own homes, only to have their requests rebuffed, the workers said.
Fearing for their safety, some left during their shifts regardless of the repercussions.
At least eight people died in the Mayfield Consumer Products factory, which makes scented candles. The facility was leveled, and all that is left is rubble. Photos and videos of its widespread mangled remains have become symbols of the enormous destructive power of Friday's tornado system.
I would question the lunacy of doing that as well, but nothing you've linked said they kept on working during the tornado.
Ah, it is not enough that the warning sirens were sounding. Got to wait to see if the tornado actually hits. Then it is ok to leave?
You guys don't actually understand how tornadoes work, do you?
Quote from: Berkut on December 16, 2021, 11:22:17 AM
You guys don't actually understand how tornadoes work, do you?
Tell us what we are missing. Do people sound warning sirens for reasons other than what seems the reasonable inference - to warn that you need to take some action?
I'm not going to say this with absolute certainty, but I think one thing missing is how much time you have once you hear the warning. It's not like you check the weather forecast for tonight, see a tornado touchdown forecasted, and then choose to stay home if your employer lets you. You typically have minutes once you hear the alarm. If I'm the supervisor at a factory, and my employees want to go home because they hear the tornado alarm, I would actually wonder whether I'm letting them put themselves in harm's way by letting them out. Hopefully I would have training on how to deal with it, because I sure as hell wouldn't have time to figure out the right thing to do from first principles, but I think the issue is more complicated than assumed.
I really want to know what is meant by "for hours" in the article that talks about employees wanting to go home. I'm pretty certain the tornado that did hit the building did not come with a warning hours ahead of time. However, it's possible that many tornados were touching down, so maybe the other tornadoes and their warnings spooked the employees, so that again makes it a more complicated situation. That's why I want to wait for details.
Exactly DG.
The article talking about "hours" made me immediately suspicious.
A tornado doesn't last hours. It lasts minutes.
You would not get a tornado warning "hours" before the tornado. You would get a tornado watch when conditions are such that a tornado is likely, or if tornadoes had been observed elsewhere.
What to do in that case is a good question. When should people be sent away from a workplace? What is the protocol? Was it followed?
What about other businesses in the area that were at just as much risk as this one, but did NOT get nailed by a tornado? Most tornados do a very narrow track of damage - often just a few hundred feet wide.
I wonder what really happened here. The story is so extreme ("WE WANTED TO GO HOME BUT THEY TOLD US THEY WOULD FIRE US THEN THE TORNADO KILLED THEM!") that I suspect the truth is somewhat more nuanced. And the shoddy style of the story and very vague timelines it reports makes my skeptical that it is being reported honestly.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2021, 11:26:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 16, 2021, 11:22:17 AM
You guys don't actually understand how tornadoes work, do you?
Tell us what we are missing. Do people sound warning sirens for reasons other than what seems the reasonable inference - to warn that you need to take some action?
The warning sirens mean that a tornado has been seen. The action that should be taken is harder to discern.
I lived in Kansas for years. I was there for some really spectacular tornadoes, including one that killed some 40 people and I was activated as a member of the National Guard for three weeks to patrol the rubble and help clean up. I *watched* that F3 tornado go about 1/2 mile from my home while it was killing people while I watched it.
A tornado is fucking...random. It is not like a hurricane at all, where it forms over time and then devastates this massive area. It's this point thing, and the storms that generate them are often huge in area, but the tornado themselves are just fucking random pinpoints of devastation. It sucks, and is insanely hard to know what to actually DO about them in the moment.
Quote from: Berkut on December 16, 2021, 12:02:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2021, 11:26:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 16, 2021, 11:22:17 AM
You guys don't actually understand how tornadoes work, do you?
Tell us what we are missing. Do people sound warning sirens for reasons other than what seems the reasonable inference - to warn that you need to take some action?
The warning sirens mean that a tornado has been seen. The action that should be taken is harder to discern.
I lived in Kansas for years. I was there for some really spectacular tornadoes, including one that killed some 40 people and I was activated as a member of the National Guard for three weeks to patrol the rubble and help clean up. I *watched* that F3 tornado go about 1/2 mile from my home while it was killing people while I watched it.
A tornado is fucking...random. It is not like a hurricane at all, where it forms over time and then devastates this massive area. It's this point thing, and the storms that generate them are often huge in area, but the tornado themselves are just fucking random pinpoints of devastation. It sucks, and is insanely hard to know what to actually DO about them in the moment.
Thanks, that helps me understand better. And helps put the article in context - according to the article the managers had all the employees go into the hallways and bathrooms (I assume that was according to plan) but then mistakenly thought the danger was over and returned people to their work. The article does not provide a very good chronology of events, but it looks like a case of human error rather than corporate greed.
Quote from: Berkut on December 16, 2021, 10:18:07 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 16, 2021, 04:59:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 14, 2021, 11:56:07 AM
Quote from: Tamas on December 14, 2021, 11:43:48 AM
I am just going to go ahead and be outraged at the report Syt linked, though. I know MURRICA and all that, but still.
I am skeptical. It just sounds stupid. Not that people being stupid are that hard to imagine, but this just seems extra dumb. People who run businesses are generally not so totally ignorant of basic relations between employees and managers.
You have a really rosy view of people who run businesses.
No, I just don't have a reflexive animosity against people who run businesses.
Running a business is hard. Being bad at it generally leads to failure of the business.
The market is actually pretty damn good at weeding out stupid business owners. I doubt making candles is getting massive out of market subsidies to keep them going while they blunder around making idiotic decisions.
But hey, maybe in this case they really are dumb and the market just hadn't caught up to them yet.
We weren't talking about business owners being dumb and bad at business, we were talking about them exploiting the shit out of their employees and treating them like trash. This includes one of the most successful companies of all time, Amazon. Let's face it, in our society treating your employees badly is not something that leads to failure of your business.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 16, 2021, 01:13:57 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 16, 2021, 10:18:07 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 16, 2021, 04:59:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 14, 2021, 11:56:07 AM
Quote from: Tamas on December 14, 2021, 11:43:48 AM
I am just going to go ahead and be outraged at the report Syt linked, though. I know MURRICA and all that, but still.
I am skeptical. It just sounds stupid. Not that people being stupid are that hard to imagine, but this just seems extra dumb. People who run businesses are generally not so totally ignorant of basic relations between employees and managers.
You have a really rosy view of people who run businesses.
No, I just don't have a reflexive animosity against people who run businesses.
Running a business is hard. Being bad at it generally leads to failure of the business.
The market is actually pretty damn good at weeding out stupid business owners. I doubt making candles is getting massive out of market subsidies to keep them going while they blunder around making idiotic decisions.
But hey, maybe in this case they really are dumb and the market just hadn't caught up to them yet.
We weren't talking about business owners being dumb and bad at business, we were talking about them exploiting the shit out of their employees and treating them like trash. This includes one of the most successful companies of all time, Amazon. Let's face it, in our society treating your employees badly is not something that leads to failure of your business.
Except that of course that is exacty what it leads to. Your employees are an asset just like everything else, and treating them like "trash" and "exploiting the shit" out of them will cause them to leave.
Noting that one of the most successful companies of all time has been accused of doing that, and yet are still incredibly successful with huge numbers of employees who are not quitting to go work elsewhere in a free world might make you consider whether the stories of them "exploiting the shit" out of their "trash" employees might actually be entirely accurate in the first place.
I am generally skeptical of hyperbolic claims like the idea that amazingly successful companies that are reliant on a productive work force for their success treat their employees like trash and exploit the shit out of them, when it is consistently and inexplicably never backed up with actual data...
Berkut, it is possible that US employers can treat their employees like shit because everyone else does it too. US laws are very weak compared to other countries. That does not happen by chance. It is more WAD.
I was the safety officer for my floor at my company and the training I got was that when there is a high risk of tornado I was supposed to tell everyone to move away from the windows and gather in the center of the building.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 16, 2021, 02:22:02 PM
I was the safety officer for my floor at my company and the training I got was that when there is a high risk of tornado I was supposed to tell everyone to move away from the windows and gather in the center of the building.
That is certainly the conventional wisdom, unless you have a storm cellar obviously.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 16, 2021, 02:22:02 PM
I was the safety officer for my floor at my company and the training I got was that when there is a high risk of tornado I was supposed to tell everyone to move away from the windows and gather in the center of the building.
Monstrous.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2021, 02:20:04 PM
Berkut, it is possible that US employers can treat their employees like shit because everyone else does it too. US laws are very weak compared to other countries. That does not happen by chance. It is more WAD.
That works as long as you don't believe in free markets.
I am not some kind of libertarian right to work guy.
But if you want to argue that working conditions are shit at Company X, you have to explain why people work there.
And there is this total logical and rational break in these discussions. People will argue that
A) labor is critical, and in fact, will argue that labor is not just important, it is the MOST important thing, and the key to all business success.
Then they will turn around and argue that employers all treat their people like shit as a matter of routine, and this is both unfair AND stupid, since (A). But at the same time, somehow in a free world world where people can go work anywhere they want, they somehow cannot leave their shitty job where they are treated like "trash" for a better job, because somehow all jobs are exactly equally shitty, even though because of (A), any company that offered better conditions would by definition be insanely successful.
It doesn't make any sense.
Labor laws in the US are not great, and could be a LOT better. There are great arguments to be made about how we should make them better. Mandatory PTO, maternity/paternity leave, greater ability for labor to organize. All these things should, IMO, be looked at and agressively reformed. It is long overdue.
But this story of ubiquitous, persistent, and largely horror working conditions in America were stories of evil managers forcing their poor workers to slave away in shit conditions while they die like flies to tornadoes resonate are just ridiculous.
Emploers, just like employees, respond to incentives. The idea that employers are all sitting around treating their employees like trash and exploiting them is just fucking bullshit. It might be true somewhere in America, but I've been working in America since I was 14. I've had shitty bosses and managers, and excellent ones. I've yet to see more than a bare handful that I would consider outright malevolent or not operating in good faith.
I agree that the article is not about evil companies driving their employees to work to their deaths. See my post above about that.
But what we are talking about now is something different. If the free market provided sufficient protection to workers then there would be no need for legislation doing so. Simple belief in a a free market does not work.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 16, 2021, 01:13:57 PM
We weren't talking about business owners being dumb and bad at business, we were talking about them exploiting the shit out of their employees and treating them like trash. This includes one of the most successful companies of all time, Amazon. Let's face it, in our society treating your employees badly is not something that leads to failure of your business.
What does "exploit" mean when we're talking about mentally functioning adult workers? Amazon warehouse workers are under no coercion, they are free to apply for any job they want to, and they are free to quit any time they want to. AFAIK they have not been lied to or defrauded.
How can that be exploitation?
how do you jive having to pee in bottle because if you take bathroom breaks you'll be fired with not being exploited?
Quote from: HVC on December 16, 2021, 09:59:16 PM
how do you jive having to pee in bottle because if you take bathroom breaks you'll be fired with not being exploited?
I don't remember reading in that article any mention of getting fired for taking bathroom breaks.
It's an extrapolation. Taking bathroom breaks puts you behind your metrics. You get behind you get fired. But we'll get more into the semantics of it, does feeling that you can't take a bathroom break for fear of reprisal mean you're exploited? How many people have to feel that way before it's a exploitive in a workplace? 1 employee. 1%, 5%, 20%?
Right, or to put it another way, you have to make X deliveries in Y hours, and some people will need to cut corners to make quota.
I don't think that's exploitation. I think that's a worker who is a bad fit for the job.
Do you believe there is a point where quotas become unreasonable?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2021, 10:48:30 PM
Right, or to put it another way, you have to make X deliveries in Y hours, and some people will need to cut corners to make quota.
I don't think that's exploitation. I think that's a worker who is a bad fit for the job.
Change the quota?
The main sticking point, I think, is that you believe a system can't be exploitive if a person can get another job. Is that correct? To get personal, have you ever been in a position where losing a shitty job makes you homeless or severely in debt? If all your options are shitty jobs then it's easy for the system to exploit workers. Their options aren't really options.
I believe there are hypothetical work quotas that are physically impossible and I believe there are hypothetical quotas that are so high that only a few applicants would be capable of meeting them, and you would therefore be forced to pay a premium to attract them.
If someone offered me an Amazon driver job and I had to stop at 1,000 doors in an eight hour day I wouldn't take the job.
About some of the employees of that candle factory. From the St Louis Post-Dispatch
Quote
Brooklyn Woolfolk was excited to see her dad.
The 18-year-old from Mayfield, Kentucky, hadn't seen Francisco Starks in at least five years. Starks has been serving a state sentence on low-level felony burglary charges. He limped up to Woolfolk, leaning on a crutch, the morning after deadly tornadoes whipped through Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois and Kentucky, killing dozens in their path.
Starks was one of the survivors of the devastation at the Mayfield Consumer Products candle factory, where at least eight employees died. Starks worked there, in a manner of speaking. He was one of seven detainees from the Graves County Jail who worked at the factory to help pay off their fines and fees heaped upon them by the criminal justice system.
The jailer responsible for the men — Deputy Robert Daniel — died in the tornado, after helping make sure Starks and his fellow detainees were somewhat protected as the factory was collapsing around them.
"The deputy probably saved his life," says Madison Leech, who is Starks' attorney. "The deputy was a hero. But the system shouldn't have had him there in the first place."
The system Leech is referring to charges defendants thousands of dollars in fines and fees, including pay-to-stay fees for the privilege of being in jail. In Graves County, the charge is $15 per day. Kentucky is one of several states, most of them in the south, that lets defendants who can't pay off their court debt serve extra time in jail, with each day counting $50 toward their debt, or $100 if on work release.
Graves County touts the program through which detainees work for low wages at the candle factory as a way to teach them job skills and prepare them for a return to the workforce. Leech sees such programs as something else.
Slave labor.
"The jail is making money off this system," she said. The company pays what Leech calls "garbage wages," and then sends a portion of that money back to the county. "They aren't teaching them any skills that are getting them out of poverty," Leech said.
This is not just a Kentucky problem, or a Missouri one, where until 2019, poor, rural defendants were regularly jailed over their inability to pay the pay-to-stay bills charged to them by cash-strapped counties. Every state in the country has a problem with excessive fines and fees, and the very existence of such court debt, and the judicial system's willingness to allow itself to be used as a tax collector, creates a divided system — one for people who can buy their way to freedom, and one for people like Starks, who pay off part of their debt by sitting behind bars.
"Every day, people who owe fines and fees are forced to make impossible choices, whether to pay their rent, pay for food or medicine or pay their fines and fees," says Joanna Weiss, co-director of the Fines and Fees Justice Center. "Tragically, when government preys on the poorest communities in the country to balance their budgets, often in collaboration with private companies who profit off of those who have no choices at all, people are put in harm's way as they try to pay for their own freedom."
Starks, like many survivors of the candle factory collapse in Mayfield, was injured. His daughter says he has leg and neck pain. When he was triaged at the hospital, there was no police officer to take him back to the jail. So he hitched a ride to his daughter's house, traumatized from the tornado and its aftermath. His daughter called Leech, who ended up taking him back to jail, but not before a new warrant was issued for his arrest, allegedly for "escape."
He didn't escape, his daughter says. He didn't wander away. He was sent away by a hospital in the middle of a triage crisis. "He came to me for help," Woolfolk says.
Now he's back in jail, with injuries suffered in the tornado that are going untreated, according to Leech.
In Kentucky, while other workers at the candle plant are filing worker's compensation claims for their injuries, that avenue won't be available for Starks and his fellow jail detainees, Leech says. So they'll face even more financial pressures, cementing them deeper in the poverty that the county claims it was trying to alleviate. Next fall, when Starks is scheduled to be released, he'll start the long, slow slog back to life outside incarceration, likely with a bill from the state for court debt that will continue to weigh him down.
"We have to eliminate fees in the criminal justice system," Weiss says, "and reform the use of fines if we want communities to be safe and to thrive."
Quote from: DGuller on December 16, 2021, 11:11:39 AM
I agree that over the long run, bad businesses and bad business practices are weeded out by market pressures, but I think there is a lot more dumb luck in the short term that most people give credit for, so this process is more like a slow evolution rather than a brutally efficient optimization algorithm.
Maybe over time and in certain sectors but I feel like the bigger drivers of weeding out bad business practices and bad businesses are unions, political campaigns, government regulation.
I think that's the case with many manufacturing sectors, predatory lenders, bad landlords - hell even super modern things like banks selling complex hedging products to small businesses. And issues in a lot of industries weren't solved but exported - so the bad practices are in the garment factory in Bangladesh, or the forced labour in China. Again the push against that doesn't seem to be to do with the market - but with activist consumers and local organising (in Bangladesh).
In some cases there have been genuinely effective disrupters - in my experience, especially with banking - but a number of the most prominent disrupters just have a business model of not following the law and have discovered that is lower cost than following the law. At some point I think that gap needs to be/is being closed.
Quote from: HVC on December 16, 2021, 10:56:52 PM
The main sticking point, I think, is that you believe a system can't be exploitive if a person can get another job. Is that correct? To get personal, have you ever been in a position where losing a shitty job makes you homeless or severely in debt? If all your options are shitty jobs then it's easy for the system to exploit workers. Their options aren't really options.
I've been paycheck to paycheck for good chunks of my life.
To fit your sermon into our hypothetical, the delivery driver who can't meet quota and pees in a bag: how is Amazon exploiting them? Amazon is not making extraordinary profits off of them. Their other drivers are making quota without peeing in bags. They can presumably replace them with someone who can do the job.
Is exploitation just a job that *you* don't want? Is exploitation being fired from a job you're not good at?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 17, 2021, 03:00:35 AM
Quote from: HVC on December 16, 2021, 10:56:52 PM
The main sticking point, I think, is that you believe a system can't be exploitive if a person can get another job. Is that correct? To get personal, have you ever been in a position where losing a shitty job makes you homeless or severely in debt? If all your options are shitty jobs then it's easy for the system to exploit workers. Their options aren't really options.
I've been paycheck to paycheck for good chunks of my life.
To fit your sermon into our hypothetical, the delivery driver who can't meet quota and pees in a bag: how is Amazon exploiting them? Amazon is not making extraordinary profits off of them. Their other drivers are making quota without peeing in bags. They can presumably replace them with someone who can do the job.
Is exploitation just a job that *you* don't want? Is exploitation being fired from a job you're not good at?
Good example of why Americans can never have nice things - like labour laws that actually protect workers.
I get 5 weeks vacation and 6 weeks of paid paternity leave. Also have a pension plan. We are having tons of trouble though with employee retention right now so we aren't really above market.
I just cannot reconcile this image that seems so common on the left of an America of exploited workers working in horrific salt mine conditions while they are treated like complete trash by greedy capitalists cackling with glee at their control over when they get to pee with, you know....reality.
I know lots of people with jobs. I have had lots of jobs, both skilled and unskilled. I hire skilled workers myself, a lot of them.
If these treated like trash exploited workers exist, I cannot seem to actually find any outside the clickbait media.
Quote from: Berkut on December 17, 2021, 03:21:54 PMIf these treated like trash exploited workers exist, I cannot seem to actually find any outside the clickbait media.
They exist outside the clickbait media.
How about Activision Blizzard? Another very successful business. Given what has come to light in the last few years, do you think they've treated their workers well?
Quote from: Solmyr on December 17, 2021, 03:28:38 PM
How about Activision Blizzard? Another very successful business. Given what has come to light in the last few years, do you think they've treated their workers well?
From what I've seen, not really.
Which is why I would never do that kind of work. However, some people really like game development, and apparently are willing to work in pretty crappy conditions - that appears, from all reports, to be true in Canada as well though.
But again, the argument here is not there is some particular place that treats their employees like shit, but rather that this is the norm - so much so that employees simply have to accept it because there isn't anywhere else for them to go. If they left Activision because the job sucks, they would just go get another development job that treats them the same way, because that is how they ALL are.
If that is true, I want to see actual data. Not anecdotes from the worst examples (which I've already said certainly exist).
If we want to play the anecdote game, I hire a lot of software developers myself, and I think we treat them very well. Judging from the feedback I get from my employees, including exit interviews with those who have left, we are overall very good employers. And I happen to know exactly how *I* feel about my employees - I think keeping them happy, sane, and as low stress as I can is my primary job function. I don't think I am some crazy outlier in that view.
Sweden has very strict work environment legislation, and obviously many employers who are genuinely good employers. There's still a whole school of thought that people, especially young people, should be told that all places are bad, and that they therefore shouldn't vote with their feet. It's a school of thought driven by a will to be destructive.
Quote from: Berkut on December 17, 2021, 03:21:54 PM
If these treated like trash exploited workers exist, I cannot seem to actually find any outside the clickbait media.
how hard have you looked?
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 17, 2021, 05:36:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 17, 2021, 03:21:54 PM
If these treated like trash exploited workers exist, I cannot seem to actually find any outside the clickbait media.
how hard have you looked?
Nice cut job of my post.
I've looked hard enough that if it was as ubiquitous as you claim, I think I would have little trouble finding it.
But YOU are making the claim. Provide me data.
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 17, 2021, 03:26:26 PM
They exist outside the clickbait media.
What does exploitation mean?
To the surprise of no one, Democrats haven't succeeded in buying Manchin back from his owners.
West Virginians who are willing to vote for someone with a D after their name?
Providing a monthly child tax credit only to take it away right at the start of the midterm election year really is a masterstroke.
We are at a time when it is absolutely critical that the Democrats provide a solid alternative to the Republicans' policies of authoritarianism and Christian white nationalism, and all we got was some infrastructure spending. The Democrats couldn't even get voting rights safeguarded.
I don't know why we need to bother worrying about a GOP coup when they'll win fair and square and then lock the door behind them.
This disaster was entirely predictable a year ago, when it became obvious that people really didn't want Trump, but they also really didn't want Democrats (we can all debate why, even if the answer is obvious). Just getting to the point where Manchin is a king-maker already required a rare stroke of luck for Democrats.
That is actually a good point. There was a time when it was assumed there was no chance the Dems would control the Senate at all.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that Manchin only has power when every single GOP senator sticks with Mitch. This is why it annoys me when some people act like there are still any good Republicans. Mitt Romney may say the right things about Trump, but when it comes to voter suppression, no one even wonders for a second whether he'll do the right thing. Of course he won't.
Quote from: DGuller on December 19, 2021, 01:57:52 PM
Let's not lose sight of the fact that Manchin only has power when every single GOP senator sticks with Mitch. This is why it annoys me when some people act like there are still any good Republicans. Mitt Romney may say the right things about Trump, but when it comes to voter suppression, no one even wonders for a second whether he'll do the right thing. Of course he won't.
:yes:
Quote from: Berkut on December 19, 2021, 01:42:01 PM
That is actually a good point. There was a time when it was assumed there was no chance the Dems would control the Senate at all.
That was assumed at no point in time at all...election night was a massive disappointment for house and senate democrat hopes: Greenfield was probably seen as a tossup to take the Iowa seat and an Emerson poll had her up 4 a few days before the election, Gideon was ahead of Collins in basically every poll ever conducted in Maine, and Cunningham was ahead of Tillis in North Carolina even after the texts came out that he was cheating on his wife with a California democratic consultant.
Earlier in the cycle, the polling was even more optimistic and democrats sent an all time record of funding to South Carolina because they thought they could get the seat there (and some polls did show them up).
After election night, when it became apparent that democrats would need both georgia seats to get control, they shifted to an underdog status, but at no point were written off: checking the odds they bottomed out at about 17% on betting sites and were up to almost 50-50 by election day.
The 538 forecast was 51.5 seats, with an 80% chance of a range of 48 to 55.
That's about as close to on the money as you can get.
A lot of this Manchin debacle largely highlights to my mind how Democrats are just structurally bad at politics. I don't fully understand why, but we have a two-party system, one party seems to understand the basics of what levers you need to pull and strategies you need to use to maximize your ability to win elections and undermine the other party. The other party appears to understand none of this.
The only reason the Democrats are still in the fight is the Republicans have a toxic political coalition that is outright offensive to a large portion of the country (i.e. a majority of people who are NOT conservative white Christians.)
I don't see the point in banging on about Manchin; he is what he is and nothing better is going to come out of WVa. You can say he's holding back legislation but at the same time he's also the only thing keeping Mitch from taking control of the Senate.
The dems are where they are because they didn't take more Senate seats.
That depends if you're literally talking about nothing more than BBB vs the broader political situation. The broader political situation is that Democrats are very bad at political messaging and playing functional politics.
To compare and contrast--Republicans have used any amount of power they have held for the past 10+ years to find ways to structurally entrench future Republican power. Democrats anytime they are in power do nothing to address this and prioritize social spending measures, many of which are through very complex, long-term vehicles that produce almost no immediate political benefits, such that when the benefits of these policies are felt most of the public don't even associate them with Democrats.
That's the functional political element.
The messaging element I think the Democrats are even worse--more Republicans are worried about Democrats overturning democracy (and thus justifying some sort of armed insurgent action) than Democrats are worried about America's eroding democracy. This is because Democrats seem to be stuck in the mindset of not wanting to go full in on blasting Republicans as dangerously anti-democratic fascists, carpeting major media outlets with this message, because it would seem "impolite." Meanwhile the GOP has been doing exactly this for decades to the Democrats--and shocker, shocker, it has gradually worked to the point a large portion of the Republican electorate genuinely believe that Democrats are a serious danger to the country and that our democratic freedoms are at serious risk of just being ended anytime a Democrat is in office. The fact that the party actually eroding our democratic freedoms is the one whose base is worried about the other party doing this, shows just how asymmetrically bad the Democrats are at messaging.
The Manchin situation highlights this mainly because it exposes that Democrats were stupidly rushing out a bunch of short-term social spending that would likely curry them almost no meaningful electoral favor and were relying on dodgy tactics to get it done. It's not just that the Democrats only have a 50 seat Senate, but that they shouldn't have been pushing this bill in the first place, this legislation would not meaningfully have improved Democratic electoral fortunes even had it passed.
I agree with Otto completely. The inability of Democrats to get it has been infuriating. It may have been slightly excusable in 2009, when it was still possible for a reasonable person to not realize that they were fighting a total war against Republicans, but in 2021? What's the point of spending your resources on building infrastructure when your opponent is spending his resources on building bombs and bombers?
Well, I disagree. Doing good things for the voters, actually governing is better than joining the culture war.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 20, 2021, 11:13:50 AM
Well, I disagree. Doing good things for the voters, actually governing is better than joining the culture war.
When you're being attacked in a war, the best thing that you can do for your citizens is to defend yourself. In the short term it's not going to be pleasant directing your resources towards military defense rather than consumption, but there is going to be no long term if you don't defend yourself.
Doing good things for the voters may, but only may, be a smart thing if the voters were smart enough to reward that. However, every single time, the reward for Democrats has been a crushing electoral defeat that just lets Republicans rig the system further in their favor. Eventually Democrats won't have the ability to do good things for the voters if they don't defend against such rigging.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 20, 2021, 11:13:50 AM
Well, I disagree. Doing good things for the voters, actually governing is better than joining the culture war.
:yes:
It feels weird to blame the Dems when it is the Republicans and their voters destroying society.
Quote from: garbon on December 20, 2021, 11:21:01 AM
It feels weird to blame the Dems when it is the Republicans and their voters destroying society.
It is very unfair, I agree. Humans tend to blame the person most likely to swing the result, not the person most responsible for the result.
There is some logic to that, however; what's the point of harping on something which is just a given? If you get wet in the rain because you didn't bring an umbrella, it's the rain that got you wet. However, you're still going to blame yourself for not bringing an umbrella, because the rain is just a fact of life, there is no point blaming the rain. GOP trying to destroy our democracy is unfortunately just a fact of life today.
You're not going to shame the GOP into behaving, so the only option is to push Democrats to find a way to fight. I don't think anyone believes there are easy or magical answers, but just running the same playbook for 25 years hasn't worked.
Because it leads to a narrative that the Dems are useless. Which in some cases is then taken to why bother voting or why not vote for fringe third party candidates. Attacking the people we need in part to save us seems self defeating.
It's funny you perceive us saying "stop doing dumb shit that doesn't advance your partisan electoral prospects" with "attacking them", it's advocating for a strategy shift.
Quote from: Berkut on December 17, 2021, 06:19:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 17, 2021, 05:36:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 17, 2021, 03:21:54 PM
If these treated like trash exploited workers exist, I cannot seem to actually find any outside the clickbait media.
how hard have you looked?
Nice cut job of my post.
I've looked hard enough that if it was as ubiquitous as you claim, I think I would have little trouble finding it.
But YOU are making the claim. Provide me data.
I suppose it all depends on what you consider to be poor working conditions. Some of the examples I have in mind are the number of American workers who are not entitled to paid vacations, no paid maternity or paternity leave and the need to remain employed with a terrible simply to maintain medical coverage.
Your believe in a free market might work if, and it is a big if, workers had bargaining power which comes close to that of employers. However, the only way to really do that for large numbers of workers is collective bargaining - but the laws in the US are nti union.
Plenty of American workers are entitled to paid leave as a condition of their employment contract--I for example enjoy 26 days of paid vacation a year, 13 days of paid sick leave (that can accrue year to year), 11 Federal holidays.
The government does not need to "mandate" leave policies, that is something that can be determined between workers and employers.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 20, 2021, 01:58:32 PM
Plenty of American workers are entitled to paid leave as a condition of their employment contract--I for example enjoy 26 days of paid vacation a year, 13 days of paid sick leave (that can accrue year to year), 11 Federal holidays.
The government does not need to "mandate" leave policies, that is something that can be determined between workers and employers.
Yeah, I get that is the free market argument. It also does not make sense. Just because you are ok does not mean more vulnerable workers are ok. According to a recent WOPO article 23% of Americans have no paid vacation.
We are talking about shit jobs and terrible employers. The purpose of having strong labour laws is to protect those who do not have the bargaining power you might have, and especially absent strong unions.
QuoteMeanwhile, the United States, unlike other first-world economies, mandates no vacation days. Some 23 percent of American workers have no paid vacation and 22 percent lack paid holidays.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/02/another-way-think-about-worker-crisis-americans-work-conditions-are-terrible/
Quote from: DGuller on December 20, 2021, 11:09:01 AM
I agree with Otto completely. The inability of Democrats to get it has been infuriating. It may have been slightly excusable in 2009, when it was still possible for a reasonable person to not realize that they were fighting a total war against Republicans, but in 2021? What's the point of spending your resources on building infrastructure when your opponent is spending his resources on building bombs and bombers?
Dems like to win argument more then elections.
The people who actually care, the movers and shakers and voice of the left...they want to be "right" and be seen to be "right" (even more importantly) then they do actually winning and doing anything.
I absolutely despair for America. I have very little hope.
The people who actually care, the movers and shakers and voice of the right....they could not give a fuck about being right to anyone they have not already convinced, they just want to win. And they go out and do that.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 20, 2021, 10:41:06 AM
A lot of this Manchin debacle largely highlights to my mind how Democrats are just structurally bad at politics. I don't fully understand why, but we have a two-party system, one party seems to understand the basics of what levers you need to pull and strategies you need to use to maximize your ability to win elections and undermine the other party. The other party appears to understand none of this.
The only reason the Democrats are still in the fight is the Republicans have a toxic political coalition that is outright offensive to a large portion of the country (i.e. a majority of people who are NOT conservative white Christians.)
What would this mean in practice? More Democratic gerrymandering? Suppression of rural voters? Honest question.
The last time Democrats easily could have done much was when Obama had the 60 vote majority, and unfortunately I don't think things were so dire then that Obama would have gotten support for substantive reforms, but that being said part of convincing the public that "things are dire" is the job of politicians--and Democrats have that job.
Let's say some sort of Obama-esque Democrat materializes who wins a wave election. I would say things they should push for:
- Utilizing the constitutional clause that the Federal government can specify election regulations, I would mandate States draw districts via committees selected in a non-partisan fashion, and using geographic tools to create maps primarily around the concept of geographic compactness, consideration could be given to attempting to not break up municipalities and counties, but no other factors would be allowed
- I would expand the Supreme Court to some large number, like 90, and then stipulate a random selection of 9 justices would be apportioned for each case. Any justice over the age of 75 who chose to remain on the court, a new justice would be added for each justice over the age of 75.
- I would revise the 1920s era congressional apportionment act and remove the artificial 435 member cap on the House of Representatives, instead saying there will be as many members of the House as you can divide the whole census population by the lowest population state (i.e., however many times you can divide the U.S. population by the population of Wyoming, is how many House seats there are.)
- Would stipulate that State elections have to be overseen by non-partisan officials who cannot be removed by the legislature or elected executive branch officials, and whose ministerial functions will be tightly defined offering them little latitude in exercising their roles.
- Standardized national ballot
- Standardized process for registering to vote nationwide, standardized rules for purging voter registrations etc
- Standardized rule for felon voting
What you're talking about with more gerrymandering and suppression of rural votes are bad government things that would not alleviate any problems, just make them worse. The Democrats can actually improve their standing solely with good government reforms, one of the few benefits they have--the Republicans cannot do that because they actively need less people to vote and more votes to be spoiled by gerrymandering to remain relevant.
Note that the Federal election and gerrymandering laws would be unambiguously constitutional but would only apply to Federal elections. State legislatures would still be a problem.
Quote from: Berkut on December 20, 2021, 03:48:55 PM
The people who actually care, the movers and shakers and voice of the left...they want to be "right" and be seen to be "right" (even more importantly) then they do actually winning and doing anything.
That is so, so removed from my experience with Democrats. The movers and shakers are actually terrified of doing a single thing that would cost them the elusive centrist vote. The actual movers and shakers of the Democrats aren't "the squad". They are the gerontocrats who approach politics as gentle deal-making. These people certainly don't want to be right - they want to win the election. It's just that they want to win the election while making the least possible noise about it, for fear of scaring away a few voters. Which means, as Otto correctly (IMO) diagnosed, their natural inclination is towards these highly technical policies that they never really bother to sell.
"The squad" have become a lot louder because they think this isn't the way to win anything. You may think they are wrong, but they certainly don't represent any of the movers and shakers.
I just watched one of the Democratic "movers and shakers" manage to shed 900,000 votes in the recent Virginia gubernatorial race (his opponent only shed 300,000). In spite of having been a highly successful governor two terms ago, he simply didn't try very hard to get the Democratic voters out and lost to a total clown who was spouting lies like lies were water and he was a broken fire hydrant. I'm not sure that there are Democrats on the national stage who would behave differently.
Yeah I mean Terry's campaign in Virginia was political malpractice on par with Bill Nelson's disastrous reelection campaign for Florida Senate, which is one of the worst national-tier Dem performances in recent memory.
One of the things that's bad about the Democrats reckoning on these highly technical policies, is in their minds they're looking to harvest the popularity windfall that came from past major social projects like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid etc. The problem is Obamacare and various other technocrat stimulus projects look nothing like those programs. People know what Medicare is, what Medicaid is, and what Social Security is. They get checks with their logos on them (or did in the era of paper checks, now they get digital transfers, but they know where from).
There's been plenty of reporting on the fact many recipients of subsidized Obamacare plans don't even know it's "Obamacare", ditto for some of the current stimulus rolling out, Wisconsin farm area Democrats (a dying breed) have remarked that many of their neighbors happily cashing special stimulus checks and taking benefits Biden rolled out for rural areas don't even really know it came from Biden.
I loathe the man because I'm not a socialist, but Bernie understands some of these issues much better than Democrats do--"Medicare for All" may not be ideal policy, but people actually would know what it was.
I also think a core issue for Democrats is like Oex says, too much of the power brokers in the party are actually too tied into inner beltway shit and they don't want to ruffle feathers and hurt potential lobbying opportunities when they leave government. Democrats need people willing to burn the house down to advocate for their issues, and they instead have people that are primarily technocrats and fundraisers and money bundlers. A party needs those but when that's all you have, you're going to have trouble resonating with your issues. Democrats have some big issues that carry weight, but they rarely seem to come to the national forefront and rarely drive legislative battles in congress, so I think they get subsumed in the noise and ebb and flow of politics.
Totally agree with Oex and Otto and others on this.
I think the inner beltway stuff is particularly true with Biden because that is his political project - and we always knew that's what Biden was about. But it's more than that. Remember the amount of time the Obama administration would spend trying to win one Republican vote in the hope of making it "bipartisan" (in a pretty technical approach to what that means), as if the public should care - a notion Mitch McConnell should really have disabused us of.
It all reminds me of this article:
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/05/roe-v-wade-democrats-2022-elections-523759
I totally get that it might not make much of a difference in 2022 but it blows my mind that after seeing how the Republicans have used an extreme position on abortion that is shared by about a third of Americans and the court as key rallying issues, that Democratic consultants are apparently think it probably won't work for them and they need to focus on the technical, technocratic, wonkish policy ideas instead. Same, as you say, with the Medicare for All or even a public option. Easy to understand, poll very well - so the mainstream Democrat position is let's make it complicated and add some nuance to the debate :bleeding:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 20, 2021, 04:42:31 PM
Note that the Federal election and gerrymandering laws would be unambiguously constitutional but would only apply to Federal elections. State legislatures would still be a problem.
Educate me please.
I do know that the Constitution says the states can select reps and Senators however they want. I also know the Supreme Court has ruled that partisan gerrymandering, as opposed to racial gerrymandering, is not unconstitutional.
I did not know the federal legislature had the power to impose election laws other than related to race on states. Can you tell me which clause does that?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2021, 01:08:15 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 20, 2021, 04:42:31 PM
Note that the Federal election and gerrymandering laws would be unambiguously constitutional but would only apply to Federal elections. State legislatures would still be a problem.
Educate me please.
I do know that the Constitution says the states can select reps and Senators however they want. I also know the Supreme Court has ruled that partisan gerrymandering, as opposed to racial gerrymandering, is not unconstitutional.
I did not know the federal legislature had the power to impose election laws other than related to race on states. Can you tell me which clause does that?
Pretty basic Part of Article I, Section 4. Frankly your understanding of the constitutional situation is simply not correct. Let's break it down.
1. Power to impose election laws other than laws related to race on states. This is directly not accurate. Article I, Section 4 makes no mention of race. I can perhaps understand where the confusion came from--in the 1960s we passed the Voting Rights Act, which as one of its core provisions included something that normally would be of questionable constitutionality--a "preclearance requirement", that meant State legislatures had to get their election laws precleared by the Department of Justice, specifically states with a proven history of disenfranchising black voters. Under our constitution, areas of shared sovereignty between the States and the Federal government, the Federal government's laws triumph when they conflict. However there is nothing under the supremacy clause that actually lets the Federal government preclude a State even enacting a law without prior Federal approval. That was a deviation from the Constitutional norm, and ultimately it was upheld on 14th Amendment grounds that it was a necessary part of ensuring states applied their laws equally. Roberts when he nuked this didn't even nuke the core concept, he simply said it didn't apply anymore because those States were no longer racist so the original justification was gone (essentially--it was not a great ruling.)
2. Gerrymandering is not unconstitutional. This simply means there is no Federal constitutional issue with States gerrymandering districts. But it doesn't speak to whether the Federal government can pass laws concerning gerrymandering. It simply means the current reading of the constitution doesn't preclude States from gerrymandering (in most cases) on Federal constitutional grounds.
Now let's go to the text of Article I, Section 4:
Quote
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
This actually is one of the more sweeping Federal powers in the constitution--because it says the "times, places and manner of holding elections" is prescribed by each state. But the next clause essentially says that the Federal government can pass almost any law it wants in this regard, except as it pertains to the choosing of Senators (those were specifically intended to be hard coded to the State legislature, which is why we needed a constitutional amendment for direct elections of Senators.)
You may for example note that every State in the United States holds Federal elections on the same day. That is because the Federal government passed a law requiring it. That overrode many State laws that had many varying election days. You may also notice that every State in the union has to allow absentee voting of people living overseas or stationed abroad with the military. Why? Because of a 1986 Federal law that says states must do so--they have no option.
Article I, Section 4 grants the Congress broad powers of lawmaking over elections to Federal office, and because it is a dual grant--to both the States and the Federal government, when they conflict, the supremacy clause makes it obvious which side wins--the Federal government.
This is why I said it won't fix State legislatures though. State legislatures are constituted by the State constitutions and elections to those (and other State and local offices) are much more limited in scope. For local elections the Feds still have some powers--particularly due to the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Federal government can step in to protect equal protection claims and claims of disenfranchisement based on race, but the grant in Article I is far more powerful.
The reason nothing like this has been done is found in the phrases the Republicans have been using in response to some of these very assertion "we don't believe we should Federalize our elections", essentially, they are saying this needs to be left to the States because Federal government bad. That's not a bad argument in terms of politics--most people tend to trust State and Local government more than the Federal government, and historically Federal intrusions into State matters have been ill-appreciated. Essentially there has been no political will to fully standardize and Federalize elections, but there is no real constitutional bar.
I should add--Federal control of the district process flows from this part of the Constitution as well. The first Federal laws regulating districting go back to the 1840s. Before that, there were widely divergent practices, for example some States had "at large" members of the House, who did not serve a specific district, the constitution does not explicitly forbid this, but Congress didn't like it, and eventually banned the practice.
One of the shittiest things is part of its control over districting, lead Congress to pass a law in 1901 that actually required congressional districts be drawn as geographically compact as possible. It was law of the land until 1929, the very shitty 1929 Apportionment Act is actually a major blight on our legislative districts and membership and actually lead the congress in a worse direction in a number of ways (most of the decisions around that act have tended to penalize concentrations of population and states with high population to the benefit of rural voters.) But for a roughly 28 year period gerrymandering was technically not legal in the United States. Now, being "not legal" and "not done" are not the same thing. That law wasn't vigorously enforced, but it could have been, and another like it could be.
OVB - only problem re Federal standardisation of state electoral laws in Federal elections, is it works both ways. Can easily see a future Republican government standardising them in a way that suits them.
Quote from: PJL on December 21, 2021, 01:56:19 PM
OVB - only problem re Federal standardisation of state electoral laws in Federal elections, is it works both ways. Can easily see a future Republican government standardising them in a way that suits them.
It already works both ways and they already do that. This isn't a "he might shoot me so I better not shoot him" situation, it's a "he shot me should I shot back" scenario. It's also generally not as easier to overturn laws that are procedurally neutral and fairly good government in nature. Even in our current situation.
That's one reason I am still in favor of the non-partisan commissions for districting that have been created in some states, right now those non-partisan commissions are mostly in purple and blue states (although a few red ones have them), but I think it's very hard to get rid of those commissions once established, and it's protection against future bad behavior. Note that some commissions--like the one we built in Virginia and the one in Ohio, were designed badly and need modified, but some like the ones in Colorado and Arizona seem to work well.
Thanks Biscuit
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/28/opinion/2021-political-stories-politicians.html
One more dose of reality that is sorely needed if we are to avoid the return of Trumpism: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/25/us/politics/ruy-teixeira-democrats.html.
I think he puts it exactly right: the takeover of the Democratic party by the professional class is the root of a lot of their political problems. It's hard for sheltered yuppies to realize just how crazy and off-putting they sometimes sound to people outside of their circle. The irony is that what Democrats are missing is the real diversity and real tolerance.
The real diversity is the diversity of views and backgrounds, not the "diversity" that's just a code word for certain minorities. The real tolerance is not destroying anyone who says anything perceived as intolerant, but actually embracing freedom of speech as a concept that is desirable beyond the First Amendment protections. Maybe the professional class would have a better idea of how out of mainstream their dogmas really are if they didn't force people to shut the fuck up all the time, and say creepy Orwellian things like "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech".
Quote from: DGuller on February 01, 2022, 10:40:43 AM
One more dose of reality that is sorely needed if we are to avoid the return of Trumpism: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/25/us/politics/ruy-teixeira-democrats.html.
I think he puts it exactly right: the takeover of the Democratic party by the professional class is the root of a lot of their political problems. It's hard for sheltered yuppies to realize just how crazy and off-putting they sometimes sound to people outside of their circle. The irony is that what Democrats are missing is the real diversity and real tolerance.
The real diversity is the diversity of views and backgrounds, not the "diversity" that's just a code word for certain minorities. The real tolerance is not destroying anyone who says anything perceived as intolerant, but actually embracing freedom of speech as a concept that is desirable beyond the First Amendment protections. Maybe the professional class would have a better idea of how out of mainstream their dogmas really are if they didn't force people to shut the fuck up all the time, and say creepy Orwellian things like "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech".
QuoteYou write about something you call "the Fox News Fallacy," which you say is "blinding Democrats to real problems."
The basic idea is when one of these criticisms appears — like, Democrats are allowing the intrusion of race-essentialist ideology into curriculum and teacher training — the first reaction is to deny it and just to say it's simply a racist dog whistle to constituencies who aren't that happy about the way the country has changed.
uhhhh....yeah. That sums up every single discussion on Languish about left wing politics.
Possibly relevant - also to other conversations we've been having. The always provocative John Gray (:wub:) and Ross Douthat in conversation:
https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2022/01/the-light-that-failed-why-liberalism-is-in-crisis
Quote from: Berkut on December 16, 2021, 02:15:40 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 16, 2021, 01:13:57 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 16, 2021, 10:18:07 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 16, 2021, 04:59:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 14, 2021, 11:56:07 AM
Quote from: Tamas on December 14, 2021, 11:43:48 AM
I am just going to go ahead and be outraged at the report Syt linked, though. I know MURRICA and all that, but still.
I am skeptical. It just sounds stupid. Not that people being stupid are that hard to imagine, but this just seems extra dumb. People who run businesses are generally not so totally ignorant of basic relations between employees and managers.
You have a really rosy view of people who run businesses.
No, I just don't have a reflexive animosity against people who run businesses.
Running a business is hard. Being bad at it generally leads to failure of the business.
The market is actually pretty damn good at weeding out stupid business owners. I doubt making candles is getting massive out of market subsidies to keep them going while they blunder around making idiotic decisions.
But hey, maybe in this case they really are dumb and the market just hadn't caught up to them yet.
We weren't talking about business owners being dumb and bad at business, we were talking about them exploiting the shit out of their employees and treating them like trash. This includes one of the most successful companies of all time, Amazon. Let's face it, in our society treating your employees badly is not something that leads to failure of your business.
Except that of course that is exacty what it leads to. Your employees are an asset just like everything else, and treating them like "trash" and "exploiting the shit" out of them will cause them to leave.
Noting that one of the most successful companies of all time has been accused of doing that, and yet are still incredibly successful with huge numbers of employees who are not quitting to go work elsewhere in a free world might make you consider whether the stories of them "exploiting the shit" out of their "trash" employees might actually be entirely accurate in the first place.
I am generally skeptical of hyperbolic claims like the idea that amazingly successful companies that are reliant on a productive work force for their success treat their employees like trash and exploit the shit out of them, when it is consistently and inexplicably never backed up with actual data...
Isn't Amazon explicitly worried about running out of employees in the next few years because their turnover is so ridiculously extreme?
https://www.essence.com/news/amazon-burning-through-workers/
QuoteAt the beginning of 2019, Amazon employed approximately 650,000 people. Over the course of the year, they hired over 770,000 hourly workers—this basically equates to the entirety of Amazon's work force leaving and being replaced—in the span of just one year. This phenomenon of Amazon's massive worker turnover prompted the New York Times to investigate. They published their findings in an illuminating exposé just in time for Amazon's self-proclaimed holiday, "Prime Day," this Monday and Tuesday.
"In documenting the untold story of how the pandemic exposed the power and peril of Amazon's employment system, reporters interviewed nearly 200 current and former employees, from new hires at the JFK8 bus stop to back-office workers overseas to managers on Staten Island and in Seattle," the report says. Reporters also "reviewed company documents, legal filings and government records, as well as posts from warehouse feedback boards that served as a real-time ticker of worker concerns."
To sustain this churn of their work force leaving and being replaced, about 10 million people need to apply to work at Amazon every year, which is roughly 5% of the total work force in the United States.
"That rate, almost double that of the retail and logistics industries, has made some executives worry about running out of workers across America." One such Amazonian who worked in human resources "likened [this strategy] to using fossil fuels despite climate change...'We keep using them,' he said, 'even though we know we're slowly cooking ourselves.'"
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPhBZoy_6tI
Chris Christie, of all people, backs Pence's condemnation of Trump.
Finally getting revenge for all the fat jokes?
Didn't Chris Christie turn on Trump a while ago?
If he did it slipped under my radar. I'm sure you get more Jersey info than I do.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2022, 07:20:20 PM
If he did it slipped under my radar. I'm sure you get more Jersey info than I do.
He didn't really turn against him. More like, wrote a book on Trump saying "he is a known liar, he is badly advised, but he's a Republican and that's why you should support him". In many ways, in the current climate, that passes for "turning on Trump", I guess.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2022, 07:20:20 PM
If he did it slipped under my radar. I'm sure you get more Jersey info than I do.
He was mad that Trump's negligence almost killed him.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 07, 2022, 04:57:10 AM
Isn't Amazon explicitly worried about running out of employees in the next few years because their turnover is so ridiculously extreme?
https://www.essence.com/news/amazon-burning-through-workers/
QuoteAt the beginning of 2019, Amazon employed approximately 650,000 people. Over the course of the year, they hired over 770,000 hourly workers—this basically equates to the entirety of Amazon's work force leaving and being replaced—in the span of just one year. This phenomenon of Amazon's massive worker turnover prompted the New York Times to investigate. They published their findings in an illuminating exposé just in time for Amazon's self-proclaimed holiday, "Prime Day," this Monday and Tuesday.
"In documenting the untold story of how the pandemic exposed the power and peril of Amazon's employment system, reporters interviewed nearly 200 current and former employees, from new hires at the JFK8 bus stop to back-office workers overseas to managers on Staten Island and in Seattle," the report says. Reporters also "reviewed company documents, legal filings and government records, as well as posts from warehouse feedback boards that served as a real-time ticker of worker concerns."
To sustain this churn of their work force leaving and being replaced, about 10 million people need to apply to work at Amazon every year, which is roughly 5% of the total work force in the United States.
"That rate, almost double that of the retail and logistics industries, has made some executives worry about running out of workers across America." One such Amazonian who worked in human resources "likened [this strategy] to using fossil fuels despite climate change...'We keep using them,' he said, 'even though we know we're slowly cooking ourselves.'"
...
That's pretty amazing. Imagine if this is what makes them start treating people well...
Though most likely they just see it as a race against time to fully automate their warehouses
Biden is now in the biggest foreign policy challenge faced by a US president since 9/11?
Since Biden gets blamed for the Inflation a lot, I'll put this here:
https://twitter.com/PeterSchiff/status/1492893722475999232?s=20&t=lMhxbDAuL7tT_nFIZzsSjQ
QuotePeter Schiff
@PeterSchiff
To successfully fight #inflation the government must eliminate the 3-trillion dollar annual budget deficit. It can do this with middle class tax hikes, cuts to middle class entitlements, or a combination of both. Then the #Fed can reduce the money supply and raise interest rates.
5:09 PM · Feb 13, 2022·Twitter Web App
We have had inflationary policies for twenty years. It seems weird to suggest the 2021 covid relief bill is 100% responsible.
Quote from: Valmy on February 14, 2022, 09:03:37 AM
We have had inflationary policies for twenty years. It seems weird to suggest the 2021 covid relief bill is 100% responsible.
I don't think it's weird at all to suggest that Covid safety net money were responsible for inflation (though actions taken in 2020 have a lot more to do with it). The Fed may have been printing money for a long time, but it was never handing it to the people likely to spend it. The money was going straight to the asset bubbles before.
Quote from: DGuller on February 14, 2022, 09:28:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 14, 2022, 09:03:37 AM
We have had inflationary policies for twenty years. It seems weird to suggest the 2021 covid relief bill is 100% responsible.
I don't think it's weird at all to suggest that Covid safety net money were responsible for inflation (though actions taken in 2020 have a lot more to do with it). The Fed may have been printing money for a long time, but it was never handing it to the people likely to spend it. The money was going straight to the asset bubbles before.
Even so it was the third such bill in less than a year.
Quote from: mongers on February 12, 2022, 08:57:30 AM
Biden is now in the biggest foreign policy challenge faced by a US president since 9/11?
The actual invasion of Crimea was probably bigger. It could become more serious but right now it is a lot of sable rattling by the Russians.
The decision to follow the Trump plan for pulling out of Afghanistan may have been more significant.
Extraordinary that even in the Biden administration, it's still Clinton:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FLkfnGaXMAYvD5N?format=jpg&name=small)
Eager to probe Hillary.
Fox writers really need to pander to their audience.
It's part of Donald Trump's revenge for the Mueller investigation. He wants to "investigate the investigators" and some how pin it on the Clintons. You wouldn't think that anyone would care about that anymore after everything that has happened.
Meh. He had a campaign promise to lock her up. Fool me once Donald.
Apparently Hershel Walker is running for US Senator from Georgia as a Republican. A Trump friendly Republican according to CNN.
Help for Yuros: retired black football player.
:(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2022, 06:15:20 PM
Help for Yuros: retired black football player.
Big star at Univ Georgia.
And on the wrong end of the worst/best trade in American football history.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 16, 2022, 09:27:35 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2022, 06:15:20 PM
Help for Yuros: retired black football player.
Big star at Univ Georgia.
And on the wrong end of the worst/best trade in American football history.
Imagine how much better Minnesota would have been if they had kept those draft picks and used them the same way Dallas did or even if they had just drafted Emmit Smith and Darren Woodson. Not too shabby.
Quote from: Syt on February 14, 2022, 02:54:17 AM
Since Biden gets blamed for the Inflation a lot, I'll put this here:
https://twitter.com/PeterSchiff/status/1492893722475999232?s=20&t=lMhxbDAuL7tT_nFIZzsSjQ
QuotePeter Schiff
@PeterSchiff
To successfully fight #inflation the government must eliminate the 3-trillion dollar annual budget deficit. It can do this with middle class tax hikes, cuts to middle class entitlements, or a combination of both. Then the #Fed can reduce the money supply and raise interest rates.
5:09 PM · Feb 13, 2022·Twitter Web App
Or we could raise taxes on the rich?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2022, 06:15:20 PM
Apparently Hershel Walker is running for US Senator from Georgia as a Republican. A Trump friendly Republican according to CNN.
Help for Yuros: retired black football player.
Dude has dissociative identity disorder, hard to see him overcoming that.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 22, 2022, 06:43:06 AM
Quote from: Syt on February 14, 2022, 02:54:17 AM
Since Biden gets blamed for the Inflation a lot, I'll put this here:
https://twitter.com/PeterSchiff/status/1492893722475999232?s=20&t=lMhxbDAuL7tT_nFIZzsSjQ
QuotePeter Schiff
@PeterSchiff
To successfully fight #inflation the government must eliminate the 3-trillion dollar annual budget deficit. It can do this with middle class tax hikes, cuts to middle class entitlements, or a combination of both. Then the #Fed can reduce the money supply and raise interest rates.
5:09 PM · Feb 13, 2022·Twitter Web App
Or we could raise taxes on the rich?
"We"? You don't live here.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 22, 2022, 06:45:02 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2022, 06:15:20 PM
Apparently Hershel Walker is running for US Senator from Georgia as a Republican. A Trump friendly Republican according to CNN.
Help for Yuros: retired black football player.
Dude has dissociative identity disorder, hard to see him overcoming that.
There are betting odds on him getting the republican nomination for Senate. He is at 90%.
There are also betting odds on Republicans winning the senate race. They are at 62%.
Just how disconnected from the country are you?
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2022, 11:48:31 AM
"We"? You don't live here.
Aren't all American citizens required to file taxes? And can't overseas Americans vote?
If so, then he's as much "we" as you are.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2022, 11:58:19 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 22, 2022, 06:45:02 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2022, 06:15:20 PM
Apparently Hershel Walker is running for US Senator from Georgia as a Republican. A Trump friendly Republican according to CNN.
Help for Yuros: retired black football player.
Dude has dissociative identity disorder, hard to see him overcoming that.
There are betting odds on him getting the republican nomination for Senate. He is at 90%.
There are also betting odds on Republicans winning the senate race. They are at 62%.
Just how disconnected from the country are you?
The betting odds don't mean all that much, since we know that gamblers are much more stupid than the average voter (as indicated by the fact that they are gamblers). Gambling is just a tax on stupidity.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 22, 2022, 06:45:02 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2022, 06:15:20 PM
Apparently Hershel Walker is running for US Senator from Georgia as a Republican. A Trump friendly Republican according to CNN.
Help for Yuros: retired black football player.
Dude has dissociative identity disorder, hard to see him overcoming that.
Is he running as a Democrat too?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2022, 06:15:20 PM
Apparently Hershel Walker is running for US Senator from Georgia as a Republican. A Trump friendly Republican according to CNN.
Help for Yuros: retired black football player.
What's the angle?
"yes blacks are scum that's why we gotta try and become better like me"?
The angle is Republicans are better for economy/jobs, which is better for black people.
Quote from: grumbler on February 22, 2022, 01:16:27 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2022, 11:58:19 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 22, 2022, 06:45:02 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2022, 06:15:20 PM
Apparently Hershel Walker is running for US Senator from Georgia as a Republican. A Trump friendly Republican according to CNN.
Help for Yuros: retired black football player.
Dude has dissociative identity disorder, hard to see him overcoming that.
There are betting odds on him getting the republican nomination for Senate. He is at 90%.
There are also betting odds on Republicans winning the senate race. They are at 62%.
Just how disconnected from the country are you?
The betting odds don't mean all that much, since we know that gamblers are much more stupid than the average voter (as indicated by the fact that they are gamblers). Gambling is just a tax on stupidity.
If you think the odds are dumb then place some bets and make thousands with little effort and no work.
Quote from: Jacob on February 22, 2022, 12:27:02 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2022, 11:48:31 AM
"We"? You don't live here.
Aren't all American citizens required to file taxes? And can't overseas Americans vote?
If so, then he's as much "we" as you are.
He literally moved to another county and has worked there most of his adult life, has no concrete plans to return, and married a foreign woman. I accept immigrants to the US in the analogous situation as one of us. They wanted to join our country and community. Tim chose to abandon it.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2022, 04:51:24 PM
He literally moved to another county and has worked there most of his adult life, has no concrete plans to return, and married a foreign woman. I accept immigrants to the US in the analogous situation as one of us. They wanted to join our country and community. Tim chose to abandon it.
You're such a piece of trash :lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2022, 04:42:56 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 22, 2022, 01:16:27 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2022, 11:58:19 AM
There are betting odds on him getting the republican nomination for Senate. He is at 90%.
There are also betting odds on Republicans winning the senate race. They are at 62%.
Just how disconnected from the country are you?
The betting odds don't mean all that much, since we know that gamblers are much more stupid than the average voter (as indicated by the fact that they are gamblers). Gambling is just a tax on stupidity.
If you think the odds are dumb then place some bets and make thousands with little effort and no work.
Reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits, is it? :lmfao:
Everything is so weird.
QuoteTed Cruz
@tedcruz
Had a fantastic time visiting today with the great @HerschelWalker and then interviewing him in front of hundreds of supporters & patriots at Mar-A-Lago.
A red wave is coming!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FMT2LMFWUAYsp-d?format=jpg&name=small)
That painting... :bleeding:
You know Ted Cruz is an authentic texan cowboy because of his boots.
Absolutely incredible stuff :lol:
Did the patriots get along with the supporters?
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2022, 11:48:31 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 22, 2022, 06:43:06 AM
Quote from: Syt on February 14, 2022, 02:54:17 AM
Since Biden gets blamed for the Inflation a lot, I'll put this here:
https://twitter.com/PeterSchiff/status/1492893722475999232?s=20&t=lMhxbDAuL7tT_nFIZzsSjQ
QuotePeter Schiff
@PeterSchiff
To successfully fight #inflation the government must eliminate the 3-trillion dollar annual budget deficit. It can do this with middle class tax hikes, cuts to middle class entitlements, or a combination of both. Then the #Fed can reduce the money supply and raise interest rates.
5:09 PM · Feb 13, 2022·Twitter Web App
Or we could raise taxes on the rich?
"We"? You don't live here.
I vote and file taxes in the US
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2022, 11:58:19 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 22, 2022, 06:45:02 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2022, 06:15:20 PM
Apparently Hershel Walker is running for US Senator from Georgia as a Republican. A Trump friendly Republican according to CNN.
Help for Yuros: retired black football player.
Dude has dissociative identity disorder, hard to see him overcoming that.
There are betting odds on him getting the republican nomination for Senate. He is at 90%.
There are also betting odds on Republicans winning the senate race. They are at 62%.
Just how disconnected from the country are you?
Haven't been any dark money ads attacking his mental state yet.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 23, 2022, 04:08:18 PM
Everything is so weird.
QuoteTed Cruz
@tedcruz
Had a fantastic time visiting today with the great @HerschelWalker and then interviewing him in front of hundreds of supporters & patriots at Mar-A-Lago.
A red wave is coming!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FMT2LMFWUAYsp-d?format=jpg&name=small)
A Trump portrait in the background? :huh:
He's no Vigo, that's for fucking sure.
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/6tJle.jpg)
I don't know what that is suppose to be.
It's Karl Malden dressed as Paul Revere.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 24, 2022, 02:16:49 PM
I don't know what that is suppose to be.
Looks a bit like a paint by numbers set I had as a kid.
It's Tony Soprano with Pie-Oh-My. Philistines.
:face:
Quote from: Habbaku on February 24, 2022, 03:34:32 PM
It's Tony Soprano with Pie-Oh-My. Philistines.
Finally a cultured poster appears in this thread. :hug:
No comments on this SOTU speech last night?
I thought it was good and he said what was needed about Ukraine.
It is really hard to listen to Biden speak through all his gaffs and especially a speech as important as that one.
Quote from: mongers on March 02, 2022, 10:12:58 AMNo comments on this SOTU speech last night?
I thought it was good and he said what was needed about Ukraine.
Before last night I was unaware you can't build a wall high enough to keep out a vaccine. Judging by the look on Nancy Pelosi's face she wasn't either.
;)
By Biden standards it wasn't a bad speech (although even CNN's Chris Cillizza, who usually grades Biden public speaking on a very generous curve, called him out for confusing Ukrainians and Iranians); at very least his message on Ukraine was on target.
Representatives Boebert's and Greene's behavior was both appalling and unsurprising. (Assuming that they're re-elected) we should build them a special Statler and Waldorf box for the next State of the Union.
Quote from: Savonarola on March 02, 2022, 02:22:50 PMRepresentatives Boebert's and Greene's behavior was both appalling and unsurprising. (Assuming that they're re-elected) we should build them a special Statler and Waldorf box for the next State of the Union.
What did they do?
Quote from: The Larch on March 02, 2022, 03:02:59 PMQuote from: Savonarola on March 02, 2022, 02:22:50 PMRepresentatives Boebert's and Greene's behavior was both appalling and unsurprising. (Assuming that they're re-elected) we should build them a special Statler and Waldorf box for the next State of the Union.
What did they do?
They heckled him throughout; this article (https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/lauren-boebert-marjorie-taylor-greene-043410308.html) (fittingly in the entertainment section) gives a detailed account.
Actually I think this picture:
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/U1Oy.cWZwbYMHUSX4Ie2dw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtoPTY3NjtjZj13ZWJw/https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/XjfSOc4Bc3NCoPytO8.5pQ--~B/aD0zMTYwO3c9NDQ4NTthcHBpZD15dGFjaHlvbg--/https://media.zenfs.com/en/usa_today_news_641/fc7e88777a22305a23a65939d2c27f51)
Of them shouting "Build the wall" says it all.
Build a brain. Morans.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FM1zHa8XMAY3b2v?format=jpg&name=900x900)
:lmfao:
REKT
Jesus wept.
Two economists examined state voter ID laws enacted between 2008 and 2018 and found no evidence of suppression.
Like I've been saying all along.
Fun factoid from the same Economist article: black turnout was higher than white turnout during Obama's general elections.
Wait, two economists agreed on what a data set means? That alone would give any reasonable person some pause as to just how credible the analysis is.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2022, 05:34:43 PMTwo economists examined state voter ID laws enacted between 2008 and 2018 and found no evidence of suppression.
Like I've been saying all along.
Fun factoid from the same Economist article: black turnout was higher than white turnout during Obama's general elections.
No evidence at all?
That is basically bullshit. I mean, I could imagine a sober analysis that says that given all the evidence for and against, the net analysis is that these laws have failed to suppress minority voting as their authors intended.
But to say that there isn't ANY evidence of ANY suppression at all? That doesn't make any sense at all.
Link?
I read in the paper version.
A quick google search shows it is also in the electronic version. Yi when you subscribe to the paper version you automatically get access to the digital version.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/10/10/the-spreading-scourge-of-voter-suppression
Why are we concerned about what a couple of anonymous economists discovered about a political issue that looks to be outside their area of expertise?
Or perhaps a more interesting question is why did Yi characterize an Economist article which voiced concern about voter suppression as an article that found no evidence for its existence
Just saw that I still had a Skype name attached to my profile - can't remember when I last used that. And it makes me nostalgic that we can add our ICQ numbers. :wub:
I mostly use Skype as instant messaging these days, and not that much.
ICQ was last used, like 12-15 years ago? :hmm:
Is this a call back in time to when Biden didn't mix up Ukrainians with Iranians?
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on March 10, 2022, 12:32:47 PMICQ was last used, like 12-15 years ago? :hmm:
It is still in use:
https://www.icq.com/
I believe it was bought by a Russian company.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 10, 2022, 01:08:51 PMIs this a call back in time to when Biden didn't mix up Ukrainians with Iranians?
I meant to post in the other sticky thread. -_-
Quote from: viper37 on March 10, 2022, 02:01:58 PMQuote from: Duque de Bragança on March 10, 2022, 12:32:47 PMICQ was last used, like 12-15 years ago? :hmm:
It is still in use:
https://www.icq.com/
I believe it was bought by a Russian company.
I mean used by me. :P
There's no field for my AIM username or my MySpace page. :(
Quote from: Syt on March 10, 2022, 11:03:31 AMAnd it makes me nostalgic that we can add our ICQ numbers. :wub:
Those were the days. For some reason I still know that number by heart.
Incidentally counter to other polling it doesn't look like there's too much polarisation on views of Russia and Ukraine which is interesting:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FNq6SwJXIAMDm9F?format=jpg&name=small)
It'll be really interesting to see to what degree the Fox-sphere and Trumpists drive GOP supporter opinion, and to what degree it reflects and follows.
If Tucker and Trump and their proxies keep trying to slip in pro-Putin and anti-Ukraine points, will that carry a cost for them or will it move the GOP supporter opinion?
I think Trump has moved from Putin's smart for doing this to how great Zelensky is.
My take is so much of Trump is just aesthetics and appearance - he doesn't care about anything beyond that whether it's a building's structural stability, a business's viability or actual political/policy achievements. I think Putin matched his view of a butch alpha strongman v weak Obama. I think he now likes Zelensky for the same reason.
On cost I don't know - the one I find interesting is vaccines because Trump keeps trying (with some justification - it's probably his administration's one genuine achievement) to take the credit for vaccines and his crowds lightly boo him for it and he backs off. Again I'm not convinced he's really a leader even in that sense.
On Fox from what I've read they're just all over the place. My own take is Murdoch will want viewers and Fox to be centre of the conversation. I think going down a pro-Putin line would not help that. That line seems to have been strongest with Carlson who's been pushing this "Christian nationalist" vision of Orban and Putin for a while - and is close to Yoram Hazony and his whole "national conservatism" conferences (which sound like they've degraded even in the two or three years they've been running :lol:), with Rod Dreher as a bit of a blunt cutting edge of that stream - I think he's more or less permanently based in Budapest now. At the minute they mainly seem to be moaning about the risk of a liberal nuclear war by supporting a no fly zone (and they're right - that is a bad idea also opposed by Biden), but I don't think backing a war of national liberation/resistance would be a challenge to their views.
There's a really specific Evangelical angle around the end of the world. They are basically as negative about Russia and as supportive of sanctions as the Amerivan average - but disapprove of Biden far more than the average American (there's probably a bit of dissonance going on). But the interesting thing is that their read on the end of the world in the Bible is that it starts with Gog and Magog launching an assault on Israel - and I think from the Cold War they've read Gog and Magog as Russia/the Soviet Union. So the Evangelical press is alive right now with whether this is the start of end times. I'm not sure where that thinking will go but it's an interesting, slightly crazy side of this situation.
The overall trend I see is that they're backing what Biden is doing in substance but still trying to find ways to distinguish themselves/attack him.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 13, 2022, 02:47:47 PMMy take is so much of Trump is just aesthetics and appearance - he doesn't care about anything beyond that whether it's a building's structural stability, a business's viability or actual political/policy achievements.
You don't fucking say?
I've never claimed to be searingly original :P
I see senate passed a bill to stop all this time change.
Quote from: garbon on March 15, 2022, 06:28:54 PMI see senate passed a bill to stop all this time change.
Finally! I hope this thing is law before October.
I guess Marco Rubio did something I liked.
I hope so, if the US does it, BC would do it the next day.
It all ends when parents figure out they're sending their kids to the school bus stop in the dark come January.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 16, 2022, 09:30:03 AMIt all ends when parents figure out they're sending their kids to the school bus stop in the dark come January.
Rather than moving all time an hour why not just have different school hours in winter?
Quote from: Josquius on March 16, 2022, 11:59:01 AMRather than moving all time an hour why not just have different school hours in winter?
Because you're not on any school boards, Copernicus.
Schoolboarding is considered cruel and unusual.
Clarence Thomas is hospitalized with flu like symptoms.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 20, 2022, 09:34:33 PMClarence Thomas is hospitalized with flu like symptoms.
Well, he's probably vaccinated against Covid. And the treatments are pretty effective, so he'll probably be okay.
Quote from: Jacob on March 20, 2022, 09:37:47 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on March 20, 2022, 09:34:33 PMClarence Thomas is hospitalized with flu like symptoms.
Well, he's probably vaccinated against Covid. And the treatments are pretty effective, so he'll probably be okay.
Well...isn't that...great. Hope he is fine. Yep.
I am just not going to comment on the grounds that what I would say if I were honest is pretty fucking terrible.
We do not have that great of a Karma. There's no way.
Quote from: Berkut on March 21, 2022, 08:38:31 AMI am just not going to comment on the grounds that what I would say if I were honest is pretty fucking terrible.
Things have gotten pretty shitty for us to even contemplate it.
I'd be happy if he croaked.
Losing his voice on the Court is unthinkable.
Quote from: The Brain on March 21, 2022, 01:03:16 PMLosing his voice on the Court is unthinkable.
Might work
Quote from: The Brain on March 21, 2022, 01:03:16 PMLosing his voice on the Court is unthinkable.
He doesn't actually say much though.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 21, 2022, 06:32:13 PMQuote from: The Brain on March 21, 2022, 01:03:16 PMLosing his voice on the Court is unthinkable.
He doesn't actually say much though.
That's... That's the joke.
I thought the joke was a different interpretation of the word croak.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 22, 2022, 05:04:40 AMI thought the joke was a different interpretation of the word croak.
Nice. :)
God bless Judge Jackson for simply not standing up and stabbing Josh Hawley in the face with a fucking fountain pen. What a fucking dirtbag.
That fucker will be President one day.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2022, 06:47:35 PMThat fucker will be President one day.
Please don't make the world even more depressing than it already is
Someone on facebook said it was like watching Beavis and Butthead interview Einstein.
Quote from: Berkut on March 23, 2022, 08:31:42 PMSomeone on facebook said it was like watching Beavis and Butthead interview Einstein.
What is?
I want to see this.
Ted Cruz asking if he can Dolezal. :rolleyes:
Quote from: garbon on March 24, 2022, 05:54:29 AMTed Cruz asking if he can Dolezal. :rolleyes:
It's fun that even other Republicans basically accuse him of showboating for the tv cameras. :lol:
Quote from: The Larch on March 24, 2022, 06:15:19 AMIt's fun that even other Republicans basically accuse him of showboating for the tv cameras. :lol:
I do kind of enjoy how much even other Republican arseholes hate Ted Cruz. It makes you wonder just how much of an awful person he must be to deal with :lol:
I don't think I've ever heard anyone with anything positive to say about him on a personal level.
I knew him casually before he was famous, friend of friend of a friend kind of thing. At the time, I thought he was a put-on artist, intentionally saying provocative things just to see how people react.
Quote from: Berkut on March 23, 2022, 08:31:42 PMSomeone on facebook said it was like watching Beavis and Butthead interview Einstein.
It's astonishing to consider that Lindsay Graham allegedly practiced law for 10 years. He acted exactly like someone who has no idea how to question a witness and is trying to take cues from old Law and Order episodes.
I will note a conflict in complaining that Jackson is too soft on sexual offenders while simultaneously complaining how unfairly Kavanaugh was treated.
Dick Durbin symbolizes how inept and neutered the Democrats in Congress really are. You're going to bitch about people running over their time allotment, wandering off topic, and turning this hearing into a monkey shitfight at the zoo? You're the Committee Chair. ENFORCE THE RULES. KILL MICS.
Fucking Democrats STILL thing the GOP is playing by the same rules of governance. Unfucking real.
Enjoy Trump's return to Der Weiß Haus, you sackless cunts.
I'm going to try to be charitable and assume that he was going with the theory that you opponent is busy making a complete ass of himself in public, it's best not to interfere.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 24, 2022, 10:15:01 AMI'm going to try to be charitable and assume that he was going with the theory that you opponent is busy making a complete ass of himself in public, it's best not to interfere.
Unfortunately, that energizes the base and wins elections. Or have you not been paying attention?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 24, 2022, 10:34:15 AMUnfortunately, that energizes the base and wins elections. Or have you not been paying attention?
It works both ways.
Every now and then some GOP pollster will pose the question why African-American voters break so strong for the Democrats when their policy viewpoints are more moderate than what their voting behavior would suggest.
Episodes like this provide a useful demonstration. The next GOTV Black community leaders will be reminding folks about the old-timey Klan whisperer show the GOP Senators put on this past week.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 24, 2022, 09:22:31 AMQuote from: Berkut on March 23, 2022, 08:31:42 PMSomeone on facebook said it was like watching Beavis and Butthead interview Einstein.
It's astonishing to consider that Lindsay Graham allegedly practiced law for 10 years. He acted exactly like someone who has no idea how to question a witness and is trying to take cues from old Law and Order episodes.
Lindsay Graham is playing to his base of right wing evangelicals. There is no other explanation why someone who knows anything about the law would ask these questions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-48-HpxE3A
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 24, 2022, 11:10:54 AMLindsay Graham is playing to his base of right wing evangelicals. There is no other explanation why someone who knows anything about the law would ask these questions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-48-HpxE3A
If that's so, he didn't dumb it down anywhere near enough. I don't think the holy rollers were on the edge of their seats waiting for the climactic moment when the statutory text of 8 USC 1225(b)(1)(A) would be revealed.
Wait, let me get this straight... US politics is a shitshow?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 24, 2022, 11:15:05 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 24, 2022, 11:10:54 AMLindsay Graham is playing to his base of right wing evangelicals. There is no other explanation why someone who knows anything about the law would ask these questions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-48-HpxE3A
If that's so, he didn't dumb it down anywhere near enough. I don't think the holy rollers were on the edge of their seats waiting for the climactic moment when the statutory text of 8 USC 1225(b)(1)(A) would be revealed.
I agree, they had already climaxed when he asked about the strength of her faith and how many times she went to church.
They certainly played up the Qanon angle. Apparently Judge Jackson has a soft spot for child pornographers, which dovetails quite nicely into the whole Satantic-worshipping-cabal-of-kiddie-fuckers theme that 1 out of 4 GOP voters believe.
If only she were a binge-drinking date rapist that likes to cry about beer. Oh, and white.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 24, 2022, 12:42:38 PMThey certainly played up the Qanon angle. Apparently Judge Jackson has a soft spot for child pornographers, which dovetails quite nicely into the whole Satantic-worshipping-cabal-of-kiddie-fuckers theme that 1 out of 4 GOP voters believe.
If only she were a binge-drinking date rapist that likes to cry about beer. Oh, and white.
Apparently she is also the judge who put the guy who attacked the pizza place (aka where the cabal was hiding out) behind bars. So you can see the concern the Qanoners have...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBY5mlkkLrg
The anti-Trump response.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc9xsy6MSOE
Bernie has your back Squeeze.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al-AAN-vBMc
What is the point of this law?
Susan Collins has said she will back Biden's judge nom
Don't eat and post.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 30, 2022, 03:41:55 AMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al-AAN-vBMc
What is the point of this law?
There already exists a federal hate crime statute, which applies penalties for causing or attempting to cause bodily injury because of actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
The Till act adds penalties for conspiracy to commit such offenses. Thus, it effectively closes a gap whereby certain offenses are categorized and punishable as hate crimes but conspiracies to commit such crimes are treated as ordinary criminal conspiracies with no special enhancements.
That's all fine and good, but lynching is murder. Aren't additional penalties for a murder kind of pointless?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2022, 05:02:45 PMThat's all fine and good, but lynching is murder. Aren't additional penalties for a murder kind of pointless?
How so?
Quote from: Jacob on March 31, 2022, 05:05:45 PMHow so?
In that execution or life imprisonment can't be augmented.
But surely that's not covered by this law - based on MM's description. Conspiracy to murder is, no?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2022, 05:13:13 PMIn that execution or life imprisonment can't be augmented.
Ah. I didn't realize that those were the only two possible sentences for murder.
Quote from: Jacob on March 31, 2022, 05:47:53 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2022, 05:13:13 PMIn that execution or life imprisonment can't be augmented.
Ah. I didn't realize that those were the only two possible sentences for murder.
Those are maximum penalties, not the only ones. And, in fact, life imprisonment doesn't mean life without parole.
Nor does conspiracy to commit a lynching always result in a lynching.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2022, 05:02:45 PMThat's all fine and good, but lynching is murder. Aren't additional penalties for a murder kind of pointless?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2022, 05:02:45 PMThat's all fine and good, but lynching is murder. Aren't additional penalties for a murder kind of pointless?
There's a few things going on here:
1) Conspiracy to commit murder does not necessarily result in a life sentence.
2) The law allows the Feds to charge a conspiracy crime that otherwise could only be charged under state law.
3) As is often the case, the bill's title is not a precise guide to its content. In this case, the law covers conspiracy to commit any crime that both: A) qualifies as a federal hate crime under the hate crime statute and (B) results in serious bodily injury. Thus it covers offenses that don't result in death of the victim.
10-4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pkgp5vsSsxQ
Sarah Palin is running for Congress.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2022, 10:51:20 AMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pkgp5vsSsxQ
Sarah Palin is running for Congress.
I long for the times when Sarah Palin was considered to be the height of recklessness when it came to nominating people for political office.
I don't see the big deal. She'd just quit a year into her term anyway.
Quote from: DGuller on April 02, 2022, 12:58:49 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2022, 10:51:20 AMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pkgp5vsSsxQ
Sarah Palin is running for Congress.
I long for the times when Sarah Palin was considered to be the height of recklessness when it came to nominating people for political office.
I mean she was governor of a state. Being a member of Congress is a much lower office.
Remember when Mitt Romney said he put the family dog in a carrier on top of the car when he went on family vacation? "He loved it up there." Good times :lol:
Yes. That is why it was so grating having to respect him for impeachment vote.
I wonder if in 2032 we'll be going "Remember when inciting an insurrection was considered a damning behavior by a president?"
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2022, 11:56:45 PMI wonder if in 2032 we'll be going "Remember when inciting an insurrection was considered a damning behavior by a president?"
If it is remembered then we have some hope
Saw a thing on social media saying CPAC is meeting in Hungary with Orban as a keynote speaker.
Is that current and correct?
Yes, currently scheduled for May 18-20th.
Expect them to hold Orban up as the exemplar of what a real leader is.
Quote from: Jacob on April 06, 2022, 03:15:08 PMSaw a thing on social media saying CPAC is meeting in Hungary with Orban as a keynote speaker.
Is that current and correct?
Yes - I think it's their first CPAC outside of the US. And follows the National Conservatism's Europe meeting, also in Budapest I think.
Orban's a big inspiration on that/the Claremont Institute wing of American conservatism (and not uncoincidentally lots of people are being funded by the Danube Institute to come and stay in Budapest for a few months for research - lovely flat in the city centre, lots of generous dinners etc):
QuoteJeremy Carl
@jeremycarl4
Orban won a stunning victory and probable 2/3 parliamentary majority based on a campaign that was conservative, nationalist, anti-immigration, pro-traditional family, and firmly against military intervention in Ukraine.
A lesson there for the GOP, if we are willing to learn it.
Note: I recently returned from five weeks in Hungary as a visiting fellow at the @InstituteDanube, where I was researching Hungarian politics and policy in the runup to the election.
And Rod Dreher in particular has been in and following Hungary for a while - his conclusion on what the American right needs to learn:
QuoteI have been saying for the past year that US conservatives should come to Hungary to learn from Orban and Fidesz. Orban is not a small-government Anglo-Saxon conservative. He believes in using the power of the state to strengthen families, the basis of any health society. But the most important thing US conservatives can learn is how to use political power to fight the culture war — and not in the most obvious ways, such as with the referendum. Orban is a country boy who knows very well how the Left dominates culture here in Hungary, especially cultural institutions. And he understands, in ways that elude American conservative politicians, how the soft power wielded by the Left in those institutions changes society in progressive ways. This is why for all the political victories the GOP has racked up over the past few decades, the broader society and culture has continued its accelerating drift leftward.
As I wrote last month, quoting the political scientist Eric Kaufmann and his research on American society, conservatives absolutely cannot afford to be complacent here, and mindlessly observe the old liberal habits of keeping the government's hands off of non-political matters. As Kaufmann pointed out, the younger generation in the US is so far to the Left, and so hostile to old-fashioned liberal values like free speech and tolerance of diverse opinions, that if conservatives don't find a way to stop or reverse these trends, there will be no place for us to exist in the America of the near future.
The call now among some Republican commentators for the state to take action against Disney, to revoke its special privileges on copyright to retaliate for its indoctrination of American children, is a pure Orban move. We need to see more of it. Republicans have been so prostrate before Big Business that they have sat there like idiots while Woke Capitalism organizes to turn conservative values of faith and the traditional family into pariahs among the young. Either we on the Right will learn from Viktor Orban how to use politics to fight this, or we will be defeated.
The Disney/transgender controversy in America now is a tremendous opportunity for conservatives to fight back against the liberal elites. The LGBT lobby controls the Democratic Party, and Biden's HHS rules last week show how out of touch he and his party's leadership class is from the concerns of ordinary Americans. When the Left is coming after your kids — and it really is — we cannot afford to stay out of the fight. And we cannot afford a Republican Party that mouths the right things, but when in power, does little or nothing to roll back the Left's gains.
In what was has Orban's government actually "fought the culture war" in Hungary, other than to encourage those who disagree with him to emigrate to the rest of the EU?
That all makes sense. The Conservative elites are going all in on subverting political institutions and processes and subjugating independent thought that doesn't align with their values. Crony capitalism in bad with state power in the name of family, the nation, Christianity, and humiliating and exploiting your lessers.
Russia is such a shining example of success, so best to emulate their European client in Hungary.
I wonder if the American national security and defense apparatus is concerned about this?
Quote from: Barrister on April 06, 2022, 03:47:46 PMIn what was has Orban's government actually "fought the culture war" in Hungary, other than to encourage those who disagree with him to emigrate to the rest of the EU?
From my reading of Tamas: eliminated independent media by bringing it under state control or the control of oligarchs aligned with his movement. Ensured that arts and culture support "Hungarian values" as defined by Orban... probably some other bits too.
Quote from: Barrister on April 06, 2022, 03:47:46 PMIn what was has Orban's government actually "fought the culture war" in Hungary, other than to encourage those who disagree with him to emigrate to the rest of the EU?
Lots of "pro-family" policies (largely subsidies), confronting Soros' university, this year's anti-LGBT referendum, pushing the idea of Hungary as a Christian country and Europe as a Christian continent (though neither are particularly religious), using state subsidies to support conservative civil society institutions/NGOs (such as the Danube Institute) to inculcate a supportive public sphere etc.
In a way for someone like Dreher it's the natural conclusion of the theory the right has had for years that politics is downstream of culture and they're losing the cultural battle. Before this he was all about the "Benedict option" of conservatives retreating into their own self-regulating societies outside of the state because the battle was lost. I think Orban makes him think they can use their strength in the political arena to assert control of that. Especially with the "America in danger" rhetoric - what have been giving themselves permission to do?
Quote from: Jacob on April 06, 2022, 03:48:10 PMI wonder if the American national security and defense apparatus is concerned about this?
I think this is the sort of thing they are manifestly ill-equipped to handle. What do you do, as a senior military official at the Pentagon, if a President who wins on the back of a significant popular mandate, shuts down several major independent media outlets?
You could resign, of course, but that also means someone else takes your job who is likely hand-picked by the President.
You could plan a coup, but that completely upends traditional American civil-military relations, and ultimately makes the military the legitimate arbiter for any future government.
We may have to establish at some point a sort of "Second Republic" as alluded to in the other thread.
I was more thinking prior to that moment, FrunkMonk - is work being done to fight money and funding of anti-American groups by hostile foreign interests. The US was fairly decent at fighting Communist influence on the Left in years past. Is it even considering doing the same to fight the same sort of subversive influences when it's happening on the right?
You think the activities of the House Unamerican Activities Committee is worthy of emulation? :(
If Hungarians give these guys money it could be a crime. Otherwise it's just words and photo ops.
Quote from: Jacob on April 06, 2022, 05:34:29 PMI was more thinking prior to that moment, FrunkMonk - is work being done to fight money and funding of anti-American groups by hostile foreign interests. The US was fairly decent at fighting Communist influence on the Left in years past. Is it even considering doing the same to fight the same sort of subversive influences when it's happening on the right?
I'm not sure foreign interests are that important here - I think it's domestic billionaires. The Claremont Institute which is utterly unhinged gets a lot of (tax deductible "philanthropic") support from people like the De Vos family. Claremont's very tied to Orban's regime, but is also the home of Anton of the "Flight 93 Election" article, are the guys who published articles praising Salazaar and calling for an American Caesar and are the home of Eastman, the lawyer who wrote the memos detailing how Trump could do a coup.
I mean the Birchers were set up with donations from very wealthy conservatives. There's lots of money that fund various institutes and colleges all over the US and provide fellowships and scholarships for talented young conservatives - and if you're a talented young conservative the area that probably looks exciting (and is well funded) is this "national conservatism" stuff. It's how they have a pipeline of new writers and new (suspiciously well-funded) magazines and think-tanks - there is nothing like that infrastructure on the left in America and only a fraction of it for liberals. Sad truth is I think there's enough domestic billionaires who are into super-paranoid conspiracy theories or would sacrifice democracy for low taxes (or just think they're the sheep in the two wolves and a sheep vote on what to have for dinner analogy) that they don't really need foreign subversion.
If anything I'd look the other way at what international projects those billionaires are paying for/funding.
The Danube Institute is based in Budapest and, I think, only operates in Budapest, but it pays for "visiting fellows" from the US, UK, Belgium, France etc (mainly think-tankers, writers, journalists). There's no doubt that a lot of what they do is legitimate, think-tankery with a take - but I think those foreign trips are less to convince their guests that Orban is great and more about providing a Potemkin village. They'll go there and stay in a lovely flat in the city centre, enjoy the cafe culture, chat with clever, interesting Hungarian scholars - and then just raise doubts every time they hear back home what an awful illiberal leader Orban is.
Edit: In part I suspect the reason there's less of that institutional framework on the left is that there are relatively few left-wing billionaires for very good reasons. Among liberals though I suspect it's because they're busy funding projects on promoting media literacy, researching how to combat disinformation, promoting non-partisan policy research etc - basically everything except funding their side's infrastructure to actually politically fight back.
Quote from: Jacob on April 06, 2022, 05:34:29 PMI was more thinking prior to that moment, FrunkMonk - is work being done to fight money and funding of anti-American groups by hostile foreign interests. The US was fairly decent at fighting Communist influence on the Left in years past. Is it even considering doing the same to fight the same sort of subversive influences when it's happening on the right?
I don't know, but I'm not even sure if fighting foreign subversion is all that important in the grand scheme of the American Right. It's increasingly clear that domestic right-wing extremist ideologues are ascendant in the Republican party and in mainstream conservatism and, as Sheilbh points out, these new, young conservative intellectuals will be the ones establishing the ideological standards with which American conservatism will rally around in the near future.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2022, 06:20:28 PMYou think the activities of the House Unamerican Activities Committee is worthy of emulation? :(
Nope.
QuoteIf Hungarians give these guys money it could be a crime. Otherwise it's just words and photo ops.
Yeah what I'm wondering is whether there's any investigation into money inflows or not.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2022, 11:58:19 AMQuote from: jimmy olsen on February 22, 2022, 06:45:02 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2022, 06:15:20 PMApparently Hershel Walker is running for US Senator from Georgia as a Republican. A Trump friendly Republican according to CNN.
Help for Yuros: retired black football player.
Dude has dissociative identity disorder, hard to see him overcoming that.
There are betting odds on him getting the republican nomination for Senate. He is at 90%.
There are also betting odds on Republicans winning the senate race. They are at 62%.
Just how disconnected from the country are you?
Okay Timmay, now there is concrete polling on this - an Emerson poll was conducted.
Walker is up by 44% for the GOP nomination - he has 57% support and his nearest competitor is at 13%.
In a matchup with Warnock in the general, he is up 49 - 45.
Now do you see the path for him to get to the senate?
By the way, as you live on the other side of the country, there are negative ads up on him and plenty of press about his problems.
I can see how Orban appeals to a right wing fundamentalist like Duhrer. And it is noteworthy that the Christian fundamentalists are willing to abandon Liberal Democracy. But I would never have guessed that sort of extremism would take over the GOP. Well I would never of guessed it five or six years ago. This ties into a story the times had a couple of days ago about how Trump rallies have turned into right wing Christian fundamentalist worship meetings.
There are actually a ton of Democrat-aligned, and liberal American billionaires, they just simply aren't that politically active/don't care that much about politics. There's a number of conservative billionaires who really do.
In some ways I think things like the upcoming overturning of Roe v. Wade may help with that. A lot of the modern conservative billionaire-propaganda complex is built out of an era when social conservatism and even fiscal conservatism were seen to be in serious decline in the country with limited power and dim prospects. It helped build a sense that if you were of those ideologies, you were literally "losing your country" in a catastrophic sense. I think most liberal billionaires don't live in a world where they feel things are catastrophic. I think it's easy to say "but what about Trump?" but then you look at how most of the mainstream Democrats really behaved during Trump's Presidency and I just don't think a lot of them feel things are catastrophic yet. There's tons of writers and thinkers on the left and in the middle who realize we are in a serious crisis of democracy, but a lot of the Washington type Democrat insiders and wealthy Democrat billionaires just don't seem to have the same sense of urgency.
We can speculate on why that is and maybe it's just because creatures of power are the last to feel real worry--and also because probably on the social front there's been a lot of socially conservative rhetoric in the last few years but overall the wins haven't been all that meaningful. If you're a socially liberal Democrat of means, you're likely age 55+ and have seen things like gay marriage get legalized etc I think you just don't feel the same sense of panic. Roe v. Wade being overturned this year may actually wake some of those people up, not because it will directly affect them but because it's kind of a talisman of social liberalism's place in America.
I think one of the core weaknesses of the modern Democrats is lack of understanding how bad things are and how bad their situation is, at an institutional level. What's unfortunate is the progressive wing of the party seems to realize it, but their policies and behaviors are incompatible with anything resembling a winning political platform. Democrats I think are also "sleeping" on how important the culture war stuff is. Time and time again people in this era are voting directly against their economic interests because of their cultural preferences. I realized this was going on when I read report after report of Midwest farmers who were literally losing their family farms because of Trump's badly conducted trade war with China, who still rapturously supported him because of how he was doing culture war stuff they really cared about (literally more than their livelihood.)
The Democrats are asleep to the fact that the Republicans have pivoted to culture war issues that in many parts of the country have strong majority support. The Florida legislation on teaching about sexual orientation and gender identity for example has like a 55-25 support margin overall and is even supported by a majority of Democrats in Florida when they are told what the law does. Previous eras of culture warring the Democrats actually either held the positions that had slight majority support or they stayed neutral. As an example in the 90s and 00s, as now, abortion being legal is slightly favored by the country, and Democrats have supported it. Gay marriage was not favored during that time, and Democrats largely either opposed it themselves or stayed neutral with support for things like civil marriages etc.
The Republicans have shrewdly built a package of culture war grievances that hit on issues many Americans dislike the progressive/very liberal cultural view on. Democrats don't care because these are issues that often affect almost no one--like there's very few people who actually deal with the reality of a transgender athlete, or CRT, or a school teacher at the 3rd grade level talking about sexuality. Because these aren't problems that really exist in a meaningful sense at scale, Democrats believe they don't matter. Unfortunately Republican propaganda turns these into relevant things, and unlike gay marriage which is now well supported, on all of these issues most Americans (sometimes even most Democrats) disagree with the far left position.
It's a whole other post but another interest angle is the growing movement by some to transform the GOP into a marriage of these cultural grievance policies married to fiscal liberalism with "pro-family" economic policies which would largely mean hand outs to married families with children and boosts to things like social welfare that affect working families. It wouldn't shock me if in the coming years the fiscally conservative wing of the GOP (which has always been powerful but not large in terms of voters) ends up "out in the woods", you're already seeing that to some degree as corporate/Wall Street Republicans have long been declining in influence in the party.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 06, 2022, 04:00:47 PMconfronting Soros' university,
Orban didn't "confront" the university, he shut it down. And the ostensible basis used for shutting it down is that it was an American institution, therefore "foreign". Definitely something for American leaders to celebrate, no?
It's time to use the f word and call out the increasingly dominant fascist wing of the GOP for what it is.
I largely agree with Otto. A lot of the Democratic establishment also read the liberal victories of the past as a product of courts reaching the "right" decisions. Such a view erases decades of militancy, in favor of reading most political struggles as a would-be legal battle. It informs quite a bit the way they see their role: deferring to institutions as they function "as they should". For many of them, politics is about mustering the correct arguments in front of respected institutions, freeing them from the dirty labor of actually engaging with politics and pesky militants. Unlike Republicans however, they do not have a propaganda arm that frees them from that labor either, and the ingrained respect for institutions leave them defenseless when they are weaponized against them.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 07, 2022, 11:28:50 AMIt's time to use the f word and call out the increasingly dominant fascist wing of the GOP for what it is.
More to the point, it's time to develop and executing strategies for countering its continual growth. Just calling it "Fascist" isn't going to make much of a difference, I don't think.
... and yeah, I tend to agree with OvB and Oex on this.
It is frustrating to see how Democrats continually fail to appreciate the political danger they are in. It's like watching a mouse infected with toxoplasmosis playing with a cat without a care in the world.
Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2022, 11:35:48 AM... and yeah, I tend to agree with OvB and Oex on this.
Same.
It's why I was slightly squeamish about that list of "how to resist" that had as one of its pointers "defend institutions" because I think that's part of the problem. I think liberals identify as believers in institutions v wreckers in the GOP - but that means they are very often defending that have been rampantly politicised instead of contesting them. The Supreme Court/judicial system is the most obvious example where the right has clearly identified that in the US that is an arena of political contestation and they want to win those fights. They have developed an entire infrastructure to ensure there is a reliable pipeline of solid, ideologically conservative Republican lawyers who are primed to sit in the appeals courts and the Supreme Court.
There is no equivalent from liberals as far as I can see. Instead they seem very invested in the idea of the courts as a non-political space where legal arguments of principle will be made in front of non-partisan judges - despite all of the growing evidence that that isn't what's going on. So instead you see liberals normally reconciling themselves to whatever conservative jurist gets appointed because they don't want to cause a scandal by attacking the institution. I think it's the dangerous "normalisation" of what's happening - far more than the way the media reports on Trump etc.
It is, incidentally, also why I think a legalist framing of "rights" as something you establish through the legal system is painfully inadequate and does not provide a durable base for those rights to exist - right now we've just seen Senator Cornyn say the gay marriage decision was wrongly decided (he linked it to Plessy as another example) and the court may want to look again. We know what they want to do.
QuoteOrban didn't "confront" the university, he shut it down. And the ostensible basis used for shutting it down is that it was an American institution, therefore "foreign". Definitely something for American leaders to celebrate, no?
Of course - I'm not endorsing that view I was just saying I think that's the "culture war" people like Dreher and others on the American right admire and want to replicate in response to BB's question. Not endorsing that line.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2022, 12:05:38 PMThere is no equivalent from liberals as far as I can see. Instead they seem very invested in the idea of the courts as a non-political space where legal arguments of principle will be made in front of non-partisan judges - despite all of the growing evidence that that isn't what's going on. So instead you see liberals normally reconciling themselves to whatever conservative jurist gets appointed because they don't want to cause a scandal by attacking the institution. I think it's the dangerous "normalisation" of what's happening - far more than the way the media reports on Trump etc.
When was the last time a Democrat appointed justice didn't toe the party line?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2022, 12:19:14 PMWhen was the last time a Democrat appointed justice didn't toe the party line?
That's exactly my point - it is political and Democrats should acknowledge that and build political institutions to support their ideas. But I think liberals are actually slightly invested in the idea that the judges they're nominating aren't political (they are) that they're just the best people for the job and they're just deciding cases on their merits (in a way that consistently aligns with their views).
It's not that they don't appoint liberal judges, but that there isn't that institutional framework that provides a pipeline - but also, I'd argue, helps construct the conservative legal theory that judges going through that pipeline promote. I could be wrong but I'd be astonished if there's a single Federalist Society appointee who doesn't on some level support originalism (maybe one day "common good constitutionalism"). There's no equivalent framework for a liberal/Democrat pipeline and school - it's just individual judges. They won't all have gone to lectures by the same senior judges and academics, or have that common theory/school of jurisprudence.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2022, 12:29:49 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2022, 12:19:14 PMWhen was the last time a Democrat appointed justice didn't toe the party line?
That's exactly my point - it is political and Democrats should acknowledge that and build political institutions to support their ideas. But I think liberals are actually slightly invested in the idea that the judges they're nominating aren't political (they are) that they're just the best people for the job and they're just deciding cases on their merits (in a way that consistently aligns with their views).
It's not that they don't appoint liberal judges, but that there isn't that institutional framework that provides a pipeline - but also, I'd argue, helps construct the conservative legal theory that judges going through that pipeline promote. I could be wrong but I'd be astonished if there's a single Federalist Society appointee who doesn't on some level support originalism (maybe one day "common good constitutionalism"). There's no equivalent framework for a liberal/Democrat pipeline and school - it's just individual judges. They won't all have gone to lectures by the same senior judges and academics, or have that common theory/school of jurisprudence.
Sure there's a liberal pipeline. It's called Harvard and Yale.
It's also the conservative pipeline. That's not what Sheilbh is referring to.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 07, 2022, 12:39:39 PMIt's also the conservative pipeline. That's not what Sheilbh is referring to.
Yes - e.g. Adrian Vermeule teaches at Harvard on "common good" legal theory as originalism has served its purpose and scholars should not look to develop a more moral framework of jurisprudence.
It's definitely the pipeline for liberal judges too - as demonstrated in that Tweet from Hilary Clinton which I thought was not great on the Jackson nomination (and this goes to the deferring to institutions again on including "Ivy League Law School" on this):
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FOYT5p5XoAkZhO4?format=png&name=small)
Edit: And to be clear I'm not at all saying Vermeule shouldn't be teaching at Harvard - he's clearly an interesting thinker and legal theorist.
Public defender after a clerkship? That's off the beaten path.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 07, 2022, 11:34:19 AMI largely agree with Otto. A lot of the Democratic establishment also read the liberal victories of the past as a product of courts reaching the "right" decisions. Such a view erases decades of militancy, in favor of reading most political struggles as a would-be legal battle.
Except that Otto isn't saying the problem with the Democrats is insufficient grass roots militancy, it's taking unpopular positions on certain social issues.
I think you are both partly right, partly not. On transgender issues, the polling is a mixed bag; the GOP tried to run on the great bathroom scare in 2020 and the issue just doesn't seem to have that much salience.
The CRT issue OTOH really did catch me by surprise; in the last election cycle I watched it became a hotly debated issue in otherwise solid Democrat areas across the northeast, even though the "CRT" of political rhetoric was an invented bogeyman that had no connection to actual critical race theory and even though the perceived threat and problem was materially non-existent. But the issue had salience because it was tied into education and the threat that our precious innocent children were being indoctrinated by sinister outside forces. And of course because it implicates race, the eternal fault line of American politics and culture.
Could that narrative be countered by militancy and political mobilization by the left? Not directly I think, although I suppose counter-narratives could be employed. The problem with militancy of any stripe is messaging cannot be contained and shaped and therefore can backfire. In the last election cycle when I looked into where the CRT hysteria was coming from (locally) one of big contributors was the involvement of the diversity consulting industry. Like consultants of every stripe, diversity consultants have their uses and good ones have value, but there is also plenty of platitudinous drivel to go around and quality can vary. Add that to some unverified comments from overenthusiastic educators and you get kindling for the bonfire of ersatz outrages. The GOP is practiced at this media game - take one comment from one obscure activist, label it as the Democrat message and paste it onto every candidate on the nation and force them to backpedal and deny.
What I find interesting about the latest GOP turn is how enthusiastically they have embraced the rhetoric of
snowflakery. If you didn't know the context and read the Florida anti-CRT bill, you might very well assume that it was written by lefty campus activists advocating for safe-spaces and the suppression of micro-aggressions:
QuoteAn individual should not be made to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race.
The intent here I presume was to "protect" little white Johnnies and Janes from having their feelings hurt learning that great-great-great grandpa was a big meanie slaveholder. But the same language could be invoked by students of other races objecting to lessons about Columbus, Andrew Jackson, or any number of topics. It points to the fact that the GOP rhetorical program lacks a coherent legislative program that is not fraught with contradictions and unintended consequences.
[the same is true for the "don't say gay" bill - from a professional POV I find it astonishing the FLA legislature did not think through fully the consequences of giving parents across the state sweeping rights to institute lawsuits combined with language that prohibits ANY "inappropriate" discussion of "sexual orientation" or "gender identity - i.e. including discussion of traditional identities and orientations. See bye to the Grimms and many others. . .]
QuoteIt informs quite a bit the way they see their role: deferring to institutions as they function "as they should". For many of them, politics is about mustering the correct arguments in front of respected institutions, freeing them from the dirty labor of actually engaging with politics and pesky militants. Unlike Republicans however, they do not have a propaganda arm that frees them from that labor either, and the ingrained respect for institutions leave them defenseless when they are weaponized against them.
American institutions are under attack; if they are not strongly defended they will fall. Of course politics is more than making out formal cases in institutional settings, but without institutions politics simply becomes the choice of what form of dictatorship one will endure.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2022, 12:19:14 PMWhen was the last time a Democrat appointed justice didn't toe the party line?
Not sure what party line means in this context but by any definition Breyer would qualify.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 07, 2022, 01:32:19 PMI think you are both partly right, partly not. On transgender issues, the polling is a mixed bag; the GOP tried to run on the great bathroom scare in 2020 and the issue just doesn't seem to have that much salience.
The CRT issue OTOH really did catch me by surprise; in the last election cycle I watched it became a hotly debated issue in otherwise solid Democrat areas across the northeast, even though the "CRT" of political rhetoric was an invented bogeyman that had no connection to actual critical race theory and even though the perceived threat and problem was materially non-existent. But the issue had salience because it was tied into education and the threat that our precious innocent children were being indoctrinated by sinister outside forces. And of course because it implicates race, the eternal fault line of American politics and culture.
I think that's why the current anti-trans and anti-LGBT stuff focuses on education, children and the whole language of "grooming". The bathroom scare just feels unfair which is why it doesn't work.
If you can build up a story about the state getting between you and your child to teach them things you don't think they're ready for, or the state education system in some way teaching your children things that you may be uncomfortable talking about then I think that's a more salient issue that people will care about and it doesn't carry with it the implication of fairness (possibly because people do imagine that all kids - or at least their kids - are straight and comfortable with their gender).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 07, 2022, 01:32:19 PMExcept that Otto isn't saying the problem with the Democrats is insufficient grass roots militancy, it's taking unpopular positions on certain social issues.
That's a fair reading except I would say it's not so much
taking unpopular positions as:
the Republicans are creating issues that aren't really meaningfully significant in a real sense at all, and creating controversies where the natural Democratic inclination is to come down on a side that, because of the particulars, is going to be unpopular.CRT is probably an easier example than the transgender stuff but I can go through both.
CRT - You start with something that had already been "seeded" as a boogeyman in higher ed, where even there it is not very common in undergraduate education, and where it is it tends to be in social science electives the vast majority of students would never take in any case. Then you transpose it down, do the things you said to make parents think it's a big issue K-12. Media machine churns. Then you have Democrats who want to defend independence of the school system and teachers ability to educate, who flub things like McAuliffe did here in Virginia where he basically says parents shouldn't worry about what teachers are teaching (I can't remember his wording off hand, but it was bad.)
The problem with this situation is there's a lot of parents who might be even anti-racist, or at least open to anti-racist messaging, who are
not open to the idea that their kids might be getting "politically indoctrinated" at a very young age, and when the Democratic response is "hey don't worry about it let the schools run themselves", it does little to counter-message.
With the trans issues, and Florida's "Don't Say Gay", I think America has mostly turned fairly favorable to LGBT rights broadly speaking. But I think even a lot of American parents who are very supportive of those rights generally, if told "do you want your 1st grader to learn about transgenderism, people getting sex change operations, hormone treatment, and also about homosexuality and things like that?" I think like the polling in Florida says--most parents don't want that.
Now in a perfectly healthy society we'd have ways, even with young children, to "norm" LGBT people and what not, but it's 2022 not 2050, I think people still have some hang ups here and just aren't comfortable with children that age having these conversations especially if they perceive it as being the schools pushing these conversations.
Now, again--totally manufactured controversy, right? Because essentially no school was getting into these issues with children this age to begin with. But Republicans build the framework and set the battlefield, and Democrats dutifully swing at the doctored ball and strike out.
I don't know what the answer is, when a pitcher throws a spitball the answer is to tell the umpire and get the pitcher ejected. We don't have that equivalent in political discourse.
Isn't that also just part and parcel of campaign politics, though? Shaping the discourse to your advantage? I mean yeah, it's a load of bullshit the Republicans are spitting out but it is effective politically at beating Democrats in elections. But the Republicans are basically Galaxy Brain-level with this stuff while Democrats are still banging bones and sticks on cave walls over here.
Pelosi has tested positive.
For fox rabies?
Nice. Topical. Current. :cheers:
The corporate tax rate was 35% in the US. Trump cut it to 21%, with a bunch more changes reducing the corporate tax burden.
Biden ran on increasing it back to 28%. Manchin said he supported going up to 25%, but that isn't the point. It is still 21% and we are now more than a year into the administration. I haven't looked at polling numbers on this issue but my hunch is the public supports a tax rate over 21%. There is a real chance we roll into the elections without congressional action on this, and if so LOL on any hope of the rate changing in the administration.
Shit like this is why the democrats are in danger of getting shallacked in the upcoming elections. They can run an impeachment trial of Trump before getting a cabinet in place and even before the covid relief package, but when it comes to corporate tax rates from supposedly the party of the working class...crickets...
That is why attacks work so well. You run on working class issues, the public cares about those and inflation, but you don't act. You are open to the charge what you care about is CRT and transgender stuff. But on day 1 you shut down keystone, and the federal minumum wage is still $7.25, where it has been since 2009...
Sinema opposed the corp tax raise; not enough votes in the Senate.
It is striking to me how quickly people are retreating from the importance of liberal democratic institutions. Not so long ago we were discussing how they were under attack and the importance they have to democracy.
Now we have people who I would normally think were reasonable and intelligent fully endorsing turning their back on those same institutions in order to achieve political goals.
This is how democracy dies.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 07, 2022, 02:53:32 PMSinema opposed the corp tax raise; not enough votes in the Senate.
If you couldn't get 1 more vote and it would have failed 51-49, why not put it to a vote at some point in time? Trump's trial was put to a vote in the first full month of the administration, even though it didn't have the votes.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 07, 2022, 02:02:28 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on April 07, 2022, 01:32:19 PMExcept that Otto isn't saying the problem with the Democrats is insufficient grass roots militancy, it's taking unpopular positions on certain social issues.
That's a fair reading except I would say it's not so much taking unpopular positions as: the Republicans are creating issues that aren't really meaningfully significant in a real sense at all, and creating controversies where the natural Democratic inclination is to come down on a side that, because of the particulars, is going to be unpopular.
CRT is probably an easier example than the transgender stuff but I can go through both.
CRT - You start with something that had already been "seeded" as a boogeyman in higher ed, where even there it is not very common in undergraduate education, and where it is it tends to be in social science electives the vast majority of students would never take in any case. Then you transpose it down, do the things you said to make parents think it's a big issue K-12. Media machine churns. Then you have Democrats who want to defend independence of the school system and teachers ability to educate, who flub things like McAuliffe did here in Virginia where he basically says parents shouldn't worry about what teachers are teaching (I can't remember his wording off hand, but it was bad.)
The left exacerbates this immensely though, because not only do they reasonably note that this is largely a non-issue, there are elements of the left that have made any rational discussion of the issue among the left absolutely taboo, so large numbers of the moderates who might be inclined to going and fighting that battle know that if they do so, they are almost certainly going to get hammered from the crazy fundies on the right for defending "CRT", AND they are going to have the twitter left calling them fascists for noting that the American Revolution was not, in fact, driven by white people wanting more slaves.
The crazy right will define the entire issue to its base as being whatever the crazy left says it is, and the actual battleground that is actually being fought over, the completely sane middle, is too dangerous to inhabit to those who would need to fight against the right because they will be called fascists and right wing racist apologists from the left.
The transgender athlete issue is another perfect example. The NCAA and US Swimming is actually very sane on the issue - they recognize that this is fucking complicated, and is going to need a lot of thought and adjustment to reach an equitable middle, practical ground.
But if you parrot what, say, US Swimming is proposing, you are bigot anti-trans asshole worthy of cancellation, because the only acceptable stance is that transwomen are in fact identical to all other women and should be treated identically under all circumstances. Which is what the right is claiming is being fought over, but is not in reality what the argument is at all when it comes to actual proposals. And same with what is actually taught about race and racism in public schools.
It's fucking bizarre how bad the left is at this stuff, it's like they are trying to create an environment where winning is actually not just unlikely, but impossible.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2022, 02:57:35 PMIt is striking to me how quickly people are retreating from the importance of liberal democratic institutions. Not so long ago we were discussing how they were under attack and the importance they have to democracy.
Now we have people who I would normally think were reasonable and intelligent fully endorsing turning their back on those same institutions in order to achieve political goals.
This is how democracy dies.
Incorrect.
People are not saying anyone should turn their back oninstitutiions at all.
They are saying that
A) That is not the only arena that has to be fought, and
B) No matter how non-political we would like them to be, the reality is that they are in fact political in some cases, and hence need to be contested politically, and
C) We need to stop holding them up as some kind of sacred cows, and thinking that if we so much as look at them politically, they will suddenly lose all value as an institution, so we had better just pretend like they are not political because we wish they weren't
I don't think anyone has suggested, or believes for that matter, that we should "turn our back on those institutions". I suspect that not a single person who you are claiming says that would agree that they believe any such thing.
Was there particular posters you had in mind when you claimed that they believed these things you are telling them they believe?
Quote from: alfred russel on April 07, 2022, 02:49:30 PMThe corporate tax rate was 35% in the US. Trump cut it to 21%, with a bunch more changes reducing the corporate tax burden.
They also slid in a stealth middle class tax hike as well that nobody noticed.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 07, 2022, 02:49:30 PMThe corporate tax rate was 35% in the US. Trump cut it to 21%, with a bunch more changes reducing the corporate tax burden.
Biden ran on increasing it back to 28%. Manchin said he supported going up to 25%, but that isn't the point. It is still 21% and we are now more than a year into the administration. I haven't looked at polling numbers on this issue but my hunch is the public supports a tax rate over 21%. There is a real chance we roll into the elections without congressional action on this, and if so LOL on any hope of the rate changing in the administration.
Shit like this is why the democrats are in danger of getting shallacked in the upcoming elections. They can run an impeachment trial of Trump before getting a cabinet in place and even before the covid relief package, but when it comes to corporate tax rates from supposedly the party of the working class...crickets...
That is why attacks work so well. You run on working class issues, the public cares about those and inflation, but you don't act. You are open to the charge what you care about is CRT and transgender stuff. But on day 1 you shut down keystone, and the federal minumum wage is still $7.25, where it has been since 2009...
I certainly agree that the Democrats should have forced a few of these things to hard votes, I actually have never bought into the idea that it's better to just leave the losses off the table. I think you can at least sell things to some voters better if you say "we tried to do this, that, and this other thing, Sinema or Manchin voted against us each time, so fuck those assholes." I think people don't understand the not voting, so it's harder to explain.
However I think it's probably only a small needle mover.
The stuff about working class issues, I think, unfortunately isn't true. The Democrats delivered some crazy working class stuff including big monthly cash payouts to working families and all kinds of other shit the last year, and the entire time they were cashing the checks a lot of these people were screaming Let's Go Brandon. A persistent problem with delivering on some working class pocket book issues is due to the complexity in how these programs are administered and operate, people often don't really understand the relationship between what they are getting and the Democratic party. (The infamous Kentucky voters who love Kynect, the local Obamacare exchange, but hate Obamacare.) It's a big problem that Democrats don't even get credit when they do deliver wins, and I suspect that several of the potential things they may have been able to land this year would have gone in that same direction.
I think the Democrats would be in a better position if they just had to deliver working class pocketbook policy wins, because I can see them doing that in the right circumstance. The problem is more that a lot of voters are just voting over these cultural issues primarily. I think it's also misunderstood sometimes when voters say the "economy" is their number one concern, the economy is actually now interpreted through a tribal lens. There is actually no economic situation the country could be in right now where a lot of these white working class voters would not be complaining. Obama proved that when he had like 6.5 years of solid growth and the Republican working class was saying he ruined the economy his entire Presidency. Even if you want to say the recovery was a little light for the working class, 2016 was still objectively by every measure, working class or billionaire class, a better economic reality than we had in 2009, and it didn't matter. Because they didn't like Obama they
believed the economy was worse under him.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2022, 02:57:35 PMIt is striking to me how quickly people are retreating from the importance of liberal democratic institutions. Not so long ago we were discussing how they were under attack and the importance they have to democracy.
Now we have people who I would normally think were reasonable and intelligent fully endorsing turning their back on those same institutions in order to achieve political goals.
This is how democracy dies.
I haven't read things from your normally reasonable people turning their backs on institutions, but agree that that is a problem if it is occurring. Can you name me some names?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 07, 2022, 03:19:07 PMThe stuff about working class issues, I think, unfortunately isn't true. The Democrats delivered some crazy working class stuff including big monthly cash payouts to working families and all kinds of other shit the last year, and the entire time they were cashing the checks a lot of these people were screaming Let's Go Brandon.
Trump was all in on passing out free money too. And when he did so he made sure the checks were signed by him.
There are inherent problems with a 50-50 senate "majority", and it is just a bad break that gas prices are super high. But ultimately, if the public cares about covid and nasty inflation more than anything else, and the national dialogue is around CRT, climate change, and transgender stuff, you are going to lose. You control the white house and both houses of congress: lots of republican ideas are super unpopular. Maybe you can't get much done but if you aren't getting anything done, just push an agenda that makes them look bad. Case in point: why the hell would Biden say he would only consider a nonwhite female for USSC justice? Why not just appoint Brown Jackson?
Right but if Democrats knew how to just "push winning ideas" I assume they would be. That's essentially the crux of the problem, the Democrats just aren't institutionally setup to compete with the GOP. Why that is has a few different ideas swirling about, but it seems fairly obviously true.
Some of the only Democrats, oddly, that I think have a good conception on how to fight are actually the far left, which maybe comes from the fact if you hold those views you understand you have to fight from the get go. But the issue there is that most of America doesn't want the far left, you need middle way Democrats that know how to fight hard at political battles. We don't seem to have em.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 07, 2022, 01:32:19 PMExcept that Otto isn't saying the problem with the Democrats is insufficient grass roots militancy, it's taking unpopular positions on certain social issues.
Otto has explained what he meant, and I find myself mostly in agreement with him again. I tend to think that ascribing strong ideas to "the American public" that preexist political struggles is a mistake. The political arena is where those ideas gain salience or sharpness. The Republicans largely dominate that space, and impose their own political discourse. Democrats have been deferring to their discursive agenda for so long, I have become half-convinced the Democratic establishement considers it the appropriate way to do politics.
Militancy is but one aspect of that struggle. Republicans have really committed billionaire ideologues, institutions committed to churning out cadres, a propaganda arm, and a very active, rabid base - who are indeed capable of changing the narrative *because* it provides so many half-baked ideas awaiting to be given the same brand of outrage-urgency.
I don't sense that the Democrats have any of these things. One would have hoped that the sense of urgency would be the cheapest to acquire, but seeing the glacial pace of the January 6th commission, it doesn't seem to be the case. If I continuously push for an increase in militancy, it is in the apparently vain hope that pressure from the base would at least urge the Democratic morass to exert pressure upon leadership, the instruments of the presidency, or *some* fucking communication strategy beyond trying to communicate how much you are good friends with your colleagues from the other side. Heck, they are pretty much resigned to losing in the midterms.
American institutions are indeed under attack. It would be a good idea to communicate that sense to the Democrats, because I don't think they know, or realize. What I insist upon, is that institution must be understood, not simply deferred to. I sense much deference, and not much understanding of the power dynamics at play.
But the issue there is that most of America doesn't want the far left, you need middle way Democrats that know how to fight hard at political battles. We don't seem to have em.
[/quote]
It's quite possible, though most America doesn't want the crazy stuff Republicans peddle either. One of the big difference, I suspect, is that the Democrats spend a lot of effort stiffling their energized base, while Republicans have found a way to benefit from that energy. At times, much to the dismay of the "business Republicans", but they at least understand that it gets them into power.
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2022, 03:12:35 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2022, 02:57:35 PMIt is striking to me how quickly people are retreating from the importance of liberal democratic institutions. Not so long ago we were discussing how they were under attack and the importance they have to democracy.
Now we have people who I would normally think were reasonable and intelligent fully endorsing turning their back on those same institutions in order to achieve political goals.
This is how democracy dies.
Incorrect.
People are not saying anyone should turn their back oninstitutiions at all.
They are saying that
A) That is not the only arena that has to be fought, and
B) No matter how non-political we would like them to be, the reality is that they are in fact political in some cases, and hence need to be contested politically, and
C) We need to stop holding them up as some kind of sacred cows, and thinking that if we so much as look at them politically, they will suddenly lose all value as an institution, so we had better just pretend like they are not political because we wish they weren't
I don't think anyone has suggested, or believes for that matter, that we should "turn our back on those institutions". I suspect that not a single person who you are claiming says that would agree that they believe any such thing.
Was there particular posters you had in mind when you claimed that they believed these things you are telling them they believe?
Well, Oex and Sheilbh to be specific.
QuoteIt's why I was slightly squeamish about that list of "how to resist" that had as one of its pointers "defend institutions" because I think that's part of the problem. I think liberals identify as believers in institutions v wreckers in the GOP - but that means they are very often defending that have been rampantly politicised instead of contesting them.
This is very scary. If we have lost someone like Sheilbh then really I see very little hope.
Berkut has rightly identified what that means. This is what I alluded to above with a distinction between being deferential (which leads to political apathy) and having a true understanding of the role of institutions. See the relative silence / apathy concerning Clarence Thomas' political wife, and Thomas' actions as Justice.
Institutions need to be defended because of what they enable politically, not because of their status as institutions. I think Democrats often have a difficulty distinguishing the two, which leads them to be blind to the moment when institutions have effectively been subverted.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 07, 2022, 05:38:47 PMBerkut has rightly identified what that means. This is what I alluded to above with a distinction between being deferential (which leads to political apathy) and having a true understanding of the role of institutions. See the relative silence / apathy concerning Clarence Thomas' political wife, and Thomas' actions as Justice.
Institutions need to be defended because of what they enable politically, not because of their status as institutions. I think Democrats often have a difficulty distinguishing the two, which leads them to be blind to the moment when institutions have effectively been subverted.
And that is the dangerous view I was referring to. Liberal democratic institutions are not to be defended simply because they provide for the possibility of a potential political outcome you agree with. They are there to enhance the rule of law. Not to enhance or be a political tool for any political party. Those on the left and the right have lost view of this once well understood principle.
The answer to watching the GOP dismantle democratic institutions Is not to join them in building the bonfire.
I spent my professional life studying institutions. I don't think I am losing sight of what they do. But nowhere have I, nor Sheilbh to the best of my knowledge, argued for burning them down. I don't know where you get that.
There are two questions you have to ask yourself.
1) What happens when institutions are subverted? When, say, Congress argues that a candidate for Justice, is unsuitable if it comes from the other party? This is clearly not what was intended. What do you do then? What is the correct course of action?
I believe it is possible that saving the institution of Congress entails pulling the curtain back and calling a spade a spade. But namecalling only gets you so far. What do you do, then?
This isn't about respecting a decision I don't like. It's a clear subversion of the principle behind the nomination procedure. You seem to think that asking that question is akin to burning Congress. It's clearly not the case. But I remain unclear as to what "respecting the institution" looks like, or is supposed to achieve.
2) The other question you have to answer is, what happens when "respecting the institutions" leads to outcome that are not just "what I would prefer", but again, a clear subversion of the very principles of these institutions. What will happen when electoral commissions entirely fielded with Republicans will refuse to recognize certain results? What would happen when an order from the Commander-in-Chief requests seizing control of ballots?
So far, a lot of the noise coming from the Republicans have suggested they will refuse to recognize certain results. They have seized, legally, control of a number of bodies that will certify these results. Do you believe in the impartiality of the institutions they currently control? What happens if you do not? What happens if you do?
"Respecting the institutions" means nothing if it isn't informed by a clear sense of what these institutions are supposed to be, and supposed to enable. Otherwise, it's empty deference. And it's really dangerous.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2022, 05:56:14 PMThe answer to watching the GOP dismantle democratic institutions Is not to join them in building the bonfire.
I agree with what Oex says, so I'd disagree with this framing.
My question I suppose is, what is the correct response? Because it looks like the answer here to watching the GOP dismantle democratic institutions is to watch it disapprovingly.
I too have spent my whole professional career thinking deeply about institutions and particularly in my practice of constitutional law. You do not have a monopoly on thinking about these issues. You have also move the goal posts. You were early talking about how the institution of the Supreme Court of the United States and the rulings that come out of it or somehow lessened by the fact that in your view not enough emphasis is put on the political activity that may have brought the cases before the court or helped bring about societal change. Now you are talking about Congress and a notion of respect. What I am talking about is strengthening the institution so that they are deserving of respect. We start by not denigrating them. Which is really what you were doing. Ask yourself how do you build a stronger democracy by reducing it to politics. The strength of liberal democratic institutions and particularly the court is, when properly functioning, something which is a restraint on politics which are largely driven from by the majority. The fact that the United States is currently under serious threat and particularly under serious threat to its democratic institutions is not a time to denigrate but a time to explain to others how it should be functioning and how it should be strengthened.
Most of you are far too eager to dive into the same tactics used by the right wing extremists. Collectively, if you go down that path, you all make whatever it is we end up with something very different from a liberal democracy. That may be what some on the left and certainly some on the right wish to have happen. It is certainly possible that we lose what is left of our democratic institutions and all we have is populist politics on both the left and the right. He wants convinced me that populism on the right is a very different thing from the left. And I still think that's accurate. But when I hear you arguing for something other than strengthening the institutions of liberal democracy, I don't like the thought of what would replace it.
I honestly don't really know what point you're making. I see a lot of people posting that Democrats need to figure out the politics side of things--things like how do you either counter-message propaganda, which probably means you need liberal equivalents of billionaire funded information sources, how do you counter message manufactured controversies. I don't see anyone advocating that Democrats abandoned any sacred institutions. Propaganda shouldn't be an ugly word, read a little history on how Democrats like FDR and JFK conducted campaigns, they bore far more in common with the low-information, mass-deception marketing that is common in GOP politics of 2022 than anything the Democrats have done in years.
I think you might make a more coherent point if you can identify a specific place where a specific poster has advocated for undermining some established institution in the United States, because I've literally read every post in this thread as it's existed and have not seen that.
It should also be understood that an apolitical Supreme Court is not an established institution in the United States. Basically everything about the way our Supreme Court operates has changed dramatically over time--including how partisan it behaves, how the Senate handles the confirmation process and etc. If there was a strongly established norm of a non-partisan, apolitical Supreme Court, I could see some problem in undermining it. That has never really been the case. There have been ups and downs in terms of how the parties handle the Supreme Court, but it has always been political. The Warren and Burger courts were absolutely politicized courts, as basically were every court we've had. If anything we should undermine that institution by having a strong re-think of how we select justices and how we let the court operate so that it is closer to apolitically, not via norms, but by legislative and constitutional changes. That's a "should do", not a "realistically can do."
I think people confuse the fact that prior to the 2000s the two parties were mostly willing to let the other side veto, to some degree, judges (via blue slips etc) and mostly let the other side appoint who they want within broad boundaries, for the court not being political. That was not the case, the court was political even during that era of "Good Feelings" in judicial confirmations, the way the politics was conducted was just different. There was a strategic shift to make the confirmations more acrimonious, but this wasn't an institutional change in the court itself because the court is an inherently political branch as constructed, and has always operated politically.
I see your point Crazy Canuck, and I find it persuasive. The question I have is what actions can we take to strengthen the institutions of liberal democracy? In particular, what actions can Americans do to strengthen those institutions in the face of a Republican party that seems to be going all in on - at the very least - Orbanization?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2022, 10:06:27 PMI too have spent my whole professional career thinking deeply about institutions and particularly in my practice of constitutional law. You do not have a monopoly on thinking about these issues.
I never claimed I did, nor did I comment on your analytical abilities. I merely remarked that to assume that what Sheilbh or I posted was equivalent to torching down institution was to give us too little credit.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2022, 10:06:27 PMYou have also move the goal posts. (...)
I think you completely misunderstood my point. My point was that Democrats misread the social change brought about through Supreme Court decisions as having been brought about
solely through the judiciary process, and that it has historically lead them to disregard the necessity of investing in the political process. If you think that only, or mostly, the courts matter, politics become simply a caretaking business or a cheap show.
As for Congress, my point is not that we should undermine it (though at this point in the US, it's hard to see how respect for Congress could deep lower than it already is). It is about Democrats recognizing what game their opponents are playing, and shifting gear away from the "politics as usual" that seem doomed to lead them back to failure. Congress grants a lot of power to the representatives and senators. A lot of them are utterly wasting what they already have, and, more importantly, seem utterly incapable of translating procedure into politics.
What I mean by that is that they completely fail at explaining *why* they do what they do; why it's important to hold people accountable for January 6th; why what Matt Goetz or Lindsay Graham say in Congress is actually dangerous. And when they attempt to do so, they get lost in minutiae, or fail at their own attempts at grandstanding - and they don't have Fox to magnify their own cheap stunts.
You seem to think that I am arguing for a complete overturn of all liberal institutions. I have no idea where this is coming from, or what "tactics of the far-right" I am promoting. I think we actually do a disservice to institutions if a critique of their inner workings is seen as "disparaging them". They are institutions, not totems, and I think this totemization is actually what is currently hurting them.
Where we probably disagree is how we read politics. Because you see the current situation as being threatened *by politics*, you want to reinforce the wall between politics and apolitical institutions, so as to save them. I think that time is unfortunately past, and that such a remedy would, at this juncture, only reinforce mistrust. I suspect the current crisis, like most other populist crisis of the past, emerged out of a sense of political dispossession. Reinforcing that sentiment by insulating institutions that can barely cling to an apolitical status (and are in fact run by people who actively do not run them apolitically) would deprive us of the means to critique them. You can't build a good liberal democracy without institutions. But you can't build one either without political voice, and a sense of political ownership by the people.
I love the idea that the radical left is "stifled".
That is just downright Orwellian.
Twitter isn't the Democratic party, and the fact that every issue that emerges there is driven into absurdity by a whole slew of the commentariat should give you pause.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 08, 2022, 10:01:27 AMTwitter isn't the Democratic party, and the fact that every issue that emerges there is driven into absurdity by a whole slew of the commentariat should give you pause.
Maybe that has something to do with the absurdity of the ideas.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 08, 2022, 05:25:43 PMQuote from: Oexmelin on April 08, 2022, 10:01:27 AMTwitter isn't the Democratic party, and the fact that every issue that emerges there is driven into absurdity by a whole slew of the commentariat should give you pause.
Maybe that has something to do with the absurdity of the ideas.
Maybe not.
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2022, 05:48:56 PMMaybe not.
Can you name a specific idea from the left that has been unfairly driven into absurdity by the commentariat?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 08, 2022, 06:04:07 PMQuote from: Jacob on April 08, 2022, 05:48:56 PMMaybe not.
Can you name a specific idea from the left that has been unfairly driven into absurdity by the commentariat?
Critical race theory.
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2022, 07:06:00 PMCritical race theory.
The Matt Gaetz' of the world do not constitute the commentariat.
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2022, 07:06:00 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on April 08, 2022, 06:04:07 PMQuote from: Jacob on April 08, 2022, 05:48:56 PMMaybe not.
Can you name a specific idea from the left that has been unfairly driven into absurdity by the commentariat?
Critical race theory.
I don't think anyone was actually pushing that. Hell, nobody on the left knows what it is.
I'm pretty sure CRT has something to do with old tvs.
Texas looks like they're prosecuting someone for murder for having an abortion: https://www.thedailybeast.com/texas-woman-lizelle-herrera-arrested-for-murder-for-illegal-abortion
Interesting chart on partisan trust of media organisations - the thing that's really striking here (and I wonder which came first) is how similar GOP distrust of all media is like what happens with conspiracy minded thinking. Only Fox and the Weather Channel have (just) over 50% trust:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FP1zNqtWQAYUUnB?format=jpg&name=small)
Also slightly interesting to see v UK where it's basically medium that leads trust and tends to be across all parties. So broadcast which is heavily regulated is most trusted (for the UK - so around 60%), then broadsheets etc down to tabloids which are least trusted - the only partisan difference is "mid-market" papers (i.e. the Mail) which have more trust from Tories than Labour but even then it's around 30%. The incredibly low trust rates for Republicans here is really extraordinary.
So republicans are mistrusting, except for Fox News. When did Fox News become a thing? I remember as a kid fox was known for the simpsons and married with children. And then one day Fox News was just there. Maybe because I'm Canadian.
I'm surprised Reuters and AP are so far down the list, behind outlets that do much more analysis.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on April 09, 2022, 07:02:01 PMI'm surprised Reuters and AP are so far down the list, behind outlets that do much more analysis.
Republicans only like facts if they are processed by right wing spun machines.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on April 09, 2022, 07:02:01 PMI'm surprised Reuters and AP are so far down the list, behind outlets that do much more analysis.
People really want analysis, not facts. The analysis is the valuable thing that media organisations do of explaining what facts mean and how they relate to other stories. It's why in BBC articles for example you'll often have an article - obviously no opinion on the BBC - but in the middle of the article there will be an "Analysis" section by one of the correspondents trying to explain the story.
I think that is one of the reasons no-one logs onto Reuters or AP in the morning to read the news, so I wonder if brand recognition is an issue with Reuters and AP. They're a wire service that people won't often actually interact with (and won't notice an AP by-line in the NYT, say) which may be why they're so low.
That's orthogonal to "trust".
The latest iteration of what we were talking about - what is the point of this but fear of appearing political by politicians, doing politics to respond to a political threat :bleeding:
The investigation is already politicised - only one Republican would join it, half the country doesn't believe it. Everything is politicised - that boat has sailed - and it's just a pathetic excuse for inaction. Republicans are not going to sit back and conclude that actually Merrick Garland's investigation is fine, de-politicised and legitimate because of this or that a judge (appointed by Clinton) has made a ruling they'll suddenly pay attention to in respect. But the rest of the country will see this Committee conclude without referring for criminal investigations <_<
This is how we've got here - significant evidence of crimes and no consequences because it'd be "political". And "if you read his decision, it's quite telling" is up there with "trust in vaccinations is improved by lengthy public hearings" in wonk-brain idiocy:
QuoteDon Moynihan
@donmoyn
The consistent pattern of US politics in the last few years is that anti-democratic actors do anti-democratic things, avoid punishment from democratic institutions, and then advance to more serious anti-democratic actions
The consistent pattern of US politics in the last few years is that sober institutionalists bend over backward to avoid the appearance of political use of power in the vain hope that it will curry favor with those intent on destroying those institutions (see also Mueller, Comey)
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/politics/jan-6-trump-criminal-referral.html
QuoteJan. 6 Panel Has Evidence for Criminal Referral of Trump, but Splits on Sending
Despite concluding that it has enough evidence, the committee is concerned that making a referral to the Justice Department would backfire by politicizing the investigation into the Capitol riot.
By Michael S. Schmidt and Luke Broadwater
April 10, 2022Updated 1:30 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON — The leaders of the House committee investigating the Capitol attack have grown divided over whether to make a criminal referral to the Justice Department of former President Donald J. Trump, even though they have concluded that they have enough evidence to do so, people involved in the discussions said.
The debate centers on whether making a referral — a largely symbolic act — would backfire by politically tainting the Justice Department's expanding investigation into the Jan. 6 assault and what led up to it.
Since last summer, a team of former federal prosecutors working for the committee has focused on documenting the attack and the preceding efforts by Mr. Trump and his allies to reverse his defeat in the 2020 election. The panel plans to issue a detailed report on its findings, but in recent months it has regularly signaled that it was also weighing a criminal referral that would pressure Attorney General Merrick B. Garland to open a criminal investigation into Mr. Trump.
Despite concluding that they have enough evidence to refer Mr. Trump for obstructing a congressional proceeding and conspiring to defraud the American people, some on the committee are questioning whether there is any need to make a referral. The Justice Department appears to be ramping up a wide-ranging investigation, and making a referral could saddle a criminal case with further partisan baggage at a time when Mr. Trump is openly flirting with running again in 2024.
The committee's vice chairwoman, Representative Liz Cheney, said on CNN on Sunday that the committee had not made a final decision about making referrals and downplayed any divisions on the committee, but acknowledged there was significant evidence of criminality.
"I think that it is absolutely the case, it's absolutely clear that what President Trump was doing, what a number of people around him were doing, that they knew it was unlawful. They did it anyway," said Ms. Cheney, a Wyoming Republican.
The shift in committee leaders' perspective on making a referral was prompted in part by a ruling two weeks ago by Judge David O. Carter of the Federal District Court for Central California. Deciding a civil case in which the committee had sought access to more than 100 emails written by John C. Eastman, a lawyer who advised Mr. Trump on efforts to derail certification of the Electoral College outcome, Judge Carter found that it was "more likely than not" that Mr. Trump and Mr. Eastman had committed federal crimes.
The ruling led some committee and staff members to argue that even though they felt they had amassed enough evidence to justify calling for a prosecution, the judge's decision would carry far greater weight with Mr. Garland than any referral letter they could write, according to people with knowledge of the conversations.
The members and aides who were reluctant to support a referral contended that making one would create the appearance that Mr. Garland was investigating Mr. Trump at the behest of a Democratic Congress and that if the committee could avoid that perception it should, the people said.
Even if the final report does not include a specific referral letter to Mr. Garland, the findings would still provide federal prosecutors with the evidence the committee uncovered — including some that has not yet become public — that could be used as a road map for any prosecution, the people said.
"If you read his decision, I think it's quite telling," Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California and a member of the committee, said of Judge Carter's ruling. "He and we have reviewed a huge amount of documents, and he reached a conclusion that he outlined in very stark terms."
Ms. Lofgren is among those who believe a referral letter to the Justice Department is superfluous, since it would carry no legal weight.
"Maybe we will, maybe we won't," she said of a referral. "It doesn't have a legal impact."
But the question about whether to send the referral has, for one of the first times since the committee was formed in July, exposed differences among members.
Representatives Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Elaine Luria of Virginia, Democratic members of the Jan. 6 committee, at the Capitol last month. Ms. Luria said that the committee should send a referral for any crimes it uncovers.
"I would say that I don't agree with what some of my colleagues have said about this," Ms. Luria said on MSNBC this month. "I think it's a lot more important to do what's right than it is to worry about the political ramifications. This committee, our purpose is legislative and oversight, but if in the course of our investigation we find that criminal activity has occurred, I think it's our responsibility to refer that to the Department of Justice."
Ms. Cheney portrayed any divisions as minor and said the panel would work collaboratively and reach a consensus agreement.
"I'm confident we will work to come to agreement," she said.
Although staff members have been in discussions about a referral, and some have debated the matter publicly, the committee members have not sat down together to discuss whether to proceed with a referral, several lawmakers said.
Representative Pete Aguilar, Democrat of California, said the committee was likely to hold off on making a final determination until investigators finished their work. He said the panel was "finishing up" its investigative phase and shifting to a more "public-facing" one in which the panel will present its findings.
"The members haven't had those conversations," Mr. Aguilar said of a meeting to discuss a potential referral. "Right now, we're gathering the material that we need. As the investigative phase winds down, we'll have more conversations about what the report looks like. But we're not presupposing where that's going to go before we get a little further with the interviews."
Although the committee has the ability to subpoena testimony and documents and make referrals to the Justice Department for prosecutions, it has no criminal prosecution powers.
Ms. Cheney singled out Mr. Trump's conduct at a public hearing in December, reading from the criminal code and laying out how she believed he had obstructed Congress.
In early March, the committee in effect road-tested whether the evidence it had gathered could support a prosecution, laying out in a filing in the civil case before Judge Carter its position that Mr. Trump and Mr. Eastman had obstructed Congress and defrauded the American public.
In validating the committee's position, legal experts said, the judge made it difficult for the Justice Department to avoid an investigation. Mr. Garland has given no public indication of the department's intentions other than to say that it will follow the facts and the law. But subpoenas issued by a federal grand jury indicate that prosecutors are gathering information about a wide array of issues, including about efforts to obstruct the election certification by people in the Trump White House and in Congress.
Investigators from the House committee and the Justice Department have not been sharing information, except to avoid conflicts around the scheduling of certain witnesses.
"We want them to move faster, but we respect their work," Mr. Aguilar said, adding that the committee has a different goal than the Justice Department's inquiry: to fully investigate what led to the riot, which injured more than 150 police officers, and take legislative steps to prevent a repeat. "It's an insult to the lives of the Capitol Police officers if we don't pursue what happened and take meaningful and concrete steps to ensure that it doesn't happen again."
Aside from the question of whether to make a referral about Mr. Trump, the committee has moved aggressively to use the Justice Department to ensure that witnesses cooperate with its investigation. The committee has made criminal referrals against four Trump White House officials for their refusal to sit for questioning or hand over documents, accusing them of contempt of Congress. But the Justice Department has charged only one — Stephen K. Bannon — frustrating the committee.
Those frustrations played out in public at a hearing this month, when Ms. Lofgren said: "This committee is doing its job. The Department of Justice needs to do theirs."
Ms. Lofgren said she had not planned to make the remarks, but as she sat on the dais during the hearing, she decided to veer from her planned remarks because the department's slowness in addressing the contempt referrals ate at her.
"Some of us did express some frustration. I'm among them," she said. "Honestly, I hadn't planned to say that. It wasn't my script. It wasn't there. But I thought, you know, this is frustrating. I just decided to say it."
Trying to pressure the Justice Department to prosecute a contempt of Congress charge is more appropriate than other criminal referrals, Ms. Lofgren argued.
"It's different than doing a referral generally for prosecution," she said. "When you're the victim of a crime, there is some weight to that. And when you are the victim of criminal contempt, as the committee is, you're the victim. And so I think there was some stature to that."
The committee is preparing to hold public hearings in May and June, and to make a final report in September.
After interviewing more than 800 witnesses — including more than a dozen Trump White House officials — the panel has another 100 interviews lined up, including some witnesses it wants to bring in a second time. Among those scheduled to testify soon is Stephen Miller, a former White House adviser to Mr. Trump, who the committee says helped spread false claims of voter fraud in the election and encouraged state legislatures to appoint alternate slates of electors in an effort to invalidate Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s victory.
Mr. Miller has sued to block the committee from gaining access to his phone records, arguing in part that the panel was invading his parents' privacy since he was on their family plan.
The committee is still deciding whether to call some key witnesses, including Mr. Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and Virginia Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, who urged Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff at the time, to work to keep Mr. Trump in office.
"We have completed a substantial amount of work," Ms. Lofgren said. "We're going to accomplish — we hope — what we set out to do, which is to tell the entire story of what happened, the events of the 6th and the events that led up to the day."
Maggie Haberman contributed reporting.
Michael S. Schmidt is a Washington correspondent covering national security and federal investigations. He was part of two teams that won Pulitzer Prizes in 2018 — one for reporting on workplace sexual harassment and the other for coverage of President Trump and his campaign's ties to Russia. @NYTMike
Luke Broadwater covers Congress. He was the lead reporter on a series of investigative articles at The Baltimore Sun that won a Pulitzer Prize and a George Polk Award in 2020. @lukebroadwater
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2022, 12:55:58 PMThe latest iteration of what we were talking about - what is the point of this but fear of appearing political by politicians, doing politics to respond to a political threat :bleeding:
The investigation is already politicised - only one Republican would join it, half the country doesn't believe it. Everything is politicised - that boat has sailed - and it's just a pathetic excuse for inaction. Republicans are not going to sit back and conclude that actually Merrick Garland's investigation is fine, de-politicised and legitimate because of this or that a judge (appointed by Clinton) has made a ruling they'll suddenly pay attention to in respect. But the rest of the country will see this Committee conclude without referring for criminal investigations <_<
This is how we've got here - significant evidence of crimes and no consequences because it'd be "political". And "if you read his decision, it's quite telling" is up there with "trust in vaccinations is improved by lengthy public hearings" in wonk-brain idiocy:
I'm not sure that abandoning the idea that criminal prosecutions are apolitical is as wise as you seem to believe. Having a criminal investigation untainted by partisan origins would yield a result more likely to be seen as legitimate.
To who? (or is this a "whom" thing?)
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2022, 07:06:00 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on April 08, 2022, 06:04:07 PMQuote from: Jacob on April 08, 2022, 05:48:56 PMMaybe not.
Can you name a specific idea from the left that has been unfairly driven into absurdity by the commentariat?
Critical race theory.
Which part though?
The 1619 project, as an example of CRT in practical application, is itself in many ways rather absurd. It certainly is not serious history, in any case.
How do you square that circle? The right is going to attack CRT in absurd ways, and the left is going to present CRT (in some cases) in absurd ways.
Have you read the 1619 project?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 08, 2022, 05:25:43 PMMaybe that has something to do with the absurdity of the ideas.
The issue isn't whether or not the ideas are good, or absurd, or amazing. It's about the place that those ideas have within the Democrats, vs the place that the fascist ideas have within the Republican party. It's about how much time and space is devoted by good liberals to shoot down those ideas, mostly because they really, really, do not wish to be tarred with that same brush and want to look "fair and balanced". Contrast with the treatment, on the right, of all the crazies.
It's about the potential of harm of fringe Democrats vs the potential of harm of core Republicans at this point. And it's about the characterization of those progressive Democrats. There was no reason to talk as much as it was about "Defund the police" except as a ways to defer to the Republican talking points. Relaying these talking points, and amplifying them certainly makes you score good centrist points, which is fine on an internet discussion board, but ultimately, is terribly counterproductive when you are an actual Democrat in position of power within the party. Because, whatever their fault, the progrsssives have a message. The fascists have a message. The Democrats still do not, except "not like them". Which is something I find astonishing after four years of Trump presidency.
People often mistake my support for militancy as support for progressive causes. Sure. But, as I have written many times, at this critical juncture, my support for militancy is based precisely on the fact that it produces dedicated people, who are dedicated to simple straight messaging and have clarity of vision. If Democratic centrism produced astonishingly powerful messages (a bit like Obama was able to do) that was able to sustain energy beyond elections, I'd back Yi-approved candidates in a heartbeat. But it's simply not what I see.
If you want to drown out the progressive message, find a message that is at least simple, and shout it out enough times to drown out the leftist fringe. Better yet, try to build bridge with that progressive fringe to use their energy and dedication. But I simply don't think that's within the grasp of the Democratic leadership.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 11, 2022, 11:02:34 AMHave you read the 1619 project?
Read what? The project itself is expansive, and include a book, several articles published in the NYT, and a variety of essays.
I've read a decent amount of it, but I would not claim to have read all of everything that could broadly be called "The 1619 project".
What I've read is broadly pretty good, but parts of it are in fact, well, absurd.
What are the absurd parts?
I prefer the 1632 Project, where a town of West Virginians bring democracy to the HRE.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 11, 2022, 11:58:31 AMWhat are the absurd parts?
Are you asking because you genuinely are not aware of the parts that are considered absurd? Or just want to argue? I don't think my views on what is absurd is materially different from those that are understood to be controversial.
Wikipedia has a pretty decent summary of the controversy, the response to it, and the NYTs quiet attempts to revise their own project without appearing to admit that there was every anything wrong.
Some excerpts:
QuoteIn a December 2019 letter published in The New York Times, the historians Wood, McPherson, Wilentz, Bynum, and Oakes expressed "strong reservations" about the project and requested factual corrections, accusing the authors of a "displacement of historical understanding by ideology." The letter disputed the claim, made in Hannah-Jones' introductory essay, that "one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery."
Also in December 2019, twelve scholars and political scientists specializing in the American Civil War sent a letter to the Times saying that "The 1619 Project offers a historically-limited view of slavery." While agreeing to the importance of examining American slavery, they objected to what they described as the portrayal of slavery as a uniquely American phenomenon, to construing slavery as a capitalist venture, and to presenting out-of-context quotes of a conversation between Abraham Lincoln and "five esteemed free black men."
In January 2020, historian Dr. Susan Parker, who specializes in the studies of Colonial United States at Flagler College, noted that slavery existed before any of the 13 Colonies. She wrote in an editorial in The St. Augustine Record that "The settlement known as San Miguel de Gualdape
lasted for about six weeks from late September 1526 to the middle of November. Historian Paul Hoffman writes that the slaves at San Miguel rebelled and set fire to some homes of the Spaniards."[46] Writing in USA Today, several historians—among them Parker, archaeologist Kathleen A. Deagan also of Flagler, and civil rights activist and historian David Nolan—all agreed that slavery was present decades before the year 1619. According to Deagan, people have "spent their careers trying to correct the erroneous belief" in such a narrative, with Nolan claiming that in ignoring the earlier settlement, the authors were "robbing black history."
In March 2020, historian Leslie M. Harris, who had been consulted for the project, wrote in Politico that she had warned that the idea that the American Revolution was fought to protect slavery was inaccurate, and that the Times made avoidable mistakes, but that the project was "a much-needed corrective to the blindly celebratory histories."[48] Hannah-Jones has also said that she stands by the claim that slavery helped fuel the revolution, though she concedes she might have phrased it too strongly in her essay, in a way that could give readers the impression that the support for slavery was universal.[5][48] On March 11, 2020, Silverstein authored an "update" in the form of a "clarification" on the Times' website, correcting Hannah-Jones's essay to state that "protecting slavery was a primary motivation for some of the colonists."[49] This "clarification" was reportedly prompted by a private warning to Silverstein by Harvard classicist and political scientist Danielle Allen that she might go public with criticism if the passage on the revolution were not corrected
I know what the talking points have been. I wanted to know what you thought was absurd.
I'm a liberal because I believe in principles. Principles are only principles if they're applied uniformly. You're not a critical thinker if you only critically think about ideas that run counter to your ideology. You're not against discrimination if you're only condemning discrimination against some groups and promoting discrimination against other groups for which you deem discrimination justified. You're not for freedom of speech if you support prohibitive consequences against certain speech.
When it comes to political success, there it's not just winning, it's also about what you're fighting for. Winning political power at the cost of your principles is a dubious victory. It's a shame that by its nature principles-based thinking is not as emotionally appealing as extremism, but that's not enough to make me give up on the ideology altogether. I think part of the reason the left fights the extremists on their side is because they don't want to be marginalized inside their own tent, like the non-fascists have been marginalized on the right.
It's not about appearing moderate or trying to appeal to conservatives, although I do think that extremism on the left provides extra fuel for extremism on the right. When you hear something obviously stupid on the left and can only find validation on the far right, because the other kinds who are not far left extremists don't want to deal with the bullshit that comes with publicly disagreeing with them, you may start thinking that the far right has a point in general.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 11, 2022, 11:38:00 AMThere was no reason to talk as much as it was about "Defund the police" except as a ways to defer to the Republican talking points.
Disagree. A very good reason to talk about defund the police is to prevent destructive policies from being implemented.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2022, 12:52:16 PMQuote from: Oexmelin on April 11, 2022, 11:38:00 AMThere was no reason to talk as much as it was about "Defund the police" except as a ways to defer to the Republican talking points.
Disagree. A very good reason to talk about defund the police is to prevent destructive policies from being implemented.
I agree, and what you responded to is revealing. It's like the thought of ideas being discussed on their merits is not even entertained, not for yourself and not for others, it's straight to the political implications of ideas.
That said, if political implications are all that you want to entertain, then think about the political implication of a rise in crime, and which political forces benefit from that. Think about who benefits from progressive ideas failing catastrophically when implemented.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2022, 12:52:16 PMDisagree. A very good reason to talk about defund the police is to prevent destructive policies from being implemented.
Was there any indication that such a slogan was being implemented "as is" anywhere?
Again, my point isn't really even about the merit of the issue. There was a way to drown out "defund the police" that didn't require the sort of distancing that, in effect, ended up sending the message that Republicans were right.
And, once again:
Principles are awesome. I am all about principles. I have principles. If that leads y'all to give out time, effort, energy, money, in keeping Republicans out of office, keeping fascism in check, bringing about their defeat, asking Democrats to be accountable for their action, or inaction, as the case may be, that's awesome. We can all go back to arguing about the Green New Deal later.
But the good liberal people against the Green New Deal, or ACAB, or UBI, or whatever, for better of for worse, haven't really succeeded in crafting any sort of message that sticks. With such an absence of direction, and tepid results at best, I can at least sympathize with people who want to change the messaging.
Quote from: Berkut on April 11, 2022, 12:07:19 PMQuote from: Berkut on April 11, 2022, 12:07:19 PMQuote from: Oexmelin on April 11, 2022, 11:58:31 AMWhat are the absurd parts?
Are you asking because you genuinely are not aware of the parts that are considered absurd? Or just want to argue? I don't think my views on what is absurd is materially different from those that are understood to be controversial.
Wikipedia has a pretty decent summary of the controversy, the response to it, and the NYTs quiet attempts to revise their own project without appearing to admit that there was every anything wrong
Is there any historical writing of equivalent breadth and coverage that would not attract similar levels of criticism?
AFAIK most of the substantive criticism has focused on Hannah-Jones' statement that protecting slavery was a "primary goal" of the American Revolution, a statement she admitted was exaggerated and that she intended to convey that it was a goal of some of the revolutionaries. That's hardly halt the presses absurdity.
It's certainly true that the project took a particular perspective and had a particular focus; that is true of many if not all historical studies.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 11, 2022, 01:22:02 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2022, 12:52:16 PMDisagree. A very good reason to talk about defund the police is to prevent destructive policies from being implemented.
Was there any indication that such a slogan was being implemented "as is" anywhere?
Again, my point isn't really even about the merit of the issue. There was a way to drown out "defund the police" that didn't require the sort of distancing that, in effect, ended up sending the message that Republicans were right.
Maybe Yi didn't like the "defund the police" movement.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 11, 2022, 01:22:02 PMWas there any indication that such a slogan was being implemented "as is" anywhere?
Sure. Seattle city council vote to cut spending by 40%, establishment of the Queen Anne Hill free zone.
QuoteAgain, my point isn't really even about the merit of the issue. There was a way to drown out "defund the police" that didn't require the sort of distancing that, in effect, ended up sending the message that Republicans were right.
OK, how would one do that?
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 11, 2022, 01:22:02 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2022, 12:52:16 PMDisagree. A very good reason to talk about defund the police is to prevent destructive policies from being implemented.
Was there any indication that such a slogan was being implemented "as is" anywhere?
As in reduce to zero? No but it was proposed.
As in reduce funding? Yes in many places including NYC. And that was a terrible counterproductive policy.
The lesson to draw from the sorry episodes of police brutality and racial profiling was that police departments need to be reformed and transformed and that take more money and not less. Even if the GOP and its allied media did not exist, there would still be good reason for thoughtful people on the left to push back hard on "defund the police"
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 11, 2022, 01:41:18 PMQuote from: Berkut on April 11, 2022, 12:07:19 PMQuote from: Berkut on April 11, 2022, 12:07:19 PMQuote from: Oexmelin on April 11, 2022, 11:58:31 AMWhat are the absurd parts?
Are you asking because you genuinely are not aware of the parts that are considered absurd? Or just want to argue? I don't think my views on what is absurd is materially different from those that are understood to be controversial.
Wikipedia has a pretty decent summary of the controversy, the response to it, and the NYTs quiet attempts to revise their own project without appearing to admit that there was every anything wrong
Is there any historical writing of equivalent breadth and coverage that would not attract similar levels of criticism?
AFAIK most of the substantive criticism has focused on Hannah-Jones' statement that protecting slavery was a "primary goal" of the American Revolution, a statement she admitted was exaggerated and that she intended to convey that it was a goal of some of the revolutionaries. That's hardly halt the presses absurdity.
It's certainly true that the project took a particular perspective and had a particular focus; that is true of many if not all historical studies.
Which revolutionaries were motivated by fear of Britain outlawing slavery, an event that wouldn't happen for another 30 years?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 11, 2022, 01:41:18 PMIt's certainly true that the project took a particular perspective and had a particular focus; that is true of many if not all historical studies.
All of them, no?
I always remember being told in school (and university) when studying English and history that the most important thing was having an argument. It's a bit like showing your working in maths - that's where you get most of the points.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on April 11, 2022, 01:57:38 PMWhich revolutionaries were motivated by fear of Britain outlawing slavery, an event that wouldn't happen for another 30 years?
The Somerset v. Stewart case happened in 1772. In the Southern States, it was enough to stir up concern about the future of slavery within the British empire, concerns that were greatly amplified by the Dunmore proclamation in 1775. Regulation of slavery from Britain was certainly an issue that contributed to the wariness of Southern elites towards British imperial government.
One of the warranted critique of the 1619 Project is that anti-slavery rhetoric was gaining a lot of ground in the Northern colonies. But that means precisely that the success of the Revolution, as revolution, hinged upon the Northern colonies agreeing to bracket the issue of slavery aside to find common cause.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 11, 2022, 01:22:02 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2022, 12:52:16 PMDisagree. A very good reason to talk about defund the police is to prevent destructive policies from being implemented.
Was there any indication that such a slogan was being implemented "as is" anywhere?
Again, my point isn't really even about the merit of the issue. There was a way to drown out "defund the police" that didn't require the sort of distancing that, in effect, ended up sending the message that Republicans were right.
I think that very way of doing so resulted in the far left going on about being stifled and how the moderates are sending the message that the Republicans were right.
Which of course, was not the case, and is not the case.
I think a good chunk of what you are talking about is a tactical effort by the left to achieve the results they see on the right, where the most radical parts of the side have effectively marginalized anyone not deemed sufficiently committed. I think that would be terrible for America, and for the progressive cause.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 11, 2022, 01:41:18 PMQuote from: Berkut on April 11, 2022, 12:07:19 PMQuote from: Berkut on April 11, 2022, 12:07:19 PMQuote from: Oexmelin on April 11, 2022, 11:58:31 AMWhat are the absurd parts?
Are you asking because you genuinely are not aware of the parts that are considered absurd? Or just want to argue? I don't think my views on what is absurd is materially different from those that are understood to be controversial.
Wikipedia has a pretty decent summary of the controversy, the response to it, and the NYTs quiet attempts to revise their own project without appearing to admit that there was every anything wrong
Is there any historical writing of equivalent breadth and coverage that would not attract similar levels of criticism?
Sure, the exact same thing that did not include absurd things like the American Revolution was all about protecting slavery and the fundamental casting of Abraham Lincoln is that he was a rabid white supremacist and that slavery was unknown in the Americas prior to 1619.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 11, 2022, 02:21:07 PMQuote from: Eddie Teach on April 11, 2022, 01:57:38 PMWhich revolutionaries were motivated by fear of Britain outlawing slavery, an event that wouldn't happen for another 30 years?
The Somerset v. Stewart case happened in 1772. In the Southern States, it was enough to stir up concern about the future of slavery within the British empire, concerns that were greatly amplified by the Dunmore proclamation in 1775. Regulation of slavery from Britain was certainly an issue that contributed to the wariness of Southern elites towards British imperial government.
One of the warranted critique of the 1619 Project is that anti-slavery rhetoric was gaining a lot of ground in the Northern colonies. But that means precisely that the success of the Revolution, as revolution, hinged upon the Northern colonies agreeing to bracket the issue of slavery aside to find common cause.
From wikipedia:
QuoteIn defense of the project, Silverstein said that the Somerset case caused a "sensation" in American reports. But Wilentz countered that the decision was reported by only six newspapers in the southern colonies, and the tone of the coverage was indifferent.[55] Also at issue was the significance of Dunmore's Proclamation as cited by Silverstein,[7] with Wilentz asserting that the event was a response to rebellion rather than a cause; he also questioned the reliance on a quotation by Edward Rutledge as interpreted by Jill Lepore.[44] Harris has also pointed to Dunmore's Proclamation as a spur to the disruption of slavery by the revolutionary side as well.[48]
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 11, 2022, 01:41:18 PMIs there any historical writing of equivalent breadth and coverage that would not attract similar levels of criticism?
AFAIK most of the substantive criticism has focused on Hannah-Jones' statement that protecting slavery was a "primary goal" of the American Revolution, a statement she admitted was exaggerated and that she intended to convey that it was a goal of some of the revolutionaries. That's hardly halt the presses absurdity.
It's certainly true that the project took a particular perspective and had a particular focus; that is true of many if not all historical studies.
One of the values of Zimm and things like the 1619 Project is precisely that they are looking at history through an openly-admitted lens. Having students use them in addition to their textbooks makes them properly question what lens the textbook authors were using. Neither Zimm nor the 1619 Project are attempting to introduce alternate facts, just alternate interpretations.
Wilenz's IMO unfairly characterizes the effect of Somerset. The decision was discussed in the US; in addition to the newspaper articles which Wilenz alludes to, there were books and pamphlets written explicitly stating the case that slavery in the colonies was inconsistent with the decision. Although Mansfield in later pronouncements indicated the decision should be interpreted narrowly, other UK court decisions gave a broader construction. And there were liberty lawsuits brought in Massachusetts that explicitly raised the decision as precedent. The broader issue is that the operation of the common law and common law reasoning in general was not so clearly defined that one could definitely make the argument that Wilenz did in the Atlantic that Somersett simply did not apply overseas. That might have been Mansfield's view but once enunciated common law principles are not so easily contained. Indeed, a key piece of the Dred Scott story is the state court judgment granting him freedom based in part on the Somersett principle - and Taney's extreme opinion denying the humanity of Dred Scott stemmed in no small part from the perceived need to escape the logic of that principle.
What is more speculative is exactly how key elites in the south viewed the decision and how it impacted their overall mindset and motivations. But it's obviously very challenging to read the minds of people that have been dead for two centuries.
Quote from: grumbler on April 11, 2022, 02:46:52 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on April 11, 2022, 01:41:18 PMIs there any historical writing of equivalent breadth and coverage that would not attract similar levels of criticism?
AFAIK most of the substantive criticism has focused on Hannah-Jones' statement that protecting slavery was a "primary goal" of the American Revolution, a statement she admitted was exaggerated and that she intended to convey that it was a goal of some of the revolutionaries. That's hardly halt the presses absurdity.
It's certainly true that the project took a particular perspective and had a particular focus; that is true of many if not all historical studies.
One of the values of Zimm and things like the 1619 Project is precisely that they are looking at history through an openly-admitted lens. Having students use them in addition to their textbooks makes them properly question what lens the textbook authors were using. Neither Zimm nor the 1619 Project are attempting to introduce alternate facts, just alternate interpretations.
That is certainly valuable, although my reading of it is that that lens is not nearly as openly admitted as you suggest.
Interpretation as an alternative perspective has value, but it doesn't mean that an absurd interpretation becomes not absurd.
You can look at the Southern states secession through a lens of ACW apologism, for example, and put forth the interpretation that the South seceeded mostly because of tariffs, rather then slavery. That is an "interpretation" of the facts, but it is also an absurd one, because it is clear (or at least I think it is clear when *I* claim that I find that narrative absurd) that the person making that interpretation is doing so not because they looked at the shared facts and came to a different interpretation because they had different values, or different weight applied to the shared facts, or even different political views. Rather, I find it absurd because it seems obvious to me that they started with their conclusion, and then "interpreted" the facts so that they would fit their conclusion. The facts are there to serve the narrative only.
I think when I look at the 1619 project around these parts that I find absurd, I see the exact same thing. A conclusion searching for facts to support it, rather then an alternative interpretation of shared facts. Of course, others might find my own views on it absurd, just like lots of Southern apologists find by view on the absurdity of their position equally absurd.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 11, 2022, 02:55:39 PMWhat is more speculative is exactly how key elites in the south viewed the decision and how it impacted their overall mindset and motivations. But it's obviously very challenging to read the minds of people that have been dead for two centuries.
I think the burden of proof is on those making a clear claim that the views of the key players in the American Revolution were not at all what they themselves in their own statements, writings, private letters and correspondence, and public proclamations suggested, but that in fact that was all convenient lies they are told with nearly perfect consistency, including privately, and really, it was all about protecting slavery.
Again, it is an absurd conclusion given the information available. It's not like there isn't copious amounts of information available about the motivations of the people involved in the American Revolution.
All that being said, I do think the core idea behind CRT and even the 1619 Project broadly, is valid, justified, and incredibly valuable and long overdue.
If I tried to state what I think that core thesis is (at least for the 1619 project specifically) it would be that American history as it has been broadly told for the last 200+ years, has minimized, marginalized, and in many cases outright lied and obfuscated the role of racism and slavery in the formation, evolution, and modern reality of the American experience. This has had profoundly negative consequences for all Americans, and must be fixed if we want to have any hope of resolving our continuing issues around race and racism.
Quote from: Berkut on April 11, 2022, 03:16:45 PMAgain, it is an absurd conclusion given the information available. It's not like there isn't copious amounts of information available about the motivations of the people involved in the American Revolution.
This is far from absurd, as any close reading of precisely that correspondance reveals.
The impact of Mansfield's decision on the Revolutionary War that the 1619 Project carries on relies on the scholarship of David Waldstreicher, who himself builds on George Van Cleve and Wieck, which is admittedly dated, and recent scholarship has indeed cast doubt on this interpretation, at least for the South, even if . (It's on more solid ground for the abolitionist cause in the North). This isn't however, absurd. It's a bona fide disagreement on the interpretation of the evidence. What people posit of their own motivations, and what we interpret and infer from their actions, is often quite distinct.
Where there isn't much ground for disagreement is on the impact of the revolutionary war itself in convincing Southern planters that the war would indeed *protect* slavery in a more sound manner than siding with the British would. Whether it was because of the threat on plantation control that Woody Holton has studied for Virginia, the fear of slave insurrection incited by the British in South Carolina, or generally speaking, the clear sense that it would be easier to compromise with victorious Northern colonists than with victorious British imperialist, as studied by Rob Parkinson, Southern planters made it clear that they saw the war led by the British as a threat to slavery in the South. The pushback against Henry Laurens' plan to arm slaves is especially telling in that regard.
For those interested, Matthew Mason (BYU) has a v. clear article in Slavery and Abolition from a couple of years back (itself a response to the 1619 Project) that provides a good synthesis of the issue.
I don't feel any need to rehash the arguments here - I've seen them all already made by people more eloquent then either of us.
Suffice to say that I find the arguments made that claiming that "
one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery." is absurd.You claim you do not find it absurd. OK. Frankly, I don't actually believe you - I think you find it "not absurd" because that is the claim that this group made, and you want to support them, not because you looked at the evidence and thought "Yep, the American Revolution was definitely all about slavery!"QuoteWhere there isn't much ground for disagreement is on the impact of the revolutionary war itself in convincing Southern planters that the war would indeed *protect* slavery in a more sound manner than siding with the British would
That doesn't actually speak to the claim though.The claim is that the motivation for revolution was the protection of slavery, not that one of the things used to convince some subset of people to support revolution was that they would be better served by it because they had slaves. They might have supported revolution absent whether or not it would be better for slavery. This is not an unreasonable position given that the most of the actual center of gravity for revolution was in those areas without significant slavery! Indeed, it would appear to be the other way around, for anyone who has actually studied the American Revolutionary war - most southern (and hence dependent on slavery) colonies were considerably LESS supportive of the rebellion, not more.That is a HUGE difference. It is the difference between the idea that if there were no slaves in the colonies, there would be no Revolution. THAT is what is being claimed here - and that is, in fact, absurd.
Quote from: Berkut on April 11, 2022, 03:16:45 PMI think the burden of proof is on those making a clear claim that the views of the key players in the American Revolution were not at all what they themselves in their own statements, writings, private letters and correspondence, and public proclamations suggested, but that in fact that was all convenient lies they are told with nearly perfect consistency, including privately, and really, it was all about protecting slavery.
And you read those statements, writings, correspondence, what comes across is that some planters had complex and even guilty feelings about slavery but at the same time conformed to and followed the interests of their class. The late 18th century was not the 1850s - you would not expect to see lots defiant "moral" justifications of slavery among the leading men. But at the same time you see men very conscious of their status position in society, of the wealth required to maintain that status, and the sources of their wealth. One may label it as "Marxist" to draw the inference that when a historical person acts consistently with economic self-interest, there is likely some connection. But another label for the same process is "common sense".
Quote from: Berkut on April 11, 2022, 03:59:29 PMYou claim you do not find it absurd. OK. Frankly, I don't actually believe you - I think you find it "not absurd" because that is the claim that this group made, and you want to support them, not because you looked at the evidence and thought "Yep, the American Revolution was definitely all about slavery!"
As ever, the most gracious of posters. :lol:
I, like everybody else, came to the study of the American Revolution with a host of preconceived notions about it. Because no one comes to the study of the American Revolution as a blank slate, just waiting to read "American scripture" and be amazed.
However, I did not come to the study of the American Revolution from the 1619 Project. I read, attended talks, and actually discussed them with Holton, Parkinson, Waldstreicher, Chris Brown, Gordon Wood, Martha S. Jones, Huselbosch and others, many years before the idea of the project was even born. So I came to the 1619 Project knowing where it was coming from.
I have my issues with the 1619 Project. I disagree with some of the interpretation, and with the fact that Hannah-Jones felt she needed to shock with a strong statement. But no, I do not find it absurd. I understand where the claim is coming from. The idea that the Revolution could have been waged to protect slavery goes so much against the grain of what people want to believe that she knew she'd shock. The context of publication also played a role. I wish she'd used that precise turn of phrase ("waged war" rather than "declare independance"), or that she allowed for the strong abolitionism of the North, or that she'd been more prudent in this or that. But, as Minsky said, these sorts of reservations are inevitable on all historical texts, even more so when those are published with a polemical intent. In the best of times, that polemical intent fosters historical research (and it has). In the worst of times, people weaponize the project without caring much for the issues at stake (and it certainly has)
The reason I asked you what exactly you found absurd, was because I wanted to know if you wanted to discuss the issues themselves, or the controversy. I think you mostly want to discuss the controversy.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 11, 2022, 04:10:12 PMQuote from: Berkut on April 11, 2022, 03:16:45 PMI think the burden of proof is on those making a clear claim that the views of the key players in the American Revolution were not at all what they themselves in their own statements, writings, private letters and correspondence, and public proclamations suggested, but that in fact that was all convenient lies they are told with nearly perfect consistency, including privately, and really, it was all about protecting slavery.
And you read those statements, writings, correspondence, what comes across is that some planters had complex and even guilty feelings about slavery but at the same time conformed to and followed the interests of their class. The late 18th century was not the 1850s - you would not expect to see lots defiant "moral" justifications of slavery among the leading men. But at the same time you see men very conscious of their status position in society, of the wealth required to maintain that status, and the sources of their wealth. One may label it as "Marxist" to draw the inference that when a historical person acts consistently with economic self-interest, there is likely some connection. But another label for the same process is "common sense".
That is dependent on the assumption that they did in fact believe that the only way to protect their self interest was in fact rebellion, and in fact that all the other reasons were not just the reasons claimed, but actually lies formed to obfuscate the real reason.
The idea that absent slavery, there would have been no American Revolution is absurd. The claim that the southern slave owners so clearly saw a bright line casual effect of "no rebellion, I will lose my slaves and status" is absurd.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 11, 2022, 04:22:48 PMQuote from: Berkut on April 11, 2022, 03:59:29 PMYou claim you do not find it absurd. OK. Frankly, I don't actually believe you - I think you find it "not absurd" because that is the claim that this group made, and you want to support them, not because you looked at the evidence and thought "Yep, the American Revolution was definitely all about slavery!"
As ever, the most gracious of posters. :lol:
I, like everybody else, came to the study of the American Revolution with a host of preconceived notions about it. Because no one comes to the study of the American Revolution as a blank slate, just waiting to read "American scripture" and be amazed.
However, I did not come to the study of the American Revolution from the 1619 Project. I read, attended talks, and actually discussed them with Holton, Parkinson, Waldstreicher, Chris Brown, Gordon Wood, Martha S. Jones, Huselbosch and others, many years before the idea of the project was even born. So I came to the 1619 Project knowing where it was coming from.
I have my issues with the 1619 Project. I disagree with some of the interpretation, and with the fact that Hannah-Jones felt she needed to shock with a strong statement. But no, I do not find it absurd. I understand where the claim is coming from. The idea that the Revolution could have been waged to protect slavery goes so much against the grain of what people want to believe that she knew she'd shock. The context of publication also played a role. I wish she'd used that precise turn of phrase ("waged war" rather than "declare independance"), or that she allowed for the strong abolitionism of the North, or that she'd been more prudent in this or that. But, as Minsky said, these sorts of reservations are inevitable on all historical texts, even more so when those are published with a polemical intent. In the best of times, that polemical intent fosters historical research (and it has). In the worst of times, people weaponize the project without caring much for the issues at stake (and it certainly has)
The reason I asked you what exactly you found absurd, was because I wanted to know if you wanted to discuss the issues themselves, or the controversy. I think you mostly want to discuss the controversy.
What I wanted to discuss in fact is the idea that the poor radical left is being "stifled" and that if only the left would let the radicals take over the party like the radical right has done, it would all be so much better for the progressive cause.
You do not find it absurd because it aligns with your goals. You are aligned with those who want the left to be defined by its radicals, and effectively shut down the moderates in favor of that more radical agenda. So you "
disagree with some of the interpretation" but don't actually ever say that in discussion, nor do you take any stance on those disagreements, and instead apparently note it privately.And when someone else disagrees with those interpretations, and calls them absurd for *exactly the reasons you object to* (they are being made to "shock" and are political in their intent, not actually representative of the actual facts, and clearly are there to serve a need to shock then a need to inform) then THAT is worthy of your comment and argument and disparagement.Apparently the difference between our views of the 1619 Project is simply that we both disagree with these characterizations, you just are ok with supposedly historical objectivity giving way to the need for "shock" and simply ignoring inconvenient facts (indeed, outright lying about them - strong abolitionism in the North is not something that they overlook, they actively chose to pretend it didn't exist) is not absurd to you.It is absurd to me. What is really absurd is your noting that people have " weaponize the project without caring much for the issues at stake". Yes, that is rather unfortunate, isn't it? But isn't choosing to go for "shock" and polemical language doing exactly that - weaponizing the project?
Aren't we pretty much way off the point though?
I mean, we can sit around and argue about CRT or the 1619 project, and none of us will come up with anything that hasn't been said by others already.
I find some of their positions absurd. Oex finds them wrong for all the exact same reasons I do, but doesn't think it is absurd, and in fact thinks that vocalizing that you find them wrong is itself wrong, apparently (I am not trying to create a strawmen, but recognize that perhaps I am - is that right Oex?).
What does that have to do with anything?
Is there something that the progressive left should learn from that? Oex feels that the lesson is that we should all stop listening to moderates, and let the radical left take over and define the party much in the same way the radical right took over the GOP, and that would be better for everyone who supports the progressive agenda.
I am kind of dumbfounded that you could draw that conclusion, at least from the standpoint of arguing about what is effective politics (I can understand the position from the standpoint of believing that the radical left is correct, and hence ought to win any struggle with more moderate positions, but that is an ideological argument, not a political or practical one, and I thought we were talking about the latter).
I will admit my own bias, BTW.
I think being a moderate, principled progressive gives me a substantial advantage in the debate with left wing radical progressives. I think it goes without saying that in a country where there is a significant political divide, and one where most people identify as "moderates" whether that be to the left or right, there is a pretty hard row to hoe for more radicals to argue that the best political strategy is to run further to the left.
Indeed, I think as the right goes farther and farther right, or even so far that wherever they are isn't even really identifiable as the "right" in many ways as we would have defined it even 20 years ago, the argument that the proper response for the entirety of the left is to itself dive off the deep end of the partisan divide seems obviously a terrible idea.
Quote from: Berkut on April 11, 2022, 05:00:59 PMIs there something that the progressive left should learn from that? Oex feels that the lesson is that we should all stop listening to moderates, and let the radical left take over and define the party much in the same way the radical right took over the GOP, and that would be better for everyone who supports the progressive agenda.
That is not my conclusion. At this point, I think I have nearly exhausted the different ways to express it. I'll try one last time, in the bluntest way possible.
1) I think the Democratic establishment is clueless about how to handle the current crisis.
2) They suck at messaging. For as long as I can remember, Democrats have sucked at messaging. They continuously defer to Republican agenda, prefering to react to, and deny the mischaracterization of their stance by the right.
3) They have a very poor sense of what they stand for. For a host of historical or political reasons.
4) In addition to that, they have a complete lack of the sense of urgency that is required by the current circumstances.
5) In front of them, the Republicans have a very clear sense of what they stand against, and a very clear sense of the urgency that must motivate them.
6) My main point is this: clarity of message, clarity of purpose, sense of urgency, sense of accountability. How is that going to be achieved?
7) My reading is that militancy is able to *at least* put pressure on the Democratic establishment.
8) My experience is that militants rarely come from people who pride themselves on being pragmatic, who enjoy the nuances of policy-making, etc. etc. etc. Militants either need to be made, trained, or have some form of epiphany through action. Something which civil rights leaders learned painfully, and then mastered.
9) Or, it requires a cause that is so overwhelmingly important that it allows people to compromise with their beliefs for secondary causes. When I was a militant in Quebec, I was able to work with people who completely disagreed with me on some matters, because we were all committed to Quebec independance. And we were committed to it with a sense of urgency.
10) Note that I have said nothing about the content of militancy at this point.
11) Now, it is entirely possible to disagree with my emphasis on militancy, and instead favor an approach that relies on curated communication, money-spending, etc. I should note that Republicans are at least capable of doing both. I also think that militancy ought to be tailored to your community. AOC is able to be elected in New York - though she had to displace a tepid establishment guy. If your district can only elect a DINO, at least make sure that this person is at least committed to taking Republicans to task, and not afraid to speak.
11) Given all that, let me repeat again, Democrats suck. I would be happy (if not perfectly happy) if I had the distinct impression the party was going somewhere, had a clear message, a sense of urgency, etc. Even if it did not fully align with my progressive politics. Alas, I don't think this is the case. At all.
12) I think the people who *at least* try to give a clear message, force a clear stance on current issues, try to dominate the narrative rather than let it be defined by Republicans come from the progressive wing of the Democrat party. Am I in total agreement with all of the Squad? No. Of course not. But they at least try to give an edge to the Democrats.
13) It is entirely possible that I see it, because they are closer to my politics than Nancy Pelosi. But I don't see a lot of successes from the center or the establishment of the party. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
14) And thus, given all that, I see the considerable effort at denouncing "the Squad", distancing the party from progressive policy, mocking the exaggerations of the left, or discussing the latest funky idea because it makes for easy and reassuring caricature as astonishingly wasteful. It would be one thing to discipline the left of the party for going against message. But what message are they going against? There is nothing to displace. And because it's about mocking, rather than building from, or harnessing, or using *in some way* that energy, I feel it really ends up amplifying Republican rhetoric.
15) And on an individual point of view, that sort of deference to what essentially serves Republican point of view I think is mostly about reassuring oneself about one's great level-mindedness. It's great if one needs a boost of self-confidence, but ultimately, it serves no other purpose. To be invested in politics is to agree that you WILL be amongst idiots, morons, utterly wrong clows. And more likely than not, you will be the idiot, moron and utterly wrong clown of others. It's much more comfortable to sit in judgement and imagine oneself to be the epitome of political Solomon. I don't think that sentiment of comfort is very useful right now.
16) And perhaps more worrying still, it often feels like this sentiment is also fueled by the precocious desire to find scapegoats for the defeat to come.
So, in the end, my point isn't that we should stop listening to moderates because they are moderates and I hate moderates. My point is we should stop listening to moderates because the way they engage, and their primary spokespeople are not, *at this critical time*, conducive to bringing clarity of purpose, sense of urgency, clarity of message and accountability. Find me a moderate who is at least passionate, charismatic, eloquent in the defense of the Republic, and I am sold. Instead, we get variations of people who denounce the coming crisis with all the fire that one finds in the voices on NPR.
So the moderates have accomplished nothing, other then getting Trump out of office?
I think your idea that moderates all care about being seen as "level-minded" is utter bullshit. It is pure ad hom. Moderates (at least THIS moderate) are not moderate because we "need a boost of self-confidence". It's funny that you make snide comments about how much a dick I am, and then are perfectly fine accusing me of being motivated by insecurity and a need to be seen as "level-minded". As if that is really how I am seen - Berkut, so well known for his level mindedness in the desire to be comforted.
I think the moderate clarity of message is fine, and accountability. I think the problem in the progressive movement is that there are a lot of people who care more about being culture warriors and would rather win arguments then elections, and are happy to watch the ship sink instead of compromise. I think that was the problem with the GOP when the radicals took it over, and emulating them would be a fucking terrible idea.
Quote from: Berkut on April 11, 2022, 06:17:56 PMI think your idea that moderates all care about being seen as "level-minded" is utter bullshit. It is pure ad hom. Moderates (at least THIS moderate) are not moderate because we "need a boost of self-confidence". It's funny that you make snide comments about how much a dick I am, and then are perfectly fine accusing me of being motivated by insecurity and a need to be seen as "level-minded". As if that is really how I am seen - Berkut, so well known for his level mindedness in the desire to be comforted.
Yeah I was about to say. Berkut moderating himself to try to be seen as "level-minded"? Needing to be comforted? Since fucking when?
Quote from: Valmy on April 11, 2022, 06:40:44 PMYeah I was about to say. Berkut moderating himself to try to be seen as "level-minded"? Needing to be comforted? Since fucking when?
It is possible that Oex wasn't talking about Berkut personally, but rather how the grouping normally described as "moderate" comports itself in the broader political discourse of America.
Lol. I was relaying critiques once leveled against *me* in my personal life (not here, I don't think). I thought at they time they were fair.
The thing is: all versions of political committment benefit from examining critically their beliefs. This is also true of moderation - but it's harder to do if you consider moderation as an unadulterated good compared to the necessarily flawed extremes, or as an *outcome*, born solely out of careful consideration rather than a political choice. Moderation is also a political committment. It has its advantages. It has its drawbacks. It can lead to unwarranted pride, much like extremists who enjoy their purity against false believers. It can lead to prudence and wisdom. It can lead to timidity and cowardice.
Quote from: Jacob on April 11, 2022, 06:43:00 PMQuote from: Valmy on April 11, 2022, 06:40:44 PMYeah I was about to say. Berkut moderating himself to try to be seen as "level-minded"? Needing to be comforted? Since fucking when?
It is possible that Oex wasn't talking about Berkut personally, but rather how the grouping normally described as "moderate" comports itself in the broader political discourse of America.
So it is a group of people who want to be comforted and are insecure, and that drives their political positions, rather then them just disagreeing with him?
Is that somehow better?
Democratic messaging works just fine for me. If left leaning voters can't be arsed to go the polls and beat back the Orcs maybe the problem is with them and not the messaging.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 11, 2022, 06:46:39 PMLol. I was relaying critiques once leveled against *me* in my personal life (not here, I don't think). I thought at they time they were fair.
The thing is: all versions of political committment benefit from examining critically their beliefs. This is also true of moderation - but it's harder to do if you consider moderation as an unadulterated good compared to the necessarily flawed extremes, or as an *outcome*, born solely out of careful consideration rather than a political choice. Moderation is also a political committment. It has its advantages. It has its drawbacks. It can lead to unwarranted pride, much like extremists who enjoy their purity against false believers. It can lead to prudence and wisdom. It can lead to timidity and cowardice.
Who is it that has stated they "consider moderation as an unadulterated good"?
I think that is a strawman.
I am a "moderate" because I am willing to call out the bullshit and absurdity of the progressive left. *They* claim that makes me a "moderate", since I am not willing to just pretend that things I disagree with cannot be said because someone might confuse my disagreement with an attempt to stifle them or support the right.
There is nothing at all good about being any particular political position, nor is it even meaningful in any objective sense since my own position on the spectrum is only "moderate" because there are people to either side of me. My views have not changed to align to some "moderate" position, not at all. Indeed, I am a avowed, hard core Democrat because my position has NOT changed, by the political spectrum HAS changed. There was a time when I would vote for either party, based on the particulars of who is running.
No more - the right has gone so far off into the crazy land over thataway that now I am in fact a hardened Democrat, and won't vote for a Republican ever. Likely never will again, unless something really profound changes.
The irony is not that I am a "moderate", the irony is that even this hardcore Dem is attacked from the Left for not being adequately willing to ignore and stay quiet about the things I disagree with, because I am unwilling to toe the party line with enough fervor to be considered something other then a despised "moderate".
It's clear you take great pride in your own moderation. You wrote it yourself above: you consider it gives you "a great advantage" in conversation, one that allows you to see clearly - which, of course, implies that all the other misguided zealots are deluded somehow.
Ultimately, that's fine. You can denounce progressists all you like on Languish, in your life in general, at the coffee machine. or what have you. That's totally fine. It's a legitimate political stance. The *only* thing I hope is that your hardcore democratedness leads you to get involved either locally, or nationally with the same energy. Amplify the message you like in your daily life. Give some time, some money. Call people. Demonstrate. Including with some of these deluded zealots perhaps. Who knows? Maybe that could do something in the short term.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2022, 06:59:05 PMDemocratic messaging works just fine for me. If left leaning voters can't be arsed to go the polls and beat back the Orcs maybe the problem is with them and not the messaging.
I think the messaging that sucks is taking credit for accomplishments. I guess the problem is that it doesn't sell in the news. "Woman murdered in park last night" sells the news, "woman had a fulfilling first date" doesn't. Similarly, it's hard to fill the airwaves of 24/7 news channels with "quality of governance improving slowly" headline items, even if that ultimately has a much greater impact in someone's life than the next bullshit scandal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2022, 06:59:05 PMDemocratic messaging works just fine for me. If left leaning voters can't be arsed to go the polls and beat back the Orcs maybe the problem is with them and not the messaging.
Great. We just need several million Yi-clones of voting age and the republic will be saved.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2022, 06:59:05 PMDemocratic messaging works just fine for me. If left leaning voters can't be arsed to go the polls and beat back the Orcs maybe the problem is with them and not the messaging.
Democratic messaging sucked in the last VA gubernatorial election. A quite successful and popular former governor was defeated by a bunch of made-up cultural "crises" because his campaign couldn't figure out how to effectively respond.
You are right about Democratic voter apathy, but I blame that on the wretched state of Democratic leadership. Anyone who could be inspirational seems to be sidelined as a threat to the Democratic establishment.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2022, 06:59:05 PMDemocratic messaging works just fine for me. If left leaning voters can't be arsed to go the polls and beat back the Orcs maybe the problem is with them and not the messaging.
You should not get a job in advertising or political messaging :lol:
(https://boundingintocomics.com/files/2018/06/888.jpg)
Quote from: DGuller on April 11, 2022, 07:34:33 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2022, 06:59:05 PMDemocratic messaging works just fine for me. If left leaning voters can't be arsed to go the polls and beat back the Orcs maybe the problem is with them and not the messaging.
I think the messaging that sucks is taking credit for accomplishments. I guess the problem is that it doesn't sell in the news. "Woman murdered in park last night" sells the news, "woman had a fulfilling first date" doesn't. Similarly, it's hard to fill the airwaves of 24/7 news channels with "quality of governance improving slowly" headline items, even if that ultimately has a much greater impact in someone's life than the next bullshit scandal.
Just to be clear: is "Woman murdered in park last night" and "woman had a fulfilling first date" the same story?
I think you take great pride in imagining that I take great pride in my moderation, because attacking motives is always easier then attacking arguments.
In point of fact, I take zero "pride" in being a moderate. I don't think there is any functional utility in it at all, nor do I think I am in fact "moderate" anyway, except insofar as I don't agree lockstep with every absurd thing the left trots out as a matter of course. If that means I am a moderate, then whatever, but I don't take pride in it at all, and if you decide that moderate means I support some particular stance, then I certainly have no problem stating that I am not going to accept that stance because it is "moderate".
So no, I think I am an expert on what I think and take pride in, and I take zero pride in being "moderate".
I don't know what denouncing a progessist means, at least how it could possibly apply to me. The definition of the word is " A person who favours or advocates progress, especially in political or social matters; a reformer, a progressive."
I don't know why I would denounce something I completely support. It is interesting that you define someone who is a progressive, and defines themselves using exactly that term, as being anti-progressive, because they again, are willing to call things the radical left cherishes absurd - even when you actually agree that those things are wrong, but object to calling them absurd! You just said I was anti-progressive based strictly on my views around things like the 1619 project not being 100% awesomesauce, while ignoring my actual views on actual policy.
I did not say being a moderate gives me advantage in conversation, I said finding myself in the non-crazy part of the political spectrum seems like an inately strong position to be in - but of course, that is only relative to the crazy left. I am sure most people who do not call themselves progressives in America would in fact laugh at the idea that I am a "moderate" at all - I am lefty progressive who thinks we should have universal health care, the government should fund public higher education, we should radically restrict many guns, and we should increase taxes on corporations and the wealthy to levels that have not been seen for decades in order to fund a massive effort to combat climate change. I think we should take a very serious look at our economic systems and incentives to figure out how to stop and ideally reverse the wealth ineqality we have seen grown in the last decades. In every case, outside the social justice warrior love for identity politics and cancel culture, my political position would be defined in US terms as anything but moderate.
As far as my own political activism is concerned, I do what I think works for me. If you notice that it is the most extreme elements who tend to do the most, well, ok - but that is true for the crazies on the right as well. Personally, I actually don't think that burning down police stations or rioting is particularly effective in the long run, even while I understand why it happens.
I do give time, and I give a lot of money, to politicians and causes I think are important. I will pass on demonstrating, in most cases.
I feel like Skinner may be on to something.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 11, 2022, 04:10:12 PMAnd you read those statements, writings, correspondence, what comes across is that some planters had complex and even guilty feelings about slavery but at the same time conformed to and followed the interests of their class. The late 18th century was not the 1850s - you would not expect to see lots defiant "moral" justifications of slavery among the leading men. But at the same time you see men very conscious of their status position in society, of the wealth required to maintain that status, and the sources of their wealth. One may label it as "Marxist" to draw the inference that when a historical person acts consistently with economic self-interest, there is likely some connection. But another label for the same process is "common sense".
Yeah - also the way people express sentiments, including describing their own beliefs and justifying their own action, are shaped by the society they live in. That doesn't mean they are dissembling or don't believe those things, but it also doesn't necessarily mean they do because their way of thinking and their concerns are structured by wider social concerns. That's something that historians are - or should be - alive to and they are making a judgement call of what weight to give those different factors, which can include material self-interest. It's not a case of lies being told with perfect consistency it's the effect of the way their society spoke and understood the world.
An analogy from today would be the criticism of "woke capitalism" - the statements on issues of social justice by billionaires and multi-millionaires and corporates. I have no doubt that some of that is sincerely and deeply felt. Some of it I think is just that it is a language of our time and a way of expressing yourself. I also think some of it, frankly, is mainly motivated economic self interest - this is the language your target market uses, so you embrace it to increase sales. I think we probably all have varying degrees of cynicism about that - that also applies to the past.
The reality in most cases is that humans are a mix of all those motivations - noble ideals, discourse and self-interest. We don't ever, I think, know ourselves well enough to accurately weigh those competing aspects and I think it's certainly impossible to do it about someone else's thoughts. If they're writing to others - we normally want people to think well of us and put forward what we perceive to be our best foot. In a way I think it's even stronger in diarising or memoirs (especially memoirs which are aimed at publication) because we all sub-consciously massage reality so that we look a little better, are a little nobler and more purely motivated, a little less venal. I don't think any of us could really honestly describe ourselves, our beliefs or our motivations.
In the context of the American Revolution - as you say this is broadly pre-scientific racism as a justification for slavery and the ideas and discourse that is shaping these people is the Enlightenment. So that is the language they will use - it's the language of their age and their contemporaries. And in relation to slavery they don't have that later scientific racism of the 19th century to justify it, they are confronted with the theories of the day which are universalist and Enlightenment and there is a dissonance there. The same occurs in writings of some British figures in relation to India where they know they're despoiling and looting an ancient civilisation, they don't really have the language of "civilising mission" to justify it (and know it's not really true) but materially are benefiting from it. I don't think we should simply believe, but we also shouldn't just dismiss it.
It reminds a little of the various swings opinion over the English civil war/war of three kingdoms - over whether the motivations are primarily political (a Whiggish take), a bourgeois revolution (the Marxist take) or a war of religion. I have no idea - I probably lean more to the war of religion view - but think all three are essential elements in producing the context in which a war could take place. That doesn't mean that Christopher Hill or the Marxist take is wrong, or unhelpful, or useless. It's quite illuminating and important - same goes for the Whig history. But I also acknowledge that the war of religion explanation is strengthened by the incredibly religiously tinged and shaped discourse of that time - it's the old point that Cromwell's religious exhortations always neatly align with his own interest (but I don't think that means they're insincere).
SHelf, that is all well understood reasons why we have talked about for the last 100+ years the hypocrisy, known at that time, of the American Revolution.
It does not in any way advance the notion that said Revolution was undertaken primarily in order to protect slavery.
You are just re-stating what historians have been discussing for decades. It isn't even a little bit controversial.
Same with Minsky. You guys are lecturing everyone as if you are the first to notice that the same guy who said "We hold these truths to be self-evident....that all men are created equal...." was a slaveowner.
The absurd part is going from that, to this rather interesting and "new" conclusion, put forth (and then quietly abandoned) by some of the prominent authors associated with the 1619 project, that the American Revolution happened because the men who decided to rebel against England thought that if they did not, England would force them to give up slavery. That absent slavery, there is no American Revolution at all.
This is an astounding claim, and has no real evidence to support it, at least nothing even close to enough weight to overcome the massive evidence to counter it. And again, people smarter then me have already pointed that out.
So that wasn't my point. It's not about hypocrisy - which I think is probably an unhelpful way of framing it and probably not how it was experienced. I probably didn't express it well but I'm not sure it'll add much I'd try again.
QuoteIt reminds a little of the various swings opinion over the English civil war/war of three kingdoms - over whether the motivations are primarily political (a Whiggish take), a bourgeois revolution (the Marxist take) or a war of religion. I have no idea - I probably lean more to the war of religion view - but think all three are essential elements in producing the context in which a war could take place. That doesn't mean that Christopher Hill or the Marxist take is wrong, or unhelpful, or useless. It's quite illuminating and important - same goes for the Whig history. But I also acknowledge that the war of religion explanation is strengthened by the incredibly religiously tinged and shaped discourse of that time - it's the old point that Cromwell's religious exhortations always neatly align with his own interest (but I don't think that means they're insincere).
Yeah, that's what makes history so interesting to me. Historical events usually have several different forces pulling in lots of different directions, with historical actors of varying degrees of agency and of various different beliefs and motivations. And whatever survives as source material are all that we have to parse out those events, which we then fashion into narratives that we think best explain what happened. And of course what doesn't survive, or what is left unrecorded by contemporary historical people, are things we may never know about. Fascinating stuff.
And it's even more interesting to read different interpretations of the same event that argue diametrically opposed things, especially arguments that exist outside the historical consensus. That is the nature of historical inquiry.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 12, 2022, 08:53:15 AMSo that wasn't my point. It's not about hypocrisy - which I think is probably an unhelpful way of framing it and probably not how it was experienced. I probably didn't express it well but I'm not sure it'll add much I'd try again.
Oh, I think it was very much experienced that way. Jefferson himself wrote extensively about slavery and how there would be an eventual price to pay for what they were doing.
But whether that is YOUR point, it is the point you have weighed in to defend.
I think they were incredible aware of just how hypocritical their position was - I think it is fascinating to see how slave owners attitudes changed between the American Revolution and the early to mid 19th century. Slaveowners in the 18th century relied on slaves to maintain their wealth, but it wasn't a wealth that was that incredibly great compared to their peers, and they could at least imagine a scenario in the future where the slaves were no more. Their wealth was in land.
Personally, I think it basically amounted to economics. Slavery in the late 18th century was important to slaveowners social status and wealth. But after the invention of the cotton gin, slavery became the engine for an economic boom of previously unheard of scale in the Americas. The American South had found the equivalent of Haiti's sugar, and oh how the money rolled in....The numbers are astonishing.
This is just Mississippi, but the numbers are incredible.
In 1800, Mississippi Territory had about 5000 white inhabitants, and about 3500 slaves, and produced no cotton. It was basically uninhabited.
In 1810, it was 23,000 and 17,000 slaves
1830 it was 70,000 and 65,000
1840 it was 180,000 and 195,000
1850 it was 295,000 and 300,000
1860 it was 354,000 and 437,000
By 1860, Missippi was the leading cotton producer in the world, producing 535 million pounds.
In 1790 the US produced, total, less then 1 million pounds of cotton. It was negligible, and represented basically zero percent of US exports.
1800 it was about 25 million pounds a year.
By 1820, we were producing 160 million pounds a year, and that represented 22% of American exports.
By 1830 it was 331 million pounds, representing 41% of American export value
1840 800+ million pounds, and over half total export value
1850 it reaches a billion pounds
1860 it is over 2.2 billion pounds, representing something like 60-70% of the nation export value.
And you saw the attitude towards slavery shift from this kind of "Well we have slaves but we pretty much know it is terrible and we are almost certainly going to have to do something about that before they rise up and rather justly throw our mastery off but how do we do that????" sort of wringing hands attitude to this pseudo-scientific made up justifaction about racism that allows for the idea of slavery now, and slavery forever.
This is, IMO, all economics, and all about cotton. Cotton drove the world economy in many ways, and the US had just become the world supplied of this insanely profitable cash crop. It is an oil boom, and the southern slaveowners are now oil barons and there is no fucking way they are going to give up the thing that turned them into some of the wealthiest men on the planet. So all that hand wringing and concern about the hypocrisy and obvious injustice of slavery had to go away and get replaced by something sustainable and defensible, and that something is straight up racism, and not the racism of the 18th century, but the pseudo-scientifically justified racism of white supremacy.
There has been much made about how the founders "punted" on the slavery question, and how that was rather irresponsible of them.
But you can also argue that they did not know the Eli Whitney would invent the cotton gin, making the production of cotton so incredibly profitable if you had land, labor, and credit, that it would become nearly impossible to actually let slavery die away in the fashion they probably thought it would....Between 1776 and 1800 the population of slaves in the US was pretty steady (500k in 1776, 800k in 1800) and the increase was likely largely accounted for by native growth. It is not hard to imagine that the "problem" of slavery was solvable, and if you waited a bit, perhaps the political will to handle it in some "soft" manner was imaginable.
Of course, once cotton became the "oil" of the global industrial revolution, and the money to be made turned slaveowners into the oil sheiks of the 1th century, the context of the problem changed dramatically, and a political soft landing seemed impossible. I think that helped drive the growing militancy of the abolitionist movement - there was an idea that the explosion of slavery in the south was something of a betrayal of the promise that a solution leading to the end of slavery at some point.
Of course, the south just said that the compromises made in the 1780s were permanent, and any attempt to move towards an end of slavery was intolerable, because there was so very much money to be made....
Quote from: Berkut on April 11, 2022, 09:54:45 PMI think you take great pride in imagining that I take great pride in my moderation
If we are at a point where you are considered a moderate, Languish is in deep shit.
Quote from: Berkut on April 11, 2022, 09:54:45 PMI think you take great pride in imagining that I take great pride in my moderation, because attacking motives is always easier then attacking arguments.
*snicker*
Quote from: Berkut on April 11, 2022, 04:36:00 PMThat is dependent on the assumption that they did in fact believe that the only way to protect their self interest was in fact rebellion, and in fact that all the other reasons were not just the reasons claimed, but actually lies formed to obfuscate the real reason.
No its not dependent on that assumption at all, that's a strawman argument. Obviously, there were many reasons that led people to support the Patriot cause, or the Loyalists, or to prevaricate. Just as obviously, the Patriot ranks included many anti-slavery advocates.
But in thinking about the 1770s we have to wrench ourselves out of presentist bias and consider what it was like to be a property owner in America on the eve of the Revolution. Because "property" in the United States back then didn't mean bank accounts, 401(k) plans, bonds, and stocks. It principally meant two things - in almost precisely equal proportion - agricultural land and slaves. The market value of bound persons in the 1770s was enormous, approximately 1.5 times annual income of all the colonies. In the South, where slaveholding was more concentrated, slaves were by a very safe margin the most significant form of property . This fact always must be kept in mind when we read phrases of the time like "life, liberty, and property." And it is impossible to properly understand the progress of the Revolution and post-revolutionary settlement without keeping those facts in the front of one's mind.
The assumption therefore is that in deciding which side to support, slaveholding elites did not make their decision purely on the grounds of theoretical commitment to abstract political ideals, but took into consideration what victory for that side would mean for their own status and future prospects, and that necessarily meant careful consideration as to the effects on their principal source of wealth, power, position, and status, slaves. The southern planters had to take into account that in casting off Britain and tie their fates to their fellow colonies, they were linking themselves to northern colonies with anti-slavery Quakers and Yankees; at the same time they were weighing those dangers against the undeniable fact that the political culture of metropolitan Britain was turning against slavery. The assumption is that in considering the ultimate failure of the British war time "southern strategy" and in assessing British efforts to win "hearts and minds" in the South, one should consider the impact and effects of British efforts to recruit former slaves into their armies.
Hannah-Jones' emphasis on slavery as a motivation is exaggerated and fair to criticize on that basis, but it would not be absurd to argue that her approach is no worse than other more traditional accounts that widely ignore the issue entirely or downplay it, and indeed may be a helpful foil to those views.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 12, 2022, 06:28:31 AMThe reality in most cases is that humans are a mix of all those motivations - noble ideals, discourse and self-interest. We don't ever, I think, know ourselves well enough to accurately weigh those competing aspects and I think it's certainly impossible to do it about someone else's thoughts. If they're writing to others - we normally want people to think well of us and put forward what we perceive to be our best foot. In a way I think it's even stronger in diarising or memoirs (especially memoirs which are aimed at publication) because we all sub-consciously massage reality so that we look a little better, are a little nobler and more purely motivated, a little less venal. I don't think any of us could really honestly describe ourselves, our beliefs or our motivations.
That is certainly true generally and even more so for that generation of Americans. It would be hard to think of someone more self-conscious of their reputation and appearance of propriety than George Washington. Except maybe for Franklin, Adams, Hamilton, [insert American founder here]
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 11, 2022, 06:05:21 PMThat is not my conclusion. At this point, I think I have nearly exhausted the different ways to express it. I'll try one last time, in the bluntest way possible.
Without addressing each point by point:
+ Two old sayings about the Democrats are the Will Rogers line about "I don't belong to an organized political party, I'm a Democrat" and the saying about candidate selection that "Democrats fall in love, Republican fall in line". These capture certain truths - because Republicans tend be more deferential to authority, their messaging tends to be more disciplined (and simplistic).
+ That said Democrats are capable of effective messaging - the 2018 elections are an example of that.
+ Messaging and militancy are not the same things. Militants can have confused or inchoate messaging, moderates can have tight and trenchant messaging. And vice versa.
+ I agree that successful democratic political movements need to have militant elements. Politics requires a balance both passion and reason.
+ That said, in the American context of deliberately divided political institutions and blocking points, an excess of passion leads to paralysis. This was deliberate design, the professional revolutionaries who designed the US constitution knew the uses of passions but feared its excesses.
+ At the present moment, US governance has been increasingly paralyzed due to an excess of militancy on its right wing. Increasing militancy from the left will not fix that blockage.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 12, 2022, 01:49:03 PMQuote from: Berkut on April 11, 2022, 04:36:00 PMThat is dependent on the assumption that they did in fact believe that the only way to protect their self interest was in fact rebellion, and in fact that all the other reasons were not just the reasons claimed, but actually lies formed to obfuscate the real reason.
Hannah-Jones' emphasis on slavery as a motivation is exaggerated and fair to criticize on that basis, but it would not be absurd to argue that her approach is no worse than other more traditional accounts that widely ignore the issue entirely or downplay it, and indeed may be a helpful foil to those views.
This is the crux of the argument, and I find that you are, like Oex, actually agreeing with me.
If acting like slavery didn't matter is a failure to understand and even an active attempt to obfuscae the truth, then turning around and demanding that slavery was the ONLY thing that mattered is definitionally at least as bad, and likely much worse (another word for that is absurd).
There is in fact a lot of complexity and nuance to all of this. Ignoring or downplaying one of many variables is obviously a mistake that needs to be fixed. But promoting the one variable downplayed or ignored to being the *only* or at least primary variable means that at the same time you must downplay or ignore not a single variable, but all of them but that one.
Like I said, that is absurd. And not at all necessary to foil those views - in fact, I think that making up things you know are not true is almos never "helpful" when your claim is to be interested in actual objective reality.
I am pleased that the discussion has at least settled on agreement that the 1619s project attempt to cast the American Revolution, and hence the American founding, as just an attempt to protect slavery was incorrect.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 12, 2022, 02:30:05 PMWithout addressing each point by point:
+ Two old sayings about the Democrats are the Will Rogers line about "I don't belong to an organized political party, I'm a Democrat" and the saying about candidate selection that "Democrats fall in love, Republican fall in line". These capture certain truths - because Republicans tend be more deferential to authority, their messaging tends to be more disciplined (and simplistic).
This made me thinking of the recent (new?) New Republic review of a history of the Democrats. The opening:
QuoteThe political scientist E.E. Schattschneider once tried to convey in global terms the sheer potency and resilience of American political parties. "The Democratic party, for example, is truly venerable," he noted.
Its history is substantially coterminous with that of the Republic, making it the senior of all but three or four of the governments among the original signatories of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Its vitality is proved by the fact that it survived the Civil War when the Republic itself was torn apart and organizations as viable as the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, and the Baptist Church were split by the conflict between the North and the South. The Democratic Party is therefore one of the most tenacious governing organizations in the world.
Schattschneider wrote those words in 1942. And here, 80 years later, the battered and battle-worn Democratic vessel still beats on—even holding unified control of the federal government, albeit tenuously, as it had in the year of Schattschneider's musings. The party's durability, borne of ruthless adaptability more than consistency of cause, may indeed be its one enduring trait across two centuries of electoral life. "Tenacious" is an apt descriptor for the Democratic Party in much the way it is for a weed, or termites.
The title of Michael Kazin's very fine new history of the Democrats, What It Took to Win, likewise captures that hard core of pragmatism embedded in what he notes is "the oldest mass party in the world." By useful contrast, when historian Heather Cox Richardson published a history of the Republican Party in 2014, she called it To Make Men Free. If an edge of zeal, whether in revolution or reaction, has colored the GOP throughout its life, it's the coalitional instinct that is most deeply imprinted in the Democrats' DNA. Long the party of religious, regional, and ethnic outgroups, Democrats made a virtue of necessity by turning bargaining and practical-minded teamsmanship—the back scratched, the favor returned—into bedrock ethics of politics. Lyndon Johnson invoked that spirit in his frequent admonitions to fellow pols to "follow the prophet Isaiah ... 'come now, let us reason together.'" And, to lift a different, less high-minded axiom from LBJ, the Democratic Party has always thought it better to have people inside its big tent, pissing out, than to keep them outside, pissing in.
In the US context and given that line - article (the book sounds interesting) - what I wonder is whether the current Democrat coalition is durable and capable of governing? This is a particularly real risk for Democrats given the way hispanic voters are trending. If it's not, what is and what does it look ike to create that.
More generally - is the coalition building model still a relevant one? There are fewer and fewer split vote, there's fewer regional divides in voting - though obviously race is still a huge split. There's maybe something around rural/urban that is replicated within states and nationally. But generally there is more "national" swing which reflects what's happening on national news - but also fundraising. I always admire but wonder the effectiveness of Democrats running in a very safe Republican area who go a little bit viral and raise millions.
In that environment is the GOP's more ideologically driven approach (a coalition of various ideologies rather than interests) more workable in that context? Especially when all of those ideological variations - libertarian conservatives who want low taxes, religious right who want certain social policies and some form of nationalism - are all basically minority pursuits comfortable with the US system's power for political minorities.
Quote+ That said, in the American context of deliberately divided political institutions and blocking points, an excess of passion leads to paralysis. This was deliberate design, the professional revolutionaries who designed the US constitution knew the uses of passions but feared its excesses.
What do you mean by excess of passion leading to paralysis?
Edit: I now also think there's a book or an essay comparing and analysing the Dems and the Tories together. Both political survivors who shift and adapt with the times. In our case they're not just one of the most tenacious governing organisations but one of the most ruthlessly effective (190 years of history - only three leaders fail to become PM, all of them opposite Tony Blair). Both parties also face off against more ideologically driven parties, who have a more of a role for party activists/militants, are susceptible to sudden storms and deep currents - for example both recently had populist leaders with a fanatical support base outside the party establishment, who took positions that under another leader would be heresy, routinely attacked the press, have a fondness for overseas authoritarians and who were either bigoted themselves or tolerated a lot of bigotry on "their" side. Though ours is less successful - in 116 years of history and eighteen leaders, only six have become PM.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 12, 2022, 02:48:26 PMWhat do you mean by excess of passion leading to paralysis?
Concretely, American federal institutions are designed such that a single political faction, even with strong popular support, will find it challenging to get legislation through without some compromise with an opposing faction. When one party has an excess of militancy, it makes it difficult for legislators to forge the necessary compromises.
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2022, 02:38:32 PMI am pleased that the discussion has at least settled on agreement that the 1619s project attempt to cast the American Revolution, and hence the American founding, as just an attempt to protect slavery was incorrect.
:lol: You haven't looked very closely at the 1619 Project, it is clear. Your claim about its objective is false. Maybe your victory lap is premature.
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 12, 2022, 08:57:32 AMYeah, that's what makes history so interesting to me. Historical events usually have several different forces pulling in lots of different directions, with historical actors of varying degrees of agency and of various different beliefs and motivations. And whatever survives as source material are all that we have to parse out those events, which we then fashion into narratives that we think best explain what happened. And of course what doesn't survive, or what is left unrecorded by contemporary historical people, are things we may never know about. Fascinating stuff.
And it's even more interesting to read different interpretations of the same event that argue diametrically opposed things, especially arguments that exist outside the historical consensus. That is the nature of historical inquiry.
Yeah same. I also love a fairly strident argument for someone's case, because I never know enough to pick up on scholarly subtlety. The other thing is the occasional flash that illuminates that isn't recorded - I've just been reading The Common Wind which is an extraordinary book that uncovers communication networks between slaves and other marginalised groups in the Caribbean in the run up to and during the Haitian revolution. It's just incredible because it's the sort of thing that you think is almost impossible to recover now but the you discover there are these records that shine a brief light on, say, an urban underground in Jamaica that would hide escaped slaves or, in this case, runaway musicians. For me it all makes sense but it's a revelation.
I feel the same when I read a really good, well-argued interpretation I've not come across - even if I end up disagreeing as I read more. The Marxist take on things is normally assimilated into general histories now, but the shock of the first Marxist histories must have been incredible.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 12, 2022, 05:06:27 PMI've just been reading The Common Wind which
Julius! :wub:
He was a lovely man.
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2022, 04:45:03 PMQuote from: Berkut on April 12, 2022, 02:38:32 PMI am pleased that the discussion has at least settled on agreement that the 1619s project attempt to cast the American Revolution, and hence the American founding, as just an attempt to protect slavery was incorrect.
:lol: You haven't looked very closely at the 1619 Project, it is clear. Your claim about its objective is false. Maybe your victory lap is premature.
I did not say that was its objective, I said it made the attempt to make a specific claim, and there isn't much doubt that they did so.
They did a lot of other things as well, and as I stated, I am broadly supportive of its objective overall.
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2022, 02:38:32 PMI am pleased that the discussion has at least settled on agreement that the 1619s project attempt to cast the American Revolution, and hence the American founding, as just an attempt to protect slavery was incorrect.
QuoteWe stand behind the basic point, which is that among the various motivations that drove the patriots toward independence was a concern that the British would seek or were already seeking to disrupt in various ways the entrenched system of American slavery. Versions of this interpretation can be found in much of the scholarship into the origins and character of the Revolution that has marked the past 40 years or so of early American historiography — in part because historians of the past few decades have increasingly scrutinized the role of slavery and the agency of enslaved people in driving events of the Revolutionary period.
That accounting is itself part of a growing acceptance that the patriots represented a truly diverse coalition animated by a variety of interests, which varied by region, class, age, religion and a host of other factors, a point succinctly demonstrated in the title that the historian Alan Taylor chose for his 2016 account of the period: "American Revolutions.
If the scholarship of the past several decades has taught us anything, it is that we should be careful not to assume unanimity on the part of the colonists, as many previous interpretive histories of the patriot cause did. We recognize that our original language could be read to suggest that protecting slavery was a primary motivation for all of the colonists. The passage has been changed to make clear that this was a primary motivation for some of the colonists. A note has been appended to the story as well.
An update to the 1619 project (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/magazine/an-update-to-the-1619-project.html)
I don't really see how this can be in dispute:
QuoteHe has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
That line right there. It's about the freedom offered to the slaves by the Virginian governor.
The original text is here:
Original text (https://web.archive.org/web/20200312214249/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/black-history-american-democracy.html)
QuoteConveniently left out of our founding mythology is the fact that one of the primary reasons some of the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery. By 1776, Britain had grown deeply conflicted over its role in the barbaric institution that had reshaped the Western Hemisphere. In London, there were growing calls to abolish the slave trade. This would have upended the economy of the colonies, in both the North and the South. The wealth and prominence that allowed Jefferson, at just 33, and the other founding fathers to believe they could successfully break off from one of the mightiest empires in the world came from the dizzying profits generated by chattel slavery. In other words, we may never have revolted against Britain if some of the founders had not understood that slavery empowered them to do so; nor if they had not believed that independence was required in order to ensure that slavery would continue. It is not incidental that 10 of this nation's first 12 presidents were enslavers, and some might argue that this nation was founded not as a democracy but as a slavocracy.
It overstates the opposition to slavery in Britain and slightly exaggerate the importance it had in the American colonies, but the basic facts are true, slavery was a major cause for independence for many Americans in Virginia and other colonies.
And it's hard to find fault with that, which we already discussed elsewhere.
On Aug. 14, 1862, a mere five years after the nation's highest courts declared that no black person could be an American citizen, President Abraham Lincoln called a group of five esteemed free black men to the White House for a meeting. It was one of the few times that black people had ever been invited to the White House as guests. The Civil War had been raging for more than a year, and black abolitionists, who had been increasingly pressuring Lincoln to end slavery, must have felt a sense of great anticipation and pride.
The war was not going well for Lincoln. Britain was contemplating whether to intervene on the Confederacy's behalf, and Lincoln, unable to draw enough new white volunteers for the war, was forced to reconsider his opposition to allowing black Americans to fight for their own liberation. The president was weighing a proclamation that threatened to emancipate all enslaved people in the states that had seceded from the Union if the states did not end the rebellion. The proclamation would also allow the formerly enslaved to join the Union army and fight against their former "masters." But Lincoln worried about what the consequences of this radical step would be. Like many white Americans, he opposed slavery as a cruel system at odds with American ideals, but he also opposed black equality. He believed that free black people were a "troublesome presence" incompatible with a democracy intended only for white people. "Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals?" he had said four years earlier. "My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not."[/quote]
Thanks for showing that they decided to back away from their absurdity.
Quote from: Berkut on April 13, 2022, 05:56:51 PMThanks for showing that they decided to back away from their absurdity.
Are you going to follow their example, or just keep digging?
Does this obsession with digging holes come from your experiences in the Great War?
Not so great, akshully.
As someone who still calls himself a conservative (I think the GOP has gone into reactionary extremism, and have little real association with classical conservatism now), and votes Democrat as a "party of refuge" specifically with a mind to protecting democracy--I strongly agree with Oex's take.
I'm probably a lot further away from someone like AOC's politics than Berkut is, but I think the way AOC operates, message, organizes etc is basically a pretty good example in political competency. Now, we still live in a country that just isn't very open to what I would call traditional leftism or socialism, and for that reason I do think there are limits to where she individually can be successful--and note she is serving as sort of a representative of the far left in general.
I also think we need to be careful of structurally equating the Democratic far left and the Republican far right. If somehow the Dem far left as exemplified by people like Ro Khanna, AOC, etc won a majority in the House, 60 Seats in the Senate, and the Presidency...our democracy would not be remotely at risk. In fact I suspect a number of election issues would become considerably more democratic, and I could see major reform to anti-democratic elements of our system like gerrymandering (which was prohibited under Federal election laws from 1900 to 1930, and could easily be so again), the Supreme Court (which has always been entirely subject to the legislature for its structure), the filibuster, access to the polls etc.
If the current Republican far right won that much political power I genuinely think we'd be Orban's Hungary in five years and Putin's Russia in fifteen, or we'd devolve into some form of civil war. So let's not equate "letting" the far left take over with the Republican far right. The Democratic far left has a lot of policies that I think are really bad ideas, but it is no threat to our democratic system--the Republican far right is literally an autocratic movement inside of our political system. No different than seen in other democracies in which such movements emerged--democratically, and eventually succeeded in subverting democracy so much that they could impose a new system where their power could not longer be taken away in fair elections.
The idea however, is not to promote that the Democrats become far left, it's that the meat of the party learn how to fight like the far left fights--and maybe that's being suggested because the far lefties are at least in the party, so maybe if they know how, they can teach the Pelosi and Schumer class? That may not actually be the best way to teach them, but I think people like myself who aren't really Dem party loyalists just see a gravely dysfunctional centrist party that doesn't understand the way Republicans are winning, the reasons things like geography and Federalism specifically enshrine rural and suburban white power, and understand that what we're doing simply doesn't work.
We had to trust to a lot of good fortune for Trump to lose in 2020, and Democrats were lucky that the typically message-strong GOP proved in 2018 they really didn't know how to defend a majority, because the Democrats did a good job of running on the GOP's efforts to take people's health insurance away--and showed message discipline to almost laser focus on that issue. I'm not convinced the GOP will do that next time, and to be honest the new GOP is frankly more prone to give away social welfare benefits anyway, to some degree the repeal Obamacare movement was awkward in the context of the new GOP because it dealt with a real policy issue and not a cultural grievance. But since a lot of the Freedom Caucus made their bones off being anti-Obamacare, I think they felt a sense of weird obligation to go after it, also just out of incredible spite of the black President.
The new GOP in my opinion will no longer make such easy missteps, their administration will be daily battle after daily battle waging culture wars, often with legislation that addresses non-existent problems or that does very little (but sounds big), and they'll keep the outrage stew rolling cycle after cycle to maintain power if Democrats can't learn how to fight it.
I'll say again--I don't know the answers, but this ain't it, and the people running the Democratic party, Schumer, Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Joe Fuckin Biden--this is supposed to be their job and they ain't doing it.
I agree with all of that part of what Oex says as well though. Nothing you've said there contravenes anything I've said at all.
I think AOC is awesome, actually.
This is a bit frustrating for me, because I think I am failing at communicating in some fundamental fashion.
Let me try to summarize an important point I am trying to make.
- I do not at all equate the current far left with the current far right. Given a choice between Bernie Sanders and AOC running the country and Trump and McConnel and Gaetz, I will take Sanders and Friends anytime. There is no comparison.
- But that is not at all what I am trying to get at. I am looking the the history of what happened to the GOP. Trump did not drive them crazy - they drove themselves crazy, and Trump came along and made himself at home. The turn to radicalism started a couple decades ago, with the co-opting of the Tea Party, and pledges to never raise taxes, and moderate after moderate after moderate Republican being primaried out of office by the crazies, and then those crazies being deemed not crazy enough and getting replaced by even crazier crazies.
- THAT is what I don't want to see happen on the left. Would I take Sanders and AOC over Trump today? Of course. But I don't want to have to choose between Trump and some Trump equivalent on the left after it spends a decade or so purging the party of people like Biden or Buttigieg for not being sufficiently woke, and then purges AOC as well when she refuses to go along with something bonkers. And then what is left?
I think there is an element of intolerance on the left, and it looks a lot like that same element of intolerance on the right around the time when Obama was elected. That narrative that the GOP ran where they looked at why they lost, a bunch of them concluded that they lost because they were not inclusive enough, but the party mass said "FUCK YOU! WE LOST BECAUSE WE WERE TOO INCLUSIVE!" and embraced racism and bigotry and raised up their Trump or their Ted Cruz (lets not forget that absent Trump, it's not like the GOP had some sane people to elect instead - it would have been Cruz, who is possibly actually worse then Trump).
Most of everything else I agree with your take. The Left does need to figure out how to fight these culture wars. But I don't think they should start that by going after the moderates in their own party in the way the right did.
To a large degree the moderates own positional weakness is why they are being "gone after." I don't think this is a particularly new problem, going back to the history of Democratic successful Presidents--Obama, Clinton, LBJ, JFK, FDR all had significant differences with the furthest left wings of the Democratic party. All of them were able to create a simple messaging strategy, largely ignore the far left and make them irrelevant by making themselves big, and get things done politically. Obama I am specifically referring to his winning the 2008 election and for Clinton I mean winning in '92, I think their records get more complicated after that because governing became more complicated in the 90s on (the unusual era of cooperation between the two parties that had gone from the 1930s to the 1990s had ended, and this made the Presidency a different job in some respects than when LBJ or JFK were President.)
I think there is a good argument to be made (in fact I think I tried to steel man the "woke" position in this manner) that the best way to deal with the far left is to simply ignore them.
That positions like mine just play into the far right's desire to define the entirety of the left by is most radical elements (which is pretty standard politics), and in fact, they largely don't actually matter, and are best just ignored.
I am just not sure that is possible, especially in the culture war, which is almost entirely defined by perception rather then reality.
Of course, like you said, the ones who have done so did it by making there be something to talk about other then the culture war - actual policy. But that is a different approach then trying to fight and win the culture war. That is more like just giving up that battle and making the war about something else (hopefully actual policy), and winning that instead....
I wish others saw it OVBs way. I see way too many who seem to think the far left is an actual threat in the US and conservatives are on the defence against a left that is ruthlessly pushing extreme stuff.
Somehow.
Really does seem to me complete and total obliteration of the republicans is the only way. The Democrats are the only sane conservatives left. Let their left split off.
Totally disagree with berkuts fear the left could drive the dems crazy however. They're really quite moderate in the grand scale of things. Not at all like the fundamentalists who harked the reps fall.
Quote from: Josquius on April 18, 2022, 09:55:58 AMReally does seem to me complete and total obliteration of the republicans is the only way. The Democrats are the only sane conservatives left. Let their left split off.
That really is what needs to happen. The true political divide in the US (by the numbers) is between moderate progressives and "radical" progressives.
The parties have become too entrenched though. There was a time when parties actually had to reform themselves, even re-invent themselves. Some were actually and effectively destroyed.
Maybe we are in the midst of that, and just cannot see it from the middle?
Quote from: Josquius on April 18, 2022, 09:55:58 AMI wish others saw it OVBs way. I see way too many who seem to think the far left is an actual threat in the US and conservatives are on the defence against a left that is ruthlessly pushing extreme stuff.
Somehow.
Really does seem to me complete and total obliteration of the republicans is the only way. The Democrats are the only sane conservatives left. Let their left split off.
Yea. It's funny how many people buy into Fox's positioning on politics, even when they are opposed to the Fox agenda.
The far left has no institutional presence in American life. AOC and Bernie Sanders are left liberals; they are socialists in the European sense; advocating positions similar to that of mainstream members of European left-center parties like Labour or the SDP. There are no far left think tanks or media outlets that have any meaningful political influence. There is a scattered presence across university campuses, but without coherence or organization.
The far right - as in those elements of the right hostile to constitutional democracy in the US - OTOH has a strong and growing presence and influence. Bannon and Miller had the ear of the last President; there are multiple members of Congress; and prime time slots in the nation's largest cable news network.
the issue is not really whether the far left is preferable to the far right; it is that the far right presents an imminent, real and present dangers whereas the far left does not.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 18, 2022, 10:48:27 AMThe far left has no institutional presence in American life. AOC and Bernie Sanders are left liberals; they are socialists in the European sense; advocating positions similar to that of mainstream members of European left-center parties like Labour or the SDP. There are no far left think tanks or media outlets that have any meaningful political influence. There is a scattered presence across university campuses, but without coherence or organization.
The far right - as in those elements of the right hostile to constitutional democracy in the US - OTOH has a strong and growing presence and influence. Bannon and Miller had the ear of the last President; there are multiple members of Congress; and prime time slots in the nation's largest cable news network.
the issue is not really whether the far left is preferable to the far right; it is that the far right presents an imminent, real and present dangers whereas the far left does not.
But there isn't anything intrinsic about the right/left divide that makes this more then a particular reality in this moment.
We should be looking at the disaster of the far right taking over the right generally and be very vigilant against letting that happen on the left. And it starts (and it did start) with the radicals demanding that those who are not sufficiently radical be defined as not being part of the club.
Further, the same effort that needs to be made to avoid that is the same effort that needs to be made to combat the far rights successful culture war - not letting the radicals define the agenda, and keeping it focused on what most Americans actually care about, and more importantly, what most *progressive* Americans care about, which are in fact a majority of Americans.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 16, 2022, 11:06:36 PMI'll say again--I don't know the answers, but this ain't it, and the people running the Democratic party, Schumer, Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Joe Fuckin Biden--this is supposed to be their job and they ain't doing it.
Just to add specifically on this point I saw an article earlier about how Biden and Harris aren't really that popular and maybe the Democrats should look for another candidate in 2024. That may well be right.
From the outside the lack of a bench for the Democrats is extraordinary. This was an issue in 2016 when it was Clinton v Sanders, it was an issue in 2020 when the three front runners were into their 70s and it's still an issue.
Frankly at this stage it looks like negligence. I've said before about the right having an institutional framework that means there's a pipeline of talent for new media or think tanks (at all points on the respectability scale). But there doesn't seem to be a similar framework even within politics for fresh talent to come in, to refresh the party and move it forward.
You may dislike all of their politics - with good reason - but you look at the GOP and you can imagine a Cruz, Rubio, Hawley, Cotton, DeSantis, Haley run (even if right now you have to assume it's probably Trump's - but I'm not sure DeSantis will go along with that). There are probably others I'm missing. I'm not sure what those plausible candidates are for Democrats - I think Buttigieg and maybe AOC at some point but, off the top of my head, that's about it. Maybe I'm way off and there are obvious candidates I'm missing - but that strikes me as a huge institutional failure and it's the leadership and the grandees who are responsible.
I remember watching the documentary about the three candidates running in primaries - and AOC was one. I have no idea if I agree with her or not on most issues - I've no idea. But in that documentary you could see two things, I think - that she just had raw political talent and that there's a fair few senior Democrats who've not maintained their district. I don't get a sense that her talent's being used by the Democrats and I think instead of focusing on how to change, the lesson they've learned was how to tamp that down to stop another senior figure from losing in a primary again.
@Shelf: All those people you mentioned have one thing in common, they either got elected to Congress or a governorship. Grandees don't select people for those offices, voters do.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2022, 02:09:39 PM@Shelf: All those people you mentioned have one thing in common, they either got elected to Congress or a governorship. Grandees don't select people for those offices, voters do.
Grandees help with endorsements, with fundraising, with their network including the media, consultants, policy people etc or even just opportunities on the way up for someone to raise their profile - they also are among the group saying whether it's your turn or not.
Of the examples you gave - Cruz, Rubio, Hawley, Cotton, DeSantis, Haley - I think only Rubio and Haley have support from "grandees." And of those two, Haley has been out of a job for over 3 years and is completely untested nationally, Rubio's own presidential effort was a complete dud.
The rest have gotten high profiles by using (and abusing) conventional and new media to effect and through appeals to the deplorables.
There are younger Democrats in the House and Senate and state houses, but not as many that are as effective in the attention whoring and assorted "jackassery" that seems to draw attention these days.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2022, 01:58:27 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 16, 2022, 11:06:36 PMI'll say again--I don't know the answers, but this ain't it, and the people running the Democratic party, Schumer, Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Joe Fuckin Biden--this is supposed to be their job and they ain't doing it.
Just to add specifically on this point I saw an article earlier about how Biden and Harris aren't really that popular and maybe the Democrats should look for another candidate in 2024. That may well be right.
From the outside the lack of a bench for the Democrats is extraordinary. This was an issue in 2016 when it was Clinton v Sanders, it was an issue in 2020 when the three front runners were into their 70s and it's still an issue.
Frankly at this stage it looks like negligence. I've said before about the right having an institutional framework that means there's a pipeline of talent for new media or think tanks (at all points on the respectability scale). But there doesn't seem to be a similar framework even within politics for fresh talent to come in, to refresh the party and move it forward.
You may dislike all of their politics - with good reason - but you look at the GOP and you can imagine a Cruz, Rubio, Hawley, Cotton, DeSantis, Haley run (even if right now you have to assume it's probably Trump's - but I'm not sure DeSantis will go along with that). There are probably others I'm missing. I'm not sure what those plausible candidates are for Democrats - I think Buttigieg and maybe AOC at some point but, off the top of my head, that's about it. Maybe I'm way off and there are obvious candidates I'm missing - but that strikes me as a huge institutional failure and it's the leadership and the grandees who are responsible.
Yeah, and it looks more and more like the Republican party is the party of the future. Stacked with lots of youngish leaders with presidential aspirations and a continually energized base, on top of its improving numbers with Hispanics. It's looking like a steamroller.
The Democratic party looks like a crusty old folks home at the national level. It's disconcerting. The party which actually believes in democracy can't govern effectively and doesn't look to have a good electoral future while the authoritarian party looks increasingly powerful and effective.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 18, 2022, 02:31:38 PMOf the examples you gave - Cruz, Rubio, Hawley, Cotton, DeSantis, Haley - I think only Rubio and Haley have support from "grandees." And of those two, Haley has been out of a job for over 3 years and is completely untested nationally, Rubio's own presidential effort was a complete dud.
The rest have gotten high profiles by using (and abusing) conventional and new media to effect and through appeals to the deplorables.
There are younger Democrats in the House and Senate and state houses, but not as many that are as effective in the attention whoring and assorted "jackassery" that seems to draw attention these days.
That's fair but I think that reflects the wider institutional framework that I think the GOP has - it seems designed to allow for a pipeline of talent, including electorally. Often through raising the profiles of insurgent challengers etc. I don't think it's "jackassery" - I think it's a machine that's been built to proivde support for the right.
The Democrats seem to me more of a party with different constituencies and there's a degree of getting them on board to becoming a candidate, rather than new media or insurgencies. Instead it's working with the groups within and around the party. Which is where the grandees come in - and should also know when to move on. Because I don't think their pipeline is working.
There's no doubt in my mind that with a talent like AOC, if she was on the right there'd be think-tanks and new media all building her up and getting super-hyped for her eventual Presidential run. With the Democrats it feels more like the goal is to restrain things and try to integrate into the wider party structures.
QuoteYeah, and it looks more and more like the Republican party is the party of the future. Stacked with lots of youngish leaders with presidential aspirations and a continually energized base, on top of its improving numbers with Hispanics. It's looking like a steamroller.
The Democratic party looks like a crusty old folks home at the national level. It's disconcerting. The party which actually believes in democracy can't govern effectively and doesn't look to have a good electoral future while the authoritarian party looks increasingly powerful and effective.
Yeah - and there's some absolutely catastrophic polling for the Democrats among the young just recently.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2022, 02:16:08 PMGrandees help with endorsements, with fundraising, with their network including the media, consultants, policy people etc or even just opportunities on the way up for someone to raise their profile - they also are among the group saying whether it's your turn or not.
Fair enough.
Do you know that the grandees have in fact been throwing all that help at candidates that skew older?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2022, 03:06:06 PMFair enough.
Do you know that the grandees have in fact been throwing all that help at candidates that skew older?
Not so much that - age is a symptom. I think they are set up to protect incumbents and promote good team players who've waited for their turn.
That might work in an era of institutional dominance, as existed for the Democrats in Congress from FDR through to the end of the Cold War, but I'm not convinced it's suitable now when the New Deal and then Cold War hegemony has broken down.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2022, 03:45:14 PMNot so much that - age is a symptom. I think they are set up to protect incumbents and promote good team players who've waited for their turn.
That might work in an era of institutional dominance, as existed for the Democrats in Congress from FDR through to the end of the Cold War, but I'm not convinced it's suitable now when the New Deal and then Cold War hegemony has broken down.
I wasn't asking if you know they do it on purpose, I was asking if you know they do it at all.
Leaving aside incumbents, because frankly a party would be mad to spend resources on unseating an incumbent, when there is an open seat, do the candidates the grandees pick to back tend to be older? Are the people they recruit and encourage to run older than the field?
I've no idea - but again it's not my point and I think you've glommed onto "grandee" a bit too much :P
For example, the average age of the Democratic leadership in the House is almost 75, for Republicans it's about 45. For chairs there's still about a decade difference between the parties.
The Democrats have had at least two presidential elections where their main candidates are all well into their seventies. They don't seem to have many young rising stars coming up.
That's an institutional failure - I think at this point it looks like political negligence. My point isn't that the grandees are deliberately backing older candidates, but that they're more responsible for the institutions of Democratic party than anyone else and that it's producing these results. I'd also note that it is comfortable for them - seniority, team players who know their turn etc.
And on incumbency it's not about unseating an incumbent, but it can be about encouraging them to retire - finding other "useful" work for them to do which lets you fill that safe spot and offer to someone who's a little more lean and hungry.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2022, 01:58:27 PMFrom the outside the lack of a bench for the Democrats is extraordinary. This was an issue in 2016 when it was Clinton v Sanders, it was an issue in 2020 when the three front runners were into their 70s and it's still an issue.
Maybe that's a bit of a side-effect of the Obama era? Given that Obama was 48 when he became President and 56 when he left the position he could be seen as "jumping the line" over a number of more senior Democrats at the time like Hillary Clinton, and once he was out he was a politically spent force at an age when, had he not "jumped the line", it'd be his "turn", so to speak. Maybe you can trace the failure of the Democrat big wigs to not being able to produce a better candidate than Hillary/doubling down on Hillary after she had been defeated by Obama back in the day to run against Trump back in the 2016 elections.
Sure, if you think Pelosi and Schumer are too old, then you can call that an institutional failure, since they're voted on by the House and Senate caucuses.
But presidential candidates are chosen by the primary electorate. AFAIK the DNC doesn't supply funds for presidential primary candidates.
If you want voters to vote for younger candidates, and it's the fault of Pelosi and Schumer that they don't, that's kind of bizarre.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2022, 04:22:38 PMSure, if you think Pelosi and Schumer are too old, then you can call that an institutional failure, since they're voted on by the House and Senate caucuses.
But presidential candidates are chosen by the primary electorate. AFAIK the DNC doesn't supply funds for presidential primary candidates.
If you want voters to vote for younger candidates, and it's the fault of Pelosi and Schumer that they don't, that's kind of bizarre.
Do you think that the Democrats are a little anemic in their response to the current political landscape in the US?
If so, what do you think the causes may be?
Do you think the leadership of the party has some responsibility here, even if they shouldn't shoulder the entirety of the blame?
Let's do a bit of a morbid thought exercise. Should Biden croak, retire or just refuse to run for a 2nd term, who would be the Democrat forerunners for the Presidency?
One would think that the foremost candidate would be Harris, and the VP spot is a great launching spot for a future shot at the presidency. When she was picked as VP I assumed that was the intended path for her, to use the VP spot to raise her profile and status so she'd be the almost uncontested Dem presidential candidate once Biden was out, but I don't know if she's there yet or if she's popular enough.
Bernie? He'd be 83 (he's even older than Biden), one would think he would/should be out of the picture by now. To think if he's a realistic candidate or only on it to move the needle for the party should be besides the point.
Warren? She'd be 74, almost anywhere else in the world she should be considering retirement rather than thinking of running for the country's presidency.
Buttigieg? At 42 he would be quite the youngster in comparison with the rest of the slate of candidates, and now he'd have government experience rather than being a small town major.
Booker? He's failed in the past, but that hasn't deterred others. He keeps raking up Senate experience, but I don't know if he can raise his profile enough for a successful run at the presidency.
Besides those, who else can run for the Dem nomination? Any prominent state governors, such as Newsom, maybe? Some other Senator or Representative? Some old glory that could be convinced to run again for one last shot, like Kerry or Gore? Someone from outside politics that could run as a Democrat?
Let's keep in mind that the leading candidates for the GOP are Donald Trump, a non-Republican for most of his life who never held any office before 2017, and Ron DeSantis, until a couple of years ago a no-name Congressman.
Among younger Dem, there's Beshear (Gov KY), the 2 new Gerogia Senators, Sen. Lujan in NM, Sen Duckworth (Ill - Iraq war vet); Chris Murphy (CT). Mark Kelley (Mr. Gabby Giffords) from AZ is also a vet although a little older. Tons of House members, some of whom have interesting resumes.
Quote from: Jacob on April 18, 2022, 04:49:14 PMDo you think that the Democrats are a little anemic in their response to the current political landscape in the US?
If so, what do you think the causes may be?
Do you think the leadership of the party has some responsibility here, even if they shouldn't shoulder the entirety of the blame?
As I said before, "messaging" is not that important to me. I care about outcomes, which means policies, spending initiatives, changes to laws, changes to tax codes, etc.
I was thinking before about successful Democratic messaging. Bubba says "hope," Barry says "change" and girls throw their panties on the stage and guys scream themselves hoarse. That stuff just made me chuckle.
A lot of messaging from the left wing is about who they see as villains: the rich, corporations, transphobes, to name a few. None of those work for me personally.
The one area I think should be talked about a lot more, and I hope Democrats will do this come election season, is that Republicans represent a threat to democracy.
The problem is that you're not going to get the outcomes you desire if Democratic messaging is so deficient that they don't even get elected (or they get elected so infrequently that Republicans deal more damage than Democrats can fix). With better messaging Sinema and Manchin wouldn't be ensuring that the talk about the threat to democracy is the maximum that can be achieved.
Quote from: DGuller on April 18, 2022, 10:23:58 PMThe problem is that you're not going to get the outcomes you desire if Democratic messaging is so deficient that they don't even get elected (or they get elected so infrequently that Republicans deal more damage than Democrats can fix). With better messaging Sinema and Manchin wouldn't be ensuring that the talk about the threat to democracy is the maximum that can be achieved.
If someone can come up with some catchy slogans that get Democrats and Democratic leaning voters stampeding to the polls, I'm all for it.
My reservation is that there is no objective way to determine what is great messaging and what is "anemic" messaging. Is there a science of messaging? Can people who know this science predetermine what will work and what will not? Do you or anybody else know what exactly the Democrats have to change in their messaging? I think not, and I think the people who are criticizing the messaging are simply reflecting the age old bias of blaming the big cheese instead of the little guys when the formula can't be solved.
That all being said, I'm extremely proud of the fact that for the first Trump election I managed to convince my Laotian-American bartender (who then convinced her Laotian posse) to register for the first time and vote for Hillary. :showoff:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2022, 10:50:34 PMMy reservation is that there is no objective way to determine what is great messaging and what is "anemic" messaging. Is there a science of messaging? Can people who know this science predetermine what will work and what will not? Do you or anybody else know what exactly the Democrats have to change in their messaging? I think not, and I think the people who are criticizing the messaging are simply reflecting the age old bias of blaming the big cheese instead of the little guys when the formula can't be solved.
I'm probably the worst person ever to ask about messaging. For me personally, I don't need to be messaged, I follow what's going on sufficiently well on my own. I know damn well that either voting Republican or not voting is unconscionable, and I'm going to continue knowing that without any messages. I can't use my own experience to tell you what messaging works, and my record of knowing how other people receive things is not that stellar either.
The problem I see is that whatever the reason, the prevailing attitude of the people living in the country seems to be grossly out of whack with what happens in elections. Something has got to be wrong there somewhere. How can it be a foregone conclusion that a party that has so thoroughly discredited itself appears to be a lock to take back the Congress merely two years later?
What is the Democrats' message to conservative Americans who plan on voting GOP?
Quote from: DGuller on April 18, 2022, 10:23:58 PMThe problem is that you're not going to get the outcomes you desire if Democratic messaging is so deficient that they don't even get elected (or they get elected so infrequently that Republicans deal more damage than Democrats can fix). With better messaging Sinema and Manchin wouldn't be ensuring that the talk about the threat to democracy is the maximum that can be achieved.
Messaging is the least important bit and it's the gilding on the lily - it only works if you have a strategy and you've done the thinking on that bit. Because the messaging comes from the strategy. I think it's the strategy that is absent, not necessarily the messaging. Though I think that is often weird, not well focused and disconnected from any actual discernible strategy or agenda. I think they maybe are doing it as the leading point.
And similarly my issue with the gerontocracy isn't really about messaging - it's about whether the institutions in and around the Democratic party are working as they should, and I'm not sure they are.
Quote from: The Brain on April 19, 2022, 12:46:36 AMWhat is the Democrats' message to conservative Americans who plan on voting GOP?
Subsidized brain surgery.
Quote from: DGuller on April 18, 2022, 11:08:10 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2022, 10:50:34 PMMy reservation is that there is no objective way to determine what is great messaging and what is "anemic" messaging. Is there a science of messaging? Can people who know this science predetermine what will work and what will not? Do you or anybody else know what exactly the Democrats have to change in their messaging? I think not, and I think the people who are criticizing the messaging are simply reflecting the age old bias of blaming the big cheese instead of the little guys when the formula can't be solved.
I'm probably the worst person ever to ask about messaging. For me personally, I don't need to be messaged, I follow what's going on sufficiently well on my own. I know damn well that either voting Republican or not voting is unconscionable, and I'm going to continue knowing that without any messages. I can't use my own experience to tell you what messaging works, and my record of knowing how other people receive things is not that stellar either.
The problem I see is that whatever the reason, the prevailing attitude of the people living in the country seems to be grossly out of whack with what happens in elections. Something has got to be wrong there somewhere. How can it be a foregone conclusion that a party that has so thoroughly discredited itself appears to be a lock to take back the Congress merely two years later?
Yeah, I am with DG here. I think we probably all are, right?
We are not the target audience. Just by posting in this thread means we all have spent some effort looking at what is going on - it's not a coincidence that despite all of us often disagreeing vehemently on political issue, NONE of us are going to even consider voting for the GOP or Trump. They are just that obviously that bad.
I think we have all expressed at one time or another bafflement at how a bunch of people so obviously terrible have managed to keep clinging to power. You can certainly see the structural reasons why you can remain in power while only appealing to a minority, but even at that - how do they manage to keep that minority voting for them when they are so obviously toxic?
This has been my point for a long time - the Left is exemplary at coming up with sounder, more rational and sane arguments that appeal to other lefties. That really should not come as any surprise though, since the alternative is unhinged from reality. And surely in the court of rational thought, being unhinged from reality is a huge disadvantage.
But why doesn't that translate into results in actual politics more transparently? Because if it did, even remotely, we would not be having this argument. The GOP would be gone, and absent some structural changes we would have two parties that would represent, roughly, 35-40% of America each, and neither of them would look much like the modern GOP.
So there is something wrong with the messaging, with the politics on the left.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 19, 2022, 08:25:13 AMQuote from: The Brain on April 19, 2022, 12:46:36 AMWhat is the Democrats' message to conservative Americans who plan on voting GOP?
Subsidized brain surgery.
Isn't civilized healthcare one of their bugbears?
Quote from: The Brain on April 19, 2022, 09:08:54 AMIsn't civilized healthcare one of their bugbears?
Only when it has Obama's name attached. Otherwise, it's get your government hands off my ACA.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 19, 2022, 09:28:37 AMQuote from: The Brain on April 19, 2022, 09:08:54 AMIsn't civilized healthcare one of their bugbears?
Only when it has Obama's name attached. Otherwise, it's get your government hands off my ACA.
Gotcha.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2022, 08:27:28 AMSo there is something wrong with the messaging, with the politics on the left.
Is there political messaging that can get through to them or is there something more structural that needs to fundamentally change?
On my way back from the airport, I took a car service. The driver (American citizen living in UK with family in Bulgaria) spent a lot of time talking to me about coronavirus and how it was a plandemic and it couldn't be a pandemic if we don't see people dying in the streets, ineffectiveness of the vaccine, people's eating habits making them susceptible to bad complications, people shouldn't drink milk as animals don't once they are adults, importance of alkaline water, Trump being disagreeable but having the right idea on the lying MSM, importance of looking up information outside of CNN/BBC, how America is the one to blame for the invasion of Ukraine, the Bidens and their shady dealings in Ukraine, how Bulgarian communism was better than our so called democracy, billionaires oppressing us all among other topics like how him speaking his political views kept him from being selected to participate in a Bulgarian reality tv show about farming.
While, I put in a few things like 'well, the people who I knew didn't die in the streets because they were in the hospital and that's where they died,' it was clear he wasn't interested in a discussion just his set diatribe that he'd cribbed from various places on the internet. Accordingly, I mostly just sat saying nothing or chimed in places where I could agree (like Musk as a douche).
I raise this man as an example as it is unclear to me that there would be any messaging that would resonate unless it conformed exactly to his amorphous mass of opinions.
I think that is outcome though.
The failure in messaging happened before, and the result was that he is listening to Fox and Qanon for information instead of the BBC or whatever.
I suspect there are people who simply cannot be reached anymore, or rather, they won't change until their world narrative changes - when Fox shifts, they will shift.
So I guess for many, I would answer the latter - something structural needs to change before you are going to get through to the reallly committed right wingers.
That guy has clearly put effort into his insane world view. Probably not reachable by means any of us want to contemplate.
But what about the ones we are really talking about - the people who don't listen to Fox all day, but don't listen to MSNBC either? They might vote, but they don't put a lot of thought into it, they mostly go along with what their friends or parents or loved ones think, or what they hear in church.
I don't know the answer, but I am sure we have to figure something out. They are the key to actually winning elections.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2022, 10:03:36 PMQuote from: Jacob on April 18, 2022, 04:49:14 PMDo you think that the Democrats are a little anemic in their response to the current political landscape in the US?
If so, what do you think the causes may be?
Do you think the leadership of the party has some responsibility here, even if they shouldn't shoulder the entirety of the blame?
As I said before, "messaging" is not that important to me. I care about outcomes, which means policies, spending initiatives, changes to laws, changes to tax codes, etc.
I was thinking before about successful Democratic messaging. Bubba says "hope," Barry says "change" and girls throw their panties on the stage and guys scream themselves hoarse. That stuff just made me chuckle.
A lot of messaging from the left wing is about who they see as villains: the rich, corporations, transphobes, to name a few. None of those work for me personally.
The one area I think should be talked about a lot more, and I hope Democrats will do this come election season, is that Republicans represent a threat to democracy.
This was me for a long time--not caring about messaging. I don't know the precise moment when, but sometime between 2018 and 2020, I came to realize that policy only has a meaning to a very, very small number of voters. Messaging is everything, reality is essentially meaningless, and how policy intersects with reality is even more meaningless still.
I'm not convinced that a lot of Democrats realize this, given how much importance they continue to focus on "deliverables", which are usually some form of wealth transfer, that they think will just rocket them back to widespread popularity. It just isn't true. The working class wants messaging that appeals to them, they don't care that much about policies. It's a good sociology or maybe psychology question as to why that is, but that is how it is. The Democrats can play the game by the reality they live in, or continue to run it like West Wing or Government Camp for Political Science Wonks, and we'll see how it goes.
That really is pretty damn depressing when you think about it.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 19, 2022, 02:03:44 PMI'm not convinced that a lot of Democrats realize this, given how much importance they continue to focus on "deliverables", which are usually some form of wealth transfer, that they think will just rocket them back to widespread popularity. It just isn't true. The working class wants messaging that appeals to them, they don't care that much about policies. It's a good sociology or maybe psychology question as to why that is, but that is how it is. The Democrats can play the game by the reality they live in, or continue to run it like West Wing or Government Camp for Political Science Wonks, and we'll see how it goes.
I think a lot about an article I read after the Virginia election where Democrat consultants said what they'd learned was that a focus on Roe and the Supreme Court doesn't work, so Democrats should go back to "kitchen table"/"pocketbook" issues.
That's been the advice of Democrat consultants for decades - and for many who came up in the 90s and 00s it was probably very good advice.
But I find it baffling right now. Abortion is being severely restricted through a number of state laws. Only about a third of Americans support those policies. Roe is coming up for challenge in the Supreme Court shortly. And this is an issue many Democrat-supporting activists and Democrat politicians are really passionate about. Despite all that - they're choosing and their consultants advice is don't talk about it. It's madness.
Same goes for the risks around democracy.
And by all means talk about pocketbook issues but it needs to be real, tangible and understandable. No-one cares or should care about policy - that is the purpose of politics. If you need three sheets of A4 and a complex understanding of tax credits to understand your policy - then it's not a pocketbook/kitchen table policy. That, incidentally, was the genius of Bill Clinton - not "hope" - but his ability to explain policies to a normal audience. I still don't think there's anyone better at that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2022, 10:50:34 PMQuote from: DGuller on April 18, 2022, 10:23:58 PMThe problem is that you're not going to get the outcomes you desire if Democratic messaging is so deficient that they don't even get elected (or they get elected so infrequently that Republicans deal more damage than Democrats can fix). With better messaging Sinema and Manchin wouldn't be ensuring that the talk about the threat to democracy is the maximum that can be achieved.
If someone can come up with some catchy slogans that get Democrats and Democratic leaning voters stampeding to the polls, I'm all for it.
My reservation is that there is no objective way to determine what is great messaging and what is "anemic" messaging. Is there a science of messaging? Can people who know this science predetermine what will work and what will not? Do you or anybody else know what exactly the Democrats have to change in their messaging? I think not, and I think the people who are criticizing the messaging are simply reflecting the age old bias of blaming the big cheese instead of the little guys when the formula can't be solved.
There isn't a science, but there is absolutely an aptitude right? There is almost a blueprint for how to appeal as a populist--simple messaging, repeated claims, simple solutions for complex problems, vilify an identifiable enemy.
That sounds like Trump, but go read about FDR's campaigns some time, he could literally have written the book on running campaigns like that--and FDR didn't invent the technique, he just ran it well. The old school Democratic machine, which kinda died off sometime after Nixon became President, knew how to do this and the Republicans were often left struggling to find a response. The table started flipping in the late 70s, and by the time Atwater was running Papa Bush's campaign it was flipping hard, so this isn't even that new of a situation that the GOP knows how to play populism. What's bad is at some point around the middle of Clinton's Presidency the Democrats as a party lost any form of populist messaging competency.
The Democrats, tracing their lineage back through the New Deal, the Populist movement of the late 19th / early 20th century, have never had sustained success without a populist appeal. It is unlikely they will do so in the 21st century.
The problem I think a lot of Democrats are struggling with is they probably "get" some populist rhetoric they could use--and some of them have even tried (see: Tim Ryan, Fetterman in Pennsylvania, Bernie, AOC), but nothing has "ignited" like it has for the right. Why is that? My personal theory is because in modern politics where we no longer have the party political "machines" that amplify messaging to all the country's union halls, women's clubs and etc (because many of these institutions no longer exist), the Democrats have lost the fuel or lighter fluid needed to get the low fire roaring.
The old Democratic populism relied on institutions that, for various reasons related to how our society / culture have developed and changed, have atrophied away almost to nothingness.
The Republicans were not, historically, a populist party. While they had some flirtations (as both parties did) with the early 20th century Progressive and Populist movements, that didn't hold much after the Taft Presidency.
As the 20th century came to a close, Republicans found in a corner of the country a movement that kind of helped them become populist--the evangelical movement. Through their catering to evangelicals in the 80s they got in to early forms of heavily propagandized media--Christian television and Christian radio, this lead quite quickly to the early far right terrestrial radio shows, which built up a sort of low level far right propaganda machine. Then in the later 90s Fox News comes out, and suddenly they have their own cable television network to run with the same things they'd been doing on more niche outlets previously. Fox News has never been that important in terms of raw number of viewers, in fact cable news in general never has been. But it has been quite important in influence.
Building out the right-wing propaganda machine on cable news required building out a whole ecosystem of right wing propaganda. For there to be a right wing news network you need right wing experts to interview, you need various right wing celebrities to fill air time. The experts came from the conservative Think Tanks, which had been bubbling around among the elite Republican wing of the party for decades. The celebrities they made out of whole cloth sometimes, and they were a veritable Rogue's Gallery, some of them are still prominent today.
In parallel the early conservative internet was building out. The Drudge Report was an early right-leaning internet only news source that became very prominent on right wing internet. Unlike modern fake news, Matt Drudge really isn't much of a hack, and I'm not even sure he identifies as Republican, but he made sure his site had a certain bent--articles and commentary surfaced that was mostly negative news for Democrats, and negative news for Republicans tended to not get as much play. Drudge was of course child's play compared to what would come.
During the 2000s as an old cadre of Old Guard Republicans and Neoconservatives ensconced themselves throughout the Bush Administration and in other positions of power, the populist right was steadily building out its internet ecosystem.
The Gateway Pundit started in 2004 as sort of a far right equivalent of the DailyKos, and didn't get much traction for years, but the seed was planted (The Gateway Pundit was the fourth-most visited website by Trump supporters in 2020--and often peddles noxiously fake news.)
Breitbart starts in 2007, probably the leader of its class, while more respectable back then, this was kind of the beginning of right wing propaganda ramping up even more. Right wing podcasts are started, right wing TV, insurgent right wing online news sites, etc all start to coordinate. Billionaires start funneling money into some of these ventures. Another new round of celebrities, often more virulent, hateful, and demagogic than the hack conservative pundits of the early aughts and late 90s.
Little of this is really accidental or organic, entire organizations existed and were built up to propagate it, funded by wealthy politically involved conservatives. Steve Bannon becomes important in this movement, probably more important than most would like to admit. The late 2000s and early 2010s is when the insurgent far right also begins to realize that for message discipline to work you can't have internal debate. The conservative who were not on board started to be either hounded out of the party, hounded into silence, or scared into mimicking the extremists. Several Republican politicians show examples of these behaviors:
-Eric Cantor, Jeff Flake, Lincoln Chafee, John Boehner are examples of moderates being ran out
-Mitch McConnell, Mike DeWine are examples of more conservative but "sane" types who realized they had to shut up and never directly cross the extremists
-Lindsey Graham is the archetype of just fully becoming an extremist because you can't imagine life outside of politics and you realize your existing path was too close to the center
Meanwhile we're into the 2010s and social media is becoming really big, and this stuff is starting to flood social media. Having already mastered non-mainstream media, the far right was in a much better position to get into social media and elevate their propaganda efforts even further. The Democrats then and even now seem almost absent from this space.
Now come to where we are now, the GOP has a massive propaganda machine. It has huge presence on very popular podcasts, there are almost no significantly popular left of center, or centrist equivalents of podcasters like Mark Levin, Dan Bongino, Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, Dana Loesch, and that's not to mention what I call "conservative-adjacent" podcasters who are not ideological Republican authoritarians but who hate a lot of things about the Dems (mostly politically correctness, but also typically gun control and anything related to taxes)--your Joe Rogans, Sam Harris, Bill Maher types. These people are all stars, the left basically has Rachel Maddow who by herself has less influence than almost any of these people I named.
Married to those popular podcasts you have multiple highly rated Fox News shows that all these podcasters appear on. All of these podcasters have huge social media followings, their shares, likes, retweets, YouTube vides etc get shared and re-shared and shared and re-shared. There is OAN for even more further right shit. When you hear some imbecile far right person today say "I don't watch TV or read the newspapers", but they are conversant in all the conservative grievance war stuff--this is where it comes from. And note that a lot of these people have influence even if someone doesn't religiously listen to their daily/weekly podcasts, because of how clips of their shit gets massively re-shared on social media--there is no Democratic equivalent whatsoever.
The party also can't create this, because the GOP didn't create this and wouldn't know how. The Democratic party can't either. But what the Democratic party can and should do is be finding its richest and most engaged donors and making them understand parallel Democratic institutions needs to exist, right now there is literally
nothing[/i]. We are in a war with slick, professional propagandists, and we're sending in Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer, who because they still adhere to 20th century standards of journalism won't even say anything rude about these people. It's literally a one sided fight, and the Democrats don't even have guns or ammunition.
I disagree with you Biscuit about the milk toastinesss of CNN. In fact I think it's somewhat ridiculous how much time they spend on new revelations that Ivanka's hairdresser got emails about the coordinated attack on the Capitol.
The left has things like MSNBC and Bill Mayer, basically all the late night guys.
I'm willing to concede the possibility that the Democrats need Tamany Hall and need to repeat, ,repeat, repeat or whatever, but I think you should consider the possibility that outside a small shrill twitterati minority Democratic voters are just apathetic. It explains things as well as your theory and is as consistent with the available facts.
The irony is that Sam Harris is a full on, total progressive left wing liberal. Same with Bill Maher.
It is the left that has demanded that he be defined otherwise. And he is has a huge following.
If that's what the left has, I'm reminded of Peter Cook's line: "those wonderful Berlin cabarets which did so much to stop the rise of Hitler and prevent the outbreak of the Second World War".
They seem like they're doing very different things, no? :hmm:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 19, 2022, 02:36:39 PMNow come to where we are now, the GOP has a massive propaganda machine. It has huge presence on very popular podcasts, there are almost no significantly popular left of center, or centrist equivalents of podcasters like Mark Levin, Dan Bongino, Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, Dana Loesch, and that's not to mention what I call "conservative-adjacent" podcasters who are not ideological Republican authoritarians but who hate a lot of things about the Dems (mostly politically correctness, but also typically gun control and anything related to taxes)--your Joe Rogans, Sam Harris, Bill Maher types. These people are all stars, the left basically has Rachel Maddow who by herself has less influence than almost any of these people I named.
Here's a ranking of US political podcasts (on Apple):
https://chartable.com/charts/itunes/us-politics-podcasts
1
▶–
Crooked Media
Pod Save America
2
▶–
WarRoom.org
Bannon's War Room
3
▲6
Blaze Podcast Network
Louder with Crowder
4
▶–
NPR
The NPR Politics Podcast
5
▶–
The Daily Wire
Candace
6
▲2
Breaking Points
Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar
7
▼1
The First TV
The President's Daily Brief
8
▼1
Premiere Networks
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
9
▲20
FiveThirtyEight, 538, ABC News, Nate Silver
FiveThirtyEight Politics
10
▲5
Tim Pool
Tim Pool Daily Show
#1 Pod Save America is run by former Obama aides. Lets call them left.
#2 is Steve Bannon. Right
#3 is from Blaze (Glen Beck). Looking at recent episodes - yup right.
#4 NPR. Left.
#5 Candace Owens - right.
#6 Krystal ans Saagar. Never heard of them.. Looking at recent episodes my best guess is centre-left.
#7 President's Daily Brief, attempting to summarize the days news in 20 minutes. Centre
#8 Clay Travis and Buck Sexton. Their blurb talks about border crisis and cancel culture. Right.
#9 538. Going to call it centre-left.
#10 Tim Pool (man this is more work than I thought). Looks like a former lefty who is now Trump-sympathetic. Right.
Seems like a fairly even distribution honestly...
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 19, 2022, 03:00:41 PMIf that's what the left has, I'm reminded of Peter Cook's line: "those wonderful Berlin cabarets which did so much to stop the rise of Hitler and prevent the outbreak of the Second World War".
They seem like they're doing very different things, no? :hmm:
Not that different from Limbaugh's mockery and satire.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 19, 2022, 03:09:25 PMNot that different from Limbaugh's mockery and satire.
I couldn't say.
I think the media side of things matters - but I think it matters less than the more fringe media on the right and the think-tanky side of things. What powers the media on the right is that set of institutions which, I think, is swimming in some pretty deep and dangerous waters right now (but that's always been a temptation) - the right-wing mediasphere is at the end of that production line. The thinking side which also includes more respectable figures on the right like, say, Ross Douthat is I think what is different and that feeds through into the right media - with enough distance to have plausible deniability as it alters more and more the further it goes from seminar to Shapiro.
I think that's what's lacking on the left (I think for reasons to do with their donors) - so all the left media, if that's what you think they are does, is skewer and satirise conventional wisdom, the media and/or conservatives. That's not enough - and crucially that's not a political agenda (though it is an agenda of stance or style).
I think media, messaging, disinformation, misinforamtion are secondary and a more comfortable reason. I think the issue is strategy and the way the Democrats work. One just requires saying the same thing one more time until people realise the truth and if you fail it's because you wouldn't stoop to there level; the other requires work.
I think OvB is totally right on those points around other institutions that supported democracy - trade unions, women's clubs etc. I'm reading an interesting book on technocracy and populism (and that they basically overlap) which has a lot of thought on that - I'm relatively convinced on their argument about those institutions - although it's from a very European perspective so not totally applicable. It's called Technopopulism - I'd recommend by some of the guys who were regular guests (especially on France and Italy) on Talking Politics.
Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2022, 03:09:10 PM#1 Pod Save America is run by former Obama aides. Lets call them left.
#2 is Steve Bannon. Right
#3 is from Blaze (Glen Beck). Looking at recent episodes - yup right.
#4 NPR. Left.
#5 Candace Owens - right.
Focusing on 1 through 5; the three right wings podcasters are all fire breathing lunatics pushing far right agendas. I don't know the Pod Save America people but if they are typical Obamaites they are not the left wing equivalent. And the NPR is very epitome of bien pensant milquetoasty objectivity. Based on this part of the list, the thesis that the left is bringing a plastic spork to a gunfight is supported.
The idea that NPR is "left" in the same breath you say "Steve Bannon is right" and hence there is balance makes me want to hurl.
But hey, the media is all biased, right?
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2022, 03:36:04 PMThe idea that NPR is "left" in the same breath you say "Steve Bannon is right" and hence there is balance makes me want to hurl.
But hey, the media is all biased, right?
I'd argue they are equivalent, but not in the way you'd think. It's because the political spectrum is largely based on what the elite thinks is the political spectrum. However, the elite has an institutionalised liberal/left-wing bias that means that what they think is the centre is actually more like the centre-left to the public at large. So what is perceived as left-wing is in fact even more so, and what is right is less so.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2022, 03:36:04 PMThe idea that NPR is "left" in the same breath you say "Steve Bannon is right" and hence there is balance makes me want to hurl.
But hey, the media is all biased, right?
I don't know what you want me to say.
Is it true that Steve Bannon and Candace Owens are "fire-breathing lunatics" as Minsky put it, while NPR or 538 is not, then sure! I totally agree. I was just trying to comment that right wing voices do not solely dominate podcasting.
And classifying is hard! The one podcast I do listen to, The Bulwark, came in at #11. Where the hell would I put them? It's mostly #NeverTrump Republicans. But since in the end they do overtly support Biden I guess I'd call them centre-left, although guys like Bill Kristol would squirm at that description.
I want you to say what you know to be true.
That NPR is NOT left, it is neutral. That 538 is neutral.
#NeverTrumpRepublicans are rather obviously right. Just because they are not fucking crazy doesn't mean they are not right.
Mitt Romney is not centre left because he doesn't slob on Trump.
Quote from: PJL on April 19, 2022, 03:43:02 PMI'd argue they are equivalent, but not in the way you'd think. It's because the political spectrum is largely based on what the elite thinks is the political spectrum. However, the elite has an institutionalised liberal/left-wing bias that means that what they think is the centre is actually more like the centre-left to the public at large. So what is perceived as left-wing is in fact even more so, and what is right is less so.
The national median voter voted for Obama twice, Clinton, and then Biden. In each case pretty large margins. So empirical reality indicates that the center is a hell of lot closer to Joe Biden than to Steve Bannon.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2022, 04:12:30 PMI want you to say what you know to be true.
That NPR is NOT left, it is neutral. That 538 is neutral.
There might be an argument on 538, but not NPR.
Just because an outlet like NPR still adheres more to attempting to stick to the objective truth that a Bannon does not, does not mean they don't have an ideological bias.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 19, 2022, 02:51:29 PMI disagree with you Biscuit about the milk toastinesss of CNN. In fact I think it's somewhat ridiculous how much time they spend on new revelations that Ivanka's hairdresser got emails about the coordinated attack on the Capitol.
The left has things like MSNBC and Bill Mayer, basically all the late night guys.
I'm willing to concede the possibility that the Democrats need Tamany Hall and need to repeat, ,repeat, repeat or whatever, but I think you should consider the possibility that outside a small shrill twitterati minority Democratic voters are just apathetic. It explains things as well as your theory and is as consistent with the available facts.
I mean I frankly think you're off your rocker if you really think CNN is an effective part of the Democratic propaganda arm, I don't think they are anything close to it. Ivanka Trump was an appointed officer in the executive branch of government, holding one of the highest in terms of order of precedence positions you can hold in a White House. She was an entirely appropriate target of public scrutiny by a media outlet of any type. Given that right before CNN spent (what was frankly a small amount of time) on Ivanka during the Trump years, it spent dozens of hours a week talking about Hillary Clinton's emails...the idea that it is remotely a part of Democratic party strategy or combativeness is just asinine, and frankly stupid.
Note--as part of traditional media, I don't actually think CNN or the Washington Post
should function as appendages of the Democratic party. While I think its influence is decreased and going to decrease even further, I do think there is residual value in some form of mainstream press that attempts some balance of appropriate journalistic impartiality (note that that never meant absolute neutrality at any point.) I'm saying that the Democrats
think they can win, or at least score major victories, in the mainstream press and that convert to political success--I'm saying that isn't how it works any longer. The mainstream press has limited influence and isn't an effective warrior in your cause if you're a Democrat, nor is that really their function. The Democrats need their own media strategy and media ecosystem, they have virtually none at present.
Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2022, 02:53:45 PMThe irony is that Sam Harris is a full on, total progressive left wing liberal. Same with Bill Maher.
It is the left that has demanded that he be defined otherwise. And he is has a huge following.
I mean that's factually incorrect, Maher does not describe himself that way and never has. Maher spent the majority of the last 30 years describing himself as a libertarian, and he shifted to using the word "liberal" sometime in the mid-2010s. Maher however, as I said, is useful to Republicans because he's a non-conservative that on certain axes of the cultural wars has conservative leanings on some topics--I was careful about my wording there. Rogan is harder to in down, but he endorsed Bernie Sanders and has occasionally shown an affinity for things like socialized medicine, is extremely socially liberal on many topics and etc. Harris is absolutely not a progressive--like Maher he describes himself as a liberal, came out in support of Clinton in 2016 specifically in opposition to Sanders. And as I mentioned--all of them have a number of topics in which their opinions are rapidly weaponized by the right.
All three are also fairly dishonest about a number of pet topics which is honestly a whole other thread. But Maher and Rogan have both promoted vaccine skepticism at different times in their career (Maher was very anti-influenza vaccines years ago), Harris has often promoted "controversial" guests and then never challenged him--the infamous author of the Bell Curve, Charles Murray being one of them. Harris values things like freedom to spread disinformation more than he values countering disinformation, as evidenced by his horrible interview with Murray in which he didn't challenge Murray at all.
Here is an interesting example of how these non-conservatives who have some overlap with the right get weaponized:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/bill-maher-joe-rogan-democrats-midterms-no-common-sense
I actually watched the Maher interview, Maher spends a decent portion of that interview talking about how Republicans are far too crazy and terrible to trust with government, but then criticizes Democratic strategy and performance. Fox News reports on his words verbatim but strips out all the comments negative to the GOP, which gives the impression that this somewhat centrist figure went on Joe Rogan to shit all over the Democrats. That is basic Republican media behavior 101. FWIW I am not blaming Maher for things like that, all I said is he's part of a cadre of figures who have value in being used by the GOP propaganda machine, in part because they are outside of the conservative ecosystem and have some views that overlap with the conservative voting base. I am not alleging these figures actively or intentionally coordinate with GOP propaganda.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 19, 2022, 04:20:11 PMQuote from: PJL on April 19, 2022, 03:43:02 PMI'd argue they are equivalent, but not in the way you'd think. It's because the political spectrum is largely based on what the elite thinks is the political spectrum. However, the elite has an institutionalised liberal/left-wing bias that means that what they think is the centre is actually more like the centre-left to the public at large. So what is perceived as left-wing is in fact even more so, and what is right is less so.
The national median voter voted for Obama twice, Clinton, and then Biden. In each case pretty large margins. So empirical reality indicates that the center is a hell of lot closer to Joe Biden than to Steve Bannon.
I said the public at large, not the national median voter. Two different things. Non-voters aren't necessarily moderate. If anything they are apathetic to democracy, and will be receptive to populists, particularly far right ones.
Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2022, 03:09:10 PM#1 Pod Save America is run by former Obama aides. Lets call them left.
#2 is Steve Bannon. Right
#3 is from Blaze (Glen Beck). Looking at recent episodes - yup right.
#4 NPR. Left.
#5 Candace Owens - right.
#6 Krystal ans Saagar. Never heard of them.. Looking at recent episodes my best guess is centre-left.
#7 President's Daily Brief, attempting to summarize the days news in 20 minutes. Centre
#8 Clay Travis and Buck Sexton. Their blurb talks about border crisis and cancel culture. Right.
#9 538. Going to call it centre-left.
#10 Tim Pool (man this is more work than I thought). Looks like a former lefty who is now Trump-sympathetic. Right.
Seems like a fairly even distribution honestly...
Essentially none of the liberal podcasts are remotely equivalent to the sort of media that I'm talking about that the right has and that these huge right wing celebrities have. Pod Save America is basically a policy wonk show, it has virtually no social influence, and spends a lot of its time chatting about process issues. It doesn't spend all that much time at all attacking Republicans. Now, its hosts are absolutely liberals who hate Trump and Trumpism, but their audience is basically other liberals and talking about wonky policy shit and arguing about messaging that might help in winning campaigns. It isn't close to what propaganda is--propaganda is media designed to evoke emotions and inculcate acceptance of specific ideas. Pod Save America is a lefty pod but it isn't intended to persuade you to their side of the aisle, it is intended to more make other lefties focus on the process and strategy issues they think is important.
There is essentially no equivalent of a podcast like this for the far right because the far right podcasts are all polemicals that preach about America's heartland under sage, rapist minorities coming to rape their daughters, Christians being persecuted in America by socialist/communist Democratic officials and other things of that nature.
The FiveThirtyEight podcast its hosts are left-leaning but it is even less political than Pod Save America. NPR is not a political podcast, it is a straight news podcast.
Meanwhile several of those right wing podcasts are almost tailor made to generate short 5-10 minute sound bytes that can be disseminated around Twitter / Facebook and right wing social media circles to reinforce core Republican lies and myths about how our society works, to keep their people angry and upset. There is genuinely nothing like that on the left that has any appreciable influence or power.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 19, 2022, 04:28:27 PMI mean I frankly think you're off your rocker if you really think CNN is an effective part of the Democratic propaganda arm, I don't think they are anything close to it. Ivanka Trump was an appointed officer in the executive branch of government, holding one of the highest in terms of order of precedence positions you can hold in a White House. She was an entirely appropriate target of public scrutiny by a media outlet of any type. Given that right before CNN spent (what was frankly a small amount of time) on Ivanka during the Trump years, it spent dozens of hours a week talking about Hillary Clinton's emails...the idea that it is remotely a part of Democratic party strategy or combativeness is just asinine, and frankly stupid.
I didn't say CNN was an *effective* part of Democratic messaging, since if we define effective messaging as getting out enough votes to see off another Trump candidacy or hold back the upcoming midterm wave we all agree that whoever is doing it it is not effective. Rather I disagreed with your description of CNN as a namby pamby straight news outfit with no editorial content. I gave the fictitious example of Ivanka's hairdresser to point out how trivial they can get in their reporting of Trump's litany of misdeeds.
I mean I never said CNN had no editorial content, but they are not a propaganda outlet. There is a significant difference. Before the early 2000s news was dominated in both print, broadcast and cable forms by a few outlets that all tried to follow broadly understood rules of journalistic ethics, and who all tried to create a wall of separation between whatever editorial product they produced and their news coverage. Every one of these traditional media outlets had a bias, and most had a proclaimed editorial stance--like the old days when most towns had two newspapers--a Democrat and a Republican paper, but their news reporters were mostly apolitical. I labor to understand why I'm explaining what all of us know and have lived through, that is obviously not how most people get their news any longer. Traditional media is essentially gutted of importance, on the right it has been replaced by professional propaganda in the form of a many-headed hydra of a far right media network. The left has literally nothing like that, the left has a few lefty outlets that have virtually no cultural capital, no social media influence, etc. Then they have the legacy mainstream media--which because they still largely adhere to the old norms aren't really putting the thumbs on the scale that much for anyone.
Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2022, 03:09:10 PM#1 Pod Save America is run by former Obama aides. Lets call them left.
#2 is Steve Bannon. Right
#3 is from Blaze (Glen Beck). Looking at recent episodes - yup right.
#4 NPR. Left.
#5 Candace Owens - right.
#6 Krystal ans Saagar. Never heard of them.. Looking at recent episodes my best guess is centre-left.
#7 President's Daily Brief, attempting to summarize the days news in 20 minutes. Centre
#8 Clay Travis and Buck Sexton. Their blurb talks about border crisis and cancel culture. Right.
#9 538. Going to call it centre-left.
#10 Tim Pool (man this is more work than I thought). Looks like a former lefty who is now Trump-sympathetic. Right.
Seems like a fairly even distribution honestly...
Saagar is a right wing populist, Krystal is a left wing one. So it is supposed to be this anti-establishment show that attacks the establishment from both sides. Calling it center-left is hilarious.
All of those strike me as rather dull-ish news things and then extremist right wing propaganda. That makes your conclusions very misleading. If the list was full of Young Turks type left wing ideologues demanding socialized medicine or something and passionately taking down the right wing or some type of radical left wing culture war stuff then maybe I might call that balanced. We need to be fair and accurately describe these programs and what they intend to accomplish before just clumsily trying to place them on an ideological axis.
I mean sure both some staid Tory newspaper from the 1930s and Joseph Goebbels may both be right wing I guess but hardly the same kind of media with the same kind of impact on its audience. One is going to get people to flood the streets and smash Jewish shops...and the other is a nice thing to discuss at the gentlemen's club.
Harris describes himself as a left wing progressive, and does so pretty regularly. He definitely considers himself to be on the left.
Your "evidence" that he is not is to just recite the litany of sins the identity politics radicals have labeled him with when THEY claim he is on the right. That doesn't make him on the right.
That is evidence that my point is correct - that there are those on the left who look at what happened with the GOP and want to emulate it.
Harris is only US-left tho.
Quote from: Berkut on April 20, 2022, 07:48:03 AMHarris describes himself as a left wing progressive, and does so pretty regularly. He definitely considers himself to be on the left.
Your "evidence" that he is not is to just recite the litany of sins the identity politics radicals have labeled him with when THEY claim he is on the right. That doesn't make him on the right.
That is evidence that my point is correct - that there are those on the left who look at what happened with the GOP and want to emulate it.
I never said he was on the right, so I can only assume you're having reading problems--I hope you can resolve them.
OK, that was fun.
Sam Harris is a left wing progressive.
Any census of podcasts that does not place him in the "left wing" column is incorrect.
Tell me something here.
When you're on the ground in the US is "woke" really such a real thing and identity politics the domain of the left rather than the right, which isn't what I get from mostly online interactions with Americans and consumption of their media, or is berkut just odd?
Is that a real question or just yet another deranged anti-anti-woke passive aggressive shot?
Quote from: DGuller on April 20, 2022, 11:18:06 AMIs that a real question or just yet another deranged anti-anti-woke passive aggressive shot?
Translation: "It's real."
Quote from: Josquius on April 20, 2022, 11:02:48 AMTell me something here.
When you're on the ground in the US is "woke" really such a real thing and identity politics the domain of the left rather than the right, which isn't what I get from mostly online interactions with Americans and consumption of their media, or is berkut just odd?
I don't think there is any question that I am odd.
Quote from: Josquius on April 20, 2022, 11:02:48 AMTell me something here.
When you're on the ground in the US is "woke" really such a real thing and identity politics the domain of the left rather than the right, which isn't what I get from mostly online interactions with Americans and consumption of their media, or is berkut just odd?
I would say that identity politics is definitely a thing. Wokeness per se is something I don't encounter a ton, less even than PC in its heyday, especially if we take the meaning as it was originally intended, which is it's a black only thing about the pervasiveness of racism. Which is not to say that accusations of racism don't fly around all the time. Just that people making the accusations don't wear shirts that say "I'm woke."
Quote from: Berkut on April 20, 2022, 08:22:30 AMOK, that was fun.
Sam Harris is a left wing progressive.
Any census of podcasts that does not place him in the "left wing" column is incorrect.
Yeah because Hillary supporters who bashed Bernie back in '16 are left wing progressives. You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you? I often forget how worthless your opinions are, thanks for reminding me.
Yes, you can choose to not support Bernie and still be a left wing progressive.
Your rather excitable hate speech does nothing for your argument, by the way.
It is interesting that OvB defines "left wing progressive" strictly based on who someone supported in a primary. It doesn't matter what *policies* you support, or what your vision of the future is, or what you believe to be the right things to do - you didn't support Bernie over Clinton, so therefore you cannot be a progressive.
The embrace and glorification of the personality cult in place of actual principle is not something that only Trumpers hold to be self evident, apparently.
If anything I think the trend to personality cult and the power of an individual in the system to "solve" things is stronger on the left/liberal side in recent years - I think in response to Trump. That the solution won't be through politics but a redemptive individual: Comey, Mueller etc. But also the weird personality cult around, say, RBG, similar around Hilary and even the weird stans of Jen Psaki.
I don't know if it's just that they're younger so it's maybe reflecting internet culture/stanning more or if it's something deeper (such as too much focus on individuals, reluctance to endorse "politics" maybe?).
I'll just say, Psaki is definitely cuter than Hillary or RBG.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2022, 02:32:06 PMIf anything I think the trend to personality cult and the power of an individual in the system to "solve" things is stronger on the left/liberal side in recent years - I think in response to Trump. That the solution won't be through politics but a redemptive individual: Comey, Mueller etc. But also the weird personality cult around, say, RBG, similar around Hilary and even the weird stans of Jen Psaki.
I don't know if it's just that they're younger so it's maybe reflecting internet culture/stanning more or if it's something deeper (such as too much focus on individuals, reluctance to endorse "politics" maybe?).
Remember also the messianic quality of the Obama 2008 campaign...
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2022, 03:17:09 PMRemember also the messianic quality of the Obama 2008 campaign...
Fair. But I liked that so it doesn't count :P
So interestingly the Florida legislature appears to be willing to go along with DeSantis' attack on Disney. This is some interesting stuff--Disney has been a reliable contributor primarily to Republican candidates for decades, I see this as a major opening front in the war between the "New GOP" and corporations. I wouldn't be shocked if in a decade's time the GOP is by far receiving less political support from corporate donors, probably by a pretty significant ratio if trends like this continue.
It looks like in terms of central Florida (which is no Democratic bastion by any means), it is mostly a net loss to do what DeSantis is asking for--which is dissolving the Reedy Creek Improvement District that operates Disney World. Right now Disney World does not pay full taxes to local governments (it does pay some local property tax though, and I believe always has), if the Improvement District is dissolved Disney can no longer legally operate a police department and would likely not be able to operate the fire department or EMS. This would mean Orange and Osceola counties would have to step in. The easiest way to do so would be to transfer those departments to those county governments. The Tax Collector of Orange County has said the cost of assuming responsibility for these services would be around $105m/yr net, even factoring in Disney now paying more local taxes. It would essentially require a 15 to 20% hike in the local property tax rate to cover the gap.
The Reedy Creek District also has $2bn in bonds outstanding, if it no longer exists as a legal entity the local governments become responsible for holding and servicing that debt. Note that currently Disney funds payments to these debts out of its own revenues, it appears that there is a decent chance DeSantis "punishment" for Disney will reduce Disney World's operating overhead by shifting the cost of emergency services on to the tax payers, and will reduce a bond liability they indirectly were taking care of by $1.5-2bn.
Quote from: Josquius on April 20, 2022, 11:02:48 AMTell me something here.
When you're on the ground in the US is "woke" really such a real thing
it's real enough in Canada. To comply with Federal funding rules, universities must offer their best jobs to non white males. Any white male is automatically discarded.
Quebec has also been kinda forced to instute a similar policy for a new police recruitment program: only non whites are now allowed to apply for this program, which enrolls people already working as civilians in police departments in a special accelerated course that gets them into the police academy.
Effectively, we have legalized discrimination in the name of diversity and pick candidates on their ethnic origins rather than their competence.
Quote from: viper37 on April 20, 2022, 09:16:27 PMQuote from: Josquius on April 20, 2022, 11:02:48 AMTell me something here.
When you're on the ground in the US is "woke" really such a real thing
it's real enough in Canada. To comply with Federal funding rules, universities must offer their best jobs to non white males. Any white male is automatically discarded.
Quebec has also been kinda forced to instute a similar policy for a new police recruitment program: only non whites are now allowed to apply for this program, which enrolls people already working as civilians in police departments in a special accelerated course that gets them into the police academy.
Effectively, we have legalized discrimination in the name of diversity and pick candidates on their ethnic origins rather than their competence.
That system of race preference would largely be illegal in the United States. You can build programs intended to boost minority hiring, you can make racial diversity a "factor" in admissions and hiring to some degree, but strict quotas or things like that are explicitly unconstitutional as per Supreme Court precedent.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 20, 2022, 11:07:31 PMThat system of race preference would largely be illegal in the United States. You can build programs intended to boost minority hiring, you can make racial diversity a "factor" in admissions and hiring to some degree, but strict quotas or things like that are explicitly unconstitutional as per Supreme Court precedent.
It may not be wise to take viper's description of how things work at face value.
Yeah, I doubt that is right. Even with stuff like BAME officer you couldn't get away with specifically excluding white people. And why white men specifically?
In Sweden it's illegal to make hiring decisions based on skin color. With some exceptions. For instance it's legal to do it when casting movies, stage plays, and similar. If it's a decisive requirement, and appropriate and necessary (my italics) in order to achieve the purpose of the job.
Given the existence of color-blind casting I doubt that an actor having a specific skin color is ever necessary these days. In practice though I've never heard of anyone getting into trouble.
I think most reasonable people should be fine with the concept that some films / plays need people of a specific appearance. I think it's entirely fine to cast people with ahistorical skin appearance, too, and many things do that now. But at the same time I think of a movie like "12 Years a Slave", and yeah, I don't really think casting the slaves with a mixture of white guys in blackface and actual black people would set the right tone for a movie like that.
Quote from: viper37 on April 20, 2022, 09:16:27 PMQuote from: Josquius on April 20, 2022, 11:02:48 AMTell me something here.
When you're on the ground in the US is "woke" really such a real thing
it's real enough in Canada. To comply with Federal funding rules, universities must offer their best jobs to non white males. Any white male is automatically discarded.
Quebec has also been kinda forced to instute a similar policy for a new police recruitment program: only non whites are now allowed to apply for this program, which enrolls people already working as civilians in police departments in a special accelerated course that gets them into the police academy.
Effectively, we have legalized discrimination in the name of diversity and pick candidates on their ethnic origins rather than their competence.
That sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me.
Source?
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2022, 08:56:08 AMQuote from: viper37 on April 20, 2022, 09:16:27 PMQuote from: Josquius on April 20, 2022, 11:02:48 AMTell me something here.
When you're on the ground in the US is "woke" really such a real thing
it's real enough in Canada. To comply with Federal funding rules, universities must offer their best jobs to non white males. Any white male is automatically discarded.
Quebec has also been kinda forced to instute a similar policy for a new police recruitment program: only non whites are now allowed to apply for this program, which enrolls people already working as civilians in police departments in a special accelerated course that gets them into the police academy.
Effectively, we have legalized discrimination in the name of diversity and pick candidates on their ethnic origins rather than their competence.
That sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me.
Source?
For the Police recruitment program : https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/2022-04-20/le-reve-decu-d-aspirantes-policieres.php
Google Translated link : https://www-lapresse-ca.translate.goog/actualites/2022-04-20/le-reve-decu-d-aspirantes-policieres.php?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 21, 2022, 09:07:22 AMQuote from: Berkut on April 21, 2022, 08:56:08 AMQuote from: viper37 on April 20, 2022, 09:16:27 PMQuote from: Josquius on April 20, 2022, 11:02:48 AMTell me something here.
When you're on the ground in the US is "woke" really such a real thing
it's real enough in Canada. To comply with Federal funding rules, universities must offer their best jobs to non white males. Any white male is automatically discarded.
Quebec has also been kinda forced to instute a similar policy for a new police recruitment program: only non whites are now allowed to apply for this program, which enrolls people already working as civilians in police departments in a special accelerated course that gets them into the police academy.
Effectively, we have legalized discrimination in the name of diversity and pick candidates on their ethnic origins rather than their competence.
That sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me.
Source?
For the Police recruitment program : https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/2022-04-20/le-reve-decu-d-aspirantes-policieres.php
Google Translated link : https://www-lapresse-ca.translate.goog/actualites/2022-04-20/le-reve-decu-d-aspirantes-policieres.php?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr&_x_tr_pto=wapp
So this is a *specific* police recruitment program that specifically targets minorities. It is not the ONLY police recruitment program, and 94% of the police in the department in question are white, so this program is trying to attract more minority candidates.
Yeah, that sounds like a fucking terrible travesty. Poor white people might not get to have 94% of the slots anymore, why, what would happen if they only got 90% of them????
This is why we can't have nice things.
People go to great length to defend things that are somewhat related to them. Like asshole billionaires.
Quote from: viper37 on April 20, 2022, 09:16:27 PMQuote from: Josquius on April 20, 2022, 11:02:48 AMTell me something here.
When you're on the ground in the US is "woke" really such a real thing
it's real enough in Canada. To comply with Federal funding rules, universities must offer their best jobs to non white males. Any white male is automatically discarded.
Quebec has also been kinda forced to instute a similar policy for a new police recruitment program: only non whites are now allowed to apply for this program, which enrolls people already working as civilians in police departments in a special accelerated course that gets them into the police academy.
Effectively, we have legalized discrimination in the name of diversity and pick candidates on their ethnic origins rather than their competence.
You make a very good reactionary.
In case anyone is wondering Viper is dreaming in extreme right wing technocolor.
Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2022, 11:54:40 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 20, 2022, 11:07:31 PMThat system of race preference would largely be illegal in the United States. You can build programs intended to boost minority hiring, you can make racial diversity a "factor" in admissions and hiring to some degree, but strict quotas or things like that are explicitly unconstitutional as per Supreme Court precedent.
It may not be wise to take viper's description of how things work at face value.
Read about the latest job offerings from Université Laval in Quebec city. They said they comply to Federal funding rules, just like all Canadian universities.
Quote from: viper37 on April 21, 2022, 06:18:23 PMQuote from: Jacob on April 20, 2022, 11:54:40 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 20, 2022, 11:07:31 PMThat system of race preference would largely be illegal in the United States. You can build programs intended to boost minority hiring, you can make racial diversity a "factor" in admissions and hiring to some degree, but strict quotas or things like that are explicitly unconstitutional as per Supreme Court precedent.
It may not be wise to take viper's description of how things work at face value.
Read about the latest job offerings from Université Laval in Quebec city. They said they comply to Federal funding rules, just like all Canadian universities.
I am aware of no federal funding rules Which specify requirements you have alleged. If you would like to link where they are located that would be very helpful
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 21, 2022, 07:16:50 PMQuote from: viper37 on April 21, 2022, 06:18:23 PMQuote from: Jacob on April 20, 2022, 11:54:40 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 20, 2022, 11:07:31 PMThat system of race preference would largely be illegal in the United States. You can build programs intended to boost minority hiring, you can make racial diversity a "factor" in admissions and hiring to some degree, but strict quotas or things like that are explicitly unconstitutional as per Supreme Court precedent.
It may not be wise to take viper's description of how things work at face value.
Read about the latest job offerings from Université Laval in Quebec city. They said they comply to Federal funding rules, just like all Canadian universities.
I am aware of no federal funding rules Which specify requirements you have alleged. If you would like to link where they are located that would be very helpful
Canada Research Chairs program.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 21, 2022, 12:11:17 PMQuote from: viper37 on April 20, 2022, 09:16:27 PMQuote from: Josquius on April 20, 2022, 11:02:48 AMTell me something here.
When you're on the ground in the US is "woke" really such a real thing
it's real enough in Canada. To comply with Federal funding rules, universities must offer their best jobs to non white males. Any white male is automatically discarded.
Quebec has also been kinda forced to instute a similar policy for a new police recruitment program: only non whites are now allowed to apply for this program, which enrolls people already working as civilians in police departments in a special accelerated course that gets them into the police academy.
Effectively, we have legalized discrimination in the name of diversity and pick candidates on their ethnic origins rather than their competence.
You make a very good reactionary.
In case anyone is wondering Viper is dreaming in extreme right wing technocolor.
He's a Chaotic Neutral reactionary at best.
So Kevin McCarthy and his tapes. Big deal or not?
Link me baby.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/04/22/audio-tape-kevin-mccarthy-donald-trump-dlt-chalian-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/this-week-in-politics/
Back when there was hope when the GOP would do the right thing.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 20, 2022, 05:34:46 PMSo interestingly the Florida legislature appears to be willing to go along with DeSantis' attack on Disney. This is some interesting stuff--Disney has been a reliable contributor primarily to Republican candidates for decades, I see this as a major opening front in the war between the "New GOP" and corporations. I wouldn't be shocked if in a decade's time the GOP is by far receiving less political support from corporate donors, probably by a pretty significant ratio if trends like this continue.
It looks like in terms of central Florida (which is no Democratic bastion by any means), it is mostly a net loss to do what DeSantis is asking for--which is dissolving the Reedy Creek Improvement District that operates Disney World. Right now Disney World does not pay full taxes to local governments (it does pay some local property tax though, and I believe always has), if the Improvement District is dissolved Disney can no longer legally operate a police department and would likely not be able to operate the fire department or EMS. This would mean Orange and Osceola counties would have to step in. The easiest way to do so would be to transfer those departments to those county governments. The Tax Collector of Orange County has said the cost of assuming responsibility for these services would be around $105m/yr net, even factoring in Disney now paying more local taxes. It would essentially require a 15 to 20% hike in the local property tax rate to cover the gap.
The Reedy Creek District also has $2bn in bonds outstanding, if it no longer exists as a legal entity the local governments become responsible for holding and servicing that debt. Note that currently Disney funds payments to these debts out of its own revenues, it appears that there is a decent chance DeSantis "punishment" for Disney will reduce Disney World's operating overhead by shifting the cost of emergency services on to the tax payers, and will reduce a bond liability they indirectly were taking care of by $1.5-2bn.
Should private corporations be given their own territory to self govern? :hmm:
Quote from: Jacob on April 21, 2022, 11:19:40 PMSo Kevin McCarthy and his tapes. Big deal or not?
I feel GOP may be at a point where nothing short of shooting a an opposing lawmaker on the senate floor would move the needle for their support (and even then it would probably increase their votes, not decrease them).
Quote from: alfred russel on April 22, 2022, 08:00:52 AMShould private corporations be given their own territory to self govern? :hmm:
That ship sailed long ago - there are hundreds of privately controlled special districts across the US.
You can bet that DeSantis isn't going to touch these guys: https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.holding_company_of_the_villages_inc.d78adc0a3fcfef13d338cd90e15be78d.html
In case anyone still thinks the Disney thing has anything to do with anything other than political retaliation against Disney for exercising their speech and petition rights, the legislative bill abolishes only those private controlled special districts established prior to 1968.
The Reedy District was established in 1967.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 22, 2022, 10:07:12 AMIn case anyone still thinks the Disney thing has anything to do with anything other than political retaliation against Disney for exercising their speech and petition rights, the legislative bill abolishes only those private controlled special districts established prior to 1968.
The Reedy District was established in 1967.
I don't know of anyone who ever thought otherwise.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 22, 2022, 10:07:12 AMIn case anyone still thinks the Disney thing has anything to do with anything other than political retaliation against Disney for exercising their speech and petition rights, the legislative bill abolishes only those private controlled special districts established prior to 1968.
The Reedy District was established in 1967.
I think we may have found our "competent authoritarian that comes after Trump"
It's possible he's just an asshole.
It's annoying as abolishing Disneys special government rights is a good thing.... But coming in this manner...
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 22, 2022, 10:07:12 AMIn case anyone still thinks the Disney thing has anything to do with anything other than political retaliation against Disney for exercising their speech and petition rights, the legislative bill abolishes only those private controlled special districts established prior to 1968.
The Reedy District was established in 1967.
Any chance this gets tossed as a Bill of Attainder? It sure looks like one.
Quote from: grumbler on April 22, 2022, 07:21:55 PMAny chance this gets tossed as a Bill of Attainder? It sure looks like one.
A bill of attainder requires punishment (not removal of a legislative privilege), and if a rational, non-punitive purpose can be raised, then there is a defense.
Listened to the McCarthy tape (sorry Raz, didn't see your link).
Nothing will come of it. Democrats will fume that they are vindicated and Republicans will find a way to fit his disloyalty to Trump into their crowded cognitive dissonance.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 22, 2022, 08:00:52 AMShould private corporations be given their own territory to self govern? :hmm:
My old conservative principles would say "no", and while I have done more research in it on the past few days, I had always gotten the impression that Reedy Creek was a tad "beyond" what is normal in most states. That being said there's a lot of special carve outs for big corporations that go on in most States, this is actually the sort of capitalism I've never been a big fan of--when you get tons of government benefits solely because you're a big business, it kind of shits on the idea of a free market. While I think the self-governance stuff is fairly unique down in Florida, there's tons of special tax districts and other shenanigans that many states do (look into special tax districts that get setup for most professional sports arenas/stadiums for a good example of the moneyed interests basically playing by very different rules than you or me.) Those are more philosophically dear to my heart because most of my income now comes from real estate investments including a stake in a townhouse development my wife and I have been involved in for years and we obviously don't get tons of special tax treatment from the Commonwealth, but Dan Snyder and the Washington Whatevers do.
All that being said, Reedy Creek is significantly different enough that it's a pretty complicated situation. After doing more research on it I see that the tax authorities of both counties in question are saying that dissolving the district will be a pretty significant net tax increase on the local residents--even factoring in projected increase in tax collections. It looks like the main benefit Disney was getting from the district was control particularly of zoning, and it allowed them to bypass some of the cumbersome bureaucracy for major building projects that other similar projects would have to go through. From a straight economic/fiscal perspective, operating the District was more expensive to Disney than not operating the District, and obviously the other major theme parks in Florida don't have these special Districts and do just fine. The overall Disney Parks segment is a pretty big part of Disney's business and is fairly profitable, so I think they were fine taking in a little less money overall but getting greater control of the park.
However, it is not the "punishment" of Disney it is being sold as when it's a net financial gain, and net financial punishment for local residents.
On a meta level I'd probably be in favor of dissolving the district if I was a Floridian, but I would probably not be in favor of dissolving it during a special session convened to finalize legislative districts, with no committee studies, local impact studies, zero coordination done with the local officials of the two affected counties etc. As someone who has been involved in a lot of local government shit over the years, I am never a huge fan of the state politicians shitting on localities with no input or collaboration with them. This is a significantly complex task that if you're going to dissolve the district it should go through the normal legislative process and likely have a much longer phase in than the proposed 14 months or whatever.
On an even more meta level I find it hilarious that you have Republicans openly saying corporations need to "shut up" about politics, when it is largely the GOP that has vigorously enshrined the right of corporations to spend basically unlimited amounts of money on political speech.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 23, 2022, 10:59:28 AMOn an even more meta level I find it hilarious that you have Republicans openly saying corporations need to "shut up" about politics, when it is largely the GOP that has vigorously enshrined the right of corporations to spend basically unlimited amounts of money on political speech.
Not only that but Hobby Lobby specifically enshrined the rule that corporations have independent first amendment speech and petition rights that state power must respect.
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2022, 03:17:09 PMRemember also the messianic quality of the Obama 2008 campaign...
Yeah that was obnoxious and made me nervous.
And wow you can see how worse that shit can get when you have a Trump leading the cult. Biden, who has lukewarm support at best, is far more what I want to see.
Interesting New York Times article kind of highlighting a phenomenon most of us are already deeply aware of--that crossing various cultural boundaries on behavior just don't matter anymore if you're a Republican politician:
QuoteFor Trump's G.O.P., Crossing Lines Has Few Consequences
A dizzying week featured Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, caught lying and another lawmaker, Marjorie Taylor Greene, grilled under oath about her role in the Jan. 6 attack.
By Jonathan Weisman
April 23, 2022
Updated 2:23 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON — There was a time in the nation's capital when lines mattered, and when they were crossed, the consequences were swift and severe.
Speaker Jim Wright, a Democrat, lost his job in 1989 amid charges of corruption and profiteering. Almost a decade later, Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican, lost his after disappointing midterm elections.
Mr. Gingrich's expected successor, Robert L. Livingston, then admitted he had violated the public's trust by having an extramarital affair — even as he demanded President Bill Clinton's resignation for having an affair with a White House intern — and bowed out on his own.
More recently, in rapid succession, Senator Al Franken of Minnesota and Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, both Democrats, were forced to exit Congress amid charges of sexual harassment during the #MeToo era. On the Republican side, Representatives Blake Farenthold of Texas, Patrick Meehan of Pennsylvania and Trent Franks of Arizona were also driven out by allegations of sexual impropriety.
Yet when the House Republican leader, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, was shown to have lied about his response to the deadliest assault on the Capitol in centuries and President Donald J. Trump's culpability for it, there was little expectation that the consequences would be swift or severe — or that there would be any at all.
Dissembling is not a crime, but doing so to conceal a wholesale reversal on a matter as serious as an attack on the citadel of democracy and the possible resignation of a president would once have been considered career-ending for a politician, particularly one who aspires to the highest position in the House.
Not so for a Republican in the age of Trump, when Mr. McCarthy's brand of lie was nothing particularly new; maybe it was just a Thursday. On Friday, another House member, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, said under oath at an administrative law hearing in Atlanta that she could "not recall" having advocated Mr. Trump imposing martial law to stop the transfer of power to Joseph R. Biden Jr., a position that would seem difficult to forget.
"It's a tragic indictment of the political process these days — and the Republican Party of late — that truth doesn't matter, words don't matter, everybody can be elastic in areas that were once viewed as concrete," said Mark Sanford, a former Republican governor of South Carolina who lied to the public about his whereabouts when he was pursuing an extramarital affair in South America and was censured by the State House of Representatives. "You cross lines now, and there are no longer consequences."
Mr. Sanford's political comeback as a Republican member of the House ended when he crossed the one line that does still matter in his party: He condemned Mr. Trump as intolerant and untrustworthy. Mr. Trump called him "nothing but trouble," and Mr. Sanford was defeated in a primary in 2018.
It was Mr. Trump himself who showed just how few consequences there could be for transgressions that once seemed beyond the pale for the nation's leaders in 2016, when he survived the release of leaked audio in which he boasted of sexually assaulting women — then went on to win the presidency. In the years afterward, he survived two impeachment trials, on charges of pressuring Ukraine for his own political gain and of inciting the Capitol riot, and he continues to spread the lie that the 2020 election was stolen from him.
Those episodes were vivid proof, if any more were needed, that tribalism and party loyalty now outweigh any notion of integrity, or even steadfast policy beliefs. But if there were any questions about whether the end of Mr. Trump's presidency would begin to restore old mores and guardrails, the past months have put those to rest.
Last month, Representative Madison Cawthorn, Republican of North Carolina, angered fellow Republicans by saying lawmakers he "looked up to" had invited him to parties involving sex and cocaine. The allegations drew condemnation from Mr. McCarthy, who told Republican lawmakers that Mr. Cawthorn had later admitted they were untrue, though the House leader stopped short of punishing him.
Mr. Cawthorn's troubles seemed to get worse on Friday when Politico published photos of him in women's lingerie, undercutting the image he presents of himself as a social conservative. Hardly chastened, Mr. Cawthorn responded on Twitter: "I guess the left thinks goofy vacation photos during a game on a cruise (taken waaay before I ran for Congress) is going to somehow hurt me? They're running out of things to throw at me."
He then asked people to "share your most embarrassing vacay pics in the replies."
In Missouri, Eric Greitens, who resigned from the governorship in 2018 amid charges that he stripped the clothes off his paramour, taped her to exercise equipment in his basement, photographed her and told her he would release the nude photos if she told anyone of their affair, is running for the Senate as a Trump-loving conservative. When his ex-wife accused him of domestic violence in a sworn affidavit last month, he pressed on, near the top of the polls, saying she was being manipulated by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, and Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's former political adviser.
"The Greitens campaign has received tremendous support from donors and patriots across the country who see the deception and lies peddled by establishment RINOs," said Dylan Johnson, his campaign manager, using the acronym for "Republicans in name only." "Since they launched these unfounded attacks in the last few weeks, the campaign has seen an exponential increase in the rate of donations, sign-ups and engagement."
Mr. McCarthy's latest travails with the truth are reminiscent of the last time he had the speakership in his grasp and instructive about how Mr. Trump has changed the landscape.
Then, as now, the California Republican's troubles really started when he told the truth. In 2015, after Speaker John A. Boehner handed over the gavel, Mr. McCarthy made the mistake of saying on camera that the appointment of a special committee to examine the terrorist attack on a U.S. government compound in Benghazi, Libya, was aimed at least in part at diminishing the approval ratings of Hillary Clinton, who had been secretary of state at the time of the attack.
Fellow House Republicans were furious, insisting that their pursuit of the issue had nothing to do with politics. They gave the speaker's gavel to Representative Paul D. Ryan.
This time, the truth Mr. McCarthy told was that Mr. Trump's conduct on Jan. 6 had been "atrocious and totally wrong" and that he planned to seek his resignation. The lie Mr. McCarthy told was that he had said no such thing and that The New York Times had made it up, a statement that was quickly refuted by his taped voice telling Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming, exactly what The Times said he had said.
But unlike in 2015, partisan hatred of the media and a desire for party unity might carry the day. Republicans said on Friday that they were singularly focused on winning control of the House. Their voters are far more concerned with the policies of Mr. Biden and Speaker Nancy Pelosi than the words of the House minority leader, whom most of them have never heard of, said former Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah.
"Conservatives and Republicans think it's an unfair fight in the media; it's always a Republican issue that gets the ink and not the Democrats," said Mr. Chaffetz, who challenged Mr. McCarthy for the speakership in 2015 when he stumbled. "They feel picked on."
"That's not to justify anything," he said, "but the treatment in the national media is something that bolsters Republicans."
As the news media parsed Ms. Greene's testimony on Friday during a long-shot hearing to determine whether she was an "insurrectionist" disqualified from seeking re-election, the congresswoman was fund-raising off what she says is persecution. On the witness stand, she laughed off the charges that she had supported the rioters on Jan. 6 because the evidence against her had been reported by CNN and other outlets that she said could not be trusted.
In her fund-raising appeal, she made the most of her day on the stand.
"The deck has been so stacked against me that I had to file a lawsuit to stop this charade," she wrote to supporters before asserting with no evidence that she would probably have to take her battle to stay on the ballot to the Supreme Court. "Fighting their fraudulent lawsuit could cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars."
Indeed persecution, not propriety, is a watchword, not only in Washington but in state-level fights in which Republicans say their actions are merely to counter the overbearing efforts of "socialist" liberals and "woke" corporations.
Representative Charlie Crist of Florida, who was a Republican governor of his state before he became a Democratic congressman, insisted that honesty was as important today as it was when Abraham Lincoln was extolled as "Honest Abe" and a myth grew up around George Washington admitting he had chopped down a cherry tree because he could not tell a lie.
Mr. Crist is now seeking the governorship as a Democrat, and he said on Friday that if he won a contested primary, he planned to make honesty central to his campaign to unseat Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican.
"It already is part of this campaign," he said. "It needs to be and it should be. It goes to the core essence of integrity."
For Republicans, the ultimate arbiter of lines not to be crossed and the consequences to be paid remains Mr. Trump. For now, the former president signaled all is fine with Mr. McCarthy: "I think it's all a big compliment, frankly," he told The Wall Street Journal on Friday. If Mr. Trump decides the House leader must pay for his prevarications — or for the truths he tried to hide — the price still could be high.
Take it from one who knows: Mr. Sanford.
"We live in very strange times in politics," he said as he was hustling to his son's wedding rehearsal dinner. "I hope they can self-correct, but I worry they can't."
The article kind of crystallized something in my mind--the culture of simply saying any negative news is manufactured by a hateful leftist press, means that the Republican party no longer has the sort of controls that in the past would self-correct out the worst types of people from the party and from politics more broadly speaking.
The sins that are now entirely forgiven by the extremist base range from the fairly mundane (affairs, misspeaking gaffes) to the serious (implications of treasonous intent aimed at democracy itself), and the net effect is really bad for the party as a proper functioning political party in a democracy--and very bad for democracy itself because the two party system and the GOP as one of those two parties is not going anywhere.
In the past I remember leaning somewhat heavily toward the idea that too many politicians get hounded out of office too easily--a casual stupid comment, a racist remark from 25 years ago when they were in college, an affair--which in my mind is really between a politician and their spouse. But I have to wonder if maybe we were actually better off when things as "trivial" as an affair could end your political career. While I still believe that the particulars of an affair are between the married couple, there is probably some good association between general honesty and good behavior and being faithful to your spouse. I have no problem with people who are sexual libertines, but if you're in a regular marriage with no understanding of it being "open" to outsiders, lying to your spouse and perpetuating an extramarital affair actually shows a pretty high level of putting personal gratification above some pretty serious commitments of honesty and integrity.
I guess maybe the Puritans were right all along to some degree--if you can't be expected to be honest with your wife, maybe you really shouldn't be trusted as a politician. I don't think acceptance of extramarital affairs was the straw that broke the camel's back, but considering it used to be almost universally a death sentence in a bipartisan way, it's probably a net negative for society it no longer is.
I was one of the few people who thought that
A) Clinton being asked under oath about getting a blowjob from Monica was complete bullshit, and he did not commit perjury when he lied about it, and
B) Clinton should resign anyway.
I think the investigation of him was pure, 100% political bullshit. On the other hand, given his history and all the shit he got himself into around his sexual adventures, the fact that he could not control himself enough to pass on what was fucking obviously a terrible idea (getting a hummer from an intern in the Oval Office) told me that he had no business being the President of the United States.
Now I look back and chuckle at my silly idea that something as trivial as that should result in a resignation.
Surely if you thought he lied under oath - that is perjury? How would it not be perjury?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 24, 2022, 10:23:11 AMSurely if you thought he lied under oath - that is perjury? How would it not be perjury?
In the US, perjury only applies if it is a false statement about a matter material to the case. In the Clinton deposition, the lying was in response to a question that had no bearing on the case, thus not perjury.
David French had an interesting legal take on the DeSantis Disney War, I assumed that while in poor taste, there weren't any serious constitutional qualms about it--Florida had constitutional authority to create Reedy Creek Improvement District and it stands to reason it could dissolve it as well--in general States can incorporate and dissolve sub-state legal districts at will, at least under the Federal constitution. Some State constitutions enshrine permanent rights to various localities, which Florida I think does not [although I have seen it suggested that the Florida constitution requires a special district to be dissolved the same manner in which it was created, which some people have said could be a cause for litigation over this if Disney wants].
But anyway, French raised a different point--under O'Hare Truck Service, Inc. v. City of Northlake something that would ordinarily be entirely up to a government official's discretion, can be unconstitutional if the officials reason for taking such action is retaliation for exercise of a protected right. In the case of O'Hare, the mayor removed a tow truck company from its "rotation list" of tow companies that get called out for city tow work when the owner of the company wouldn't donate to the mayor's re-election campaign.
Now, I do think it is probably constitutionally significant that in Florida they aren't administering an official function differently based on political expression, but rather altering state law through the legislative process--which I think is usually an area where the courts defer more to the political branch than on bureaucratic activity.
It's always the case that governmental action taken with the purpose and effect of chilling protected speech can be challenged, even if the action would otherwise be authorized absent that intent. And Hobby Lobby affirmed the protected speech rights of corporations.
Because you all love Canadian Constitutional law...
From 1st year Con Law we learned the case of Roncarelli v Duplessis [1959] S.C.R. 121. Roncarelli (A Jehovaoh's Witness) was a political opponent of the Catholic Premier of Quebec, M. Duplessis. So Duplessis ordered the Liquor Commission to cancel Roncarelli's liquor license. Roncarelli sued and won - despite the authority over liquor licenses being well within the government's authority, the Duplessis government had done so in this case for nakedly political purposes which was contrary to the rule of law.
So yeah - assuming the USSC follows a 60 year old Canadian precedent it should be an open and shut case between Disney and DeSantis.
Quote from: Barrister on April 25, 2022, 02:01:37 PMBecause you all love Canadian Constitutional law...
From 1st year Con Law we learned the case of Roncarelli v Duplessis [1959] S.C.R. 121. Roncarelli (A Jehovaoh's Witness) was a political opponent of the Catholic Premier of Quebec, M. Duplessis. So Duplessis ordered the Liquor Commission to cancel Roncarelli's liquor license. Roncarelli sued and won - despite the authority over liquor licenses being well within the government's authority, the Duplessis government had done so in this case for nakedly political purposes which was contrary to the rule of law.
Ah, Duplessis! :hug: :hug: :wub: :wub:
That was a man. His anti-union stance was legendary, even in its time. If only he hadn't been so religious... ;) :P
It's possibly the only case that made it to Supreme Court, and Rex would likely know more, Oex would have an entire book devoted to these abuse ;) , but, it wasn't the only one, and there quite a few like this during his time in office. And even more overt one: give me money (to the party) and you get contracts. Don't give me anything, don't get anything. There a censorship committee at the time, with numerous priests deciding what could be published in Quebec, and what could be aired in radio, and later television. The good old times, according to some who wish religion to return in government.
Given the sort of people we are talking about here they're not known for thinking beyond immediate cause and effect... But I do wonder whether this being challenged and over turned may not be part of the plan?
The purpose is to threaten Disney not actually harm them in a self destructive way. It also helps show those nasty courts to be against the people et al.
Quote from: Josquius on April 26, 2022, 12:03:04 AMIt also helps show those nasty courts to be against the people et al.
The nasty court against the people is the court that granted such broad, sweeping First Amendment rights to corporate entities, namely the conservative majority on the USSC.
And I guess this is why having good lawyers matters--apparently the Florida legislature was unaware of this, but Disney's lawyers were not, there is a provision in Florida state law that before Florida can dissolve a legal district it has to resolve the debt of that district. Florida will have to actively solve the matter of the $2bn or so in bond obligations Reedy Creek has before the district can dissolve. Disney has said it plans to continue operating as it did before until that happens, since Reedy Creek won't be legally resolved until then.
There's a number of ways the legislature can likely resolve it quickly--and all of those options involve Florida having to write a big check or agree to guarantee the bond's future. Just letting the bond go to the counties may be a contractual violation of the bond's guarantees--the bonds were sold with the understanding they would be repaid by an entity that can levy a 30 mil property tax to pay them down. The counties containing Disney World cannot legally levy a tax above 10 mils, so Florida has to resolve that in some way. Again, Florida has options, it could agree to take on the bonds in a manner that would satisfy the original bonds promises, or it could even buy the bonds out via eminent domain at market value. Problem there is that means DeSantis has to publicly be seen basically paying off a fuck ton of debt that is going to be interpreted as "Disney debt."
DeSantis has promised that Disney will have to pay these debts in response, but appears to have basically no legal mechanism by which to force the matter. Apparently one Republican legislator theorized they could create a special taxing district centered on Disney, with a higher mil rate to pay the bonds off, but Florida law doesn't allow the creation of those kind of districts unless they are approved by a vote of the communities affected. The two small communities that actually make up Reedy Creek would basically have to vote themselves into paying a special tax to help DeSantis dissolve Reedy Creek, which it's unlikely they would be inclined to do.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 27, 2022, 08:00:10 AMProblem there is that means DeSantis has to publicly be seen basically paying off a fuck ton of debt that is going to be interpreted as "Disney debt."
DeSantis doesn't have to worry about that; his supporters live in closed media bubble that will tell them that DeSantis is getting millions out of Disney, not the other way around.
I talked to a guy yesterday, mid 40s HS education - who is moving to O.C. Fla in a few months. He was thrilled about DeSantis because according to him it meant "Disney will pay its fair share" and his taxes will go down. When I attempted to explain the reality and advised him to prepare for a property tax hike if the measure wasn't repealed he didn't believe me. When I then suggested that he look up the info online, he responded that he didn't do searches on Google because Google is "rigged" and "fake news"
This is where we are now.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 27, 2022, 08:19:26 AMI talked to a guy yesterday, mid 40s HS education - who is moving to O.C. Fla in a few months. He was thrilled about DeSantis because according to him it meant "Disney will pay its fair share" and his taxes will go down. When I attempted to explain the reality and advised him to prepare for a property tax hike if the measure wasn't repealed he didn't believe me. When I then suggested that he look up the info online, he responded that he didn't do searches on Google because Google is "rigged" and "fake news"
This is where we are now.
Don't Say Pay.
In the latest "We fucked" news:
QuoteNew NPR/Marist poll is remarkable
Republicans lead Democrats on generic Congressional ballot among these groups:
🚨 Parents with children under 18: 60% choose GOP; 39% Democrats
🚨 Latino voters: 52% GOP; 39% Dems https://t.co/9QxnZsZ54D
https://twitter.com/Cavalewis/status/1520095372949049346?t=-kHBaIbbqDbLBDSeUwC2Fw&s=19
Also shows young people (Gen Z and Millennials) evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.
This corroborates other polls that show Latinos and youth trending toward the GOP.
I guess they all deserve what they get. :bowler:
Quote from: garbon on April 29, 2022, 06:57:27 PMI guess they all deserve what they get. :bowler:
Pretty sure my wife can get a job in Germany again and we can move on out of here quickly. She's been talking about moving back for years.
Quote from: garbon on April 29, 2022, 06:57:27 PMI guess they all deserve what they get. :bowler:
The problem is that we are all going to get what they deserve.
We might consider how to better message and convince them though.
Quote from: Berkut on April 29, 2022, 07:01:33 PMQuote from: garbon on April 29, 2022, 06:57:27 PMI guess they all deserve what they get. :bowler:
The problem is that we are all going to get what they deserve.
We might consider how to better message and convince them though.
I don't live there. :hmm:
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 29, 2022, 06:54:21 PMIn the latest "We fucked" news:
QuoteNew NPR/Marist poll is remarkable
Republicans lead Democrats on generic Congressional ballot among these groups:
🚨 Parents with children under 18: 60% choose GOP; 39% Democrats
🚨 Latino voters: 52% GOP; 39% Dems https://t.co/9QxnZsZ54D
https://twitter.com/Cavalewis/status/1520095372949049346?t=-kHBaIbbqDbLBDSeUwC2Fw&s=19
Also shows young people (Gen Z and Millennials) evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.
This corroborates other polls that show Latinos and youth trending toward the GOP.
Mind boggling
We deserve our coming doom if those numbers pan out.
I mean, seriously, what the fuck are we missing here? Just how can anyone rational observe what is going on and somehow come away with an impression that voting for GOP is a thing that could even be considered?
Quote from: DGuller on April 29, 2022, 08:03:14 PMI mean, seriously, what the fuck are we missing here? Just how can anyone rational observe what is going on and somehow come away with an impression that voting for GOP is a thing that could even be considered?
How many people do you consider rational?
Quote from: DGuller on April 29, 2022, 08:03:14 PMI mean, seriously, what the fuck are we missing here? Just how can anyone rational observe what is going on and somehow come away with an impression that voting for GOP is a thing that could even be considered?
They've concluded that fighting the woke menace is more important.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on April 29, 2022, 08:09:58 PMQuote from: DGuller on April 29, 2022, 08:03:14 PMI mean, seriously, what the fuck are we missing here? Just how can anyone rational observe what is going on and somehow come away with an impression that voting for GOP is a thing that could even be considered?
How many people do you consider rational?
:hmm: I think most people are, if you define rational as nothing weird happening between one's senses and the brain. Touching a hot stove with your hand and then resolving to not touch hot stoves again is rational. Touching a hot stove with your hand and then thinking that laying your penis on the hot stove is the next thing you should try is not rational.
Quote from: Jacob on April 29, 2022, 08:21:18 PMQuote from: DGuller on April 29, 2022, 08:03:14 PMI mean, seriously, what the fuck are we missing here? Just how can anyone rational observe what is going on and somehow come away with an impression that voting for GOP is a thing that could even be considered?
They've concluded that fighting the woke menace is more important.
I'm afraid you're right, but that's not a reassuring answer in that case. I'm hoping for a more fixable issue to be the cause.
What's terrifying to me is that people who have witnessed January 6th and been exposed to all the Fox/QAnon bullshit about the stolen election are drifting Republican. Like somehow they didn't like Trump's first term but after they bear maced a bunch of Capitol Police they decided he's OK.
Quote from: DGuller on April 29, 2022, 08:27:07 PMI'm afraid you're right, but that's not a reassuring answer in that case. I'm hoping for a more fixable issue to be the cause.
For it to be fixable the first step is understanding the core of the problem. And - also obviously - this is highly contested, adding complexity.
Is "the woke menace":
1) A highly successful right-wing psyop? (in which case the fix involves countering the psyop)
2) A highly corrosive political tendency causing real damage to society (in which case I suppose the fix means finding a way to neutralize it)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 29, 2022, 09:14:46 PMWhat's terrifying to me is that people who have witnessed January 6th and been exposed to all the Fox/QAnon bullshit about the stolen election are drifting Republican. Like somehow they didn't like Trump's first term but after they bear maced a bunch of Capitol Police they decided he's OK.
Here's the thing... repeating a simple message over and over again is an effective propaganda technique, and there is an absence of a simple message being repeated at a high frequency back to counter it.
Quote from: Jacob on April 29, 2022, 09:34:33 PMHere's the thing... repeating a simple message over and over again is an effective propaganda technique, and there is an absence of a simple message being repeated at a high frequency back to counter it.
Seems not to be working. CNN runs story after story about what a bunch of lying sleazebags the Republicans are. The Lincoln Project is putting out a video a day on the same subject. Repetition doesn't guarantee success.
Quote from: Jacob on April 29, 2022, 09:31:20 PMQuote from: DGuller on April 29, 2022, 08:27:07 PMI'm afraid you're right, but that's not a reassuring answer in that case. I'm hoping for a more fixable issue to be the cause.
For it to be fixable the first step is understanding the core of the problem. And - also obviously - this is highly contested, adding complexity.
Is "the woke menace":
1) A highly successful right-wing psyop? (in which case the fix involves countering the psyop)
2) A highly corrosive political tendency causing real damage to society (in which case I suppose the fix means finding a way to neutralize it)
It's probably not going to surprise you or anyone else, but I firmly land on option 2. In fact, option 1 strikes me as a dangerous coping mechanism to avoid recognizing a problem, and just writing it off as a right-wing propaganda rather than a genuine source of friction that alienating people that should be firmly in the liberal camp.
I'm going to admit that I don't know much about what the right wing propaganda is pushing, I deliberately blocked myself off of it, so I have no idea how much my complaints coincide with their propaganda. However, no one prevents conservative propaganda from just reporting the truth, if that's convenient for them.
If Biden sends out death squads to summarily execute anyone admitting to have voted for Trump, I'm sure that on this board Berkut and I are going to complain about it. I'm also sure that Fox News is also going to complain about the menace of Biden death squads executing Trump voters. That doesn't mean that Berkut and I were influenced by Fox News propaganda, it may just mean that we're complaining about something so obvious that anyone who reports the truth either out earnest conviction or cynical convenience is going to converge on the same story independently.
In my own experience, there is a silent faction (could be majority, could be minority) of liberals that definitely share my bewilderment at the wokeness. As far as I know, all of them are in the same boat as I am; no matter how much the woke left irritates them, they're not voting for GOP. However, statistically, there have to be more marginally liberal people, or maybe just politically apathetic but liberal-leaning people, for whom the wokeness would be the straw breaking the camel's back. I don't see how reliably liberal people like me can be so deeply turned off by the woke faction without the less reliably liberal people just switching camps or giving up on voting.
My pet theory is that modern US politics is all driven by anger, and the GOP has found targets of anger that give people more pleasure than Democratic targets of anger.
I still think the economy is hitting Biden and the Democrats very hard and I think the Republicans have hit a nerve with parents who are afraid that a school is going to impose transexuality on their children. There is also a problem with Democrats for not everyday screaming "THIS IS AN EMERGENCY. THE REPUBLIC IS IN DANGER. YOU SHOULD BE PANICING." The attitude of Democrats in government, the slow pace Jan 6th committee and the failure to simply charge Donald Trump aren't helping that.
If Democrats want to save the Republic, they may have to drop some of the more controversial issues...
I bet decriminalizing weed on the federal would go a long way to turning the tide with the youth vote.
It is such a slam dunk win politically it still boggles my mind the Dems in DC won't do it.
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 29, 2022, 07:01:20 PMQuote from: garbon on April 29, 2022, 06:57:27 PMI guess they all deserve what they get. :bowler:
Pretty sure my wife can get a job in Germany again and we can move on out of here quickly. She's been talking about moving back for years.
Purely anecdotal, but in my YouTube feed (no doubt due to the algorithm homing in on my opinions and also me watchingvideos of expats "explaining" Germanyto people back home) I've seen a number of videos of USians in the 25-35 age bracket pop up who look at info about health-care, public infrastructure, political culture, employee rights etc. in US vs other countries and seem quite eager to just bail and move to Europe. And also seen one or two older ones (vets with German wives) who are looking to go back to Germany, because they find living conditions over here much better. It's also something that pops up on German reddit about weekly at least.
Are there any emigration numbers, i.e. how many people have left the US in recent years, their demographics and destinations?
Quote from: Syt on April 29, 2022, 11:14:38 PMQuote from: FunkMonk on April 29, 2022, 07:01:20 PMQuote from: garbon on April 29, 2022, 06:57:27 PMI guess they all deserve what they get. :bowler:
Pretty sure my wife can get a job in Germany again and we can move on out of here quickly. She's been talking about moving back for years.
Purely anecdotal, but in my YouTube feed (no doubt due to the algorithm homing in on my opinions and also me watchingvideos of expats "explaining" Germanyto people back home) I've seen a number of videos of USians in the 25-35 age bracket pop up who look at info about health-care, public infrastructure, political culture, employee rights etc. in US vs other countries and seem quite eager to just bail and move to Europe. And also seen one or two older ones (vets with German wives) who are looking to go back to Germany, because they find living conditions over here much better. It's also something that pops up on German reddit about weekly at least.
Are there any emigration numbers, i.e. how many people have left the US in recent years, their demographics and destinations?
There are basically no records about emigration from the United States except estimates of how many American citizens are living in a certain country. And that number is complicated because many Americans live abroad temporarily for work or whatever but intend to return at some point.
But with the absolutely insane American tax laws that make you pay tax on money you make in foreign countries emigration really looks like a shit deal to me. Unless you go someplace that gives you almost instantaneous citizenship.
You have to file tax returns but until you hit a certain threshold in income, no tax is due.
Quote from: garbon on April 29, 2022, 11:29:46 PMYou have to file tax returns but until you hit a certain threshold in income, no tax is due.
So are all the people complaining about that just millionaires? How high is that threshold?
Btw, I think people are deluded if they believe that support for the GOP would crumble if only marginalized groups would be less uppity and sensitive, or if they could publicly say things that a large group of people find unacceptable without consequences. The GOP has been selling windmills as giants to their electorate for many years now, and they're trading heavily on those fears, real or imaginary. They've successfully created the image of the Democrats, even of the Biden/Pelosi variety who would not be more at home with e.g. the Austrian Conservatives than the Social Democrats, being this left wing menace intent on destroying America and they and their (real or imagined) agenda must be stopped no matter the cost; and they have backers with vested business interests and deep pockets who support them in pushing that message. (The Democrats do, too, to some extent - and usually in less "traditional" industries (manufacturing, fossil fuels, finance sector, ... where the GOP is strong) which is why you likely won't see any meaningful labor market reforms or improvement of employee rights anytime soon, I suppose.)
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 29, 2022, 06:54:21 PMIn the latest "We fucked" news:
QuoteNew NPR/Marist poll is remarkable
Republicans lead Democrats on generic Congressional ballot among these groups:
🚨 Parents with children under 18: 60% choose GOP; 39% Democrats
🚨 Latino voters: 52% GOP; 39% Dems https://t.co/9QxnZsZ54D
https://twitter.com/Cavalewis/status/1520095372949049346?t=-kHBaIbbqDbLBDSeUwC2Fw&s=19
Also shows young people (Gen Z and Millennials) evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.
This corroborates other polls that show Latinos and youth trending toward the GOP.
The Dems are definitely fucked, but I think that poll has some really weird crosstabs that make me think the sample size isn't good or some of the sub-groups. Like Dems losing Hispanics and Gen Z but somehow not down that much among independents? Doesn't make a ton of sense. Also winning under $50,000 income (which Hispanics and Genz are disproportionately likely to be in that bracket versus other groups represented), makes little sense with the other cross tabs.
There's a difference between "the Democrats are going to lose the House" and "this individual poll is telling us something meaningful about all these different demos, some of which may have been poorly sampled in the poll.
There's a lot of other polling and fundamentals showing Dem support among both parents and Hispanics have weakened tremendously in the past 4 years, which means that seems pretty above board. There isn't nearly as much fundamental support for buying the Gen Z / Millenial argument though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 29, 2022, 09:43:01 PMQuote from: Jacob on April 29, 2022, 09:34:33 PMHere's the thing... repeating a simple message over and over again is an effective propaganda technique, and there is an absence of a simple message being repeated at a high frequency back to counter it.
Seems not to be working. CNN runs story after story about what a bunch of lying sleazebags the Republicans are. The Lincoln Project is putting out a video a day on the same subject. Repetition doesn't guarantee success.
CNN has average viewership of like 1.5 to 3 million for most of its shows. Country is 330m. CNN isn't meaningful in any sense at all.
I personally have a suspicion some of the gray hairs in the DNC power structure tend to look at how much they are "winning" in mainstream media like CNN (which few voters watch, and certainly almost no Hispanics or young voters), and confuse it for messaging.
I think while we talk about it a lot on here, you guys also dramatically overstate wokeness, sorry but I really do. I think wokeness hits a particular nerve with the early 2000s, late 1990s socially libertine but economically centrist/conservative bunch that has always been a little over-represented here on Languish, and it hits a particular nerve with the college educated middle aged white generation (regardless of their political affiliation.)
But a lot of polling gives a different picture.
32% of voters identify as woke, including 49% of Democrats and 30% of independents. Only 23% of Democrats and 21% of Independents answered "No" they aren't woke. There are larger percentage who "Don't know what woke means"--31% of all voters don't know what it means, 26% of Democrats and 32% of independents.
Between Dem / GOP / Independents, of the voters who know what woke means, more identify as woke than "No" or "Unsure" except in the GOP.
It is unlikely that the Democrats can peel off any significant number of self-identified Republican voters. Most people just don't switch parties, aside from the weird minority that change whom they support almost every election (i.e. mentally deficient idiots.) So a crusade of anti-wokeness is going to actually double down on a position that is less popular among both current Democrats and Independents, with no clear prospects for pulling significant votes in.
I also think because wokeness annoys most of you more than anything else the Dems do, you really want that to explain why Dems lose x voters, but the polling to me doesn't clearly show that to be true. The large % of voters who don't even know wtf you are talking about is indicative to me that the "very online" and "very political" people are a lot more familiar with "wokeness" than is the person who hardly pays attention to politics but does vote every 2 years. There's like 160-175m potential voters out there, and I think there is a tendency to dramatically overestimate how much some of these voters follow the controversies a lot of us online culture/political warriors are well immersed in.
I think it has to do with the fact that the Democrats are hamstrung by having a tiny minority limiting what they can actually do (not that I have confidence they would be making huge waves with a larger majority but still) combined with having to own the current economic shitstorm resulting from war and pandemic.
The Democrats should be destroyed in this election. I think they will lose but because the country is so freaking gerrymandered and polarized I actually think the needle will move shockingly little. I could be wrong but that is my feeling.
And I kind of agree with Otto. Distancing yourself from your own base in a vain attempt to win over Republicans is a move likely to alienate key parts of the base while winning few Republicans. I kind of feel like the Democrats already played that game in the 1990s and early 2000s with little success.
Issues that I see Democrats actually polling really bad on:
1. "Democrats are out of touch with hardworking people like me", is a question Dems have done very badly on for quite a long while. I think to some degree the culture wars on tied up in this, but I also think this is part of the broader "messaging deficit." The Republicans don't have a good economic message for working class folk, but they do have a cultural message for them. Democrats don't seem to have any consistent message for them at all, which represents a fairly big messaging gap. The closest messaging Democrats seem to have for this is specific backing for wonky social welfare programs that are poorly understood and poorly explained, and America's working class have never been that easily bribed by straight hand outs.
2. Crime. Democrats poll terribly on crime and are blamed for the surge in violent crime. I think there is little Democrats can do to fix this now, but this was kind of their own creation--Republicans literally found a way to blame Democrats for rising crime in 2020 when Trump was President and while Republicans were Governors in many of the States with high crime rates. I think part of this is because of the dysfunction in the Democratic coalition there was no consistent message on crime, no serious attempt to link crime to the then-Republican administration, a fear of pissing off criminal justice reform types (which included the BLM movement) and etc.
3. Economy is bad, Biden is blamed. This is a basic political function that has little real fix. If you're President and the economy is perceived as bad, it hurts you. In Virginia by the way the economy actually out polled education in importance to voters. While I think McAuliffe bungled his ass off on the response to the CRT messaging, and in a relatively close race where many thousands of Democrats simply stayed home, even a slightly better performance by Terry may have won him the Governorship, I do think the narrative that Youngkin just won straight because of CRT is a little off base and not entirely consistent with the polls.
Interestingly in one exit poll, the top issue for Virginia voters was the economy/jobs, 33% of voters selected that as their top issue. Youngkin won those voters 55-44. The next highest was education, 24% of voters said that was their top issue. Youngkin only won that group 53-47. The next highest issue was taxes, 15% of voters, Youngkin won that 68-32. Youngkin probably gained significantly more margin with several of his promised tax cuts than anything to do with schools, particularly because a lot of Virginia voters who listed education as their top topic appear to have stuck with the Democrats.
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2022, 12:03:21 AMI think it has to do with the fact that the Democrats are hamstrung by having a tiny minority limiting what they can actually do (not that I have confidence they would be making huge waves with a larger majority but still) combined with having to own the current economic shitstorm resulting from war and pandemic.
The Democrats should be destroyed in this election. I think they will lose but because the country is so freaking gerrymandered and polarized I actually think the needle will move shockingly little. I could be wrong but that is my feeling.
And I kind of agree with Otto. Distancing yourself from your own base in a vain attempt to win over Republicans is a move likely to alienate key parts of the base while winning few Republicans. I kind of feel like the Democrats already played that game in the 1990s and early 2000s with little success.
This isn't scientific but a lot of people I talk with in my personal life who are kinda middling voters who mostly dislike Trump and the Republicans, but aren't enthusiastic Democrats, basically blame the Democrats for "not getting anything done" after winning in 2020. I actually tried to explain to some of them the severe limits they face due to the filibuster, and it was kinda like trying to speak in ancient Greek. Most people just don't care, they see that X party won, they want results. No results? Fuck that party. Doesn't matter that a lot of the reason there are no results is because we have a system where you can get dramatically more total votes for Senate and House, but have a thin House majority and a tied Senate that cannot pass any legislation due to the filibuster.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 30, 2022, 12:05:17 AM1. "Democrats are out of touch with hardworking people like me", is a question Dems have done very badly on for quite a long while. I think to some degree the culture wars on tied up in this, but I also think this is part of the broader "messaging deficit." The Republicans don't have a good economic message for working class folk, but they do have a cultural message for them. Democrats don't seem to have any consistent message for them at all, which represents a fairly big messaging gap. The closest messaging Democrats seem to have for this is specific backing for wonky social welfare programs that are poorly understood and poorly explained, and America's working class have never been that easily bribed by straight hand outs.
I think this is insightful of the potential damage the Democrats can do by renouncing things their base cares about to chase other voters. By dumping the Unions and trying to move right on economics the Democrats ultimately alienated most of the workers. Sure it helped Clinton win a few elections but really cost the Democrats in the long term. I don't know if it is possible to reverse this at this point, but it should be a warning against any similar schemes.
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2022, 12:12:04 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 30, 2022, 12:05:17 AM1. "Democrats are out of touch with hardworking people like me", is a question Dems have done very badly on for quite a long while. I think to some degree the culture wars on tied up in this, but I also think this is part of the broader "messaging deficit." The Republicans don't have a good economic message for working class folk, but they do have a cultural message for them. Democrats don't seem to have any consistent message for them at all, which represents a fairly big messaging gap. The closest messaging Democrats seem to have for this is specific backing for wonky social welfare programs that are poorly understood and poorly explained, and America's working class have never been that easily bribed by straight hand outs.
I think this is insightful of the potential damage the Democrats can do by renouncing things their base cares about to chase other voters. By dumping the Unions and trying to move right on economics the Democrats ultimately alienated most of the workers. Sure it helped Clinton win a few elections but really cost the Democrats in the long term. I don't know if it is possible to reverse this at this point, but it should be a warning against any similar schemes.
Yeah, I mean a lot of politics is teambuilding. In the union era when Democrats were very "working class oriented" in their actual leadership and rhetoric, they were the "team" for working folk. Now that that has been gone for decades, other teams have been built. The Republicans have been diligently working on a "cultural team" that can appeal to working class people, and it works because honestly it's kind of the only team that is making solid pitches to working class values at all. Those tend to be toxic cultural values that may not even be a majority of the working class, but again, they're competing against a void. When your buddy at work flips red and you're not that politically engaged, it gets easy to get sucked into that team even if you aren't really on board with some of the things they say.
The core Democratic team now is the college educated, and that's a minority voting base in the United States, and a problem is the type of talk that appeals to that team doesn't resonate with working class folk whatsoever. I would tend to agree by fucking over working people to a degree in exchange for suburban middle class types concerned about taxes, Clinton won himself two terms in office but may have fucked the Democratic coalition for the foreseeable future.
Obama ran a kind of soft campaign that was able to appeal to a lot of those forgotten working class, but then he was derailed by Republicans in Congress, and that undermined Dems' ability to build on Obama's apparently singular ability in the modern party to speak to working class Americans.
A lot of this goes back to things I said a few weeks ago--the single biggest issue I see is the Democrats aren't fighting, if you don't fight you can't win. Building team oriented voting bases requires fighting, and it requires thinking like a fighter thinks. Democrats are captured by policy wonks and the educated elite and have no good hooks into the rest of society.
Frankly it's a huge gift the Republicans can't easily control their virulent white nationalism, because if not for that I think Dems would be losing the black vote and even more of the Hispanic vote. Both of those demographics are significantly more socially conservative than the Democrats white college base.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 29, 2022, 11:56:55 PMI think while we talk about it a lot on here, you guys also dramatically overstate wokeness, sorry but I really do. I think wokeness hits a particular nerve with the early 2000s, late 1990s socially libertine but economically centrist/conservative bunch that has always been a little over-represented here on Languish, and it hits a particular nerve with the college educated middle aged white generation (regardless of their political affiliation.)
But a lot of polling gives a different picture.
32% of voters identify as woke, including 49% of Democrats and 30% of independents. Only 23% of Democrats and 21% of Independents answered "No" they aren't woke. There are larger percentage who "Don't know what woke means"--31% of all voters don't know what it means, 26% of Democrats and 32% of independents.
Between Dem / GOP / Independents, of the voters who know what woke means, more identify as woke than "No" or "Unsure" except in the GOP.
It is unlikely that the Democrats can peel off any significant number of self-identified Republican voters. Most people just don't switch parties, aside from the weird minority that change whom they support almost every election (i.e. mentally deficient idiots.) So a crusade of anti-wokeness is going to actually double down on a position that is less popular among both current Democrats and Independents, with no clear prospects for pulling significant votes in.
I also think because wokeness annoys most of you more than anything else the Dems do, you really want that to explain why Dems lose x voters, but the polling to me doesn't clearly show that to be true. The large % of voters who don't even know wtf you are talking about is indicative to me that the "very online" and "very political" people are a lot more familiar with "wokeness" than is the person who hardly pays attention to politics but does vote every 2 years. There's like 160-175m potential voters out there, and I think there is a tendency to dramatically overestimate how much some of these voters follow the controversies a lot of us online culture/political warriors are well immersed in.
People may not want to know who woke even means, but they know woke policies they don't like. For example, there is definitely a perception out there that things have gotten less safe, and there is also a perception that it has gotten to be that way due to "defund the police" or just the general hostility to policing. (I personally find the angst a little over the top and not justified statistically, but there is no denying that a lot of people see it very differently).
Now, we may quibble over the technocratic details about what has actually been defunded where, but I think it's hard to argue that quite a few on the woke side forgot that police, for all their faults, abuses, and impunity for such abuses, still do a function that make our lives much better than they would otherwise be. Maybe some people don't know what woke is, but they know what feeling unsafe is, and they may be less likely to vote for the party associated with that. In fact, I think the fact that they don't know what woke is may be worse for Democrats, because then Democrats by default own the woke whole. What we think of as "woke" they think of as "Democrat".
Quote from: Habbaku on April 29, 2022, 08:00:58 PMWe deserve our coming doom if those numbers pan out.
The Latino vote has been trending that way for a while. I've heard lots of concern about it by Democrats but very few ideas or actions on how to respond.
In the article I posted on the other thread I think the Republicans targeted and have mobilised parents around what is being taught to their kids on social and cultural issues. Which is a really effective line of attack.
It's the striking thing with, say, David Shor that the reason he is saying what he's saying and taking that line is because he things the Democrats are doomed on demographics etc. So his criticism is coming from a place of very deep pessimism.
QuoteThe core Democratic team now is the college educated, and that's a minority voting base in the United States, and a problem is the type of talk that appeals to that team doesn't resonate with working class folk whatsoever. I would tend to agree by fucking over working people to a degree in exchange for suburban middle class types concerned about taxes, Clinton won himself two terms in office but may have fucked the Democratic coalition for the foreseeable future.
Yes. And I think the college educated point links into the wokeness debate because I think what is most alienating is not wokeness itself but the language it's being proposed in which is alienating shibboleths of the college educated.
Ruben Gallego made this point on election night as results came in - most Latino people don't know the term Latinx, those who do don't like it (not least because it makes no sense as a word in Spanish - unlike the Spanish language equivalent, Latine), so stop using it. He was ignored on that.
I think this applies to all policy areas too - to much of the Democrats and people around them are talking in the language of seminars. The issue with identity politics, which applies to centrist Democrats too very often, is that the loudest identity being proclaimed is the "I've done some work on a post-grad" identity. Instead of listening, engaging and trying to be lead by the communities you're trying to fight for. It's only a matter of time before we end up with activists saying they're trying to "problematise voting Republican".
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2022, 11:35:17 PMQuote from: garbon on April 29, 2022, 11:29:46 PMYou have to file tax returns but until you hit a certain threshold in income, no tax is due.
So are all the people complaining about that just millionaires? How high is that threshold?
Issue for those living in a country without a tax treaty with the US or above the threshold which is something around over 1005k, goes up every few years.
FWIW if we're going to say things like defund police / being soft on crime, and education are part of the "woke" topic, it starts to sound like you're just using woke as a proxy for "every bad Democrat idea", at which point I think it loses most of its meaning. The way the people who cry the biggest tears about wokeism use the word--your Rogans and Mahers, it is primarily about "cancel culture" and "political correctness", and I do not think turning against political correctness is going to be a big net vote getter for Democrats based on polling.
I think part of the reason Democrats are trending badly with Hispanics and to a lesser degree blacks, is because of social conservative issues and the infamous "don't identify with working people like me" problem. Wokeism arguably is part of the issue with social conservatives, but I don't think one that is that important. I think the woke stuff is more of a way to get people who were never likely to leave the GOP to stick with the GOP, I don't think there's a ton of viable Democrat votes to mine with going anti-woke.
I think some examples of how the educated elite approach Hispanic and black politics in the 2010s and later highlight bigger structural problems:
- Democrats take something almost all of their voters agree with--that police unjustly abusing/killing people is bad and translate that to support for dialed back policing and even an overall soft on crime approach. The reality is there is a Nixonian silent majority when it comes to the black and Hispanic community. The median VOTER in those is a middle-aged, working-class person who has worked their ass off their entire life, and who has never been convicted of a felony. These people do not like criminals, they are not sympathetic to them, and they are much more likely to have to deal with them than the Democrats' college educated elites. They want strong policing, and they want their communities to be safe, and that is a much bigger issue to them than police and prison reform.
- The median voter in the black and Hispanic community is, again, someone who has likely worked hard their entire lives. They really don't like rhetoric that sounds like a free ride, they don't like rhetoric that makes them think the lazy people they know are going to get stuff. This is actually probably bigger than any other thing--because I think by not speaking to the working people in this demographic the Democrats are losing a lot of cultural identity. Working people want to believe that hard work is rewarded, they don't want to hear about free shit. They don't want to hear about forgiving college loans--they were working at the age the middle class were accumulating college loans, sometimes 2 and 3 jobs for poor pay.
- The way Democrats have massively assumed a dove position on immigration "sews up" Hispanics is extremely dumb. Hispanic voters are, by definition, Hispanic American citizens. They aren't here illegally, many of them lack sympathy for people trying to come here illegally. The Rio Grande counties in Texas, which are massively Hispanic (some are 80/20 or more Hispanic), they like the border crisis rhetoric because they agree it is a crisis. Many of their family members work in the Biden-maligned Border Patrol trying to secure the border.
The only real good news is the black vote is still massively tilted toward the Democrats, the Hispanic vote is likely still going to be more Democrat than Republican for the next few cycles--this at least means there is a window to try and fix these issues, but if that isn't done, you could see erosion continue to grow.
Of course, oddly enough the Hispanic thing may not matter that much unless Dems standing with them gets really, really bad. Around 45% of all American Hispanics live in California and Texas, so a lot of this demographic vote share is locked in States that are pretty tilted to one of the two parties, i.e. they "don't matter" that much in terms of Federal control. The thing that will continue to fuck Democrats is small town and rural whites, each one of those votes is much more valuable than probably 3 Hispanic votes--so even if Democrats weren't facing headwinds in the Hispanic community, it may not actually help them much. Democrats are in so much trouble because they can't reliably contest Ohio any longer, and are trending toward not being able to contest states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Minnesota--and even worse, not being able to contest as many House seats in those states. Now Biden won all of those States other than Ohio, and in all of them other than Ohio, the State Democratic party still has legs, but the trendlines are not good.
The reason I put "soft on crime" into the woke category is because it's tied to social justice movement. It's not the same crime issue that also devastated Democrats several decades ago, it's a new iteration that gained steam only a few years ago. The simplest definition of woke issue that I can come up with is an issue that is in some way tied to identity politics, and woke policies as policies designed to right the wrongs and the perceived injustices against some groups of identities.
At a high level, obviously there is nothing wrong with righting the wrongs against people. This is why such discussions inevitably start getting filled with "if being against raping and killing babies is woke, then I'm proud of being woke", which surprisingly doesn't prove to be effective at connecting with the other side, as reduction in raping and killing of babies turns out to not be what they're taking issue with. The problem is that there is no check on the expansion of the number issues where certain identities are oppressed, because it's englightened to find more and more and it's dangerous to challenge the additions. Another problem is that the solutions to those injustices are not subjected to pragmatic debate, because again no one wants to be in the way of injustice being righted.
This is where we get the new iteration of "soft on crime" issue for Democrats. The woke left has gotten so caught up with fixing the policing injustices against minorities that some started believing that nothing good comes from police, and hey, people lived once without police. They kind of forgot that a lot of people put value on not being subjected to crime, and they vote as well. Scared people are also less rational and more reactive, so someone who is not quite sure they'll get home from work safely may be less concerned with more esoteric issues such as "insurrection" or "danger to democracy".
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/542108-poll-finds-only-18-percent-support-defund-the-police/
QuoteA new poll by Ipsos and USA Today shows that less than 20 percent of respondents support the "defund the police" movement, with 58 percent opposing it.
The poll also suggested low support among Democrats and Black Americans for the movement.
Just 28 percent of Black respondents and 34 percent of Democrats backed the campaign, according to the poll.
Opposition to defund the police was higher among Republicans and whites, with 84 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of whites opposing the movement.
Overall, only 18 percent said they supported the defund the police movement compared to 58 percent who said they opposed it.
Words matter. Messaging matters. Winning matters.
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2022, 11:42:44 AMWords matter. Messaging matters.
Winning matters.
Sure but that was hardly something driven by the Democratic powers that be. That was some grassroots thing by people the Democrats do not control. I agree it is disastrous politically which is exactly why no Democratic politician grabbed it as their cause.
I mean nobody actually defunded the police and even those that pretended to do it didn't do it.
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2022, 01:35:00 PMQuote from: Berkut on April 30, 2022, 11:42:44 AMWords matter. Messaging matters.
Winning matters.
Sure but that was hardly something driven by the Democratic powers that be. That was some grassroots thing by people the Democrats do not control. I agree it is disastrous politically which is exactly why no Democratic politician grabbed it as their cause.
I mean nobody actually defunded the police and even those that pretended to do it didn't do it.
But we do control it. We can choose to accept that rhetoric, or we can challenge it. I choose to challenge it, and I am villified and called a bigot and everyone cheers.
This is what is happening writ large. The dumbass left says dumbass things, and yeah, nobody is actually going to DO those things, because hey are self evidently absurd, but at the same time, nobody is willing to call them out as being absurd either. Because they know it can be turned on them just as easily.
This leaves all the room the right needs to step in and shape the narrative. Support for Dems is support for defunding the police. That is not true, of course, but it sells to a lot of people. And not just die hard Tea Party dumbasses who are never going to vote sanely anyway, it sells to enough of the politcally apathetic to change elections.
Further, the fact that the moderates don't want to touch that crap means that the radicals get to keep moving the discussion more and more. This is what the radical right did 20 years ago. They said crazy stuff, nobody in the GOP challenged them because they were useful, and challenging the stupid of "no new taxes" pledges was a sure fire way to get primaried. And the GOP slid further and further into crazy land, until eventually the crazies were actually running the show.
There is nothing magical about the left that makes them impervious to the same polarization. Or maybe there is? I don't know. But it is concerning.
Hell, maybe the very thing that makes it so hard for the Dems to win when they so clearly have better ideas is the same thing that insulates them from their crazies? An interesting thought....
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2022, 11:42:44 AMhttps://thehill.com/homenews/news/542108-poll-finds-only-18-percent-support-defund-the-police/
Words matter. Messaging matters.
Winning matters.
All true but defund the police was the big slogan in the 2020 election cycle and it did not prevent the Dems from capturing the Presidency and the Senate.
What is going on now must have different causes than that specific issue.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 30, 2022, 05:36:16 PMAll true but defund the police was the big slogan in the 2020 election cycle and it did not prevent the Dems from capturing the Presidency and the Senate.
What is going on now must have different causes than that specific issue.
It could've made them underperform the expectations badly, though, and left them with Manchin as the kingmaker. What we had in 2020 was Trump on the ballot. The fact that there were plenty of people voting for Biden but not other Democrats should've given them pause, during a year when they should've swept the elections and maybe even packed the court.
Quote from: DGuller on April 30, 2022, 06:03:02 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on April 30, 2022, 05:36:16 PMAll true but defund the police was the big slogan in the 2020 election cycle and it did not prevent the Dems from capturing the Presidency and the Senate.
What is going on now must have different causes than that specific issue.
It could've made them underperform the expectations badly, though, and left them with Manchin as the kingmaker. What we had in 2020 was Trump on the ballot. The fact that there were plenty of people voting for Biden but not other Democrats should've given them pause, during a year when they should've swept the elections and maybe even packed the court.
Maybe in the House. The double victory in Georgia was a miracle.
Was there any other race in the Senate the Democrats had a chance to win?
Quote from: DGuller on April 30, 2022, 06:03:02 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on April 30, 2022, 05:36:16 PMAll true but defund the police was the big slogan in the 2020 election cycle and it did not prevent the Dems from capturing the Presidency and the Senate.
What is going on now must have different causes than that specific issue.
It could've made them underperform the expectations badly, though, and left them with Manchin as the kingmaker. What we had in 2020 was Trump on the ballot. The fact that there were plenty of people voting for Biden but not other Democrats should've given them pause, during a year when they should've swept the elections and maybe even packed the court.
:yes: Those protests and riots really hurt us.
Quote from: DGuller on April 30, 2022, 06:03:02 PMIt could've made them underperform the expectations badly, though, and left them with Manchin as the kingmaker. What we had in 2020 was Trump on the ballot. The fact that there were plenty of people voting for Biden but not other Democrats should've given them pause, during a year when they should've swept the elections and maybe even packed the court.
That is certainly possible, but still the 2020 outcome was far superior to what Dems can likely expect in 2022. Some of that difference can be chalked up to the normal midterm effect but the rest has other causes. And the obvious culprits are inflation, the recent weakening growth data, and concerns about effective leadership from Biden. I don't think it's that complicated. And there is not much the Congressional Dems can do other than minimize the own goals, mobilize their own base best they can, and hope for better news.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 02, 2022, 08:42:51 AMQuote from: DGuller on April 30, 2022, 06:03:02 PMIt could've made them underperform the expectations badly, though, and left them with Manchin as the kingmaker. What we had in 2020 was Trump on the ballot. The fact that there were plenty of people voting for Biden but not other Democrats should've given them pause, during a year when they should've swept the elections and maybe even packed the court.
That is certainly possible, but still the 2020 outcome was far superior to what Dems can likely expect in 2022. Some of that difference can be chalked up to the normal midterm effect but the rest has other causes. And the obvious culprits are inflation, the recent weakening growth data, and concerns about effective leadership from Biden. I don't think it's that complicated. And there is not much the Congressional Dems can do other than minimize the own goals, mobilize their own base best they can, and hope for better news.
I think there is a LOT more the Dems could do, actually.
Get some professional, focused messaging. Try to get some kind of pressure placed on the party to stay focused on the things that voters actually care about, and that there is broad consensus among Dems and Independents to actually DO.
And then just hammer those things, over and over and over again.
There is broad consensus on a lot of items. Climate change, gun control, healthcare, income inequality, childcare. Pick a couple things from that list, and then start hammering them. Talk talk talk talk talk about those things and what the Dems are going to do to make people lives better, and don't stop talking about them.
Hell, there is a fucking war going on right now, and that should normally be a huge boost to the sitting President. How is that not being talked about 24/7? Russia is getting their ass kicked, how is Biden not taking credit for that?
Where is the Democratic propaganda machine? Who controls it?
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2022, 06:47:57 PMQuote from: DGuller on April 30, 2022, 06:03:02 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on April 30, 2022, 05:36:16 PMAll true but defund the police was the big slogan in the 2020 election cycle and it did not prevent the Dems from capturing the Presidency and the Senate.
What is going on now must have different causes than that specific issue.
It could've made them underperform the expectations badly, though, and left them with Manchin as the kingmaker. What we had in 2020 was Trump on the ballot. The fact that there were plenty of people voting for Biden but not other Democrats should've given them pause, during a year when they should've swept the elections and maybe even packed the court.
Maybe in the House. The double victory in Georgia was a miracle.
Was there any other race in the Senate the Democrats had a chance to win?
North Carolina, Iowa, Maine, for reasons that aren't abundantly clear the democrats spent a fortune thinking they could knock off McConnell and Lindsay Graham.
Quote from: Berkut on May 02, 2022, 08:57:03 AMHell, there is a fucking war going on right now, and that should normally be a huge boost to the sitting President. How is that not being talked about 24/7? Russia is getting their ass kicked, how is Biden not taking credit for that?
A war going on somewhere in the world doesn't generally give a boost to a sitting president.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 02, 2022, 09:05:16 AMQuote from: Berkut on May 02, 2022, 08:57:03 AMHell, there is a fucking war going on right now, and that should normally be a huge boost to the sitting President. How is that not being talked about 24/7? Russia is getting their ass kicked, how is Biden not taking credit for that?
A war going on somewhere in the world doesn't generally give a boost to a sitting president.
The largest war in like 80 years between a "great power" and a NATO proxy where the US is funding the war in large part including massive quantities of weapons is not a "war going on somewhere in the world".
Of course, you knew that. But hey, score some points I guess.
Defund the Police is bad evidence in support of the Berkut hypothesis, which scattered around a half dozen threads now I take as "anyone I say is woke should be put to death" or something, I'm not sure. Because in the real world I lived in, Joe Biden, the Democratic party nominee for President, the leader of the party, came out against defund the police essentially the first time he was asked about it. He then emphatically encouraged more funding for police at many, many campaign stops and speeches. He then actually secured increased funding for local police in his first bailout bill.
I.e. he argued against it, then legislated against it. But in Berkut-land, the Democrats "did nothing" about the slogan. I guess because Biden didn't have AOC shot in the back of the head by the SA? I don't know exactly, in a free society, what more a political party can do. We don't control the far left of the party as chattel, they have a right to speak and there is nothing we can (or should) want to do about that.
Some of this goes back to trying to put more on the Democrats than is maybe logical. The big reason Biden's messaging on Defund the Police didn't get that much attention is because the Republicans have an incredibly sophisticated propaganda machine that massively amplifies all news they want amplified, and "floods the zone" with trash so news they do not want amplified, is not. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the Democrats need some sort of way to fight this, and pretending you just have to copy and paste policies from a Sam Harris podcast or an episode of Bill Maher's show, and all the centrist white bros you guys hang out with will start embracing Nancy Pelosi, simply is not reality.
Oh look, more racism from OvB. Pass.
Quote from: Berkut on May 02, 2022, 09:14:38 AMOh look, more racism from OvB. Pass.
Berkut makes bad argument, cries when called on it. Seems to be a disturbing pattern of late.
Quote from: Berkut on May 02, 2022, 09:10:49 AMQuote from: alfred russel on May 02, 2022, 09:05:16 AMQuote from: Berkut on May 02, 2022, 08:57:03 AMHell, there is a fucking war going on right now, and that should normally be a huge boost to the sitting President. How is that not being talked about 24/7? Russia is getting their ass kicked, how is Biden not taking credit for that?
A war going on somewhere in the world doesn't generally give a boost to a sitting president.
The largest war in like 80 years between a "great power" and a NATO proxy where the US is funding the war in large part including massive quantities of weapons is not a "war going on somewhere in the world".
Of course, you knew that. But hey, score some points I guess.
The US isn't actually at war. The rally round the flag sentiment that historically boosts presidential approval just isn't going to happen. Thinking otherwise is really stupid.
Russia/Ukraine just isn't registering as that important for most Americans. You can see in the March Gallup tracking poll of the most important issues:
#1 The government/Poor leadership 22%
#2 Inflation 17%
#3 The economy in general 11%
#4 Situation with Russia and Ukraine 9%
https://news.gallup.com/poll/391220/inflation-dominates-americans-economic-concerns-march.aspx
It isn't being talked about 24/7 because it isn't the issue people are most concerned with.
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2022, 12:12:04 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 30, 2022, 12:05:17 AM1. "Democrats are out of touch with hardworking people like me", is a question Dems have done very badly on for quite a long while. I think to some degree the culture wars on tied up in this, but I also think this is part of the broader "messaging deficit." The Republicans don't have a good economic message for working class folk, but they do have a cultural message for them. Democrats don't seem to have any consistent message for them at all, which represents a fairly big messaging gap. The closest messaging Democrats seem to have for this is specific backing for wonky social welfare programs that are poorly understood and poorly explained, and America's working class have never been that easily bribed by straight hand outs.
I think this is insightful of the potential damage the Democrats can do by renouncing things their base cares about to chase other voters. By dumping the Unions and trying to move right on economics the Democrats ultimately alienated most of the workers. Sure it helped Clinton win a few elections but really cost the Democrats in the long term. I don't know if it is possible to reverse this at this point, but it should be a warning against any similar schemes.
It's more like the unions dump them because they were free trade while the Republicans moved to protectionism.
Quote from: Berkut on May 02, 2022, 09:10:49 AMThe largest war in like 80 years between a "great power" and a NATO proxy
Korea (reversed), Vietnam (same), Afghanistan
Quote from: Berkut on May 02, 2022, 08:57:03 AMThere is broad consensus on a lot of items. Climate change, gun control, healthcare, income inequality, childcare. Pick a couple things from that list, and then start hammering them. Talk talk talk talk talk about those things and what the Dems are going to do to make people lives better, and don't stop talking about them.
I think there's two things with this.
One is messaging and policy don't matter if you haven't got an analysis of where we, why we're there and a strategy of where you want to go. I do not think the Democrats have that on any of those issues. On each one there have been proposals and there are splits on pretty basic issues around it. That's why, in my view looking at messaging is not the solution because it's not tied to or coming out of a strategy that Democrats can broadly cohere around - and voters can tell because it's not tied together. It's the grab-bag of popular policies that do not talk to each other approach, which I think fails.
Second thing is I don't think you can easily convince voters to care about the things you care about/want to fight the election on. I think you have to go where voters are and have an answer to their issues. I said it in the Brexit thread, but I think any political party that is not overwhelmingly focusing on inflation and the economy is doing it wrong. There will also always be a couple of other issues which will vary - in the US I think it's leadership/concerns about Biden and I don't know how you answer that. It isn't enough to talk about climate change or income inequality. Democrats need to have an answer on inflation and the economy - nothing I have seen so far inspires confidence on that.
The other point from this, which, I think hurts the Democrats' ability to raise the alarm about the GOP is that I think - and it was clear during the election - Biden's analysis is basically that Trump is a rupture with the GOP. Biden's project is restorationist - he is a deep believer in the institutions, particularly the Senate. His basic view is that returning to norms pre-Trump is the answer and that the GOP will be tempted back into that framework. I disagree with that. I think Trump is a product of the direction the GOP has been going for a while. I wouldn't full go for it, but I think there's something to Matt Continetti's take that Trump is arguably just the return of pre-New Deal GOP politics: very anti-immigration and racist, suspicious of the mob/majorities, socially conservative, isolationist, pro-capital. Because my view is that Trump isn't rupture but a symptom of the GOP, I'm not convinced Biden's approach is one that will work - but as he's President, Democrats are a little bit tied to the mast with it.
Good points, Sheilbh.
Looking at the top three points from Dorsey's post, they are: leadership, inflation, the economy. The inflation and the economy are if not the same thing, closely related. And if you can show convincing plan on strong leadership on the economy & inflation, then you're covering what 50% of voters are saying they care about. That's not nothing.
So what are the Democrats' options here?
I feel like we're having the same debate split over two threads. Do we need a woke megathread?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 02, 2022, 10:31:47 AMThe other point from this, which, I think hurts the Democrats' ability to raise the alarm about the GOP is that I think - and it was clear during the election - Biden's analysis is basically that Trump is a rupture with the GOP. Biden's project is restorationist - he is a deep believer in the institutions, particularly the Senate. His basic view is that returning to norms pre-Trump is the answer and that the GOP will be tempted back into that framework. I disagree with that. I think Trump is a product of the direction the GOP has been going for a while. I wouldn't full go for it, but I think there's something to Matt Continetti's take that Trump is arguably just the return of pre-New Deal GOP politics: very anti-immigration and racist, suspicious of the mob/majorities, socially conservative, isolationist, pro-capital. Because my view is that Trump isn't rupture but a symptom of the GOP, I'm not convinced Biden's approach is one that will work - but as he's President, Democrats are a little bit tied to the mast with it.
Yeah, I share that concern very much.
Trump is not an aberration, Trump is what you get when you spend 3 decades letting Rush Limbaugh define the party.
Quote from: Jacob on May 02, 2022, 11:33:57 AMGood points, Sheilbh.
Looking at the top three points from Dorsey's post, they are: leadership, inflation, the economy. The inflation and the economy are if not the same thing, closely related. And if you can show convincing plan on strong leadership on the economy & inflation, then you're covering what 50% of voters are saying they care about. That's not nothing.
So what are the Democrats' options here?
It is probably too late because the election is 6 months away and it will be difficult to move anything forward with an election so close.
However, if you are the party in power it is worth remembering that, in the absence of major accomplishments, the general impression is that the national conversation is going to be what people think you were focused on. The democrats got through a major covid relief bill, but there wasn't much else. When the national conversation is on crap like transgender stuff that is what they will think is your focus which regardless of the merits isn't inflation/the economy etc.
Passing bills in the US is really hard. In the absence of being able to do so, they should have been identified the core issues to campaign on and forced vote after vote on them. Make it clear to everyone that democrats are for the working class and republicans are not.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 02, 2022, 01:00:07 PMIt is probably too late because the election is 6 months away and it will be difficult to move anything forward with an election so close.
However, if you are the party in power it is worth remembering that, in the absence of major accomplishments, the general impression is that the national conversation is going to be what people think you were focused on. The democrats got through a major covid relief bill, but there wasn't much else. When the national conversation is on crap like transgender stuff that is what they will think is your focus which regardless of the merits isn't inflation/the economy etc.
Passing bills in the US is really hard. In the absence of being able to do so, they should have been identified the core issues to campaign on and forced vote after vote on them. Make it clear to everyone that democrats are for the working class and republicans are not.
That seems very reasonable to me.
Quote from: Jacob on May 02, 2022, 11:33:57 AMGood points, Sheilbh.
Looking at the top three points from Dorsey's post, they are: leadership, inflation, the economy. The inflation and the economy are if not the same thing, closely related. And if you can show convincing plan on strong leadership on the economy & inflation, then you're covering what 50% of voters are saying they care about. That's not nothing.
So what are the Democrats' options here?
On leadership I think this is where the gerontocracy issue with the Democrats comes in. Biden is old, he's never been a great speaker and he does seem to be visibly ageing with the office as you'd expect. There's nothing you can do about that. So my instinct would be you build up and emphasise the rest of the team and get them doing more, certainly more visibly.
Unfortunately Kamala Harris doesn't appear to have connected with people. And the Congressional leadership and much of the cabinet seem to have as many (and similar issues) as Biden. The Democrats seem pretty wedded to seniority, because I think the best approach on leadership would have been to surround Biden with clear potential successors - lean, hungry, young types. For want of a better analogy people like Paul Ryan.
But I think leadership is also linked to inflation and the economy which, as you say, are tied too. I don't think the Democrats have a message on this yet. They seem to have danced around multiple options which may be right because it's a difficult issue - and if they don't have a coherent idea on those issues, their leadership will be found wanting.
My instinct would be to go populist and push for and propose measures that would help people deal with the cost of living - and I'd fund it with a windfall tax on energy companies - even if it fails I'd make it go to a vote to make Republicans (especially the ones pushing "national conservatism"/"working class conservatism") vote against it. Ideally at the backend also fund measures on energy transition. I don't think any of that has a chance of passing - but there's somoething there that looks like a way of dealing with these issues. And I think they should be talking about it every single day - and hammering home the message they want to help people deal with this, they want a long-term strategy to fix these issues and they want to fund it with a tax on companies benefiting, inadvertently, from Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
The problem is that Republicans will be fine voting against it, and they won't be seen as voting against American working class, but rather voting against the left wing Dems.
I mean, they don't take a hit for voting against *anything*, as long as it is seen as the Dems.
I don't disagree that the Dems have to push it anyway, but I despair at anything making a difference.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 02, 2022, 01:00:07 PMQuote from: Jacob on May 02, 2022, 11:33:57 AMGood points, Sheilbh.
Looking at the top three points from Dorsey's post, they are: leadership, inflation, the economy. The inflation and the economy are if not the same thing, closely related. And if you can show convincing plan on strong leadership on the economy & inflation, then you're covering what 50% of voters are saying they care about. That's not nothing.
So what are the Democrats' options here?
It is probably too late because the election is 6 months away and it will be difficult to move anything forward with an election so close.
However, if you are the party in power it is worth remembering that, in the absence of major accomplishments, the general impression is that the national conversation is going to be what people think you were focused on. The democrats got through a major covid relief bill, but there wasn't much else. When the national conversation is on crap like transgender stuff that is what they will think is your focus which regardless of the merits isn't inflation/the economy etc.
Passing bills in the US is really hard. In the absence of being able to do so, they should have been identified the core issues to campaign on and forced vote after vote on them. Make it clear to everyone that democrats are for the working class and republicans are not.
I don't see anything objectionable here, mostly agree--other than I would clarify I don't think there is
anything Democrats could have done between Biden's swearing in, and right now, that would make them likely to hold the House (the Senate is closer to up in the air, but same deal there.) The problem is, even if we buy into the economic argument that Biden's cash infusion pumped inflation up, which I do, the issue is I also think we were heading for higher inflation even without Biden's Recovery Act. Mainly because Trump had just gotten done pumping a huge amount of cash into the economy, and while 9% inflation is bad, I think say 6 or 7% inflation would still be quite politically damaging.
Additionally current oil prices, which Biden largely had nothing to do with, makes up a very big portion of inflation's "political cost", I think it may make up something like 40% of the total of current inflation, but in visibility it's probably even higher than that. And again, Biden just doesn't have any control over the oil price, not in the timespans we've been working under.
The various supply shocks, employment shocks, etc also are largely outside of Biden's power to fix.
This is all a lot of TLDR to say: things that Presidents frequently get blamed for, were going to happen during these two years no matter what, which means there are few magic tricks to avoid taking the hit. We all know the score--in so much as Presidents affect national economies it is usually with a significant lag time (and usually overstated), but our politics blames the current President in real time, at all times, for the state of the economy. An economy with troubles is bad news for a President.
We also know that in just about every first midterm of a new Presidency, the President's party has lost significant numbers of congressional seats. There is like 1 counter-example to that in the last what, 40 years?
We should be careful confusing the all but certain drubbing the party was
always going to get in 2022 with the larger strategic/structural issues that might make the Dems less able to compete in '24, '26, etc.
Ultimately, it seems like at the root of all evil is the lack of sophistication among the voters themselves. How can you have good governance if the voting populace isn't willing to reward or punish behaviors, and the only reliable issue it does punish the president on, he usually has little to do with it. If voters demand results and can't be bothered to know why none are forthcoming, then it was probably only a matter of time before a cynical enough political player decided to capitalize on it.
There is indeed nothing inherent about the voters that makes them deserve, in a conventional moral sense, good government.
OvB, I don't think inflation is Biden's fault and the general macroeconomic situation in the US is aligned with the developed world/not really conducive to successful midterms for democrats. That shouldn't excuse how bad things look for democrats right now. There was recently polling that Biden's approval rating was lower than any president in US history at this point in his term.
To put things in context, the republicans are putting up some of the worst candidates ever. Herschel Walker in particular is not just a bad senate candidate: he would be the worst senator in the history of senates, going all the way back to the founding of the roman republic. Several credible polls have him ahead of Warnock. It is a dangerous situation:
Normally when a president takes office there is a wave in the president's favor: that obviously didn't happen in 2020.
2016 was a wave year for republicans. this is the senate class up for reelection so gaining seats just augments that.
2018 was a wave for democrats. If republicans enter the election in 2024 with 53 or so senate seats, if the environment doesn't improve significantly they have a real shot at massive senate gains and a filibuster proof senate majority is on the table.
Although that's been the argument among sceptics of democracy since Plato. I don't think it's anymore true now - I think there is an issue with the American system in all of its anti-majoritarian "protections" that have become weapons in the hands of a party that can act like a coherent, parliamentary style political.
There's a provocative political science paper I remember reading that actually the issue with American elections is the lack of disengaged voters turning out. Turnout tends to be low compared to most Western democracies and it tends to be people who have partisan preferences - and because they're partisans are pretty engaged at consuming information that helps their "side". A more informed populace sounds good - but if it's anything like the current informed populace it will be highly polarised in the way it consumes information. People who watch or read more news are not less partisan or less wrong - if anything, they're the opposite.
What American elections lack is a ballast of reliably uninformed voters going off vibes only :lol:
in 2024, these are some of the democratic seats up for election:
Montana
Virginia
West Virginia
Arizona
New Mexico
Nevada
Ohio
Wisconsin
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Of the 33 seats up, only 10 are republicans, and of those 10, the only competitive seats are Florida and Missouri.
It is really going to be important for the democrats to keep republicans from running up the score in 2022 in the senate.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 02, 2022, 03:32:12 PMAlthough that's been the argument among sceptics of democracy since Plato. I don't think it's anymore true now - I think there is an issue with the American system in all of its anti-majoritarian "protections" that have become weapons in the hands of a party that can act like a coherent, parliamentary style political.
There's a provocative political science paper I remember reading that actually the issue with American elections is the lack of disengaged voters turning out. Turnout tends to be low compared to most Western democracies and it tends to be people who have partisan preferences - and because they're partisans are pretty engaged at consuming information that helps their "side". A more informed populace sounds good - but if it's anything like the current informed populace it will be highly polarised in the way it consumes information. People who watch or read more news are not less partisan or less wrong - if anything, they're the opposite.
What American elections lack is a ballast of reliably uninformed voters going off vibes only :lol:
Yeah, there is something to be said for the inherent structural weaknesses built into the American political system. It requires people of good faith. Not the mess on the right. The only penalty for playing disruptive games is far too far off in the future if ever. Try pulling most of those moves in a Parliamentary democracy and run the risk of triggering an immediate election in which your seat is up for grabs.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 02, 2022, 03:28:32 PMOvB, I don't think inflation is Biden's fault and the general macroeconomic situation in the US is aligned with the developed world/not really conducive to successful midterms for democrats. That shouldn't excuse how bad things look for democrats right now. There was recently polling that Biden's approval rating was lower than any president in US history at this point in his term.
I mean I think at least some of the inflation is Biden's fault, certainly not most of it. I also should note Biden has made some genuine missteps--the messaging and handling of Afghanistan withdrawal was poor. On a meta level, I'm really glad we are out of that hell hole country and a pox on the Afghan people who were not worth one drop of American blood, but there's a reason none of the previous President withdrew. The % chance of a bad egg-on-face clusterfuck of a withdrawal was high, and that was proven out.
Biden also has essentially no "presence" as POTUS at all. Again, not going to change the results this year--Afghanistan made Biden look incompetent but few voters vote on foreign policy, and a more energetic and engaged Biden likely isn't swinging many votes in this atmosphere.
QuoteTo put things in context, the republicans are putting up some of the worst candidates ever. Herschel Walker in particular is not just a bad senate candidate: he would be the worst senator in the history of senates, going all the way back to the founding of the roman republic. Several credible polls have him ahead of Warnock. It is a dangerous situation:
For sure--I've been saying the general decline in Republican politician quality is a major issue, and it is essentially happening due to unprecedented levels of political cultism in the electorate. In the 1990s and even 2000s a really shitbag candidate would lose because lots of voters from their own party would vote against them. That barely happens now, even Roy Moore almost won and he was basically a proven pederast.
QuoteNormally when a president takes office there is a wave in the president's favor: that obviously didn't happen in 2020.
2016 was a wave year for republicans. this is the senate class up for reelection so gaining seats just augments that.
2018 was a wave for democrats. If republicans enter the election in 2024 with 53 or so senate seats, if the environment doesn't improve significantly they have a real shot at massive senate gains and a filibuster proof senate majority is on the table.
The wave in the President's favor isn't always certain, Reagan, H.W. Bush and W. Bush all entered office not controlling at least some portion of Congress [Reagan flipped the Senate Red but not the House, H.W. Bush actually had the Senate flip blue the same year he beat Dukakis, and W. Bush saw the Democrats gain 4 Senate Seats the year he beat Gore--making Gore briefly the tiebreaker in a 50-50 Senate until Bush was inaugurated, but six months later Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords left the GOP and started caucusing with the Democrats, giving them Senate control until the next election.] However some of this goes back to something I mentioned in one of the last mega discussions on this now-interminable topic--what we are often really talking about with Democratic fortunes is "avoid losing winnable races." The Democrats lost some winnable races in 2020, which set them up for a real bad 2021 and 2022. If they had won a couple of those winnable races we might have 53 Democrat Senators, which likely is enough to ram a ton of stuff through and nuke the filibuster. Maybe things like election reform, Electoral Count Act reform etc that maybe don't win tons of votes, but at least significantly temper the ability of a future GOP to just make election day a "non-binding poll" and the real decision gets left up to gerrymandered state legislatures. Also because of the nature of the Senate--some of those lost opportunities are locked in until 2026.
In a change of discussion topic...
QuoteSupreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
"We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court.
The Supreme Court has voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by POLITICO.
The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision – Planned Parenthood v. Casey – that largely maintained the right. "Roe was egregiously wrong from the start," Alito writes.
"We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," he writes in the document, labeled as the "Opinion of the Court." "It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives."
Deliberations on controversial cases have in the past been fluid. Justices can and sometimes do change their votes as draft opinions circulate and major decisions can be subject to multiple drafts and vote-trading, sometimes until just days before a decision is unveiled. The court's holding will not be final until it is published, likely in the next two months.
The immediate impact of the ruling as drafted in February would be to end a half-century guarantee of federal constitutional protection of abortion rights and allow each state to decide whether to restrict or ban abortion. It's unclear if there have been subsequent changes to the draft.
No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending. The unprecedented revelation is bound to intensify the debate over what was already the most controversial case on the docket this term.
The draft opinion offers an extraordinary window into the justices' deliberations in one of the most consequential cases before the court in the last five decades. Some court-watchers predicted that the conservative majority would slice away at abortion rights without flatly overturning a 49-year-old precedent. The draft shows that the court is looking to reject Roe's logic and legal protections.
A person familiar with the court's deliberations said that four of the other Republican-appointed justices – Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – had voted with Alito in the conference held among the justices after hearing oral arguments in December, and that line-up remains unchanged as of this week.
The three Democratic-appointed justices – Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – are working on one or more dissents, according to the person. How Chief Justice John Roberts will ultimately vote, and whether he will join an already written opinion or draft his own, is unclear.
The document, labeled as a first draft of the majority opinion, includes a notation that it was circulated among the justices on Feb. 10. If the Alito draft is adopted, it would rule in favor of Mississippi in the closely watched case over that state's attempt to ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
A Supreme Court spokesperson declined to comment or make another representative of the court available to answer questions about the draft document.
POLITICO received a copy of the draft opinion from a person familiar with the court's proceedings in the Mississippi case along with other details supporting the authenticity of the document. The draft opinion runs 98 pages, including a 31-page appendix of historical state abortion laws. The document is replete with citations to previous court decisions, books and other authorities, and includes 118 footnotes. The appearances and timing of this draft are consistent with court practice.
The disclosure of Alito's draft majority opinion – a rare breach of Supreme Court secrecy and tradition around its deliberations – comes as all sides in the abortion debate are girding for the ruling. Speculation about the looming decision has been intense since the December oral arguments indicated a majority was inclined to support the Mississippi law.
Under longstanding court procedures, justices hold preliminary votes on cases shortly after argument and assign a member of the majority to write a draft of the court's opinion. The draft is often amended in consultation with other justices, and in some cases the justices change their votes altogether, creating the possibility that the current alignment on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization could change.
The chief justice typically assigns majority opinions when he is in the majority. When he is not, that decision is typically made by the most senior justice in the majority.
'Exceptionally weak'
A George W. Bush appointee who joined the court in 2006, Alito argues that the 1973 abortion rights ruling was an ill-conceived and deeply flawed decision that invented a right mentioned nowhere in the Constitution and unwisely sought to wrench the contentious issue away from the political branches of government.
Alito's draft ruling would overturn a decision by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that found the Mississippi law ran afoul of Supreme Court precedent by seeking to effectively ban abortions before viability.
Roe's "survey of history ranged from the constitutionally irrelevant to the plainly incorrect," Alito continues, adding that its reasoning was "exceptionally weak," and that the original decision has had "damaging consequences."
"The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions," Alito writes.
Alito approvingly quotes a broad range of critics of the Roe decision. He also points to liberal icons such as the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, who at certain points in their careers took issue with the reasoning in Roe or its impact on the political process.
Alito's skewering of Roe and the endorsement of at least four other justices for that unsparing critique is also a measure of the court's rightward turn in recent decades. Roe was decided 7-2 in 1973, with five Republican appointees joining two justices nominated by Democratic presidents.
The overturning of Roe would almost immediately lead to stricter limits on abortion access in large swaths of the South and Midwest, with about half of the states set to immediately impose broad abortion bans. Any state could still legally allow the procedure.
"The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion," the draft concludes. "Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives."
The draft contains the type of caustic rhetorical flourishes Alito is known for and that has caused Roberts, his fellow Bush appointee, some discomfort in the past.
At times, Alito's draft opinion takes an almost mocking tone as it skewers the majority opinion in Roe, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, a Richard Nixon appointee who died in 1999.
"Roe expressed the 'feel[ing]' that the Fourteenth Amendment was the provision that did the work, but its message seemed to be that the abortion right could be found somewhere in the Constitution and that specifying its exact location was not of paramount importance," Alito writes.
Alito declares that one of the central tenets of Roe, the "viability" distinction between fetuses not capable of living outside the womb and those which can, "makes no sense."
In several passages, he describes doctors and nurses who terminate pregnancies as "abortionists."
When Roberts voted with liberal jurists in 2020 to block a Louisiana law imposing heavier regulations on abortion clinics, his solo concurrence used the more neutral term "abortion providers." In contrast, Justice Clarence Thomas used the word "abortionist" 25 times in a solo dissent in the same case.
Alito's use of the phrase "egregiously wrong" to describe Roe echoes language Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart used in December in defending his state's ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The phrase was also contained in an opinion Kavanaugh wrote as part of a 2020 ruling that jury convictions in criminal cases must be unanimous.
In that opinion, Kavanaugh labeled two well-known Supreme Court decisions "egregiously wrong when decided": the 1944 ruling upholding the detention of Japanese Americans during World War II, Korematsu v. United States, and the 1896 decision that blessed racial segregation under the rubric of "separate but equal," Plessy v. Ferguson.
The high court has never formally overturned Korematsu, but did repudiate the decision in a 2018 ruling by Roberts that upheld then-President Donald Trump's travel ban policy.
The legacy of Plessy v. Ferguson
Plessy remained the law of the land for nearly six decades until the court overturned it with the Brown v. Board of Education school desegregation ruling in 1954.
Quoting Kavanaugh, Alito writes of Plessy: "It was 'egregiously wrong,' on the day it was decided."
Alito's draft opinion includes, in small type, a list of about two pages' worth of decisions in which the justices overruled prior precedents – in many instances reaching results praised by liberals.
The implication that allowing states to outlaw abortion is on par with ending legal racial segregation has been hotly disputed. But the comparison underscores the conservative justices' belief that Roe is so flawed that the justices should disregard their usual hesitations about overturning precedent and wholeheartedly renounce it.
Alito's draft opinion ventures even further into this racially sensitive territory by observing in a footnote that some early proponents of abortion rights also had unsavory views in favor of eugenics.
"Some such supporters have been motivated by a desire to suppress the size of the African American population," Alito writes. "It is beyond dispute that Roe has had that demographic effect. A highly disproportionate percentage of aborted fetuses are black."
Alito writes that by raising the point he isn't casting aspersions on anyone. "For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion," he writes.
Alito also addresses concern about the impact the decision could have on public discourse. "We cannot allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public's reaction to our work," Alito writes. "We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today's decision overruling Roe and Casey. And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision."
In the main opinion in the 1992 Casey decision, Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and Davis Souter warned that the court would pay a "terrible price" for overruling Roe, despite criticism of the decision from some in the public and the legal community.
"While it has engendered disapproval, it has not been unworkable," the three justices wrote then. "An entire generation has come of age free to assume Roe's concept of liberty in defining the capacity of women to act in society, and to make reproductive decisions; no erosion of principle going to liberty or personal autonomy has left Roe's central holding a doctrinal remnant."
When Dobbs was argued in December, Roberts seemed out of sync with the other conservative justices, as he has been in a number of cases including one challenging the Affordable Care Act.
At the argument session last fall, Roberts seemed to be searching for a way to uphold Mississippi's 15-week ban without completely abandoning the Roe framework.
"Viability, it seems to me, doesn't have anything to do with choice. But, if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time?" Roberts asked during the arguments. "The thing that is at issue before us today is 15 weeks."
Nods to conservative colleagues
While Alito's draft opinion doesn't cater much to Roberts' views, portions of it seem intended to address the specific interests of other justices. One passage argues that social attitudes toward out-of-wedlock pregnancies "have changed drastically" since the 1970s and that increased demand for adoption makes abortion less necessary.
Those points dovetail with issues that Barrett – a Trump appointee and the court's newest member – raised at the December arguments. She suggested laws allowing people to surrender newborn babies on a no-questions-asked basis mean carrying a pregnancy to term doesn't oblige one to engage in child rearing.
"Why don't the safe haven laws take care of that problem?" asked Barrett, who adopted two of her seven children.
Much of Alito's draft is devoted to arguing that widespread criminalization of abortion during the 19th and early 20th century belies the notion that a right to abortion is implied in the Constitution.
The conservative justice attached to his draft a 31-page appendix listing laws passed to criminalize abortion during that period. Alito claims "an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment...from the earliest days of the common law until 1973."
"Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. Zero. None. No state constitutional provision had recognized such a right," Alito adds.
Alito's draft argues that rights protected by the Constitution but not explicitly mentioned in it – so-called unenumerated rights – must be strongly rooted in U.S. history and tradition. That form of analysis seems at odds with several of the court's recent decisions, including many of its rulings backing gay rights.
Liberal justices seem likely to take issue with Alito's assertion in the draft opinion that overturning Roe would not jeopardize other rights the courts have grounded in privacy, such as the right to contraception, to engage in private consensual sexual activity and to marry someone of the same sex.
"We emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right," Alito writes. "Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion."
Alito's draft opinion rejects the idea that abortion bans reflect the subjugation of women in American society. "Women are not without electoral or political power," he writes. "The percentage of women who register to vote and cast ballots is consistently higher than the percentage of men who do so."
The Supreme Court remains one of Washington's most secretive institutions, priding itself on protecting the confidentiality of its internal deliberations.
"At the Supreme Court, those who know don't talk, and those who talk don't know," Ginsburg was fond of saying.
That tight-lipped reputation has eroded somewhat in recent decades due to a series of books by law clerks, law professors and investigative journalists. Some of these authors clearly had access to draft opinions such as the one obtained by POLITICO, but their books emerged well after the cases in question were resolved.
The justices held their final arguments of the current term on Wednesday. The court has set a series of sessions over the next two months to release rulings in its still-unresolved cases, including the Mississippi abortion case.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473 (https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473)
Is this even legal? It seems completely fucked up, and if the justification the company gives is right it seems absolutely counter-intuitive.
QuoteStarbucks will raise wages again — but not for unionized workers
Starbucks interim CEO Howard Schultz has a message for workers interested in unionizing: If you do, you could miss out on higher wages.
The coffee chain said it would raise wages back in October. Starbucks will honor those commitments to employees even if they have voted to unionize, Schultz said during an analyst call Tuesday.
But future wage hikes are coming. And they won't necessarily apply to workers in unionized stores, he said.
"Today, we take further steps to modernize our pay and benefits vision for our partners with further investments in wage ... and in September, we will share additional initiatives we are planning for Starbucks partners," he said.
The company will invest $200 million in wages, equipment and training, among other benefits, on top of previously announced commitments, Schultz said. Overall, Starbucks is planning to spend about $1 billion this fiscal year on employees and improving customer experience in stores.
Workers at company-operated stores "will receive these wages and benefit enhancements," he said, as Starbucks (SBUX) can control their pay.
But "we do not have the same freedom to make these improvements at locations that have a union or where union organizing is underway," he said, adding that federal law "prohibits us from promising new wages and benefits at stores involved in union organizing."
The first company-operated Starbucks store voted to unionize in December. Since then, about 46 stores have voted to unionize, with five voting against. Overall, 237 company-owned stores have filed petitions with the National Labor Relations Board so far.
That's just a small portion of the roughly 8,800 US company-owned locations. But Starbucks is eager to stem the flow.
Schultz, who last month stepped into the CEO role for the third time, acknowledged that workers are facing "tremendous strain" as demand grows. Sales at North American company-owned stores open at least 13 months jumped 12% in the three months ending on April 3. Revenues jumped 17% in the region in the quarter. The company's stock jumped about 5% after hours on the results.
To help, the company is offering more support in addition to that higher pay. Some examples: Starting next month, it will double the amount of training time for new baristas. In August, it will do the same for shift supervisors. It's also launching an employee app to keep workers connected.
Quote from: The Larch on May 04, 2022, 06:45:55 PMIs this even legal? It seems completely fucked up, and if the justification the company gives is right it seems absolutely counter-intuitive.
He's just weakening his hand in future negotiations with the unions, since he is conceding that the owners have a lot of money to throw at their employees.
Quote from: The Larch on May 04, 2022, 06:45:55 PMIt's also launching an employee app to keep workers connected.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2Ffc%2F01%2F79%2Ffc01797d229dd99eb073f95bc5a6e3f4.gif&f=1&nofb=1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AkG3dK1Us4
Madison Cawthorn lost his primary.
Quote from: The Larch on May 04, 2022, 06:45:55 PMIs this even legal? It seems completely fucked up, and if the justification the company gives is right it seems absolutely counter-intuitive.
Perfectly legal and not fucked up. Collective bargaining agreements often represent the minimum and maximum wage one can receive for a particular job.
The union negotiates the rates and conditions it believes workers merit with the employer. Once that agreement is done or in the way of being made, you can't simply renegotiate that at will, even if it's to increase the wages. Everything has to be negotiated with the union, not the individual workers.
Quote from: viper37 on May 19, 2022, 12:18:55 PMQuote from: The Larch on May 04, 2022, 06:45:55 PMIs this even legal? It seems completely fucked up, and if the justification the company gives is right it seems absolutely counter-intuitive.
Perfectly legal and not fucked up. Collective bargaining agreements often represent the minimum and maximum wage one can receive for a particular job.
The union negotiates the rates and conditions it believes workers merit with the employer. Once that agreement is done or in the way of being made, you can't simply renegotiate that at will, even if it's to increase the wages. Everything has to be negotiated with the union, not the individual workers.
In the US, this is not legal. Employers may not give preferential wages to non-union workers working the same job. Similarly, unions cannot give preferential contracts to other companies within the same industry (the so-called "Most Favored Nation" clause).
That's it. I'm not hiring Viper as my labour lawyer.
Archbishop of San Francisco says Pelosi cannot receive communion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD00yOBRSDw
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 21, 2022, 01:34:46 AMArchbishop of San Francisco says Pelosi cannot receive communion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD00yOBRSDw
Not surprising. The archbishop is an old-style Catholic that believes that anyone who disagrees with him is evil. He loves to toss around the word "evil."
Can someone explain what's going on with baby formula in the US? :huh:
Mixture of supply chain, recall due to contamination and a shutdown of the largest plant (because of said contamination). Add to that lobbying that made importing baby formula illegal and you have this issue.
One thing is I didn't realize is how many kids are on formula.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 21, 2022, 09:05:03 AMCan someone explain what's going on with baby formula in the US? :huh:
As HVC said, there are a combination of effects (plus hoarding). One of the ironies is that the investigation at the Abbot facility in Michigan didn't turn up any cause for the formula contamination, so there was no obvious fix. The FDA and Abbot have had to go to a more generalized approach, which took longer to figure out and get approved.
Yeah, the biggest problem is that one specific facility produces an unreasonably large percentage of the entire American formula supply, so when that facility is shut down due to an FDA investigation into contamination that killed a couple babies...it's going to impact everything. Just another in a long line of stories we've seen since covid hit that show us the way we structured our supply chain to optimize profits and efficiency completely ignored redundancy and any ability to nimbly respond to disruption.
Re: baby formula this (https://theconversation.com/baby-formula-industry-was-primed-for-disaster-long-before-key-factory-closed-down-183016) is a pretty good primer. The story is full of examples of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Quote from: Jacob on May 19, 2022, 03:58:50 PMThat's it. I'm not hiring Viper as my labour lawyer.
wise decision :sleep:
I'm pretty sure in Quebec, one establishment could be unionized and the other not, and the non union one could have higher wages or better working conditions.
Obviously, that would piss off the union and they would ask for a raise at the next round of negotiations + compensation for the money lost.
But since the goal is to discourage the unionization of stores, the company may not care that much.
That all makes sense - I assumed it was a supply chain issue but then realised that it didn't seem to be an issue anywhere else in the world, so that makes sense.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 21, 2022, 01:34:46 AMArchbishop of San Francisco says Pelosi cannot receive communion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD00yOBRSDw
Worth pointing out there's an American Catholic culture war angle on this, because Americans will export culture war politics into everything :lol:
Cordileone is associated with Cardinal Burke (formerly of Missouri) who is hard-core ultra-conservative and a leader of the resistance to Pope Francis. He's the guy who issued the "dubia" or formal questions about some of Francis' teachings suggesting they're not in line with the church. That wing of Catholicism is particularly strong in the US (which has taken over from France as the home of a very inflexible borderline sedevacantist wing of the church) - it has some links with the former nuncio to the US who has promoted Q Anon, spoke by videolink to a pro-Trump rally and links the deep state to Francis. The fact it exists in the US matters everywhere because American Catholics donate a lot to causes they support - even if in this case they're on the edge of schism basically because their position on American politics matters more to them than their religion. Cordileone isn't that extreme, but that's the wing of the American church he is tied to.
The other end is Cardinal Gregory in DC who is very much more in line with Francis and the direction he's going. He's stated that he will not refuse Biden communion. Though he does, subtly, criticise Biden's position particularly on life. He's totally in line with the global mainstream of the church under Francis but is controversial in the US and under a lot of attack from really hard-right Catholic groups/media which are overwhelmingly based in and funded from the US.
Bidens position on life? :unsure:
That may very well be how Cardinal Gregory puts it.
Biden saying things he isn't supposed to again:
QuoteBiden takes aggressive posture toward China on Asia trip
The president warns that the U.S. would defend Taiwan military in case of an attack by China, drawing a direct analogy to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
By Seung Min Kim, Michelle Ye Hee Lee and Cleve R. Wootson Jr.
Updated May 23, 2022 at 9:26 a.m. EDT|Published May 23, 2022 at 4:19 a.m. EDT
TOKYO — President Biden on Monday signaled a more confrontational approach to China on multiple fronts, issuing a sharp warning against any potential attack on Taiwan at the same time his administration is embroiled in wide-ranging efforts to beat back aggression by another superpower, Russia.
Speaking to reporters during his first trip to Asia as president, Biden said the United States would defend Taiwan militarily if it came under attack by China — despite the U.S. policy of remaining vague on the subject — and that deterring Beijing from aggression in Taiwan and elsewhere was among the reasons it was critical to punish Russian President Vladimir Putin for his "barbarism in Ukraine."
Biden's charm offensive seeks to bolster ties with South Korea, Indo-Pacific
Asked if the United States would defend Taiwan military if it is attacked by China, Biden said, "Yes, that's the commitment we made."
He added: "We agree with the 'One China' policy ... but the idea that it can be taken by force, just taken by force, is just not appropriate. It would dislocate the entire region and be another action similar to what happened in Ukraine. And so it's a burden that's even stronger."
A White House official said Biden's comments simply reiterated a pledge made through a 1979 law that the United States would provide Taiwan with the military means for self-defense. But in the current context — a presidential visit to Seoul and Tokyo and the West's urgent confrontation with Russia over Ukraine — the words had a more powerful resonance and prompted reactions by various countries in the region.
The United States has long maintained a policy of strategic ambiguity toward Taiwan, meaning it is deliberately unclear what it would do if it comes to defending Taiwan. The "One China" policy is a long-standing bit of diplomatic legerdemain under which the U.S. recognizes China's position that there is only one Chinese government, but does not accept Beijing's view that Taiwan is under its rightful control.
The White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to clarify Biden's comments, said the U.S. stance has not changed. But given Russia's similar contention that Ukraine is simply a renegade region, the president's comments took on the tone of a global doctrine that autocracies should not be allowed to swallow up smaller nations by declaring them rebellious provinces.
"Russia has to pay a long-term price for that in terms of the sanctions that have been imposed," Biden said during a news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida at Akasaka Palace. "If in fact there's a rapprochement met between ... the Ukrainians and Russia, and these sanctions are not continued to be sustained in many ways, then what signal does that send to China about the cost of attempting to take Taiwan by force?"
The Biden administration later announced the outlines of a new trade framework that is meant to strengthen U.S. economic ties with Indo-Pacific nations other than China, and on Tuesday Biden will participate in a summit of the Quad, the partnership made up of the United States, India, Japan and Australia that is meant in part to counter China's power globally.
Taken together, Monday's rhetoric and accompanying events underscored the administration's aggressive strategy to blunt Beijing's rising influence. Though the president said he did not expect China to invade Taiwan, Biden said that China was "already flirting with danger."
Taiwanese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Joanne Ou said her agency "sincerely welcomed" Biden's comments, but the Chinese ministry's spokesman Wang Wenbin expressed his government's "strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition" to them. Beijing claims Taiwan is an inalienable part of its territory.
"No one should underestimate the strong determination, firm will and formidable ability of the Chinese people," Wang said at a regular press briefing, according to the state-run Global Times.
At Monday's summit, Biden and Kishida also reinforced their commitment to the alliance and their cooperation on responding to the Russian war.
Japan has adopted a more proactive its foreign policy since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which triggered a deep alarm that has accelerated Japan's ongoing debate over defense and security policies amid China's growing territorial threat.
Japan has been determined to show it can work with its Group of Seven counterparts to stand up to acts of force, out of fear that the lack of a strong response risks emboldening China's growing assertiveness and the worsening of relations between China and Taiwan. Japan is now moving toward increasing its defense budget, which is a sensitive topic because of country's militaristic past.
The world's third-largest economy, Japan has taken uncharacteristically swift steps to join Western allies in financially pressuring Russia and aiding Ukraine. Last week, Tokyo committed an additional $300 million in short-term support to Ukraine, on top of the more than $200 million it had already pledged. Japan accepted more than 1,000 people fleeing Ukraine — an eye-popping figure for a country that has historically been unfriendly to refugees.
Kishida, elected prime minister in the fall, has received high marks at home for his decisions — 71.2 percent of the public supports his response to the Russian invasion, according to a survey released Sunday by Kyodo News, a Japanese outlet.
Part of the U.S.-Japanese response to China's rise is the launch of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, the contours of a new agreement that is designed to be a bulwark against China. The administration says it improves on the political and substantive shortcomings of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, negotiated during the Obama administration when Biden was vice president.
The dozen countries in the new pact with the United States are Australia, Brunei, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. The countries account for 40 percent of global gross domestic product, according to the administration.
"It is by any account the most significant international economic engagement that the United States has ever had in this region," Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said.
The intended audience of the announcement was clear, even though Biden, during the launch event Monday, did not specifically name China. The representatives from the other 12 nations were also careful not to single out the country in their own remarks.
Administration officials have pointed to economic data showing the U.S. economy had grown faster than China's for the first time in four decades as proof that partnering with the United States would be a more alluring option for other Indo-Pacific nations.
"Our view is that this is not about a zero-sum game with China," national security adviser Jake Sullivan said. "It's not about forcing countries to choose. But it is about offering a value proposition that we think countries are taking extremely seriously."
But many officials throughout Asia, including in Japan, are wary of the U.S. rollout of its new economic proposal. Japanese officials have said they are relieved to see the United States reassert itself economically in the Indo-Pacific region but remain frustrated about President Donald Trump's 2017 pullout from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Although it was Trump who formally withdrew the United States from that agreement, it also lacked support from both parties on Capitol Hill and would not have been ratified. It's unclear whether Congress would have to greenlight any eventual agreements created through this new trade framework.
Standing next to Biden during Monday's news conference at Akasaka Palace, Kishida repeatedly stressed Japan's wish for the United States to rejoin the TPP. Meanwhile, many Asia-Pacific countries are already participating in a free-trade agreement involving China, called the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.
The framework released by the White House and the dozen other countries Monday does not include specific commitments or requirements of what each nation has to do to reap the benefits of the pact.
The administration has also faced questions about why Taiwan was excluded from the initial list of participating countries. Last week, a bipartisan majority of 52 senators wrote to Biden, pressing him to ensure the self-governing island and U.S. trading partner was a part of the new framework and said doing so was an economic and military imperative.
Excluding Taiwan "would significantly distort the regional and global economic architecture, run counter to U.S. economic interests, and allow the Chinese government to claim that the international community does not in fact support meaningful engagement with Taiwan," stated the letter, which was written by the two leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Sullivan said the administration will pursue "deeper" bilateral trade relations with Taiwan rather than including it in Tuesday's framework because doing so "puts us in the best position for us to be able to enhance our economic partnership with Taiwan and also to carry IPEF forward with this diverse range of countries."
To bring countries from Southeast Asia, or the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), fully on board, the United States must provide more specifics about its vision, said Fukunari Kimura, economics professor at Keio University in Tokyo and chief economist of the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia.
Market access — lowering the barrier for trade activity with the United States — was an important incentive to convince Southeast Asian countries to join the TPP.
Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), the U.S. ambassador to Japan under the Trump administration, also pointed to the lack of provisions in the new trade framework to boost market access, even as allies in the region are "eager to see more U.S. economic leadership."
On Tuesday, Biden's final day of his Asia trip, he is scheduled to spend much of the day meeting with other leaders from the Quad nations.
The four democracies share security and economic interests, but the grouping exists for reasons that mirror the purpose of Biden's first Asia trip as president: to counter China's growing military and economic might.
Speaking shortly after he was sworn in as Australia's 31st prime minister, Anthony Albanese, who will participate in the Quad summit, said the meeting will send a message of "continuity in the way that we have respect for democracy and the way that we value our friendships and long-term alliances."
Julia Mio Inuma in Tokyo, Lily Kuo in Taipei and Michael E. Miller in Sydney contributed to this report.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/23/biden-japan-taiwan-china/
I am going to assume Biden being out ahead of the "official" word is a feature, not a bug.
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2022, 12:40:08 PMI am going to assume Biden being out ahead of the "official" word is a feature, not a bug.
Yeah, I think that the conclusion is that ambiguity no longer serves US interests. Ambiguity was useful when it was correctly understood in Beijing, but the current Chinese regime is a little to divorced from reality to inspire confidence that they read ambiguity correctly.
In any case, the CCP leadership is determined to be offended by anything and everything, so adding something offensive to them to the mix harms nothing.
It also undermines Xi a bit internally. "Oh look another thing Xi is fucking up."
It's one thing to Wolf Warrior it up when you get no pushback, another to do it when there are consequences.
What was the reason for the ambiguity in the first place? Did China interpret ambiguous guarantee as a committed guarantee, thus giving us the deterrence value of the guarantee without the guaranteed entanglement?
The ambiguity allowed us smooth relations by saying we wouldn't necessarily fight a nuclear war if the Chinese made the wrong the move. I wonder if the Chinese will respond by arming Russia.
Quote from: DGuller on May 23, 2022, 01:56:49 PMWhat was the reason for the ambiguity in the first place? Did China interpret ambiguous guarantee as a committed guarantee, thus giving us the deterrence value of the guarantee without the guaranteed entanglement?
If the US came straight out and said "we'll back Taiwan if there's a war with China" that might very well encourage elements within Taiwan to formally declare independence and otherwise antagonize the PRC. This would increase the risk of a direct war between the US and China, which was not deemed in the US' interests. The US wanted to preserve the status quo of a de facto independent Taiwan at the lowest possible risk of war with China.
Quote from: DGuller on May 23, 2022, 01:56:49 PMWhat was the reason for the ambiguity in the first place? Did China interpret ambiguous guarantee as a committed guarantee, thus giving us the deterrence value of the guarantee without the guaranteed entanglement?
As Jacob said, plus it was a face-saving compromise. The US pretended that Taiwan was part of China and would peacefully rejoin at some point, which satisfied China. The US avoided basically saying that it would take sides in what would be, legally, a civil war. But it also avoided saying that it would not, thus not incentivizing a Chinese invasion. China got what it wanted
de jure but not
de facto, and the US got the
de facto outcome it wanted.
Back in the 70s too I have to assume, when Taiwan itself was an authoritarian dictatorship, that there was just an assumption PRC/ROC weren't that incompatible, and eventually they'd come to terms. Now that Taiwan is a genuine democracy that wants to preserve its independence...it looks a lot worse that we sold them out.
It was impossible to avoid "selling out" the "Republic of China" because the ROC was a joke. The alternative to "selling out" the ROC was to cover our eyes and state firmly that "there is no such thing as the Peoples' Republic of China." Better uncomfortable realities than comfortable fantasies.
I mean we still believe in the two state solution in Israel/Palestine, I wouldn't be so quick to reject America's capacity for self-delusion.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 23, 2022, 05:16:00 PMI mean we still believe in the two state solution in Israel/Palestine, I wouldn't be so quick to reject America's capacity for self-delusion.
:huh: Wow, that came out of left field. Are you trying to say that PRC/ROC is like Palestine/Israel? You are going to explain that one. If that's not what you are trying to say, what
are you trying to say?
Probably the most gaffe potential in what Biden said was the comparison to the situation in the Ukraine, as it could be somewhat confused (to those not paying attention), that the situations are analogous...by that I mean, that Ukraine is to Russia (no one recognizes that Ukraine belongs to Russia...except sometimes Russia) what Taiwan is to China (lots of people accept that Taiwan belongs to China, in law if not in fact).
I think we should just say "fuck the One China principle, it's up to the people of Taiwan", but that is probably a bit too radical to rip that band-aid off.
The real world really need a white peace timer mechanic. After enough time, if you still can't project the power to take the last bit of enemy territory, you just have to auto-peace out, take the territory you're occupying, and move on.
Quote from: grumbler on May 23, 2022, 02:37:28 PMQuote from: DGuller on May 23, 2022, 01:56:49 PMWhat was the reason for the ambiguity in the first place? Did China interpret ambiguous guarantee as a committed guarantee, thus giving us the deterrence value of the guarantee without the guaranteed entanglement?
As Jacob said, plus it was a face-saving compromise. The US pretended that Taiwan was part of China and would peacefully rejoin at some point, which satisfied China. The US avoided basically saying that it would take sides in what would be, legally, a civil war. But it also avoided saying that it would not, thus not incentivizing a Chinese invasion. China got what it wanted de jure but not de facto, and the US got the de facto outcome it wanted.
PRC also got de facto what it wanted at the time: full recognition from the US as "China" and a diplomatic alignment countering the threat from the USSR, which had erupted into armed clashes only 10 years earlier.
Quote from: DGuller on May 23, 2022, 07:10:10 PMThe real world really need a white peace timer mechanic. After enough time, if you still can't project the power to take the last bit of enemy territory, you just have to auto-peace out, take the territory you're occupying, and move on.
PRC has no war exhaustion, so they can continue the war indefinitely.
Article talking about how the Democratic efforts to campaign against Republican abandonment of democracy seem to fall short. My personal belief is this is because the Democrats are still arguing policy and facts, they need to make emotion-laden appeals that get people angry. You cannot compete with emotional rhetoric with policy statements.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/23/democratic-attacks-gop-missing-mark/
QuoteOpinion Are Democratic attacks on the GOP over democracy missing their mark?
By Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman
May 23, 2022 at 6:18 p.m. EDT
Another set of GOP primaries takes place Tuesday, most notably in Georgia, where incumbent Gov. Brian Kemp will likely hold off a challenge from former senator David Perdue, whose campaign is largely based on the idea that Kemp failed to help President Donald Trump steal the 2020 election.
But in the race for secretary of state, Trump-backed Rep. Jody Hice could win, and could end up overseeing the 2024 election in this vital swing state. And in other secretary of state primaries Tuesday, such as in Arkansas and Alabama, Republicans might nominate Trump loyalists who pose a genuine threat to our ability to conduct fair elections and have our votes counted.
Yet Democrats have yet to convince the public to take the threat seriously enough.
A new set of focus groups run by Democratic pollster David Binder from May 10 to May 12 illustrates the point. The research raises a question: Are Democrats getting their criticism of the GOP abandonment of democracy right?
Binder conducted four focus groups in Georgia and two in Michigan, mostly with suburban voters, independents and moderates who have voted for candidates in both parties. The groups were commissioned by the Democratic-aligned voting rights organization IVote to determine what voters want to hear from Democratic candidates for secretary of state.
The results are worrying when it comes to democracy — but also suggest a way forward for Democrats.
For instance, according to a summary of the results of all six focus groups provided to us, they found that most of the voters surveyed appear conflicted about rhetoric that calls out Trump's "big lie" about 2020 and frames all discussion of it around his efforts to overturn his loss.
On the one hand, most of these voters agree with the substance of those claims. On the other, most of them tend to interpret it as partisan rhetoric.
The focus groups do find that voters understand the need for a secretary of state to talk about 2020. But the research concludes that voters want to hear an emphasis on nonpartisan procedural improvements, and that, above all, they want to hear discussion of "proactive measures" a secretary of state will take to "ensure transparency and fairness in future elections."
"When we talk about the 'big lie' and Trump, it looks to them like you're looking backwards and getting partisan," Binder told us. "They want a secretary of state to say, 'I am going to make sure that everyone has the right to vote in a nonpartisan way.' "
Importantly, the focus groups show strong voter support for removing measures that make it harder to vote. Yet, at the same time, they show that these swing voters don't tend to see voter suppression as an effort to "subvert democracy."
All of which suggests several possibilities.
One of them is galling: Republicans have largely treated congressional efforts to probe Trump's effort to destroy our political order as an illegitimate partisan exercise. This may be successfully recasting the dispute over what to do about it as a conventional partisan one.
The second possibility might be that if Democratic candidates for secretary of state want to warn about the threat posed by would-be election saboteurs, they need to make this case in a more urgent fashion.
Talk about the "big lie" sounds backward looking, smacking of an effort to relitigate a past outcome. By contrast, highlighting the specific ways Republicans are gearing up to steal the next election might sound more relevant.
"We cannot be quiet in the face of Republicans saying they're going to change rules in a way that will sabotage future elections," Binder told us. "Do it in a way that looks forward."
In truth, the backward-looking and forward-looking arguments are two sides of the same coin: When a GOP candidate announces his conviction that Trump won in 2020, that's strong evidence that they will try to steal the 2024 election for him (or another GOP loser). But it can be hard to prove this, because the rhetoric of even the most deranged election saboteurs is clothed in high-minded claims about "transparency" and "integrity."
Nevertheless, if voters are more interested in the future than the past, then they are focusing in the right direction. Many Trump loyalists seeking positions of control over election positions — especially governor and secretary of state — accept the presumption that only Republican victories are legitimate, and if voters decide to elect Democrats then they must simply be overruled.
Which is something all voters should be worried about. And if they aren't, Democrats have a duty to make sure they understand the true stakes we face. In future elections.
Such a great example of how lies are so much easier to sell then the truth.
In a two party system, if one of the two parties have abandoned democracy, i'm not sure the logical answer is to get the population emotionally charged up to vote for you. It seems more sensible to get them emotionally charged up to launch the revolution before the other side gets a chance.
You aren't a real democracy if only one side wants to be, and that side is likely to be in the minority if inflation goes up a few percent.
Quote from: Jacob on May 19, 2022, 03:58:50 PMThat's it. I'm not hiring Viper as my labour lawyer.
Well, if you were an employer you would be in a lot of trouble if you followed his advice.
I'm wondering if the best Democratic strategy might be to mock the whole "election was rigged" movement as a bunch of cosplayers pretending to be buffalo shamans trying to save the world from supervillains.
The right is likely to lean into that description, given the whole popular QANON movement, but the mainstream has to laugh at that shit.
General comment, not aimed at anything or anyone in this thread: I've mentioned before what the Democrat message might be to GOP voters who are unlikely to ever vote non-GOP. It's good to remember that even if someone will never vote for you, your message to them is still important. I can think of several different possible messages to them, and they are all in their way legitimate. But it would make sense to me to frame a message around two things: that there is a place in a Democrat-run state for them, but only if they behave, and that if they don't behave then the state will smite them Yehovah-like.
Quote from: grumbler on May 24, 2022, 08:13:40 PMI'm wondering if the best Democratic strategy might be to mock the whole "election was rigged" movement as a bunch of cosplayers pretending to be buffalo shamans trying to save the world from supervillains.
The right is likely to lean into that description, given the whole popular QANON movement, but the mainstream has to laugh at that shit.
Thing is, that only plays into their whole OMG TEH ELITES narrative; I think we've seen that the right, as kooky as they are and as deserving of mockery as it is, really hates being made fun of. The sneering over "clinging to their bibles and guns" and casting them as "deplorables" only pisses them off more and feeds into their pathology.
Granted, policy papers don't work either, because they can't fit on bumper stickers.
Face it: "the mainstream" is not interested in policy. They're interested in culture wars, and we know which way that wind often blows.
Yeah, I've noticed a thing about alt right populist types to outright fish for people calling them stupid so they can go off on one about arrogant metropolitan Liberal elites.
I think we have to stop calling them the alt right. The alt right has become the main stream right.
Quote from: Josquius on May 26, 2022, 05:33:31 PMYeah, I've noticed a thing about alt right populist types to outright fish for people calling them stupid so they can go off on one about arrogant metropolitan Liberal elites.
Yeah.
I've revised my opinion from "stupid" to "mean".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2022, 12:06:38 PMThing is, that only plays into their whole OMG TEH ELITES narrative; I think we've seen that the right, as kooky as they are and as deserving of mockery as it is, really hates being made fun of. The sneering over "clinging to their bibles and guns" and casting them as "deplorables" only pisses them off more and feeds into their pathology.
Granted, policy papers don't work either, because they can't fit on bumper stickers.
Face it: "the mainstream" is not interested in policy. They're interested in culture wars, and we know which way that wind often blows.
If the Democratic strategy deranges the right, so much the better. The more insane the right looks, the more motivated the apathetic middle is to vote to keep them away from the reins of power.
The trick is to make them look deranged rather than yourself look smug and arrogant.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 26, 2022, 08:55:12 PMThe trick is to make them look deranged rather than yourself look smug and arrogant.
They don't need any help looking deranged.
(https://imageio.forbes.com/specials-images/imageserve/5fcf3ea947ab83cc88348589/RNC-Trump-Presser-with-Giuliani/0x0.jpg?format=jpg&crop=5374,3024,x0,y272,safe&width=960)
Avoiding smug and arrogant is good, but looking smug and arrogant hasn't hurt the Republicans.
Is there an Overton window on crazy vs arrogant?
As I think that might have shifted too. Merely knowing a fact is now arrogant.
Quote from: Josquius on May 27, 2022, 01:44:00 AMIs there an Overton window on crazy vs arrogant?
As I think that might have shifted too. Merely knowing a fact is now arrogant.
It is okay to know a fact but why should you rub it in people's faces?
Quote from: garbon on May 27, 2022, 01:47:26 AMIt is okay to know a fact but why should you rub it in people's faces?
Because sometimes that can be entertaining for both parties.
Quote from: garbon on May 27, 2022, 01:47:26 AMQuote from: Josquius on May 27, 2022, 01:44:00 AMIs there an Overton window on crazy vs arrogant?
As I think that might have shifted too. Merely knowing a fact is now arrogant.
It is okay to know a fact but why should you rub it in people's faces?
If I say a cow is a vache in French is that rubbing it in your face?
Quote from: Josquius on May 27, 2022, 03:17:52 AMQuote from: garbon on May 27, 2022, 01:47:26 AMQuote from: Josquius on May 27, 2022, 01:44:00 AMIs there an Overton window on crazy vs arrogant?
As I think that might have shifted too. Merely knowing a fact is now arrogant.
It is okay to know a fact but why should you rub it in people's faces?
If I say a cow is a vache in French is that rubbing it in your face?
Please keep that behind closed doors. :blurgh:
Plenty of people voted for a deranged-looking Trump.
Quote from: Solmyr on May 27, 2022, 04:12:54 AMPlenty of people voted for a deranged-looking Trump.
Sure, but that goes back to the shitty Democratic messaging issue.
Trump was always going to get the deranged vote. What the Dems needed to focus their messages on isn't the derangement of the right, but how pathetic it is.
Quote from: garbon on May 27, 2022, 01:47:26 AMIt is okay to know a fact but why should you rub it in people's faces?
I believe John Cleese addressed this some time ago
QuoteTo call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. . . . Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement.
Quote from: Josquius on May 26, 2022, 05:33:31 PMYeah, I've noticed a thing about alt right populist types to outright fish for people calling them stupid so they can go off on one about arrogant metropolitan Liberal elites.
metropolitan Liberals don't really need outright fishing to call people outside their immediate circle "stupid". That's been pretty much or less the same since at least the 80s.
Edit:
thinking of it, since at least Versailles was built...
Quote from: grumbler on May 27, 2022, 08:00:11 AMWhat the Dems needed to focus their messages on isn't the derangement of the right, but how pathetic it is.
calling them a coallition of the pathetic?
Maybe...
Quote from: viper37 on May 27, 2022, 04:10:57 PMQuote from: Josquius on May 26, 2022, 05:33:31 PMYeah, I've noticed a thing about alt right populist types to outright fish for people calling them stupid so they can go off on one about arrogant metropolitan Liberal elites.
metropolitan Liberals don't really need outright fishing to call people outside their immediate circle "stupid". That's been pretty much or less the same since at least the 80s.
Edit:
thinking of it, since at least Versailles was built...
.
They don't even exist in the right wing sense. It's just a way of grouping together various groups they don't like, whether they're urban dwelling and Liberal or not, using a term that requires a bit of investigation to see "yeah, you just copy and pasted old nazi and Soviet propeganda there".
That's another myth the far right use though. The whole "you just can't stand anyone with a different point of view!" when it's one particular point of view someone takes umbrage with.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 24, 2022, 08:41:48 AMQuote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2022, 11:58:19 AMQuote from: jimmy olsen on February 22, 2022, 06:45:02 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2022, 06:15:20 PMApparently Hershel Walker is running for US Senator from Georgia as a Republican. A Trump friendly Republican according to CNN.
Help for Yuros: retired black football player.
Dude has dissociative identity disorder, hard to see him overcoming that.
There are betting odds on him getting the republican nomination for Senate. He is at 90%.
There are also betting odds on Republicans winning the senate race. They are at 62%.
Just how disconnected from the country are you?
Haven't been any dark money ads attacking his mental state yet.
Alright Tim, now there have been a zillion ads attacking him from all directions...He won the republican primary by 54% and fivethirtyeight now has him a 55% favorite to win the senate seat.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/senate/georgia/
Are you ready to admit defeat on this one?
Quote from: alfred russel on July 01, 2022, 06:39:39 AMAre you ready to admit defeat on this one?
You are missing the bigger picture. Yes Georgia may elect Walker, but only so that they can trade him to Minnesota for extra Senators.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 01, 2022, 08:34:50 AMQuote from: alfred russel on July 01, 2022, 06:39:39 AMAre you ready to admit defeat on this one?
You are missing the bigger picture. Yes Georgia may elect Walker, but only so that they can trade him to Minnesota for extra Senators.
Electing Walker would indeed be a gamble for Georgia. But who better to gamble with than a guy that has played russian roulette at least 6 times and is still going strong?
I see Mayor Pete launching "Momentum" an initiative to help countries around the world learn from the DoT's best practices and expertise in "planning and modernizing transportation infrastructure".
I have to be honest the impression I have of US infrastructure is that, much like the UK, it's not where I'd go for best practice at modernisation :huh: :lol: It may just be the famous ones but, like the UK, my impression is that it's generally always wildly expensive and often very late in being delivered - but maybe I'm wrong? :hmm:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWlG9XlWQAArJpQ?format=png&name=small)
:pinch: It's painful because it's true.
That cartoon will annoy many and convince no one. Anyone who finds Handmaid's Tale plausible is already a Democrat.
It's more than plausible in Afghanistan
As for America, lots of things that would have seemed implausible in 2014 have come to pass.
I'm agnostic about Handmaid's Tale as an imagining of a dystopia in which the vast majority of women are rendered infertile. It would shock society and I can imagine efforts to reorganize the limited resource for optimal reproduction.
I'm less enamored of Handmaid's Tale as a critique of current society or current trends.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 01, 2022, 10:00:28 PMThat cartoon will annoy many and convince no one. Anyone who finds Handmaid's Tale plausible is already a Democrat.
It's hyperbole.
Nobody thinks things literally will end up the same as HT.
But moving in that sort of direction? Well yes. It's happening.
Who would be annoyed at it on what grounds BTW?
Quote from: Josquius on July 02, 2022, 03:05:48 AMBut moving in that sort of direction? Well yes. It's happening.
Who would be annoyed at it on what grounds BTW?
Because that's treating it as a smooth, continuous variable. It's not. It's discrete acts.
I had no idea it referred to Handmaid's Tale, I didn't even know what it was until I googled it just know. Apparently it's a novel by some obscure Canadian author. I just assumed that the cartoon described some horrible vision of the future, and that we got there because too many voters vote for the dumbest of reasons.
Quote from: DGuller on July 02, 2022, 11:23:42 AMI had no idea it referred to Handmaid's Tale, I didn't even know what it was until I googled it just know. Apparently it's a novel by some obscure Canadian author.
You're kidding, right?
On the topic of US agencies, maybe they could nerf DHS instead of EPA?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWqRawvWYAAWq06?format=jpg&name=medium)
Apparently that's a real letter that a woman in Dallas received recently. :wacko:
I think calls for violence were never covered by First Amendment. I'm not sure what the problem is here. It seems like there should be some agency out there in charge of monitoring that.
I don't think that it is possible for government agencies to distinguish between genuine incitements to violence and "I was just venting" incitements to violence. Warning inciters without attempting to mind-read them for seriousness seems warranted.
Dallas woman should STFU with that shit.
Quote from: DGuller on July 02, 2022, 11:23:42 AMI had no idea it referred to Handmaid's Tale, I didn't even know what it was until I googled it just know. Apparently it's a novel by some obscure Canadian author. I just assumed that the cartoon described some horrible vision of the future, and that we got there because too many voters vote for the dumbest of reasons.
Do you even read this forum?
He probably doesn't get Hulu.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 02, 2022, 01:27:49 PMQuote from: DGuller on July 02, 2022, 11:23:42 AMI had no idea it referred to Handmaid's Tale, I didn't even know what it was until I googled it just know. Apparently it's a novel by some obscure Canadian author. I just assumed that the cartoon described some horrible vision of the future, and that we got there because too many voters vote for the dumbest of reasons.
Do you even read this forum?
I would have thought that the reference to "some obscure Canadian author" would have clued you in that he was joking.
Quote from: DGuller on July 02, 2022, 11:23:42 AMApparently it's a novel by some obscure Canadian author.
She's not obscure on Languish :P
Quote from: The Larch on July 02, 2022, 11:33:35 AMApparently that's a real letter that a woman in Dallas received recently. :wacko:
CdM is a really a woman in Dallas?
Wow, never saw that coming.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 02, 2022, 03:48:16 PMQuote from: The Larch on July 02, 2022, 11:33:35 AMApparently that's a real letter that a woman in Dallas received recently. :wacko:
CdM is a really a woman in Dallas?
Wow, never saw that coming.
I'd have expected his answer to be much more loquacious and sweary.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 01, 2022, 11:05:10 PMI'm agnostic about Handmaid's Tale as an imagining of a dystopia in which the vast majority of women are rendered infertile. It would shock society and I can imagine efforts to reorganize the limited resource for optimal reproduction.
I'm less enamored of Handmaid's Tale as a critique of current society or current trends.
Yeah, because a religiously motivated political movement gaining political power is just crazy talk.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 03, 2022, 05:14:43 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2022, 04:59:09 PMQuote from: Eddie Teach on July 02, 2022, 01:31:22 PMHe probably doesn't get Hulu.
Or read
You realize he's joking, right? :hmm:
Yeah, that is why I was responding to you and not him - you may have missed the point of my post. Not the first time.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 01, 2022, 06:39:39 AMQuote from: jimmy olsen on February 24, 2022, 08:41:48 AMQuote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2022, 11:58:19 AMQuote from: jimmy olsen on February 22, 2022, 06:45:02 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2022, 06:15:20 PMApparently Hershel Walker is running for US Senator from Georgia as a Republican. A Trump friendly Republican according to CNN.
Help for Yuros: retired black football player.
Dude has dissociative identity disorder, hard to see him overcoming that.
There are betting odds on him getting the republican nomination for Senate. He is at 90%.
There are also betting odds on Republicans winning the senate race. They are at 62%.
Just how disconnected from the country are you?
Haven't been any dark money ads attacking his mental state yet.
Alright Tim, now there have been a zillion ads attacking him from all directions...He won the republican primary by 54% and fivethirtyeight now has him a 55% favorite to win the senate seat.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/senate/georgia/
Are you ready to admit defeat on this one?
I'll admit defeat when he wins and not sooner. The trend on the polls listed on the bottom seems good.
Quote from: DGuller on July 02, 2022, 11:23:42 AMI had no idea it referred to Handmaid's Tale, I didn't even know what it was until I googled it just know. Apparently it's a novel by some obscure Canadian author. I just assumed that the cartoon described some horrible vision of the future, and that we got there because too many voters vote for the dumbest of reasons.
Joke, or you really don't know the author is Malthus aunt and super famous?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 02, 2022, 03:48:16 PMQuote from: The Larch on July 02, 2022, 11:33:35 AMApparently that's a real letter that a woman in Dallas received recently. :wacko:
CdM is a really a woman in Dallas?
Wow, never saw that coming.
Seedy would threaten to beat them with a bag full of fetuses.
Dead fetuses. An important distinction.
Quote from: grumbler on July 03, 2022, 10:44:43 PMDead fetuses. An important distinction.
Due to recent legal changes CdM might have issues sources said dead fetuses.
QuoteBiden signs executive order on abortion, declares Supreme Court 'out of control'
WASHINGTON, July 8 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden said the Supreme Court decision overturning the right to an abortion was an exercise in "raw political power" and signed an executive order on Friday to help protect access to services to terminate pregnancies.
Biden, a Democrat, has been under pressure from his own party to take action after the landmark decision last month to overturn Roe v Wade, which upended roughly 50 years of protections for women's reproductive rights.
The president's powers are constrained because U.S. states can make laws restricting abortion and access to medication, and the executive order is expected to have a limited impact.
"What we're witnessing wasn't a constitutional judgment, it was an exercise in raw political power," Biden told reporters at the White House after quoting heavily from the dissenting opinion in the ruling.
"We cannot allow an out of control Supreme Court, working in conjunction with extremist elements of the Republican party, to take away freedoms and our personal autonomy," he said.
The White House is not publicly entertaining the idea of reforming the court itself or expanding the nine-member panel, an option pushed by Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Representative Pramila Jayapal.
In Friday's speech, Biden instead laid out how abortion rights could be secured by voters if they elected more pro-choice senators, and noted the Supreme Court majority opinion referred to women's "political power."
"I don't think the court, or for that matter Republicans ... have a clue about the power of American women," he said, adding he believed women would turn out in record numbers in November's election to restore women's rights.
He also cited recent reports that a 10-year-old girl in Ohio was forced to travel to Indiana to have an abortion after she was raped.
"Imagine being a little girl. Just imagine being a little girl, 10 years old. Does anyone believe that?," he said.
Asked what, exactly could change for women immediately after the order was signed, Jen Klein, director of the president's Gender Policy Council at the White House afterwards, did not name any specifics.
"You can't solve by executive action what the Supreme Court has done," she said.
Still, progressive lawmakers and abortion rights groups welcomed the executive order. Senator Elizabeth Warren called it "important first steps," and asked the administration to explore every available option to protect abortion rights.
Protecting abortion rights is a top issue for women Democrats, Reuters polling shows, and more than 70% of Americans think the issue should be left to a woman and her doctor. read more
Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said "Democrats are out of touch with the American people" after Biden's remarks.
On Friday, Biden directed the Health and Human Services Department to protect and expand access to "medication abortion" approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Experts have said a pill used to terminate early pregnancies is unlikely to become available without a prescription for years.
He also directed the department to ensure women have access to emergency medical care, family planning services, and contraception, including intrauterine devices (IUDs).
The Supreme Court's ruling restored states' ability to ban abortion. As a result, women with unwanted pregnancies face the choice of traveling to another state where the procedure remains legal and available, buying abortion pills online, or having a potentially dangerous illegal abortion.
The issue may help drive Democrats to the polls in the November midterm elections, when Republicans have a chance of taking control of Congress.
Biden's executive order also aims to protect patients' privacy and ensuring safety for mobile abortion clinics at state borders, and directs the establishment of a task force to coordinate the administration's response on reproductive health care access.
The ruling is expected to have a disproportionate impact on Black women and other women of color, who have traditionally faced overwhelming costs and logistical obstacles in obtaining reproductive healthcare, experts said.
Fingers crossed American women do turn out then.
Glad Biden did something. People aren't going to turn out unless they think the Democrats are going to do something.
So the POTUS says that the US justice system is out of control. The nutty Russian professor gets correcter and correcter.
Quote from: The Brain on July 10, 2022, 10:18:39 AMSo the POTUS says that the US justice system is out of control. The nutty Russian professor gets correcter and correcter.
You are going to have to be more specific.
Heard some encouraging stuff on NPR.
Recent survey shows Democrats getting a bump. Generic D congressional candidate beats generic R by 3 points. 1/3 say abortion, guns, or threat to democracy are their primary worry.
I searched NPR site but can't find.
Even if the Democrats win by 3 we still lose just by how the districts are drawn.
But yeah the polls are starting to swing the Dems way. Not Joe Biden's way though. I sure the fuck hope he plans to retire after his first term.
Looked around a little and it seems that generic D is still trailing generic R but there has been a 3 point reduction in the gap.
The tacos thing. This is what I intended to talk about today. It seemed like a critical issue yesterday. But I managed to find something more interesting, as hard as it was.
Gov. Newsom taps into liberal fury and sparks talk of presidential run (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/13/newsom-abortion-guns-2024/)
QuoteThe California governor has an audience as Republicans roll back rights and protections on the watch of Democrats in Washington
SACRAMENTO — Barely a month into his first term as mayor nearly two decades ago, Gavin Newsom took a polarizing stand: He told a clerk to defy state law and start issuing some of the nation's first same-sex marriage licenses.
Democrats said the backlash helped sink their nominee for president; an openly gay congressman feared Newsom's move as mayor of San Francisco would only hurt the cause and become "a diversion." Even some liberal Democrats like then-Sen. Barbara Boxer of California did not join Newsom, voicing satisfaction with the state's domestic partnerships law.
The 2004 episode, supporters and advisers said, helped establish the political strategy of the now-governor of California, who has plunged himself into the center of the nation's raging fights over abortion, guns and LGBTQ rights — sometimes dividing and criticizing fellow Democrats. "Where the hell's my party?" he asked this year.
But unlike the relatively lonely crusade he waged 18 years ago, Newsom (D) has found an audience in many Democrats who have grown dismayed at the Biden administration and party leadership in Congress after Republicans rolled back long-cherished protections on their watch. His combativeness, including a direct confrontation of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), and policy countermeasures, such as using Republican antiabortion tactics to tighten state gun laws, have stoked speculation about a possible run for president as soon as 2024.
"He's giving a signal to others in the Democratic Party that this is not, you know, a time to be — " Boxer said in an interview.
She paused, struggling to find the right words. "This is the time," she continued. "It isn't the time to be sweet and nice."
Newsom sounded more alarms Wednesday about Democrats' strategy during a trip to Washington, even as he said emphatically that Biden should run for reelection. He said the party has allowed Republicans to "dominate the narrative," and that a cohesive countereffort "just doesn't exist, respectfully, from my vantage point," shortly after using his speech at a national education conference to denounce the conservative backlash to school discussions of race, LGBTQ identity and "social emotional learning."
The governor has said his calls for Democratic action are not meant to fault leaders like Biden, and political observers doubted Newsom would run against him. Advisers pointed to Newsom's insistence he has "subzero interest" in a presidential bid, though one of them would not rule out a run even if a fellow Californian, Vice President Harris, is a candidate.
Biden's stated intent to run for a second term has not quelled some calls in the party for a new direction, with growing concerns about his low approval ratings and his ability to run again in his 80s. Liberal activists launched a website this week urging him to step aside. Amid this rising angst, some Democrats see Newsom as an increasingly intriguing presidential prospect if there is an open primary.
Yet there are Democrats who say Newsom's criticism of the party is counterproductive and fear centrist voters would view him as a polarizing avatar of coastal blue state elitism. As one Democratic pollster put it, the Republican attack ads would write themselves. The pollster, who like others interviewed for this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity to be more candid, also suggested that female leaders should take center stage on issues like abortion.
"Nooooo!" groaned Samantha Sears, 33, when asked at an abortion rights protest here this month if Biden should run for reelection. She said she liked Newsom — "I have said in our house that he would be a great president" — but echoed others who don't see a heterosexual White male as the best face for a diverse party. "He's a cis, White, hetero man," she said, a "My Body My Choice" sign under her arm.
Still, Democrats across the spectrum said Newsom has channeled the raw anger that has gripped the party like few others. His campaign recently spent about $100,000 to air an Independence Day ad on Fox News. The commercial didn't air in California, where Newsom is expected to comfortably win reelection in November, but in Florida. "Freedom, it's under attack in your state," the governor said in the spot. "Your Republican leaders? They're banning books. Making it harder to vote. Restricting speech in classrooms. Even criminalizing women and doctors."
After Texas passed an unprecedented abortion ban designed to evade judicial scrutiny, Newsom said his liberal state would use the same strategy against assault weapons; he signed the resulting legislation this week.
And at a news conference this year, as the Supreme Court closed in on overturning Roe v. Wade, Newsom railed against the conservative agenda — "they're winning, they are" — and also questioned the Democratic response, asking, "Where the hell's my party?"
"There's this misconception that leadership necessarily has to start at the top and we need to get our talking points from Capitol Hill and the DNC," said a longtime adviser to Newsom, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the adviser was not authorized to speak on the record.
When asked if the adviser could imagine Newsom running against Harris, this person replied: "I think the real answer is: Who the hell knows?"
Newsom said Wednesday that he plans to get lunch with Harris in Washington. "I think she's been wonderful," he said. "I mean it. Look — how do you judge that position? It's difficult, because she has constraints in that office." Newsom will also be meeting with members of Congress this week and discussing abortion rights, climate change and guns, aides said.
The governor told reporters his only ambition is "to express the frantic frustration, anger and despair a lot of folks are feeling about what's happening in this country in real time. And it transcends the administration. But we have to have the administration's back."
Some Democrats said they have felt emboldened by Newsom's fiery rhetoric. "Democratic voters are tired of feeling like we're on defense and want our leaders to go on offense because we believe that we're right on the issues," said Ian Calderon, a former majority leader of the California State Assembly who welcomed Newsom's Florida ad. "He sees this void and sees that he is somebody who can fill that," Calderon added of Newsom.
Biden has moved more incrementally than many in his party have said they would like in the wake of Roe being overturned, embracing a change to Senate rules to enable Democrats to codify abortion rights only after pressure in the party built up. Democrats have also been frustrated with Republican moves to tighten voting laws in key states and target LGBTQ rights, wishing they could see a more forceful response from the Democrats who control Congress and the White House.
Biden "was nominated on the promise that he would try to draw the country together after the horrible divisiveness of Trump, and so he is never going to be the culture warrior leader that some people were hungry for," said Matt Bennett, a co-founder of Third Way, a center-left think tank. He praised Biden's approach, but added, "If we presume that the Republicans will nominate Trump or somebody just like him — and I would put DeSantis in that category — whoever we nominate, whether it's the president or somebody else, is going to have to be ready to fight."
DeSantis's gubernatorial campaign declined to comment.
Newsom's posture has rankled other Democrats. Asked in May about Newsom's "Where the hell's my party?" comment on CBS's "Face the Nation," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said: "I have no idea why anybody would make that statement unless they were unaware of the fight that has been going on."
Newsom also clashed with fellow Democrats after rising from mayor to lieutenant governor in 2011. That year, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Newsom criticized state government and drew some boos for saying former president Barack Obama should have done more to achieve his agenda while his party controlled Congress.
"He might win the presidency just energizing the heck out of the base," said Evan Bayh, a centrist Democrat and former governor and senator from Indiana, speaking of Newsom. But Bayh said Democrats' priority right now should be winning Senate seats — not "critiquing the president's performance or setting the stage for the next presidential nominating process."
Biden, 79, has said he plans to run for reelection, but some in the party hope he might change his mind. One liberal website that launched this week says, "With so much at stake, making him the Democratic Party's standard-bearer in 2024 would be a tragic mistake."
In such a scenario, many Democrats expect a potentially crowded primary with governors, members of Congress and Cabinet secretaries possibly making White House bids.
Newsom told the San Francisco Chronicle this year that he has "subzero interest" in running for president. "It's not even on my radar," he said. Harris — who made her career alongside him in California — should be next in line, Newsom said. (Some of his current advisers have worked on Harris's campaigns.)
But skeptics point to Newsom's recent actions — including his debut on Truth Social, former president Donald Trump's social media platform, where his first post discussed a "red state murder problem."
The White House and a spokesperson for Harris did not respond to requests for comment. Asked this month about Biden's efforts on guns and abortion compared with other Democrats including Newsom, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters, "The president been also very loud and also very focused on those two issues." She pointed to the Biden's leadership in the recent gun-control legislation he signed into law and added, "He welcomes other voices in the Democratic Party."
Bakari Sellers, a surrogate for Harris when she ran for president, praised Newsom as "arguably one of our better messengers" — but said he has "a very difficult needle to thread" and "doesn't need to be campaigning for president of the United States."
With Democratic supermajorities in the state legislature and the ability to shape the world's fifth-largest economy, Newsom has more leeway than many Democratic leaders in other states and Washington to champion liberal policies and produce results, at a moment when many Democrats have grown frustrated with the slow-moving agenda in the nation's capital. Late last week, Newsom announced that California would produce its own insulin to sell "close to at-cost" as the fate of a federal bill to cap prices remains unclear.
California will make its own insulin to fight drug's high prices, Newsom says
When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the constitutional right to an abortion, state leaders moved to shield patients and providers in California from out-of-state liability. And last month, when the court curbed the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency, Newsom touted the California budget's funding to fight climate change and said blue states have to "double down, quadruple down."
Newsom has made himself a particular foil to DeSantis, who is also seen as a potential presidential candidate. DeSantis has championed "freedom" from some coronavirus restrictions and has moved to curb classroom discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity.
On Wednesday, at the 2022 National Forum on Education Policy, Newsom likened the latest policy battles to efforts to bar gay teachers from schools in the 1970s. "What the hell's going on in this country?" he told a ballroom crowd.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) appeals to residents of Florida to join "the fight" for freedom, which he says is under attack by Republicans in their state. (Video: Gavin Newsom)
At the abortion rights protest this month outside the California Capitol, some marchers were eager for new Democratic leaders.
Kim Coleman Berger said she would love to see Harris run in 2024. But she likes Newsom, too: "He's the reason we're married," she said, standing beside her wife after the protest. The couple wore matching T-shirts with a profane message for members of the Supreme Court.
Newsom's aggressive tone is more often adopted by leaders further to the left like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), said Dan Schnur, a former Republican strategist who left the party and teaches political communications in California.
"Newsom pushes back just as hard," Schnur said. "But from the center-left."
The recent enthusiasm for Newsom's style is all the more striking given his vulnerability last year, when an effort to recall him from office prompted headlines like "Why Are Democrats Freaking Out About A Race In California?" and "Newsom's big problem in the recall election? Likability."
Recall proponents tapped into angst over Newsom's coronavirus restrictions and accusations of hypocrisy, after Newsom went to a lobbyist's birthday party at an expensive restaurant, the French Laundry, despite California's restrictions on gatherings.
Opponents in the recall and past elections have portrayed Newsom as out-of-touch with his constituents — highlighting his family connections to wealthy donors, his children's attendance at private school amid shutdowns and his multimillionaire status as the founder of a chain of wineries, restaurants and hotels.
But Newsom defeated the recall decisively last November after casting the race as a referendum on "Trumpism" that would install a Republican in his place. He coasted in this year's all-party primary, finishing as the top vote-getter.
Should Biden announce he won't seek a 2nd term? Would Newsom do better against Trump or DeSantis or is the problem deeper than the Presidential candidate? Is Kamala Harris a bad candidate due to the revelations that she does not seem to get along well with other people in her place of work? We haven't seen her much since the beginning of Biden's term.
Are the Democrats better off uniting behind Biden for a 2nd term or going on in a primary asap?
Even with Biden the Democrats won the last time around - imagine what they could do with someone who is more competent.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2022, 10:44:28 AMEven with Biden the Democrats won the last time around - imagine what they could do with someone who is more competent.
If only we could find somebody.
Who's up next? I don't even know the contenders. Is it Hilary again? Kamala?
Quote from: viper37 on July 14, 2022, 09:43:36 AMShould Biden announce he won't seek a 2nd term? Would Newsom do better against Trump or DeSantis or is the problem deeper than the Presidential candidate? Is Kamala Harris a bad candidate due to the revelations that she does not seem to get along well with other people in her place of work? We haven't seen her much since the beginning of Biden's term.
Are the Democrats better off uniting behind Biden for a 2nd term or going on in a primary asap?
Hell I wanted Biden to make that known before he was inaugurated. He said his main job was to pass the baton to the newer generation but never stated it clearly what exactly he meant. I think he thought that younger person was Harris but based on how she crashed and burned in the primaries (all while attacking him no less) I am not sure why he concluded that.
Not sure about Gavin Newsome. I thought he was rather unpopular for some of the things that happened during the pandemic but but I have no strong feelings at this point because I don't know any details. His announcement that California is going to make insulin is a good look recently though.
My guess is Biden doesn't run '24, and the likely successor will be determined in a fairly contested primary. My guess is the names you'll see: Newsom, Harris, Buttigieg, Booker, Tim Ryan, maybe Sherrod Brown if he loses his reelection bid in Ohio (while Ohio may have finally moved too red to keep electing a blue-collar Democrat, it's possible he would feel he has Biden-esque qualities for swing state Democrats--I've heard the biggest barrier to Brown running previously is he was considered indispensable as holding down an otherwise red Senate seat.)
Quote from: HVC on July 14, 2022, 10:58:25 AMWho's up next? I don't even know the contenders. Is it Hilary again? Kamala?
Kamala just has no traction. Hillary is too old and already lost twice.
But we haven't even started our 20+ month election yet. We haven't even had the 2022 election yet. This time next year there will be 20 candidates or something crazy like that.
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2022, 11:03:04 AMQuote from: HVC on July 14, 2022, 10:58:25 AMWho's up next? I don't even know the contenders. Is it Hilary again? Kamala?
Kamala just has no traction. Hillary is too old and already lost twice.
But we haven't even started our 20+ month election yet. We haven't even had the 2022 election yet. This time next year there will be 20 candidates or something crazy like that.
Not only are our elections starting earlier, but now it takes weeks after to count the ballots, then lawyers litigate the ballots, then mobs fight it out. It really gives us a lot of compelling television programming.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 14, 2022, 12:01:58 PMNot only are our elections starting earlier, but now it takes weeks after to count the ballots, then lawyers litigate the ballots, then mobs fight it out. It really gives us a lot of compelling television programming.
It should be done the Corsican way: fill the urns, throw them away, let the stronger contestant win.
It's more expedient.
Once the republicans flip both the House and Senate later this year, I don't think it matters who the Democrats run in 2024.
Quote from: Zoupa on July 14, 2022, 01:10:27 PMOnce the republicans flip both the House and Senate later this year, I don't think it matters who the Democrats run in 2024.
House is probably a lost cause but don't give up on the Senate.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/senate/?cid=rrpromo
Quote from: Zoupa on July 14, 2022, 01:10:27 PMOnce the republicans flip both the House and Senate later this year, I don't think it matters who the Democrats run in 2024.
I guess the idea is that they are going to steal the election?
We'll see. Still need to have a good candidate.
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2022, 01:17:25 PMI guess the idea is that they are going to steal the election?
It seems like the kind of thing Republicans do.
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2022, 01:16:28 PMHouse is probably a lost cause but don't give up on the Senate.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/senate/?cid=rrpromo
Still matters how much they flip the house if the concern is stealing an election. They probably need a decisively solid majority for that.
Quote from: Jacob on July 14, 2022, 01:19:00 PMQuote from: Valmy on July 14, 2022, 01:17:25 PMI guess the idea is that they are going to steal the election?
It seems like the kind of thing Republicans do.
Well a large number of them for sure.
But I still think we need to win the election before we can worry about it being stolen.
One thing I will say about the House projections is the house districts are not rigorously polled, especially this far out from the election. We will see.
I have no opinion about the likelihood of the Dems winning or losing this or the 2024 election. I do think there's a real risk that if the GOP as it's currently constituted wins, it will not give up power.
Quote from: Jacob on July 14, 2022, 01:27:11 PMI have no opinion about the likelihood of the Dems winning or losing this or the 2024 election. I do think there's a real risk that if the GOP as it's currently constituted wins, it will not give up power.
I do believe you are correct.
Quote from: HVC on July 14, 2022, 10:58:25 AMWho's up next? I don't even know the contenders. Is it Hilary again? Kamala?
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2022, 10:55:59 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2022, 10:44:28 AMEven with Biden the Democrats won the last time around - imagine what they could do with someone who is more competent.
If only we could find somebody.
Quote from: HVC on July 14, 2022, 10:58:25 AMWho's up next? I don't even know the contenders. Is it Hilary again? Kamala?
Given that Democrats seem to love old people, probably Jerry Brown. Or Jimmy Carter.
I don't understand the reported Democrat strategy of giving money to really extreme GOP candidates to help them beat more moderate alternatives in the primaries - it feels like a really stupid idea looking at the last six year :blink: :huh:
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 14, 2022, 03:20:51 PMI don't understand the reported Democrat strategy of giving money to really extreme GOP candidates to help them beat more moderate alternatives in the primaries - it feels like a really stupid idea looking at the last six year :blink: :huh:
Well the strategy is they think the extreme candidate is more easy to defeat.
But of course Hillary was hoping for Trump to be her opponent and we saw how that worked. Plus it really takes away from their "democracy is under attack" argument.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 14, 2022, 03:20:51 PMI don't understand the reported Democrat strategy of giving money to really extreme GOP candidates to help them beat more moderate alternatives in the primaries - it feels like a really stupid idea looking at the last six year :blink: :huh:
Yes. That's a really stupid thing. I hope it's not true or at least marginal.
Quote from: Jacob on July 14, 2022, 03:35:14 PMYes. That's a really stupid thing. I hope it's not true or at least marginal.
It's a bold strategy - and BBoy's points are totally true:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/us/politics/democrats-midterms-trump-gop.html
The Dems don't give money to the GOP opponent, but rather Dem-aligned PACs purchase ads that support crazy MAGA-type candidates in the GOP primary (for example praising a candidates strong support for Trump or whatever), all in order to avoid facing a more moderate opponent.
You can understand the cold logic of the move. But if you really think democracy is on the line (and I do) it's completely dangerous and unethical.
Yeah but even with the cold logic - the crazies can win. We've seen that in recent years and I'm not sure whether on balance this will just increasse the number of crazies.
Yup, I'm with you both on this.
Quote from: viper37 on July 14, 2022, 12:49:42 PMIt should be done the Corsican way: fill the urns, throw them away, let the stronger contestant win.
Disagree. The candidate should have to urn their spot.
:lol: :cheers:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2022/07/14/manchin-climate-tax-bbb/
QuoteManchin says he won't support new climate spending or tax hikes on wealthy
The senator from West Virginia informed Democratic leaders Thursday as negotiations over economic legislation continue
Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) told Democratic leaders Thursday he would not support an economic package that contains new spending on climate change or new tax increases targeting wealthy individuals and corporations, marking a massive setback for party lawmakers who had hoped to advance a central element of their agenda before the midterm elections this fall.
The major shift in negotiations — confirmed by two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the talks — threatened to upend the delicate process to adopt the party's signature economic package seven months after Manchin scuttled the original, roughly $2 trillion Build Back Better Act, which President Biden had endorsed.
But Manchin told Democratic leaders he is open to provisions that aim to lower prescription drug costs for seniors, the two people said. And the West Virginia moderate expressed support with Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the party's chief negotiator, for extending subsidies that could help keep health insurance costs down for millions of Americans, one of the sources said.
"Political headlines are of no value to the millions of Americans struggling to afford groceries and gas as inflation soars to 9.1 percent," said Sam Runyon, a spokeswoman for Manchin. "Senator Manchin believes it's time for leaders to put political agendas aside, reevaluate and adjust to the economic realities the country faces to avoid taking steps that add fuel to the inflation fire."
A spokesman for Schumer declined to comment.
The stunning setback late Thursday came despite weeks of seemingly promising negotiations between Schumer and Manchin in pursuit of a broader deal that would have delivered on the promises that secured Democrats control of both chambers of Congress and the White House in 2020. Without Manchin, the party cannot proceed in the narrowly divided Senate, since Democrats need all 50 votes in the caucus, plus Vice President Harris's tiebreaking vote, to use the special process known as budget reconciliation to overcome Republicans' expected filibuster.
To win over Manchin, Democrats already had agreed to surrender their most prized spending proposals, from offering paid family and medical leave to providing child care, free prekindergarten and tax benefits to low-income Americans. But their cuts still proved insufficient for the austerity-minded moderate, who in recent days grew ever more skittish amid reports of record-high prices. This week, new data showed that inflation rose at its highest rate in roughly 40 years, prompting Manchin to tell reporters Wednesday that he would be "cautious" about any new federal spending.
Without a wide-ranging economic package, party lawmakers for months have warned the costs would be great — leaving families in a financial bind while imperiling Democrats' ability to retain the House and Senate in November. Many Democrats also have felt they might be squandering a generational opportunity to address climate change in the event that the balance of power in Washington shifts.
But Manchin's new opposition leaves Democrats in a difficult political bind: They must decide between pressing him after months of false starts or accepting what would still be significant changes to the law lowering health care costs. A package addressing health care, for example, could spare roughly 13 million people from higher insurance costs in January if lawmakers act swiftly. Manchin has endorsed a two-year extension.
Similar trade-offs previously prompted Biden's top aides to deliver a stinging rebuke of Manchin, though the White House late Thursday did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
On climate, Democrats once thought they had a historic opportunity to radically transform the country, reduce pollution, incentivize cleaner, greener energy and put more electric vehicles on the road. They had hoped to seize on their rare majorities to deliver the investments necessary toward fulfilling Biden's goal, reducing carbon emissions to half of their 2005 levels come 2030. Their push had taken on added urgency when gas prices spiked after Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
But Manchin, who represents coal-heavy West Virginia, initially opposed their most audacious ideas, including efforts to punish the worst polluters. In more recent talks, Schumer and his colleagues set about trying to woo the longtime holdout over a scaled-back approach — including tax credits to spur clean energy, incentives to encourage the purchase of electric vehicles and limited penalties on the producers of harmful methane gas. But the approach, which The Washington Post first reported, soon fell apart, surprising Democrats who for days thought they were close to a resolution.
"I'm not going to sugarcoat my disappointment here, especially since nearly all issues in the climate and energy space had been resolved," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which had helped craft some of the package.
"This is our last chance to prevent the most catastrophic — and costly — effects of climate change," he said in a statement. "We can't come back in another decade and forestall hundreds of billions — if not trillions — in economic damage and undo the inevitable human toll."
On taxes, meanwhile, Democrats already had to forgo their original campaign to unwind the tax cuts implemented under President Donald Trump in 2017 after another moderate in their ranks, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), objected to the idea.
Yet Manchin long had called for significant changes to the tax code. Only days ago, he signed on to one of many Democratic-backed plans to raise more revenue from the wealthiest taxpayers: a policy that would have helped extend the solvency of Medicare by closing a loophole that allows high earners to shelter income, one of the people familiar with the matter said. But the senator by Thursday appeared to change course. And he expressed new resistance to some of the party's other proposals targeting wealthy individuals and corporations, the source added.
However, Manchin told business executives this week in a closed-door meeting that he would support a package focused on a combination of lowering health-care costs and raising money toward deficit reduction. That would include a new proposal that empowers the government to negotiate drug prices on behalf of Medicare recipients, as well as a second effort to extend existing tax subsidies that reduce insurance costs for millions of Americans who buy coverage through state and national exchanges set up by the Affordable Care Act.
Manchin told the group he was eyeing roughly $200 billion in deficit reduction as part of the package. It was not immediately clear how that could be achieved if tax hikes were off the table.
Warren had a chance to make her pitch for a wealth tax. It didn't play.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2022, 01:50:23 AMWarren had a chance to make her pitch for a wealth tax. It didn't play.
That is a very different thing than reversing the tax cuts of 2017 right?
According to the article, Manchin does not support increasing taxes on the wealthy because people are having trouble paying for groceries....
That guy is for sale. I suppose his rates went up with inflation.
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 15, 2022, 11:54:51 AMThat guy is for sale. I suppose his rates went up with inflation.
These days democrats raise more money than republicans. If Manchin is just being bought, why not offer him the bigger check?
Great question that should be asked to the Democratic establishment.
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 15, 2022, 11:54:51 AMThat guy is for sale. I suppose his rates went up with inflation.
QUoted from Nate Silver on Twitter:
QuoteDemocrats tend to hate people who disagree with them on *some* things more than people who disagree with them on *everything*, and that helps to explain why Joe Manchin is viewed as History's Greatest Monster while no one says a word about some random senator like Pat Toomey.
Any votes a D gets out a Trump +39 state like *West Virginia* is a huge bonus, and Manchin has voted with Ds on many important issues from confirming KBJ to impeaching Trump. If he'd converted to the GOP years ago and they controlled the Senate 51-49, he'd get way less crap.
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1547965192369188872
I don't think Manchin is "for sale" any more or any less than any other Senator (which is to say, they moderately are). He represents a Trump +39 state and acts accordingly.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 02:38:56 PMQuote from: Oexmelin on July 15, 2022, 11:54:51 AMThat guy is for sale. I suppose his rates went up with inflation.
QUoted from Nate Silver on Twitter:
QuoteDemocrats tend to hate people who disagree with them on *some* things more than people who disagree with them on *everything*, and that helps to explain why Joe Manchin is viewed as History's Greatest Monster while no one says a word about some random senator like Pat Toomey.
Any votes a D gets out a Trump +39 state like *West Virginia* is a huge bonus, and Manchin has voted with Ds on many important issues from confirming KBJ to impeaching Trump. If he'd converted to the GOP years ago and they controlled the Senate 51-49, he'd get way less crap.
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1547965192369188872
I don't think Manchin is "for sale" any more or any less than any other Senator (which is to say, they moderately are). He represents a Trump +39 state and acts accordingly.
It is totally self defeating. Democrats found a way to win a senate seat by nominating a guy who ran ads showing himself shooting Obama's climate laws with a shotgun and bragged about his close relationship with the NRA.
Then they get mad that he is a lot more conservative than other democrats and come after him personally. Which is unfair to him and also not going to help recruiting the next time they want to recruit a conservative democrat to run in a deeply republican state.
The problem with Manchin re: climate change is his personal vested interest in coal and gas. The conflict of interest is staggering.
Quote from: Zoupa on July 15, 2022, 03:21:03 PMThe problem with Manchin re: climate change is his personal vested interest in coal and gas. The conflict of interest is staggering.
He still represents a massive coal and gas producing state in West Virginia.
He is also up for reelection in '24. More than likely he is thinking about his seat first/public interest second.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 03:28:04 PMQuote from: Zoupa on July 15, 2022, 03:21:03 PMThe problem with Manchin re: climate change is his personal vested interest in coal and gas. The conflict of interest is staggering.
He still represents a massive coal and gas producing state in West Virginia.
I just think he's a terrible human being. I have real trouble understanding politicians having this mix of profiteering and grandstanding.
You're fucking old and you're filthy rich. Just fucking vote for it.
Why is it always on Manchin? Why not put more effort in peeling a Republican?
:lmfao:
I don't get it.
Whose gonna vote for it on the fascist side of the aisle? Collins? Murkowski?
Gimme a break.
Quote from: Zoupa on July 16, 2022, 03:18:08 AMWhose gonna vote for it on the fascist side of the aisle? Collins? Murkowski?
Gimme a break.
I don't understand what you want a break on.
Manchin is not going to vote for it. So he is exactly like all the Republicans who are not going to vote for it in that regard.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 03:28:04 PMHe still represents a massive coal and gas producing state lobby in West Virginia.
Quote from: Zoupa on July 16, 2022, 12:25:07 AMQuote from: Barrister on July 15, 2022, 03:28:04 PMQuote from: Zoupa on July 15, 2022, 03:21:03 PMThe problem with Manchin re: climate change is his personal vested interest in coal and gas. The conflict of interest is staggering.
He still represents a massive coal and gas producing state in West Virginia.
I just think he's a terrible human being. I have real trouble understanding politicians having this mix of profiteering and grandstanding.
You're fucking old and you're filthy rich. Just fucking vote for it.
If you want a guy that is going to vote for climate stuff, then maybe don't run guys that campaign on their good relationship with the NRA, are pro-life if kind of squishy about it, and are so against climate stuff they literally shoot obama's major bill with a shotgun.
Of course if they didn't run such a guy in west virginia then the senate majority leader would be mitch mcconnell.
The democrats are much better off with Manchin in the senate. If they ran clones of him in every super republican state it would be a tremendous play.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2022, 04:36:35 AMQuote from: Zoupa on July 16, 2022, 03:18:08 AMWhose gonna vote for it on the fascist side of the aisle? Collins? Murkowski?
Gimme a break.
I don't understand what you want a break on.
Manchin is not going to vote for it. So he is exactly like all the Republicans who are not going to vote for it in that regard.
You said you don't get why I laughed. I laughed because it's ridiculous to even think about getting any GOPtard vote on climate or taxes.
Am I going crazy or did you and Eddie not pay attention to the last 30 years?
Quote from: Zoupa on July 16, 2022, 12:41:21 PMYou said you don't get why I laughed. I laughed because it's ridiculous to even think about getting any GOPtard vote on climate or taxes.
Am I going crazy or did you and Eddie not pay attention to the last 30 years?
Fair enough. I didn't understand what you were laughing at.
Quote from: Zoupa on July 16, 2022, 12:41:21 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2022, 04:36:35 AMQuote from: Zoupa on July 16, 2022, 03:18:08 AMWhose gonna vote for it on the fascist side of the aisle? Collins? Murkowski?
Gimme a break.
I don't understand what you want a break on.
Manchin is not going to vote for it. So he is exactly like all the Republicans who are not going to vote for it in that regard.
You said you don't get why I laughed. I laughed because it's ridiculous to even think about getting any GOPtard vote on climate or taxes.
Am I going crazy or did you and Eddie not pay attention to the last 30 years?
I mean there was a 50-50 senate like today but with a republican VP which gave republicans control and democrats took control by getting Jim Jeffords to defect from the party. Arlen Specter was also convinced to defect which ultimately got them a filibuster proof majority for a time under obama.
They get some GOP votes on all sorts of stuff.
Look Manchin is useful because he is not pathologically obstructionist and will vote for appointments and other things. We just aren't going to get any progressive legislation through with him and Sinema being deciding votes. But we can pass things and we did, which is more than it looked like when Joe Biden was first elected.
I think in the national view people take of politics where it is always red vs blue instead of state vs state or region vs region that Manchin wasn't elected to represent Democrats, he was elected to represent West Virginia. I am just glad he is not a Republican even if his thinking is often more conservative than many of them, but he isn't a partisan enemy so he can be dealt with to achieve some things. There is that at least.
I challenge anyone to find a more bizarre campaign ad than this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_auXN7DzfY
Challenge accepted
https://youtu.be/Hi2yvpdtz1M
Sorry, Mr Crenshaw, I don't have the patience for a three minute ad. At least not that one. <_<
Quote from: Zoupa on July 17, 2022, 02:36:31 AMChallenge accepted
https://youtu.be/Hi2yvpdtz1M
Yours is plenty goofy, but mine has
Democratic Klansmen coming to murder a black man in his house.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 17, 2022, 08:30:07 PMQuote from: Zoupa on July 17, 2022, 02:36:31 AMChallenge accepted
https://youtu.be/Hi2yvpdtz1M
Yours is plenty goofy, but mine has Democratic Klansmen coming to murder a black man in his house.
Joke's on him. Democratic Klansmen always travel in groups of 666. He won't make a serious dent before the first magazine change,
Quote from: Valmy on July 16, 2022, 10:25:42 PMLook Manchin is useful because he is not pathologically obstructionist and will vote for appointments and other things. We just aren't going to get any progressive legislation through with him and Sinema being deciding votes. But we can pass things and we did, which is more than it looked like when Joe Biden was first elected.
I think in the national view people take of politics where it is always red vs blue instead of state vs state or region vs region that Manchin wasn't elected to represent Democrats, he was elected to represent West Virginia. I am just glad he is not a Republican even if his thinking is often more conservative than many of them, but he isn't a partisan enemy so he can be dealt with to achieve some things. There is that at least.
Considering politics is reorienting away from centre/'left' vs. right and towards democracy vs. authoritarianism, it does seem a sensible move for the Democrats to put up more (small d) democratic candidates in conservative states.
Yes it seems like at this stage pro-democracy forces in the US must find a way to work with anyone who is not OK with a fascist autocracy.
Our robust President has tested positive for covid, apparently mild symptoms so far.
It will be the ultimate proof of how hilariously fucked we are if Biden dies from Covid where Trump didn't.
Quote from: Habbaku on July 21, 2022, 11:51:42 AMIt will be the ultimate proof of how hilariously fucked we are if Biden dies from Covid where Trump didn't.
Well, whatever will be pumped into Biden is well tried and tested by now, Trump was pumped full of experimental stuff. :P
I assume the Rs voting against this argue that this should be a matter that the states, not federal government decide on?
(https://i.redd.it/w62dmvyn1zc91.jpg)
25 Quatloos says it's a non-binding resolution.
It's a bill, but it might as well be a non-binding resolution since it's unlikely to get enough GOP votes in the Senate:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-contraception-bill-vote-supreme-court/
Though I suppose making them go on record for voting against it is probably might be to send a signal to voters ahead of the midterms.
The story doesn't present the Republican argument.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 22, 2022, 03:17:22 AMThe story doesn't present the Republican argument.
What is the Republican argument?
Quote from: Jacob on July 22, 2022, 10:11:31 AMQuote from: Eddie Teach on July 22, 2022, 03:17:22 AMThe story doesn't present the Republican argument.
What is the Republican argument?
The definition of contraceptive was overly expansive to the point it would include medicated abortion.
Quote from: Jacob on July 22, 2022, 10:11:31 AMQuote from: Eddie Teach on July 22, 2022, 03:17:22 AMThe story doesn't present the Republican argument.
What is the Republican argument?
That the Supreme Court is not going to overturn Griswold so the vote is pointless. It's not a very
good argument.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 22, 2022, 10:42:14 AMQuote from: Jacob on July 22, 2022, 10:11:31 AMQuote from: Eddie Teach on July 22, 2022, 03:17:22 AMThe story doesn't present the Republican argument.
What is the Republican argument?
The definition of contraceptive was overly expansive to the point it would include medicated abortion.
Here's the relevant bill text
Quote(1) CONTRACEPTION.—The term "contraception" means an action taken to prevent pregnancy, including the use of contraceptives or fertility-awareness based methods, and sterilization procedures.
(2) CONTRACEPTIVE.—The term "contraceptive" means any drug, device, or biological product intended for use in the prevention of pregnancy, whether specifically intended to prevent pregnancy or for other health needs, that is legally marketed under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, such as oral contraceptives, long-acting reversible contraceptives, emergency contraceptives, internal and external condoms, injectables, vaginal barrier methods, transdermal patches, and vaginal rings, or other contraceptives.
I'm not seeing the argument.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 22, 2022, 03:17:22 AMThe story doesn't present the Republican argument.
You know that you don't have to play devil's advocate on every single fucking issue right.
Quote from: Zoupa on July 22, 2022, 11:16:05 AMQuote from: Eddie Teach on July 22, 2022, 03:17:22 AMThe story doesn't present the Republican argument.
You know that you don't have to play devil's advocate on every single fucking issue right.
I don't think that's what Eddie's doing. My impression is that Teach is a Republican, so he is arguing his actual position - but calibrating his arguments to avoid getting pulled into long drawn out arguments and dogpiled.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2022, 11:08:55 AMI'm not seeing the argument.
You are assuming that the Republican argument is based on the bill presented to them. It's not. The Republican argument is based on "Fuck the Dems, we say no because fuck them and our voters are too stupid to analyze our reasoning."
Quote from: Jacob on July 22, 2022, 11:59:30 AMI don't think that's what Eddie's doing. My impression is that Teach is a Republican, so he is arguing his actual position - but calibrating his arguments to avoid getting pulled into long drawn out arguments and dogpiled.
Agree. He's an anti-Trump Republican, I think, and bothered by the depth to which the House Republicans have shoved their noses up Trump's ass. I value his insights because they aren't based on the assumptions that inform
my insights.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 22, 2022, 03:17:22 AMThe story doesn't present the Republican argument.
QuoteI value his insights because they aren't based on the assumptions that inform my insights.
QuoteThe Republican argument is based on "Fuck the Dems, we say no because fuck them and our voters are too stupid to analyze our reasoning."
So what's the insight exactly?
Quote from: Zoupa on July 22, 2022, 01:14:21 PMSo what's the insight exactly?
Still waiting for Teach to lay out the Republican reason for voting against.
Dorsey said it's because the contracepties bill enables abortifacients, but the posted language of the bill doesn't support that. So either the GOP is claiming that while it's untrue, or the they have some other reason to vote against, or there is some other language of the bill that in fact does enable abortifacients.
Quote from: Jacob on July 22, 2022, 11:59:30 AMQuote from: Zoupa on July 22, 2022, 11:16:05 AMQuote from: Eddie Teach on July 22, 2022, 03:17:22 AMThe story doesn't present the Republican argument.
You know that you don't have to play devil's advocate on every single fucking issue right.
I don't think that's what Eddie's doing. My impression is that Teach is a Republican, so he is arguing his actual position - but calibrating his arguments to avoid getting pulled into long drawn out arguments and dogpiled.
You're both wrong. I was fishing for information. Also, I have never belonged to a political party.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 22, 2022, 02:06:57 PMYou're both wrong. I was fishing for information. Also, I have never belonged to a political party.
I misunderstood, then. My apologies. I have you own as GOP aligned, though I never assumed anything about any kind of formal membership status.
As for the GOP perspective for voting against, I too would like to know their reasoning. Maybe it is as Dorsey said, though as per Minsky's post it seems dishonest if true.
Quote from: Jacob on July 22, 2022, 02:38:55 PMQuote from: Eddie Teach on July 22, 2022, 02:06:57 PMYou're both wrong. I was fishing for information. Also, I have never belonged to a political party.
I misunderstood, then. My apologies. I have you own as GOP aligned, though I never assumed anything about any kind of formal membership status.
As for the GOP perspective for voting against, I too would like to know their reasoning. Maybe it is as Dorsey said, though as per Minsky's post it seems dishonest if true.
I went out to national review online to get the perspective, and a quick perusal of the top half of the front page found a couple articles about republican responses to the bill which indicated opposition...but not a straight up explanation of why the bill sucks. But here is one article and i think it gets you the perspective:
QuoteSusan Collins Working on Alternative to House Democrats' 'Contraception' Bill
House Democrats passed a "contraception" bill on Thursday that all but a handful of House Republicans opposed because it would override the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), would prohibit laws and regulations defunding Planned Parenthood, and could create a federal right to the abortion drug used during the first ten weeks of pregnancy.
But in the Senate, Susan Collins, the Maine Republican, is working on an alternative bill that would codify into federal law the right to contraception first established by the Supreme Court in 1965. "Senator Collins supports federal protections for contraception access, and she's working on a bill with Senators Kaine, Murkowski, and Sinema that would codify the right to use contraception first recognized by the Supreme Court in Griswold, while also maintaining protections for religious liberties," Collins communications director Annie Clark told National Review in an email.
Although Collins and Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski support a right to abortion — they're the only Republican senators who do — they opposed a Democratic bill to "codify Roe" because that bill went beyond Roe by superseding RFRA and prohibiting parental-consent abortion laws, among other provisions. As a Collins–Murkowski press release about the Democrats' abortion bill noted, "Congress has never before adopted legislation that contains an exemption" to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Collins and Murkowski introduced their own bill to enshrine in federal law Roe's expansive right to abortion in all 50 states; no other Senate Republicans signed on to that bill.
Not a single state has tried to ban contraception since 1965, when Griswold v. Connecticut was decided, and pro-life congressional Republicans have repeatedly voted for billions of dollars in federal funding for contraception in the Title X and Medicaid programs. There is no doubt that contraception will continue to be legal in every state and funded by the federal government. But pro-life legislators would oppose any bill that tramples on conscience rights, ensures taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood (America's largest abortion provider), or creates a federal right to the abortion drug commonly used during the first ten weeks of pregnancy.
It remains to be seen whether the Collins alternative would remove all the poison pills that were in the House Democrats' version. Despite those measures in the Democrats' contraception bill, President Biden and other Democrats in Washington have feigned ignorance about why almost all House Republicans voted against it.
"OK, so not only do Republicans want to institute a federal ban on abortion, but today 195 of them voted against codifying the right to contraception," Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote in a tweet. "This was not a 'gotcha' bill with a bunch of stuff btw. It was pretty straightforward."
The bill was of course anything but straightforward, and that's one reason why Democrats skipped the usual committee hearing and brought the bill to a vote before the whole House a little less than one week after text of the bill began circulating in the Capitol.
I see. Thanks for digging it up, Dorsey.
Personally I find the "there is no doubt that contraception will continue to be legal in every state and funded by the federal government" a bit rich, given recent developments.
And practically speaking, "conscience rights" could make birth control inaccessible to a signficant number of people.
So Bannon is found guilty and may go to prison.
A martyr for the cause.
Quote from: Jacob on July 22, 2022, 03:00:25 PMI see. Thanks for digging it up, Dorsey.
Personally I find the "there is no doubt that contraception will continue to be legal in every state and funded by the federal government" a bit rich, given recent developments.
And practically speaking, "conscience rights" could make birth control inaccessible to a signficant number of people.
I believe the Democrat strategy is to do a sort of omnibus abortion bill and that's the preference of abortion groups - but unlikely to pass. I think there is an argument (especially politically) for splitting it up a bit like this. Make Republicans repeatedly and explicitly vote on the particulars of their position: when a mother's life is at risk, in cases of rape, in cases of abortion etc. Don't let them hide behind a maximalist position even if that's your end goal.
Quote from: Jacob on July 22, 2022, 03:00:25 PMPersonally I find the "there is no doubt that contraception will continue to be legal in every state and funded by the federal government" a bit rich, given recent developments.
Yes, it raises credibility concerns when the writer does not seem to understand the meaning of the word "no". The very fact RFRA is being mentioned indicates an understanding that there are substantial blocs of people in the US who oppose contraception and would outlaw it if they could.
RFRA is a bit of a red herring excuse in any event. RFRA was passed in response to a Supreme Court decision - Employment Division v Smith - which changed the standard of review for religious free exercise cases. RFRA re-imposed the older standard - more favorable to free exercise claims - by statute. Even though Smith was decided by Scalia, the ideological positions on this issue have switched and based on the Supreme Court's recent rulings, even if RFRA were overriden, the Court would likely just constitutionalize it by overruling Smith.
There are definitely some Republicans who want to prohibit contraception, I'm not sure many States are religious enough to see it pass a State legislature. My assumption (not backed by research) is that Griswold struck down a number of State laws, and many States--particularly in the South, probably just left it there. I have doubts that in the interim, States like Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama etc (aka your hellhole states) have passed laws repealing prior contraception bans from pre-Griswold. When the current Guardian Council we have for a Supreme Court overturns Griswold in the next 2-4 years those old contraception bans would resume the force of law. While it may be the case that even Louisiana and Alabama wouldn't pass a new contraception ban in the 2020s, I'm not actually sure they could or would pass a repeal of an old ban were it to resume effect post-Griswold being overturned.
I get the feeling like so much stuff the modern right get up to it's less they actually oppose contraception much and more they know it will really piss off teh libs.
So what is up with Joe Manchin suddenly doing a 180 turn on climate change and healthcare?
Trust nothing until they actually hold a vote. Manchin is very good at making sure he is the most important senator.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 29, 2022, 06:38:03 AMTrust nothing until they actually hold a vote. Manchin is very good at making sure he is the most important senator.
There is also Sinema.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 29, 2022, 06:38:03 AMTrust nothing until they actually hold a vote. Manchin is very good at making sure he is the most important senator.
Does all this help him back home in WV? If it does I guess it is pain worth suffering. It is not like we can expect something better out of that state.
All the coal-filled stockings left you bitter, eh?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 29, 2022, 09:44:30 PMAll the coal-filled stockings left you bitter, eh?
I have nothing against WV, I am just realistic to know a right wing Democrat is the best we can reasonably expect politically.
Quote from: Solmyr on July 29, 2022, 04:21:33 AMSo what is up with Joe Manchin suddenly doing a 180 turn on climate change and healthcare?
From what I've read China hawkery - at least on energy and need to be self-reliant/de-couple on energy including through decarbonisation (which should be made in America).
Quote from: Josquius on July 23, 2022, 03:41:39 PMI get the feeling like so much stuff the modern right get up to it's less they actually oppose contraception much and more they know it will really piss off teh libs.
it's not exactly new. Pope John Paul II opposed contraception. I think it's still official Vatican policy to opposed it, but they are much less vocal about it.
it's just that now they feel empowere by their Supreme Court to fuck up everyone's life.
Quote from: viper37 on August 01, 2022, 01:05:07 AMQuote from: Josquius on July 23, 2022, 03:41:39 PMI get the feeling like so much stuff the modern right get up to it's less they actually oppose contraception much and more they know it will really piss off teh libs.
it's not exactly new. Pope John Paul II opposed contraception. I think it's still official Vatican policy to opposed it, but they are much less vocal about it.
it's just that now they feel empowere by their Supreme Court to fuck up everyone's life.
These American Conservative nuts are mostly various forms of reformed Christian right?
Anglicans at least have traditionally been fine with johnnies. Do calvinists align with popery? :o
It's hard to overstate the influence of the Catholic right on political evangelism in the US - I mean just look at the Supreme Court, Alito in Rome, Bannon's far-right project in Italy (I think now blocked by the Church), First Things, "common good" constitutionalism. Not to mention all the conservative intellectual standard bearers like Buckley.
Worth noting a lot comes from converts (not Buckley) which is an interesting side to it and possibly speaks to what they were looking for in the Catholic Church.
Edit: And it goes both ways - the most hardline ultra-conservative/trad organisations in the Catholic Church get bucketloads of cash from the US and are in big fights on many fronts with Francis.
Contraception isn't going to be banned in the US. If it went to the states maybe Utah, but I'm saying that with some ignorance of the politics there. The two major churches against contraception are the mormons and catholics, neither of which are players in the US south (the culturally conservative region you people seem to think will ban contraceptives). Protestant groups politically have been allying with catholics on a bunch of issues for many reasons. But if you go to marriage counseling in the south or talk to the ministers contraception is a part of family planning. There is a reason ministers have 2 kids instead of a dozen.
Abortion and gay marriage are different. But thinking contraception is going to be banned is madness.
I thought abortion being banned was madness, yet here we are.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 01, 2022, 08:58:54 AMAbortion and gay marriage are different. But thinking contraception is going to be banned is madness.
I agree - but Griswold is the other ruling that's been pointed at as clearly wrongly decided and from my understanding would be squarely in scope under the approach to overturn Roe.
Where it might come up I imagine is health insurance.
The thing is contraception is already banned in some states, those laws just are dormant because of Griswold. I wouldn't wager money on a state like Alabama explicitly unbanning contraceptives even in 2022, were Griswold to fall.
Many conservative Christians also believe that IUDs and Plan B are a form of abortion, and there are already motions to ban both.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 01, 2022, 12:53:25 PMThe thing is contraception is already banned in some states, those laws just are dormant because of Griswold. I wouldn't wager money on a state like Alabama explicitly unbanning contraceptives even in 2022, were Griswold to fall.
I'd wager extensive amounts of money. What base would there be for Alabama to keep a contraceptive ban? Even its normal conservative christian churches don't favor it.
Yes I agree that some forms of birth control could be banned on the basis they constitute abortion, but that isn't the same as a blanket ban on contraception.
I mean states like Alabama are banning abortion even in cases of rape and incest (a position even a majority of Republican voters oppose), I think you're significantly overestimating the degree to which state legislatures are bound to popular will.
If something is very unpopular with the Republican primary voting base, yes, it might cause them to pass legislation. Is explicitly legalizing birth control, something that will be seen as "caving to the libs", going to fall into that category? I don't know. I think given all the legislation coming out of red state legislatures which frequently represent a minority opinion even within the broader GOP electorate means it's pretty silly to assume anything.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 01, 2022, 04:20:43 PMI mean states like Alabama are banning abortion even in cases of rape and incest (a position even a majority of Republican voters oppose), I think you're significantly overestimating the degree to which state legislatures are bound to popular will.
If something is very unpopular with the Republican primary voting base, yes, it might cause them to pass legislation. Is explicitly legalizing birth control, something that will be seen as "caving to the libs", going to fall into that category? I don't know. I think given all the legislation coming out of red state legislatures which frequently represent a minority opinion even within the broader GOP electorate means it's pretty silly to assume anything.
There is a difference between pushing unpopular positions that have support in the southern baptist convention such as banning abortion in all cases, and pushing an unpopular opinion that is going to make illegal the family planning that is a part of southern baptist family planning ministries.
I don't think you understand the dynamics. I also think you are ignoring other cultural topics such as the recent change of the state flag of mississippi by the legislature, that incorporated the confederate flag. They made it a point not to let voters choose whether to have a confederate option when they chose a new flag, out of fear it would be the one chosen. The reason is obvious: there is a business oriented power base: and they believed (correctly) that the flag was holding them back.
The legislatures of the states are going to be inclined to what their power bases want: the protestant churches, the gun nuts, business groups. None of them want to ban contraception. The voters don't want to ban contraception.
Some number of states will not have to do anything to ban contraceptives if Griswold is overturned. The laws on the books will simply become active again. Probably stayed by a court, but still on the books. I can't see southern politicians touching the third rail by trying to change the laws.
There is space between a blanket ban on all contraception and laws that restrict it partially - e.g. bans on certain types, age requirements, prescription requirements, need to show marriage license, etc. Somewhere in bountiful America, some legislature will do something like this and then the Supreme Court will be back on the spot.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 01, 2022, 04:28:48 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 01, 2022, 04:20:43 PMI mean states like Alabama are banning abortion even in cases of rape and incest (a position even a majority of Republican voters oppose), I think you're significantly overestimating the degree to which state legislatures are bound to popular will.
If something is very unpopular with the Republican primary voting base, yes, it might cause them to pass legislation. Is explicitly legalizing birth control, something that will be seen as "caving to the libs", going to fall into that category? I don't know. I think given all the legislation coming out of red state legislatures which frequently represent a minority opinion even within the broader GOP electorate means it's pretty silly to assume anything.
There is a difference between pushing unpopular positions that have support in the southern baptist convention such as banning abortion in all cases, and pushing an unpopular opinion that is going to make illegal the family planning that is a part of southern baptist family planning ministries.
I don't think you understand the dynamics. I also think you are ignoring other cultural topics such as the recent change of the state flag of mississippi by the legislature, that incorporated the confederate flag. They made it a point not to let voters choose whether to have a confederate option when they chose a new flag, out of fear it would be the one chosen. The reason is obvious: there is a business oriented power base: and they believed (correctly) that the flag was holding them back.
The legislatures of the states are going to be inclined to what their power bases want: the protestant churches, the gun nuts, business groups. None of them want to ban contraception. The voters don't want to ban contraception.
I think you frankly misunderstand the dynamics if you think the Southern Baptist Convention has that much say in Republican State legislatures. The SBC if anything is seen as insufficiently political by most of the far right these days, and fairly milquetoast in many ways. The actual powerbase in the South is
cultural Christianity. The SBC is actually theologically, and religiously, Christian. If you were writing that post in 1995 or 1985 you'd be spot on, but the political system has moved beyond the churches now. Evangelicalism is mostly important as a vehicle for distilling cultural grievances now, and the organized churches are at all time low levels of influence. Where churches have influence it is usually mega churches that are non-denominational lead by prominent charismatics.
And again--there's a lot of things the voters, even Republican voters, don't want that are getting passed. When general elections are no longer competitive, the Republican voter writ large is just not that important. What is important are the Republican primary voters, who are a quite small percentage of the total Republican electorate, and in most Southern and Midwestern states, the primary GOP voter is much more culturally conservative and elderly than the overall GOP voting base.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 01, 2022, 06:55:57 PMI think you frankly misunderstand the dynamics if you think the Southern Baptist Convention has that much say in Republican State legislatures. The SBC if anything is seen as insufficiently political by most of the far right these days, and fairly milquetoast in many ways. The actual powerbase in the South is cultural Christianity. The SBC is actually theologically, and religiously, Christian. If you were writing that post in 1995 or 1985 you'd be spot on, but the political system has moved beyond the churches now. Evangelicalism is mostly important as a vehicle for distilling cultural grievances now, and the organized churches are at all time low levels of influence. Where churches have influence it is usually mega churches that are non-denominational lead by prominent charismatics.
And again--there's a lot of things the voters, even Republican voters, don't want that are getting passed. When general elections are no longer competitive, the Republican voter writ large is just not that important. What is important are the Republican primary voters, who are a quite small percentage of the total Republican electorate, and in most Southern and Midwestern states, the primary GOP voter is much more culturally conservative and elderly than the overall GOP voting base.
I don't think I understand and think you are out of touch and politics is rotting your brain.
I was raised catholic and recently married into a family in a protestant church in upstate south carolina. I've been in a zillion conversations about why catholics are weirdos against contraception. Contraception is part of conservative protestant ministries.
There is a massive difference between republican legislatures pushing aggressive abortion bans that are unpopular even among republicans but are supported by conservative churches, and making illegal portions of conservative protestant churches ministries. And whose use is ubiquitous.
Even in Utah they have condom dispensers in bathrooms...presumably that could be regulated but the fact it isn't is telling.
Again, Protestant churches are largely not informing Republican policy. Republican policy is being driven by what issues animate the "riled up base", which largely corresponds to cultural conservatives, and overlaps heavily with "people who vote in Republican primaries."
Evangelical Protestants as a group have a number of very conservative positions that means their voting interests will often overlap with the cultural conservatives. It should also be noted a huge % of the cultural grievance conservatives identify as evangelical, but probably most of them aren't really. I define evangelical as someone who attends an evangelical church on multiple times a month basis. People who were baptized and "born again" 20 years ago but attend church 5 times a year and who spend their free time "trolling the libs" on Twitter aren't really part of the actual evangelical religious affiliation, they are simply cultural Christians who probably are only vaguely spiritual and may even be agnostic in all reality.
There's actually a lot of issues where you can find a divergence in opinion between evangelicals when you find polling that asks how often they attend Church. Refugee resettlement is a big one--most genuinely religiously active evangelicals have long supported refugee resettlement efforts as part of a Christian duty. Cultural evangelicals who are largely informed by culture war issues view refugees as minority "invaders" and oppose them.
If anything, the influence of the "organized" evangelical denominations in terms of policy is at an all time low within the GOP. Most political influencers among conservative Christians are not part of an organized denomination at all. The modern equivalent of Jerry Falwell for example, his son Jonathan Falwell, is focused almost entirely on ministry and is not politically active. His brother Jerry Jr (who is not ordained, and seems to only be vaguely affiliated with a church at all) is a culture warrior who is part of evangelical culture but not particularly involved with a Church. The original Jerry Falwell was both of those things, and that sort of unified figure is no longer very prominent or mainstream in Republican politics.
Also, one is usually being a little foolish if you try to generalize too much about groups like the SBC. The SBC has several influential leaders, including in some of its leading seminary organizations, that have been preaching against birth control for over 10 years. The SBC is something people think of in terms of politics because of Pat Robertson's days in the political limelight, but it is really more of a very loose confederation of churches that doesn't even have that rigorous a mechanism for enforcing doctrinal homogeneity. There are tons of Southern Baptist pastors who preach that you largely should not interfere with God's plan as to how many children you are going to have.
That is echoed throughout the evangelical community broadly. I don't believe any large / organized evangelical denomination has something equivalent to the Catholic Church's sweeping prohibitions on things like the birth control pill, but there are absolutely tons of evangelical pastors and voters who are against the use of contraception of any kind on moral grounds. The random church you married into not withstanding broader trends.
More importantly however is its impact on tangential issues, like availability of birth control, sexual education, and teen pregnancy and that oh so cherished religious fundy principle of "abstinence".
Quote from: Berkut on August 02, 2022, 01:07:05 PMMore importantly however is its impact on tangential issues, like availability of birth control, sexual education, and teen pregnancy and that oh so cherished religious fundy principle of "abstinence".
My minimum expectation is that GOP controlled states will default to "parental control" reasoning, as well as allowing "ethical" opt-outs significantly lowering availability except to the well-off middle class with high levels of social and financial capital.
I want to make clear, I do not at all expect a wave of State legislation banning all contraception. I do suspect that there is going to be a case that challenges Griswold, and that Griswold will be overruled by the Guardian Council-cum-Supreme Court.
At that point, I do think there are going to be a few ruby red States where it ends up that there is some form of restriction or ban on contraceptives still on the books. Prior to Griswold a very common law was that single women and married women without children were not generally allowed birth control pills, but married women with children were. I haven't done the research on what laws are still on the books and where. It would not at all surprise me if say, Alabama had a typical pre-Griswold law like that, that you wouldn't find significant support in the Republican state legislature to overturn it. Why? The people they care about--Christian married women, are basically protected by the law. They will certainly not be very interested in passing a law that helps liberal married women choose to not have kids (no good Christian woman would intentionally have zero children, obv), or single women--heaven forbid, being able to fuck out of wedlock without having to worry about a pregnancy (which she also can no longer abort in Alabama.)
I don't see many, or maybe even any, prosecutions over these laws. However, that doesn't mean they will not have an impact. A lot of these laws were more regulatory and aimed at physicians. There is no innate right to a prescription medication without a doctor's approval, the whole concept of a prescription medication (which birth control still is), is that you need a doctor's approval to acquire it. While I would not expect to see the Religious Police roaming around checking women's purses for birth control pills, if some old regulation goes back into force that limits a doctor's prescribing authority--doctors are not prone to willfully breaking medical regulations, and they are mostly going to follow the law. Without any prosecutions or anything like it, it will suddenly become very, very hard for women to get birth control in such a State.
I have zero reason to expect this isn't somewhat likely in our current environment.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 02, 2022, 10:56:29 AMAgain, Protestant churches are largely not informing Republican policy. Republican policy is being driven by what issues animate the "riled up base", which largely corresponds to cultural conservatives, and overlaps heavily with "people who vote in Republican primaries."
Neither conservative institutions like the protestant churches or "people who vote in republican primaries" are in favor of contraceptive bans. Where is this going to come from? Are we just going to assume that anything that owns the libs is liable to be enacted? Burqas may be mandated because oh boy would democrats hate that!
With abortion, it is worth pointing out that later tonight there we will get the results on a referendum in Kansas to give the legislature the right to ban abortion there. Polling indicates it is going to be a close vote--wiht the point being that even in a very conservative place like Kansas abortion is not a slam dunk--and banning abortion actually has popular support vs. contraceptive bans.
Weird that no one was mentioned the head of AQ been killed by a likely CIA drone strike in Kabul.
Quote from: mongers on August 02, 2022, 05:46:23 PMWeird that no one was mentioned the head of AQ been killed by a likely CIA drone strike in Kabul.
I didn't know AQ was still a going concern until I saw that news.
US must still have intelligence assets in Afghanistan, which is weird to think about.
Didn't Trump cut a deal with the Taliban that they wouldn't host terrorist groups? Or was that Joe?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2022, 05:53:51 PMDidn't Trump cut a deal with the Taliban that they wouldn't host terrorist groups? Or was that Joe?
Trump is the one that decided to pull out of there, Joe simply executed it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2022, 05:53:51 PMDidn't Trump cut a deal with the Taliban that they wouldn't host terrorist groups? Or was that Joe?
What would the US do if they did?
Quote from: The Brain on August 02, 2022, 09:11:00 PMWhat would the US do if they did?
Kill the terrorists, duh.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 02, 2022, 03:48:16 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 02, 2022, 10:56:29 AMAgain, Protestant churches are largely not informing Republican policy. Republican policy is being driven by what issues animate the "riled up base", which largely corresponds to cultural conservatives, and overlaps heavily with "people who vote in Republican primaries."
Neither conservative institutions like the protestant churches or "people who vote in republican primaries" are in favor of contraceptive bans. Where is this going to come from? Are we just going to assume that anything that owns the libs is liable to be enacted? Burqas may be mandated because oh boy would democrats hate that!
Except again--you don't need to pass a law if one is already on the books, what you need instead is public pressure sufficient to push a law repealing an extant law. And since there is, in fact, a contingent of conservative people (not just Catholics) who would likely be fine with pre-Griswold birth control restrictions, there is going to be some friction to push against to pass such a repeal. That means it probably won't be a priority, and possibly will be seen as undesirable. I'll note some of these states could have struck these dormant laws off their books at any point in the last 50 years, and haven't.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 02, 2022, 10:13:27 PMQuote from: alfred russel on August 02, 2022, 03:48:16 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 02, 2022, 10:56:29 AMAgain, Protestant churches are largely not informing Republican policy. Republican policy is being driven by what issues animate the "riled up base", which largely corresponds to cultural conservatives, and overlaps heavily with "people who vote in Republican primaries."
Neither conservative institutions like the protestant churches or "people who vote in republican primaries" are in favor of contraceptive bans. Where is this going to come from? Are we just going to assume that anything that owns the libs is liable to be enacted? Burqas may be mandated because oh boy would democrats hate that!
Except again--you don't need to pass a law if one is already on the books, what you need instead is public pressure sufficient to push a law repealing an extant law. And since there is, in fact, a contingent of conservative people (not just Catholics) who would likely be fine with pre-Griswold birth control restrictions, there is going to be some friction to push against to pass such a repeal. That means it probably won't be a priority, and possibly will be seen as undesirable. I'll note some of these states could have struck these dormant laws off their books at any point in the last 50 years, and haven't.
And there would be an absolute shitstorm to get rid of contraceptive bans. That wouldn't just be from the 95% plus of the population that use contraceptives, that would also be from conservative churches that are a major pillar of the republican party in the states you are talking about.
There was just a vote in Kansas yesterday to give the authority to the legislature to regulate abortion. It got blown the fuck out by 19 points. The voters there skewed republican by about 20 points. Abortion bans are an extremely tough sell in even conservative states and this is going to radioactive to the republican party...contraception is on a radically different level. I didn't search for polling on this but I'd guess that it is significantly less popular than ideas like seceding and restoring the confederacy.
Except again--a lot of the pre-Griswold laws allowed married women who already had children to easily get birth control. Pre-Griswold laws generally were not blanket bans on using the birth control pill, they were largely morally conservative regulations that, in essence, attempted to allow married women who already had children to use the pills for family planning without allowing childless women that same freedom. The conservative Protestants that you are now an expert on because you've been near a South Carolina church a few times, almost certainly don't give two fucks about an unmarried woman's liberty to fuck dudes and not get pregnant. Most of the pre-Griswold laws were targeted at those women, who are already part of the "undesirables" when it comes to conservative Christians.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 03, 2022, 08:04:34 AMExcept again--a lot of the pre-Griswold laws allowed married women who already had children to easily get birth control. Pre-Griswold laws generally were not blanket bans on using the birth control pill, they were largely morally conservative regulations that, in essence, attempted to allow married women who already had children to use the pills for family planning without allowing childless women that same freedom. The conservative Protestants that you are now an expert on because you've been near a South Carolina church a few times, almost certainly don't give two fucks about an unmarried woman's liberty to fuck dudes and not get pregnant. Most of the pre-Griswold laws were targeted at those women, who are already part of the "undesirables" when it comes to conservative Christians.
Delusional.
Here is the Alabama Public Health Department website...
https://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/FamilyPlanning/
They have birth control on the front page and statements such as:
"Our goal is to prevent unintended pregnancies through education and contraceptive services, allowing for the planning and timing of pregnancies." and "One style doesn't fit all. Especially when it comes to birth control. Let us help find a method that works for you!"
and even:
"What if I stopped using the pills and
had unprotected sex?
Take Emergency Contraception right away. Emergency
contraception can prevent pregnancy up to 5 days after
sex, and it works better the sooner you take it. You can
get ECPs at the drug store without a prescription or at
your county health department's family planning clinic
or doctor's office"
None of this stuff is required by a supreme court decision. it is the state of alabama choosing to offer these programs to its citizens. Hardly seems like a place that would be banning them if they could.
Well, I feel better already. Everything is going to be fine, and nobody should be concerned at all about government restricting more women's rights under this Supreme Court, because we can and should have great faith in the rationality and reasonableness of radical evangelical Christians when it comes to their views on women's sexual freedom.
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2022, 09:02:24 AMWell, I feel better already. Everything is going to be fine, and nobody should be concerned at all about government restricting more women's rights under this Supreme Court, because we can and should have great faith in the rationality and reasonableness of radical evangelical Christians when it comes to their views on women's sexual freedom.
I strongly disagree.
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2022, 09:02:24 AMWell, I feel better already. Everything is going to be fine, and nobody should be concerned at all about government restricting more women's rights under this Supreme Court, because we can and should have great faith in the rationality and reasonableness of radical evangelical Christians when it comes to their views on women's sexual freedom.
Luckily we have a quote from the Alabama Public Health Department (which has no legislative power, and cannot enact policy without appropriate legislation), so we're all fine.
AR, you neglected to quote the sentence that appears immediately before the sentence you did quote:
"The Family Planning Program promotes the well being of families, responsible behavior, and healthy mothers and babies."
It was likely an accident of cutting and pasting.
You also neglected to quote the bit that comes immediately after the sentence you quoted:
"There are 81 clinics throughout Alabama offering family planning services."
Also likely an error in your cutting and pasting skills.
If you read the whole of the description on the website (It doesn't take long, its just a few short paragraphs) I am sure you will agree that Otto was not being delusional but accurately describing both what is now in place and what is likely to come.
Remember, just because something could happen doesn't mean it will.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 03, 2022, 01:51:22 PMRemember, just because something could happen doesn't mean it will.
Thank you for that amazing insight.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 03, 2022, 03:08:29 PMQuote from: Eddie Teach on August 03, 2022, 01:51:22 PMRemember, just because something could happen doesn't mean it will.
Thank you for that amazing insight.
You are most welcome.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 03, 2022, 01:51:22 PMRemember, just because something could happen doesn't mean it will.
Sometimes it does, though.
:unsure:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 03, 2022, 12:04:33 PMQuote from: Berkut on August 03, 2022, 09:02:24 AMWell, I feel better already. Everything is going to be fine, and nobody should be concerned at all about government restricting more women's rights under this Supreme Court, because we can and should have great faith in the rationality and reasonableness of radical evangelical Christians when it comes to their views on women's sexual freedom.
Luckily we have a quote from the Alabama Public Health Department (which has no legislative power, and cannot enact policy without appropriate legislation), so we're all fine.
You are arguing that if supreme court decisions are rendered that reverse rights to contraceptives, places like Alabama will ban them. I'm showing an actual department under the state government of Alabama, created by the legislature of Alabama, that is counseling people on contraceptive use. No supreme court decision mandates state governments do that. If the government of the state of alabama wants to live in a world with contraceptives banned and only the supreme court is holding them back, why are they promoting contraceptive use?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 03, 2022, 12:08:24 PMAR, you neglected to quote the sentence that appears immediately before the sentence you did quote:
"The Family Planning Program promotes the well being of families, responsible behavior, and healthy mothers and babies."
It was likely an accident of cutting and pasting.
You also neglected to quote the bit that comes immediately after the sentence you quoted:
"There are 81 clinics throughout Alabama offering family planning services."
Also likely an error in your cutting and pasting skills.
If you read the whole of the description on the website (It doesn't take long, its just a few short paragraphs) I am sure you will agree that Otto was not being delusional but accurately describing both what is now in place and what is likely to come.
There wasn't an error in my cutting and pasting skills. I don't see the relevance of those topics to the issue at hand.
Quote from: Jacob on August 03, 2022, 03:30:51 PMQuote from: Eddie Teach on August 03, 2022, 01:51:22 PMRemember, just because something could happen doesn't mean it will.
Sometimes it does, though.
Save the panic for when it does.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 03, 2022, 07:00:12 PMSave the panic for when it does.
Sure.
But do the organizing and resisting and fuss-raising now, as it'll increase the chances that in won't happen.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 03, 2022, 06:55:23 PMYou are arguing that if supreme court decisions are rendered that reverse rights to contraceptives, places like Alabama will ban them. I'm showing an actual department under the state government of Alabama, created by the legislature of Alabama, that is counseling people on contraceptive use. No supreme court decision mandates state governments do that. If the government of the state of alabama wants to live in a world with contraceptives banned and only the supreme court is holding them back, why are they promoting contraceptive use?
For one, I am not saying they will ban them. I am saying existing laws, many of which highly restricted with a specific view to restricting casual use of contraceptive pills to married women already with children, could go back into effect. It would then require State legislation to repeal those currently dormant laws. That's literally just an actual fact of how our constitutional system of laws works. If a State has a Law A, that is in effect, and it is then made dormant by a Supreme Court ruling, if that Supreme Court ruling is overturned, that Law A goes back into effect--sans some state judicial ruling otherwise and/or some State legislative action. That's not speculative, that's just how our laws actually work.
What I am saying, is that in conservative religious States, and there is a significant desire among many religious people to limit use of contraceptives, it is not at all guaranteed that such laws will simply be repealed.
The Alabama Department of Public Health thing you're talking about literally has almost nothing to do with Alabama. That is language and clinics / programs specifically related to Title X, which is a Federal program that provides for family planning services and the State is essentially implementing the requirements to receive those Federal funds. There is no conflict between Title X and Alabama law, but if Alabama (just as an example--this really applies to any conservative State), has a law that restricts birth control pill prescriptions to say, married women with children, those restrictions would still apply. It could be the case the State might lose its Title X funding if it did not repeal those restrictions, but that is an open question and would very much depend on who President--Trump already significantly curtailed Title X funding was when he was in office and a future Republican would likely do the same.
The existence of a Title X program in a State is not really a reflection of anything other than a willingness to comply with the requirements of a Federal grant, it doesn't at all speak to how they would intersect with morality based contraception restrictions. In fact where they have conflicted, States have generally been moving towards morality based restrictions after the Hobby Lobby decision.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 03, 2022, 07:00:12 PMQuote from: Jacob on August 03, 2022, 03:30:51 PMQuote from: Eddie Teach on August 03, 2022, 01:51:22 PMRemember, just because something could happen doesn't mean it will.
Sometimes it does, though.
Save the panic for when it does.
That's a pretty brain dead opinion, to be frank. Saving the panic for when it does is how abortion rights people ended up in a 40 year deficit of organizing and planning. It was assumed Roe was sacrosanct. Most people supported the core holdings of Roe. It hadn't been touched in most people's lifetimes. No reason to panic.
Okay.
Maybe we should all cancel our life insurance policies, defund our military, etc too--no reason for any concern for future issues, since in the realm of the perpetually stupid you only have to be concerned about something in the midst of a massive catastrophe.
People haven't been preparing because the issue didn't matter to them. It still shouldn't.
:wacko:
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 03, 2022, 08:46:29 PMPeople haven't been preparing because the issue didn't matter to them. It still shouldn't.
Okay.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 03, 2022, 08:46:29 PMPeople haven't been preparing because the issue didn't matter to them. It still shouldn't.
Ah, that makes more sense. You're not commenting on whether it makes sense to start acting right now if you're concerned about the potential for access to contraception being removed. You're saying that if access to contraception is removed in some places, that's okay because it shouldn't matter to folks.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 03, 2022, 08:46:29 PMPeople haven't been preparing because the issue didn't matter to them. It still shouldn't.
You can read their minds and know this? And why shouldn't it? Having children is generally considered a significant event in people's lives.
Quote from: Valmy on August 03, 2022, 10:38:09 PMQuote from: Eddie Teach on August 03, 2022, 08:46:29 PMPeople haven't been preparing because the issue didn't matter to them. It still shouldn't.
You can read their minds and know this? And why shouldn't it? Having children is generally considered a significant event in people's lives.
Nah man, they shouldn't worry about it.
Yeah, stop panicking folks. What are you, women? You sound hysterical.
Quote from: Jacob on August 03, 2022, 10:04:42 PMQuote from: Eddie Teach on August 03, 2022, 08:46:29 PMPeople haven't been preparing because the issue didn't matter to them. It still shouldn't.
Ah, that makes more sense. You're not commenting on whether it makes sense to start acting right now if you're concerned about the potential for access to contraception being removed. You're saying that if access to contraception is removed in some places, that's okay because it shouldn't matter to folks.
No, I was responding to Otto's post referencing abortion. God forbid some woman someplace else has to ride a bus in order to kill her kid.
On contraception, I think Dorsey is correct that there is no rational reason to believe it would be banned. While the Capitol putsch does make one question life's rationality, it's still not a possibility worth fretting about. Especially for Canadians.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 03, 2022, 11:10:19 PMQuote from: Jacob on August 03, 2022, 10:04:42 PMQuote from: Eddie Teach on August 03, 2022, 08:46:29 PMPeople haven't been preparing because the issue didn't matter to them. It still shouldn't.
Ah, that makes more sense. You're not commenting on whether it makes sense to start acting right now if you're concerned about the potential for access to contraception being removed. You're saying that if access to contraception is removed in some places, that's okay because it shouldn't matter to folks.
No, I was responding to Otto's post referencing abortion. God forbid some woman someplace else has to ride a bus in order to kill her kid.
And here is the face of the problem.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 03, 2022, 11:10:19 PMQuote from: Jacob on August 03, 2022, 10:04:42 PMQuote from: Eddie Teach on August 03, 2022, 08:46:29 PMPeople haven't been preparing because the issue didn't matter to them. It still shouldn't.
Ah, that makes more sense. You're not commenting on whether it makes sense to start acting right now if you're concerned about the potential for access to contraception being removed. You're saying that if access to contraception is removed in some places, that's okay because it shouldn't matter to folks.
No, I was responding to Otto's post referencing abortion. God forbid some woman someplace else has to ride a bus in order to kill her kid.
And there we have it, the mask falls.
It's good in a way. Now I can stop interacting with you and your "takes", your whataboutism, your both sides. Thanks for clearly stating: "I am a piece of shit."
Quote from: alfred russel on August 03, 2022, 06:57:02 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on August 03, 2022, 12:08:24 PMAR, you neglected to quote the sentence that appears immediately before the sentence you did quote:
"The Family Planning Program promotes the well being of families, responsible behavior, and healthy mothers and babies."
It was likely an accident of cutting and pasting.
You also neglected to quote the bit that comes immediately after the sentence you quoted:
"There are 81 clinics throughout Alabama offering family planning services."
Also likely an error in your cutting and pasting skills.
If you read the whole of the description on the website (It doesn't take long, its just a few short paragraphs) I am sure you will agree that Otto was not being delusional but accurately describing both what is now in place and what is likely to come.
There wasn't an error in my cutting and pasting skills. I don't see the relevance of those topics to the issue at hand.
I see, well your failure to consider the full context explains your misguided views.
Dude, that's fucking rich. Also, go fuck yourself with a baguette.
Also, what mask? I've been saying this for 20 years.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 03, 2022, 11:10:19 PMNo, I was responding to Otto's post referencing abortion. God forbid some woman someplace else has to ride a bus in order to kill her kid.
That may be your own view, but I don't see how you get from that to the conclusion that it doesn't matter to other people. It clearly does matter to many people, even (it appears) in Kansas.
One could easily phrase the point the other way around. Roe shouldn't have mattered to the antis because why should anyone care if some stranger they never met makes their own choice not to carry their pregnancy to term? And yet many people did and do care.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 03, 2022, 07:33:09 PMFor one, I am not saying they will ban them. I am saying existing laws, many of which highly restricted with a specific view to restricting casual use of contraceptive pills to married women already with children, could go back into effect. It would then require State legislation to repeal those currently dormant laws. That's literally just an actual fact of how our constitutional system of laws works. If a State has a Law A, that is in effect, and it is then made dormant by a Supreme Court ruling, if that Supreme Court ruling is overturned, that Law A goes back into effect--sans some state judicial ruling otherwise and/or some State legislative action. That's not speculative, that's just how our laws actually work.
Totally understand that. And in the case the supreme court ruling is overturned I'd be willing to wager every penny I have that every state save Utah would have it legalized within the year.
QuoteWhat I am saying, is that in conservative religious States, and there is a significant desire among many religious people to limit use of contraceptives, it is not at all guaranteed that such laws will simply be repealed.
You conflate two statements.
-conservative religious states, and
-the desire among many religious people.
The official catholic position is against birth control, and mormons are against birth control. A small minority of catholics agree with that, and i'd assume that is more common among the mormons. But except for Utah the conservative religious states don't have many of those groups.
QuoteThe Alabama Department of Public Health thing you're talking about literally has almost nothing to do with Alabama. That is language and clinics / programs specifically related to Title X, which is a Federal program that provides for family planning services and the State is essentially implementing the requirements to receive those Federal funds. There is no conflict between Title X and Alabama law, but if Alabama (just as an example--this really applies to any conservative State), has a law that restricts birth control pill prescriptions to say, married women with children, those restrictions would still apply. It could be the case the State might lose its Title X funding if it did not repeal those restrictions, but that is an open question and would very much depend on who President--Trump already significantly curtailed Title X funding was when he was in office and a future Republican would likely do the same.
The existence of a Title X program in a State is not really a reflection of anything other than a willingness to comply with the requirements of a Federal grant, it doesn't at all speak to how they would intersect with morality based contraception restrictions. In fact where they have conflicted, States have generally been moving towards morality based restrictions after the Hobby Lobby decision.
It is a state institution, an Alabama department, that is promoting contraceptives! If they thought that it was immoral they could decline the funds...it isn't like states have been shy about turning down obamacare dollars in the past to own the libs. Seems like a great opportunity if being anti contraceptive is such a winning play.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 03, 2022, 07:34:59 PMThat's a pretty brain dead opinion, to be frank. Saving the panic for when it does is how abortion rights people ended up in a 40 year deficit of organizing and planning. It was assumed Roe was sacrosanct. Most people supported the core holdings of Roe. It hadn't been touched in most people's lifetimes. No reason to panic.
I used to drive past a clinic that provided abortion services every day to work. About once a week there were protestors out front with all sorts of signs. It has been a 50 year project to get abortion banned, and one of the most contentious political issues. Before Trump when the republican party bothered putting out platforms, I think it was included in every one since 1976. You should remember: that is what the party you supported back in the day was fighting for—I guess you should welcome their current success? Every republican president has been against abortion in the time period.
I've missed anything like this for contraception. Has anyone seen anti contraception protestors in front of a pharmacy? Is there any kind of organization for this? Someone can correct me but I think I recall a stat that 99% of women who have been sexually active have used a form of contraception...being anti contraception is the fringiest of the most fringe positions. It just isn't happening.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 04, 2022, 07:38:17 AMYou conflate two statements.
-conservative religious states, and
-the desire among many religious people.
The official catholic position is against birth control, and mormons are against birth control. A small minority of catholics agree with that, and i'd assume that is more common among the mormons. But except for Utah the conservative religious states don't have many of those groups.
And this is where you are incorrect--there is absolutely a significant movement in Protestant evangelicalism against widespread and general use of birth control. They do not hold quite the same malum prohibitum approach to it that Catholics do, but there many people--including liturgical leaders in the SBC's seminary which you believe (erroneously) is the font of all evangelicalism in America, who have been preaching against contraceptives for years.
QuoteIt is a state institution, an Alabama department, that is promoting contraceptives! If they thought that it was immoral they could decline the funds...it isn't like states have been shy about turning down obamacare dollars in the past to own the libs. Seems like a great opportunity if being anti contraceptive is such a winning play.
Under Griswold accepting or not accepting Title X funds doesn't affect whether birth control pills are available, they were going to be present regardless. Additionally, many States that setup their Title X clinics did so decades ago and I'm sure that is the case for Alabama. The Republican party has genuinely moved further against contraceptives in the last 15 years than in the years before that.
Title X was a law championed and signed by Nixon, things in politics aren't static. Lots of programs are running in Southern states that frankly would probably not be passed today, but institutional inertia keeps them going. The GOP is actually more broadly against "government being given money to solve any problems at all" now than they once were, I think a lot of Title X clinics would never be setup by the modern GOP State legislatures for that reason more even than any sexual morality claims, they would just take the line that it isn't government's job to pay for your contraception.
Republican States also have public K-12 schools that are government funded, at one point in time it was an uncontroversial recognition that such basic things were part of governing. I don't know that the GOP of 2022 would even vote to establish State run schools if they did not already exist. There's a difference between "things the GOP lets continue to exist because of inertia" and "whether or not the GOP would repeal a law that made it so single women can't get the pill."
Quote from: alfred russel on August 04, 2022, 07:46:40 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 03, 2022, 07:34:59 PMThat's a pretty brain dead opinion, to be frank. Saving the panic for when it does is how abortion rights people ended up in a 40 year deficit of organizing and planning. It was assumed Roe was sacrosanct. Most people supported the core holdings of Roe. It hadn't been touched in most people's lifetimes. No reason to panic.
I used to drive past a clinic that provided abortion services every day to work. About once a week there were protestors out front with all sorts of signs. It has been a 50 year project to get abortion banned, and one of the most contentious political issues. Before Trump when the republican party bothered putting out platforms, I think it was included in every one since 1976. You should remember: that is what the party you supported back in the day was fighting for—I guess you should welcome their current success? Every republican president has been against abortion in the time period.
I mean I consider myself pro-life, but that's for moral religious reasons, as much as I genuinely think abortion of a viable fetus is both sinful and immoral, I can't easily reason myself to a good justification for making it illegal when the fetus is at a stage where it can't survive outside the womb. I also think Roe was not well decided legally, and I think Roe being decided did a lot of political harm to the country. My theory is that without Roe, probably 40-45 states would have legalized abortion right now, that would not be at any real risk because it would have been arrived at over a period of decades via referendums, legislation etc. I think a few hold out States like Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina etc would likely still not have it, but even they would probably have more sane exceptions than they are looking to end up with now, because the "no exceptions" movement is fairly new and is going to generate massive negative PR for the GOP over the coming years.
The point I was making with that post was that abortion rights people absolutely dropped the ball in preparing for, and organizing for, a world where abortion rights weren't secured by a Supreme Court ruling. Roe was broadly treated as untouchable by the Democrats, and they assumed it always would be. There seemed to be little awakening at all to the fact this might not be true until RBG died, even though they frankly should have been worried a long time before that. This pushes back against ET's braindead idea "well you shouldn't worry about it until it happens" nonsense.
QuoteI've missed anything like this for contraception. Has anyone seen anti contraception protestors in front of a pharmacy? Is there any kind of organization for this? Someone can correct me but I think I recall a stat that 99% of women who have been sexually active have used a form of contraception...being anti contraception is the fringiest of the most fringe positions. It just isn't happening.
You keep going back to totally unrelated discussion threads. No one is saying there is going to be a movement to pass legislation banning contraception. Are you confused? Do you have trouble reading? Are you smelling burnt toast? Maybe you're having a stroke.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 04, 2022, 07:56:40 AMYou keep going back to totally unrelated discussion threads. No one is saying there is going to be a movement to pass legislation banning contraception. Are you confused? Do you have trouble reading? Are you smelling burnt toast? Maybe you're having a stroke.
No one is going to care when they go to get contraceptives at the pharmacy and they are told that the government no longer allows their sale that there was a court case that put back into place a state law that was passed in 1875 or whatever. A state ban isn't going to be tolerated. Someone is going to propose the bill to fix it in the legislature, there is no way it could be quietly killed in committee, and it will pass with 90%+ of legislators voting for it, if not unanimously. You are talking about an epic change in lives of anyone anyone who has sex, or cares about someone that has sex, or wants to have sex.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 04, 2022, 09:28:05 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 04, 2022, 07:56:40 AMYou keep going back to totally unrelated discussion threads. No one is saying there is going to be a movement to pass legislation banning contraception. Are you confused? Do you have trouble reading? Are you smelling burnt toast? Maybe you're having a stroke.
No one is going to care when they go to get contraceptives at the pharmacy and they are told that the government no longer allows their sale that there was a court case that put back into place a state law that was passed in 1875 or whatever. A state ban isn't going to be tolerated. Someone is going to propose the bill to fix it in the legislature, there is no way it could be quietly killed in committee, and it will pass with 90%+ of legislators voting for it, if not unanimously. You are talking about an epic change in lives of anyone anyone who has sex, or cares about someone that has sex, or wants to have sex.
I feel like you're just not living in reality.
1. There are places in America right now, because of our "religious rights" movement, where pharmacists can refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. This, in fact, happens regularly. Nothing has been done about it and that has been the situation for years in some of these locations. Generally sure, people can go to another pharmacy, but unsurprisingly the places where this is a problem are typically in rural communities and it does create a big hassle for people.
2. Lots of people don't actually use contraception of any kind. The CDC has data on women aged 15-49 (link (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/contraceptive.htm)), only around 24% are using some form of contraception. Another 18% are sterilized and another 6% their male partner is. That leaves ~52% of women age 15-49 aren't using any form of female contraception (maybe their partner uses condoms, we don't know.)
3. The idea that just because something affects a lot of people and will be really unpopular means that thing cannot happen is...willfully ignorant of reality. A law that says abortion is illegal with no exceptions for anything short of the woman's "imminent death" poll at something like 20% support. That means 80% of people oppose it. Upwards of 25% of all women have an abortion, and a large chunk of women and families go through pregnancy. The idea that such a law doesn't affect a lot of people is silly, and the idea it can't be possible because it is unpopular is also silly.
For many years people who were "unconcerned" with abortion rights said that if you have health problems and need an abortion, it won't be a problem even after Roe is overturned. That's ended up not being true. The health exceptions in many States have been worded so they are incredibly vague, and the legislature puts all the risk of action on the physician, so the physician (not a lawyer) has to interpret a vaguely worded statute and then risk criminal prosecution and loss of his/her medical license. Some States you have a GOP that has literally let laws go into effect saying the only exception is if the woman's life is in imminent danger, which means even routine matters like ectopic pregnancies can't be handled proactively and have to wait until they become a crisis.
All of this polls as being deeply, deeply unpopular, and we were told none of it would happen because it'd be crazy. It did happen, and it is crazy. Appeals to "it won't be popular" don't matter when the people making decisions aren't subject to popular approval for their actions, it's as simple as that.
I think it's incredibly likely if Griswold is overturned, some crazy/stupid laws either enter effect, or you run into weird situations that fuck people's lives up. I think as we're seeing with the current state of abortion law, many States will resist fixing it.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 04, 2022, 07:49:47 AMAnd this is where you are incorrect--there is absolutely a significant movement in Protestant evangelicalism against widespread and general use of birth control. They do not hold quite the same malum prohibitum approach to it that Catholics do, but there many people--including liturgical leaders in the SBC's seminary which you believe (erroneously) is the font of all evangelicalism in America, who have been preaching against contraceptives for years.
Why do you think I believe the southern baptist convention is the front of all evangelicalism in America?
I'm using that as the example because:
-it is larger in Alabama (which i'm using as the example because it is arguably our most retrograde state) than any other denomination,
-catholics are insignficant,
-mainline protestants i'd obviously get shot down for using,
-black churches though numerous are not obviously not pushing for no birth control as a general rule.
It is great that you can find people in seminaries that may be saying stuff against contraception but that isn't even close to mainstream among baptists. That is certainly not the position of the SBC nor the reality on the ground of SBC congregations.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 04, 2022, 09:41:02 AMI feel like you're just not living in reality.
1. There are places in America right now, because of our "religious rights" movement, where pharmacists can refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. This, in fact, happens regularly. Nothing has been done about it and that has been the situation for years in some of these locations. Generally sure, people can go to another pharmacy, but unsurprisingly the places where this is a problem are typically in rural communities and it does create a big hassle for people.
That is entirely different than a ban on contraception.
Which again, no one has said contraception will be banned. If you want to talk about something no one is arguing, you are free to do so--but you're talking to yourself.
The rest of your posts are just you repeating "laws restricting birth control will be unpopular." Okay, well we already have laws that are opposed by upwards of 80% of the population. Unpopularity has nothing to do with what will be a law.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 04, 2022, 09:41:02 AM3. The idea that just because something affects a lot of people and will be really unpopular means that thing cannot happen is...willfully ignorant of reality. A law that says abortion is illegal with no exceptions for anything short of the woman's "imminent death" poll at something like 20% support. That means 80% of people oppose it. Upwards of 25% of all women have an abortion, and a large chunk of women and families go through pregnancy. The idea that such a law doesn't affect a lot of people is silly, and the idea it can't be possible because it is unpopular is also silly.
For many years people who were "unconcerned" with abortion rights said that if you have health problems and need an abortion, it won't be a problem even after Roe is overturned. That's ended up not being true. The health exceptions in many States have been worded so they are incredibly vague, and the legislature puts all the risk of action on the physician, so the physician (not a lawyer) has to interpret a vaguely worded statute and then risk criminal prosecution and loss of his/her medical license. Some States you have a GOP that has literally let laws go into effect saying the only exception is if the woman's life is in imminent danger, which means even routine matters like ectopic pregnancies can't be handled proactively and have to wait until they become a crisis.
All of this polls as being deeply, deeply unpopular, and we were told none of it would happen because it'd be crazy. It did happen, and it is crazy. Appeals to "it won't be popular" don't matter when the people making decisions aren't subject to popular approval for their actions, it's as simple as that.
I think it's incredibly likely if Griswold is overturned, some crazy/stupid laws either enter effect, or you run into weird situations that fuck people's lives up. I think as we're seeing with the current state of abortion law, many States will resist fixing it.
I 100% agree with you that banning abortion is extremely unpopular, is going to be reality in some places, and is going to be an albatross around the neck of the republican party for years to come. 20% support when concentrated in one party that has maybe 33% of the population, votes on its candidates in a primary, and gets a majority: such 20% positions can become law. This is especially true when there are massive financial and institutional backers of the 20% position. Anyone not seeing how this works is a moron.
Contraceptive bans are entirely different because they don't have majority support in either party, in any location other than possibly Utah. In the states most susceptible to do really dumb cultural war stuff, they don't have any institutional support either--again excluding Utah.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 04, 2022, 09:52:09 AMWhich again, no one has said contraception will be banned.
It is exactly what you are arguing. If the USSC rules in certain ways, there will be places in the US where people are unable to legally buy contraceptives. They will be banned, if not through new legislation then through previously passed laws retaking effect.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 04, 2022, 09:55:24 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 04, 2022, 09:52:09 AMWhich again, no one has said contraception will be banned.
It is exactly what you are arguing. If the USSC rules in certain ways, there will be places in the US where people are unable to legally buy contraceptives. They will be banned, if not through new legislation then through previously passed laws retaking effect.
No, I have said (factually) pre-Griswold laws would go into effect. I don't believe any State had a blanket ban on contraception pre-Griswold. Condoms were generally not restricted at all, which is a form of contraception. The contraceptive pill for women was heavily restricted in some States, but I don't know that any had a true blanket ban.
Edit: Connecticut (the subject of Griswold) and Massachusetts had 19th century laws that actually banned any "contraceptive device", they were the only 2 States in the country with such laws in the 1960s. Additionally in CT/MA those laws had largely fallen into selective disuse, Griswold was a bit of a deliberate test case to produce a judicial result.
However, most of the country had religious morality based
restrictions on the pill.
No, the argument is that if Griswold is tossed out, the protection for access to contraceptives will be tossed out with it.
That means we will see existing efforts to restrict access (or ban it) come back into effect, and we will see more efforts to restrict its access to vulnerable groups who some minority of people think should not have access to contraception.
Unwed women, women without children, the poor, etc., etc.
There are plenty of people in the radical religious world who think that sex should happen only between married people, and therefore there is nothing wrong with restricting access to contraception outside those bounds is a good thing. No whore pills for the sluts! Abstinence is the best form of contraception!
Quote from: Berkut on August 04, 2022, 10:00:23 AMNo, the argument is that if Griswold is tossed out, the protection for access to contraceptives will be tossed out with it.
That means we will see existing efforts to restrict access (or ban it) come back into effect, and we will see more efforts to restrict its access to vulnerable groups who some minority of people think should not have access to contraception.
Unwed women, women without children, the poor, etc., etc.
There are plenty of people in the radical religious world who think that sex should happen only between married people, and therefore there is nothing wrong with restricting access to contraception outside those bounds is a good thing. No whore pills for the sluts! Abstinence is the best form of contraception!
Right, and AR's gaslighting notwithstanding, the people he imagines will be "up in arms" about contraception restrictions are the type of people most contraceptive restrictions never applied to in the first place--married conservative white people.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 04, 2022, 10:04:31 AMRight, and AR's gaslighting notwithstanding, the people he imagines will be "up in arms" about contraception restrictions are the type of people most contraceptive restrictions never applied to in the first place--married conservative white people.
In the magical world we ban contraceptive access for groups of people, I certainly don't think that the people who would be most up in arms are "married conservative white people"...i'm also not sure why you are bringing race into this.
It is worth keeping in mind how secular the world is. Even in our aspiring theocratic states such as Alabama, less than half are in church any given sunday.
https://yellowhammernews.com/study-shows-alabamians-attend-church-almost-americans/
Quote from: alfred russel on August 04, 2022, 09:55:24 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 04, 2022, 09:52:09 AMWhich again, no one has said contraception will be banned.
It is exactly what you are arguing. If the USSC rules in certain ways, there will be places in the US where people are unable to legally buy contraceptives. They will be banned, if not through new legislation then through previously passed laws retaking effect.
I now understand why you ignored the fact that the website you posted talks about contraception for families. Your post also explains why you fail to understand that contraception restrictions for the unwed is a real issue. You simply fail to understand what everybody else is arguing.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 04, 2022, 10:14:13 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 04, 2022, 10:04:31 AMRight, and AR's gaslighting notwithstanding, the people he imagines will be "up in arms" about contraception restrictions are the type of people most contraceptive restrictions never applied to in the first place--married conservative white people.
In the magical world we ban contraceptive access for groups of people, I certainly don't think that the people who would be most up in arms are "married conservative white people"...i'm also not sure why you are bringing race into this.
Hey, how about we pass a law making access to condoms for minors illegal without parental consent.
And birth control pills should only be available after proving you've consulted with your pastor about their use. Unless you are married of course.
Sex education? Abstinence only, of course.
This is not about "bans" and would not be presented as a ban. It would be presented as responsible restrictions on curbing immoral behavior.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 04, 2022, 10:19:21 AMQuote from: alfred russel on August 04, 2022, 09:55:24 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 04, 2022, 09:52:09 AMWhich again, no one has said contraception will be banned.
It is exactly what you are arguing. If the USSC rules in certain ways, there will be places in the US where people are unable to legally buy contraceptives. They will be banned, if not through new legislation then through previously passed laws retaking effect.
I now understand why you ignored the fact that the website you posted talks about contraception for families. Your post also explains why you fail to understand that contraception restrictions for the unwed is a real issue. You simply fail to understand what everybody else is arguing.
Wait, you think that the contraception services discussed on the alabama department's website are only for married people?
AR is just pure gaslighting. There is not even the veneer he is trying to discuss something honestly.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 24, 2022, 08:58:22 AMArticle talking about how the Democratic efforts to campaign against Republican abandonment of democracy seem to fall short. My personal belief is this is because the Democrats are still arguing policy and facts, they need to make emotion-laden appeals that get people angry. You cannot compete with emotional rhetoric with policy statements.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/23/democratic-attacks-gop-missing-mark/
QuoteOpinion Are Democratic attacks on the GOP over democracy missing their mark?
By Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman
May 23, 2022 at 6:18 p.m. EDT
Another set of GOP primaries takes place Tuesday, most notably in Georgia, where incumbent Gov. Brian Kemp will likely hold off a challenge from former senator David Perdue, whose campaign is largely based on the idea that Kemp failed to help President Donald Trump steal the 2020 election.
But in the race for secretary of state, Trump-backed Rep. Jody Hice could win, and could end up overseeing the 2024 election in this vital swing state. And in other secretary of state primaries Tuesday, such as in Arkansas and Alabama, Republicans might nominate Trump loyalists who pose a genuine threat to our ability to conduct fair elections and have our votes counted.
Yet Democrats have yet to convince the public to take the threat seriously enough.
A new set of focus groups run by Democratic pollster David Binder from May 10 to May 12 illustrates the point. The research raises a question: Are Democrats getting their criticism of the GOP abandonment of democracy right?
Binder conducted four focus groups in Georgia and two in Michigan, mostly with suburban voters, independents and moderates who have voted for candidates in both parties. The groups were commissioned by the Democratic-aligned voting rights organization IVote to determine what voters want to hear from Democratic candidates for secretary of state.
The results are worrying when it comes to democracy — but also suggest a way forward for Democrats.
For instance, according to a summary of the results of all six focus groups provided to us, they found that most of the voters surveyed appear conflicted about rhetoric that calls out Trump's "big lie" about 2020 and frames all discussion of it around his efforts to overturn his loss.
On the one hand, most of these voters agree with the substance of those claims. On the other, most of them tend to interpret it as partisan rhetoric.
The focus groups do find that voters understand the need for a secretary of state to talk about 2020. But the research concludes that voters want to hear an emphasis on nonpartisan procedural improvements, and that, above all, they want to hear discussion of "proactive measures" a secretary of state will take to "ensure transparency and fairness in future elections."
"When we talk about the 'big lie' and Trump, it looks to them like you're looking backwards and getting partisan," Binder told us. "They want a secretary of state to say, 'I am going to make sure that everyone has the right to vote in a nonpartisan way.' "
Importantly, the focus groups show strong voter support for removing measures that make it harder to vote. Yet, at the same time, they show that these swing voters don't tend to see voter suppression as an effort to "subvert democracy."
All of which suggests several possibilities.
One of them is galling: Republicans have largely treated congressional efforts to probe Trump's effort to destroy our political order as an illegitimate partisan exercise. This may be successfully recasting the dispute over what to do about it as a conventional partisan one.
The second possibility might be that if Democratic candidates for secretary of state want to warn about the threat posed by would-be election saboteurs, they need to make this case in a more urgent fashion.
Talk about the "big lie" sounds backward looking, smacking of an effort to relitigate a past outcome. By contrast, highlighting the specific ways Republicans are gearing up to steal the next election might sound more relevant.
"We cannot be quiet in the face of Republicans saying they're going to change rules in a way that will sabotage future elections," Binder told us. "Do it in a way that looks forward."
In truth, the backward-looking and forward-looking arguments are two sides of the same coin: When a GOP candidate announces his conviction that Trump won in 2020, that's strong evidence that they will try to steal the 2024 election for him (or another GOP loser). But it can be hard to prove this, because the rhetoric of even the most deranged election saboteurs is clothed in high-minded claims about "transparency" and "integrity."
Nevertheless, if voters are more interested in the future than the past, then they are focusing in the right direction. Many Trump loyalists seeking positions of control over election positions — especially governor and secretary of state — accept the presumption that only Republican victories are legitimate, and if voters decide to elect Democrats then they must simply be overruled.
Which is something all voters should be worried about. And if they aren't, Democrats have a duty to make sure they understand the true stakes we face. In future elections.
I'm not gaslighting, I'm pointing out the circle jerk of doom is stupid. Contraceptives won't get banned. No one will ever admit they are wrong on this because everything is predicated on the USSC overturning its previous decisions, which on this topic are highly unlikely to happen either.
But go back to the article above. Look at the doom article you posted. It was introduced with total bullshit: the article says "incumbent Gov. Brian Kemp will likely hold off a challenge from former senator David Perdue"...that is one way of putting it...he won by 52%.
It said, "But in the race for secretary of state, Trump-backed Rep. Jody Hice could win, and could end up overseeing the 2024 election in this vital swing state." Bullshit--he lost by 19%.
You posted this the day the election was held. It was written the day before. Do you revisit what you posted when it is confronted with reality? Nope, you just move on to the next thing.
You seem to be jumping all over the place and just gaslighting to endlessly defend Republican misbehavior by calling it all "not a big deal." It's a predictable, tired, overused schtick. And this is too small a forum for you to hide behind any sort of anonymity, we know who and what you are and exactly what you're trying to do.
Your analysis of that article is just another example of gaslighting. The problems that article was pointing out had little to do with whether Brian Kemp won or not, or by which margin. You and Alex Jones have a tremendous amount in common in that when challenged you like to "flood the zone with shit", enough spurious, gaslighting arguments and becomes tedious or impossible to respond and you can go away feeling like you've....done something, I don't know.
I don't actually think you have any real political principals, just a desire to fight over nonsense.
Quote from: Berkut on August 04, 2022, 10:00:23 AMNo, the argument is that if Griswold is tossed out, the protection for access to contraceptives will be tossed out with it.
That means we will see existing efforts to restrict access (or ban it) come back into effect, and we will see more efforts to restrict its access to vulnerable groups who some minority of people think should not have access to contraception.
Unwed women, women without children, the poor, etc., etc.
There are plenty of people in the radical religious world who think that sex should happen only between married people, and therefore there is nothing wrong with restricting access to contraception outside those bounds is a good thing. No whore pills for the sluts! Abstinence is the best form of contraception!
Seems to me that the driving force of right wing morality legislation is really harsh restrictions and "live with the consequences, even if they're bad" (but with exceptions and work arounds for "the right kind" of people).
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 04, 2022, 11:22:20 AMI don't actually think you have any real political principals, just a desire to fight over nonsense.
I don't know. That seems unfair to Dorsey. Over the year I think he's demonstrated a very consistent moral and political philosophy:
"Whatever is inconvenient for Dorsey is a political travesty and completely illogical; whatever only affects others is not a big deal"
Quote from: Jacob on August 04, 2022, 11:27:57 AMQuote from: Berkut on August 04, 2022, 10:00:23 AMNo, the argument is that if Griswold is tossed out, the protection for access to contraceptives will be tossed out with it.
That means we will see existing efforts to restrict access (or ban it) come back into effect, and we will see more efforts to restrict its access to vulnerable groups who some minority of people think should not have access to contraception.
Unwed women, women without children, the poor, etc., etc.
There are plenty of people in the radical religious world who think that sex should happen only between married people, and therefore there is nothing wrong with restricting access to contraception outside those bounds is a good thing. No whore pills for the sluts! Abstinence is the best form of contraception!
Seems to me that the driving force of right wing morality legislation is really harsh restrictions and "live with the consequences, even if they're bad" (but with exceptions and work arounds for "the right kind" of people).
Well, the right kind of people are the "True Americans" after all. Of course the restrictions should not apply to THEM!
Quote from: Berkut on August 04, 2022, 11:56:01 AMWell, the right kind of people are the "True Americans" after all. Of course the restrictions should not apply to THEM!
It's a common feature of authoritarians "laws should bind others, but protect me."
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 04, 2022, 11:22:20 AMI don't actually think you have any real political principals, just a desire to fight over nonsense.
I don't think there is much point to a discussion forum that is centered around politics when all the proponents of team red have either been chased off or deterred into silence. Endless posts around how awful team red are without a counterpoint is boring and a bit cringe. So yeah I much prefer to point out where team blue goes too far and have a discussion around that.
-Is Trump a phony and scam artist?
-Was Jan. 6 impeachable?
-Is the abortion ruling and the coming abortion restrictions disastrous and a huge step back?
-Is the republican party a hollow shell of a party without an agenda other than culture war nonsense?
I say "yes" to all of those things but since everyone else is what is the point of droning on about it other than to register my perspective? That isn't contributing to a discussion, it is participating in a circle jerk.
-Are we going to see contraception bans if the court overturns constitutional protections?
That is a point where someone might actually have a different position than me, so that is worth discussing.
Quote from: Jacob on August 04, 2022, 11:35:08 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 04, 2022, 11:22:20 AMI don't actually think you have any real political principals, just a desire to fight over nonsense.
I don't know. That seems unfair to Dorsey. Over the year I think he's demonstrated a very consistent moral and political philosophy:
"Whatever is inconvenient for Dorsey is a political travesty and completely illogical; whatever only affects others is not a big deal"
Then you should probably take seriously my perspective on contraception, because a ban on contraception would certainly be inconvenient for me.
I'd suggest sterilization, we don't need you reproducing.
It weird that there have been at least 3 or 4 posts stating that isn't about a ban on contraception, and yet, you still insist that is what you are arguing against.
Quote from: Berkut on August 04, 2022, 12:34:21 PMIt weird that there have been at least 3 or 4 posts stating that isn't about a ban on contraception, and yet, you still insist that is what you are arguing against.
Because it is. This was OvB's post before I entered this topic (bold is mine):
QuoteThere are definitely some Republicans who want to prohibit contraception, I'm not sure many States are religious enough to see it pass a State legislature. My assumption (not backed by research) is that Griswold struck down a number of State laws, and many States--particularly in the South, probably just left it there. I have doubts that in the interim, States like Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama etc (aka your hellhole states) have passed laws repealing prior contraception bans from pre-Griswold. When the current Guardian Council we have for a Supreme Court overturns Griswold in the next 2-4 years those old contraception bans would resume the force of law. While it may be the case that even Louisiana and Alabama wouldn't pass a new contraception ban in the 2020s, I'm not actually sure they could or would pass a repeal of an old ban were it to resume effect post-Griswold being overturned.
I strongly disagree with this: I think Mississippi and Alabama would immediately overturn a ban that resumed the force of law. It is also clear from this post that we are talking about bans, as my first post on this topic also made clear. (parenthetically, I think it is nuts too use the word "may" regarding that they may not pass a new contraception ban in the 2020s--of course they would not)
Now if you talking about stuff other than conception bans, then okay but it isn't my topic of discussion.
OK, you keep talking about bans then. Have fun with that.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 04, 2022, 12:28:02 PMThen you should probably take seriously my perspective on contraception, because a ban on contraception would certainly be inconvenient for me.
... not if it only applies to teenagers and poor people. As long as well connected white people in cities can get contraception, you're fine.
Quote from: Jacob on August 04, 2022, 12:45:44 PMQuote from: alfred russel on August 04, 2022, 12:28:02 PMThen you should probably take seriously my perspective on contraception, because a ban on contraception would certainly be inconvenient for me.
... not if it only applies to teenagers and poor people. As long as well connected white people in cities can get contraception, you're fine.
You are the second person to bring up race...why is that relevant? I may not be as well educated regarding old school racial thinking, but was it generally the practice to make contraceptives available to whites and forbidden among african american citizens?
It was generally the practice that black and poor people had reduced access to all medical care, yes.
You may want to spend time reading a history book if you're so bored the only thing you can find to entertain yourself is making up arguments to attack.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 04, 2022, 12:52:43 PMQuote from: Jacob on August 04, 2022, 12:45:44 PMQuote from: alfred russel on August 04, 2022, 12:28:02 PMThen you should probably take seriously my perspective on contraception, because a ban on contraception would certainly be inconvenient for me.
... not if it only applies to teenagers and poor people. As long as well connected white people in cities can get contraception, you're fine.
You are the second person to bring up race...why is that relevant? I may not be as well educated regarding old school racial thinking, but was it generally the practice to make contraceptives available to whites and forbidden among african american citizens?
Maybe later we can talk about poll taxes. I am sure those are fine as well, since they apply to everyone.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 04, 2022, 12:56:06 PMIt was generally the practice that black and poor people had reduced access to all medical care, yes.
You may want to spend time reading a history book if you're so bored the only thing you can find to entertain yourself is making up arguments to attack.
I'm at least glad to hear that eugenics related thoughts never met with action back in the day.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 04, 2022, 12:52:43 PMYou are the second person to bring up race...why is that relevant? I may not be as well educated regarding old school racial thinking, but was it generally the practice to make contraceptives available to whites and forbidden among african american citizens?
My expectation is this:
GOP in-groups will not find themselves particularly inconvenienced by old or new anti-contraception legislation and administration.
GOP out-groups will find themselves subject to restrictions - whether imposed directly through legislation aimed at them, or indirectly through legislation or administration that makes access significantly harder in practice.
While it's a broad generalization so exceptions exist, it appears to me that the GOP in-group is primarily white, and that most non-white folks are in the GOP out-group.
As such my expectation is that you personally will not be affected by any of this to any great extent, nor will people demographically similar to you. However, it is my expecatation that people different from you - less wealthy, younger, less white, less able to pass for a likely GOP voter when convenient - are going to be impacted.
Well, he's certainly more likely to be impacted than Canadians.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 04, 2022, 04:41:47 PMWell, he's certainly more likely to be impacted than Canadians.
Nothing gets by you
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 04, 2022, 04:41:47 PMWell, he's certainly more likely to be impacted than Canadians.
What's your point?
Quote from: Jacob on August 04, 2022, 05:08:31 PMQuote from: Eddie Teach on August 04, 2022, 04:41:47 PMWell, he's certainly more likely to be impacted than Canadians.
What's your point?
You're moaning about something that isn't happening, isn't likely to happen, and even if it did wouldn't affect you.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 04, 2022, 09:45:02 PMYou're moaning about something that isn't happening, isn't likely to happen, and even if it did wouldn't affect you.
Sounds like this is your first day on languish :lol:
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 04, 2022, 09:45:02 PMQuote from: Jacob on August 04, 2022, 05:08:31 PMQuote from: Eddie Teach on August 04, 2022, 04:41:47 PMWell, he's certainly more likely to be impacted than Canadians.
What's your point?
You're moaning about something that isn't happening, isn't likely to happen, and even if it did wouldn't affect you.
This is a good example of: "Idiot in a political thread on a discussion forum takes the time to cry about someone talking about something that he thinks they shouldn't." Congratulations—that's the lowest and most boomer form of internet communication.
At least I'm not the idiot that thinks driving drunk is hunky dory.
Eddie, you're fired up. Maybe a couple breaths and notch it down a tab.
:zipped:
Quote from: Jacob on August 04, 2022, 02:11:10 PMQuote from: alfred russel on August 04, 2022, 12:52:43 PMYou are the second person to bring up race...why is that relevant? I may not be as well educated regarding old school racial thinking, but was it generally the practice to make contraceptives available to whites and forbidden among african american citizens?
My expectation is this:
GOP in-groups will not find themselves particularly inconvenienced by old or new anti-contraception legislation and administration.
GOP out-groups will find themselves subject to restrictions - whether imposed directly through legislation aimed at them, or indirectly through legislation or administration that makes access significantly harder in practice.
While it's a broad generalization so exceptions exist, it appears to me that the GOP in-group is primarily white, and that most non-white folks are in the GOP out-group.
As such my expectation is that you personally will not be affected by any of this to any great extent, nor will people demographically similar to you. However, it is my expecatation that people different from you - less wealthy, younger, less white, less able to pass for a likely GOP voter when convenient - are going to be impacted.
I think you are out of touch. I'm in Atlanta. We voted for Biden with a margin in excess of 50%. Crosswalks are painted in rainbow colors to support gay rights. Democrats have total control of the city. At work, people wear progressive clothing to work and have stuff like Obama bobbleheads at their desks: I truly can't imagine someone wearing a Trump 2020 shirt...In real life, I don't think anyone thinks I'm a republican, but if they did passing for one certainly wouldn't make my life better. Wearing a MAGA hat around the city or to social stuff would be super weird.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 05, 2022, 08:12:06 AMI think you are out of touch. I'm in Atlanta. We voted for Biden with a margin in excess of 50%. Crosswalks are painted in rainbow colors to support gay rights. Democrats have total control of the city. At work, people wear progressive clothing to work and have stuff like Obama bobbleheads at their desks: I truly can't imagine someone wearing a Trump 2020 shirt...In real life, I don't think anyone thinks I'm a republican, but if they did passing for one certainly wouldn't make my life better. Wearing a MAGA hat around the city or to social stuff would be super weird.
Fair enough. In any case, we'll see what happens.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 05, 2022, 08:12:06 AMQuote from: Jacob on August 04, 2022, 02:11:10 PMQuote from: alfred russel on August 04, 2022, 12:52:43 PMYou are the second person to bring up race...why is that relevant? I may not be as well educated regarding old school racial thinking, but was it generally the practice to make contraceptives available to whites and forbidden among african american citizens?
My expectation is this:
GOP in-groups will not find themselves particularly inconvenienced by old or new anti-contraception legislation and administration.
GOP out-groups will find themselves subject to restrictions - whether imposed directly through legislation aimed at them, or indirectly through legislation or administration that makes access significantly harder in practice.
While it's a broad generalization so exceptions exist, it appears to me that the GOP in-group is primarily white, and that most non-white folks are in the GOP out-group.
As such my expectation is that you personally will not be affected by any of this to any great extent, nor will people demographically similar to you. However, it is my expecatation that people different from you - less wealthy, younger, less white, less able to pass for a likely GOP voter when convenient - are going to be impacted.
I think you are out of touch. I'm in Atlanta. We voted for Biden with a margin in excess of 50%. Crosswalks are painted in rainbow colors to support gay rights. Democrats have total control of the city. At work, people wear progressive clothing to work and have stuff like Obama bobbleheads at their desks: I truly can't imagine someone wearing a Trump 2020 shirt...In real life, I don't think anyone thinks I'm a republican, but if they did passing for one certainly wouldn't make my life better. Wearing a MAGA hat around the city or to social stuff would be super weird.
It may be that Georgia goes full blue from its current purple, and I hope it does. But if it doesn't, then does it really matter that there is an island of sanity within the state?
This is a first: Politifact goes out of its way to debunk AR.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/aug/04/kat-cammack/gop-talking-point-suggests-birth-control-not-risk-/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3w5vmtuAQ2inC_AdU9Cp9IVVY6mQQtm6J8wfDEJVRojIaDzMepqQTTs1s#Echobox=1659705694-1
Quote from: Razgovory on August 05, 2022, 01:23:45 PMThis is a first: Politifact goes out of its way to debunk AR.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/aug/04/kat-cammack/gop-talking-point-suggests-birth-control-not-risk-/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3w5vmtuAQ2inC_AdU9Cp9IVVY6mQQtm6J8wfDEJVRojIaDzMepqQTTs1s#Echobox=1659705694-1
It is like a whack a mole of distorting what I have said. A quote from earlier:
"I'd wager extensive amounts of money. What base would there be for Alabama to keep a contraceptive ban? Even its normal conservative christian churches don't favor it.
Yes I agree that some forms of birth control could be banned on the basis they constitute abortion, but that isn't the same as a blanket ban on contraception."
The congresswoman's statement that they debunked:
"In no way, shape, or form is access to contraception limited or at risk of being limited."
Politifact then rated it false with arguments that a subset of contraceptives could be considered considered connected to abortion by some and banned on those grounds. Which is something I acknowledged and agreed with pages ago.
Raz, it is a straight up dishonest representation of what I've been arguing. I start with:
"I agree that some
forms of birth control could be banned on the basis they constitute abortion, but that isn't the same as a blanket ban on contraception"
and then you say that this ruling (copied in full) debunks me:
QuoteOur ruling
It is true that, so far, no state has banned forms of contraception. But the threat appears very real. And the absolute nature of Cammack's statement — saying there's "no way, shape, or form" that access to contraception is at risk — is not accurate. We rate the statement False.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 05, 2022, 01:48:49 PMQuote from: Razgovory on August 05, 2022, 01:23:45 PMThis is a first: Politifact goes out of its way to debunk AR.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/aug/04/kat-cammack/gop-talking-point-suggests-birth-control-not-risk-/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3w5vmtuAQ2inC_AdU9Cp9IVVY6mQQtm6J8wfDEJVRojIaDzMepqQTTs1s#Echobox=1659705694-1
It is like a whack a mole of distorting what I have said. A quote from earlier:
"I'd wager extensive amounts of money. What base would there be for Alabama to keep a contraceptive ban? Even its normal conservative christian churches don't favor it.
Yes I agree that some forms of birth control could be banned on the basis they constitute abortion, but that isn't the same as a blanket ban on contraception."
The congresswoman's statement that they debunked:
"In no way, shape, or form is access to contraception limited or at risk of being limited."
Politifact then rated it false with arguments that a subset of contraceptives could be considered considered connected to abortion by some and banned on those grounds. Which is something I acknowledged and agreed with pages ago.
Well, there is only one mole here, and he keeps arguing with himself about blanket bans.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 05, 2022, 03:28:03 PMWell, there is only one mole here, and he keeps arguing with himself about blanket bans.
It takes two to tango...i was done with the discussion until raz enters to say "hey look polifact is debunking AR" and in fact it was not what i was talking about and i endorsed the basis of the fact check days ago.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 05, 2022, 03:36:41 PMIt takes two to tango...i was done with the discussion until raz enters to say "hey look polifact is debunking AR" and in fact it was not what i was talking about and i endorsed the basis of the fact check days ago.
Fair enough, IMO.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 05, 2022, 03:36:41 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on August 05, 2022, 03:28:03 PMWell, there is only one mole here, and he keeps arguing with himself about blanket bans.
It takes two to tango...i was done with the discussion until raz enters to say "hey look polifact is debunking AR" and in fact it was not what i was talking about and i endorsed the basis of the fact check days ago.
If you read the article, it is also not talking about blanket bans but the fact that many states dominated by the GOP are engaging in exactly what Otto was warning us about.
QuoteSenate passes $739bn healthcare and climate bill after months of wrangling
Inflation Reduction Act will reduce planet-heating emissions and lower prescription drug costs – and give Biden a crucial victory
Senate Democrats passed their climate and healthcare spending package on Sunday, sending the legislation to the House and bringing Joe Biden one step closer to a significant legislative victory ahead of crucial midterm elections in November.
If signed into law, the bill, formally known as the Inflation Reduction Act, would allocate $369bn to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and investing in renewable energy sources. Experts have estimated the climate provisions of the bill will reduce America's planet-heating emissions by about 40% by 2030, compared with 2005 levels.
Democrats have promised the bill will lower healthcare costs for millions of Americans by allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices and capping Medicare recipients' out-of-pocket prescription drug prices at $2,000 a year. Those who receive health insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplace are also expected to see lower premium costs.
The legislation includes a number of tax provisions to cover the costs of these policies, bringing in $739bn for the government and resulting in an overall deficit reduction of roughly $300bn. The policy changes include a new corporate minimum tax, a 1% excise tax on stock buybacks and stricter enforcement by the Internal Revenue Service.
The final Senate vote was 51-50, with every Democrat supporting the bill while all 50 of their Republican colleagues opposed the legislation. With the Senate evenly divided on the bill's passage, Vice-President Kamala Harris cast the tie-breaking vote.
Because Democrats used the reconciliation process to advance the bill, they needed only a simple majority to pass the proposal, allowing them to avoid a Republican filibuster.
But the choice to use reconciliation also somewhat limited what Democrats could include in their bill. The Senate parliamentarian ruled on Saturday that a key healthcare provision, which would have placed inflation-related caps on companies' ability to raise prescription drug prices for private insurance plans, ran afoul of reconciliation rules. Another proposal to cap the cost of insulin in the private insurance market at $35 a month was also stripped out of the bill after 43 Senate Republicans voted to block the policy on procedural grounds.
Still, Democrats celebrated that the Senate parliamentarian allowed most of their healthcare and climate provisions to move forward.
"While there was one unfortunate ruling in that the inflation rebate is more limited in scope, the overall program remains intact and we are one step closer to finally taking on big pharma and lowering Rx drug prices for millions of Americans," the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, said on Saturday.
Democratic leaders previously had to alter the tax provisions of the bill to secure the vote of Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who announced her support for the proposal on Thursday.
Sinema caused some last-minute hand-wringing among Democrats on Sunday, as she pushed for changes to the new corporate minimum tax that would exempt some businesses from the policy. Democratic senators ultimately reached an agreement with Sinema to approve the exemption, which was paid for by extending loss limitations for pass-through businesses.
Sinema was considered the last Democratic holdout in the negotiations, after fellow centrist Joe Manchin said he would vote in favor of the bill. The Senate's approval of the bill came nearly eight months after Manchin abruptly scuttled talks over the Build Back Better Act, which was viewed as Biden's signature legislative proposal. After tanking that bill, Manchin spent months participating in quiet deliberations with Schumer over another spending package that was more focused on reducing the federal deficit and tackling record-high inflation.
The resulting bill was able to win the support of the entire Senate Democratic caucus on Sunday, even though the legislation is much smaller in scope than the Build Back Better Act.
The bill's narrower focus frustrated the progressive senator Bernie Sanders, who criticized the compromise in a Saturday floor speech. Sanders complained that the legislation would do little to help working Americans struggling to keep up with rising prices, and he unsuccessfully pushed for expanding the bill to further lower healthcare costs.
"This legislation does not address the reality that we have more income and wealth inequality today than at any time in the last hundred years," Sanders said. "This bill does nothing to address the systemic dysfunctionality of the American healthcare system."
Despite that criticism, Sanders backed the final version of the bill. The Senate's approval followed a marathon session that lasted overnight and into Sunday afternoon, as Republicans forced votes on dozens of proposed changes to the spending package. Democrats remained mostly unified in opposing Republicans' amendments, keeping the bill unchanged and ensuring the legislation's passage.
Republicans fiercely criticized the bill, rejecting Democrats' arguments that the legislation will help tackle rising prices. According to a report issued by Moody's Analytics, the bill will "modestly reduce inflation over the 10-year budget horizon".
"Democrats want to ram through hundreds of billions of dollars in tax hikes and hundreds of billions of dollars in reckless spending – and for what?" the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, said in a Saturday floor speech. "For a so-called inflation bill that will not meaningfully reduce inflation at all."
House Democrats have dismissed Republicans' criticism of the bill, insisting they will swiftly pass the legislation and send it to Biden's desk. The majority leader, Steny Hoyer, has said the House will return on Friday to take up the legislation, and Democrats do not need any Republican votes to pass the bill.
The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has promised that the chamber would move quickly as soon as the Senate gave the bill its stamp of approval. She told reporters at a press conference last week, "When they send it to us, we'll pass it."
Not a fan of the tax on stock buybacks.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 08, 2022, 03:08:16 PMNot a fan of the tax on stock buybacks.
I have no particular understanding of the likely impact of this tax - what do you think is the likely impact of this tax, and why is it not good?
Quote from: Jacob on August 08, 2022, 04:02:47 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on August 08, 2022, 03:08:16 PMNot a fan of the tax on stock buybacks.
I have no particular understanding of the likely impact of this tax - what do you think is the likely impact of this tax, and why is it not good?
And answer carefully! Raz has no opinion on this one way or another. Your answer could influence him.
Quote from: Jacob on August 08, 2022, 04:02:47 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on August 08, 2022, 03:08:16 PMNot a fan of the tax on stock buybacks.
I have no particular understanding of the likely impact of this tax - what do you think is the likely impact of this tax, and why is it not good?
Companies might have to start using their money to do things other than artificially inflating share values. Things like investing in R&D, which might increase share value the old fashioned way - by creating actual value.
Quote from: Jacob on August 08, 2022, 04:02:47 PMI have no particular understanding of the likely impact of this tax - what do you think is the likely impact of this tax, and why is it not good?
It will disincentivize stock buybacks and raise revenue.
Stock buybacks are a way for firms to transfer cash they are sitting on to shareholders, who of course already own it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 08, 2022, 07:24:20 PMIt will disincentivize stock buybacks and raise revenue.
Stock buybacks are a way for firms to transfer cash they are sitting on to shareholders, who of course already own it.
Is there something about stock buy-backs that make them superior to paying special dividends?
Exec stock renumeration pay better with buy backs in comparison to dividends
Quote from: Jacob on August 08, 2022, 08:29:17 PMIs there something about stock buy-backs that make them superior to paying special dividends?
The shareholder is not compelled to declare dividend income. He or she can choose to hold the appreciated shares and pay capital gains later.
Quote from: Jacob on August 08, 2022, 08:29:17 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on August 08, 2022, 07:24:20 PMIt will disincentivize stock buybacks and raise revenue.
Stock buybacks are a way for firms to transfer cash they are sitting on to shareholders, who of course already own it.
Is there something about stock buy-backs that make them superior to paying special dividends?
In addition to what Yi said, dividends (even if special) build expectation of future dividends which may not be sustainable.
Also, large special dividends create unwelcome volatility in the stock price and can create windfalls for very temporary holders. For example if company has an extra few billion to either pay out as a special dividend or a stock buyback, the stock buyback will almost certainly be over time and not have a huge daily impact on the stock price. But if there is a special dividend, if I'm randomly trading in and out of the stock, I may (or may not) end up holding it on the dividend date and get the full thing as a cash payment.
Quote from: HVC on August 08, 2022, 08:45:59 PMExec stock renumeration pay better with buy backs in comparison to dividends
Any other effects?
Because if it's purely "stock buy-backs are sheltered more against taxation than dividends" then a tax on buy-backs seems pretty reasonable - assuming the buy-back tax lines up with the dividend tax.
Alternately, of course, you could also lower the dividend tax to match the (lack of?) tax on stock buy-backs if you think distributing value to shareholders should be encouraged further.
Or are there other reasons to favour buy-backs over dividends (or vice versa)?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 08, 2022, 09:02:17 PMThe shareholder is not compelled to declare dividend income. He or she can choose to hold the appreciated shares and pay capital gains later.
So for the shareholder, the value gain from the increase in stock prices (including that driven by buy-backs) provides more flexibility in terms of financial planning, and so is generally superior to dividends?
Makes sense.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 08, 2022, 09:17:18 PMIn addition to what Yi said, dividends (even if special) build expectation of future dividends which may not be sustainable.
Also, large special dividends create unwelcome volatility in the stock price and can create windfalls for very temporary holders. For example if company has an extra few billion to either pay out as a special dividend or a stock buyback, the stock buyback will almost certainly be over time and not have a huge daily impact on the stock price. But if there is a special dividend, if I'm randomly trading in and out of the stock, I may (or may not) end up holding it on the dividend date and get the full thing as a cash payment.
That makes sense as well. So both from the perspective of company directors and of shareholders, distributing excess revenue via buy-backs is generally superior to dividends (I'm sure there are exceptions, but this is the general case)?
That also makes sense, thank you.
So share buy-backs is the superior way to put excess cash from the company into the pockets of shareholders, compared to dividends.
In that case it seems imminently reasonable that the taxation implications of dividends and stock buy-backs should be aligned, since paying dividends is also about putting excess cash from the company into the pockets of shareholders.
Then there is, of course, the ideological and political question of what degree wealth generated by the stock market should be taxable. Seems to me that if you think it should contribute more (for whatever value of "more") that a stock-buy-back tax is reasonable, and conversely if you think stock market wealth generation should be minimally taxed then it's not a good idea.
Quote from: Jacob on August 08, 2022, 09:51:26 PMSo share buy-backs is the superior way to put excess cash from the company into the pockets of shareholders, compared to dividends.
In that case it seems imminently reasonable that the taxation implications of dividends and stock buy-backs should be aligned, since dividends is also about putting excess cash from the company into the pockets of shareholders.
Then there is, of course, the ideological and political question of what degree wealth generated by the stock market should be taxable. Seems to me that if you think it should contribute more (for whatever value of "more") that a stock-buy-back tax is reasonable, and conversely if you think stock market wealth generation should be minimally taxed then it's not a good idea.
At the simplest level of analysis, a board of directors should be indifferent between paying dividends and buying back stock--a $1 dividend gives shareholders $1 cash, while a buyback gives them $1 of appreciation. Because the effect is similar, in the US there was a reform about 20 years ago so that dividends are also taxed at the capital gains rate so that the tax treatment was aligned. This isn't perfect, because while the tax rates may be aligned, if I receive a dividend I have to pay the taxes today, but if there is a stock buyback, I don't have to pay taxes on the appreciation until I sell the stock, which could be years in the future. So there is still some incentive for buybacks over dividend payments.
There are a lot of other considerations but in general:
-if a company is turning recurring and regular profits that can't be reinvested effectively, the company will likely pay dividends because shareholders will be able to count on regular dividends vs. the uncertainty of stock buyback programs. Uncertainty will depress the stock price, so paying dividends is preferred.
-if a company has cash it wants to return to shareholders but doesn't believe it can sustain a regular dividend into the future, it will likely have a stock buyback program.
Thanks Dorsey :cheers:
Am I correct in reading into your post that prior to this change, dividends and stock-buy-backs were more or less aligned in terms of tax (other than the ability to defer capital gains from share appreciation), and this new taxation scheme will tax stock-buy-backs more than dividends?
Quote from: Jacob on August 08, 2022, 10:44:33 PMThanks Dorsey :cheers:
Am I correct in reading into your post that prior to this change, dividends and stock-buy-backs were more or less aligned in terms of tax (other than the ability to defer capital gains from share appreciation), and this new taxation scheme will tax stock-buy-backs more than dividends?
Yes but the tax is 1% and payable by corporations rather than the recipient of the dividend. So individual investors won't see the change directly, and the tax isn't at a super radical rate that is going to destroy american capitalism.
There's also the distortionary effect. Companies that buy back stock have come to the conclusion that their earnings can not be optimally invested, perhaps because they are operating in a mature market with no room for growth. Returning money to the shareholders allows them to direct that money to presumably more productive investments.
Dumb question, probably, but can a company buy back all its stock? If that happens, who would be the shareholders? I assume a corporation couldn't "own itself"? :unsure:
Quote from: Syt on August 09, 2022, 01:32:50 AMDumb question, probably, but can a company buy back all its stock? If that happens, who would be the shareholders? I assume a corporation couldn't "own itself"? :unsure:
Sure...that is just an IPO in reverse, or "going private".
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 09, 2022, 01:56:30 AMSure...that is just an IPO in reverse, or "going private".
Those two are not the same thing. If Musk buys Twitter the cash will come out of his pocket and the shares will go to him. When a company buys shares the money comes from them and the shares don't go into an individual.
I guess theoretically a company could zero out the stock and restructure as a partnership, but I've never heard of that being done.
Quote from: Syt on August 09, 2022, 01:32:50 AMDumb question, probably, but can a company buy back all its stock? If that happens, who would be the shareholders? I assume a corporation couldn't "own itself"? :unsure:
Presumably there has to be at least one share left or it ceases to be a company.
:hmm: You probably can't buy back all the stock at literally the same time. Whoever owns the last stock before it's bought back becomes the sole owner of the company, and then the stock loses its meaning as a split "deed" on the company.
Quote from: Jacob on August 08, 2022, 09:51:26 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on August 08, 2022, 09:02:17 PMThe shareholder is not compelled to declare dividend income. He or she can choose to hold the appreciated shares and pay capital gains later.
So for the shareholder, the value gain from the increase in stock prices (including that driven by buy-backs) provides more flexibility in terms of financial planning, and so is generally superior to dividends?
Makes sense.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 08, 2022, 09:17:18 PMIn addition to what Yi said, dividends (even if special) build expectation of future dividends which may not be sustainable.
Also, large special dividends create unwelcome volatility in the stock price and can create windfalls for very temporary holders. For example if company has an extra few billion to either pay out as a special dividend or a stock buyback, the stock buyback will almost certainly be over time and not have a huge daily impact on the stock price. But if there is a special dividend, if I'm randomly trading in and out of the stock, I may (or may not) end up holding it on the dividend date and get the full thing as a cash payment.
That makes sense as well. So both from the perspective of company directors and of shareholders, distributing excess revenue via buy-backs is generally superior to dividends (I'm sure there are exceptions, but this is the general case)?
That also makes sense, thank you.
So share buy-backs is the superior way to put excess cash from the company into the pockets of shareholders, compared to dividends.
In that case it seems imminently reasonable that the taxation implications of dividends and stock buy-backs should be aligned, since paying dividends is also about putting excess cash from the company into the pockets of shareholders.
Then there is, of course, the ideological and political question of what degree wealth generated by the stock market should be taxable. Seems to me that if you think it should contribute more (for whatever value of "more") that a stock-buy-back tax is reasonable, and conversely if you think stock market wealth generation should be minimally taxed then it's not a good idea.
No, share buy backs put no money in the pockets of shareholders. It is a shell game that puts money into the hands of those who have pay packages based on short term measures of share value and those given stock options - ie the people who dreamed up the scheme in the first place.
For this to put money in the pockets of the shareholders themselves, they would have to sell their stock. But that becomes a game of speculation. It has now become so common that people start deluding themselves into thinking it is an efficient use of resources. But it would actually be better for shareholders if they could benefit by keeping their stock and participate in the success of the company through dividend payments.
The scenario Yi proposed - the shareholders benefit through a temporary increase in sharevalue is by definition very short sighted. Share value, of course fluctuates.
What's the difference between a stock buyback, and shareholders receiving dividends and either reinvesting all of them into more shares or disposing of all shares? Ignoring taxes, the only difference seems to me the nominal value of the share, since in the second scenario you have more shares outstanding dividing the same market cap. If executive incentive options don't take into account stock dilution or concentration, then it seems like a problem with badly structured compensation packages, not stock buybacks.
The Modigliani-Miller hypothesis (MM) posits that a firm's value is invariant to capital structure - i.e. you can't increase firm value by leveraging or deleveraging. If MM holds than share buybacks don't do anything; you reduce share count but lose cash at the same time. It should be a wash.
MM might not hold if:
1) firm value increases (or decreases) with leverage for some reason. Then buybacks can affect value but only because it is a kind of leveraging.
2) the firm takes advantage of inside information. I.e. the firm times buybacks for when its shares are undervalued, based on info not yet public. For this reason, buybacks are sometimes seen as a buy signal and prices will rise on the news.
Unfortunately, CC is probably right most of time - executives put buyback programs in place because it creates a ready market for the shares they earn as compensation. I.e. the main purpose of buyback programs is to help insiders efficiently liquidate their non-cash comp.
From DG
QuoteIf executive incentive options don't take into account stock dilution or concentration, then it seems like a problem with badly structured compensation packages, not stock buybacks.
Q. Who designs comp packages? A. Comp committees. Q. Who compromises comp committees? A Other execs and former execs.
It's back scratching all the way around.
Another feature of buybacks is that they reduce float. Combined with other trends favoring private financing, it contributes to the withering of the public markets as compared to private equity. Whether this is a good or bad thing is a matter of debate.
Overall, I am skeptical re buybacks as a corporate tool. Most of the reasons for why they might be useful seem to involve some kind of market dysfunction.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 09, 2022, 11:14:30 AMNo, share buy backs put no money in the pockets of shareholders. It is a shell game that puts money into the hands of those who have pay packages based on short term measures of share value and those given stock options - ie the people who dreamed up the scheme in the first place.
For this to put money in the pockets of the shareholders themselves, they would have to sell their stock. But that becomes a game of speculation. It has now become so common that people start deluding themselves into thinking it is an efficient use of resources. But it would actually be better for shareholders if they could benefit by keeping their stock and participate in the success of the company through dividend payments.
The scenario Yi proposed - the shareholders benefit through a temporary increase in sharevalue is by definition very short sighted. Share value, of course fluctuates.
This isn't correct.
Quote from: DGuller on August 09, 2022, 11:30:01 AMWhat's the difference between a stock buyback, and shareholders receiving dividends and either reinvesting all of them into more shares or disposing of all shares? Ignoring taxes, the only difference seems to me the nominal value of the share, since in the second scenario you have more shares outstanding dividing the same market cap. If executive incentive options don't take into account stock dilution or concentration, then it seems like a problem with badly structured compensation packages, not stock buybacks.
One obvious difference is choice. As an investor, I would much rather have the choice of where to invest my dividend money (or spend it) rather than suffer an artificial pump so that the executive suite can exercise a lucrative and perfectly timed dump.
Remember the thesis in favour is that buy backs put cash in the pockets of shareholders. That notion does not hold up to scrutiny.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 09, 2022, 12:10:24 PMThe Modigliani-Miller hypothesis (MM) posits that a firm's value is invariant to capital structure - i.e. you can't increase firm value by leveraging or deleveraging. If MM holds than share buybacks don't do anything; you reduce share count but lose cash at the same time. It should be a wash.
I think this overlooks one thing: that shareholders can neither spend nor reinvest cash in a company's treasury.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 09, 2022, 03:51:06 PMI think this overlooks one thing: that shareholders can neither spend nor reinvest cash in a company's treasury.
It assumes shareholders can do their own personal portfolio balancing
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 09, 2022, 01:14:56 PMOne obvious difference is choice. As an investor, I would much rather have the choice of where to invest my dividend money (or spend it) rather than suffer an artificial pump so that the executive suite can exercise a lucrative and perfectly timed dump.
Remember the thesis in favour is that buy backs put cash in the pockets of shareholders. That notion does not hold up to scrutiny.
I don't know why I'm going to try, but here we go:
assume that a company is worth $100 and has 100 shareholders with one share each. Each share is obviously worth $1 a share.
The company has $20 of excess cash that it can't invest. If it pays that as a dividend, each shareholder gets a $0.20 dividend. The share price is reduced to $0.80 because the company is only worth $80 after the dividend.
If it uses that for a stock buyback, it buys 20 shares with the $20. Now the company is worth $80 as before, but there are only 80 shareholders. So the remaining shareholders didn't get a dividend, but because there are only 80 shareholders at the reduced price the shares are now still worth $1 a share.
So shareholders should be indifferent between a buyback and dividend. At the end of the day, they either have an $0.80 share and $0.20 of cash, or no cash but a $1.00 share.
But what if you want cash, and not a stock, because you want to decide for yourself? You can't just exchange stock for cash, can you?
Quote from: alfred russel on August 09, 2022, 04:49:05 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on August 09, 2022, 01:14:56 PMOne obvious difference is choice. As an investor, I would much rather have the choice of where to invest my dividend money (or spend it) rather than suffer an artificial pump so that the executive suite can exercise a lucrative and perfectly timed dump.
Remember the thesis in favour is that buy backs put cash in the pockets of shareholders. That notion does not hold up to scrutiny.
I don't know why I'm going to try, but here we go:
assume that a company is worth $100 and has 100 shareholders with one share each. Each share is obviously worth $1 a share.
The company has $20 of excess cash that it can't invest. If it pays that as a dividend, each shareholder gets a $0.20 dividend. The share price is reduced to $0.80 because the company is only worth $80 after the dividend.
If it uses that for a stock buyback, it buys 20 shares with the $20. Now the company is worth $80 as before, but there are only 80 shareholders. So the remaining shareholders didn't get a dividend, but because there are only 80 shareholders at the reduced price the shares are now still worth $1 a share.
So shareholders should be indifferent between a buyback and dividend. At the end of the day, they either have an $0.80 share and $0.20 of cash, or no cash but a $1.00 share.
Hmmm.
In the first case, each shareholder owned 1% of the company.
When the company bought back those shares, they shares didn't disappear - they just became owned by the company - the company owned itself. It could resell those shares.
The 80 shareholders did not suddenly own 1/80th each, they still only own 1/100th of the company.
Right?
Quote from: Berkut on August 09, 2022, 05:12:18 PMQuote from: alfred russel on August 09, 2022, 04:49:05 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on August 09, 2022, 01:14:56 PMOne obvious difference is choice. As an investor, I would much rather have the choice of where to invest my dividend money (or spend it) rather than suffer an artificial pump so that the executive suite can exercise a lucrative and perfectly timed dump.
Remember the thesis in favour is that buy backs put cash in the pockets of shareholders. That notion does not hold up to scrutiny.
I don't know why I'm going to try, but here we go:
assume that a company is worth $100 and has 100 shareholders with one share each. Each share is obviously worth $1 a share.
The company has $20 of excess cash that it can't invest. If it pays that as a dividend, each shareholder gets a $0.20 dividend. The share price is reduced to $0.80 because the company is only worth $80 after the dividend.
If it uses that for a stock buyback, it buys 20 shares with the $20. Now the company is worth $80 as before, but there are only 80 shareholders. So the remaining shareholders didn't get a dividend, but because there are only 80 shareholders at the reduced price the shares are now still worth $1 a share.
So shareholders should be indifferent between a buyback and dividend. At the end of the day, they either have an $0.80 share and $0.20 of cash, or no cash but a $1.00 share.
Hmmm.
In the first case, each shareholder owned 1% of the company.
When the company bought back those shares, they shares didn't disappear - they just became owned by the company - the company owned itself. It could resell those shares.
The 80 shareholders did not suddenly own 1/80th each, they still only own 1/100th of the company.
Right?
Nope. They own 1/80th of the shares outstanding. The 20 shares of treasury stock held by the company are effectively collectively held by the shareowners.
If you disagree...well when you read about earnings per share and things and PE ratios, those are calculated on the basis of shares outstanding and don't include any treasury stock. The same for when the market capitalization of companies is calculated: the calculations are based on shares outstanding and exclude treasury stock as well.
Quote from: Berkut on August 09, 2022, 05:12:18 PMThe 80 shareholders did not suddenly own 1/80th each, they still only own 1/100th of the company.
Right?
They own 1/100th of the company, but the company consists of 20% of the company, so they also own 1/100th of 20% of the company. However, 20% of the company also consists of 20% of 20% of the company, so they also own 1/100th of 20% of 20% of the company. However, 20% of 20% of the company also consists of 20% of 20% of 20% of the company, so they also own 1/100th of 20% of 20% of 20%. If you keep adding it up, 0.01 + 0.002 + 0.0004 + 0.0008 + ... = 0.0125, which incidentally makes up 1/80th of the company.
The treasury shares are just like authorization to reissue shares.
I'd point out, while it is just one data point--Berkshire and Buffett don't believe in dividends and do believe in share buybacks. Additionally, because essentially all of his wealth is tied exclusively to his vast ownership of BRK.A shares, Buffett isn't really playing compensation games. His compensation, unlike the typical compensation of a board-hired executive, is basically a flat salary with some security and travel benefits (he does not get incentive-based stock grants--his total comp is $100,000 in salary and around $250,000 in fringe benefits, mostly related to corporate travel and security arrangements.)
The way I've seen Buffett make his argument is his "ideal" Berkshire shareholder is someone who buys and holds the shares basically their entire lives, and he thinks the primary use of the vast cash his companies throw off (a lot of it is insurance float) is to invest in something that will provide a nice return, which will ultimately push the share price up. His argument is when he cannot find good investments, or his cash holdings are simply too large, it is more efficient to raise shareholder value with share buybacks vs dividends. I believe Buffett has also said he only favors buybacks when he has reason to know that Berkshire shares are being offered at "less than intrinsic value" on the market.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 09, 2022, 06:15:17 PMI'd point out, while it is just one data point--Berkshire and Buffett don't believe in dividends and do believe in share buybacks.
Of course they do; buybacks are tax advantaged compared to dividend distributions. But that is an argument in favor of taxing them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PZ84O42sqo
Heartening signs on Senate races. :)
Fauci to step down by the end of the year.
The death threats must have taken their toll.
Good God, are we actually going ahead of with the student loan forgiveness? This is banana republic territory.
Quote from: DGuller on August 22, 2022, 07:50:01 PMGood God, are we actually going ahead of with the student loan forgiveness? This is banana republic territory.
Pretty sure I read somewhere that it's very limited, not the whole shebang.
Hypothetically though, how much would it suck if they forgave 100% and you started school the next year. :P
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 22, 2022, 07:06:23 PMThe death threats must have taken their toll.
I'm sure, but on the other hand, he's been in his position longer than I've been alive. He's earned his retirement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNBnKRW0TY
Governors of Texas and Arizona busing thousands of illegal immigrants to NYC and DC.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 22, 2022, 07:06:23 PMThe death threats must have taken their toll.
Being 81 must have been part of the equation as well. :P :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 22, 2022, 09:44:39 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNBnKRW0TY
Governors of Texas and Arizona busing thousands of illegal immigrants to NYC and DC.
FWIW none of them are illegal immigrants, we should probably quit using the far right talking points.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 23, 2022, 03:46:00 PMFWIW none of them are illegal immigrants, we should probably quit using the far right talking points.
Please elaborate.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2022, 03:54:52 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 23, 2022, 03:46:00 PMFWIW none of them are illegal immigrants, we should probably quit using the far right talking points.
Please elaborate.
None of them are illegal immigrants. An illegal immigrant is someone who tries to immigrate illegally. These people did not do that. They typically crossed the border illegally (which is a minor civil offense, not any kind of serious crime), and then immediately filed for asylum. Under U.S. law that is not illegal immigration, they literally have a statutory right to file for permanent residence as refugees, and they are availing themselves of the system. The reason many cross illegally is because we deliberately make it so the lines at the official crossing points are so long that you are better off walking across illegally and immediately surrendering to Border Patrol, otherwise you might have to wait in Mexico for weeks or months.
There are illegal migrants--they are not the ones who are released into Texas, illegal migrants if they are caught around the border are sent back out within hours, if they are caught further in country they are usually deported within a few days.
The far right has spent the last 40 years confusing you on this topic so it's not surprising you and most Americans understand legal asylum seekers and illegal migrants to be one and the same. They are not, and our immigration courts don't treat them the same.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 22, 2022, 09:44:39 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNBnKRW0TY
Governors of Texas and Arizona busing thousands of illegal immigrants to NYC and DC.
This is legal?
If so can't NYC and DC send lorry loads of manure Texas' way?
Quote from: Josquius on August 23, 2022, 04:02:10 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on August 22, 2022, 09:44:39 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNBnKRW0TY
Governors of Texas and Arizona busing thousands of illegal immigrants to NYC and DC.
This is legal?
If so can't NYC and DC send lorry loads of manure Texas' way?
It's voluntary. These are people who have crossed, surrendered to border patrol, and were basically given a ticket to appear in immigration court when their asylum case can be heard. This has been SOP for decades because we lack facilities to store everyone seeking asylum. Texas is basically saying "hey want a free ride to New York or DC?" A large number of these asylum seekers aren't actually looking to stay in Texas and have family elsewhere, so they are taking the free bus ride out of convenience. Although there's been reports some of them (due to language barriers) don't know what's going on and have ended up in NYC/DC confused and lost.
The bus passengers include significant numbers of people fleeing Communist tyranny in Cuba and Venezuela. As usual the GOP "freedom" rhetoric is baloney. It's all fine and dandy to be anti-Communist until darker colored people start showing up at the border.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 23, 2022, 04:06:04 PMThe bus passengers include significant numbers of people fleeing Communist tyranny in Cuba and Venezuela. As usual the GOP "freedom" rhetoric is baloney. It's all fine and dandy to be anti-Communist until darker colored people start showing up at the border.
And Cubans still support them...
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 23, 2022, 04:01:28 PMNone of them are illegal immigrants. An illegal immigrant is someone who tries to immigrate illegally. These people did not do that. They typically crossed the border illegally (which is a minor civil offense, not any kind of serious crime), and then immediately filed for asylum. Under U.S. law that is not illegal immigration, they literally have a statutory right to file for permanent residence as refugees, and they are availing themselves of the system. The reason many cross illegally is because we deliberately make it so the lines at the official crossing points are so long that you are better off walking across illegally and immediately surrendering to Border Patrol, otherwise you might have to wait in Mexico for weeks or months.
There are illegal migrants--they are not the ones who are released into Texas, illegal migrants if they are caught around the border are sent back out within hours, if they are caught further in country they are usually deported within a few days.
The far right has spent the last 40 years confusing you on this topic so it's not surprising you and most Americans understand legal asylum seekers and illegal migrants to be one and the same. They are not, and our immigration courts don't treat them the same.
I was unaware they were asylum seekers.
The snipe about the far right confusing me was gratuitous.
Well let me ask you this, why do you think we would let a bunch of "illegal immigrants" hop on a bus and ride around the country? Like I said--there is a lot of manufactured confusion about this that doesn't stand up to any serious examination of our immigration law and systems.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 23, 2022, 04:34:22 PMWell let me ask you this, why do you think we would let a bunch of "illegal immigrants" hop on a bus and ride around the country? Like I said--there is a lot of manufactured confusion about this that doesn't stand up to any serious examination of our immigration law and systems.
You're asking a question that doesn't make any sense. We don't check citizenship at intercity bus terminals. There are currently millions of illegal immigrants living north of the border states, and they all traveled there some how.
A more reasonable question would have been how did the governors of Texas and Arizona manage to round up thousands of illegal immigrants.
Quote from: Josquius on August 23, 2022, 04:02:10 PMThis is legal?
I can't think of a law that is being broken.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2022, 04:50:45 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 23, 2022, 04:34:22 PMWell let me ask you this, why do you think we would let a bunch of "illegal immigrants" hop on a bus and ride around the country? Like I said--there is a lot of manufactured confusion about this that doesn't stand up to any serious examination of our immigration law and systems.
You're asking a question that doesn't make any sense. We don't check citizenship at intercity bus terminals. There are currently millions of illegal immigrants living north of the border states, and they all traveled there some how.
A more reasonable question would have been how did the governors of Texas and Arizona manage to round up thousands of illegal immigrants.
Well that's not what happened. They are meeting them as they are released from Border Patrol on an asylum claim. No one has been "rounded up." If we had rounded up illegal immigrants, they would be put into the deportation process, not put on buses to liberal coastal cities.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 23, 2022, 05:01:57 PMWell that's not what happened. They are meeting them as they are released from Border Patrol on an asylum claim. No one has been "rounded up." If we had rounded up illegal immigrants, they would be put into the deportation process, not put on buses to liberal coastal cities.
We're having a nothing debate about a fact I already conceded. That's probably enough for me.
Looks more like to me I corrected your use of a far right talking point with actual facts, and you got mad that I pointed out you were uncritically repeating right wing propaganda. I didn't realize you'd become so hypersensitive.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 23, 2022, 05:34:47 PMLooks more like to me I corrected your use of a far right talking point with actual facts, and you got mad that I pointed out you were uncritically repeating right wing propaganda. I didn't realize you'd become so hypersensitive.
Your assumption was incorrect. I've not seen any right wing propaganda on this story. The video I linked was from Reuters, not a right wing propaganda outlet. The other source I'd seen this story on was CNN, also not a right wing propaganda outlet. The gratuitous part of course was your claim that I was swallowing right wing propaganda.
If by hypersensitive you mean correcting your erroneous assumption, I suppose yes. If you're using it in the normal sense, then i think not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwBftMI23Lg
$10K student loan forgiveness for everyone making less than $125K.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2022, 07:07:36 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwBftMI23Lg
$10K student loan forgiveness for everyone making less than $125K.
Nice! Hopefully that will help a lot of people.
Though my problems came from my private loan. My Federal one was much easier to deal with.
Cook report lists this district as +4R
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1562283492171472896
Quote from: Dave WassermanI've seen enough: Pat Ryan (D) defeats Marc Molinaro (R) in the #NY19 special election. This is a huge victory for Dems in a bellwether, Biden +1.5 district.
https://twitter.com/heatherscope/status/1562284252007485440
Quote from: Heather CaygleRyan ran on abortion access/GOP extremism. Molinaro campaigned on the economy
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2022, 05:42:59 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 23, 2022, 05:34:47 PMLooks more like to me I corrected your use of a far right talking point with actual facts, and you got mad that I pointed out you were uncritically repeating right wing propaganda. I didn't realize you'd become so hypersensitive.
Your assumption was incorrect. I've not seen any right wing propaganda on this story. The video I linked was from Reuters, not a right wing propaganda outlet. The other source I'd seen this story on was CNN, also not a right wing propaganda outlet. The gratuitous part of course was your claim that I was swallowing right wing propaganda.
If by hypersensitive you mean correcting your erroneous assumption, I suppose yes. If you're using it in the normal sense, then i think not.
So the first you have heard of immigration / migrant problems was this busing story? Most neutral news outlets don't gratuitously throw around the term "illegal immigrant" like you were.
That's actually
core to right wing disinformation about migration and our southern border. The idea is everyone crossing is it is "illegal and invalid" and it is a "security crisis" entirely the fault of whomever is in the White House (when that person is a Democrat.) Actually, clarifying the truth:
that under U.S. law they are entitled, as a matter of right, to claim asylum, and stay in the country for however long it takes for that asylum claim to be processed, gets to the actual heart of the issue. Trump and the Republicans have long tried to portray anyone coming across the border as a "bad, evil person, and inherently illegitimate." The simple reality is: the vast majority of border crossers right now are participating in a legal process.
I would have to double check my facts, but I think the last time most of our border crossers were "illegal immigrants" is back before Obama was President. The nature of border crossing has just changed a lot. Far more are from South and Central America seeking asylum, and for a number of reasons the "traditional" economic migration of the 80s and 90s has fallen off. In part because of NAFTA a lot of American firms have built out factories
in Mexico which has decreased at least some of the need to cross. Additionally, the H-2A temporary farm worker visa, to some degree, legalized the seasonal economic migrants as well.
It is a common fallacy of the right to call assylum seekers illegal immigrants considering you have to cross illegally to claim assylum.
Quote from: Josquius on August 24, 2022, 07:34:32 AMIt is a common fallacy of the right to call assylum seekers illegal immigrants considering you have to cross illegally to claim assylum.
Right, but it doesn't serve anyone's interest but theirs to "normalize" their distortions.
Real illegal immigration is someone who crosses the border, with the intent on settling in the United States permanently or temporarily, with no asylum claim. These are your typical "economic migrant", if they are caught with a certain distance of the border, they are literally driven back to Mexico that day. If they are caught further afield, they are deported quite rapidly, sometimes within a few days. This happens every single day, 365 days a year. The idea that Biden or any President in the last 40 years has been "soft" on these people (other than I guess Reagan, who actually gave them a general amnesty), is ludicrous. The mechanisms of our immigration system churn these people out fast, faster now than in the past, in fact.
On the other hand you have asylum seekers--it is portrayed as Democrats being "soft" on immigration that we give them appearance tickets and let them loose. That is an argument that
glorifies lawlessness, because it creates an expectation that a President ought act lawlessly. There are several avenues through which Congress could make it so appearance ticket and release wasn't the standard. One would be to fund a vast network of detention camps to house every asylum seeker in pre-hearing detention. Could we afford it? Sure, we have the ability to build and pay for such a system, but it would be a
huge undertaking--it would take years just to build all the facilities.
Another option would be to change our asylum law--this for example, is something Trump could have done back in 2017 when his party controlled all the branches of government. Instead, he chose the option of "willfully choosing to break current asylum law", which is not good--we should not normalize the President routinely breaking the law when he decides he doesn't like what the law says. Trump's border control efforts got a boon with covid, because it let him implement additional measures to deal with asylum seekers that under our normal laws, would not be upheld by a court, under the guise of a pandemic national emergency. It is right for Biden to dial back those efforts, because it is not good for the country to speciously operate under national emergencies that are no longer genuinely emergencies.
It looks every bit like the GOP actually wants to make the system not work, so they will always have "the border" as a rallying cry.
FWIW you could probably significantly reduce migration by funneling money to Guatemala and Honduras, and by providing funding for refugee resettlement of Venezuelans and such in Mexico. This is similar to what the EU did with Turkey, Turkey took a lot of the Syrian refugees, and the EU gave them a lot of money in return. This solution might even be cheaper than the idea of building a massive detention camp system stateside (I don't really know, it's a lot of number crunching.) It is certainly more likely to be
feasible, because there will be a ton of logistical, implementation, and legal hurdles to building out a huge system of detention for asylum seekers.
Of course the real core issue is this--the GOP doesn't want to acknowledge that most of these people are asylum seekers and refugees, because there is actually a lot of sympathy for refugees--especially from Communist regimes. Even among the religious right (in fact evangelical churches are some of the biggest sponsors of refugee resettlements.) Additionally the GOP wants to continue to muddy the water about how appearance ticket + release works, by suggesting most asylum seekers then just disappear into America and become illegal migrants who never appear in court again. The fact is the vast majority of asylum seekers make their appearances and follow our laws.
This thread reminds me of the picture of an RCMP officer helping to carry the bags of a Syrian refugee family who was technically illegally crossing into Canada because they were not at an official border crossing but once in Canada they could legally claim asylum. There was some gnashing of teeth that the RCMP officer had assisted with an illegal act, but smarter heads prevailed.
Changing asylum law in a Trumpian fashion would also result in the US being in breach of international treaties, including the 1967 Refugee Protocol, which passed the Senate on a unanimous vote.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 24, 2022, 10:57:23 AMChanging asylum law in a Trumpian fashion would also result in the US being in breach of international treaties, including the 1967 Refugee Protocol, which passed the Senate on a unanimous vote.
Sure--but that's also not even discussed. My point being that if Republicans genuinely wanted to "Fix" this issue it would require a lot of truth telling that right now they do not engage in:
1. Admitting that these people, until their asylum hearing goes against them and they are slated for deportation, are here entirely legally. [The minor civil offense of crossing the border illegally doesn't make their
continued presence illegal once they have an appearance ticket.]
2. Making the argument that you "just don't want these refugees here", to the public and American voters.
3. Acknowledging that they are here because of U.S. law, which itself was drafted to comply with a treaty we've signed, and that making it so they just can't be here would require withdrawing from pretty mainstream treaty obligations and repealing U.S. law.
Instead the focus is on "border security" which is a farce, right? You could have 5 million people in the Border Patrol and that doesn't stop the asylum seekers one bit. Because they can step across the border right into the arms of a waiting Border Patrol agent and tell him "I have an asylum claim", and they just start processing them. More physical security does little to stop this, and is almost a red herring for reducing refugee flow since
most refugees who opt to cross illegally intentionally turn themselves in right away.
Part of the reason the GOP won't be honest about this and attempt to change the law is they fear if this information was well understood and known, it would undermine support for cracking down on refugees, and undermine the ability of Sean Hannity to foam at the mouth about the "border" every night for 20 years.
https://www.axios.com/2022/08/24/student-loan-forgiveness-debt-cancel-biden
QuoteThe Biden administration is canceling up to $20,000 in student debt for Pell Grant recipients and up to $10,000 for individual borrowers who make under $125,000 per year, and it's extending the pause on repayments by four months, the White House announced on Wednesday.
Also caps future monthly payments to 5% of the borrower's monthly income.
:yeah: Terrible policy that benefits me. I'll take it.
Anyone seen a price tag?
Forget about it.
Quote from: Habbaku on August 24, 2022, 03:11:46 PM:yeah: Terrible policy that benefits me. I'll take it.
Spend it on hookers and blow.
To be fair, the more educated you are, the more likely you vote for the Democrats / the left in general. So it makes good political sense from that perspective.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 24, 2022, 07:31:01 AMSo the first you have heard of immigration / migrant problems was this busing story? Most neutral news outlets don't gratuitously throw around the term "illegal immigrant" like you were.
I've read one or two stories about immigration before this one.
Most or all neutral news outlets did gratuitously throw around the term illegal immigrant in the 70s. It was only in the 80s (iirc) that an attempt was made to replace that with undocumented worker, which I found ridiculous, and made a choice to continue using illegal immigrant on the basis of accuracy.
What is the argument against relieving some student debt?
I would say on a strict, put me on the spot level, I oppose forgiving most student debt. I am generally strongly in favor of forgiving student debt from for-profit colleges that were shown to largely operate as scams--the borrowers often got educations far different than what was advertised and many of these schools have been shut down by the Feds.
That being said, I'm perfectly "fine" with Biden doing this.
The policy arguments against it:
1. It does nothing to control the costs of attending college; while forgiving the debt is a nice gesture, this is IMO a much bigger problem.
2. It's probably going to cost around $300bn over 10 years, my feeling is in a country with some really atrocious services for the genuinely poor, it's not the best thing to spend that kind of money on people who are mostly middle class and the majority of whom have been paying off their loans just fine. I would probably be fine with a program that is more selective and looks at someone's last x years of earnings, and forgives loans if that person is just clearly deep underwater (they aren't dischargeable in bankruptcy.)
3. There's also a legal / constitutional issue in that I'm not really even sure the President can just forgive debts owed to the Federal government, but I haven't studied the issue fully.
Now that being said, the reason I'm not really up in arms about it is:
- We have funneled massive amounts of money to the wealthy and large, highly profitable businesses. Going back to TARP, the auto bailouts, the PPP loans, the Trump wealthy tax cuts, we're probably pushing $4 trillion in handouts to the moneyed interests in this country since 2009, maybe more depending on how you look at things like QE2 which disproportionately benefit the wealthy also. I guess if we're going to just go hog wild, I am frankly not going to get hot and lathered over some of it going to people who need it a lot more than those other entities did.
- I think despite claims of the punderati, this is a net gain for Biden politically, and my main concern for the rest of my life is seeing Republicans lose any and all elections possibly until they are forced to reform as a party, and only losing elections will inspire them to do so. The reason I think it is a net political gain: the people who shriek about "undeserving Libtard baristas" getting their loans paid off were cultural grievance voters already, and never "Gettable" by Dems. Student loan forgiveness appears to be very popular with younger racial minority demographics and people under age 40 in general, demographics that often have "turnout issues" and that generally the Democrats do much better when those people do turn out.
I hope that at least it would serve as an effective bribe to a Democrat-friendly electorate. Directly buying voters like that is a really bad precedent, but having authoritarians elected is an even worse one.
https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296
Wondered how much Joe had added to the debt so I poked around and got this.
Not so bad by modern standards. I thought it was a lot bigger, but I guess a lot of stuff didn't get passed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 25, 2022, 01:45:24 AMhttps://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296
Wondered how much Joe had added to the debt so I poked around and got this.
Not so bad by modern standards. I thought it was a lot bigger, but I guess a lot of stuff didn't get passed.
QuotePresident Clinton increased the national debt by almost $1.4 trillion, almost a 32% increase from the $4.4 trillion debt at the end of President H.W. Bush's last budget.54
Surprising, I've read lots of comments that Clinton actually decreased the debt.
And the latest president to oversee a decrease was Calvin Coolidge...
Clinton had budget windfalls in his final years in office due to higher-than-expected revenue collection due to the economic boom, this created I believe 2 FY of budget surplus for discretionary spending. I think the government was still actually losing money each of those years because of non-discretionary spending (don't quote me on that, going from my right winger memories of Clinton.) I think Clinton's budget windfall was largely not used to pay down debt, either, so there is that.
Nixon also ran a budget surplus for a year or two as well IIRC.
Clinton may or may not have gotten a surplus during his last few years but like most Presidents he had a deficit during most of his presidency, so of course the overall debt went up. I wanted them to use the...um...what may or may not have been a surplus to secure the future of the federal budget and the United States but then Dubya did his tax cut. That was my rage quit moment from the Republicans.
When Cheney said that Reagan showed us deficits don't matter, clearly both parties took Ronnie's demonstration to heart because nobody cares about budgets and deficits anymore except in campaign bullshit. And so long as we are not caring we might as well give money to the poor. So hence my move leftwards.
Well that and certain things the Republicans just suck on like Global Warming and social issues. Back in the 1990s there was less of a distinction between the parties and those issues.
OvB, I thought that was an excellent overall summary of immigration/illegal immigration.
Do you have any sources for the data points, like the point that asylum seekers are the vast majority of people who cross the border without a pre-existing visa?
The data on crossings is a little hinky these days, but probably the best "single view" would be this:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics/title-8-and-title-42-statistics-fy2021
The way we collect data on apprehensions and categorization is not the cleanest.
For example that dataset is showing Title 42 expulsions and Title 8 apprehensions, so you aren't comparing like to like. Title 42 expulsions are people who, under our "normal" immigration laws, would be entitled to adjudicate their stay in the country, but under Title 42 are being immediately deported. We had around 1m such removals in FY21.
Title 8 apprehensions are people who are in custody and basically are not admissible. Not admissible has a lot of reasons, it could mean they have a felony, previous deportation, it could also mean they had an asylum claim that went against them in the immigration courts (so confusingly, asylum seekers can be in both datasets.) Not every asylum seeker is being sent back via Title 42 right away, some are still going through the system, and some % of those don't win their asylum claim. We had 600,000 Title 8 apprehensions in FY21.
Thanks.
Nuance is a bitch.
Valmy, I think you and I may be the only people left in the US who care about deficits.
Just the White House tweeting out a list of Republicans who got large PPP loans forgiven:
https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1562916200866267138?t=p6ul0StxzvWZuWO1XVgXXw&s=33
I've been critical of Biden - but he's had a hell of a few weeks. I've previously that the thing Democrats need to do is deliver and that's definitely been happening.
Still have no idea how you get out of a situation where loser's consent has evaporated etc - but it's a start.
Edit: Having said that not sure on those tweets - don't they just risk strengthening the impression it's unfair and leave an open goal for a "I'm exactly the sort of person who shouldn't be getting a hand out" attack?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2022, 06:32:36 PMEdit: Having said that not sure on those tweets - don't they just risk strengthening the impression it's unfair and leave an open goal for a "I'm exactly the sort of person who shouldn't be getting a hand out" attack?
In case you are confused as I was, PPP loans are Paycheck Protection Program loans (from the Covid bill), not student loans.
Why do Congress people need such large PPP loans? How much do they earn? :unsure:
I didn't realize awareness about PPP was so low around here. It was a $950bn "boondoggle", literally almost anyone who draws a 1099 or has an LLC could get one, and there was almost no auditing or requirement checking or anything else.
As far as can be told (which is hard with basically no auditing or regulations of how the money is spent), 75% of the money just went directly into the pockets of the "business owners", many of whom are just people who had LLCs for tax purposes and don't operate going-concern businesses. There are stories of people who run their own small podcast claiming PPP loans. Around 25% of the money did go to employee paychecks, which was the "justification" for the program.
In short it was as massive transfer of taxpayer wealth to the small % of Americans who own businesses.
FWIW due to the side real estate business my wife and I run I absolutely could have gotten a decent amount in PPP money, we chose not to because we didn't need it, forbearance that in retrospect was probably too noble.
The company I work for took advantage of it. We used it to pay salaries, but in retrospect did not actually need it.
Which amounts to profit for the company, of course. Which we plowed back into the company, but still. It was basically just a handout.
I really regret not starting a podcast and taking my $25,000.
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2022, 08:40:14 AMThe company I work for took advantage of it. We used it to pay salaries, but in retrospect did not actually need it.
Which amounts to profit for the company, of course. Which we plowed back into the company, but still. It was basically just a handout.
I mean it would be insane not to take and insane to pay it back even if you could do either from a business perspective. Which is kind of the frustrating consequence of the PPP loans, you would be irresponsible NOT to screw the US taxpayer.
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2022, 08:51:07 AMQuote from: Berkut on August 26, 2022, 08:40:14 AMThe company I work for took advantage of it. We used it to pay salaries, but in retrospect did not actually need it.
Which amounts to profit for the company, of course. Which we plowed back into the company, but still. It was basically just a handout.
I mean it would be insane not to take and insane to pay it back even if you could do either from a business perspective. Which is kind of the frustrating consequence of the PPP loans, you would be irresponsible NOT to screw the US taxpayer.
See every tax avoidance provision in every tax code in the world.
Bet the folks at National Archives are enjoying their 15 minutes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 25, 2022, 05:17:07 PMValmy, I think you and I may be the only people left in the US who care about deficits.
There are a few others. I remember shortly after Trump did his big tax cut with his giant budget and the few remaining deficit hawks were hand-wringing and Pence had to go feed them this bullshit about how we would grow out into a surplus in a few years. LOL.
Nobody cares. All I could do was laugh at that point.
I definitely care about deficits, but I'm not sure that hand-wringing (mine, in particular) matters much. So why talk it to death?
Quote from: Habbaku on August 26, 2022, 05:46:00 PMI definitely care about deficits, but I'm not sure that hand-wringing (mine, in particular) matters much. So why talk it to death?
The same reason we talk any policy issue to death, to sway public opinion, to vent, and to look really smart.
I am partial to that last one, but I like to leave this particular topic for others. :smarty:
Just heard on NPR that loan forgiveness goes "up to $20,000."
Yeah, if you received a Pell Grant at any point ( :yeah: ) then you qualify for the larger giveaw--er, forgiveness.
I mean, like I suggested--at a "meta" policy level, sure I care about the deficit. But when deficit spending appears to not matter to most people when we are doing $2 trillion in fiscally unsound tax cuts, when we're funding a $950bn, unneeded business handout program, not to mention a few trillion of other boondoggle shit...but when people who don't own business and aren't rich are suddenly set to get a few hundred billion and now a lot of fiscal conservatives speak up? Nah. Fuck that all the way. If we're going to pillage the public treasury, and we have and are, I'm all for more people than just the billionaire class benefitting.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 27, 2022, 01:56:19 PMI mean, like I suggested--at a "meta" policy level, sure I care about the deficit. But when deficit spending appears to not matter to most people when we are doing $2 trillion in fiscally unsound tax cuts, when we're funding a $950bn, unneeded business handout program, not to mention a few trillion of other boondoggle shit...but when people who don't own business and aren't rich are suddenly set to get a few hundred billion and now a lot of fiscal conservatives speak up? Nah. Fuck that all the way. If we're going to pillage the public treasury, and we have and are, I'm all for more people than just the billionaire class benefitting.
Agreed. It appears to surface whenever there needs to be a reason why something they don't like shouldn't receive funding.
I have heard very little from Republicans about deficits recently.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2022, 07:07:36 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwBftMI23Lg
$10K student loan forgiveness for everyone making less than $125K.
Someone making 125K comes in around the 90th percentile. Are these people really that crippled by student debt they need a bailout? I can't help but think there are people in more desperate situations.
Quote from: Maladict on August 28, 2022, 07:29:53 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2022, 07:07:36 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwBftMI23Lg
$10K student loan forgiveness for everyone making less than $125K.
Someone making 125K comes in around the 90th percentile. Are these people really that crippled by student debt they need a bailout? I can't help but think there are people in more desperate situations.
The people in more desperate situation get the bail out as well.
I'd you're bailing out wouldn't it make more sense to allocate more to the poorer rather then spread it our to those that aren't really in need?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 24, 2022, 08:02:27 PM- We have funneled massive amounts of money to the wealthy and large, highly profitable businesses. Going back to TARP, the auto bailouts, the PPP loans, the Trump wealthy tax cuts, we're probably pushing $4 trillion in handouts to the moneyed interests in this country since 2009,
Wait wut?
TARP actually made money when all was said and done, and the auto bailouts were comparatively small in scope and with TARP probably made money as well. The PPP loans scoped out any large businesses (such as those with more than 500 employees). So when you say we have funneled massive amounts of money to "the wealthy and large, highly profitable businesses" we are at roughly $0 in the first 3 of the four programs you've named.
So we are left with the Trump tax cuts, which were well less than $4 trillion, which also seem an odd reason to be cool with funneling $10k to certain tax payers.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 28, 2022, 09:28:18 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 24, 2022, 08:02:27 PM- We have funneled massive amounts of money to the wealthy and large, highly profitable businesses. Going back to TARP, the auto bailouts, the PPP loans, the Trump wealthy tax cuts, we're probably pushing $4 trillion in handouts to the moneyed interests in this country since 2009,
Wait wut?
TARP actually made money when all was said and done, and the auto bailouts were comparatively small in scope and with TARP probably made money as well. The PPP loans scoped out any large businesses (such as those with more than 500 employees). So when you say we have funneled massive amounts of money to "the wealthy and large, highly profitable businesses" we are at roughly $0 in the first 3 of the four programs you've named.
So we are left with the Trump tax cuts, which were well less than $4 trillion, which also seem an odd reason to be cool with funneling $10k to certain tax payers.
Well how do you know freeing up all that money into the economy by unburdening these working Americans won't also make money? If that is the standard we are using here.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2022, 10:33:14 AMWell how do you know freeing up all that money into the economy by unburdening these working Americans won't also make money? If that is the standard we are using here.
That is not the standard we are using here.
TARP and to an extent the auto bailouts worked with the government buying massive amounts of troubled assets and providing loan guarantees. In the end the government collected interest on those assets, and collected when they matured or were sold. If you add together the amounts the government collected on the assets and the amount that they paid, the government actually made money. It didn't look like that would be the case at the time, and the government was taking on a massive risk if the market continued to melt down, but that didn't happen.
Writing off a loan of $10k does not give the government an asset that may offset the loss at some future date, either in whole or in part. It is just a loss of $10k, or in aggregate $300 billion.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 28, 2022, 09:28:18 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 24, 2022, 08:02:27 PM- We have funneled massive amounts of money to the wealthy and large, highly profitable businesses. Going back to TARP, the auto bailouts, the PPP loans, the Trump wealthy tax cuts, we're probably pushing $4 trillion in handouts to the moneyed interests in this country since 2009,
Wait wut?
TARP actually made money when all was said and done, and the auto bailouts were comparatively small in scope and with TARP probably made money as well. The PPP loans scoped out any large businesses (such as those with more than 500 employees). So when you say we have funneled massive amounts of money to "the wealthy and large, highly profitable businesses" we are at roughly $0 in the first 3 of the four programs you've named.
So we are left with the Trump tax cuts, which were well less than $4 trillion, which also seem an odd reason to be cool with funneling $10k to certain tax payers.
This isn't a serious post. TARP was a huge loan to private business that returned less than the rate of inflation. It didn't make money in any meaningful sense unless you think a private lender would have written a loan that was guaranteed to make less money than the rate of inflation and that was going to entities in extreme financial distress.
You're supposed to be a finance guy, if you don't understand that TARP was a massive handout you're delusional.
I'll also note TARP was one thing from an itemized list. PPP itself was $900bn. The Trump tax cuts have been pegged at around $2.1 trillion (that is through the first 10 years so that number isn't finalized.) That's $3 trillion without blinking.
People often forget that Trump signed a second round of major COVID stimulus after losing election—the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021–which among other things contained another $325bn in government handouts to business owners (a figure a little bigger than Biden's student loan handout and one which I don't see generated even a single comment on this board.)
That's $3.3 trillion just on the easy to count stuff. If you don't think we can find $700bn in handouts to businesses in the last 13-14 years since the 08/09 crisis you're fooling yourself. The $4 trillion number was conservative because it doesn't even begin to factor in what I believe has been around 6 trillion in quantitative easing (and I didn't include that because Fed monetary games are a little technically complex as to what they "count" as, but it should be noted few people benefited from them more than the holders of equities, which are overwhelmingly held by the moneyed class.)
PPP is $0. Your statement was " We have funneled massive amounts of money to the wealthy and large, highly profitable businesses"...that wasn't what PPP went to.
TARP involved buying troubled assets and then recovering what could from them. It turned out that what was recovered exceeded what was committed. Would a finance company have made that investment or been happy with the rate of profit? On both counts, no. But if you are keeping score at home, there was an actual profit on the program.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 28, 2022, 01:13:27 PMPPP is $0. Your statement was " We have funneled massive amounts of money to the wealthy and large, highly profitable businesses"...that wasn't what PPP went to.
TARP involved buying troubled assets and then recovering what could from them. It turned out that what was recovered exceeded what was committed. Would a finance company have made that investment or been happy with the rate of profit? On both counts, no. But if you are keeping score at home, there was an actual profit on the program.
This post is just an attempt to gin up a cheap forum argument, I won't be participating. PPP and TARP were massive handouts to businesses, period.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 28, 2022, 01:32:59 PMQuote from: alfred russel on August 28, 2022, 01:13:27 PMPPP is $0. Your statement was " We have funneled massive amounts of money to the wealthy and large, highly profitable businesses"...that wasn't what PPP went to.
TARP involved buying troubled assets and then recovering what could from them. It turned out that what was recovered exceeded what was committed. Would a finance company have made that investment or been happy with the rate of profit? On both counts, no. But if you are keeping score at home, there was an actual profit on the program.
This post is just an attempt to gin up a cheap forum argument, I won't be participating. PPP and TARP were massive handouts to businesses, period.
PPP was a massive handout to small and medium sized businesses. Not large and wealthy ones - they were specifically scoped out.
TARP is a lot more complicated. In the end the taxpayers made a profit on TARP. It was a massive transfer of risk to the taxpayer at below market terms--a risk which did not materialize.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 28, 2022, 01:48:22 PMPPP was a massive handout to small and medium sized businesses. Not large and wealthy ones - they were specifically scoped out.
It seems there's evidence that a good number of the "small and medium sized businesses" were wealthy individuals who just pocketed the cash?
Quote from: Jacob on August 28, 2022, 02:16:05 PMQuote from: alfred russel on August 28, 2022, 01:48:22 PMPPP was a massive handout to small and medium sized businesses. Not large and wealthy ones - they were specifically scoped out.
It seems there's evidence that a good number of the "small and medium sized businesses" were wealthy individuals who just pocketed the cash?
He's simply repeating the same lies that people have repeated around these terms for decades in the United States. In the United States small business has a legal definition under the SBA and laws that mimic its definition, that includes very large firms with high revenue. For example a typical American would not consider a chain of car dealerships with a few hundred employees, several hundred million in revenue, and an owner with a 8 figure net worth to be a "small business." The popular conception of your small business is the struggling local deli or barber shop. The government defines it quite differently, and what's worse is most small business incentive programs, while theoretically covering what the public imagines are small businesses, are layered in complex requirements that the true small sole proprietorships generally have trouble figuring out and successfully receiving.
The PPP has additional issues in that self-incorporated entities and various other LLC pass throughs were able to get checks as well, and sometimes those are private vehicles for wealthy individuals.
On top of all that, even a lot of the small businesses that might match a popular conception of a small business, still represent things controlled and owned by the wealthy. For example an engineering consultancy with 10 employees and an owner who makes $400k/yr is certainly a small business, but does someone whose income is in the top 1% of AGI actually need a government bailout?
Quote from: Jacob on August 28, 2022, 02:16:05 PMQuote from: alfred russel on August 28, 2022, 01:48:22 PMPPP was a massive handout to small and medium sized businesses. Not large and wealthy ones - they were specifically scoped out.
It seems there's evidence that a good number of the "small and medium sized businesses" were wealthy individuals who just pocketed the cash?
I agree there is a lot of evidence of that, and no one should be surprised. The idea at the time was to very rapidly get the program approved so there wasn't a massive depression when the whole economy shut down. It was broad legislation.
I started a post with the eligibility criteria, which have things like 500 employee caps and no more than $5 million of average income over a couple years. Probably not worth it. But your large and wealthy businesses were scoped out.
A wealthy individual with a small side business, would be eligibile, or a business with 400 employees or a business making $4 million a year could be. The former isn't a large and wealthy business, and the latter arguably is, but that was the cut off applied and in the grand scheme of the economy it is not especially large and wealthy.
Was PPP loan foregiveness built into the program or was that added later.
And were there criteria for foregiveness, or did everyone get it?
I'm seeing a lot of things like this, for example:
QuoteIf Mike Kelly, R-Pa, has net worth of $145.2 million, why was his Personal Payroll protection loan for $974,000 forgiven?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 28, 2022, 02:23:00 PMHe's simply repeating the same lies that people have repeated around these terms for decades in the United States.
Are you saying the Small Business Administration is a subsidy to large and wealthy businesses?
I agree the definitions used go beyond mom and pop shops and get into bigger businesses, but it is about smaller businesses. FWIW the passage of the PPP was not some republican plot: the democrats controlled the house and it was passed 96-0 in the senate.
Quote from: Jacob on August 28, 2022, 02:40:28 PMI'm seeing a lot of things like this, for example:
QuoteIf Mike Kelly, R-Pa, has net worth of $145.2 million, why was his Personal Payroll protection loan for $974,000 forgiven?
I have never heard of Mike Kelly, and I won't research the details here.
However, the idea was that smaller businesses in the initial stages of covid that were getting shut down needed support to make payroll. The idea was to give businesses money to make payroll for a period of time. That however raised the risk that if Mike Kelly's business was given $947k to make payroll that he could pocket the $947k and still lay everyone off.
So they gave his business $947k as a loan, and if it didn't lay people off for a period of time then the loan would be forgiven. If he did lay people off the loan would need to be repaid.
Mike Kelly's net worth was not considered in the program. It was focused on businesses rather than the people owning the businesses.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2022, 02:39:15 PMWas PPP loan foregiveness built into the program or was that added later.
And were there criteria for foregiveness, or did everyone get it?
Are you asking very basic, easily Googled questions, or are you making a point?
Quote from: Jacob on August 28, 2022, 02:40:28 PMI'm seeing a lot of things like this, for example:
QuoteIf Mike Kelly, R-Pa, has net worth of $145.2 million, why was his Personal Payroll protection loan for $974,000 forgiven?
Because he likely has some LLC or similar pass through. The PPP also is an
entirely unaudited program, as in there were no real controls or safeguards on it. It isn't at all difficult to imagine checks were disbursed to people who did not meet the eligibility requirements.
Also keep in mind--the PPP was literally "sold" as "Paycheck Protection", 75% of all funds disbursed under the PPP did not go to paychecks.
Additionally: NBER found that about 75% of PPP funds went to the top 20% of households by income.
Like I said, this is pretty obviously a situation where the chattering classes (and the usual suspects on these forums) get really worked up over the horror of a lower income person getting money, but don't even care or investigate the facts on a massive, hundreds of billions of dollars handout to rich people.
Yeah and I think with basically anything to do with business support in the early days of covid (or, say, getting PPE or orders of vaccines that didn't end up working) there's going to be a lot of fraud or perhaps undeserving recepients.
I always think of that project triangle - you can have it quick, cheap and good but you have to choose two. I think with a lot of government spending in covid the priority was speed which was right, but meant the normal due diligence and financial checks or means testing etc weren't happening. A lot of it bought PPE that worked or saved businesses that were really distressed by an uninsurable event etc - but there'll be a lot more fraud and a lot less value for money than we'd probably want from government in normal times. I think that trade-off was worth it.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 28, 2022, 02:48:17 PMAre you asking very basic, easily Googled questions, or are you making a point?
I thought the question mark on second sentence would make things clear but I see how the omission on the first sentence might confuse things.
Thanks Fredo.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 28, 2022, 02:56:27 PMI always think of that project triangle - you can have it quick, cheap and good but you have to choose two. I think with a lot of government spending in covid the priority was speed which was right, but meant the normal due diligence and financial checks or means testing etc weren't happening. A lot of it bought PPE that worked or saved businesses that were really distressed by an uninsurable event etc - but there'll be a lot more fraud and a lot less value for money than we'd probably want from government in normal times. I think that trade-off was worth it.
Absolutely, this was even said at the time--you can build out a huge administrative organization to check eligibility, guard against fraud, establish onerous procedures to mitigate waste, or you can implement a program that pumps money into the economy quickly. It is all but impossible to do both.
FWIW I'm not against the concept of economic stimulus, while I don't agree with everything Keynesian I do think a global pandemic caused recession is obviously a time for counter-cyclical stimulus spending.
I think the discussion about all the various stimulus programs of the past 14 years and how appropriate each was from some sort of macroeconomic perspective is a whole different thing.
What I'm more focused on here--given this is primarily being treated as a political issue, is the politics of it. From a political perspective I look at someone making $75,000 a year who got maybe $2000 in stimulus checks, and is now being villainized as a lazy layabout because he is getting $10,000 of his $50,000 in student debt forgiven when we shoveled much larger per-individual amounts out through programs like PPP to wealthy people.
If someone is a true hardcore fiscal conservative they could demonstrate that to me by criticizing deficit-raising tax cuts and business handouts
as well as social welfare, someone who is fine with the former and against the latter is just a person who doesn't like poor people getting things, and is willing to make up stories to tell you why that is.
A lot of this goes back to the 80s and the myths around Reagan economic theory--that was a permission slip for many "fiscal conservatives" to approve of things like massive tax cuts
not funded by offsetting spending cuts by saying "well it stimulates the economy so it washes out the deficit effect." There has never been good evidence for this at all, and without that evidence anytime someone supports a massive revenue reduction and does not push for and demand an offsetting spending reduction, they are not engaged in sound fiscal conservative policy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2022, 02:57:34 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 28, 2022, 02:48:17 PMAre you asking very basic, easily Googled questions, or are you making a point?
I thought the question mark on second sentence would make things clear but I see how the omission on the first sentence might confuse things.
Thanks Fredo.
And my point is if you're interested in a discussion you can make a point. If you're too lazy to Google I don't have time for you.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 28, 2022, 02:56:27 PMYeah and I think with basically anything to do with business support in the early days of covid (or, say, getting PPE or orders of vaccines that didn't end up working) there's going to be a lot of fraud or perhaps undeserving recepients.
I always think of that project triangle - you can have it quick, cheap and good but you have to choose two. I think with a lot of government spending in covid the priority was speed which was right, but meant the normal due diligence and financial checks or means testing etc weren't happening. A lot of it bought PPE that worked or saved businesses that were really distressed by an uninsurable event etc - but there'll be a lot more fraud and a lot less value for money than we'd probably want from government in normal times. I think that trade-off was worth it.
With perfect hindsight would means testing have worked? Honest question.
A high net worth owner can lay off staff due to covid-induced lack of business just as easily as a lower net worth individual can.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 28, 2022, 03:03:50 PMAnd my point is if you're interested in a discussion you can make a point. If you're too lazy to Google I don't have time for you.
I can live with that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2022, 03:10:28 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 28, 2022, 03:03:50 PMAnd my point is if you're interested in a discussion you can make a point. If you're too lazy to Google I don't have time for you.
I can live with that.
I bet. I'll note your "questions" in your BS faux socratic-dialogue just seem to happily match the same "talking points" the Fox News crowd brings up, yet again.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 28, 2022, 03:12:48 PMI bet. I'll note your "questions" in your BS faux socratic-dialogue just seem to happily match the same "talking points" the Fox News crowd brings up, yet again.
Thanks for making the time.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 28, 2022, 02:51:26 PMAdditionally: NBER found that about 75% of PPP funds went to the top 20% of households by income.
Completely unsurprising.
QuoteLike I said, this is pretty obviously a situation where the chattering classes (and the usual suspects on these forums) get really worked up over the horror of a lower income person getting money, but don't even care or investigate the facts on a massive, hundreds of billions of dollars handout to rich people.
In this case I was pointing out that the $4 trillion figure you put out as the amount of handouts to large and wealthy businesses under four specific programs was incorrect.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2022, 03:09:23 PMWith perfect hindsight would means testing have worked? Honest question.
A high net worth owner can lay off staff due to covid-induced lack of business just as easily as a lower net worth individual can.
I just meant that as an example of a way of targeting. I'm not sure what that would be for the support to businesses that needed it/were actually at risk.
OvB, if you want to discuss the policy and get past your error above that you won't admit, it is an excruciatingly poor policy.
Even with a $125k limit for single people and $250k for married couples, this is $300 billion that is arguably not even progressive. It might still be, but college educated people are not generally the most needy in society. It seems more like this is just a way to give folks that tended to vote for you the equivalent of a $10k check in advance of the midterms.
College costs have grown at an absurd pace, but this doesn't fix or even identify the causes. It is bizarre: college costs today are higher than they have ever been, and arguably the value of a degree is less than ever, but it is the legacy students that are aided rather than those that are just entering college.
It also creates perverse incentives. A precedent has been set, and I'd recommend against anyone paying off their loans at this point, and suggest to people to take out loans rather than pay for college directly because who would say this is the last time it will happen.
I paid off my student loans a long time ago, so I guess I'm a sucker. My sister in law recently graduated med school and is going to be an ER doctor and apparently qualifies...I guess that is a great use of federal money.
The reality is the entire CARES act (of which PPP was ~450 some billion--a separate act later added more funding to PPP which is how it got to 900bn+), which passed in March of 2020 was likely a vast overreaction. There was a huge hit to equities and a huge wave of unemployment the first few months of COVID, and I do think at least a good chunk of this spending was necessary to shore that up.
I think there is a decent argument that the PPP as it was instituted in the CARES act, and the $268bn in tax rebates (these were the $1200/$2400 "checks" people got if their income was below a certain level) were simply unnecessary given the overall economic situation.
The eviction moratorium (and I say this as a landlord) was probably a good idea, although I would have liked to have seen a better program for making landlords whole (I'm lucky in that the units we rent out are in an area where most people are white collar professionals and we didn't have any tenants who quit paying rent.)
I think the CARES act funding to local hospitals, the $5000 tax credit to employers for retaining employees (which you weren't eligible for if you took PPP money), the $500bn "Main Street Stabilization Fund" were good ideas/programs.
In lieu of the PPP and individual rebates I would have rather seen sectoral bailouts/handouts. The reality is if you were a professional service business, any kind of business that does its work in offices, very few of those shutdown. My wife and I obviously didn't lose a single day of work over covid, and almost none of our friends did--our social circle is overwhelmingly in the white collar professional career field, or for my wife's friends the medical field.
Bars, restaurants, and tourist businesses were massively impacted by COVID and probably needed targeted relief. Law offices, financial firms, technology firms etc largely were not massively impacted (negatively) by covid--tech firms in general actually saw a covid wind fall, as did some financial concerns (the insurance industry for example saw a huge windfall from covid due to people staying home more massively decreasing insurance claims.)
I really can't remember my thoughts on the CARES Act at the time and i suspect it was something of an afterthought considering everything else going on then.
But, I don't think it is a fair reading of history to say it was designed as a giveaway to large and wealthy businesses. Congress is excrutiatingly slow, and with the control of congress split between the two parties, there was a totally ineffective president incapable of leadership, and with a perceived need for immediate action, the cares act is what we got.
Two years later smart people can point out there were better designs possible, but i'm not sure why that is an argument to justify just randomly giving $10k for student loan debt relief.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 28, 2022, 04:36:12 PMI just meant that as an example of a way of targeting. I'm not sure what that would be for the support to businesses that needed it/were actually at risk.
An ideal program would have targeted firms that were going to lay off workers because of lack of business. But how do you forecast that ahead of time? Just take the owner's word for it? Maybe make the funds available ex post. Then you'd have actual sales data (unless they lie). But then the risk is a business goes under while waiting for money.
An idea I thought of would be to make the money available up front to everyone, but then attach the condition that if the owner takes the money, Uncle Sam gets some cut of the profits. White collar firms that OVB described would opt out, the donut shop would take the money.
The real problem with the program was firms that saw no change in business got their payroll paid gratis, not that wealthy and/or Republican owners got their payrolls picked up.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 28, 2022, 04:46:28 PMCollege costs have grown at an absurd pace, but this doesn't fix or even identify the causes. It is bizarre: college costs today are higher than they have ever been, and arguably the value of a degree is less than ever, but it is the legacy students that are aided rather than those that are just entering college.
I hate this argument. It appears to be reasonable, but almost never actually IS.
I mean, I don't see anyone who is making this argument now in the political sphere following it up with "...and here is my bi-partisan proposal to massively reform higher education funding in the US...."
Right, the biggest defense for Biden's action is literally nothing else will be done in the current political environment. (As an aside--Biden's action may not survive legal challenge because its legality is at least disputable, which is all the Alito-Thomas Junta needs to pass anti-Democrat rulings--I think it's probably legal under the expansive powers in the both the original Higher Education law from the 60s or 70s, and the act which nationalized much Student debt under Obama in 2010 which put most of this under Presidential purview.)
The second biggest defense, is for previously stated reasons, I do think this is good politics. The people who are upset about it are people who were always going to vote Republican anyway, and the people excited about it are disproportionately the sort of Democrats that are often flaky at voting.
I actually think the inevitable legal challenges could also be a political windfall for Biden, when the SCOTUS strikes this down it's going to help rile up the Dem base even more, maybe not a HUGE impact versus say the big impact of Roe v Wade, but it's more fuel to the fire.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 28, 2022, 04:46:28 PMI paid off my student loans a long time ago, so I guess I'm a sucker.
I paid mine off as well. Not having to make payments on compound interest is more than enough reward than hand wringing I couldn't have been in debt far longer just to get an amount cancelled. OH POOR ME! I MISSED OUT ON YEARS OF MAKING MONTHLY PAYMENTS!!!11
But hey go ahead and just stop paying off all your debts and hope that they will all be cancelled at some point. You've done more moronic schemes in your time here.
Though, to be fair, my federal loan was pretty weak sauce. It was the private one that got idiotic with tons of fees and shit and took forever to pay off.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2022, 03:09:23 PMWith perfect hindsight would means testing have worked? Honest question.
A high net worth owner can lay off staff due to covid-induced lack of business just as easily as a lower net worth individual can.
I think the issue is the amount of high net worth folks who had personal LLCs, who took large PPP loans that they just pocketed rather than use for wages. Or, slightly less noxious but still far from ideal, who took large PPP loans and paid for wages when their LLC weren't really distressed, meaning the PPP went straight to the bottom line as increased profit.
Quote from: Jacob on August 29, 2022, 03:15:00 AMI think the issue is the amount of high net worth folks who had personal LLCs, who took large PPP loans that they just pocketed rather than use for wages. Or, slightly less noxious but still far from ideal, who took large PPP loans and paid for wages when their LLC weren't really distressed, meaning the PPP went straight to the bottom line as increased profit.
For the former, do you know how that worked? I would have expected there to be *some* relationahip between payroll and the loan amount, but OVB is saying only 25% of PPP loans went to wages. I personally don't know. Did rich LLC guys say "I have one employee, me, and I made $2 million so lend me $2 million to pay myself?"
As to the latter, how would you know ahead of time if a loan recipient is going to be profitable or not?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2022, 03:26:34 AMFor the former, do you know how that worked? I would have expected there to be *some* relationahip between payroll and the loan amount, but OVB is saying only 25% of PPP loans went to wages. I personally don't know. Did rich LLC guys say "I have one employee, me, and I made $2 million so lend me $2 million to pay myself?"
I don't - I'm seeing a fair amount of suggestions that it happened at scale, but I don't *know*. I'm definitely interested in having that confirmed / debunked one way or the other.
QuoteAs to the latter, how would you know ahead of time if a loan recipient is going to be profitable or not?
You wouldn't, but I perhaps forgiveness could be tied to profitability?
Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2022, 06:15:23 PMQuote from: alfred russel on August 28, 2022, 04:46:28 PMCollege costs have grown at an absurd pace, but this doesn't fix or even identify the causes. It is bizarre: college costs today are higher than they have ever been, and arguably the value of a degree is less than ever, but it is the legacy students that are aided rather than those that are just entering college.
I hate this argument. It appears to be reasonable, but almost never actually IS.
I mean, I don't see anyone who is making this argument now in the political sphere following it up with "...and here is my bi-partisan proposal to massively reform higher education funding in the US...."
It isn't that hard to figure out why college costs have exploded and are out of alignment with international norms. Governments pay some costs, parents others. But the ultimate purse strings are also extended to 17 and 18 year olds who can take out massive loans with government support. And what do 17 and 18 year olds want? Awesome amenities. As a group they are not super well equipped to understand the implications of debt and assess if they can pay it off in the future, but are equipped to understand they want a hot tub in their building.
I was looking up my old college...the freshman dorm i stayed in is now over $4,800 a semester. That is a shared room with a common bathroom/shower/kitchen for the floor. That is insanely over market rent for the area for such a place. But it now comes with free laundry service because apparently students shouldn't have to worry about laundry in college and also puppies that are brought by every so often for students to play with because their lives are so stressful.
Setting up an expectation of student loan forgiveness is only going to pour fuel on this fire. Now a student can rationally be even less price sensitive than before.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 28, 2022, 06:34:33 PMRight, the biggest defense for Biden's action is literally nothing else will be done in the current political environment.
So Biden can't use broad executive authority to impose tighter lending restrictions or even just disclosure on the future prospects of the major / university combination? This is all he can do?
Quote from: Jacob on August 29, 2022, 03:15:00 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2022, 03:09:23 PMWith perfect hindsight would means testing have worked? Honest question.
A high net worth owner can lay off staff due to covid-induced lack of business just as easily as a lower net worth individual can.
I think the issue is the amount of high net worth folks who had personal LLCs, who took large PPP loans that they just pocketed rather than use for wages. Or, slightly less noxious but still far from ideal, who took large PPP loans and paid for wages when their LLC weren't really distressed, meaning the PPP went straight to the bottom line as increased profit.
Quote from: Jacob on August 29, 2022, 03:31:05 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2022, 03:26:34 AMFor the former, do you know how that worked? I would have expected there to be *some* relationahip between payroll and the loan amount, but OVB is saying only 25% of PPP loans went to wages. I personally don't know. Did rich LLC guys say "I have one employee, me, and I made $2 million so lend me $2 million to pay myself?"
I don't - I'm seeing a fair amount of suggestions that it happened at scale, but I don't *know*. I'm definitely interested in having that confirmed / debunked one way or the other.
QuoteAs to the latter, how would you know ahead of time if a loan recipient is going to be profitable or not?
You wouldn't, but I perhaps forgiveness could be tied to profitability?
The amount of the loans were capped at $100k per employee.
They could have tied forgiveness to profitability but they didn't. The situation was that there wasn't a ton of time to work out the most equitable and cost effective legislation. The perception was that the entire economy was melting down and while large and wealthy businesses had access to financing, the bulk of companies did not and we were facing massive layoffs in the very short term. The theory was the government was just going to pay payroll for a little while and that could keep everything going while there were lockdowns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAgcx61xdyw
Democrat Native American Mary Peltola projected to defeat Sarah Palin for Alaska's sole Congressional seat (I think) in special election.
Not that big a deal as they will just rerun this in November, and I expect turnout was very low, but still some nice signs about how the midterms might go.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 31, 2022, 11:05:02 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAgcx61xdyw
Democrat Native American Mary Peltola projected to defeat Sarah Palin for Alaska's sole Congressional seat (I think) in special election.
Not that big a deal as they will just rerun this in November, and I expect turnout was very low, but still some nice signs about how the midterms might go.
Yes, the Trumpist rump republican party is so extreme, that it'll probably drive lots of undecideds/former moderate republicans into the democrat (anything but Trump) camp.
Quote from: mongers on September 01, 2022, 05:14:48 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on August 31, 2022, 11:05:02 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAgcx61xdyw
Democrat Native American Mary Peltola projected to defeat Sarah Palin for Alaska's sole Congressional seat (I think) in special election.
Not that big a deal as they will just rerun this in November, and I expect turnout was very low, but still some nice signs about how the midterms might go.
Yes, the Trumpist rump republican party is so extreme, that it'll probably drive lots of undecideds/former moderate republicans into the democrat (anything but Trump) camp.
in the wide open primary, republicans got 57% and democrats about 17%. Republicans finished 1 and 2, an independent was 3, and the top democrat was 4.
The independent withdrew from the 4 person run off...which left 2 republicans vs. 1 democrat. The reason republicans lost is the top republican in the ranked choice voting runoff was sarah palin who is super unpopular.
I think the result tells us that very republican states will go democrat if the republicans nominate especially bad candidates, which is meaningful because they nominated a bunch of them in high profile races, but I don't htink it tells us the party is now a rump party or being repudiated.
Alaska is kind of a weird state anyway. And besides the Democrats now face the daunting task of having to pull this miracle of a second time in two months.
The Republicans are underperforming right now but a lot can change in two months. In order to believe they are truly declining they will need to underperform for a few cycles in a row.
I also just want to point out that ranked choice voting is so awesome and we should have it nationwide. Maine and Alaska have shown us the way.
Alaskans are especially rank.
Quote from: mongers on September 01, 2022, 05:14:48 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on August 31, 2022, 11:05:02 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAgcx61xdyw
Democrat Native American Mary Peltola projected to defeat Sarah Palin for Alaska's sole Congressional seat (I think) in special election.
Not that big a deal as they will just rerun this in November, and I expect turnout was very low, but still some nice signs about how the midterms might go.
Yes, the Trumpist rump republican party is so extreme, that it'll probably drive lots of undecideds/former moderate republicans into the democrat (anything but Trump) camp.
We said the same in 2016.
Fingers crossed 2020 wasn't a one-off.
Did we say that in 2016? The situation seems much different now. Back then Trump was promising 10,000 unicorns for every fairy princess.
I think people definitely said it in 2016. That was the Muslim ban, Mexico's sending rapists, "I alone can fix it" etc Trump.
I even believed it in 2016 :weep:
I think most did - including the pollsters. His victory was a big surprise shock.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 01, 2022, 12:19:36 PMI think people definitely said it in 2016. That was the Muslim ban, Mexico's sending rapists, "I alone can fix it" etc Trump.
I even believed it in 2016 :weep:
I don't remember it that way at all. Trump was calling out corruption and the failure of the elites and making long lists of promises he was going to fulfill. Sure I knew he wasn't going to do any of that and it was all bullshit but many people figured they would take a chance on him.
That dynamic doesn't exist anymore.
And as far as being shocked, the poll margin going into the election was very small and we were all nervous as fuck. CDM specifically pointed out how grim things were in key places like Pennsylvania.
Sure it was very distressing he won and the margin was extremely thin but it was hardly something that came out of nowhere. That entire election was horrifying, not just the result. If Hillary had barely clawed through, like it appeared she would, it would have only been marginally more comforting.
Back then he had a lot of shallow support but most of that is gone and now he has his true believers and while there are a shitload of them, between 30-40% of the population, he doesn't have a lot of space to grow that at this point. It was easier for him when he could still be an outsider and an unknown quantity people could project shit on.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 01, 2022, 12:24:18 PMI think most did - including the pollsters. His victory was a big surprise shock.
I recall the polls being very close throughout with Hillary threatening to pull away a few times only for it to tighten up again.
I hope Trump's 2016 victory inoculated just enough people against a repeat. Hopefully at least some liberals learned to take the threat seriously, because clearly most didn't, and at least some conservatives would recoil from seeing what came.
Quote from: DGuller on September 01, 2022, 01:04:51 PMI hope Trump's 2016 victory inoculated just enough people against a repeat. Hopefully at least some liberals learned to take the threat seriously, because clearly most didn't, and at least some conservatives would recoil from seeing what came.
The funny part was at the time the weird confidence of some of other leftwing voters was all I had to feel better about the situation. I figured...well maybe they know something I don't? Well they didn't.
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2022, 12:53:01 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 01, 2022, 12:24:18 PMI think most did - including the pollsters. His victory was a big surprise shock.
I recall the polls being very close throughout with Hillary threatening to pull away a few times only for it to tighten up again.
From an article that analyzes why all the polls predicting a Clinton victory got it wrong.
QuoteIn the weeks leading up to the November 2016 election, polls across the country predicted an easy sweep for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-polls-were-mostly-wrong/
All of this accords with my recollection that all the pollsters were predicting a Clinton win. I made a bet at the time with one of my partners that Trump would win. He gave me good odds based on his confidence in what the polls were saying.
FWIW while I largely think polling data is much less accurate now because of the low phone response rate (this forces pollsters to use ever more arcane models to adjust for their sample size being of the increasingly narrow subset of people who are willing to answer a phone from an unknown number and take a phone poll); I think the projections for 2016 weren't off that much, what was off was people's understanding of projections.
For example Nate Silver (who I largely ignore now, and think isn't a great analyst these days), had Hillary at I think a 70% probability of winning. There was a crack w/the Princeton group who had Hillary at 99%, which I think showed how bad that model was. But 538's projection of 70% was pretty reasonable--and widely ill-understood, a lot of people were treating "70% chance to win" the same way you'd treat "70% polling" i.e.--70% polling you are winning in a hilarious landslide. In the 538 model, 70% to win literally means in all their simulation runs, Trump was winning in almost a third of them. Treating that like a guaranteed HRC victory was really dumb, but was largely the fault of people who didn't understand the basic concept behind the various models.
I think there is a lot to that. I took the bet based on the fact Silver had not ruled him out, so I had a long shot with a shot. But, we are talking about what people were thinking the result would be, not what they should have been thinking/concerned about if they had understood the probabilities correctly. And that is why people were shocked. All the polls predicted a Clinton victory - including Silver.
What all the pollsters missed, including Silver, is that their data sets were not complete because of the phenomenon you have described and so they missed the support Trump actually had in key states.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 01, 2022, 03:16:13 PMWhat all the pollsters missed, including Silver, is that their data sets were not complete because of the phenomenon you have described and so they missed the support Trump actually had in key states.
Silver isn't a pollster and I don't think he missed anything.
If Silver projects 100 random races each with a confidence of 70%, if his expected candidate wins all 100 he has a deeply flawed model. His expected candidate should lose 30% of the time.
Polls have errors, and the errors can be linked in a cycle. For example, if the gold standard of polling in a given cycle misses a chunk of voters, and those voters are predisposed to be Trump voters, all the high quality polls may not only be wrong but also all independently understate Trump support. Silver's models do take this potential into account. That is a major source of uncertainty.
To get super nerdy, the reason some prognosticators gave Hillary a 99% chance to win in 2016 was that they did not consider that polling errors would be linked across outlets and states.
For example, we all know that if a single poll says Trump is down 4% that is prone to error and with a 4% margin of error he may be anywhere from even to down 8%. If all the polls say he is down 4%, that polling error is reduced--the stats get trickier but some folks would say a reasonable probability would be Trump is probably down 2% to 6%.
But then what really threw people off is all the state polling in critical states showed Trump was down.
Silver's model holds open that error in a single poll in a single state is replicated generally in polling across the country. Some stupid people didn't hold that possibility, and thought that all the polling in one state showing Trump down ~4% meant there was a minimal chance he would win that state, and when he needed to win say Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and the odds were 10%, 5% and 3%, the odds of all three happening were way under 1%. Silver was like, dude, the chance he wins Florida is probably more like 40%, and if he wins Florida, the odds he wins Pennsylvania is like 70%, and if he wins Florida and Pennsylvania, the odds he wins Wisconsin is like 90%.
That is wading too far into the weeds for the simple point I was making to Valmy, that the polls were all predicting a Clinton win.
Nate Silver is my god and i can't tolerate him being blasphemed.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 01, 2022, 04:55:34 PMThat is wading too far into the weeds for the simple point I was making to Valmy, that the polls were all predicting a Clinton win.
And more crucially I think 2016 was proabbly the highpoint for "decent Republicans will flee and he'll drive people away". All the Never Trumpers (of whom some have gone back), National Review disowning etc.
In fact I think decent Republicans did flee more in 2018 and 2020 - but I think the talk about it was far more prominent in 2016 while 2018/20 were more around the die-hards/shoot someone on 5th Avenue levels of support. Not the first time discourse has been wildly disconnected from what actually happens :lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on September 01, 2022, 04:57:34 PMNate Silver is my god and i can't tolerate him being blasphemed.
You actuaries are a protective group.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 01, 2022, 04:59:51 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 01, 2022, 04:55:34 PMThat is wading too far into the weeds for the simple point I was making to Valmy, that the polls were all predicting a Clinton win.
And more crucially I think 2016 was proabbly the highpoint for "decent Republicans will flee and he'll drive people away". All the Never Trumpers (of whom some have gone back), National Review disowning etc.
In fact I think decent Republicans did flee more in 2018 and 2020 - but I think the talk about it was far more prominent in 2016 while 2018/20 were more around the die-hards/shoot someone on 5th Avenue levels of support. Not the first time discourse has been wildly disconnected from what actually happens :lol:
Yeah, in 2016 there was talk of the party turning on him, even after he won the election. Nobody saw him turning the party into what it is today.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2022, 05:07:00 PMQuote from: alfred russel on September 01, 2022, 04:57:34 PMNate Silver is my god and i can't tolerate him being blasphemed.
You actuaries are a protective group.
:lol: Yeah I've no idea what's the appeal of Nate Silver - never quite understood it :blush:
Although I did love it when he tried to do British politics got it catastrophically wrong and never tried again :lol:
The appeal of Nate Silver is that he upped the sophistication of election predictions by a huge margin. Maybe he didn't have much success in Britain, but in the US he brought good science to a field filled with quackery. His models later on also allowed him to have a real-time progress bar of the upcoming elections, which tends to feed the addiction of those who are already obsessed with elections.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 01, 2022, 04:55:34 PMThat is wading too far into the weeds for the simple point I was making to Valmy, that the polls were all predicting a Clinton win.
I was there. I was reading 538 obsessively like everybody else and he was saying it was really close in several key states and only have Hillary a 70% chance which in his metrics is "slightly favored". She was favored but even in a Clinton victory it was going to be close. That in itself was very worrying.
I have this recollection she got a little separation after the Democratic convention, then it tightened up the rest of the way. And then that FBI stuff right at the end. It was nerve wracking as fuck.
Both of what we are saying is true CC. Sure the polls predicted a Clinton win but the margins in many key states were razor thin, which is what gave Trump his punchers chance. And the way he did win was predicted by the polls so far as I saw it, it was just not the most likely outcome.
Quote from: DGuller on September 01, 2022, 05:27:55 PMThe appeal of Nate Silver is that he upped the sophistication of election predictions by a huge margin. Maybe he didn't have much success in Britain, but in the US he brought good science to a field filled with quackery. His models later on also allowed him to have a real-time progress bar of the upcoming elections, which tends to feed the addiction of those who are already obsessed with elections.
I agree with this. It's not that the 538 model was so extraordinarily good, it was that it was rationally thought out as compared to the competition. The fact that many prominent election models were just assuming that polling errors across states were entirely independent and uncorrelated was just nuts; that's the kind of mistake that undergrads are taught to catch.
Silver started out as a baseball analyst which I think was an advantage. The immediate consumer of election models was (and is) political journalists - and political journalists as a class tend to be the kind of people that you can just wave some credentials at ("Princeton model"), and throw out a bunch of math and jargon and they will just soak it up uncritically. Especially if the result accords with their own preferences or prejudices.
Sports analysts don't have it that easy. If you are going to question Derek Jeter's fielding or claim that Craig Biggio was better than Ken Griffey Jr., talking up Ivy League credentials is just going to piss people off. You have to spell out your models and assumptions very carefully. In a political model, accounting for possible error correlation across states adds work burden and forces you into the difficult an easily contestable task of specifying the likely degree to that correlation. But for a sports analyst used to that kind of heat, it's just part of the job.
Am I right in assuming Silver based his conclusion of autocorelation across states on historical evidence of autocorelation?
Or did he just say "it's possible" therefore his model incorporated this unproven possibility?
Silver is a shitty political pundit but his 2016 model was the most correct and closest to reality. I remember people (not here) were dunking on Nate and calling him a quack for giving a Trump win too high probability.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-users-guide-to-fivethirtyeights-2016-general-election-forecast/
Look at the section entitled demographic and regional error.
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2022, 06:21:17 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 01, 2022, 04:55:34 PMThat is wading too far into the weeds for the simple point I was making to Valmy, that the polls were all predicting a Clinton win.
I was there. I was reading 538 obsessively like everybody else and he was saying it was really close in several key states and only have Hillary a 70% chance which in his metrics is "slightly favored". She was favored but even in a Clinton victory it was going to be close. That in itself was very worrying.
I have this recollection she got a little separation after the Democratic convention, then it tightened up the rest of the way. And then that FBI stuff right at the end. It was nerve wracking as fuck.
Both of what we are saying is true CC. Sure the polls predicted a Clinton win but the margins in many key states were razor thin, which is what gave Trump his punchers chance. And the way he did win was predicted by the polls so far as I saw it, it was just not the most likely outcome.
Oh well, if you were there then certainly that sets you apart from everyone else here :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 01, 2022, 04:59:51 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 01, 2022, 04:55:34 PMThat is wading too far into the weeds for the simple point I was making to Valmy, that the polls were all predicting a Clinton win.
And more crucially I think 2016 was proabbly the highpoint for "decent Republicans will flee and he'll drive people away". All the Never Trumpers (of whom some have gone back), National Review disowning etc.
In fact I think decent Republicans did flee more in 2018 and 2020 - but I think the talk about it was far more prominent in 2016 while 2018/20 were more around the die-hards/shoot someone on 5th Avenue levels of support. Not the first time discourse has been wildly disconnected from what actually happens :lol:
Lots of Democrat celebrities said they'd leave the US if Trump won, too. Somehow, they idea that they'd pay upward of 50% in income tax if they'd move anywhere else seemed more repulsive than living under Trump. Decent people do change their opinions over time. ;)
There's a lot of tax havens lefty celebrities could move to, the thing that really keeps them in the United States is if you're a media personality, LA and NYC are in the United States and if you aren't in or near those cities all the time your career is going to struggle in that field, so the reality of emigration is difficult when so much of your self-worth is tied into the U.S. media / film / tv industry.
Quote from: viper37 on September 01, 2022, 11:37:41 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on September 01, 2022, 04:59:51 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 01, 2022, 04:55:34 PMThat is wading too far into the weeds for the simple point I was making to Valmy, that the polls were all predicting a Clinton win.
And more crucially I think 2016 was proabbly the highpoint for "decent Republicans will flee and he'll drive people away". All the Never Trumpers (of whom some have gone back), National Review disowning etc.
In fact I think decent Republicans did flee more in 2018 and 2020 - but I think the talk about it was far more prominent in 2016 while 2018/20 were more around the die-hards/shoot someone on 5th Avenue levels of support. Not the first time discourse has been wildly disconnected from what actually happens :lol:
Lots of Democrat celebrities said they'd leave the US if Trump won, too. Somehow, they idea that they'd pay upward of 50% in income tax if they'd move anywhere else seemed more repulsive than living under Trump. Decent people do change their opinions over time. ;)
If you are in the highest tax brackets in NY city or California, you are around 50% in income taxes...the top US federal rate is 37%, the top state rates (inclusive of NYC income taxes) are over 13% for those states, and you have additional medicare taxes on your income in the US which are effectively income taxes.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 01, 2022, 05:08:40 PM:lol: Yeah I've no idea what's the appeal of Nate Silver - never quite understood it :blush:
Although I did love it when he tried to do British politics got it catastrophically wrong and never tried again :lol:
I love Nate Silver because I'm a math nerd that thinks the right way to analyze things is with quantitative rigor, but reading journal articles is tedious. He is the accessible middlebrow type of guy that looks at things the way I think they should be analyzed but doesn't make me do any work, but gives enough insight into the factors going into his work that it makes me feel like a part of his smart guy club because I'm like, "yep seems right, this is aligned with what I learned in my college probability classes".
On a more personal note, he doesn't have an advanced math degree, just like me, went to work for a big accounting firm for 3.5 years out of school just like me, goofed around with professional sports stats like we all dream of, became a professional poker player like I dreamed of doing. He is a dilettante -- done a variety of things but not really a true expert in any field. People call him a pollster all the time but he is truly not a pollster in any fashion; it is probably fairer to say he is a guy with a math aptitude that went into professional gambling with some success and started turning those skills into other interests of like politics.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 01, 2022, 11:29:55 PMOh well, if you were there then certainly that sets you apart from everyone else here :P
Not CDM.
Damn libs, soft on crime! :mad:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcGWQVFXEAIALKd?format=jpg&name=large)
(https://static.prisonpolicy.org/images/NATO_US_2021.png)
(https://www.screenandreveal.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Countries-With-the-Highest-Incarceration-Rates-per-100000-916x1024.jpg)
:hmm:
(I wonder if someone there has money invested in legal slave camps the private prison economy. :P )
Wow, I never thought I would hear somebody say we don't have enough people in prison.
The party of liberty strikes again.
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2022, 08:47:09 AMWow, I never thought I would hear somebody say we don't have enough people in prison.
https://youtu.be/iTJrNHdzm0k?t=141
Quote from: Syt on September 08, 2022, 08:31:46 AMDamn libs, soft on crime! :mad:
He's got a point.
America is under-incarcerated right now, by one man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Psa1sgHRuxo
The Democratic candidate for Congress in my district is kind of cute by politician standards.
So Lindsey Graham introduced a bill to federally ban abortion after 15 weeks. Apparently Mike Pence has come out and said that that fight is more important than winning the mid-terms.
One question and one observation:
Observation: I guess it means that either the GOP believes fighting abortion remains a winner for them - either in terms of motivating the base or getting votes.
Question: Is there any point in introducing this bill now - with the Democrats controlling the House and the Senate (even if narrowly) - other than as political signalling?
Quote from: Jacob on September 14, 2022, 08:52:13 PMQuestion: Is there any point in introducing this bill now - with the Democrats controlling the House and the Senate (even if narrowly) - other than as political signalling?
Senility? Delusion?
Quote from: Jacob on September 14, 2022, 08:52:13 PMQuestion: Is there any point in introducing this bill now - with the Democrats controlling the House and the Senate (even if narrowly) - other than as political signalling?
No. It is political signaling. They tend to do this every time the Democrats control the government.
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2022, 09:18:39 PMNo. It is political signaling. They tend to do this every time the Democrats control the government.
Then that seems to indicate the the GOP - or Lindsey Graham and Pence at least - think that pushing national abortion restrictions is a winner?
Quote from: Jacob on September 14, 2022, 10:15:34 PMThen that seems to indicate the the GOP - or Lindsey Graham and Pence at least - think that pushing national abortion restrictions is a winner?
He doesn't come up for election until 2017, so that suggests state electoral politics is not the motivation.
Possibly he wants to break the news cycle about getting subpoenaed in Georgia.
Quote from: Jacob on September 14, 2022, 08:52:13 PMSo Lindsey Graham introduced a bill to federally ban abortion after 15 weeks. Apparently Mike Pence has come out and said that that fight is more important than winning the mid-terms.
Tbh, 15 weeks sounds quite reasonable.
In Germany/Austria the limit is 3 months after being of pregnancy, and I don't recall debates for extending it.
But I assume the intention is that states can still set the limit at less than 15 weeks or ban it outright?
15 weeks is a weird number politically, even if it makes sense on some policy level.
The anti-abortion crowd will not like it because they want to ban abortion entirely and the pro-choice crowd will not like it because they don't want any limitation to abortion short of viability. So it seems like a political position designed to make everybody who cares about this issue mad.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 14, 2022, 11:21:21 PMQuote from: Jacob on September 14, 2022, 10:15:34 PMThen that seems to indicate the the GOP - or Lindsey Graham and Pence at least - think that pushing national abortion restrictions is a winner?
He doesn't come up for election until 2017,.
Now that's a safe seat.
QuotePossibly he wants to break the news cycle about getting subpoenaed in Georgia.
Lindsey went down to Georgia, looking for an election to steal
He was in a bind cause Trump was way behind
And he was willing to make a deal
. . .
Lindsey bowed his head because he knew that they'd been beat
And he laid the Presidency on the ground at Joe B's feet
Joe B said, "Lindsey, just come on back if you ever wanna try again
I done told you Trump's a son of a bitch, he's the worst that's ever been"
(fiddle playing omitted)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 22, 2022, 09:44:39 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNBnKRW0TY
Governors of Texas and Arizona busing thousands of illegal immigrants to NYC and DC.
Now they're sending them from Florida to Martha's Vineyard and Kamala's home.
A good use of our tax dollars. The Biden administration deports shitloads of illegal immigrants so I don't really understand even the statement here. It is not like they are failing to deport at an impressive clip.
Tri-state area is suffering from labor shortages; i say take them and have the last laugh.
The societies that succeed in the 21st century will be the ones that are able to attract increasingly scarce labor.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 15, 2022, 11:36:10 AMTri-state area is suffering from labor shortages; i say take them and have the last laugh.
The societies that succeed in the 21st century will be the ones that are able to attract increasingly scarce labor.
Well this time they are not delivering them to federal property this time so maybe the state can step in and get that sweet scarce labor.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 15, 2022, 11:36:10 AMTri-state area is suffering from labor shortages; i say take them and have the last laugh.
The societies that succeed in the 21st century will be the ones that are able to attract increasingly scarce labor.
immigration does not solve long term labor shortages. Slavery does, because slaves don't consume much. Immagration add the population of consumers over long term.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 15, 2022, 11:36:10 AMThe societies that succeed in the 21st century will be the ones that are able to attract increasingly scarce labor.
Similar to the 17th and 18th centuries. We did well then: should we revisit those tactics?
Quote from: HVC on September 15, 2022, 08:31:32 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on August 22, 2022, 09:44:39 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNBnKRW0TY
Governors of Texas and Arizona busing thousands of illegal immigrants to NYC and DC.
Now they're sending them from Florida to Martha's Vineyard and Kamala's home.
So there's kind of a point here. Texas receives thousands of illegal immigrants per day. Cities like NYC and DC proudly announce themselves as "Sanctuary Cities" that welcome illegal immigrants (although they use the term "undocumented"). Seems like a perfect match then - send these people from a state that is struggling to cope with the numbers of people to cities and states that proclaim to welcome them with open arms.
Where it falls down though is from what I can tell these migrants are being lied to to get on those buses - they're being told all kinds of services will be available once they arrive, when in fact they're just getting pushed out the bus door and dumped on the sidewalk. That takes away any moral high ground Governor Abbott would have otherwise had.
But still the point is: it's easy to proclaim yourself open to undocumented migrants when you don't actually receive very many. I've made this same complaint about Canada several times. It says a lot that NYC and DC and loudly complaining about receiving a few bussfulls of migrants when Texas receives almost that many on a daily basis.
There's also a lot of false narrative going on around it, right? For one, because these bus rides are voluntary, they can get off anytime they want. There's been several stories detailing that some of these migrants, who might at least occasionally be more savvy than Abbott, are just using the buses to get to places like Tennessee. There are several States that aren't "intended" as part of Abbott's messaging who have had buses full of migrants hop off when the bus stops to refuel in their state. You will note Abbott does not crow about that on Fox News, or even acknowledge that it is happening.
The other big thing is people who are here awaiting asylum claims are neither undocumented or illegal, in fact they are taking part in a statutorily defined, legal process, and they have specific documents as per that process.
On top of that, we actually have a formal refugee resettlement program, largely dividing the country into different geographic areas and heavily sponsored by large church organizations (the Catholic Church is a major part of it, but some of the largest Protestant denominations get involved too.) Part of that program is actually designed so they all don't just "collect" right at the point of entry, or at a few specific big cities. That's why "random" cities like Minneapolis and Columbus, OH are some of the big destinations for the formal resettlement program--big cities that can offer services, but that are in states with stagnant population growth that don't generally attract a ton of "natural" immigration. Abbott has many ways to shuttle these people through that process more expeditiously, he is choosing to just cause problems to make a political point, which is not really praiseworthy in any real sense.
Quote from: Barrister on September 15, 2022, 12:01:39 PMThat takes away any moral high ground Governor Abbott would have otherwise had.
Why did you presume he had any to begin with?
Quote from: Barrister on September 15, 2022, 12:01:39 PMBut still the point is: it's easy to proclaim yourself open to undocumented migrants when you don't actually receive very many. I've made this same complaint about Canada several times. It says a lot that NYC and DC and loudly complaining about receiving a few bussfulls of migrants when Texas receives almost that many on a daily basis.
Oh yes, of course, NYC barely gets any inmigrants, for sure.
Quote from: Barrister on September 15, 2022, 12:01:39 PMSo there's kind of a point here.
No there really isn't.
Lots of these immigrants are refugees fleeing Cuba and Venezuela. Want to reduce that flow? Easy - recognize the regimes and pump in some aid.
No - GOP doesn't get to campaign against "Venezuelan socialism" in Texas and Florida and then bus out the refugees. That's beyond cynical and hypocritical.
DC and NYC take plenty of refugees, is that really a question?
The rhetoric around "sanctuary cities" is a lot of heat, little light. What actually is being referred to are policies where cities and states have to make hard choices between helping ICE enforce federal laws and the effectiveness of local law enforcement. In a community with large number of undocumented aliens, it is a very serious safety problem if people won't report serious crimes or risks to public safety, wont get licenses to drive, wont enroll kids in school etc. because they are afraid it will expose them to deportation. It is a real conflict between federal and local needs and politicians do a great disservice when they turn the issue into a political football
My understanding of sanctuary city is that local police don't assist ICE in rounding up and deporting illegal immigrants.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 15, 2022, 08:22:58 PMMy understanding of sanctuary city is that local police don't assist ICE in rounding up and deporting illegal immigrants.
Correct. Though it is not unusual at all in US history for local cops to not enforce federal laws. Prohibition, fugitive slave laws, federal drug laws...
Often they just leave that stuff up to the Feds.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 15, 2022, 11:51:33 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on September 15, 2022, 11:36:10 AMThe societies that succeed in the 21st century will be the ones that are able to attract increasingly scarce labor.
Similar to the 17th and 18th centuries. We did well then: should we revisit those tactics?
I'm not sure who the "we" is that you belong to, but countries like England and the Netherlands did, indeed, prosper greatly by attracting scarce labor like the French Huguenots. The American colonies attracted scarce labor from many countries. In the 19th Century, so did South America, Australia, New Zealand, etc.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 15, 2022, 08:22:58 PMMy understanding of sanctuary city is that local police don't assist ICE in rounding up and deporting illegal immigrants.
The term sanctuary city is political more than legal. It describes a range of policies in which local governments decline to work with Federal immigration officials.
The specifics do actually vary quite a bit from one jurisdiction to the next.
At the end of the day it's not dissimilar from States that have legalized weed. There is zero obligation at law for a State to enforce Federal criminal law. There is generally cooperation between agencies where States and localities will arrest someone on a Federal warrant or on suspicion of most Federal crimes--and this is also because there's mutual interest there. Few states for example have any interest in
not seeing a Federal fugitive arrested or a counterfeiter arrested.
But not all Federal law is so uncontroversial.
The most common intersection between Federal law enforcement and "sanctuary cities", is the Feds become aware that a person has been arrested on local charges, usually some misdemeanor, and that that person is here illegally. In a non-sanctuary city, it is customary if the Feds request the local jail coordinates with the Feds to turn that person over to the immigration system (i.e. ICE for apprehension / processing in immigration courts), the local jail complies. In a sanctuary city, they just don't. That means they don't share information and don't do prisoner transfers. In practice it means they release them onto the streets without telling the Feds when they are doing so.
Note that in some cities ICE agents have apprehended many of these people almost instantly because they just wait outside the local jail to arrest people as they come out. They can't do that everyone, but that is done at some high volume locations.
Note that this also has 0 to do with the people Abbott and DeSantis are shipping around. The people the DumbState guys are shipping around are not arrestable by Federal immigration authorities--they are in fact being released by them.
Quote from: Barrister on September 15, 2022, 12:01:39 PMQuote from: HVC on September 15, 2022, 08:31:32 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on August 22, 2022, 09:44:39 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNBnKRW0TY
Governors of Texas and Arizona busing thousands of illegal immigrants to NYC and DC.
Now they're sending them from Florida to Martha's Vineyard and Kamala's home.
So there's kind of a point here. Texas receives thousands of illegal immigrants per day. Cities like NYC and DC proudly announce themselves as "Sanctuary Cities" that welcome illegal immigrants (although they use the term "undocumented"). Seems like a perfect match then - send these people from a state that is struggling to cope with the numbers of people to cities and states that proclaim to welcome them with open arms.
Where it falls down though is from what I can tell these migrants are being lied to to get on those buses - they're being told all kinds of services will be available once they arrive, when in fact they're just getting pushed out the bus door and dumped on the sidewalk. That takes away any moral high ground Governor Abbott would have otherwise had.
But still the point is: it's easy to proclaim yourself open to undocumented migrants when you don't actually receive very many. I've made this same complaint about Canada several times. It says a lot that NYC and DC and loudly complaining about receiving a few bussfulls of migrants when Texas receives almost that many on a daily basis.
This is fucking grotesque in its straight up racism and utterly false bullshit.
THey are not illegal immigrants. NYC and DC both have massive immigrant populations. Neither of them are "loudly complaining". They are saying "Hey, maybe you could let us know ahead of time so we can actually make some plans to take care of these people you are using as GOP mouthbreather stroke toys". Texas is not "struggling to cope", they are dealing with a problem that has been ongoing for decades, and they have massive resources dedicated to dealing with that problem from both the state AND the federal government.
Stop watching Fox News. My god.
It's using human beings as props for political stunts. It requires a special kind of depravity.
Can we at least have general agreement that any politician engaging in or supporting this is no longer permitted to prattle on about "Christian values"?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 15, 2022, 09:33:41 PMNote that this also has 0 to do with the people Abbott and DeSantis are shipping around. The people the DumbState guys are shipping around are not arrestable by Federal immigration authorities--they are in fact being released by them.
Ya know, I got this the first time you said it.
To clarify, under US statute an illegal more than 200 miles from the border can be deported for a *misdemeanor?*
Quote from: grumbler on September 15, 2022, 08:58:23 PMThe American colonies attracted scarce labor from many countries.
Er yeah, about that...
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 15, 2022, 11:59:21 PMIt's using human beings as props for political stunts. It requires a special kind of depravity.
Can we at least have general agreement that any politician engaging in or supporting this is no longer permitted to prattle on about "Christian values"?
I dunno. Christian values are kind of weird.
Apparently the group of inmigrants sent to Martha's Vineyard from Texas were lured into the plane (paid for by Florida) by being offered food outside a shelter and being told that they would be taken to Boston for processing of their residence papers. Texan authorities deny being part of this particular arrangement.
On the official statement to the media from DeSantis he rambles about how liberal states like New York, California and Massachussets are promoting illegal inmigration, so they should take care of the inmigrants, but apparently never told Mass. authorities that they were sending the plane. Mass., btw, has a Republican governor.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2022, 02:10:05 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 15, 2022, 09:33:41 PMNote that this also has 0 to do with the people Abbott and DeSantis are shipping around. The people the DumbState guys are shipping around are not arrestable by Federal immigration authorities--they are in fact being released by them.
Ya know, I got this the first time you said it.
To clarify, under US statute an illegal more than 200 miles from the border can be deported for a *misdemeanor?*
I am possibly confused as to your question.
Under U.S. law a person present in the United States illegally, can be deported at any time. They are not required to have committed a specific non-immigration related misdemeanor. They are also not required to have "entered" illegally, for example a person on a valid visa enters illegally, but if they stay past the visa expiration date they are now in the country illegally and subject to deportation.
The people being shipped by these buses are not present in the United States illegally, they are here legally, so none of the above applies to them. They are quite literally not illegal immigrants. They are asylum seekers legally present in the United States.
Under U.S. law, you can seek asylum as long as you are physically present in the United States. The nature of how your physical presence occurred, is not relevant to the asylum process. Your immigration status is also not relevant. Once you have applied for asylum, you are allowed to remain in the country regardless of immigration status on a form I-589. This form is with USCIS and while it is pending the asylum process, there is nothing whatsoever illegal about your presence in the United States. In fact, it is allowed as a matter of legal right. If USCIS decides your asylum claim is not merited for the form I-589, you are immediately referred to the immigration court system under form I-862 if you do not have a valid mechanism for legally staying in the United States (i.e. you are not on a visa or permanent residency card.) The form I-862 process is synonymous with the concept of a "Notice to Appear", it means that USCIS has not decided to approve your asylum claim and your claim now has to be heard by an immigration judge who will do a de novo analysis of the case and make a determination as to whether or not you should be granted asylum. You are entirely legal to remain in the United States pending the I-589 or I-862 processes.
Quote from: The Brain on September 16, 2022, 02:13:07 AMQuote from: grumbler on September 15, 2022, 08:58:23 PMThe American colonies attracted scarce labor from many countries.
Er yeah, about that...
Er, yeah, you seemed to have drifted off before finishing your thought.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 15, 2022, 11:59:21 PMIt's using human beings as props for political stunts. It requires a special kind of depravity.
Can we at least have general agreement that any politician engaging in or supporting this is no longer permitted to prattle on about "Christian values"?
Have you read the Old Testament parts of the Bible recently?
:P
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 15, 2022, 11:59:21 PMIt's using human beings as props for political stunts. It requires a special kind of depravity.
Can't use "depravity" and the like, it only compliments them. That's what they're aiming for.
The more horrified and shocked you are, the more they giggle. That's the point.
I'm assuming their Plan B will be to try sending them to Madagascar. Hopefully they'll all be out of office before we get to the final plan.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 16, 2022, 08:57:05 AMCan't use "depravity" and the like, it only compliments them. That's what they're aiming for.
I don't really care what sick fetish gets them off. I'm long past having my conduct being regulated by catering to their psychosis.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 16, 2022, 11:00:49 AMQuote from: CountDeMoney on September 16, 2022, 08:57:05 AMCan't use "depravity" and the like, it only compliments them. That's what they're aiming for.
I don't really care what sick fetish gets them off. I'm long past having my conduct being regulated by catering to their psychosis.
Well sure, its a sick fetish, but you know..."they kind of have a point here". :barf:
Quote from: Berkut on September 15, 2022, 10:34:02 PMThis is fucking grotesque in its straight up racism and utterly false bullshit.
THey are not illegal immigrants. NYC and DC both have massive immigrant populations. Neither of them are "loudly complaining". They are saying "Hey, maybe you could let us know ahead of time so we can actually make some plans to take care of these people you are using as GOP mouthbreather stroke toys". Texas is not "struggling to cope", they are dealing with a problem that has been ongoing for decades, and they have massive resources dedicated to dealing with that problem from both the state AND the federal government.
Stop watching Fox News. My god.
Forgive me for having a nuanced opinion and not just "GOP=EV0L".
Yes, as I understand it these migrants are not "illegal", but rather they have applied for asylum and granted release until their claim is adjudicated. As I understand it most claims are ultimately rejected but the process takes time.
The basic point is that these migrants disproportionately affect border states like Texas. So to the extent that Abbott or De Santis have a point it's to call attention to this fact, and that it's easy to be soft on the issues of migration when you live in regions not really affected by it.
But I thought I was pretty clear that they way they were doing it was absolutely cruel. It's 100% a political stunt. De Santis spending $12 million to fly those people to Martha's Vinyard was grotesque.
You could set up a justifiable system to help migrants move to other locations in the US, but what they're doing isn't it.
And while I've seen clips on Youtube (usually pointing out the ridiculous things Tucker Carlson is saying) I don't think I've ever sat down to watch Fox News. I thought it wasn't even available in Canada, but googling suggests you can find it on some satellite systems. I don't have a satellite system, and haven't for 16 years.
If that's the basic point then they should make that basic point instead of spewing the intellectually dishonest evil bullshit they're spewing.
I'm seeing allegations that not only did the people lie to those migrants in order to induce them to get on the bus or plane, and that they did not inform anyone that the migrants were coming (we knew this part)...
but that they told the migrants to report their new address to the wrong agency, and listed their home address as being at random homeless shelters across the country. That would mean they needed to report to the nearest ICE (or whatever agency) office to those random addresses or they would be removed from the country for violating the terms of their release.
Someone here on a notice to appear for an asylum claim won't be deported over an address inaccuracy, but without seeing specific claims I could not say more.
FWIW asylum seekers do not actually affect Texas that disproportionately vs other States, illegal immigrants do--as I mentioned some time ago when I broke down the different numbers of each that cross over, a large % of illegal migrants are going to known jobs in Texas, California, Arizona and they sometimes or often times have communities they meld into.
Texas does resettle a high number of refugees, but remember it is the 2nd largest state by population. New York also settles a large number, as does Michigan, California, and Florida. Most of the larger states seem to pull their weight on resettlement. New Jersey is maybe the one I'd say resettles far less per capita than most other states with ~9-10 mil population. Kentucky interestingly is an outlier, despite being on the smaller end of State populations it is a big resettler.
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2022, 02:29:27 PMI'm seeing allegations that not only did the people lie to those migrants in order to induce them to get on the bus or plane, and that they did not inform anyone that the migrants were coming (we knew this part)...
but that they told the migrants to report their new address to the wrong agency, and listed their home address as being at random homeless shelters across the country. That would mean they needed to report to the nearest ICE (or whatever agency) office to those random addresses or they would be removed from the country for violating the terms of their release.
Yeah, but the lesson to take from all this is that, you know, they kind of have a point here.
It's certainly clever political theater.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 17, 2022, 10:59:11 AMIt's certainly clever political theater.
Sure, like how chocking wheelchair tires is clever. Or suckerpunching 6 year olds during chemo is clever. Nyuks for votes, so clever.
Trump won Florida in 2020 with a big swing of Venezuelan voters convinced that Biden = SOCIALISM.
How does it play when DeSantis is fake deporting victims of Communist oppression? Are the Magazuelans and their Cuban cousins really so brainwashed that they will keep cheering while the GOP shits in their face?
At the very least the Democrats have to get their PR team in gear. CDM is right about it being a waste of time to talk about cruelty. Try talking about Commandante DeSantis taking his orders from Maduro . . .
The GOP have Cubans locked down. Tied with the redneck north isn't that enough for them to win Florida?
DeSantis believes that private business owners should have to do and say whatever the state tells them or face punishment.
Also did you know that DeSantis is Italian for "Castro"? You can look it up.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2022, 12:50:57 PMTrump won Florida in 2020 with a big swing of Venezuelan voters convinced that Biden = SOCIALISM.
How does it play when DeSantis is fake deporting victims of Communist oppression? Are the Magazuelans and their Cuban cousins really so brainwashed that they will keep cheering while the GOP shits in their face?
From what I've read it is complicated by class. GOP voting Venezuelans in Florida do not see themselves in people trying to cross the border (or the millions forced to flee to Colombia).
If that's true there might even be a bit of "come-uppance" about it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2022, 01:16:45 PMAlso did you know that DeSantis is Italian for "Castro"? You can look it up.
Seriously? That's pretty fucked up. Fidel and Raul don't deserve that.
The Republicans don't really have the Cuban American vote locked up, they have the Cuban American vote above age 40 locked up, likely permanently. But like most cohorts, the 3rd and now 4th generations are different. For one, right now they have a lower voter participation rate, but that is likely to change as they get further into middle age. For two, they are more likely to be English language fluent and English language primary language speakers. A lot of Republican strength in South Florda in 2020 was built on very aggressive Spanish language far-right talk shows and radio stations, which are much more relevant to the over 40 crowd than people under that age, who largely do not listen to talk radio.
There's a lot of opportunities for Democrats to make inroads in Florida, but it's a state where process and mechanics matter, Biden's ground game was widely panned as being abysmal in Florida in 2020, and that built on very poor Dem organizing in the 2018 midterms in Florida. To some degree I think the DCCC gave up on Florida (partially because it is heavily gerrymandered, so many House districts are not competitive), which weakened the brand down there, and the Dems have consequently suffered even more in Presidential and Senate races because of it.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/mcconnell-backs-senate-bipartisan-electoral-reform-bill-2022-09-27/
McConnell supports bipartisan election reform bill. Bill only deals with the certification stuff that takes place in Congress, i.e. the January 6 stuff.
QuoteThe bill would make clear that the vice president's role in certification is purely ceremonial and would require one-fifth of the House of Representatives and the Senate to agree to challenge a state's results. Current law allows objections to proceed with the support of just one lawmaker from each chamber.
1/5th? I'm sure the GOP could easily wrangle that up.
Quote from: HVC on September 27, 2022, 11:07:47 PM1/5th? I'm sure the GOP could easily wrangle that up.
Well it would be less easy than one just one Senator and one Representative.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2022, 11:05:28 PMMcConnell supports bipartisan election reform bill. Bill only deals with the certification stuff that takes place in Congress, i.e. the January 6 stuff.
It actually deals with more. Here is the full text:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4573/text
And Susan Collins (who drafted it) has a simple one page explainer up on her Senate website going over the bullet points:
https://www.collins.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/one_pager_on_electoral_count_reform_act_of_2022.pdf
Some important points:
- Specifies that each state's Governor, unless specifically stated otherwise in a State law or constitution in effect on election day, is responsible for submitting the certificate of ascertainment identifying that state's electors. This largely undercuts the failed efforts in 2020 for State legislatures to appoint "alternate slates" of electors. Firstly, in any State that hasn't vested elector certification outside the Governor's office, it means the Governor has the final say. It also additionally has phrasing that means a State legislature couldn't modify whatever certification process they have after election day if they dislike the results. So whatever they use, be it a Secretary of State or whatever, they can't change the process post-election.
- Creates an expedited judicial review process for certain claims relating to elector certification, which would make any legal challenges faster to resolve.
- As mentioned it notes the Vice President has a purely ceremonial, ministerial role, and can exercise no political discretion.
- As mentioned, raises the objection threshold from one member of each house to one-fifth of both.
- Strikes a provision of an archaic and poorly worded 1845 law that state legislatures (theoretically) could have used to override the popular vote by declaring a "failed election." This makes that explicitly disallowed, significantly curtailing various theories on how a rogue far right State legislature (which many are, even in swing states) can go after election day to steal an election.
So it's actually a legit improvement then? That's good to hear.
Quote from: Jacob on September 28, 2022, 11:03:27 PMSo it's actually a legit improvement then? That's good to hear.
It's mostly just clarification of what has always been the case (bar the increase in the number of congressmen needed to challenge a state electoral slate), but useful clarifications. Anything Mitch McConnel supports needs to be examined skeptically, but he isn't incapable of supporting something that does good.
Yeah, aside from the threshold language, this was all stuff that was "widely agreed upon", but never strenuously tested, if that makes sense. A lot of these linchpins were sources of conspiratorial talk by far right people who believed they could create a new interpretation of the laws and use that to their advantage. Some of that was because the Electoral Count Act itself had some vague wording, that bad actors could use to present bad arguments. This legislation is fairly explicit in saying these things are not legal at all, and explicit that the Vice President when acting as the President of the Senate for certification, is acting in a solely ministerial function--which was the wide understanding before this, but this makes it unambiguous in statutory text.
It is all good, but it also sucks.
Having to make these kinds of laws explicit just makes it seem more legitimate to try to find a loophole in them, rather then relying on more unwritten standards and expectations.
It cleans up the potential mischief of rogue state legislatures, but doubles down on the vulnerability to potential mischief by a state governor. A concern given the possibility of a Mastriano as governor of a swing state.
The other fly in the ointment is whether this Supreme Court would uphold it if challenged.
Biden to America: "420 blaze it"
https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1578097875480895489
Dank Brandon is here.
So, presidential pardon for all federal offenders of marijuana posession (and asking all governors to do so as well for state offenders) should be the headline news. Obviously recalcitrant Republican MAGA governors will now make marijuana posession a death penalty crime, I guess.
Also, this picture from his tour of Florida visiting areas affected by Hurricane Ian seems to be part of The Onion's "Diamond Joe" pieces. :lol:
(https://mapi.associatedpress.com/v1/items/14271b8807444d93b04bb70e4da66fae.1/preview/AP22278716941078.jpg?wm=api&ver=1&tag=app_id=4,user_id=349344,org_id=63032)
I thought Barry had already done this.
Well he is also asking for Pot to be reclassified. That, to me, is the main thing. decriminalize it on a Federal level is one of the main things I want him to do. And hurry it up, the election is approaching.
Quote from: BrandonFirst: I'm pardoning all prior federal offenses of simple marijuana possession. There are thousands of people who were previously convicted of simple possession who may be denied employment, housing, or educational opportunities as a result. My pardon will remove this burden.
Second: I'm calling on governors to pardon simple state marijuana possession offenses. Just as no one should be in a federal prison solely for possessing marijuana, no one should be in a local jail or state prison for that reason, either.
Third: We classify marijuana at the same level as heroin – and more serious than fentanyl. It makes no sense. I'm asking @SecBecerra and the Attorney General to initiate the process of reviewing how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.
The attack ads I'm seeing on the Democratic candidate for Congress in my district have been focusing exclusively on Defund The Police.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2022, 02:46:30 PMThe attack ads I'm seeing on the Democratic candidate for Congress in my district have been focusing exclusively on Defund The Police.
They know that is a winning move. The fact that that was just a policy by radical activists and not the Congressional Democrats doesn't matter :P
the GOP is actually running on a defund the police platform, however. Gut the IRS and make the nation safe for tax fraudsters.
Quote from: Valmy on October 07, 2022, 03:06:14 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2022, 02:46:30 PMThe attack ads I'm seeing on the Democratic candidate for Congress in my district have been focusing exclusively on Defund The Police.
They know that is a winning move. The fact that that was just a policy by radical activists and not the Congressional Democrats doesn't matter :P
Seems dumb...it is like they have one playbook with like 3 plays and they just run those plays regardless of the situation. Why not focus on inflation and the deficit?
Quote from: alfred russel on October 07, 2022, 04:37:58 PMQuote from: Valmy on October 07, 2022, 03:06:14 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2022, 02:46:30 PMThe attack ads I'm seeing on the Democratic candidate for Congress in my district have been focusing exclusively on Defund The Police.
They know that is a winning move. The fact that that was just a policy by radical activists and not the Congressional Democrats doesn't matter :P
Seems dumb...it is like they have one playbook with like 3 plays and they just run those plays regardless of the situation. Why not focus on inflation and the deficit?
If I were to guess it is because the culture wars don't care about that sort of thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfVne0kZENM
Tulsi Gabbard announces she is leaving the Democratic Party.
This broad has been on a bizarre political journey. I'd guess she ends up on Fox but who knows.
United Russia has no American branch for her to join.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2022, 07:31:14 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfVne0kZENM
Tulsi Gabbard announces she is leaving the Democratic Party.
This broad has been on a bizarre political journey. I'd guess she ends up on Fox but who knows.
Her reasoning is bizarre. So she was a right wing populist this whole time and for some reason thought the Democrats were the right wing populist party?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2022, 07:31:14 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfVne0kZENM
Tulsi Gabbard announces she is leaving the Democratic Party.
This broad has been on a bizarre political journey. I'd guess she ends up on Fox but who knows.
She has been on Fox for some time now.
Asoka
Quote from: Berkut on October 12, 2022, 01:03:11 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2022, 07:31:14 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfVne0kZENM
Tulsi Gabbard announces she is leaving the Democratic Party.
This broad has been on a bizarre political journey. I'd guess she ends up on Fox but who knows.
She has been on Fox for some time now.
Yeah she regularly subs for one of their shows I understand. Tucker I think? Regardless her reasons for leaving the Democratic Party were just right wing talking points not any real critique of the Democrats that I would expect from an actual disillusioned Democrat.
Every time I read anything about Tulsi Gabbard she always sounded like an undercover Republican within the Democratic party, so I doubt that her leaving the Dems will have any profound effect after all.
Quote from: The Larch on October 12, 2022, 12:44:38 PMEvery time I read anything about Tulsi Gabbard she always sounded like an undercover Republican within the Democratic party, so I doubt that her leaving the Dems will have any profound effect after all.
Yeah watching her during her campaign and she reminded me a bit of Glenn Greenwald.
I think Sinema may end up on a similar (if less loopy version) from Green to Fox commentator.
My voting starts Wednesday. When does y'all's start?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 18, 2022, 02:08:49 AMMy voting starts Wednesday. When does y'all's start?
:cool:
I think the Biden administration has done a sterling* job containing Putin's war and communicating to him the dire consequence of any nuclear/chemical/bio escalation.
Though the full story of how they handled the Ukraine war won't come out for a fair few years.
* no irony intended.
John Durham struck out again.
I voted. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2022, 01:54:40 AMI voted. :)
Thanks for the reminder. I just barely made it in past the deadline to get my ballot sent to me. :cheers:
Most consequential vote of your life?
Quote from: mongers on October 20, 2022, 06:17:47 AMMost consequential vote of your life?
Every vote is "the election of our life time!"
Or at least every vote every two years.
Early voting starts in Texas on Monday and I fully expect to vote that morning as per usual.
Wasn't there an election yesterday in Georgia? :unsure:
Quote from: Josquius on October 21, 2022, 04:58:05 AMWasn't there an election yesterday in Georgia? :unsure:
If you mean the Senate mid-term one, it's in 3 weeks.
Quote from: Josquius on October 21, 2022, 04:58:05 AMWasn't there an election yesterday in Georgia? :unsure:
There are elections someplace in the US all the time, but the big one is in early November.
Quote from: mongers on October 20, 2022, 06:17:47 AMMost consequential vote of your life?
Most consequential mid term I'd say.
Polls don't look good for Iowa races.
Voted!
I hope all you Americans on here get out there and cast your ballot soon.
I voted.
Not looking forward to the next two years of lunatics running the House.
Quote from: Habbaku on October 24, 2022, 07:30:17 PMI voted.
Not looking forward to the next two years of lunatics running the House.
It may be for the best. The next year is likely to be tough economically and without shared power that is all going to be on Biden. Spending is going to be constrained by inflation concerns and the deficit, so it doesn't seem like the next two years will have a ton of opportunity to do much legislatively whoever controls congress.
2024 is not only a presidential election year, but unlike this year the democrats are defending a fuckton of at risk senators...a wipe out in 2024 would be far worse than one in 2022.
Losing the House sucks but losing the Senate would be far worse. So long as we have the Senate, Joe can still appoint people and run the government. We came very close to a disastrous situation in 2020 before those miraculous Georgia victories.
I voted six times this time around before they found me out.
Quote from: Valmy on October 25, 2022, 09:34:59 AMLosing the House sucks but losing the Senate would be far worse. So long as we have the Senate, Joe can still appoint people and run the government. We came very close to a disastrous situation in 2020 before those miraculous Georgia victories.
If we can't function with a republican senate and a democratic president then we should just give up on democracy / functional government. I'm not saying we can, but I'm hopeful.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 25, 2022, 10:35:03 AMQuote from: Valmy on October 25, 2022, 09:34:59 AMLosing the House sucks but losing the Senate would be far worse. So long as we have the Senate, Joe can still appoint people and run the government. We came very close to a disastrous situation in 2020 before those miraculous Georgia victories.
If we can't function with a republican senate and a democratic president then we should just give up on democracy / functional government. I'm not saying we can, but I'm hopeful.
Do you think if a SC Justice retires, under any circumstances, McConnell will allow Biden to appoint a replacement?
Quote from: alfred russel on October 25, 2022, 10:35:03 AMQuote from: Valmy on October 25, 2022, 09:34:59 AMLosing the House sucks but losing the Senate would be far worse. So long as we have the Senate, Joe can still appoint people and run the government. We came very close to a disastrous situation in 2020 before those miraculous Georgia victories.
If we can't function with a republican senate and a democratic president then we should just give up on democracy / functional government. I'm not saying we can, but I'm hopeful.
Well McConnell had promised to block every appointment to the Cabinet. So we didn't get an opportunity to find out.
Maybe the bigger concern for me is that Republican candidate quality is plummeting. You have people like Tommy Tuberville in the Senate, who while a good football coach doesn't seem at all coherent as a political leader. You could have people coming into the senate like Herschel Walker who is far worse. Dr. Oz, Blake Masters, an incredibly senile dude from Iowa, etc....at a certain point the problem isn't just that the republican side is supporting bad policy but the republican side is just a random collection of clueless dudes with a history of domestic violence and success at russian roulette.
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2022, 10:39:52 AMQuote from: alfred russel on October 25, 2022, 10:35:03 AMQuote from: Valmy on October 25, 2022, 09:34:59 AMLosing the House sucks but losing the Senate would be far worse. So long as we have the Senate, Joe can still appoint people and run the government. We came very close to a disastrous situation in 2020 before those miraculous Georgia victories.
If we can't function with a republican senate and a democratic president then we should just give up on democracy / functional government. I'm not saying we can, but I'm hopeful.
Do you think if a SC Justice retires, under any circumstances, McConnell will allow Biden to appoint a replacement?
There is a zero chance.
Yeah, under normal circumstances even a recalcitrant Republican Senate would likely approve most cabinet officials and most non-Supreme Court justices. But with the general decline in quality of Republican Senators as even the Senate gets captured by the anti-reality faction it is hard to say what happens. Our Federal government was largely designed to not work well if there was extreme factionalism, but the safety valve for that back in the Founding era was the Federal government was not all that important. Then in a lucky bit of history one of the major factions essentially died off so we had one party rule for a long time which allowed things to function. It is difficult to see how we don't face the likelihood in the next few decades of a prolonged period of the Federal government largely ceasing to function in many areas. A sort of "patch" has been for Presidents to kinda go off the books and do whatever they want, without congressional approval, but the courts are starting to quash that down.
For appointments outside of executive branch, I think you won't ever see an opposite party Supreme Court justice confirmed by the Senate again in our lifetimes, like I genuinely think for example if a Democrat Senate (or vice versa) was seated, with a Republican President, and a Supreme Court justice died or retired the first week of that President's term, the Supreme Court would simply have 8 justices indefinitely. Until either the President's party won the Senate or the Presidency was retaken by the Senate party.
Is this real? Ben Shapiro - who to my knowledge has never said a single thing I agree with - endorses Fetterman (D) over Dr. Oz (R) in Pennsylvania?
https://twitter.com/i/status/1584901721980997632
Quote from: Jacob on October 26, 2022, 05:14:38 PMIs this real? Ben Shapiro - who to my knowledge has never said a single thing I agree with - endorses Fetterman (D) over Dr. Oz (R) in Pennsylvania?
https://twitter.com/i/status/1584901721980997632
Taking a look at Shapiro's Twitter feed (i feel dirty now), I doubt the veracity of that clip.
My money is on real. AFAIK his shtick has always been culture war stuff and he hasn't made a lot of pronouncements about who to vote for. Plus that is his voice and the likeness is synced with it so I don't think deep fake.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 26, 2022, 05:47:37 PMMy money is on real. AFAIK his shtick has always been culture war stuff and he hasn't made a lot of pronouncements about who to vote for. Plus that is his voice and the likeness is synced with it so I don't think deep fake.
Every single reference he makes to Fetterman in his feed, tweets, retweets, quoted articles, etc, is a negative one.
Quote from: The Larch on October 26, 2022, 06:00:14 PMEvery single reference he makes to Fetterman in his feed, tweets, retweets, quoted articles, etc, is a negative one.
Fair enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cYYSOh3_uo
Another abortion for Hershel.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 26, 2022, 05:47:37 PMMy money is on real. AFAIK his shtick has always been culture war stuff and he hasn't made a lot of pronouncements about who to vote for. Plus that is his voice and the likeness is synced with it so I don't think deep fake.
I thought it looked totally fake and out of synch. Not a deep fake, just barely plausible lip-synching and well-time cutaways.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 26, 2022, 06:03:14 PMAnother abortion for Hershel.
A lot of republicans pay lip service to women's health and providing a safety net outside of government; but it seems like Herschel is one of the few actually willing to put his personal resources behind those things?
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 26, 2022, 08:01:41 PMI thought it looked totally fake and out of synch. Not a deep fake, just barely plausible lip-synching and well-time cutaways.
I took another look and now I think they spliced together actual footage of Shapiro actually saying those things. Mehmet Oz [splice] is [splice] really, really bad.
Quote from: Jacob on October 26, 2022, 05:14:38 PMIs this real? Ben Shapiro - who to my knowledge has never said a single thing I agree with - endorses Fetterman (D) over Dr. Oz (R) in Pennsylvania?
https://twitter.com/i/status/1584901721980997632
Had to take look and no it isn't. The Twitter is from a guy who creatively edits video. Here's one where he make Tucker Carlson attack the cops. I don't think he's trying to actively deceive people, but it easily can be used to trick people. He's dabbling in black magic.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2022, 09:07:05 PMQuote from: Jacob on October 26, 2022, 05:14:38 PMIs this real? Ben Shapiro - who to my knowledge has never said a single thing I agree with - endorses Fetterman (D) over Dr. Oz (R) in Pennsylvania?
https://twitter.com/i/status/1584901721980997632
Had to take look and no it isn't. The Twitter is from a guy who creatively edits video. Here's one where he make Tucker Carlson attack the cops. I don't think he's trying to actively deceive people, but it easily can be used to trick people. He's dabbling in black magic.
That's actually pretty funny
QuoteIntruder Assaults Nancy Pelosi's Husband in Their San Francisco Home
Paul Pelosi was hospitalized after the assault, a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said. The House speaker was not in San Francisco at the time.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi's husband, Paul Pelosi, was hospitalized after he was assaulted by someone who broke into the couple's residence in San Francisco early on Friday morning, a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said.
"Early this morning, an assailant broke into the Pelosi residence in San Francisco and violently assaulted Mr. Pelosi," Drew Hammill, the spokesman, said in a statement on Friday. "The assailant is in custody and the motivation for the attack is under investigation."
Mr. Hammill said Mr. Pelosi was expected to make a full recovery. Ms. Pelosi was not in San Francisco at the time of the attack, he said.
"The Speaker and her family are grateful to the first responders and medical professionals involved, and request privacy at this time," Mr. Hammill said.
Now that's a Crazy Canuck.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/10/27/democrats-debate-why-do-we-suck-00063718
QuoteDemocrats Debate Themselves: Why Do We Suck?
If the party loses the midterms there will be no shortage of I-told-you-so explanations.
By JOHN F. HARRIS
10/27/2022 04:30 AM EDT
Twelve days before the election, Democrats have yet to lose the House or Senate, or confront the dire, your-lab-results-are-back-and-the-doctor-needs-to-see-you implications for a progressive agenda.
Plenty of prominent party voices, however, believe it's best to prepare in advance. It is one of the more notable features of the 2022 midterms — the readiness to perform an autopsy on a living patient. Many Democrats believe there is already sufficient evidence to make the question unavoidable: What the hell is our problem?
Too woke, argued former president Barack Obama in a Pod Save America interview with his former aides. Some Democrats are a "buzzkill," he suggested, by making people "feel as if they are walking on eggshells" that they might say things "the wrong way."
Too timid on the jobs and economy message, warned Sen. Bernie Sanders. "Young people and working people" won't turn out, he told CNN, without "a strong, pro-worker Democratic position."
Too much reliance on abortion-rights positioning, not enough on anti-crime, said James Carville, who believes his 1990s-era political instincts are not as obsolete as a younger generation of liberals believes.
A weak message (and by implication so-so substance) on inflation, pronounced former Sen. Al Franken on his podcast, acknowledging he is "stressed out" by what may happen next month. "Things have not been trending in the right direction of late."
These are just some entries in a long roster of here's-why-we-suck analysis from Democrats, in the closing days before the Nov. 8 election. This kind of told-you-so fretting is common after a disappointing election, or even in not-my-fault, not-for-attribution chatter among operatives beforehand.
There are two, closely related reasons why the soul-searching this year started early, even as there remains a decent (though some polls suggest dwindling) chance it won't be needed.
One, candidates and progressive commentators are describing 2022 as the most important midterm election in generations. Someday, perhaps, we will have an election in which people say, "You know, this one is actually not that big a deal — there's little at stake either way." Still, this year — with Donald Trump's past, present and future still looming over all American politics — does genuinely qualify as consequential. Which means the after-election ruminations will similarly be among the most consequential.
Two, Democrats are genuinely confronting a political moment that for most defies comprehension. As Nancy Pelosi put it in an interview with the New York Times, explaining her against-the-current optimism: "Part of it is, I can't believe anybody would vote for these people."
In the 30 years that I have been covering politics, one constant was that people in both major parties had the same envious complaint about the other: We are too principled for our own good. The opposition is just better at being ruthless than we are.
What has changed in recent years is the end of equivalence. It is inconceivable to imagine any Democratic politician in modern times having such a grip on supporters that he or she would remain an unchallenged leader after losing an election or being under multiple simultaneous criminal investigations.
The possibility that two seismic events — the revelations of the Jan. 6 committee about Trump's effort to overturn the 2020 election, and the Supreme Court's June decision to revoke a constitutional right to abortion — might not reshape the political landscape in Democrats' favor puts the question in the starkest light: What will it take to change the fundamentals?
One answer is that Democrats perhaps shouldn't be so hard on themselves, even if they lose congressional control. Since World War II, the party holding the White House has lost seats in every midterm election, except in 1998 (amid backlash to the Bill Clinton impeachment) and 2002 (with George W. Bush still commanding support a year after 9/11). It is only because Democrats last summer allowed expectations that 2022 would be another of those anomalous years to soar that the likely return of old patterns is so jarring.
But another answer is that 2022 is in fact a year of useful experiments for Democrats. For decades, progressives like Sanders have argued that voters want a choice, not an echo — that drawing sharp stylistic lines and advocating an ambitious liberal agenda would motivate voters more effectively than play-it-safe centrism.
Democrat John Fetterman's Senate campaign in Pennsylvania against Trump-backed television physician Mehmet Oz, as well as Democrat Mandela Barnes's effort to unseat Republican incumbent Sen. Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, both offer good tests of the hypothesis. As both contests have become more challenging for Democrats, some allies of Barnes and Fetterman have complained of ineffective support from establishment Democrats in Washington.
Also facing a severe test is the long-time belief among many Democrats that demography is destiny — that as the country becomes more diverse, a multiracial coalition would inevitably yield huge benefits for progressive candidates. In Nevada, however, a state with a large and growing Hispanic population, a Democratic incumbent, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, whose mother was a Mexican immigrant, is in a close race against Republican Adam Laxalt, a Trump-backer who has challenged the legitimacy of the 2020 election.
Above all, the Democratic post-election analysis will have large implications for President Joseph Biden. Legislative victories and modestly improved poll numbers last summer quieted widespread grumbling among Democrats that he might be too old or too weakened to be the best Democratic nominee in 2024, especially if the outcome of losing is Trump's return to the White House. This stewing will return in force if Democrats have especially weak midterms, in which an unpopular president was simply not welcome in many key races.
Of course, it is not just Democrats who will be facing post-mortems. If Republicans fail to take the Senate, there will be widespread recriminations over candidate choices in several states, including Pennsylvania if Oz loses, and also in Georgia, where former football star Herschel Walker has run a stumbling campaign beset by allegations over his personal life.
Amid all this fluidity, there is one reliable constant. Post-election debates are always a way of returning to arguments that the debaters have been waging for years. Just as no one ever says any election is unimportant, there has never been a documented case of an operative or election analyst saying, "Unfortunately, these results show that premises I have articulated for years now are just not true. I'm not sure what to say about the results except that I have been wrong about everything."
FILED UNDER: JOHN HARRIS, COLUMN | ALTITUDE
As I get older and I see this play out year in and year out, I find myself increasingly questioning many of the core premises underlying the sort of discussions and theories being considered in this article.
There's many criticisms of Democrats that seem perfectly on point, and seem to highlight bad political instincts they have.
At the same time I reflect on the fact that in 2020 you could say the same. In 2018 you could say the same. In 2016 you could say the same--also 2014, 2012, 2010, etc. The only significant election where I felt like you really couldn't point to any serious Democratic missteps was the 2006 and 2008 election cycle.
Note that the Democrats did end up winning the Senate and White House in 2020--including winning two Senate seats in Georgia and winning states like Georgia and Arizona in the electoral college. Note that the Democrats won a pretty thumping victory in the House elections in 2018.
It doesn't really seem like the results actually correspond that much to "mistakes." Likewise I can breakdown some pretty serious and stupid mistakes the GOP has made in every election cycle going back at least to 1980, and again, they win some they lose some.
I think the bitter reality is in a two party country, unless one party somehow slips into a weird structural position of being a clearly weak minority party (which has happened a few times--see the era after the Civil War, the New Deal era and a few others), both parties are going to command large bases that just aren't really persuadable. This serves as an important backstop.
Additionally, there seems to be a disconcerting portion of our population that simply is always perpetually unhappy with whomever is in charge. These voters are often self-identified independents, usually have a partisan lean, but are fairly unpredictable. They also tend to be lower information, lower education voters, likely to get "upset" about something pretty easily, even if their new position conflicts fairly directly with their expressed preference via voting just the election before.
None of that is to say that I don't think the mechanics of politics ever matter, but I think it seems more like large events shape how people are going to vote, and all the braying we focus on may move things fairly minimally. Parties appear to be able to win convincingly when external forces conspire to help them--think the Great Depression for FDR, or the double whammy of the full scope of Bush's inept management of the Iraq war rolling into the Great Recession in the back to back '06/'08 elections. I don't think these mega-wave elections represented amazing politics by the victors, just more that they were in the right place at the right time.
Covid probably ended Trump's Presidency, and likely was going to have done so regardless of what he did. Inflation likely will end the Democrats current congressional majorities. It can be fun to blame it on political strategy, and maybe even a little reassuring because it tells us we control our own destiny, but I don't know that it's really true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-izbh7UECIc
Nancy Pelosi's husband has his skull fratured by home invader yelling "where's Nancy, where's Nancy."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2022, 09:16:43 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-izbh7UECIc
Nancy Pelosi's husband has his skull fratured by home invader yelling "where's Nancy, where's Nancy."
I wonder what this guys Internet history looks like. Hmm.
Quote from: Josquius on October 29, 2022, 06:35:17 PMI wonder what this guys Internet history looks like. Hmm.
I wondered the exact same thing until I watched the link, which told me.
:P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2022, 09:16:43 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-izbh7UECIc
Nancy Pelosi's husband has his skull fratured by home invader yelling "where's Nancy, where's Nancy."
Jesse Watters, Fox News host, wants the attacker released, thinks he is being treated unfairly. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fox-news-host-suggests-releasing-pelosi-suspect-says-hammer-attacks-common/ar-AA13uRoS?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=c35c16daafbe4217f082fc01de7b52ce
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 29, 2022, 06:48:47 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 29, 2022, 06:35:17 PMI wonder what this guys Internet history looks like. Hmm.
I wondered the exact same thing until I watched the link, which told me.
Not much on his internet history though dancing at a nudist wedding. :lmfao:
A far right nudist activist is something I was not really expecting. I guess that San Francisco is truly weird like that.
Quote from: The Larch on October 30, 2022, 08:22:42 AMA far right nudist activist is something I was not really expecting. I guess that San Francisco is truly weird like that.
I don't know if it's that surprising any more - what with the QAnon shaman etc.
Also the weird stuff going round about masculinity, lifestyle, diet etc on the far-right at the minute which seems like the sort of stuff that, when I was younger, you'd associate with conspiracies but not necessarily racism or being far-righ :hmm:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 28, 2022, 05:55:00 PMhttps://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/10/27/democrats-debate-why-do-we-suck-00063718
QuoteDemocrats Debate Themselves: Why Do We Suck?
If the party loses the midterms there will be no shortage of I-told-you-so explanations.
By JOHN F. HARRIS
10/27/2022 04:30 AM EDT
Twelve days before the election, Democrats have yet to lose the House or Senate, or confront the dire, your-lab-results-are-back-and-the-doctor-needs-to-see-you implications for a progressive agenda.
Plenty of prominent party voices, however, believe it's best to prepare in advance. It is one of the more notable features of the 2022 midterms — the readiness to perform an autopsy on a living patient. Many Democrats believe there is already sufficient evidence to make the question unavoidable: What the hell is our problem?
Too woke, argued former president Barack Obama in a Pod Save America interview with his former aides. Some Democrats are a "buzzkill," he suggested, by making people "feel as if they are walking on eggshells" that they might say things "the wrong way."
Too timid on the jobs and economy message, warned Sen. Bernie Sanders. "Young people and working people" won't turn out, he told CNN, without "a strong, pro-worker Democratic position."
Too much reliance on abortion-rights positioning, not enough on anti-crime, said James Carville, who believes his 1990s-era political instincts are not as obsolete as a younger generation of liberals believes.
A weak message (and by implication so-so substance) on inflation, pronounced former Sen. Al Franken on his podcast, acknowledging he is "stressed out" by what may happen next month. "Things have not been trending in the right direction of late."
These are just some entries in a long roster of here's-why-we-suck analysis from Democrats, in the closing days before the Nov. 8 election. This kind of told-you-so fretting is common after a disappointing election, or even in not-my-fault, not-for-attribution chatter among operatives beforehand.
There are two, closely related reasons why the soul-searching this year started early, even as there remains a decent (though some polls suggest dwindling) chance it won't be needed.
One, candidates and progressive commentators are describing 2022 as the most important midterm election in generations. Someday, perhaps, we will have an election in which people say, "You know, this one is actually not that big a deal — there's little at stake either way." Still, this year — with Donald Trump's past, present and future still looming over all American politics — does genuinely qualify as consequential. Which means the after-election ruminations will similarly be among the most consequential.
Two, Democrats are genuinely confronting a political moment that for most defies comprehension. As Nancy Pelosi put it in an interview with the New York Times, explaining her against-the-current optimism: "Part of it is, I can't believe anybody would vote for these people."
In the 30 years that I have been covering politics, one constant was that people in both major parties had the same envious complaint about the other: We are too principled for our own good. The opposition is just better at being ruthless than we are.
What has changed in recent years is the end of equivalence. It is inconceivable to imagine any Democratic politician in modern times having such a grip on supporters that he or she would remain an unchallenged leader after losing an election or being under multiple simultaneous criminal investigations.
The possibility that two seismic events — the revelations of the Jan. 6 committee about Trump's effort to overturn the 2020 election, and the Supreme Court's June decision to revoke a constitutional right to abortion — might not reshape the political landscape in Democrats' favor puts the question in the starkest light: What will it take to change the fundamentals?
One answer is that Democrats perhaps shouldn't be so hard on themselves, even if they lose congressional control. Since World War II, the party holding the White House has lost seats in every midterm election, except in 1998 (amid backlash to the Bill Clinton impeachment) and 2002 (with George W. Bush still commanding support a year after 9/11). It is only because Democrats last summer allowed expectations that 2022 would be another of those anomalous years to soar that the likely return of old patterns is so jarring.
But another answer is that 2022 is in fact a year of useful experiments for Democrats. For decades, progressives like Sanders have argued that voters want a choice, not an echo — that drawing sharp stylistic lines and advocating an ambitious liberal agenda would motivate voters more effectively than play-it-safe centrism.
Democrat John Fetterman's Senate campaign in Pennsylvania against Trump-backed television physician Mehmet Oz, as well as Democrat Mandela Barnes's effort to unseat Republican incumbent Sen. Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, both offer good tests of the hypothesis. As both contests have become more challenging for Democrats, some allies of Barnes and Fetterman have complained of ineffective support from establishment Democrats in Washington.
Also facing a severe test is the long-time belief among many Democrats that demography is destiny — that as the country becomes more diverse, a multiracial coalition would inevitably yield huge benefits for progressive candidates. In Nevada, however, a state with a large and growing Hispanic population, a Democratic incumbent, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, whose mother was a Mexican immigrant, is in a close race against Republican Adam Laxalt, a Trump-backer who has challenged the legitimacy of the 2020 election.
Above all, the Democratic post-election analysis will have large implications for President Joseph Biden. Legislative victories and modestly improved poll numbers last summer quieted widespread grumbling among Democrats that he might be too old or too weakened to be the best Democratic nominee in 2024, especially if the outcome of losing is Trump's return to the White House. This stewing will return in force if Democrats have especially weak midterms, in which an unpopular president was simply not welcome in many key races.
Of course, it is not just Democrats who will be facing post-mortems. If Republicans fail to take the Senate, there will be widespread recriminations over candidate choices in several states, including Pennsylvania if Oz loses, and also in Georgia, where former football star Herschel Walker has run a stumbling campaign beset by allegations over his personal life.
Amid all this fluidity, there is one reliable constant. Post-election debates are always a way of returning to arguments that the debaters have been waging for years. Just as no one ever says any election is unimportant, there has never been a documented case of an operative or election analyst saying, "Unfortunately, these results show that premises I have articulated for years now are just not true. I'm not sure what to say about the results except that I have been wrong about everything."
FILED UNDER: JOHN HARRIS, COLUMN | ALTITUDE
As I get older and I see this play out year in and year out, I find myself increasingly questioning many of the core premises underlying the sort of discussions and theories being considered in this article.
There's many criticisms of Democrats that seem perfectly on point, and seem to highlight bad political instincts they have.
At the same time I reflect on the fact that in 2020 you could say the same. In 2018 you could say the same. In 2016 you could say the same--also 2014, 2012, 2010, etc. The only significant election where I felt like you really couldn't point to any serious Democratic missteps was the 2006 and 2008 election cycle.
Note that the Democrats did end up winning the Senate and White House in 2020--including winning two Senate seats in Georgia and winning states like Georgia and Arizona in the electoral college. Note that the Democrats won a pretty thumping victory in the House elections in 2018.
It doesn't really seem like the results actually correspond that much to "mistakes." Likewise I can breakdown some pretty serious and stupid mistakes the GOP has made in every election cycle going back at least to 1980, and again, they win some they lose some.
I think the bitter reality is in a two party country, unless one party somehow slips into a weird structural position of being a clearly weak minority party (which has happened a few times--see the era after the Civil War, the New Deal era and a few others), both parties are going to command large bases that just aren't really persuadable. This serves as an important backstop.
Additionally, there seems to be a disconcerting portion of our population that simply is always perpetually unhappy with whomever is in charge. These voters are often self-identified independents, usually have a partisan lean, but are fairly unpredictable. They also tend to be lower information, lower education voters, likely to get "upset" about something pretty easily, even if their new position conflicts fairly directly with their expressed preference via voting just the election before.
None of that is to say that I don't think the mechanics of politics ever matter, but I think it seems more like large events shape how people are going to vote, and all the braying we focus on may move things fairly minimally. Parties appear to be able to win convincingly when external forces conspire to help them--think the Great Depression for FDR, or the double whammy of the full scope of Bush's inept management of the Iraq war rolling into the Great Recession in the back to back '06/'08 elections. I don't think these mega-wave elections represented amazing politics by the victors, just more that they were in the right place at the right time.
Covid probably ended Trump's Presidency, and likely was going to have done so regardless of what he did. Inflation likely will end the Democrats current congressional majorities. It can be fun to blame it on political strategy, and maybe even a little reassuring because it tells us we control our own destiny, but I don't know that it's really true.
I'm not sure why you would conclude that the bases aren't persuadable during an ongoing political realignment and rather significant shifts in the policies of the parties. Hell, even on major issues the public has changed extremely rapidly: see gay rights and race relations.
I think that the democrats are badly erring by not fighting harder during the realignment to stop republicans from becoming a culturally reactionary party with the values and prejudices of the non college educated and educated voters that only really care about not paying much in taxes. I think with that coalition republicans will be tough to stop the next decade, especially if they find a leader less personally repugnant than Trump.
Because I don't see any sign that the bases are being persuaded. I don't see that significant of a realignment occurring either. I do see the squishy middle narrowing in size.
If all voters cared about is not paying taxes, the Republicans would have won every election for the last 100 years. As I said, the election results don't seem to actually track these aphorisms and meandering opinions people have.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2022, 07:19:15 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2022, 09:16:43 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-izbh7UECIc
Nancy Pelosi's husband has his skull fratured by home invader yelling "where's Nancy, where's Nancy."
Jesse Watters, Fox News host, wants the attacker released, thinks he is being treated unfairly.
Paul Pelosi is a crisis actor. That explains how he's not dead. I mean, how do you survive a hammer to the skull unless it's fake, right? And at that age? He didn't even have a Life Alert button. I'm mean, c'mon. Obviously fake.
And right before the election? Obvious false flag operation by the Democrats, just trying to divert attention away from all the inevitable Republican victories next week by candidates that won't accept any other result anyway.
Enjoy your 1933, people.
That reminds me, I really need to get my passport renewal application in.
Speaking about how political strategy seems to rarely track or predict results--there is significant foretelling that Republicans plan to use their future Congressional majority to force cutbacks to Social Security and Medicare. Note that from any form of political thinking this is a gravely terrible idea.
It presents Biden the opportunity to defend something important to almost all Americans, and importantly--programs that large majorities of the Republican party itself vociferously support.
Even worse in terms of tactics, it is in misalignment with the "new" Republican coalition. The surge of blue collar, non-college educated and lower income whites into the party are made up of people who are overwhelmingly not neoliberals. This is not the GOP of the 80s and 90s where the base of the party was more likely to be college educated, upper middle class, managerial / entrepreneurial types. They are essentially absorbing the Democrats old, organized labor industrial base voters, who have no problems at all with public spending on welfare as long as it benefits their class and ethnic group specifically (there is a reason they tend to oppose food stamps and TANF, those are perceived as being benefits for blacks, Social Security and Medicare are not.)
Trump had a decent political feel for this coalition and came out strongly during the GOP primaries in 2016 against any cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and largely never entertained such thinking during his four years in office.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuPiWLPBs1Y
Ted Cruz says the right thing about Paul Pelosi.
"Remember, the Democrats are godless Satanists who want to turn your kids gay, change their gender, and sell them to pedophiles. They're stealing your money and giving it to illegal immigrant criminals. They stole the election and will steal the next election. They oppose you, your way of life, and everything you stand for.
But please don't kill them."
Isn't he the Zodiac Killer? Glass houses and what not.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 02, 2022, 12:51:59 PMEven worse in terms of tactics, it is in misalignment with the "new" Republican coalition. The surge of blue collar, non-college educated and lower income whites into the party are made up of people who are overwhelmingly not neoliberals. This is not the GOP of the 80s and 90s where the base of the party was more likely to be college educated, upper middle class, managerial / entrepreneurial types. They are essentially absorbing the Democrats old, organized labor industrial base voters, who have no problems at all with public spending on welfare as long as it benefits their class and ethnic group specifically (there is a reason they tend to oppose food stamps and TANF, those are perceived as being benefits for blacks, Social Security and Medicare are not.)
Holy shit, just three posts above, in post 3690, you told me that you didn't see a significant realignment happening when I brought it up to counter something you were saying. I guess now you do?
Quote from: alfred russel on November 03, 2022, 01:57:39 PMHoly shit, just three posts above, in post 3690, you told me that you didn't see a significant realignment happening when I brought it up to counter something you were saying. I guess now you do?
The two comments are not related and were in response to different pieces of news and had different contexts.
My first comment was talking about "election cycle" persuasion, which was also what the long form article I posted from politico was talking about. In response I said there is very little evidence that a significant portion of voters are being "persuaded." Obviously a chunk of voters changes which party they vote for, some every single election. That is not intrinsic evidence that persuasion works, though--which was the point of my post you were replying to, that if anything I see anecdotal evidence that voters change how they vote with little relationship to the persuasions and tactics of the two parties.
You also mentioned an "ongoing political realignment" as evidence of persuasion. I said that I don't see any such alignment. An ongoing political realignment means right now, 2022. In 2022 I don't see much of that occurring. I see the squishy middle shrinking, largely retreating behind the battle lines they leaned most towards.
My second post was juxtaposing Republican neoliberal philosophy with the acquisition of blue collar economically liberal voters, which I noted by referencing the 1980s, was a multidecade change and one that I never said was "ongoing", as I think most of that change was complete by 2012, but it was well under way as far back as 1980.
One post was talking about the 2-year cycle of voting behavior as it relates to political campaigning and strategy and the other was talking about a 40 year realignment of political parties, and the specifics of those two discussions was separate enough that trying to conflate specific words between those independent discussions is unwise.
If you can see that significant enough blocks of voters have been persuaded over the medium to long term to actually change the make up of the parties, in single election cycles those can be significant? In the 6 presidential elections since 2000, the tipping point state margin has been less than 1% in 3 of them.
The blue collar voters that switched to the GOP and the educated voters that migrated to the Democrats did so as individuals in specific voting cycles. The party that gives up on persuasion in a specific cycle is going to be screwed in the long term but more importantly lose a lot of winnable elections. From a GOP perspective, it isn't hard to imagine that a better strategy in 2020 could have kept the white house considering how close they were but even if you write that off could have at least kept the Senate. It is actually kind of hard to imagine they played the senate run off elections any worse than they did...
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 03, 2022, 07:50:01 AM"Remember, the Democrats are godless Satanists who want to turn your kids gay, change their gender, and sell them to pedophiles. They're stealing your money and giving it to illegal immigrant criminals. They stole the election and will steal the next election. They oppose you, your way of life, and everything you stand for.
But please don't kill them."
I read it as an attempt by Cruz to disassociate himself from the QAnon wing of the party. That's why I found it interesting.
The time lag tells me he probably looked at some polling about the attack before responding.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2022, 03:45:55 AMQuote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 03, 2022, 07:50:01 AM"Remember, the Democrats are godless Satanists who want to turn your kids gay, change their gender, and sell them to pedophiles. They're stealing your money and giving it to illegal immigrant criminals. They stole the election and will steal the next election. They oppose you, your way of life, and everything you stand for.
But please don't kill them."
I read it as an attempt by Cruz to disassociate himself from the QAnon wing of the party. That's why I found it interesting.
The time lag tells me he probably looked at some polling about the attack before responding.
Doesn't seem waranted by actual sequence of events. Most charitable is he is swinging back and forth, least charitable he talking out both sides of his mouth.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/ted-cruz-paul-pelosi-misinformation-tweet-b2214574.html
QuoteSen Ted Cruz seemed to be amplifying misinformation about the man suspected of attacking Nancy Pelosi's husband after he'd earlier condemned the incident as "horrific".
On Friday, hours after learning that Paul Pelosi, 82, had been "violently assaulted" in the San Francisco home that he shares with the House speaker, who was in Washington DC at the time of the attack, the Texas senator tweeted out a message that said he and his wife Heidi were praying for the Pelosi family.
"We can have our political differences, but violence is always wrong and unacceptable," he tweeted on Friday.
The Republican lawmaker then made an about-face on those earlier sympathies extended to his Democratic colleague, as by Monday he began posting tweets from unreliable sources that seemed to promote falsehoods and innuendo about the suspected attacker, 42-year-old David DePape.
In one of the posts, Sen Cruz had reshared a screenshot from alt-right activist Matt Walsh, in which he pushed back against the information that has been widely reported from reliable news outlets that Mr DePape had recently become engaged in posting on far-right political blogs.
In some of those posts published to a subscription-based blog, viewed by The Independent, Mr DePape was seen expressing a range of transphobic, antisemitic and racist views, alongside conspiracy theories tied to Covid-19 and QAnon, among others.
Mr Walsh, and seemingly Sen Cruz, seemed to both challenge the notion that Mr DePape was engaged in militant right-wing conspiracies, with the former writing: "I don't know what the h*** happened at Nancy Pelosi's house and I suspect none of us will ever know for sure. But I do know that trying to paint a hippie nudist from Berkeley as some kind of militant right winger is absurd and will always be absurd."
Mr Cruz, appearing to agree with Mr Walsh's conclusions, later quote tweeted a screenshot of the right-wing activist's thread with the caption: "truth".
...
Post that Cruz noted as "truth"
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FgZrWmQXEAA0P6c?format=jpg&name=medium)
See this is an important difference between the left and the right: if something mildly/moderately questionable happens on the left side of politics, like some nutjobs at a university yell down some professor they don't agree with, the left is all "omg are we spiralling out of control what is happening to us?!"
When a seriously questionable thing happens on the right, like some nutjob beating up the spouse of a politician, the right goes "well, that clearly shows the left are a bunch of liars and whackos who cannot be reasoned with!"
And to be clear that is to the credit of the left, not the right.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 19, 2020, 05:48:11 PMQuote from: Tyr on December 19, 2020, 04:18:03 PMSo what are the odds on Georgia?
I'm skeptical. I'm guessing a lot of anti trump republicans voted Biden but will vote republican in the rerun.
Who knows? Everything is so fucking weird right now. Normally it should be an easy win for Republicans, but this year Stacey Abrams produced a miracle (the women should run the party), and you have a large number of Republicans who take Donald Trump's statement about a rigged election at face value and say they won't vote.
We will see how things turn out on Tuesday, but she is behind in the polls and in one of the most brain dead decisions imaginable, she wore orange today, the day that UGA plays Tennessee.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/celebs/stacey-abrams-feeling-confident-about-her-shot-at-ga-governor/vi-AA13LZuL?category=foryou
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm-5CndRrxQ
Paul Pelosi's attacker is a Canadian in the US illegally.
Surely violent Canadian nudists are nothing new in US politics.
Nancy Pelosi stepping down from House Democratic leadership.
NY Times (https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/11/17/us/election-news-results)
I think that this is a good thing for the Dems. Unless they select another septuagenarian. The top three spots right now are all over eighty.
Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2022, 02:00:26 PMNancy Pelosi stepping down from House Democratic leadership.
NY Times (https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/11/17/us/election-news-results)
I think that this is a good thing for the Dems. Unless they select another septuagenarian. The top three spots right now are all over eighty.
According to this Politico article the next Minority Leader appears set to be 52 year old Hakeem Jeffries who is running unopposed for the position.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/17/pelosi-first-woman-speaker-to-depart-dem-leadership-in-seismic-shift-00069222
Seems to be a generational shift in the Democratic party leadership. Except for the President of course.
That's good. The great generation was really hell bent on not letting any boomer control the congress wing of the democratic party.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 17, 2022, 06:48:15 PMThat's good. The great generation was really hell bent on not letting any boomer control the congress wing of the democratic party.
I'm not sure that that was a "great" generation. One of them landed on the moon, to be sure, and MLK Jr was one of them, but they don't stack up well against either the Greatest Generation or the Boomers.
So apparently the first thing that new House Speaker McCarthy wants to do is strip three Democrat Congressmen of their comittee assignments, namely Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell and Ilhan Omar. Any idea why?
Because the Democrats stripped at least one Republican of all committee assignments against the desires of the minority leader (which is not normally done), specifically Marjorie Taylor-Greene, I think they may have gone after a couple of the other fringe GOP congress people who had threatened/said really inappropriate things. McCarthy promised at the time he would retaliate--he wasn't willing to sign off on any discipline for MTG's statements, and "normally" the minority leader gets to set committee assignments for the minority seats on each committee, so Pelosi using House rules to overrule him on that was seen as a violation of norms.
Note that not agreeing to punish MTG for the rules violations she committed by threatening another member of the House was also a violation of norms by McCarthy.
Aaah, the good old "eye for an eye", only threefold. It will be fantastic for good cooperation across the aisle.
Quote from: The Larch on November 21, 2022, 08:51:42 PMSo apparently the first thing that new House Speaker McCarthy wants to do is strip three Democrat Congressmen of their comittee assignments, namely Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell and Ilhan Omar. Any idea why?
Because OSC sent him a really nice Christmas card and got off the list.
If McCarthy's goal was to show how short of leash the MAGA crazies put on him, he has succeeded.
I honestly wonder if they'll even vote to appoint him to be Speaker. It seems just as likely the radical Right Wing will put up some unhinged MAGA clown and the rest of the cowards will go along with it. It would be somewhat amusing to see a few Republicans break ranks (I know, nigh impossible) to vote for a super moderate Dem to hold the position.
I think they've already voted him in.
He was internally nominated, but it isn't binding to the Representatives and isn't official till the new Congress goes into session in January. He only managed a 188-31 vote within the Republican internal voting, so there is still some doubt.
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/15/1136811629/mccarthy-nominated-house-speaker-gop-republicans
Gotcha
Yeah, there is no formal vote for Speaker until the new session starts and the news congresscrits are sworn in, but it would be fairly unheard of for the internal voting to not tightly predict how the voting will go in January.
(https://preview.redd.it/vvtcbx09fw1a1.png?width=1428&format=png&auto=webp&s=f1bc1c3d0ec51fad5f9710397330677b113a0cd2)
In case you need something to discuss over Thanksgiving dinner. :)
They didn't ask about weapons manufacturers? :P
It's "fun" to see how Republicans despise all the usual suspects (Higher education, education in general, news media, entertainment...).
Also funny to see that Republicans dislike the tobacco industry even more than Democrats.
Presumably the strong red approval of "Manufacturing" is driven by gun manufacturers.
Very surprised that Republicans view tobacco industry more negatively. Tobacco has always been a southern industry, and the smoking rates in general seem strongly correlated with the degree that a state is Republican. Maybe Democrats just don't think about tobacco anymore, because they're not exposed to it as much?
Quote from: DGuller on November 24, 2022, 03:14:08 PMVery surprised that Republicans view tobacco industry more negatively. Tobacco has always been a southern industry, and the smoking rates in general seem strongly correlated with the degree that a state is Republican. Maybe Democrats just don't think about tobacco anymore, because they're not exposed to it as much?
Maybe it also includes the marihuana industry as well? :hmm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXhNfj_bPXI
Hakeem Jeffries is the new House minority leader.
I don't really get how they can elect someone new before the new members are seated.
They don't Yi, it is informal until the new Congress goes in.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 30, 2022, 06:48:52 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXhNfj_bPXI
Hakeem Jeffries is the new House minority leader.
I don't really get how they can elect someone new before the new members are seated.
It's a caucus vote, not a House vote. Parties can do as they please. The selection does not take effect until the new Congress is convened, but freshman members wouldn't have much impact anyway due to lack of seniority.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjVjpotc-ck
South Carolina will hold first Democratic primary in the nation, booting Iowa to the dustbin of history.
:w00t:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHKdQv8B5zw
Biden signs bill forcing railroad labor agreement.
Well if you're going to throw certain special interest groups that supported you under the bus, the best time to do is straight after the elections.
Yeah, the rail worker stuff is rough because it would basically implode our economy to have let a strike occur. We aren't like the UK or France where I think there is greater societal tolerance for such disruptions on behalf of workers interests, Americans would all be up in arms over stores not being stocked and etc.
I'm maybe the most anti-union guy here and I think it was a bad call. Saving the economy and saving Christmas are not sufficient reasons to do what they did.
Interesting red-brown alliance of Senators who voted against this too.
What does that mean?
If Congress and the POTUS can force the union to accept the terms demanded by the railroad companies...why couldn't they alternately force the railroad companies to accept the demands of the workers (or force both to accept something that meets somewhat halfway)? :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 03, 2022, 01:28:38 PMI'm maybe the most anti-union guy here and I think it was a bad call. Saving the economy and saving Christmas are not sufficient reasons to do what they did.
Disagree about you being anti-union. I can see why they did it - similar legislation is in France & being proposed here too. I think it's more you becoming a lot more left wing than you realise.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 03, 2022, 02:22:34 PMIf Congress and the POTUS can force the union to accept the terms demanded by the railroad companies...why couldn't they alternately force the railroad companies to accept the demands of the workers (or force both to accept something that meets somewhat halfway)? :hmm:
They somewhat could--they tried to add 7 paid sick days to the deal, but enough Senators voted against it for that to be added to the agreement. Note that while I empathize with the railway workers, it isn't actually the case that they don't have paid sick days, they have relatively decent numbers of PTO days, they just aren't specifically classified as "sick days."
As an example under the current contract BNSF new employees get 26 paid days off per year (this is a first year employee, this goes up with years of service). This includes if they wake up sick they can call in sick and take a PTO day. I frankly think the unions and the press kind of want to obscure that fact, they make it sound like you literally can never take time off to go to the doctor or if you're suddenly sick, and that isn't true.
Now what is true, is because of the unique staffing concerns of the railroads, most use a complex "availability points" system. You lose points for every absence that is not pre-approved. But you start with 30 points, and the loss of points is based on variable amounts per day missed. A "high need" day, like the Monday after the Super Bowl or Christmas Day, is docked 7 points--but again, only if you don't work
without notice, i.e. you call in sick. It isn't crazy unreasonable in a 24/7/365 business where you're sometimes expected to work on holidays and other days when many people take off, that if you weren't able to get that day off pre-scheduled, there might be some sanction if you "get sick" the day after the Super Bowl or whatever.
That's the most points you get docked is 7, some absences are less. Additionally, every 14 consecutive days in a row you are available to work you gain 4 points. Note that a typical train crew is part of a "run sheet" 24/7/365, so basically every 14 calendar days that you don't take an absence, you gain 4 points. You do not actually work 14 days in a row, obviously. The run sheets basically are a rotation, you go on a run, which might be 36 hours away from home usually 2/3rd of which is compensated work time with some down time, and then you are back home and are now at the bottom of the run sheet (with caveats), as they staff additional runs, you don't get called in again until all the guys in front of you on the run sheet have already been called. Once you're called, you have 2 hours to get to the train and begin your run. If you are called and can't come for whatever reason, that docks you points and you go back to the bottom of the sheet--if you for whatever reason have no PTO left you also lose out on pay, if you've taken a PTO day you would get paid a certain number of hours i.e. if you took PTO for sick to make up for missing on a run.
Some lines have more "beneficial" cadences, and there's a lot of seniority in the system--the more senior guys get the best routes and also there is some degree of getting more opportunities to get called in based on seniority, the system actually "rewards" seniority with (if you want it) fairly robust odds of working 50+ hours a week, which the train workers like because they make their nut on overtime. There are rules around the crews needing certain amounts of off time, and there are limits to when they can force you in if you're over the overtime limit--but again, in normal operation most rail guys want OT hours--based on how they're paid OT is a huge difference in the amount of money they make annually.
As a comparison to a more typical scheduled hourly job, imagine if you had an employee who just took repeated unpaid days off, to the point they were basically no longer full time workers for a position that was expected to be full-time. Most employers would sanction an employee for that.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 03, 2022, 02:22:34 PMIf Congress and the POTUS can force the union to accept the terms demanded by the railroad companies...why couldn't they alternately force the railroad companies to accept the demands of the workers (or force both to accept something that meets somewhat halfway)? :hmm:
The new law codifies the tentative agreement that the unions and railroads had already agreed to. Several of the unions thought that their negotiators hadn't gotten enough in terms of paid sick time, so refused to ratify.
It is not at all accurate to describe the forced deal as one that "force the union to accept the terms demanded by the railroad companies." The deal raises the average wage for the workers to over US$100k/yr.
FWIW jobs like electric power plant worker, train crews etc always have crazy scheduling like this because they are operations that need to run continuously. At least among blue collar people I've known, these are highly coveted jobs, railway jobs in general there are usually dozens or more applicants for any chance to get into the system. These are union jobs where you basically enjoy tenure after some seniority, do not require a college degree and once you've moved up the system and start getting guaranteed overtime all the time, you can be making over $100k with the current scheme, the new contract raises the wage rates by 24% over 2 years I believe.
You also get a traditional 401k and the railroad retirement system, which replaces Social Security but pays (depending on other factors) no less than ~35% more than a typical social security benefit and in some cases 100% more. It also fully vests at age 60 without penalty, you can't get a social security disbursement until age 62--and that is a reduced benefit.
Quote from: PJL on December 03, 2022, 05:56:56 PMDisagree about you being anti-union. I can see why they did it - similar legislation is in France & being proposed here too. I think it's more you becoming a lot more left wing than you realise.
I'm not opposed because i think the unions are getting gypped; I'm opposed because the government is interfering with the right of private parties to freely contract.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 03, 2022, 06:33:42 PMQuote from: PJL on December 03, 2022, 05:56:56 PMDisagree about you being anti-union. I can see why they did it - similar legislation is in France & being proposed here too. I think it's more you becoming a lot more left wing than you realise.
I'm not opposed because i think the unions are getting gypped; I'm opposed because the government is interfering with the right of private parties to freely contract.
As per a 1926 law that basically says the government gets to do a lot of stuff with railways that override the private right to contract. Keep in mind basically the entire rail system was built on public land grants that were not sold out in anything like a free market, and often times with significant subsidy.
Happy Infamy Day! :)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjZyWApWAAEilev?format=jpg&name=medium)
Today instead of June 6? I'm confused now.
It's probably worth noting that the US military was so un-woke that it was segregated, and it did not in fact manage to fend off the Japanese at Pearl Harbour...
Quote from: Syt on December 07, 2022, 05:02:58 PMHappy Infamy Day! :)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjZyWApWAAEilev?format=jpg&name=medium)
Shitlords who spout this shit almost never have interacted with actual service members at all in their lonely and pathetic lives.
Quote from: Syt on December 07, 2022, 05:02:58 PMHappy Infamy Day! :)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjZyWApWAAEilev?format=jpg&name=medium)
I mean the military in 1941 didn't fend off the attack so maybe we should give the inclusive one a shot.
QuoteKyrsten Sinema goes independent days after Democrats secure Senate majority
Arizona senator swaps party affiliation and says she will not caucus with Republicans
The US senator Kyrsten Sinema has switched her political affiliation to independent, leaving the Democratic party just days after it won a Senate race in Georgia to secure a 51st seat in the chamber.
"I have joined the growing numbers of Arizonans who reject party politics by declaring my independence from the broken partisan system in Washington. I registered as an Arizona independent," she said in an op-ed for Arizona Central, a local media outlet.
In a separate Politico interview published on Friday, Sinema said she would not caucus with the Republican party. If that holds, Democrats could still maintain greater governing control in the closely divided chamber.
Democrats had held the Senate 50-50, with the vice-president, Kamala Harris, holding a tie-breaking vote. Raphael Warnock's victory in Tuesday's runoff election in Georgia handed them their 51st seat.
Two other senators – Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine – are registered as independents but generally caucus with Democrats.
Sinema said her shift came as a growing number of people in her state were also declaring themselves politically independent, rejecting the Republican and Democratic political labels.
"Like a lot of Arizonans, I have never fit perfectly in either national party,"
she wrote.
In the short term (next 2 years) Sinema's move likely changes nothing, as noted she will continue to caucus with the Democrats, so instead of being a party with 49 Senators and 2 allied Independents, they are now a party with 48 Senators and 3 allied Independents. Given Sinema's voting record I am skeptical it really moves the needle.
The big question is 2024, is she doing this to try and bypass a primary from the left in '24 and daring the Democrats to treat her like they do Angus King and Bernie (the Democrats do not run opponents in those States, effectively letting the two independent Senators only have to win head-to-head against Republicans.) If so, I don't think it will work. Like with a lot of things, this isn't some big wigs in a DNC office who make that decision, it's a local decision in Arizona and the Arizona DNC is vehemently against Sinema. Gallegos is going to run in 2024. If Sinema chooses to run as an independent that won't save her Senate seat. It could easily give the seat to the GOP though, we'll have to see if that is what Sinema is angling for, because after she costs the party the seat in '24 her career as an elected politician will be over and her career as whatever she's been taking bribes to do for the last 4 years will begin.
At least with current polling she would have like less than a 5% chance of winning a three way general in Arizona--while she has alienated Democrats in the last two years, she hasn't made herself particularly popular as a candidate among Republicans, a number of polls there show that GOP voters do not consider her a viable option for their votes. That could change if the GOP nominates someone on the Kari Lake spectrum, but if they nominate a generically competent candidate Sinema will sieve almost no GOP votes, but will probably sieve away a chunk of Democrat votes and throw the election to the Republicans.
My guess is she may think she can pull a "Murkowski." Lisa Murkowski lost her primary election to a Tea Party Republican many years ago, but ran a write-in campaign in the general--which she won. She was immediately back in the good graces of the Republican party after winning. I assume Sinema imagines a scenario where she wins a hard fought campaign as an independent, and that afterwards the Arizona Democratic party begrudgingly agrees to treat her like Angus King / Bernie Sanders are treated in their states. I think the part of that plan that won't work is the "winning the election" part, and after she's cost the Democrats that seat for 6 years she will be unlikely to be a viable candidate for any form of election anywhere.
She was facing a primary battle for sure that she was likely to lose. The independent gambit is also a long shot but three way races can be unpredictable.
All the polling cross tabs I've ever seen on Sinema in the past 2 years show she is just not popular as a candidate for Republicans, I can't see her attracting anywhere near the % of GOP votes in a state with a robust state GOP and lots of prominent conservative candidates in the wing, most of her votes will come from the Democrats which won't be near enough to win a plurality.
A big thing that helps Angus King and Bernie too is there has never been a very robust Republican challenger to either of them. The Vermont GOP is basically a shell organization, and while the Maine GOP has a more robust history it has never fielded a robust challenger to King.
https://twitter.com/joebiden/status/1606062284937351189
QuoteJoe Biden
@JoeBiden
United States government official
We have a lot of obligations as Americans, but we have only one sacred obligation:
To prepare those we send to war and care for them and their families when they come home.
12:01 AM · Dec 23, 2022
:pope:
Are you going to war with Russia? That would help.
Joeus vult!
A special counsel has been appointed to investigate the classified docs at Biden's Delaware office.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2023, 10:15:30 PMA special counsel has been appointed to investigate the classified docs at Biden's Delaware office.
Is there more to this than GOP "we'll investigate Democrats for whatever crimes we commit" malarkey?
Quote from: Jacob on January 12, 2023, 10:20:35 PMIs there more to this than GOP "we'll investigate Democrats for whatever crimes we commit" malarkey?
Yeah. For starters Biden or his staff found some stuff in his office. Then the special counsel was appointed by the Attorney General.
Yeah Biden, or his staff, turned himself in. Probably needs an investigation just to see how it happened.
Though with Trump hauling off tons of those documents and refusing to turn them over they probably do need to generally overhaul how this whole process works.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2023, 10:25:11 PMQuote from: Jacob on January 12, 2023, 10:20:35 PMIs there more to this than GOP "we'll investigate Democrats for whatever crimes we commit" malarkey?
Yeah. For starters Biden or his staff found some stuff in his office. Then the special counsel was appointed by the Attorney General.
The problem with Trump was not that he had classified material. Most former administrations find some that they accidentally took, and return it when found. The problem was that Trump and Co. insisted they didn't have it despite plenty of evidence and didn't return it when requested.
Not to mention Trump had significantly more material.
The incidents are pretty dissimilar (Trump vs Biden), but it will definitely be ginned up by the House GOP. On that level if annoys me we still have such blase handling of classified documents biting us in the ass nonstop, on the other, the House GOP was going to gin up things to investigate against Biden no matter what.
As far as I know, Obama's Presidential library team also had to return some classified documents they inadvertently took with them. I think that aspect of it may be pretty damn ordinary. It raises some good questions and ones I've long had as someone who has had to work around things like this in my career. We over-classify tons of stuff, including things that are largely political in nature versus genuine state secrets. Because of the massive over-classification regime we've normalized massive amounts of such information just being held in all kinds of places, which I think creates part of the issue. Biden's staffers likely dealt with mountains of classified information every day of his Vice Presidency, and being from the political side of things, probably did not exercise the level of care over those documents that someone at NSA or CIA would. (Interesting sidenote we've had far more damaging classified document leaks due to poor IT policies of subcontractors than ever from mishandled paper documents.)
All that being said it appears the salient difference between Trump's situation and Biden's is how the two different men chose to handle them. Trump received notice from the National Archives that they were aware he had retained some classified documents, and asked him to return them. He essentially refused or stonewalled for months, returned some, but not all, and then after like 18 months the FBI got involved and seized them by force pursuant to a court order.
It is highly, highly likely if Trump had returned them when NARA originally asked it'd be a forgotten nothingburger story. I believe there has been some reporting from an FBI team that made an assessment of Trump's classified document cache, and they found no "rhyme or reason" to his retention, they basically said they think Trump just felt he personally owned them, and resented NARA asking for them back so was refusing to return them out of spite.
In Biden's case these were old documents NARA was not aware he had, his lawyers found them and returned them immediately. The argument about "why wasn't Biden raided" which is already making the rounds is thus somewhat silly--one of the two men ignored multiple written communications from Federal authorities asking for the documents back, the other returned them before Federal authorities even knew they existed.
The fact that a classified doc was found in Biden's garage is a problem. It's harder to make the case that some flunkies inadvertently moved it to that location.
Are the documents related to Ukraine? If so, I can understand Biden wanting to keep it away from Trump in 2017, even if it were flat out illegal. You wouldn't want Putin to get wind of Ukrainian sources, for example.
Quote from: DGuller on January 13, 2023, 02:10:51 PMAre the documents related to Ukraine? If so, I can understand Biden wanting to keep it away from Trump in 2017, even if it were flat out illegal. You wouldn't want Putin to get wind of Ukrainian sources, for example.
If you are going to do that, though, you'd at least put them somehwre secure, so Trump snoopers couldn;t find them.
I haven't seen any details on what was actually found. If they were documents classified "Confidential" because they dealt with then-future movements of the Veep, that's one thing. If they were the Veep's copies of the Secret national security briefings, that's another thing entirely.
If they were classified Secret or above, someone's signature is on a custodial acknowledgement form somewhere, and that person is in trouble.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 13, 2023, 01:53:10 PMThe fact that a classified doc was found in Biden's garage is a problem. It's harder to make the case that some flunkies inadvertently moved it to that location.
I mean I would assume flunkies did, in fact, move them to Biden's house. While I've never worked with anyone close to a Vice President level political operator, any political appointees and the people around them I've ever had first or secondhand relationships with largely had aides doing virtually all office tasks for them. These people don't typically carry or move around documents, many of them do not even write or read their own emails.
I would be somewhat surprised if Biden was in the habit of personally carrying around documents and deciding where they should be, that seems intrinsically like a staff activity. I also don't believe there is any real chance the Trump documents at Mar-a-Lago got there by Trump hand carrying them either, they were almost certainly transported by staffers.
My suspicion is these documents got commingled with unclassified documents and handled inappropriately--which in and of itself is not actually uncommon and, frankly, probably happens at a large scale within all Federal agencies by bureaucrats and political appointees alike. What somewhat protects us is these commingled documents usually don't leave relatively secured facilities, regular civil servants generally know better than to let any docs like that make their way to their private residence. Although as I say that--a few civil servants have gotten in trouble for that very thing in recent years. I think for Secretary / Cabinet level politicians, there is probably significantly more activity at their private residences that overlap with their work.
FWIW and to be clear--I don't actually think Trump having classified documents at Mar-a-Lago was that big of a deal. I think him refusing to return them is very dumb and obstinate, but even that isn't in and of itself
that big of a deal compared to other things Trump has done.
Quote from: DGuller on January 13, 2023, 02:10:51 PMAre the documents related to Ukraine? If so, I can understand Biden wanting to keep it away from Trump in 2017, even if it were flat out illegal. You wouldn't want Putin to get wind of Ukrainian sources, for example.
This way of talking about these documents IMO suggests something highly unlikely--that they were specialized intelligence that for some reason Biden had the only copies. That just isn't how things are done. Any classified document produced during the Obama Administration would have typically had copies retained by the government, Obama Admin officials generally speaking wouldn't be trying to hide them from the incoming administration and there are mechanical difficulties in even trying to do such a thing. Most, meaning almost all, classified documents political officials ever touch are prepared by career civil servants and their agencies will retain copies of their work product in the various ways they do.
Executive office of the President documents that are considered private advisory stuff between a President and his staff, are not typically classified, but are typically not shared immediately with the incoming administration, a lot of that stuff does eventually end up in Presidential libraries though, but usually on a time delay.
TLDR: it is highly unlikely Biden somehow had the sole copy of important intelligence and that he could prevent Trump from seeing it by hiding it in his garage. It is much more likely whatever piece of intelligence it was, likely Trump has never seen because he supposedly rarely read anything given to him unless it was converted into a short index card level document with pictures. Given all that it is unlikely given the
massive amount of intelligence docs etc that get generated in an 8 year Presidential term Trump ever thought to look at, or was given an opportunity to look at, even 0.1% of whatever the Obama Admin had.
Boebert Demands Blocking of Dems From Committee for Being "Conspiracy Theorists" (https://truthout.org/articles/boebert-demands-blocking-of-dems-from-committee-for-being-conspiracy-theorists/)
It takes one to know one? Is that it? :lol:
Alright, who DOESN'T have classified documents at their home?
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/24/politics/pence-classified-documents-fbi/index.html
Quote from: Solmyr on January 24, 2023, 02:27:15 PMAlright, who DOESN'T have classified documents at their home?
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/24/politics/pence-classified-documents-fbi/index.html
:lol:
The information control systems might not be as robust as first hoped.
I heard this morning that some of the confidential documents found on Biden's house were from his time as a senator. He left the Senate in 2009, either those documents were not that important or they were the equivalent of holding to your old school notes when you're an adult. :lol:
Quote from: Solmyr on January 24, 2023, 02:27:15 PMAlright, who DOESN'T have classified documents at their home?
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/24/politics/pence-classified-documents-fbi/index.html
Yeah when I heard Biden also had classified documents I jokingly suggested we next check on Dan Quayle to see what classified docs from 1990 he might have laying around.
I guess that's coming.
I heard a noise in the kitchen this morning and it turns out some classified documents had gotten into the pantry. Two Secrets, three Confidentials, and at least four FOUOs. I shooed them out with a broom, but they had already gotten into the Cheerios. :glare:
Not sure what this is about, but Gaetz looks like a chastised schoolboy in this:
https://twitter.com/TristanSnell/status/1618391084517949445?s=20&t=G0NMKfM-nipmuxJhVOuxDA
It's Matt Gaetz so probably got reminded that fondling little boys & girls is illegal.
Looks like he was told someone has video...
Unsure where to put this, since it touches on trans rights, abortion, etc., so assuming this thread is also, kinda, a general US politics thread .... (maybe we need a Florida thread :hmm:
Regardless of what you think about trans athletes and how sports should approach the subject - this seems a bit ... dunno, Handmaiden's Tale?
https://time.com/6252147/florida_student_athletes_menstrual_history/
QuoteFlorida May Force High School Athletes to Disclose Their Menstrual History
Florida is debating whether to require all high school athletes to disclose their menstrual history.
Parents and experts generally agree that it's important for student athletes to be in good health. But many critics say a new draft physical evaluation form by the Florida High School Athletics Association (FHSAA), which makes the menstruation questions mandatory, is part of the state's attempt to roll back transgender rights.
They argue that that school districts should not have the right to access and store such personal information as a condition of competing in high school sports. The menstrual history questions have been part of Florida's athletics pre-participation form for more than 20 years, but they have previously been optional. Now, many argue that it's time to remove them altogether.
Here's what to know.
What are the questions Florida will ask female student-athletes about their menstrual history?
The updated draft of the physical evaluation form, published online on the FHSAA website asks athletes the following questions:
Have you had a menstrual period?
If yes, athletes must answer the following:
How old were you when you had your first menstrual period?
When was your most recent menstrual period?
How many periods have you had in the past 12 months?
Other than these, the form mainly asks about the athlete's cardiac health, medications and history of injury.
What would happen if Florida makes these questions mandatory to answer?
As of now, student athletes in Florida can opt out of answering these questions, but if students choose not to respond under circumstances where it's mandatory to, they risk failing the medical examination that all athletes must successfully pass to participate in a sport.
Critics have noted that this policy would be a major challenge for transgender athletes who may have to out themselves with their responses to the questions. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis approved a bill last year—which is currently under legal fire—that bans transgender female students from playing on women and girls' sports teams.
In Palm Beach County, the school administration began re-examining the questions last year after parents expressed backlash that the questionnaire would be available to complete online and that the responses would be stored digitally via a third-party-software. The software company, Aktivate, is vulnerable to court subpoenas, which many parents worry could be a problem in post-Roe Florida, where abortion is severely restricted now and such medical records need stronger protection than ever.
The FHSAA Board of Directors is set to decide whether the menstrual history questions should remain optional or become mandatory at the upcoming board meeting this month from February 26 – 27 in Gainesville.
Do other states ask their female student-athletes about their menstrual history?
Texas school districts also ask female-athletes very similar questions about their menstrual history. In several school districts—including in Austin, Dallas, Houston and Fort Worth—the questions are mandatory to complete, according to The Dallas Morning News.
Many other states require student athletes to undergo a physical examination from a healthcare provider, but they generally only ask the provider to share a signature affirming that the athlete is in good health, rather than turn personal health history over to the school.
It seems to me that nowadays being a female high school athlete in many red states is going to be the closest experience to living in the 1984 world that one can experience.
Yeah that's pretty horrifying.
Not sure how much this applies to high school athletics, but high level female athletes can have very irregular menstrual periods, even to the point of not having any. And that's with natal females.
Quote from: The Larch on February 03, 2023, 07:24:45 AMIt seems to me that nowadays being a female high school athlete in many red states is going to be the closest experience to living in the 1984 world that one can experience.
Its also a good data base to keep for when they form Gilead
Quote from: The Larch on February 03, 2023, 07:24:45 AMIt seems to me that nowadays being a female high school athlete in many red states is going to be the closest experience to living in the 1984 world that one can experience.
Florida is becoming a category all of its own.
Florida is to US states generally what "Florida man" is to people generally.
One of the more terrifying parts of the "Florida Experiment" for me is that DeSantis seems to be polling better and better and getting wider and wider support for his madness as core tenets of the Republican Party's new platform as well as skewing the Overton Window so incredibly far toward his policies that any type of reasonable discussion on things is impossible. I'll freely admit I am very radical on my stances on many issues, some of which directly impact me and are not just debate fodder, but... wow. The total lack of media accountability in the face of this madness and also their continued attempts to eternally "both sides" issues at best is very, very troubling. Especially when even if they do "both sides" something, it doesn't tend to have actual affected trans people involved regarding trans representation in particular. I was hoping the lack of a Red Wave/Tsunami/whatever in 2022's elections would have convinced Republicans to find a new target other than "The Culture War" in general and trans people in particular. I should have known I wouldn't be that lucky. The number of bills being proposed is increasing, the draconian measures being demanded are increasing, and more of these bills are becoming laws. It is honestly terrifying to be trans in America right now. My one saving grace is that I live in New York, a blue state. But that will only do so much if a Republican wins the Presidency... :weep:
I suspect that the culture war is the winning part of the overall losing formula, and this is why it's not going anywhere.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on February 07, 2023, 06:07:48 AMOne of the more terrifying parts of the "Florida Experiment" for me is that DeSantis seems to be polling better and better and getting wider and wider support for his madness as core tenets of the Republican Party's new platform as well as skewing the Overton Window so incredibly far toward his policies that any type of reasonable discussion on things is impossible. I'll freely admit I am very radical on my stances on many issues, some of which directly impact me and are not just debate fodder, but... wow. The total lack of media accountability in the face of this madness and also their continued attempts to eternally "both sides" issues at best is very, very troubling. Especially when even if they do "both sides" something, it doesn't tend to have actual affected trans people involved regarding trans representation in particular. I was hoping the lack of a Red Wave/Tsunami/whatever in 2022's elections would have convinced Republicans to find a new target other than "The Culture War" in general and trans people in particular. I should have known I wouldn't be that lucky. The number of bills being proposed is increasing, the draconian measures being demanded are increasing, and more of these bills are becoming laws. It is honestly terrifying to be trans in America right now. My one saving grace is that I live in New York, a blue state. But that will only do so much if a Republican wins the Presidency... :weep:
:hug:
I think unfortunately that targeting trans people is going to be really lucrative for Republicans for a few reasons. One is that they are such a small minority they don't have as many avenues to mainstream support as gay people did. Most people I have ever known have a gay relative, maybe not in their nuclear family, but a cousin or uncle or etc. The more it became acceptable for them to be "open", the more awareness people had of gay relatives. That made it harder and harder to sustain high levels of hate and vitriol.
By any measure, transgenderism whatever its causes, is just much less common than homosexuality. Most people do not actually have a trans relative or friend or even regularly see trans people. I've seen some estimates that there are less than 1m trans people in the United States. Like most things around the LGBT+ community, taking a "census" of that population is riddled with problems so I don't want to get bogged down on which numbers are right and why, but undeniably this is a much less common thing than homosexuality.
That means it is much easier to engage in "othering." And there are fewer opportunities to undermine that othering.
The other thing is, there are elements of the trans community--and I am not knowledgeable enough in their community to know if these are majority views there or just one set of views among many, that promote some ideas that IMO most people disagree with, and are not likely to change opinions on. Some of these ideas:
1. The idea that gender fundamentally is "fake" or purely cultural. Sorry, but I deeply believe that while specific expressions of gender are cultural to a degree, I also think gender differences, even cultural ones, have some biological origin. Most people who are male or female biologically, view that as an inextricable part of their personal identity. They do not believe they are just on a sliding scale and that their gender isn't real, and most of them actually get angry and upset if you try to tell them that is the case.
2. The idea that respect for someone's gender identification means you can never treat or regard them in any way differently than a cisgender person. There are many points in this debate--with lots of nuance. On one extreme, in my opinion, is the view that a transwoman (i.e. a biological male) should be allowed to freely compete in sports against biological females or that they should be housed in female prisons, even when they are not undergoing any gender hormone treatments or etc. Obviously most authorities and governing bodies do not hold this view, most try to "split the difference" by creating rules around testosterone levels and things of that nature, I think with enough explanation, some people will be amenable to those views. But in certain contexts when it is clear that the biological differences between the sexes still has some policy implications, I think insisting that we can never regard a trans person in any way ever as anything but a biological member of their identified gender, just isn't going to work for people.
3. The idea that any question about the medical treatments trans people receive, particularly trans children is not a valid area of discussion. There are diverse views on what sort of gender care children should receive, and even diverse views on what the best treatments are for adults. However, a significant point of rhetoric seems to be labeling anyone who doesn't adhere to certain (medically debatable) regimes is a bigot, and people just aren't going to like that.
Quote from: DGuller on February 07, 2023, 09:33:26 AMI suspect that the culture war is the winning part of the overall losing formula, and this is why it's not going anywhere.
:yes:
Sadly, but yes.
The straight-up crazy part of the GOP is a losing issue - the conspiracy theories, election denying, the straight-up lying about provable facts. That explains the lack of a red wave last November.
But the culture war stuff is a winner. And that definitely includes trans people. Not saying it's right, just calling it as I see it.
Look - I can definitely point to examples of trans activists, in particular on Twitter, taking much too far or extreme of views. But trans people are just trying to live their lives as best as they can and really don't deserve to be demonized in order to score cheap political points.
I think I made this point before - are trans people really that rare though? I can think of three people in real life (one de-transed), and Sophie and BuddhaR online, who are trans that I know...
I read some political comentator over here writing about DeSantis and his background and wondering how much of his beligerant culture warrior attitude is a seriously held belief and how much is him deciding that it's a winning political strategy and going full hog on it. What do you guys think?
Quote from: The Larch on February 07, 2023, 03:05:17 PMI read some political comentator over here writing about DeSantis and his background and wondering how much of his beligerant culture warrior attitude is a seriously held belief and how much is him deciding that it's a winning political strategy and going full hog on it. What do you guys think?
It doesn't matter.
Quote from: Zoupa on February 07, 2023, 04:26:57 PMQuote from: The Larch on February 07, 2023, 03:05:17 PMI read some political comentator over here writing about DeSantis and his background and wondering how much of his beligerant culture warrior attitude is a seriously held belief and how much is him deciding that it's a winning political strategy and going full hog on it. What do you guys think?
It doesn't matter.
It was like wondering whether Trump believes all the nonsense coming out of his mouth or not. In the end it really doesn't matter.
He tried so hard, and got so far.
I assume that the motivation of the author was to wonder if, in case he's only spousing those culture war issues for political convenience, how likely he is to drop them or only follow them half-heartedly once he has achieved his political aims.
Quote from: Barrister on February 07, 2023, 04:48:31 PMIt was like wondering whether Trump believes all the nonsense coming out of his mouth or not. In the end it really doesn't matter.
It matters in terms of evaluating the stupidity of the people who buy into his message.
Caught a bit of the State of the Union. Not bad.
Quote from: Barrister on February 07, 2023, 01:13:03 PMQuote from: DGuller on February 07, 2023, 09:33:26 AMI suspect that the culture war is the winning part of the overall losing formula, and this is why it's not going anywhere.
:yes:
Sadly, but yes.
The straight-up crazy part of the GOP is a losing issue - the conspiracy theories, election denying, the straight-up lying about provable facts. That explains the lack of a red wave last November.
But the culture war stuff is a winner. And that definitely includes trans people. Not saying it's right, just calling it as I see it.
Look - I can definitely point to examples of trans activists, in particular on Twitter, taking much too far or extreme of views. But trans people are just trying to live their lives as best as they can and really don't deserve to be demonized in order to score cheap political points.
I think I made this point before - are trans people really that rare though? I can think of three people in real life (one de-transed), and Sophie and BuddhaR online, who are trans that I know...
Out of how many people you know is the question.
They're different so they stand out, but consider you "know" hundreds on hundreds of people and the 1% or less of the population figure holds up.
I guess this an issue with twitter nonsense too- it isn't the majority, but it stands out so gains inflated value.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FoaEcFpXwAEtz8J?format=png&name=900x900)
Quote from: Zoupa on February 07, 2023, 04:26:57 PMQuote from: The Larch on February 07, 2023, 03:05:17 PMI read some political comentator over here writing about DeSantis and his background and wondering how much of his beligerant culture warrior attitude is a seriously held belief and how much is him deciding that it's a winning political strategy and going full hog on it. What do you guys think?
It doesn't matter.
This.
Just because he went to good schools and got high standardized test scores doesn't mean he's not a SOB. We already learned this lesson with Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley and Tom Cotton. Despite the widespread (and false) view of "top" US universities as undifferentiated pools of radical leftists, plenty of the students who attend are determined right-wingers - and use their educational experience to build credentials and/or bolster their own view of themselves as courageous cultural warriors holding the fort of Christian truth against the evil atheist hordes.
Another way of looking at--are there "crazy" Republicans who know a lot of the things they argue for, or points they make, are unreasonable and even blatantly stupid and untrue? Absolutely. Hawley, DeSantis, Cruz all likely know a significant portion of things they advocate for are bad ideas. They have broader goals of promoting conservative political power, and are simply "disinterested" in the validity or reasonableness of the bricks they need to use to construct that power. They are as comfortable using "bad bricks" as they are "good bricks."
In a political environment where being a respectable George H.W. Bush or Nelson Rockefeller style Republican was more effective at building conservative political power, those three would be that type of Republican instead. That doesn't at all mean they are safe to entrust with power--the opposite, in fact. They are demonstrating that they do not care at all about anything other than the accumulation of power for their political faction and do not care at all about egregious harms anything they undertake for that purpose might cause.
I guess it means if you were in a bar with them where they knew no one would ever record or repeat what was said, you might be able to have a more reasonable conversation with them than with "genuine" crazy people like Lauren Boebert or Paul Gosar, but from a governance perspective that difference has no meaning at all.
I've met Ted Cruz in non-formal settings, prior to his attaining high political office. As to political matters, you could not have a reasonable conversation with him. If anything, he seems to have become a little more reasonable for public consumption.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 08, 2023, 02:10:08 PMI've met Ted Cruz in non-formal settings, prior to his attaining high political office. As to political matters, you could not have a reasonable conversation with him. If anything, he seems to have become a little more reasonable for public consumption.
So he's a true believer, basically?
Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2023, 02:55:01 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on February 08, 2023, 02:10:08 PMI've met Ted Cruz in non-formal settings, prior to his attaining high political office. As to political matters, you could not have a reasonable conversation with him. If anything, he seems to have become a little more reasonable for public consumption.
So he's a true believer, basically?
Yeah he is a fanatic. I frankly would prefer an old school corrupt Texas politician, we didn't know how good we had it.
He's detested by other Republicans. I think it's possible he's just an asshole.
Can Iowan and Minnesottan kids do a charming victorian chimney sweep accent?
QuoteIowa, Minnesota considering loosening child labor laws as job market tightens
As local economies grapple with a tight labor market, some state legislatures are looking to loosen child labor protections to help employers meet hiring needs.
Experts say this is part of a continuing trend in labor economics. When employers struggle to find talent, many prefer to hire young, cheap workers rather than raise wages and benefits to attract older adults.
"Because of the high demand for workers, where there are holes in the system, child labor can unfortunately become trapped in keeping some of those holes in the workforce," said David Weil, a professor of social policy and management at Brandeis University and a former professor of social policy at Brandeis University. Wage and Hour Administrator in the Department of Labor.
Legislators in Iowa and Minnesota introduced bills in January to loosen child labor law rules around age and workplace safety protections in some of the nation's most dangerous workplaces. Minnesota's bill would allow 16- and 17-year-olds to work in construction. The Iowa measure would allow 14- and 15-year-olds to do some work in meatpacking plants.
The Iowa bill, introduced by state Sen. Jason Schultz (R), would allow children under the age of 14 to work in industrial freezers and meat coolers, provided they are separate from meat preparation, and industrial laundry. work in
At age 15, they'll be able to work as lifeguards and swim instructors, do light assembly-line work after receiving exemptions from state officials, and load and unload products up to 50 pounds from vehicles And will stock store shelves with discounts. The strength and potential of a fifteen year old.
Iowa's proposal would also expand the hours teens can work during the school year, and protect businesses from civil liability if a youth worker becomes ill, injured or killed on the job.
Schultz did not respond to requests for comment. Critics say the proposal is dangerous and will subject child labor to hazardous environments.
"Do you remember images of children in construction and other dangerous work situations from the early 1900s?" Connie Ryan, executive director of the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa, said in testimony to state lawmakers, according to Radio Iowa. "There's a reason our society said it's not appropriate for children to work under those conditions."
Proponents of the Iowa bill argue that lowering the age limit fills a need. During the same hearing at which Ryan spoke, grocery industry lobbyist Brad Epperly argued that "terrible fewer" young people are working. He cited federal data that pegs the job participation rate for people aged 16 to 24 in 2021 at about 56 percent.
New Jersey enacted a law last year allowing teens to work when school is not in session. Wisconsin's state legislature lifted restrictions on work hours during the school year, but Gov. Tony Evers (D) vetoed the legislation. The Ohio State Senate unanimously passed a similar bill, but the measure died in the lower chamber of the legislature.
Federal regulators have scrutinized reports of child labor violations in recent months.
In August, the Labor Department sued a Hyundai supplier in Alabama after Reuters reported the facility used workers as young as 12.
A Nebraska labor contractor for meat producer JBS reached a settlement with the Department of Labor in December to resolve civil charges after regulators accused it of using "oppressive child labor." Law enforcement began an investigation at the plant after an underage worker allegedly suffered chemical burns from cleaning agents used at the plant.
To protect underage workers from hazardous environments and to prioritize schooling, federal law limits the types of work children can do, and the number of hours they can work each week.
States can impose additional requirements, and in the past they have targeted particularly dangerous workplaces.
However, those state laws are withdrawn from time to time for various reasons. Reid Maki, director of advocacy at the Child Labor Coalition, said some state economies depend on industries such as agriculture that rely on immigrant or migrant workers and their families.
He said that during tough economic times, some parents want their children to get jobs or help them work longer hours. And during a period of full employment – ��the US unemployment rate of 3.4 percent is the lowest in decades – employers want a larger workforce to ease their hiring stresses.
Experts say that children taking up these jobs may come at a high cost and could harm their long-term prospects in the labor market.
Shawn Bushway, a professor at the University of Albany, said some of the jobs kids do — babysitting, waiting tables at restaurants, eating ice cream — can be good for them. These types of jobs can teach responsibility, professionalism and financial literacy, said Bushway, who studies the effects of work on young people.
But other, more business-oriented jobs, such as agricultural work, landscaping and construction, can be more harmful, said Debbie Berkowitz, a fellow at Georgetown University's Kalmanowitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor. They are less likely to employ middle or upper class children who take up jobs for workplace experience or pocket change.
Instead, Berkowitz and other child labor critics say that low-income families are more likely to hire children for those roles. "Many child labor jobs are menial jobs and those skills are not transferable," Berkowitz said.
Bushway and other researchers have found that the less restrictive state regulations are with youth employment, the more children will work, and the more hours they will work. But limiting the number of hours children work can help their education, Berkowitz said.
"They don't have to go to college, but they can learn a skill and join an apprenticeship program and pull everyone up," she said. "And they can still work for a few hours on the weekend and after school, but they must focus on school."
We could always, you know, reform immigration laws to make it easier to come to this country legally for work. :secret:
Quote from: FunkMonk on February 14, 2023, 08:24:59 AMWe could always, you know, reform immigration laws to make it easier to come to this country legally for work. :secret:
. But, they'll take our jobs!
Quote from: The Larch on February 14, 2023, 06:37:16 AMCan Iowan and Minnesottan kids do a charming victorian chimney sweep accent?
This will improve income of Dependents by 30%, but mortality of peasants, farmers, laborers, and machinists will increase by 5%. Also, literacy will drop. :hmm:
The Industrialists will approve, while the Trade Unions will be unhappy - since Trade Unionists in the US are a marginalized interest group, though, the latter shouldn't matter.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 14, 2023, 09:13:48 AMQuote from: FunkMonk on February 14, 2023, 08:24:59 AMWe could always, you know, reform immigration laws to make it easier to come to this country legally for work. :secret:
. But, they'll take our jobs!
Won't someone think of the children('s jobs)?!
Also, this will probably create the next job categories for the "working poor."
"These jobs were NEVER meant to pay a living wage/were always meant as side income for kids/teens/students - get off your ass and get a proper job, you bum!"
Quote from: FunkMonk on February 14, 2023, 08:24:59 AMWe could always, you know, reform immigration laws to make it easier to come to this country legally for work. :secret:
But that would create more prosperity, which in turn would create a larger tax base, which in turn would provide more funds to government to provide essential services to the citizenry. And that means less ability to privatize those essential services. No chance that ever happens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f55QcO7nKn8
Joe proposes raising Medicare payroll tax from 3.8% to 5% on those earning 400K or more.
Seems fine to me, but how will that pass the house?
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2023, 02:02:17 PMSeems fine to me, but how will that pass the house?
It probably helps a bit that Republicans are on the back foot because of comments about sunsetting Social Security and Medicare.
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/americans-misestimate-small-subgroups-population
QuoteFrom millionaires to Muslims, small subgroups of the population seem much larger to many Americans
When it comes to estimating the size of demographic groups, Americans rarely get it right. In two recent YouGov polls, we asked respondents to guess the percentage (ranging from 0% to 100%) of American adults who are members of 43 different groups, including racial and religious groups, as well as other less frequently studied groups, such as pet owners and those who are left-handed.
When people's average perceptions of group sizes are compared to actual population estimates, an intriguing pattern emerges: Americans tend to vastly overestimate the size of minority groups. This holds for sexual minorities, including the proportion of gays and lesbians (estimate: 30%, true: 3%), bisexuals (estimate: 29%, true: 4%), and people who are transgender (estimate: 21%, true: 0.6%).
It also applies to religious minorities, such as Muslim Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%) and Jewish Americans (estimate: 30%, true: 2%). And we find the same sorts of overestimates for racial and ethnic minorities, such as Native Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%), Asian Americans (estimate: 29%, true: 6%), and Black Americans (estimate: 41%, true: 12%).
A parallel pattern emerges when we look at estimates of majority groups: People tend to underestimate rather than overestimate their size relative to their actual share of the adult population. For instance, we find that people underestimate the proportion of American adults who are Christian (estimate: 58%, true: 70%) and the proportion who have at least a high school degree (estimate: 65%, true: 89%).
The most accurate estimates involved groups whose real proportion fell right around 50%, including the percentage of American adults who are married (estimate: 55%, true: 51%) and have at least one child (estimate: 58%, true: 57%).
Misperceptions of the size of minority groups have been identified in prior surveys, which observers have often attributed to social causes: fear of out-groups, lack of personal exposure, or portrayals in the media. Yet consistent with prior research, we find that the tendency to misestimate the size of demographic groups is actually one instance of a broader tendency to overestimate small proportions and underestimate large ones, regardless of the topic.
If exaggerated perceptions of minority groups' share of the American population are due to fear, we would expect estimates of those groups' share that are made by the groups' members to be more accurate than those made by others. We tested this theory on minority groups that were represented by at least 100 respondents within our sample and found that they were no better (and often worse) than non-group members at guessing the relative size of the minority group they belong to.
Black Americans estimate that, on average, Black people make up 52% of the U.S. adult population; non-Black Americans estimate the proportion is roughly 39%, closer to the real figure of 12%. First-generation immigrants we surveyed estimate that first-generation immigrants account for 40% of U.S. adults, while non-immigrants guess it is around 31%, closer to the actual figure of 14%.
Although there is some question-by-question variability, the results from our survey show that inaccurate perceptions of group size are not limited to the types of socially charged group divisions typically explored in similar studies: race, religion, sexuality, education, and income. Americans are equally likely to misestimate the size of less widely discussed groups, such as adults who are left-handed. While respondents estimated that 34% of U.S. adults are left-handed, the real estimate lies closer to 10-12%. Similar misperceptions are found regarding the proportion of American adults who own a pet, have read a book in the past year, or reside in various cities or states. This suggests that errors in judgment are not due to the specific context surrounding a certain group.
Why is demographic math so difficult? One recent meta-study suggests that when people are asked to make an estimation they are uncertain about, such as the size of a population, they tend to rescale their perceptions in a rational manner. When a person's lived experience suggests an extreme value — such as a small proportion of people who are Jewish or a large proportion of people who are Christian — they often assume, reasonably, that their experiences are biased. In response, they adjust their prior estimate of a group's size accordingly by shifting it closer to what they perceive to be the mean group size (that is, 50%). This can facilitate misestimation in surveys, such as ours, which don't require people to make tradeoffs by constraining the sum of group proportions within a certain category to 100%.
This reasoning process — referred to as uncertainty-based rescaling — leads people to systematically overestimate the size of small values and underestimate the size of large values. It also explains why estimates of populations closer to 0% (e.g., LGBT people, Muslims, and Native Americans) and populations closer to 100% (e.g., adults with a high school degree or who own a car) are less accurate than estimates of populations that are closer to 50%, such as the percentage of American adults who are married or have a child.
Does correcting misperceptions of group size change peoples' attitudes on related issues? Current research suggests it does not. In a series of studies (one of which used a survey fielded by YouGov), political scientists John Sides and Jack Citrin attempted to correct inaccurate beliefs about the size of the U.S. foreign-born population, both subtly, by embedding the accurate information in a news story, and explicitly, by providing survey respondents with Census Bureau estimates. They found that while providing this information did somewhat improve people's knowledge of the number of immigrants in America, they did not make people more supportive of immigration.
Below we display median estimates of group sizes, which tended to be more accurate than mean estimates, but with differences from the true estimates in the same direction.
Methodology: This article includes findings from two U.S. News surveys conducted by YouGov on two nationally representative samples of 1,000 U.S. adult citizens interviewed online from January 14-20, 2022. The first survey included questions on groups involving race, education, income, family, gender, and sexuality, while the second survey included questions on religion, politics, and other miscellaneous groups. The samples were weighted according to gender, age, race, and education based on the 2018 American Community Survey, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, as well as 2016 and 2020 Presidential votes (or non-votes). Respondents were selected from YouGov's opt-in panel to be representative of all U.S. citizens. Real proportions were taken from a variety of sources, including the U.S. Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, YouGov's internal poll results, and the results of other well-established polling firms. Most estimates were collected within the past three years; the oldest is from 2009. Because the real estimates presented cover a range of time periods, they may differ from actual population sizes at the time our survey was conducted.
Median estimates of group sizes relative to actual population estimates
Estimated proportions median weighted responses (ranging from 0% to 100%, rounded to the nearest whole percentage) to the question "If you had to guess, what percentage of American adults..." True proportions were drawn from a variety of sources, including the U.S. Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and polls by YouGov and other polling firms.
(https://i.postimg.cc/y8pVyCmj/image.png)
Some of those estimations are really trippy. 20% of millionaires? 21% of trans? 30% of gays? 27% of muslims? 30% of jews?
The ones about local populations is... words fail me. 30% of the US population living in New York City? Another 30% living in Texas and another 30% in California? What the hell?
Maybe it's just that a significant share of the US* population don't understand what percentages mean?
* The UK's population seems noticably inclinded to admit being unsure about numbers as appossed to their literacy.
Its definitely a thing that people don't get percentages.
I can't help but be disturbed by the greater number of republicans than democrats and how they add up to a full 100, awfully close to the cursed percentages.
Unless zero independents vote Republican, or Republicans just don't vote, I have a hard time accepting 47% of Americans are Republicans. 42% also seems high for Democrats as well. I thought Independents were the largest.
Quote from: The Larch on March 29, 2023, 05:03:25 AMSome of those estimations are really trippy. 20% of millionaires? 21% of trans? 30% of gays? 27% of muslims? 30% of jews?
The ones about local populations is... words fail me. 30% of the US population living in New York City? Another 30% living in Texas and another 30% in California? What the hell?
How about 40% are military veterans. Do people think we have a hundred million people in the military or something?
The questions don't seem unambiguous and the sample was self-selecting, so I view this kind of poll as more indicative than accurate. That people in the aggregate underestimate larger numbers and overestimate small numbers isn't surprising, but also isn't informative. Better would be the percentage of people who are able to answer accurately (say, +/- 5%), somewhat accurately (say, +/- 10%), and none of the above.
Yeah, people are terrible at estimating, news at 11.
Absolutely loved Biden's visit to Ireland - this is magnifent (yes, it is the Dropkick Murphys) :lol: :wub:
https://twitter.com/josh_wingrove/status/1646980815753035781
It's also made me, not for the first, think Biden and be reminded of my dad :lol: Born in the same year, same favourite hymn, same style of very Vatican II Catholicism, very big on their Irishness and some family tragedies through the years (including death of their first wife).
Edit: Also American politicians just do this stuff and the razzamataz side of politics so much better than anyone else.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 14, 2023, 04:58:39 PMAbsolutely loved Biden's visit to Ireland - this is magnifent (yes, it is the Dropkick Murphys) :lol: :wub:
When the Dropkick Murphys are your opening act, you have made it!
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 14, 2023, 04:58:39 PMAbsolutely loved Biden's visit to Ireland - this is magnifent (yes, it is the Dropkick Murphys) :lol: :wub:
https://twitter.com/josh_wingrove/status/1646980815753035781
If you told me that was from a wrestling show I would have believed it. :lol:
Biden is now enforcing forced child labor. ;)
(https://external-preview.redd.it/LWOncSu2SYNJnx-GP88EvbZStXRvRmv-Ymqh9mAwOpU.png?auto=webp&v=enabled&s=a0b0da9c80e49885744b75965b37d04c5a1ddfc1)
We seem to be legalizing it across the country, he might as well get in on the action.
The 14th Amendment is quite clear. Public debt, must be paid.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/02/us/politics/debt-limit-us-constitution.html
QuoteBy Jim Tankersley
Reporting from Washington
May 2, 2023
Updated 5:14 p.m. ET
A standoff between House Republicans and President Biden over raising the nation's borrowing limit has administration officials debating what to do if the government runs out of cash to pay its bills, including one option that previous administrations had deemed unthinkable.
That option is effectively a constitutional challenge to the debt limit. Under the theory, the government would be required by the 14th Amendment to continue issuing new debt to pay bondholders, Social Security recipients, government employees and others, even if Congress fails to lift the limit before the so-called X-date.
That theory rests on the 14th Amendment clause stating that "the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
Some legal scholars contend that language overrides the statutory borrowing limit, which currently caps federal debt at $31.4 trillion and requires congressional approval to raise or lift.
Top economic and legal officials at the White House, the Treasury Department and the Justice Department have made that theory a subject of intense and unresolved debate in recent months, according to several people familiar with the discussions.
It is unclear whether President Biden would support such a move, which would have serious ramifications for the economy and almost undoubtedly elicit legal challenges from Republicans. Continuing to issue debt in that situation would avoid an immediate disruption in consumer demand by maintaining government payments, but borrowing costs are likely to soar, at least temporarily.
Still, the debate is taking on new urgency as the United States inches closer to default. Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen warned on Monday that the government could run out of cash as soon as June 1 if the borrowing cap is not lifted.
Mr. Biden is set to meet with Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California at the White House on May 9 to discuss fiscal policy, along with other top congressional leaders from both parties. The president's invitation was spurred by the accelerated warning of the arrival of the X-date.
But it remains unclear what type of compromise may be reached in time to avoid a default. House Republicans have refused to raise or suspend the debt ceiling unless Mr. Biden accepts spending cuts, fossil fuel supports and a repeal of Democratic climate policies, contained in a bill that narrowly cleared the chamber last week.
Mr. Biden has said Congress must raise the limit without conditions, though he has also said he is open to separate discussions about the nation's fiscal path.
A White House spokesman declined to comment on Tuesday.
A group of legal scholars and some liberal activists have pushed the constitutional challenge to the borrowing limit for more than a decade. No previous administration has taken it up. Lawyers at the White House and the Justice and Treasury Departments have never issued formal opinions on the question. And legal scholars disagree about the constitutionality of such a move.
"The Constitution's text bars the federal government from defaulting on the debt — even a little, even for a short while," Garrett Epps, a constitutional scholar at the University of Oregon's law school, wrote in November. "There's a case to be made that if Congress decides to default on the debt, the president has the power and the obligation to pay it without congressional permission, even if that requires borrowing more money to do so."
Other legal scholars say the limit is constitutional. "The statute is a necessary component of Congress's power to borrow and has proved capable of serving as a useful catalyst for budgetary reform aimed at debt reduction," Anita S. Krishnakumar, a Georgetown University law professor, wrote in a 2005 law review article.
The president has repeatedly said it is the job of Congress to raise the limit to avoid an economically catastrophic default.
Top officials, including Ms. Yellen and the White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, have sidestepped questions about whether they believe the Constitution would compel the government to continue borrowing to pay its bills after the X-date.
ABC News asked Ms. Yellen amid a debt-ceiling standoff in 2021 if she would invoke the 14th Amendment to resolve it.
"It's Congress's responsibility to show that they have the determination to pay the bills that the government amasses," she said. "We shouldn't be in a position where we need to consider whether or not the 14th Amendment applies. That's a disastrous situation that the country shouldn't be in."
The government reached the borrowing limit on Jan. 19, but Treasury officials deployed what are known as extraordinary measures to continue paying bills on time. The measures, which are essentially accounting maneuvers, are set to run out sometime in the next few months, possibly as soon as June 1. The government would default on its debt if Treasury stopped paying all bills. Economists have warned that could lead to financial crisis and recession.
Progressive groups have encouraged Mr. Biden to take actions meant to circumvent Congress on the debt limit and continue uninterrupted spending, like minting a $1 trillion coin to deposit with the Federal Reserve. Internally, administration officials have rejected most of them. Publicly, Biden aides have said the only way to avert a crisis is for Congress to act.
"I know you probably get tired of me saying this from here over and over again, but it is true," Ms. Jean-Pierre said on Thursday, after referring a question about the 14th Amendment to the Treasury Department. "It is their constitutional duty to get this done."
But inside the administration, it remains an open question what Treasury would do if Congress does not raise the limit in time — because, many officials say, the law is unclear and so is the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to tax and spend.
Officials who support invoking the 14th Amendment and continuing to issue new debt contend the government would be exposed to lawsuits either way. If it fails to continue paying its bills after the X-date, it could be sued by anyone who is not paid on time in the event of a default.
Other officials have argued that the statutory borrowing limit is binding, and that an attempt to ignore it would draw an immediate legal challenge that would most likely rise quickly to the Supreme Court.
There is a broad consensus on both sides of the debate that the move risks roiling financial markets. It is likely to cause a surge in short-term borrowing costs because investors would demand a premium to buy debt that could be invalidated by a court.
The Moody's Analytics economist Mark Zandi modeled such a situation this year and found it would create short-term economic damage but long-term gains if courts upheld the constitutional interpretation — by removing the threat of future brinkmanship over the limit.
"The extraordinary uncertainty created by the constitutional crisis leads to a sell-off in financial markets until the Supreme Court rules," Mr. Zandi wrote in March. Economic growth and job creation would be dampened briefly, he added, "but the economy avoids a recession and quickly rebounds."
Obama administration officials considered — and quickly discarded — the constitutional theory when Republicans refused to raise the limit in 2011 unless the president agreed to spending cuts. Treasury lawyers never issued a formal opinion on the question, and they have not yet this year, department officials said this week.
But in a letter to the editor of The New York Times in 2011, George W. Madison, who was Treasury's general counsel at the time, suggested that department officials did not subscribe to the theory. He was directly challenging an assertion by the constitutional law professor Laurence H. Tribe, who wrote in an opinion essay in The Times that Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner had pushed to embrace the 14th Amendment interpretation, which Mr. Tribe opposed.
"Like every previous secretary of the Treasury who has confronted the question," Mr. Madison wrote, "Secretary Geithner has always viewed the debt limit as a binding legal constraint that can only be raised by Congress."
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 02, 2023, 07:30:32 PMThe 14th Amendment is quite clear. Public debt, must be paid.
That's not what it says.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 02, 2023, 08:20:44 PMThat's not what it says.
Is this merely a statement that Timmy didn't quote the 14th Amendment precisely, or are you contending that the 14th "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned" means something other than "the public debt must be paid"?
Quote from: Jacob on May 02, 2023, 09:12:47 PMIs this merely a statement that Timmy didn't quote the 14th Amendment precisely, or are you contending that the 14th "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned" means something other than "the public debt must be paid"?
It's conceivable that a some point the court rules that that is in fact what the amendment means or implies, but absent that ruling that is not what the words on the paper say.
In Perry v US(1935), the Supreme Court said the following about the 14th amendment debt clause:
QuoteThe Fourteenth Amendment, in its fourth section, explicitly declares: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, . . . shall not be questioned." While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation. We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle which applies as well to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress, as to those issued before the Amendment was adopted. Nor can we perceive any reason for not considering the expression "the validity of the public debt" as embracing whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations.
That last sentence is very broad and would clearly support the argument against the debt limit. However, it is arguably too broad as there are lots of things that "concern[] the integrity of the public obligations" and clearly all those things can't be unconstitutional. The debt limit statute had existed for 18 years when Perry was decided and no one seems to have questioned its constitutionality.
However, in 74 the Congress also passed the Impoundment Control Act, which essentially requires Presidents to spend all monies appropriated by Congress. This sets up a fundamental contradiction with the debt limit if it is not raised sufficiently as there are conflicting statutory mandates to spend money that does not exist. It also raises the 14th amendment issue more sharply as compliance with the Impoundment Control Act (a constitutional requirement under Article II) necessarily and directly undermines the integrity of public obligations unless the debt limit is lifted or ignored.
Even if the constitutional argument is sound though, the practical obstacle is that the market for debt issuances whose validity cannot be confirmed without constitutional litigation is not likely to be very robust.
Would this idea work?
https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1653734738178310144
I'd suggest if you're looking at possible end runs, then probably not.
It might work on a technical level for a while but I think, in a way, it would just reinforce fears about American politics.
Premium bonds suffer from a similar problem as the 14th amendment response - it requires investors to purchase debt instruments without knowing if they will ultimately found to be valid or not.
If the objective is to really address this issues, the best move would be for the President to run into federal court NOW and ask for an expedited declaratory judgment to resolve the contradiction between the Impoundment Act and the debt limit statute; such an application could include the 14th amendment arguments etc. as desired. try to fast track to get a Supreme Court ruling as quickly as possible.
But the President may not want to do that because the more desired outcome is to reach a political resolution with Congress authorizing a raise in the limit with a bill that can actually pass both houses. If the President pursues effective legal alternatives, that takes the pressure off GOP leaders on Congress to force a compromise. Of course that assumes McCarthy is capable of forcing a compromise even under the threat of total disaster (I assume Mitch can).
It's a very tricky game theory problem playing out in real life, with the fiscal stability of the US as the stakes . . .
Just mint the coin already.
The market on those coins by late-night TV commercials in 20 years time will be enormous.
I love John Fetterman :D
(https://i.redd.it/0dy8hrjkjo0b1.jpg)
(Vast majority of comments on reddit were, "Awesome for Fetterman, but WTF is the guy on the right doing with his mismatched suit and brown shoes???" :lol: )
Wearing suits is rightly dying out. Glad that a US senator is taking a stand against these silly costumes.
Fetterman is only 53, so proably 20 years younger than the next senator he's with. Rightfully, he dressed like a child.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 19, 2023, 06:16:36 AMFetterman is only 53, so proably 20 years younger than the next senator he's with. Rightfully, he dressed like a child.
If you dress your children in shorts and a long-sleeved hoody, get ready for when they are old enough to feel comfortable taking out their anger on you.
:hmm:
What's the problem? Cold in the morning & sweating in the afternoon requires a solution.
Showing up in court in shorts and a hoodie is a sign of disrespect. The same applies to Congress.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 19, 2023, 01:24:18 PMShowing up in court in shorts and a hoodie is a sign of disrespect. The same applies to Congress.
Hard disagree. Wearing suits and ties is like medieval court dress. It's only slightly less anachronistic today than the weirdo gowns Charles wore during his coronation.
Hoodie and jeans is business formal now.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 19, 2023, 01:24:18 PMShowing up in court in shorts and a hoodie is a sign of disrespect. The same applies to Congress.
Agree. He isn't my senator though.
Suits and ties are not medieval court dress, they are still commonly worn across the business and legal world, and hooded sweatshirts have no place where serious business is conducted.
Just because a bunch of tech bro frat boys got really rich in the 00s doesn't mean good taste went out the door. Learn to dress appropriately, bums.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 19, 2023, 01:24:18 PMShowing up in court in shorts and a hoodie is a sign of disrespect. The same applies to Congress.
Disagree. To me, it all depends on the circumstances. The only source I could find for the photo was a bumper-sticker post on twitter, so I don't know the circumstances. If your rule is "suits only all the time in the Capital Building" then circumstances, obviously, don't matter to you.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 19, 2023, 02:59:44 PMSuits and ties are not medieval court dress, they are still commonly worn across the business and legal world, and hooded sweatshirts have no place where serious business is conducted.
Just because a bunch of tech bro frat boys got really rich in the 00s doesn't mean good taste went out the door. Learn to dress appropriately, bums.
Agreed.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 19, 2023, 02:59:44 PMSuits and ties are not medieval court dress, they are still commonly worn across the business and legal world, and hooded sweatshirts have no place where serious business is conducted.
Just because a bunch of tech bro frat boys got really rich in the 00s doesn't mean good taste went out the door. Learn to dress appropriately, bums.
I've seen plenty of people conduct serious business in places where hoodies were common. Universities, for instance, or offices with relaxed dress codes. The idea that all serious people
have to dress like they have a stick up their ass was passé by the end of the 1960s. Dress codes are situational in the modern world.
Quote from: garbon on May 19, 2023, 03:38:42 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 19, 2023, 02:59:44 PMSuits and ties are not medieval court dress, they are still commonly worn across the business and legal world, and hooded sweatshirts have no place where serious business is conducted.
Just because a bunch of tech bro frat boys got really rich in the 00s doesn't mean good taste went out the door. Learn to dress appropriately, bums.
Agreed.
I've never worked anywhere that had suits and ties as the norm, but there was normally a fairly clear sense of what business dress is (and everyone changed into their shoes in the office).
I think there is an advantage to having a legible social code of what that means and when it's apparopriate. And that will vary in different workplaces. It will vary depending on culture and setting - media or marketing are different than law or medicine. But I think one of the purposes of those codes is that they provide a uniform of sorts - if you're young, junior, from a different background you almost get told what to wear. And I think there is especially for younger people maybe something in adopting your tribe through that uniform - whether it's city boys, or tech bros, or Clem Fandangos.
As I say it'll vary sector to sector but I'm not convinced that holding up middle-aged white guys in positions of power bucking that uniform is quite as positive as it seems - at least not unless there's a new social code that is understood and open to the most junior members of staff who don't come from the same social background/class.
It doesn't necessarily mean or signify anything in particular - any more than any other fashion choice does - but it is a way of communicating to each other.
On that I would add that I think women and minorities and people from a different social class feel a lot more anxiety about making a faux pas by wearing the wrong thing or being over-casual or about being taken "seriously". Ironically I think a common "uniform" may actually help allay that, rather than making them seem stuffy. I think it's true of a few social codes - that's a little like a class or privilege version of needing to know the rules in order to know how to break them.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 19, 2023, 02:59:44 PMSuits and ties are not medieval court dress, they are still commonly worn across the business and legal world, and hooded sweatshirts have no place where serious business is conducted.
Just because a bunch of tech bro frat boys got really rich in the 00s doesn't mean good taste went out the door. Learn to dress appropriately, bums.
(https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/GettyImages-1252746205.jpg?w=681&h=383&crop=1)
"Learn to dress appropriately, bums", says old man from previous era.
Suits and ties need to hurry and die off fully.
Even the McKinsey consultants at my workplace have stopped wearing ties.
Quote from: Hamilcar on May 19, 2023, 01:35:49 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on May 19, 2023, 01:24:18 PMShowing up in court in shorts and a hoodie is a sign of disrespect. The same applies to Congress.
Hard disagree. Wearing suits and ties is like medieval court dress. It's only slightly less anachronistic today than the weirdo gowns Charles wore during his coronation.
Hoodie and jeans is business formal now.
Yi said Court and Congress.
Criminal defendants who want shorter sentences show up in suit and tie. Criminal defendants who want longer sentences wear shorts and hoodie. You may not like it but that's still the way it is.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 20, 2023, 11:51:17 AMQuote from: Hamilcar on May 19, 2023, 01:35:49 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on May 19, 2023, 01:24:18 PMShowing up in court in shorts and a hoodie is a sign of disrespect. The same applies to Congress.
Hard disagree. Wearing suits and ties is like medieval court dress. It's only slightly less anachronistic today than the weirdo gowns Charles wore during his coronation.
Hoodie and jeans is business formal now.
Yi said Court and Congress.
Criminal defendants who want shorter sentences show up in suit and tie. Criminal defendants who want longer sentences wear shorts and hoodie. You may not like it but that's still the way it is.
Really? There are never any informal meetings in the courts where dress code is relaxed to not require suits and ties? Even the spectators in the court have to wear coat and tie or formal dress?
Or is dress code, as I have argued, situational?
There's not a formal dress code for defendants in court, which JR clearly explained.
Defendants can wear whatever they want, but their sartorial choices may impact their fate.
Same goes for civil cases including video depositions.
It is, in a way, like the job applicant whose email is "
[email protected]" - it very well could create a negative impression...
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 21, 2023, 09:57:25 AMDefendants can wear whatever they want, but their sartorial choices may impact their fate.
Same goes for civil cases including video depositions.
As true as it is, this is something that needs challenging.
Quote from: PDH on May 21, 2023, 02:05:11 PMIt is, in a way, like the job applicant whose email is "[email protected]" - it very well could create a negative impression...
You anti Sir Mix-a-lot stance will not stand!
The guy on the far right is the most weirdly dressed guy in the photo. Pick a lane.
Fetterman's fashion... choices... are not to my taste but he has a specific role he's trying to play, so they are understandable. He's my parents' Senator and my mom is a rabid fan of his, so it's serving him well, at least in her case.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 21, 2023, 09:57:25 AMDefendants can wear whatever they want, but their sartorial choices may impact their fate.
Same goes for civil cases including video depositions.
BAck when I was just starting out I had misdiarized something, and I had to call my client at the absolute last minute to come to court (it was something civil, but not a full trial). So my client had to come right from work, in full work clothes, his work boots covered in mud.
My client was pissed - he wanted to be dressed better for the judge.
But let me tell you - I guy who obviously works so hard he had to come right from the work site, his boots covered in mud, could not have played off any better in court if I had tried. The judge just ate him up.
Now yes - the Alberta Provincial Court - Civil Division in High Level (just a couple hours from the NWT border) is probably not the same as court in Manhattan, but the dress code can indeed be pretty flexible.
Personally when advising witnesses I tell them to dress nicely (I used to say as if going to church but then I realized that didn't mean anything to enough people) but by no means to buy new clothes. They should still dress authentically as themselves.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4017344-rick-scott-issues-travel-advisory-for-socialists-warning-florida-is-openly-hostile-to-them/
QuoteRick Scott issues travel advisory for 'socialists,' warning Florida is 'openly hostile' to them
Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) issued what he described as a "formal travel advisory for socialists visiting Florida," on Tuesday, warning that the state was "openly hostile" to socialists and their enablers.
"The state of Florida devalues and marginalizes the contributions of, and the challenges faced by Socialists and others who work in the Biden Administration," Scott, who is also the state's former governor, said in a press release.
"Let me be clear – any attempts to spread the oppression and poverty that Socialism always brings will be rebuffed by the people of Florida," he added. "Travelers should be aware that attempts to spread Socialism in north Florida will fail and be met with laughter and mockery."
Scott's statement is a mocking response to recent travel issued by social justice groups declaring Florida an unsafe state for certain minority groups.
Over the weekend, the NAACP issuing a travel advisory warning that Florida has become "hostile to Black Americans" under Gov. Ron DeSantis. The League of United Latin American Citizens (a civil rights organization) and Equality Florida (an LGBTQ rights group) also issued travel warnings in recent weeks.
Scott, who has often served as a political foil to President Biden, used similar language found in the NAACP's advisory, seeming to mock the dangers outlined by the civil right's group by drawing parallels to Biden.
He said the counteractive travel advisory came "in direct response to the Biden Administration attempts to erase capitalism and the system that has brought prosperity to Florida and the entire United States."
Quote from: Syt on May 24, 2023, 06:58:13 AMin direct response to the Biden Administration attempts to erase capitalism and the system that has brought prosperity to Florida and the entire United States."
Ah, his this what they call hyperbole, or rather a simple lie? :P
According to NPR the DOJ is "close to a charging decision" on Hunter Biden. Three tax things and one gun thing.
Quote from: Caliga on May 23, 2023, 12:03:53 PMFetterman's fashion... choices... are not to my taste but he has a specific role he's trying to play, so they are understandable. He's my parents' Senator and my mom is a rabid fan of his, so it's serving him well, at least in her case.
Yeah I don't like it but I am not his constituent. It seems the kind of thing the yinzers over there in western Pennsylvania would eat up.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 24, 2023, 07:14:07 PMAccording to NPR the DOJ is "close to a charging decision" on Hunter Biden. Three tax things and one gun thing.
I don't know about the tax stuff, but the gun charge is almost certainly BS overcharging if they pursue it.
Form 4473 has this question on it:
QuoteAre you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
The premise of the charge is Hunter bought a gun during the time in which we also know he was using drugs regularly. The problem is this is close to being a "nonsense" question on the gun form. Unless you can show someone was actually actively under the effects of drugs, it's vague as to what "unlawful user" even means. Does that mean someone that has ever used ever? Does it mean someone who might use in the next 7 days, next 7 years?
"Addicted to" has additional problems of substantiation. AFAIK prosecutions for how this question is answered are very rare for this reason, and the fact anything is being made out of it seems highly partisan to me. In theory you could try to prosecute anyone in the drug business who has ever bought a firearm under this statute, but that normally doesn't happen.
You would need some hard substantiation that Hunter deliberately was in a state of mind where he knowingly lied on that question. Otherwise he can simply claim "I wasn't using drugs that day and did not intend to use them again" and on the addiction question "I have been under treatment for drug abuse, but never viewed myself as having an addiction." Addiction is pretty squishy definitionally. Like you could make an argument George W. Bush shouldn't be able to buy a gun because he recognized he was addicted to alcohol at age 40 and became a teetotaler, but no one is making that argument.
One thing that puzzles me is why the Democrats, back when they had control of both houses, didn't attach debt limit increases to their various spending bills.
I have asked that of people in other forums etc and I have never heard a satisfactory answer. I think it may just be as simple as, the debt limit ceiling probably can't be removed without overriding a filibuster procedurally, under current parliamentary rules. So they would have to first exempt such a vote from the filibuster (which they have done for a limited number of things to this point), and I am guessing Manchin or Sinema would've said no. But there was not even an attempt to get it done so I'm not sure.
Why can't Democrats expand the debt limit by $700 trillion next time they have a chance?
They can. But they would need the political will to actually do it, which they seemed to lack completely the two years prior.
Theoretically they could get rid of the law entirely.
Could they?
My understanding was that the debt ceiling originated in WW1 to allow the executive to issue debt up to a (at the time) level that was believed, at the time, to be astronomically high and as much as the US would be likely to need. From what I understand, before then Congress authorised specific debts.
If they got rid of the law wouldn't it just revert back to Congress having to authorise each issue of debt?
Edit: Obviously it is a massive irony that a legislative device designed to allow the US government to issue debt without going through legislative wrangling, brinksmanship or attempts to extort other policies has now itself become exactly that. (feel like maybe there's something about US politics in that?)
No--they are separate.
Before the modern system, Congress literally had to draft a law creating bond programs of a specified size and etc. They decided this was too cumbersome for modern finance, and passed a law giving the Secretary of the Treasury authority to create and issue bonds.
Not long after that, Congress realized that this in theory could allow the Secretary of the Treasury to take the U.S. into a lot of debt for no reason--while they still controlled appropriations and taxation, under the initial grant the Secretary of the Treasury could theoretically just issue debt for various reasons. The debt ceiling creates a statutory limit after which the SecTreas cannot issue any further debt.
A much more logical bill 100 years ago would have just been to say that SecTreas can issue debt "as needed, but only to pay for spending appropriated by congress."
Oh interesting - thanks.
Agree that would make much more sense.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 25, 2023, 06:27:47 PMNo--they are separate.
Before the modern system, Congress literally had to draft a law creating bond programs of a specified size and etc. They decided this was too cumbersome for modern finance, and passed a law giving the Secretary of the Treasury authority to create and issue bonds.
Not long after that, Congress realized that this in theory could allow the Secretary of the Treasury to take the U.S. into a lot of debt for no reason--while they still controlled appropriations and taxation, under the initial grant the Secretary of the Treasury could theoretically just issue debt for various reasons. The debt ceiling creates a statutory limit after which the SecTreas cannot issue any further debt.
A much more logical bill 100 years ago would have just been to say that SecTreas can issue debt "as needed, but only to pay for spending appropriated by congress."
Did the people who introduced the debt ceiling mechanism see it basically as functional, or did they intend it to be jaded as a political weapon?
So I got some of the details wrong from memory.
The 1917 Liberty Bond Act gave the Secretary of the Treasury specific authorization to issue various bonds and Treasury bills at his discretion, which changed the norm of Congress having to pass legislation authorizing specific tranches of bonds.
This act also contained a limit for each type of debt instrument, but not an overall aggregate ceiling.
In 1939 a law was passed creating an aggregate ceiling on all issued debt.
It was intended to be used for political purposes to try and control the budgeting process, so it essentially functioned as it does now.
However, it arguably at least had some plausible justification in 1939. The whole Federal budgeting process used to work way differently, and there were limited parliamentary procedures available to actually "debate the budget" in Congress. The debt ceiling gave factions in the Congress the ability to force public debates about the budget, and arguably exercise more appropriate legislative oversight of budgeting.
At this time, the President actually had some permanent and standing powers to sort of engage in spending and incur debts on his own discretion. Instead of the modern budgeting process, the main way that the Congress had historically exercised "power of the purse" was control over taxation (which controlled the revenue available to the President), and control over debt--which, Constitutionally no one but Congress can issue debt, so while Congress may not have rigorously budgeted / appropriated every line item like they do today, these twin powers meant that the President had limits to his fiscal operations.
(There are many reasons we didn't use to do modern congressional budgeting--not least of which is Congress lacked institutions to do budgets, it had to be ran out of the Secretary of the Treasury's office which had more staffers by many orders of magnitude than did the entire U.S. Congress.)
In this context, since they had delegated their ordinary statutory power of debt issuance to the Treasury, a statutory limit on amounts of debt made sense or they would be basically ceding almost all the power of the purse away from Congress.
In 1974 this all changed significantly with the Congressional Budget Act. This did a few things:
1. Established the Congressional Budget Office, giving Congress the staffing framework needed to engage in real Congressional budgeting.
2. Normalized that now the President would have a specifically appropriated annual budget passed by Congress as a law.
3. To avoid potential end runs around Congressional budgeting authority, they also forbade the historical practice of Presidential impoundment. This practice allowed the President to unilaterally "decide" some things just didn't need paid for, because he didn't want them funded. If they had left this power (which is not a Constitutionally stipulated Presidential power, but just a power he de facto executed by the nature of running the executive branch) unchecked, their attempts to impose Congressional budgeting would have been undermined. So Title X of the Congressional Budget Act is frequently called by itself the "Impoundment Control Act." This Act makes it so the President explicitly does not have discretion in ordinary circumstances, as to what to fund and not fund. He has to pay all things appropriated.
The old debt ceiling law was initially left untouched.
However, in a more reasonable era of politics, Congress quickly recognized that they now had full control of an annual budget, and the political utility of controlling the debt ceiling separately diminished, and was extraneous. They formalized what became known as the "Gephardt Rule", where as a parliamentary rule, going forward each year's budget would not be passed without also raising the debt ceiling the same amount as the budget required (and some extra padding.) This was then the norm between then and 1995, when the rule was overturned by Newt Gingrich specifically to allow his party to try and destroy the United States (this was not the only thing he did to that end.)
It should be noted too, that prior to the 1974 laws on Congressional budgeting and impoundment, the old debt ceiling, while useful to maintain power of the purse was nowhere near as dangerous. Without a restriction on Presidential impoundment, in earlier debt ceiling fights (like one in the mid-1950s) there was no real risk of default. Since the President had legal impoundment authority, his SecTreas had way more flexibility to avoid not paying debts--they could just impound funds for any number of agencies and keep paying debts out of revenue.
Technically under the current law, other than some of the limited financial moves SecTreas Yellen is engaging in, Biden doesn't have that legal flexibility. It has often been suggested that breaching the ceiling is no big deal because Biden can just defund "unimportant" programs and prioritize debt payments--we obviously have more than enough recurring government revenue to make all our debt payments. Problem is, before 1974 the President could do that in a debt ceiling crisis, but they legally cannot do it now. While the President could try, like all current suggestions for bypassing the debt ceiling, it rests on speculative ground and even trying it would result in uncertain legal battles which would in turn cause the very market harming economic effects everyone is afraid of with the debt ceiling in the first place.
Quote from: Hamilcar on May 26, 2023, 01:24:03 AMDid the people who introduced the debt ceiling mechanism see it basically as functional, or did they intend it to be jaded as a political weapon?
The debt ceiling was imposed as a means by which Congress could monitor government spending during a war. It was likely intended to keep the partisan politics out of wartime spending (which couldn't be predicted as well as normal appropriation spending). Laws already exist that require the Executive to spend all appropriate money for the authorized purposes, so under normal appropriation (i.e. non-wartime) procedures Congress has obliged itself to raise the debt as necessary to accommodate the spending it has appropriated money for. The debt ceiling law should have been sunsetted after the First World War and further appropriations bill then, as Otto noted, simply contain the proviso that the Executive has the authority to issue bonds as necessary to pay for appropriations.
The debt ceiling was never intended as a sword of Damocles that would allow feckless politicians to threaten to ruin the US credit rating for partisan gain. I doubt that the 1917 Congress even considered the rise of such politicians to be a possibility.
Around 20 years ago the New York state court system put into place an electronic filing system, and over time more categories of cases were designated for electronic filing. But the old rules for filing papers were not supplanted and the result was a hybrid system where you would file papers electronically, but then also submit hard copy papers with colored jackets to a room where a clerk would verbally call out cases and make markings in them. A odd combination of 19th century and 21st century technology. Then COVID came and the oral "calendar calls" were suspended. Some of the paper filing rules are still on the books, but post-COVID many judges now have individual rules making them "paperless parts".
There's lots of stuff like that in the law. New rules and practices are adopted to address contemporary problems, but the old rules are not always repealed. The old rules survive in vestigial form, with the rituals being observed despite the fact that the original purposes for which they were intended no longer exist.
In most cases, this sort of thing is mostly harmless, an annoyance perhaps for lawyers and bureaucrats (although at the same time their knowledge of this arcana sets them apart from ordinary common sense citizens who aren't familiar with the legalistic hocus pocus). In the case of the debt ceiling however. it is not merely a generator of some inconvenient red tape, but is a threat to the entire world financial system.
In a nation with a reasonable functional government, this problem would be easily resolved by consigning the legal fossil to history. Alas, reasonably functional is no longer an accurate description of American politics.
So who was it that weaponized the debt ceiling? Don't tell me it was Newt Gingrich?
The debt ceiling has been weaponized throughout the 20th century. For example between late 1953 and mid 1954 the Senate refused to raise it for disputes they had been having with the executive branch over financial issues; but because of the different laws in place at the time the Treasury was able to manipulate funds for that entire duration without it being a problem.
There was, as I mentioned, a period from the late 70s til 95 where the Gephardt Rule was in place--which was just a parliamentary rule in the U.S. House; that tied budgets to debt ceiling raises.
Newt is certainly the one who ended that rule, which allowed for the debt ceiling to be used as a second cudgel in addition to the budget process. However, Newt never really had a debt ceiling crisis proper. He had a few major conflicts with the Clinton Administration--two government shutdowns over refusal to pass a budget, and obviously impeachment.
The debt ceiling being decoupled from the budget in the House's parliamentary rules dates to the budget showdowns Newt had with Clinton. The Republicans started to use the threat to not raise the ceiling as a rhetorical device and passed a rule change to add weight to the threat. But at least at that time, the debt ceiling was not actually close to being breached and the more immediate crisis was the Federal government being shutdown due to not having a budget. That all resolved before the debt ceiling really became an issue, and Newt never actually refused to raise the ceiling in a relatively timely fashion.
The 1953-54 incident was categorically different. There was never any real risk of default and no threat. Harry Byrd used his blocking position in the Senate as a mechanism to prompt a discussion in Congress about budget priorities. But when the need to issue more debt could not be delayed, he quickly agreed to an increase. He had no intention of playing chicken over a default.
What I don't understand is how threatening to force the country to default unless you get your way is politically acceptable. Do the people supporting this maneuver think that defaulting is an acceptable tail risk? Or are the oblivious of what the consequences really would be?
Quote from: Hamilcar on May 29, 2023, 09:29:51 AMWhat I don't understand is how threatening to force the country to default unless you get your way is politically acceptable. Do the people supporting this maneuver think that defaulting is an acceptable tail risk? Or are the oblivious of what the consequences really would be?
All the know is that they're owning the libs.
Quote from: Hamilcar on May 29, 2023, 09:29:51 AMWhat I don't understand is how threatening to force the country to default unless you get your way is politically acceptable. Do the people supporting this maneuver think that defaulting is an acceptable tail risk? Or are the oblivious of what the consequences really would be?
They don't have to care about that, the other side will always fold. Always bluff & always push, the Dems never can do anything but fold.
Quote from: Barrister on May 23, 2023, 04:55:27 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on May 21, 2023, 09:57:25 AMDefendants can wear whatever they want, but their sartorial choices may impact their fate.
Same goes for civil cases including video depositions.
BAck when I was just starting out I had misdiarized something, and I had to call my client at the absolute last minute to come to court (it was something civil, but not a full trial). So my client had to come right from work, in full work clothes, his work boots covered in mud.
My client was pissed - he wanted to be dressed better for the judge.
But let me tell you - I guy who obviously works so hard he had to come right from the work site, his boots covered in mud, could not have played off any better in court if I had tried. The judge just ate him up.
Now yes - the Alberta Provincial Court - Civil Division in High Level (just a couple hours from the NWT border) is probably not the same as court in Manhattan, but the dress code can indeed be pretty flexible.
Personally when advising witnesses I tell them to dress nicely (I used to say as if going to church but then I realized that didn't mean anything to enough people) but by no means to buy new clothes. They should still dress authentically as themselves.
Agreed, if judges see someone who is obviously wearing a suit for the first time in their life - they are likely to have an unfavorable impression. I give the same advice about what to wear to court.
(https://i.redd.it/lky6b7yud13b1.jpg)
It is kind of weird how many organizations claiming to be for Liberty and Freedom are actually for restricting both. Or, in this case, be unwavering in their support of arbitrary extra-judicial executions.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2023, 01:40:12 PMIt is kind of weird how many organizations claiming to be for Liberty and Freedom are actually for restricting both. Or, in this case, be unwavering in their support of arbitrary extra-judicial executions.
...says the fan of the French Revolution who calls himself "Valmy." :P
Quote from: Savonarola on May 30, 2023, 03:18:44 PMQuote from: Valmy on May 30, 2023, 01:40:12 PMIt is kind of weird how many organizations claiming to be for Liberty and Freedom are actually for restricting both. Or, in this case, be unwavering in their support of arbitrary extra-judicial executions.
...says the fan of the French Revolution who calls himself "Valmy." :P
It is a very old tradition :P
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2023, 01:40:12 PMIt is kind of weird how many organizations claiming to be for Liberty and Freedom are actually for restricting both. Or, in this case, be unwavering in their support of arbitrary extra-judicial executions.
Especially since one of the only countries that actually still performs barbaric public executions is... Afghanistan. :wacko:
I've seen comments that her husband is in the Army (and they're living in Army provided housing). Is it reasonable to assume that there might be repurcussions for him over this? :unsure:
Quote from: Syt on May 31, 2023, 12:25:34 AMI've seen comments that her husband is in the Army (and they're living in Army provided housing). Is it reasonable to assume that there might be repurcussions for him over this? :unsure:
There might be if she was actually advocating an assassination, but she's not. The post is so bizarre it is either satire or extremely dumb trolling.
Woman who accused Biden of sexually assaulting her in 1993 defects to Russia
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/31/politics/tara-reade-defects-russia-biden-intl/index.html
QuoteA former staffer who accused Joe Biden of sexual assault has defected to Moscow, telling state media that she felt "safe" in Russia and would seek citizenship there.
Tara Reade, who drew headlines during the 2020 presidential race by accusing then-candidate Biden of sexually harassing and assaulting her, said she decided to go to Russia after receiving threats in the US.
Biden has strongly denied Reade's allegations, and no ex-Biden staffer has come forward to say they ever witnessed or heard about any kind of sexual misconduct in his Senate office.
n an interview with MSNBC in 2020, Biden said he is "saying unequivocally, it never, never happened. It didn't. It never happened."
Reade later faced credibility questions of her own including about her education and other credentials.
After being out of the headlines for years, Reade turned up in Moscow on Tuesday, where she sat alongside convicted Kremlin spy Maria Butina and answered questions from Russian state media over several hours.
During the news conference, Butina promised to discuss the possibility of granting Russian citizenship to Reade and ask Putin "to fast track her citizenship request."
Butina was sentenced to 18 months in a US prison in 2019 for conspiring to act as an unregistered foreign agent, and now serves in the Russian parliament in President Vladimir Putin's party.
Reade said she decided to come to Russia following death threats she received this year after she reiterated her accusations regarding Biden and announced on Twitter that she was willing "to testify under oath in Congress if asked."
"When I got off the plane in Moscow, for the first time in a very long time I felt safe, and I felt heard, and I felt respected. That has not happened in my own country," Reade said.
CNN cannot verify Reade's claims of receiving threats on her life.
Reade said that "this illusion of Russia as an enemy is propagated by a few Washington elites who are determined to cause problems."
Well have fun with that Tara.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2023, 03:44:44 PMQuote from: Savonarola on May 30, 2023, 03:18:44 PMQuote from: Valmy on May 30, 2023, 01:40:12 PMIt is kind of weird how many organizations claiming to be for Liberty and Freedom are actually for restricting both. Or, in this case, be unwavering in their support of arbitrary extra-judicial executions.
...says the fan of the French Revolution who calls himself "Valmy." :P
It is a very old tradition :P
Pas de liberté pour les ennemis de la Liberté !
:frog: :P
I guess Tara Reade may have been a Russian asset when she accused Biden back then?
Quote from: Jacob on June 01, 2023, 12:01:20 PMI guess Tara Reade may have been a Russian asset when she accused Biden back then?
Seems odd to pull an asset back before the elections.
Quote from: HVC on June 01, 2023, 12:23:20 PMQuote from: Jacob on June 01, 2023, 12:01:20 PMI guess Tara Reade may have been a Russian asset when she accused Biden back then?
Seems odd to pull an asset back before the elections.
Unless she ran because she was about to get outed.
Crazy Tara will fit right in the the Putin gang.
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/e8afb8632835165ff066ffd0d9858979739e279e/0_115_2754_1652/master/2754.jpg?width=620&quality=85&dpr=1&s=none)
Quote from: Tamas on June 01, 2023, 04:02:27 PM(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/e8afb8632835165ff066ffd0d9858979739e279e/0_115_2754_1652/master/2754.jpg?width=620&quality=85&dpr=1&s=none)
Republican talking point?
Yep. It's ridiculous to see it being reported so much already but you just know a guy tripping over a sandbag is going to beat a whole bunch of real issues in the republicans priorities next election.
Quote from: Josquius on June 01, 2023, 04:35:14 PMYep. It's ridiculous to see it being reported so much already but you just know a guy tripping over a sandbag is going to beat a whole bunch of real issues in the republicans priorities next election.
I mean it's stupid, but you know it's going to be.
But heck - it was a news story when Gerald Ford fell down some steps on an airplane. And just to confuse the non-Canucks, this photo of PC Leader Robert Stanfield may have cost him the 1974 election.
(https://www.thebeaverton.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Robert-Stanfield-fumbles.jpg-800x600.png)
What am I looking at here?
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2023, 07:42:08 PMWhat am I looking at here?
https://youtu.be/PTCEPBDekH4
Quote from: Barrister on June 01, 2023, 05:01:57 PMI mean it's stupid, but you know it's going to be.
Ed Miliband's sandwich springs to mind :lol: :ph34r:
Edit:
QuoteBut heck - it was a news story when Gerald Ford fell down some steps on an airplane. And just to confuse the non-Canucks, this photo of PC Leader Robert Stanfield may have cost him the 1974 election.
And Ford was still a Simpsons gag (lovingly) when I was a kid twenty years later :lol:
That one seems particularly unfair because of Ford's athletic past.
I mean, you have to admit, an 80 years old President having a "falling off/over stuff" episode at what seems every year is not a good look for a leader. It may very well be unfair to have this impression but it does highlight just how bloody old he is.
I like him but having him run for reelection is crazy.
Quote from: Tamas on June 02, 2023, 04:04:39 AMI mean, you have to admit, an 80 years old President having a "falling off/over stuff" episode at what seems every year is not a good look for a leader. It may very well be unfair to have this impression but it does highlight just how bloody old he is.
I like him but having him run for reelection is crazy.
It is true we likely won't see him wrestling a bear or anything like the below. That's probably okay though.
(https://s.abcnews.com/images/International/gty-putin-horse-er-170510.jpg)
Just because he'll be the infinitely-preferred option over whatever man-sized turd the GOP will run against him, it doesn't mean people should be fine with 80+ years olds running the country.
Quote from: Tamas on June 02, 2023, 04:36:14 AMJust because he'll be the infinitely-preferred option over whatever man-sized turd the GOP will run against him, it doesn't mean people should be fine with 80+ years olds running the country.
Unless he's a man sized turd obviously. Then that's somehow different.
Quote from: Tamas on June 02, 2023, 04:36:14 AMJust because he'll be the infinitely-preferred option over whatever man-sized turd the GOP will run against him, it doesn't mean people should be fine with 80+ years olds running the country.
I don't think the majority of Americans are fine with it; most of the polls I've seen say that even the majority of Democrats don't want Biden to run again. Another poll that I just saw showed Biden polling at 60% of likely Democrat primary voters, given that his opponents (Marianne Williamson and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) are... uhm... unorthodox candidates with a er... unique perspective, that's not a great number.
Since the beginning of the 20th Century there have been three incumbent presidents who have faced significant primary challenges (Taft, Ford, Carter.) In all three cases the challenger lost (Theodore Roosevelt, Reagan, Ted Kennedy respectively) and the incumbent then lost the presidency. This is why Biden hasn't faced a serious primary challenger, and, if he won't step aside (and, quite possibly, even if he would) he is the Democrat's best hope for keeping the White House in 2024.
Quote from: Josquius on June 02, 2023, 06:32:48 AMQuote from: Tamas on June 02, 2023, 04:36:14 AMJust because he'll be the infinitely-preferred option over whatever man-sized turd the GOP will run against him, it doesn't mean people should be fine with 80+ years olds running the country.
Unless he's a man sized turd obviously. Then that's somehow different.
Who is saying that? Well, apart from the GOPtards. You and garbon are acting like I am saying people should vote on Trump/De Santis because Biden is elderly.
I understand that we (as in sane people on the planet) hope that "not a Republican" will be enough for the Democrat's candidate to win next time, but perhaps it is not an evil thing to highlight the potential weak points of said candidate, for example that he is elderly who has as much trouble not falling over as many other 80 years olds. The guy is often visibly strained to keep up appearances at public events, clearly focusing on getting through stuff with robotic movements (no doubt the exact same way I'll be at his age if I'll be lucky enough to live that long). I don't think "shut up he is not old!" is an argument that successfully hides or addresses what's clearly visible.
Quote from: Josquius on June 02, 2023, 06:32:48 AMQuote from: Tamas on June 02, 2023, 04:36:14 AMJust because he'll be the infinitely-preferred option over whatever man-sized turd the GOP will run against him, it doesn't mean people should be fine with 80+ years olds running the country.
Unless he's a man sized turd obviously. Then that's somehow different.
Indeed. With a turd being frail is a positive.
Quote from: Tamas on June 02, 2023, 09:57:03 AMQuote from: Josquius on June 02, 2023, 06:32:48 AMQuote from: Tamas on June 02, 2023, 04:36:14 AMJust because he'll be the infinitely-preferred option over whatever man-sized turd the GOP will run against him, it doesn't mean people should be fine with 80+ years olds running the country.
Unless he's a man sized turd obviously. Then that's somehow different.
Who is saying that? Well, apart from the GOPtards. You and garbon are acting like I am saying people should vote on Trump/De Santis because Biden is elderly.
I understand that we (as in sane people on the planet) hope that "not a Republican" will be enough for the Democrat's candidate to win next time, but perhaps it is not an evil thing to highlight the potential weak points of said candidate, for example that he is elderly who has as much trouble not falling over as many other 80 years olds. The guy is often visibly strained to keep up appearances at public events, clearly focusing on getting through stuff with robotic movements (no doubt the exact same way I'll be at his age if I'll be lucky enough to live that long). I don't think "shut up he is not old!" is an argument that successfully hides or addresses what's clearly visible.
What I mean is Trump is only 4 years younger than Biden (on paper. In practice Trump seems much more aged). Everything Trump and his supporters said about Bidens age during the last election will be relevant to Trump at the next. Yet it'll only be Biden getting this treatment.
I think that's only true for Trump supporters and they are irrelevant since they are beyond redemption. Trump has already lost an election to Biden, and his senility (which I am quite certain is way above Biden's) shall be evident during the campaign, it already was 3 years ago.
Quote from: Josquius on June 02, 2023, 10:08:34 AMWhat I mean is Trump is only 4 years younger than Biden (on paper. In practice Trump seems much more aged). Everything Trump and his supporters said about Bidens age during the last election will be relevant to Trump at the next. Yet it'll only be Biden getting this treatment.
In 2020 Trump did receive criticism for his age. From the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/14/us/politics/trump-ramp-water-glass-health.html):
QuoteTrump's Halting Walk Down Ramp Raises New Health Questions
The president also appeared to have trouble raising a glass of water to his mouth during a speech at West Point a day before he turned 74, the oldest a president has been in his first term.
Even Biden was critical of him for that incident. If Trump does have some sort of senior moment he will most certainly be criticized
in the press on social media. Biden, as president, is much more in the public eye and therefore much more likely to have his senior moments
caught on film uploaded to file.
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2023, 07:42:08 PMWhat am I looking at here?
A man fumbling a football while on the campaign trail.
More detail: the man is Robert Stanfield, PC leader, in the midst of an election campaign against Trudeau Sr. The economy sucked (it was 1974 after all), Trudeau wasn't super popular. Stanfield was at an airport waiting for the plane, throwing a football around. You know, the kind of thing politicians do to look young and active. By all accounts he caught almost all of the balls. But he failed to catch one, the photographer took just one pic of him looking particularly old and ungraceful, and the rest is history.
Of course it's impossible to blame the entire result on just one photo, but it was widely distributed at the time.
Yeah, here is a good description of it. The shame of it is if they had just stopped before that last pass, he would have been viewed as athletic and youthful.
https://parli.ca/stanfields-fumble/
QuoteThe Canadian Press news photo of PC Leader Robert Stanfield fumbling a football pass that became a visual metaphor for his losing 1974 election campaign.
The fumble took place on the airport tarmac next to the PC campaign plane during a refueling stop in North Bay, Ontario. The PC leader was engaging in the time-honoured fitness break regimen of tossing around a football with aides. CP photojournalist Doug Ball snapped away as Stanfield caught one pass after another. And then, the money shot: Stanfield literally dropping the ball. The photo was a disaster: the bald, bespectacled, gangly former Nova Scotia Premier seeming old and uncoordinated as the ball slipped from his awkward grasp, a look of apparent befuddlement and panic on his face.
An instant icon was born. The Liberals under Pierre Trudeau romped to a majority government (aided by their vow not to impose wage and price controls. See: Zap! You're Frozen).
A cautionary example was set for all political aspirants to follow: always fear the unblinking, unrelenting – and, yes, unfair – glare of the camera's eye.
Image Source: Doug Ball, Canadian Press
Biden's age is a weakness but it was a weakness in 2020. Trump's age and mental fitness was also a weakness--both in 2016 and 2020, as it will be in 2024.
I personally don't think these will be the deciding factors in the campaign.
The biggest risk for Biden is that he is facing off against DeSantis in a "clean" race--while in some respects DeSantis checks all the objectionable boxes Trump does, most voters are dumb and uninformed. To them, DeSantis is a reasonable white, middle aged man in a suit who doesn't ramble like he has a TBI ala Trump or look lost like Grandpa Joe. Most voters won't go deep enough to understand DeSantis is as bad an option as Trump was on policy and governance, just wrapped in a nicer package.
However, despite DeSantis being the first Republican willing to truly challenge Trump--I struggle to see the math where he beats him in the primary. Trump's unmovable base of 35% of the primary electorate is simply too daunting given the number of important winner-take-all primaries on the GOP calendar.
If you're a big Republican donor who knows this, or one of the backroom party people, my guess is you're hoping Trump's legal troubles coalesce into enough of a shitshow it derails him. But I think that's probably going to be wishful thinking for them.
The other hitch to it is DeSantis, if he somehow clears Trump in a competitive primary, won't be running "clean" against Biden. He will very likely be running against Biden with Trump using every resource he can to undermine DeSantis. Trump doesn't strike me as remotely like someone who would be concerned about the party. Unlike a lot of Republicans, Trump doesn't give one fuck about beating the Democrats unless he is the one to do it. And, given he will feel his personal mob boss mentality on loyalty was violated by DeSantis (his "handpicked" Florida gubernatorial candidate in 2018), I see no reason Trump won't go full spite mode. What that does to the general I don't know, but it would be relatively unprecedented to have a former Republican President going on the war path against the Republican nominee. Particularly one with the megaphone Trump has.
Paradoxically, while I think DeSantis is the better candidate "on spec", because of the reality of Trump--Trump is likely the GOP's real best shot, because Trump will make sure DeSantis can't win if he can't be the nominee.
Could Trump beat Biden head to head?
Sure. 2020 was close, it wouldn't take a lot to move the needle. He likely can't beat Biden in the popular vote, but he doesn't have to do that.
No. I'm pretty confident after the coup attempt trump has no chance.
Im far more worried of someone just as shitty as trump but without the taint and maybe some competence.
Quote from: Josquius on June 04, 2023, 09:59:40 AMNo. I'm pretty confident after the coup attempt trump has no chance.
Im far more worried of someone just as shitty as trump but without the taint and maybe some competence.
Trump's polling now in a general in the mid-40s. This is exactly where he polled and actually finished up in both 2020 and 2016. Mid-40s isn't an easy win, but as 2016 shows, if the conditions are right, it can win you the electoral college.
Quote from: Josquius on June 04, 2023, 09:59:40 AMNo. I'm pretty confident after the coup attempt trump has no chance.
Im far more worried of someone just as shitty as trump but without the taint and maybe some competence.
I disagree, your constant naievity on this continues to surprise me. I would be very surprised if Trump wasn't re-elected next time. Populists are very good at getting re-elected if they fail first time. Also the 2020 elections were pretty unique in their circumstances, I can't see that happening again. The only saving grace with Trump is this he is very impulsive and prone to short term thinking, and would not be as effective in his agenda as someone like De Santis.
I'm solely an outsider looking in. I don't have an American granny to gauge the feelings of the general public.
But I don't see where the anti trump conservatives would have flipped. Everything trump has done has further entrenched the shit head vote at the expense of the people with a brain vote.
Biden on the other hand has turned out a fair bit better than the generic let's just have a boring 4 years trump replacement.
The only concern i would see is if people don't take the threat seriously enough and the dem turnout is low in key states.
To change track - anyone seen a good writeup of Wtf happened to Harris? She had things made but has just... Vanished.
The stuff I've read on Harris indicates that her main failings are
- She doesn't take even constructive criticism well, which is why she has so much trouble keeping her office staffed and working with Biden's staff.
- She's seen as a flip-flopper who now espouses causes she opposed when California's AG
- Her speaking engagements are too often marred by gaffes or childlike enthusiasm that come across as fake
- She hasn't developed any positions or causes about which to be excited or about which she can be seen as someone who actually accomplishes things.
- She lacks charisma and the "it" factor (though so do many of her competitors and her boss).
For instance, she was charged with developing a strategy for reducing the number of asylum-seekers on the Mexican border. Her accomplishment was to go to Guatemala and tell them that they shouldn't try to go to the US because the US wouldn't let them in. This useless gesture angered the right for being so feeble, and the left for being so hypocritical (given that her parents were immigrants). She's never been to the border itself in this role... not even when Biden himself visited.
It is true that the VP role, by design, is supposed to be a background role. But even Biden accomplished more as VP in his first two years than she has, and Biden wasn't the "first" anything.
Harris can recover, but it is going to take a lot of work and she's going to have to start being decisive.
The Vice Presidency is a bit of a weird job, the consensus is that it is often a political career springboard, but history of course shows that is not always the case. For example, Dan Quayle was not a super well known Senator from Indiana, but he was considered a respectable option for VP. In the Vice Presidency he quickly erased any chance of having a relevant political career afterward.
The VP spot can be a bit of a risk, some politicians seem able to "work it" to transform themselves into viable Presidential candidates. Other politicians, I think the office actually harms their trajectory. There is a chance that Harris would have been better served remaining a Senator from California and continuing to work on a national brand.
I actually don't know a lot about Kamala's California political career, but California is not an easy State to win statewide elections in (at least in the primaries, as a Democrat in the general it is pretty easy), and she won statewide both as AG and Senator which suggests she is not politically inept. But she may not be suited to the Vice Presidency.
The key qualifications for being an effective VP are being an experienced operator within the executive branch, having the trust of the President, and getting reasonably along with the President's people. Cheney - SOB as he may have been - was effective because he ticked all those boxes. Gore lacked the first but got along reasonably well with Clinton and his people and was smart enough to figure out some niches to fill. Biden played a similar role for Obama. Bush Sr. didn't have warm relations with Reagan but was a very experienced operator and was close to some key players in the Reagan White House. Quayle OTOH had none of these qualifications. Neither did LBJ who if Kennedy had lived would likely have been forgotten to history other than having his name on an obscure DC office building.
My sense is that Biden likes Harris but that she lacks good relationships with the President's people and has no substantive skills or experience to contribute to running a national executive.
I would add that paradoxically operational ability and experience with the executive branch can be more useful to a VP than a President. A President that has a strong personality and public appeal can set priorities and get people to do the detailed executive work - the FDR model. The VP OTOH has figure out a way to make a contribution despite lacking any formal public authority or responsibility.
(https://i.redd.it/vanptz8f5w5b1.jpg)
"Fair" and "balanced"
Joe Biden was arrested??!! And what was Trump doing speaking at the White House??
Biden ends speech with "God save the Queen, man".
https://www.mediaite.com/biden/even-pool-reporters-have-no-idea-why-biden-ended-gun-control-speech-with-god-save-the-queen-man/
:blink:
"However, Yoni Appelbaum, deputy editor of The Atlantic, offered one theory for Biden's closing statement. Applebaum tweeted, "Biden has the extremely odd habit of ending his remarks with cryptic phrases whose significance is mostly legible only to him. 'God save the queen' is also what he said right after certifying Trump's election in 2017. He seems to use it to mean something like, 'God help us all.'"
.... :unsure:
Right....that.... I've never heard of this. Thats bizzare. I need more examples.
He needs to end the next State of the Union speech with " Iä! Iä! Cthulhu fhtagn! Ph'nglui mglw'nfah Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"
Quote from: Syt on June 14, 2023, 01:33:40 AM"Fair" and "balanced"
The producer behind that, formerly of Tucker Carlson, has now been fired.
I'm perhaps being a little conspiratorial - but can't help but wonder if he'll end up back with him on whatever this Twitter show he's trying to do is?
That doesn't have to be conspiratorial. Could simply be "we worked well together in the past, let's work together again." Seems pretty natural.
True - although mentally I'd gone further and wondered if he'd provoked a firing (that maybe would get around some non-competes etc) :ph34r:
I should note that Biden has more weird phrases than just "God Save the Queen." He also
Biden has insulted people--on a number of occasions, with the phrase "lying dog-faced pony soldier."
It seems like there may be a chance that in Biden's lexicon are a number of idioms that are only known to him and not in common usage by any other person in existence, now or in the past.
Hunter Biden just plead to some misdemeanors. After 2 1/2 years of hype this is all Republicans got
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2023, 12:03:50 PMHunter Biden just plead to some misdemeanors. After 2 1/2 years of hype this is all Republicans got
I look forward to being told on social media that this somehow means all charges against Trump should now be dropped. Because these two items are completely connected, of course.
How does Joe feel about his son being a libertarian?
He'd probably be a little surprised, as Hunter was never much of a book guy.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2023, 12:03:50 PMHunter Biden just plead to some misdemeanors. After 2 1/2 years of hype this is all Republicans got
Hunter is clearly smarter than Trump as he made a deal. The Feds gave Trump tons of chances to not be charged with this shit and he refused.
It's not often I will agree with Ann Coulter, but today is the day.
In response to Ben Shapiro being outraged that Hunter Biden got away with no jail time, she replied "He probably listened to his lawyers".
https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1671189040463241220
Quote from: Barrister on June 20, 2023, 04:06:40 PMIt's not often I will agree with Ann Coulter, but today is the day.
In response to Ben Shapiro being outraged that Hunter Biden got away with no jail time, she replied "He probably listened to his lawyers".
https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1671189040463241220
:lol:
Outrageous! An accused who listens to his lawyer! What kind of trickery is this!
You don't hear the GOP talking much about law and order anymore
When you think Joe Biden is old, but then America is represented by Henry Kissinger in a personal meeting with Xi Jinping. :wacko:
Henry Kissinger is 100 years old? Guess even hell doesn't want him. :P
I'd love to read something on Kissinger's career post-office because it feels like he may have been the guy who invented the model of retired senior politicians selling the private sector their counsel, wisdom and ability to get meetings with powerful people/current officeholders.
Certainly he's been the most prominent and at it for almost 50 years.
Quote from: Zanza on July 20, 2023, 10:58:32 AMWhen you think Joe Biden is old, but then America is represented by Henry Kissinger in a personal meeting with Xi Jinping. :wacko:
He was technically there solely as a private citizen, but the last time he was there as a "private citizen" in 2019 he debriefed State afterward.
Every time I hear of him I'm surprised he's still alive.
I read about him in school in a Vietnam context. And I'm long past school.
I guess it's one of those things where there's sill this mental idea people just dissapear at 60 something and retirement, but then you read about living people who were already retired when they watched the moon landings. Old age can be long for some.
But still working too...
https://thehill.com/homenews/4117556-mccarthy-biden-probes-rising-to-the-level-of-impeachment-inquiry/
QuoteMcCarthy: Biden probes 'rising to the level of impeachment inquiry'
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said he expects the House GOP's investigations into the foreign business activities of President Biden's family to rise to the level of an impeachment inquiry.
"When Biden was running for office, he told the public he has never talked about business. He said his family has never received a dollar from China, which we prove is not true," McCarthy told Fox News host Sean Hannity on Monday night, referencing Biden's previous statements that he did not talk to his son, Hunter Biden, about his foreign business activities.
McCarthy also mentioned two IRS whistleblowers who alleged that prosecutors slow-walked an investigation into Hunter Biden's tax crimes, and House GOP investigations finding that millions of foreign funds traveled through shell companies to Biden family members and associates.
"We've only followed where the information has taken us. But Hannity, this is rising to the level of impeachment inquiry, which provides Congress the strongest power to get the rest of the knowledge and information needed," McCarthy said.
"Because this president has also used something we have not seen since Richard Nixon: Use the weaponization of government to benefit his family and deny Congress the ability to have the oversight," McCarthy said.
In response to McCarthy's comment, the White House accused House Republicans of failing to focus on important issues.
"Instead of focusing on the real issues Americans want us to address like continuing to lower inflation or create jobs, this is what the @HouseGOP wants to prioritize. Their eagerness to go after @POTUS regardless of the truth is seemingly bottomless," Ian Sams, White House spokesperson for oversight and investigations, said in a tweet.
Last week, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) released an FBI form that documented unverified allegations of corruption stemming from Hunter Biden's work with Ukrainian energy company Burisma.
McCarthy did not use those unproven allegations as a basis for an impeachment inquiry, but its release added fuel to Republican skepticism of the foreign business dealings.
The New York Post reported Monday that former Hunter Biden associate Devon Archer plans to tell the House Oversight and Reform Committee in a closed-door interview this week that Hunter Biden would put then-Vice President Biden on speakerphone during meetings with foreign business partners.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a briefing Monday that the president was never in business with his son.
"If they really ran it for foreign countries, why didn't you get money from France, from Germany, from U.K.? Why is it China, Romania, these countries that have real challenges and had problems going through," McCarthy said on Fox News.
"I believe we will follow this all the way to the end, and this is going to rise to an impeachment inquiry — the way the Constitution tells us to do this — and we have to get the answers to these questions," McCarthy said.
McCarthy just last month floated an impeachment inquiry into Attorney General Merrick Garland, based on Garland contradicting IRS whistleblowers about the authority of the prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden to bring charges in other jurisdictions.
A Morning Consult poll conducted June 22-24 found that 30 percent of registered voters thought that it should be a "top priority" for Congress to investigate whether President Biden should be impeached, including 11 percent of Democrats, 24 percent of independents and 55 percent of Republicans.
And 27 percent of registered voters overall said that it should be a "top priority" for Congress to investigate Hunter Biden's finances, including 12 percent of Democrats, 24 percent of independents and 46 percent of Republicans.
Quote from: Syt on July 25, 2023, 11:47:04 AMThe New York Post reported Monday that former Hunter Biden associate Devon Archer plans to tell the House Oversight and Reform Committee in a closed-door interview this week that Hunter Biden would put then-Vice President Biden on speakerphone during meetings with foreign business partners.
Devon Archer is a notorious fraudster - one of his exploits is documented here - https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/devon-archer-sentenced-year-and-day-prison-fraudulent-issuance-and-sale-more-60-million
While his association with Hunter Biden is yet another indictment of Hunter's character his testimony won't be worth the 3 dollar bills it will be printed on.
President Biden promised he was going to be a bridge to the next generation of Democratic leaders. If he is compromised it would be cool if he could go ahead and fulfill that promise.
I don't know what the hell "weaponized" means. Has McCarthy been shot or something? How has Biden prevented Congressional oversight? I don't know what he is talking about. Seems like the Republicans have been able to conduct their investigation.
I assume they're just taking nothing - or possibly minor things - and blowing lots of hot air to distract from Trump's upcoming troubles, and to "pay back" for attempts to hold Trump to account.
Quote from: Valmy on July 25, 2023, 10:22:49 PMPresident Biden promised he was going to be a bridge to the next generation of Democratic leaders. If he is compromised it would be cool if he could go ahead and fulfill that promise.
I don't know what the hell "weaponized" means. Has McCarthy been shot or something? How has Biden prevented Congressional oversight? I don't know what he is talking about. Seems like the Republicans have been able to conduct their investigation.
Despite all evidence to the contrary, Biden stubbornly insists that he is the president and Trump is not.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 25, 2023, 11:15:48 PMDespite all evidence to the contrary, Biden stubbornly insists that he is the president and Trump is not.
That is quite troublesome :P
(https://i.postimg.cc/5yMwSzWb/image.png)
https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2022/07/09/just-who-is-behind-moms-for-liberty-column/
QuoteWho is funding the group and for how much? Moms for Liberty's leaders claim to get by on T-shirt sales. They've barely even heard of the Koch brothers! Yet perhaps they've heard of the Council for National Policy. Two of Moms for Liberty's National Summit sponsors, the Leadership Institute and Heritage Foundation are critical members of the Council for National Policy, a secretive network of right wing billionaires and Christian fundamentalist leaders that underwrites and coordinates right wing politics.
Who is really running the operation? The two "founders" are former school committee member Tina Descovich, a communications and marketing professional and Tiffany Justice, also a former school committee member. But there was a third founder, Bridget Ziegler. She is still a school committee member and her husband, Christian Ziegler, is vice chairman of the Florida Republican Party and the owner of a political marketing firm. He boasts that Moms for Liberty will provide crucial ground support for DeSantis' re-election.
Then there's the odd coincidence of so many grassroots parents organizations arising at the same time with similar missions. Parents Defending Education is Koch-connected. The Koch-funded American Legislative Exchange Council claims credit for the havoc wreaked by anti-Critical Race Theory legislation. The Council for National Policy's Leadership Institute commenced its own program to take over school boards. The Council for National Policy-connected Turning Point USA initiated a School Board Watch List for reporting "woke" school boards.
Quote from: Jacob on July 25, 2023, 11:03:02 PMI assume they're just taking nothing - or possibly minor things - and blowing lots of hot air to distract from Trump's upcoming troubles, and to "pay back" for attempts to hold Trump to account.
It's not just the Biden story but other stuff as well - but I really worry that the mainstream media seem to have learned absolutely nothing in the last 8 years on how to cover Trump.
Saw that McConnell clip doing the rounds and got to wonder if this generation will be the last to hold on like this. I read the piece a while ago on Feinstein and just thought how undignified it all was - and thinking that again today.
Quote from: Syt on July 26, 2023, 03:41:01 AM(https://i.postimg.cc/5yMwSzWb/image.png)
Huh? Then why do we have school nurses?
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 26, 2023, 01:53:00 PMSaw that McConnell clip doing the rounds and got to wonder if this generation will be the last to hold on like this. I read the piece a while ago on Feinstein and just thought how undignified it all was - and thinking that again today.
Yes. I really don't get it. Why do people like Feinstein do this? Why not retire and go do philanthropy and build up good will? Why spend decades in the Senate? Especially for people like McConnell or Feinstein where there is 0% chance the other party is going to pick up your seat without your incumbency advantage. I kind of get it for guys like Tester.
Everyone wants to try and take the crown from Strom Thurmond Robert Byrd.
(I typed Strom up first...could have sworn it was him)
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 26, 2023, 01:53:00 PMSaw that McConnell clip doing the rounds and got to wonder if this generation will be the last to hold on like this. I read the piece a while ago on Feinstein and just thought how undignified it all was - and thinking that again today.
I don't understand why the American public just accepts being ruled by geriatrics. In Switzerland it's seen as inappropriate to stay in office much beyond ~65.
Yeah. Most employment contracts here automatically terminate at retirement age. This includes judges but not politicians, although most political parties have set age or term limits.
Quote from: Hamilcar on July 27, 2023, 02:30:11 AMQuote from: Sheilbh on July 26, 2023, 01:53:00 PMSaw that McConnell clip doing the rounds and got to wonder if this generation will be the last to hold on like this. I read the piece a while ago on Feinstein and just thought how undignified it all was - and thinking that again today.
I don't understand why the American public just accepts being ruled by geriatrics. In Switzerland it's seen as inappropriate to stay in office much beyond ~65.
Because we aren't really given a choice. The parties really discourage primary challenges to incumbents and voters in recent decades are unlikely to vote for the other major party just to get rid of some fossil.
Why the parties themselves don't force out the olds is an interesting question but I don't know the answer. The Democrats have suffered a ton of damage due to Feinstein's issues. Completely unnecessarily I might add, replacing her would have been really smooth for them. The very same factors that keep these old politicians in office also make them easily replaceable.
I sometimes wonder if it's not also linked to the "workplace culture" of the US, where working long hours, all the time, for as long as you can, despite illness, or grief, is made to be a virtue.
Those Protestants, up to no good again.
I wonder if part of it (which is also reflected in the primary challenge point and why the parties don't force them out) is that because American politics is so expensive, especially in the Senate an individual's network of supporters and donors which is something they'll build up over time. You don't want to lose or jeopardise those relationships, but it also makes them very difficult to challenge. I get what you mean Valmy about them being easily replaceable (reading the Feinstein piece I couldn't help but wonder what the point is in having Senators at all), but maybe the bit that isn't is their contacts and relationships with key donors?
The work culture links there too on the donor side - I've no basis for this but it feels like from American pop culture and prominent business people there are a lot in the US who just go on and on. It feels like there's less of an early retirement/retirement at all culture.
Quote from: Hamilcar on July 27, 2023, 02:30:11 AMQuote from: Sheilbh on July 26, 2023, 01:53:00 PMSaw that McConnell clip doing the rounds and got to wonder if this generation will be the last to hold on like this. I read the piece a while ago on Feinstein and just thought how undignified it all was - and thinking that again today.
I don't understand why the American public just accepts being ruled by geriatrics. In Switzerland it's seen as inappropriate to stay in office much beyond ~65.
I am not sure there is acceptance. More of a structural flaw in the US political system. It depends on Cincinnatus stepping aside. But incumbents love the power they have finally achieved and want to hold onto it. The American system is not great at dislodging an incumbent.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 27, 2023, 11:08:02 AMThose Protestants, up to no good again.
I wonder if part of it (which is also reflected in the primary challenge point and why the parties don't force them out) is that because American politics is so expensive, especially in the Senate an individual's network of supporters and donors which is something they'll build up over time. You don't want to lose or jeopardise those relationships, but it also makes them very difficult to challenge. I get what you mean Valmy about them being easily replaceable (reading the Feinstein piece I couldn't help but wonder what the point is in having Senators at all), but maybe the bit that isn't is their contacts and relationships with key donors?
The work culture links there too on the donor side - I've no basis for this but it feels like from American pop culture and prominent business people there are a lot in the US who just go on and on. It feels like there's less of an early retirement/retirement at all culture.
The United States has a long tradition of seamlessly passing the torch from veteran politician to hand picked successor. The donors never had a problem with it before.
Why here in Central Texas we have LBJ-Thornberry-Pickle-Lloyd Doggett Congressional seat which, you know, might as well be the same guy holding that seat all these decades.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2023, 11:45:04 AMI am not sure there is acceptance. More of a structural flaw in the US political system. It depends on Cincinnatus stepping aside. But incumbents love the power they have finally achieved and want to hold onto it. The American system is not great at dislodging an incumbent.
The fact that the elderly don't step aside in the US seems like a bug rather than a feature to me. But the US has done well, so maybe I'm wrong? I wonder what the steelman version of all positions of great power be occupied by people who are over 80.
Quote from: Hamilcar on July 27, 2023, 02:30:11 AMI don't understand why the American public just accepts being ruled by geriatrics. In Switzerland it's seen as inappropriate to stay in office much beyond ~65.
The American public elected Clinton, Bush II, and Obama all in succession. If geriatrics are ruling it's because of an affirmative choice, not a resigned acceptance. Both parties fielded younger options in the primary and the voters did not choose them.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2023, 10:25:35 AMQuote from: Hamilcar on July 27, 2023, 02:30:11 AMI don't understand why the American public just accepts being ruled by geriatrics. In Switzerland it's seen as inappropriate to stay in office much beyond ~65.
The American public elected Clinton, Bush II, and Obama all in succession. If geriatrics are ruling it's because of an affirmative choice, not a resigned acceptance. Both parties fielded younger options in the primary and the voters did not choose them.
Sure. But why?
The obvious answer is the voters don't view age as a disqualifying feature, in spite of persistent tittering about it from the pundit and comedian class. Like if the Democrats or the Republicans wanted younger candidates they had tons of options in the last 8 years, they didn't opt for them in actual primary elections.
Quote from: Hamilcar on July 28, 2023, 02:14:00 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2023, 11:45:04 AMI am not sure there is acceptance. More of a structural flaw in the US political system. It depends on Cincinnatus stepping aside. But incumbents love the power they have finally achieved and want to hold onto it. The American system is not great at dislodging an incumbent.
The fact that the elderly don't step aside in the US seems like a bug rather than a feature to me. But the US has done well, so maybe I'm wrong? I wonder what the steelman version of all positions of great power be occupied by people who are over 80.
Since your original question related to those who hold political office in the United States, by what measure have you concluded, the US has done "well"
Quote from: Hamilcar on July 28, 2023, 11:32:34 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2023, 10:25:35 AMQuote from: Hamilcar on July 27, 2023, 02:30:11 AMI don't understand why the American public just accepts being ruled by geriatrics. In Switzerland it's seen as inappropriate to stay in office much beyond ~65.
The American public elected Clinton, Bush II, and Obama all in succession. If geriatrics are ruling it's because of an affirmative choice, not a resigned acceptance. Both parties fielded younger options in the primary and the voters did not choose them.
Sure. But why?
Trump.
None of the younger options in the Democratic campaign really grabbed the reigns. So we had Biden vs. Bernie in the end.
But that is totally different and new in the White House. The problem of ancient geriatrics in the Senate and Congress is not new.
Weak party system. The person is the institution.
Quote from: Hamilcar on July 28, 2023, 11:32:34 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2023, 10:25:35 AMQuote from: Hamilcar on July 27, 2023, 02:30:11 AMI don't understand why the American public just accepts being ruled by geriatrics. In Switzerland it's seen as inappropriate to stay in office much beyond ~65.
The American public elected Clinton, Bush II, and Obama all in succession. If geriatrics are ruling it's because of an affirmative choice, not a resigned acceptance. Both parties fielded younger options in the primary and the voters did not choose them.
Sure. But why?
The baby boom.
Clinton, Bush 43, Obama, Trump, Biden - all members of the Baby Boom generation. (Note: Biden, born in 1942, is technically not a boomer, but close enough).
It was noteworthy back in '92 when Clinton won - he was the first boomer President. But now 30 years later the US is still stuck with leaders of that same generation. It's just because the demographic bulge of that generation continues to affect elections even now - boomers are happy to elect fellow boomers.
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2023, 01:19:06 PMThe baby boom.
Clinton, Bush 43, Obama, Trump, Biden - all members of the Baby Boom generation. (Note: Biden, born in 1942, is technically not a boomer, but close enough).
It was noteworthy back in '92 when Clinton won - he was the first boomer President. But now 30 years later the US is still stuck with leaders of that same generation. It's just because the demographic bulge of that generation continues to affect elections even now - boomers are happy to elect fellow boomers.
Correlation /= causation. There's no evidence that boomers preferentially vote for boomers, and some evidence that the reverse is true: in the deSantis vs Trump polling, Trump does better among the younger voters. Florida politics (https://floridapolitics.com/archives/621087-poll-ron-desantis-trails-donald-trump-by-50-points-with-younger-gop-voters/#:~:text=With%20voters%20between%20the%20ages,other%20candidates%20much%20further%20back.)
I find that the election funding explanation makes the most sense to me: older candidates have had more time to build donor networks and so can outspend upstarts. Longer healthy lifespans also plays a part: 80 is the new 70.
Quote from: grumbler on August 01, 2023, 01:41:04 PMQuote from: Barrister on August 01, 2023, 01:19:06 PMThe baby boom.
Clinton, Bush 43, Obama, Trump, Biden - all members of the Baby Boom generation. (Note: Biden, born in 1942, is technically not a boomer, but close enough).
It was noteworthy back in '92 when Clinton won - he was the first boomer President. But now 30 years later the US is still stuck with leaders of that same generation. It's just because the demographic bulge of that generation continues to affect elections even now - boomers are happy to elect fellow boomers.
Correlation /= causation. There's no evidence that boomers preferentially vote for boomers, and some evidence that the reverse is true: in the deSantis vs Trump polling, Trump does better among the younger voters. Florida politics (https://floridapolitics.com/archives/621087-poll-ron-desantis-trails-donald-trump-by-50-points-with-younger-gop-voters/#:~:text=With%20voters%20between%20the%20ages,other%20candidates%20much%20further%20back.)
I find that the election funding explanation makes the most sense to me: older candidates have had more time to build donor networks and so can outspend upstarts. Longer healthy lifespans also plays a part: 80 is the new 70.
Trying to explain election results is obviously a very difficult, in particular if (like I did) you try to explain it with a single answer. Obviously there are a lot of different factors going on.
But I think I'm more right than I am wrong.
I'm not convinced about election funding. In particular we're in an era of mass-funding through small donations. Trump is able to raise millions through small donations. That was Bernie's superpower - and Obama as well.
Correlation doens't equal causation, but I do think there's something going on that one generation of Americans has been dominating US politics for 30+ years now, and with few signs of it ending anytime soon.
Quote from: grumbler on August 01, 2023, 01:41:04 PMQuote from: Barrister on August 01, 2023, 01:19:06 PMThe baby boom.
Clinton, Bush 43, Obama, Trump, Biden - all members of the Baby Boom generation. (Note: Biden, born in 1942, is technically not a boomer, but close enough).
It was noteworthy back in '92 when Clinton won - he was the first boomer President. But now 30 years later the US is still stuck with leaders of that same generation. It's just because the demographic bulge of that generation continues to affect elections even now - boomers are happy to elect fellow boomers.
Correlation /= causation. There's no evidence that boomers preferentially vote for boomers, and some evidence that the reverse is true: in the deSantis vs Trump polling, Trump does better among the younger voters. Florida politics (https://floridapolitics.com/archives/621087-poll-ron-desantis-trails-donald-trump-by-50-points-with-younger-gop-voters/#:~:text=With%20voters%20between%20the%20ages,other%20candidates%20much%20further%20back.)
I find that the election funding explanation makes the most sense to me: older candidates have had more time to build donor networks and so can outspend upstarts. Longer healthy lifespans also plays a part: 80 is the new 70.
Interesting and sad if it's really down to funding networks.
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2023, 01:54:48 PMTrying to explain election results is obviously a very difficult, in particular if (like I did) you try to explain it with a single answer. Obviously there are a lot of different factors going on.
But I think I'm more right than I am wrong.
I'm not convinced about election funding. In particular we're in an era of mass-funding through small donations. Trump is able to raise millions through small donations. That was Bernie's superpower - and Obama as well.
Correlation doens't equal causation, but I do think there's something going on that one generation of Americans has been dominating US politics for 30+ years now, and with few signs of it ending anytime soon.
The myth of the small donors is comforting to some, I suppose, but the facts as presented by NPR (https://www.npr.org/2023/07/17/1188042844/new-campaign-fundraising-numbers-have-been-released-for-the-2024-presidential-ra) show how insignificant they really are. In that article, it is noted that Biden got donations from 400,000 people, and that "ninety-seven percent of those donations are under $200, with the average at $39." The total Biden raised was $72 million. So, 388,000 donors averaged $39 each, for a total of a bit over $15 million of the $72, or 21% of the total. The 12,000 remaining donors accounted for the other $57 million, at an average of $4750 each.
The truth is that funding overwhelmingly comes from the few, not the many.
There's no question that the endurance of the boomer generation in political power in the US is unprecedented, but the explanation of "because boomers" actually explains nothing.
I think a lot of it is the reforms in how we nominate candidates that came out of 1968. It is interesting, because those reforms were driven by younger people who were tired of the party bosses just selecting who they wanted, but the primary system while more democratic, actually IMO entrenches incumbency more than the old "smoke filled room."
This is largely because when a party decides they would prefer a new person in a seat, it really can't force the matter. And since the post-1968 norm is all of congress has their own individual fundraising / organizing base, a lot of those connections will remain behind that candidate even if the party decides they would prefer someone else. This means the party, if it attempts to back a challenger, ends up very likely to fail. The net effect is most of the time the party just isn't willing to challenge incumbency unless something very egregious has gone wrong (ala a George Santos type figure.)
Back before the 1968 era reforms, you almost certainly would not have seen, as an example, someone like Dianne Feinstein win her last nomination--she would have been pushed aside for someone else, and she would not have had any real means to fight back. But in modern times she could have, pretty well, and it would have splintered the California Democratic party and been a big ugly fight--one which, due to the fact she has built her own independent financial base over the last 30 years, the party might end up losing anyway.
Of course, back in the "Party Decides" era, we still had pretty old people in the U.S. Senate and to a lesser degree in the U.S. House, so taking power away from primary voters isn't necessarily guaranteed to make Congress dramatically younger. However, there has been some clear trendlines to older and older congresses.
I think the other big factor is frankly a cultural one. The way we view old age and capacity has just changed a lot. In times past being "physically" aged, was often a broad indicator of unfitness for power, so once you got old enough that you had trouble walking around the Capitol on your own, that was often going to be the end. What has become commonplace--older members being wheeled around in wheelchairs, was exceedingly rare in the past. Not because people in wheelchairs were necessarily less competent in 1940, but because the wide view was if you're physically infirm your place is in retirement and not really part of "active society."
(Of course even then there were exceptions--FDR was a President obviously.)
I think society was just much less accommodating of infirmity in the more distant past, and to some degree a big part of being in Congress was physically being able to move around Washington and go to dinner parties, gatherings etc--most of which in the past were not accommodating to people who were at an age where moving around was hard.
I think greater tolerance of infirmity is a factor of 1) an aging population, more people are in this category so are more supportive of people in this category, when the average U.S. age was 30 old people were a much smaller group and it was easier to dismiss them, 2) we have added "health" to our years, particularly for people with access to good healthcare, while 80 may not REALLY be the new 70, 80 year olds today are genuinely healthier and fitter than they were in the past, on average, 3) we have promoted more acceptance that being physically infirm doesn't mean mentally infirm (which is a good thing overall), which makes it hard to just say "hey Dianne can't fucking walk, she's old, get her the fuck out of there."
(https://i.postimg.cc/fyHJ1St4/image.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/bY6rybJW/image.png)
GOP: "Now Dictator Joe is having his political opponents shot!"
(https://i.postimg.cc/dQZxdGWx/image.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/xCwggFsF/image.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/dV5Bg0HC/image.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/bw4GGcdM/image.png)
He fucked around and found out.
What's Trump's hot take?
Quote from: The Brain on August 10, 2023, 04:29:47 AMWhat's Trump's hot take?
It's a human being that's not him. Why would he care?
Quote from: Syt on August 10, 2023, 03:42:17 AM(https://i.postimg.cc/bw4GGcdM/image.png)
That last one suggests the FBI had visited him just to establish he wasn't a threat. And instead he decided to threaten them with a gun? He threatened the police with a gun? In the United States? And then post about it publicly for all to see? Look that's not exactly suicide but certainly reckless to an absurd degree.
That makes it hard to do a good investigation against the FBI on this. He is freaking justifying their actions publicly.
Still whenever a citizen gets killed by law enforcement there should be a full investigation. I certainly agree with JWhitebread on that one. What a fucking crazy situation.
Kids, don't let your parents go down the right wing rabbit hole. Their lives may depend on it.
Obviously like any shooting it should be investigated.
Yes, this guy appears to have been an obese 300 pound 75 year old man. But he also has a Facebook account littered with pictures of him dressed in tactical gear wielding an assault rifle. If he is well enough to pose standing up wielding a weapon, he almost certainly is healthy enough to have made the poor decision to confront and point such a weapon at the FBI; with predictable results.
If you're in good enough health to aim and fire a gun you can be a lethal threat, it isn't that relevant if you're otherwise physically unhealthy--he didn't battle them with a broadsword where he might need to move around a lot and use physical strength.
He seems more of a katana guy, yes.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 10, 2023, 09:48:22 AMObviously like any shooting it should be investigated.
Yes, this guy appears to have been an obese 300 pound 75 year old man. But he also has a Facebook account littered with pictures of him dressed in tactical gear wielding an assault rifle. If he is well enough to pose standing up wielding a weapon, he almost certainly is healthy enough to have made the poor decision to confront and point such a weapon at the FBI; with predictable results.
If you're in good enough health to aim and fire a gun you can be a lethal threat, it isn't that relevant if you're otherwise physically unhealthy--he didn't battle them with a broadsword where he might need to move around a lot and use physical strength.
Ironically I've seen gun nuts make this argument AGAINST gun control.
Quote from: Valmy on August 10, 2023, 08:46:41 AMThat last one suggests the FBI had visited him just to establish he wasn't a threat. And instead he decided to threaten them with a gun? He threatened the police with a gun? In the United States? And then post about it publicly for all to see? Look that's not exactly suicide but certainly reckless to an absurd degree.
But...but....he's white. They're not meant to do that to white people. :o
Biden seems to be losing it, his comments in Mauii seemed out of step with the tragedy.
Quote from: mongers on August 21, 2023, 08:10:46 PMBiden seems to be losing it, his comments in Mauii seemed out of step with the tragedy.
On the flip side if his public appearances become insane enough he will win by a landslide.
Quote from: Tamas on August 27, 2023, 03:52:28 PMQuote from: mongers on August 21, 2023, 08:10:46 PMBiden seems to be losing it, his comments in Mauii seemed out of step with the tragedy.
On the flip side if his public appearances become insane enough he will win by a landslide.
:D
I like your thinking.
Returning to the age point because I see there's another clip of McConnell having a similar episode.
As with the Feinstein piece, regardless of their politics I just find it quite sad. It is absolutely right for and the job of the press to report this and I remember reading a piece somewhere on how the press basically don't report certain things about ageing senators out of a sense of "decorum" and "privacy", which I get on a human level but I don't think is the right call. But that means that if you are ageing and having clear health issues like McConnell is, or there are reasons to think it's impacting your performance, as with Feinstein, then that is going to be in public.
I wonder if younger politicians are looking at this and thinking they want to retire when they're sort of at the peak of their powers and vigorous rather than visibly declining in the public eye.
I also think it's potentially slightly corrosive from a democratic perspective because I think the public could legitimately ask what's the point of electing an individual Senator v a team of 30-someting aides to collectively act as a "Senator".
I'm not sure I find it sad versus infuriating. As you say this is rightfully being covered. They and those around them should recognise when it is time to draw a career to a close.
Harder said than done, of course, but as you mention they are letting their voters down in their dereliction of duty.
Don't blame me, I voted for Amy McGrath. :)
Voters do have agency here, they largely are the ones who have never given challengers to candidates like Feinstein, Grassley, or McConnell any serious support. There are plenty of politicians (of the Senators' own party) who could have ran instead of them last time, but the people who participate in the primary process seemed disinterested in those possibilities.
(https://i.postimg.cc/HsKmPtTj/image.png)
Does Elon have trouble with the DoJ? Huh. I had no idea.
What crimes is he committing?
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2023, 09:13:44 AMDoes Elon have trouble with the DoJ? Huh. I had no idea.
What crimes is he committing?
"Twitter chaos after Elon Musk takeover may have violated privacy order, DoJ alleges"
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/13/twitter-elon-musk-takeover-ftc-order-data-security-privacy-doj-case
"Justice Department Sues SpaceX for Discriminating Against Asylees and Refugees in Hiring"
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-spacex-discriminating-against-asylees-and-refugees-hiring
"Tesla reportedly facing DOJ, SEC probes over plans to build Elon Musk a large glass house"
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/31/tesla-reportedly-facing-doj-sec-probes-over-plans-to-build-elon-musk-a-large-glass-house.html
Ah. Sounds like sort of normal stuff most big companies face on a regular basis, well ok maybe building a large glass house is a little weird.
But fair enough.
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2023, 09:22:36 AMAh. Sounds like sort of normal stuff most big companies face on a regular basis, well ok maybe building a large glass house is a little weird.
But fair enough.
It's only weird because of how many stones he likes to throw...
Quote from: Barrister on September 14, 2023, 10:32:44 AMIt's only weird because of how many stones he likes to throw...
:cheers:
Quote from: Syt on September 14, 2023, 07:24:42 AM(https://i.postimg.cc/HsKmPtTj/image.png)
Well, that didn't age well.
DoJ charged Hunter Biden.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRnHV3bMYPA
Texas AG acquitted.
... what was (s)he accused of?
Quote from: Jacob on September 17, 2023, 12:17:04 PM... what was (s)he accused of?
Corruption and the Republicans said that's okay.
Quote from: Jacob on September 17, 2023, 12:17:04 PM... what was (s)he accused of?
There were 16 articles of impeachment. The biggest one seems to be bribery.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/17/lauren-boebert-apologizes-again-behavior-at-theater
QuoteLauren Boebert apologizes again for 'maybe overtly animated' behavior at theater
Lauren Boebert has issued a second apology for her now infamous theatre date which saw her get ejected from watching a Beetlejuice: The Musical performance after she openly vaped in the audience, groped her companion and was graphically felt up in kind.
In an interview on Sunday with the conservative One America News Network, the far-right Colorado congresswoman attributed the behavior – recorded on security camera footage – to what she described as her being "maybe overtly animated". Boebert, 36, thus implied that her extrovertedness had somehow fused with a stage production that the New York Times reviewed as "a jaw-dropping funhouse".
"I was laughing, I was singing, having a fantastic time, was told to kinda settle it down a little bit, which I did, but then, my next slip up was taking a picture," she told the network about her date a week earlier. "I was a little too eccentric ... I'm on the edge of a lot of things."
Her remarks added to a written apology offered on Friday in which she said she was "truly sorry for the unwanted attention my ... evening in Denver [on Sunday, 10 September] has brought to the community" and that her actions she "simply fell short" of her values.
Meanwhile, additional information about Boebert's companion to Beetlejuice – whom she has been dating for months – introduced even more complexity to an already perplexing picture of their night out.
Her date, 46-year-old Quinn Gallagher, was a Democrat-supporting owner of a bar that hosts LGBTQ+ and drag events in the ski town of Aspen, Colorado. The events included a women's party for Aspen Gay Ski Week and a Winter Wonderland Burlesque & Drag Show. Boebert has been an outspoken critic of drag shows, as evidenced by a June 2022 post on the social media platform now known as X which read: "Take your children to Church, not drag bars."
The US House member was ejected alongside Gallagher from the Buell theatre after being asked to stop vaping, taking pictures and groping each other during the performance of the family-friendly Beetlejuice, according to reporting and video obtained by local Denver news outlet 9News.
Criticism against Boebert has only intensified since her first apology, with some conservative commentators spending the weekend calling her out.
"Totally embarrassing bimbo," conservative pundit Ann Coulter wrote on X. Jenna Ellis, a former attorney for ex-president Donald Trump, called the behavior "embarrassing and disrespectful".
...
"maybe overtly animated' behavior"
(https://i.imgur.com/1hORhnV.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/QI6x0Oc.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/pKPPy73.jpeg)
:lol:
I heard that the tug job receiver was *checks notes* A DEMOCRAT?? :o
Oh, also love this one:
(https://i.postimg.cc/pXyR2Nyt/image.png)
:face:
Yes, I had put bold on the fact her date as a dem. :sleep:
My apologies -_-
I thunk it was very enlightened of the guy to give everyone a chance to jerk him off, not just those that agree with him politically.
Quote from: DGuller on September 20, 2023, 07:39:46 AMI thunk it was very enlightened of the guy to give everyone a chance to jerk him off, not just those that agree with him politically.
No equal credit to Boebart for her reciprocal allowance of boobie fondling? :mad:
(https://i.postimg.cc/c1BYvzbT/image.png)
:tinfoil:
Wow.
Matt Wallace obviously wasn't listening to Mrs. Bowen back in the third grade when she talked about proper punctuation and capitalization.
Quote from: grumbler on September 21, 2023, 07:58:00 AMMatt Wallace obviously wasn't listening to Mrs. Bowen back in the third grade when she talked about proper punctuation and capitalization.
We Will noT Be Grammer Shaymed By, THe Elites.
Quote from: Jacob on September 17, 2023, 12:17:04 PM... what was (s)he accused of?
Corruption.
I was really encouraged when the Republican House impeached him. I thought 'hey maybe the Republicans really are going to hold their own accountable'
I mean it is not like they need Ken Paxton to win AG elections, I am sure they have plenty of non-corrupt AG candidates ready to go.
But then I started getting propaganda in the mail about how everybody wanting to impeach the GREAT KEN PAXTON is a RINO and I knew the Senate would chicken out.
People are so tribal they seem to think that just because somebody agrees with them politically they must be a great person and so must be defended at all costs or it will hurt the cause. This is ridiculous. Booting out Paxton wouldn't put in an AG who was any more left wing than Paxton. If anything it would make the Republicans look like responsible fighters of corruption. But it was just too far to go for the Texas Senate, the heat from any partisans scared them off.
US Senator Bob Menendez and wife charged in bribery inquiry (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66893936)
QuoteUS Senator Bob Menendez and wife charged in bribery inquiry
New Jersey Democratic Senator Robert Menendez has been indicted for allegedly accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes, according to the Justice Department.
Prosecutors say Mr Menendez and his wife accepted gold bars and envelopes of cash from New Jersey businessmen.
The senator and his wife accepted the money to secretly aid the Egyptian government, prosecutors allege.
Both Mr and Ms Menendez have vehemently denied the charges.
The pair each face three criminal counts: conspiracy to commit bribery, conspiracy to commit honest services fraud, and conspiracy to commit extortion under color of official right.
The indictment comes after a years-long Justice Department investigation.
Prosecutors allege Mr Menendez and his wife Nadine accepted bribes of cash, gold, payments toward a home mortgage and a luxury vehicle from three New Jersey men: Wael Hana, Jose Uribe and Fred Daibes.
In addition to helping the Egyptian government, they also took the bribes to use Mr Menendez's power as a senator to protect the three businessmen, according to the indictment.
Mr Menendez, 69, is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee and was elected to a third term in the Senate in 2018.
His "leadership position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (the "SFRC"), first as the Ranking Member and then the Chairman" allowed him to peddle influence in these areas, the 39-page indictment says.
In a statement from her lawyers, Mrs Menendez denied any wrongdoing and said she will defend herself in court.
Mr Menendez also denied the allegations and painted them as politically motivated.
"For years, forces behind the scenes have repeatedly attempted to silence my voice and dig my political grave," he said in a lengthy statement. "Since this investigation was leaked nearly a year ago, there has been an active smear campaign of anonymous sources and innuendos to create an air of impropriety where none exists."
"I am confident that this matter will be successfully resolved once all of the facts are presented and my fellow New Jerseyans will see this for what it is," he added.
In the summer of 2022, federal agents executed search warrants at Mr Menendez's home and found evidence of the bribery agreements, including over $480,000 (£391,000) in cash, much of which was "stuffed into envelopes and hidden in clothing, closets and a safe", prosecutors allege.
Agents said they also found a Mercedes-Benz luxury vehicle paid for by Mr Uribe parked in the garage, as well as $100,000 of gold bars in the home, pictures of which were included in the indictment.
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/129B5/production/_131231267_microsoftteams-image-19.png.webp)
Speaking at a news conference on Friday, prosecutors quoted from Mr Menendez's website, in which he details the limits of his power as a legislator, including not being able to intervene in criminal cases.
"Behind the scenes, Senator Menendez was doing those things for certain people - the people who were bribing him in his wife," said Damian Williams, the US Attorney for Southern District of New York.
In the indictment, prosecutors allege Mr Menendez's wife worked with one of the three New Jersey businessmen, Mr Hana, to introduce the senator to Egyptian intelligence and military officials. Mr Hana - who is originally from Egypt - exchanged thousands of text messages with Mrs Menendez, which she deleted from her cell phone, according to prosecutors.
Mr Hana and Mrs Menendez set up a "corrupt agreement" in which the New Jersey businessman provided money so that the senator would benefit the Egyptian government with foreign military sales and foreign military financing, the indictment alleges.
On one occasion, prosecutors say Mr Menendez secretly ghost-wrote a letter on behalf of the Egyptian government seeking to convince other US senators to release a hold on $300m in aid to Egypt.
In exchange for help to Egyptian officials, Mr Hana agreed to compensate Mrs Menendez with a "low-or-no-show" job, according to prosecutors.
Mr Menendez is also accused of accepting the Mercedes Benz convertible in exchange for impeding a New Jersey state criminal prosecution into one of Mr Uribe's associates.
As a result of the charges, Mr Menendez and his wife have been asked to forfeit several assets, including their New Jersey home.
The BBC has reached out to businesses owned by Mr Hana and Mr Daibes for comment. The Embassy of Egypt in Washington DC did not respond to a request for comment.
Mr Menendez, his wife and their three co-defendants are scheduled to appear in Manhattan federal court on 27 September.
This is not the first time Mr Menendez faces bribery charges. The senator, who has served in Congress since 2006, was indicted in New Jersey in 2015 over allegations he accepted bribes - including luxury vacations - from a wealthy Florida eye doctor.
That case ended in a mistrial after jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict.
I see the deep state has gone all bi-partisan in the Biden presidency. Trump should pick him as a running mate;
if nothing else the gold bars should give him status with the Alternative Currency / Gold Standard crowd.
How soon can he be expelled from the Senate? We need to get his replacement in there ASAP to defend the seat.
Quote from: Valmy on September 22, 2023, 03:56:11 PMHow soon can he be expelled from the Senate? We need to get his replacement in there ASAP to defend the seat.
It's the difference between Republicans and Democrats, lately. The GOP rally around their own corrupt representatives while the Dems shun them.
Let's not bury Bob Menendez just yet. People have been out to get him with various corruption charges for decades. He may yet be getting indicted while in office for many more terms to come.
He kept stacks of cash in jacket pockets as that is just the most convenient place for cash.
Quote from: garbon on September 22, 2023, 05:09:42 PMHe kept stacks of cash in jacket pockets as that is just the most convenient place for cash.
And, while he doesn't really believe that the Zombie Apocalypse is coming, he's hoarding gold just in case it does.
Joe joined a UAW picket line.
Interestingly, so did Josh Hawley.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 26, 2023, 07:10:01 PMJoe joined a UAW picket line.
So is Kamala running things for the moment? :unsure:
Overheard on the news yesterday that apparently union members are more likely to be pro Trump? :lmfao: :bleeding:
Quote from: Josquius on September 27, 2023, 03:30:25 AMOverheard on the news yesterday that apparently union members are more likely to be pro Trump? :lmfao: :bleeding:
CdM said so a while ago, shortly after 2016.
They are against free trade and immigration if it has a hint of threatening their position.
Quote from: Josquius on September 27, 2023, 03:30:25 AMOverheard on the news yesterday that apparently union members are more likely to be pro Trump? :lmfao: :bleeding:
Half of the workers in the building trades are pro-Trump, but his support is much weaker in the non-building-trades. Of the 15 states with union membership above 15%, Trump leads only in Alaska among union members.
The building trades (among the union trades) are the ones most impacted by immigration.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 26, 2023, 10:07:49 PMInterestingly, so did Josh Hawley.
Missouri is both pro Trump and pro union. He knows his electorate
Yeah - and his national pitch of populist/"pro-worker" conservatism. There's been precious little substance on that so far - although he, with a few other Republicans and some on the left like Sanders, voted against Biden imposing a deal on rail workers. Again he's one I'd keep a beady eye on because I think he's concerning - admittedly I have in the past thought the same of DeSantis and (in a different way) Scott Walker, so my record is not great :lol:
But both visiting a picket line feels like another straw in the wind of how politics are shifting, especially when you have Obama's auto industry task force head saying that this is Biden bowing to the progressives "and now he's going out there to put his thumb on the scale. And it's wrong."
Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if some of the Trump sympathisers in the unions voted for Sanders in the 2016 & 2020 Democrat primaries. They may have even voted for Trumps in those elections too.
I'd imagine police are very, very Trump heavy in their support percentages and are unionized.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on September 27, 2023, 02:34:53 PMI'd imagine police are very, very Trump heavy in their support percentages and are unionized.
IIRC police unions are some of the few unions that did endorse Trump.
Democrat Jamaal Bowman pulled fire alarm on Capitol Hill before House vote (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/30/democrat-jamaal-bowman-fire-alarm-house)
Don't worry, though, he's got a totally believable excuse:
QuoteSpeaking to reporters, Bowman said, "I thought the alarm would open the door."
Jamaal, Jamaal, Jamaal, you don't need to pull the fire alarm yourself; this is why you have interns and pages. (And really, the fire alarm? Are you in fourth grade?)
AOC wants to vote for the destitution of Kevin McCarthy, saying he's too weak as House President.
Announcing she will not support him is a good move.
Going through with it however... I'm not so sure. I mean, he's weak, but they could get worst too. I don't think it's be Gatez of Boebert, but it could be something just as bad.
I don't think Gaetz and Boebert can actually do the job of House leader. These people are lazy grifters.
Is it possible to remove the speaker without electing a new one? The GOP by itself will not be able to elect a new speaker with their paper-thin majority and the split between Freedom Caucus and remaining moderates.
Quote from: Zanza on October 01, 2023, 11:27:21 PMIs it possible to remove the speaker without electing a new one? The GOP by itself will not be able to elect a new speaker with their paper-thin majority and the split between Freedom Caucus and remaining moderates.
My understanding is they are separate, stand-alone acts of Congress.
So what happens if there's no speaker? How much business can be done?
A Speaker vacancy in the middle of a Congress won't be quite as complex as one at the beginning--when Congress is being seated, all of the members need to be sworn in and a rules package has to be passed. This cannot happen without a Speaker, so if you can't elect a Speaker at the beginning of the Congressional term it kind of puts the whole body into limbo.
Since this is the middle of a Congressional term, a rules package is in force and all the members are sworn in, so the House will be able to function a bit more. In fact, we have an official list of people who can server as "Speaker pro Tempore" if the office gets vacated, passed as a continuity of government matter after 9/11:
QuoteIf a resolution were to pass, the House would enter into unchartered waters of making new precedent. Under continuity of Congress procedures enacted after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, there is a list of people who can act as speaker pro tempore in an event where the speakership is vacated. This was created in anticipation of a mass casualty event like a terrorist attack, but it would apply if the speakership is vacated. The irony is that list is written by the sitting speaker — so McCarthy knows who is on the list — and it is kept by the House clerk and only to be made public in the event of a vacancy.
In terms of the politics--if Gaetz or someone makes a motion to vacate, they have to hold a vote on it within two days. There are any number of procedural votes that can occur before the vote, if any of them obtain a majority, they can block the vote and kill the attempt to vacate.
If the motion to vacate reaches the floor, a simple majority of House members present voting for it, vacates the Speakership.
Now, the GOP hardliners only number around 20 from the last Speakership election. It is possible there are more who would vote against McCarthy, but how many more is not clear.
There are definitely enough who would vote for McCarthy's removal that he can't survive the vote without help from Democrats. The standard play for Democrats in such a motion vote would be to vote to vacate--since Democrats would presumably not ever vote yea on a Republican Speaker. But they are not bound to do that. Hakeem Jeffries could release the caucus and let them vote as they please, if that happens it seems fairly likely enough moderate Democrats would vote to save McCarthy.
The rumors out of Capitol Hill are that the Democrats are not very inclined to save McCarthy--they actually said they would help save McCarthy from a vote to remove if the hardliners went after him over the debt ceiling deal, but instead not long after that deal was inked, McCarthy reneged on the terms of the deal that relate to the budget.
Lots of House Democrats view that as a major betrayal by McCarthy, and they don't think he is an honest broker and aren't interested in saving his job. There is also broad Democratic view that McCarthy is too weak and craven towards the far right, as seen by his behavior around January 6th and his kow towing to what most view as a bad Biden impeachment inquiry.
The big issue for Republicans if Kevin is removed, is none of the prominent hardliners would come close to getting enough votes--which they need 214 Republicans. Most of the GOP hardliners would probably top out around 30-40 votes total. Additionally, a huge swathe of the Republican caucus loathes the hardliners for the shenanigans they've been pulling, so it is highly unlikely any of them would agree to vote in someone the hardliners view as one of their own.
There are likely some Republicans who aren't part of the recalcitrant hardliner caucus who could potentially get enough votes, figures like Steve Scalise for example, but it is genuinely difficult to guess what will happen. The House GOP caucus is tremendously fractured.
I wonder if the Speaker Trump idea of will get floated again. :P
(https://i.postimg.cc/fL2qJtJz/image.png)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2023, 12:28:55 AMMy understanding is they are separate, stand-alone acts of Congress.
That's one of the things we learned from the Weimar Republic: You can only remove someone from their office by finding a majority for someone else.
Is it just me, or does it seem ironic that Gaetz and company needed the help of Democrats to oust McCarthy, for the crime of seeking help from Democrats to pass a spending bill? Gaetz needed a bit more help than McCarthy as well.
What was the logic of Democrats helping oust a guy that went to them to break the deadlock within their own party? Aren't they just making themselves irrelevant?
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2023, 04:57:04 PMWhat was the logic of Democrats helping oust a guy that went to them to break the deadlock within their own party? Aren't they just making themselves irrelevant?
See OVB's answer to that a bit above. He wasn't reliable.
McCarthy burned a lot of bridges over the past few months. He consistently pandered to the worst elements of his caucus. I agree the Democrats should support a GOP speaker candidate if needed to restore function to the House, but I fully understand why they don't trust McCarthy.
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2023, 04:57:04 PMIs it just me, or does it seem ironic that Gaetz and company needed the help of Democrats to oust McCarthy, for the crime of seeking help from Democrats to pass a spending bill? Gaetz needed a bit more help than McCarthy as well.
What was the logic of Democrats helping oust a guy that went to them to break the deadlock within their own party? Aren't they just making themselves irrelevant?
Crazy republicans will never get somebody in charge.
Sane republicans will have to find a more democrat agreeable guy to get things moving and not embarrass their party?
My impression is neither party votes in favor of a Speaker from the other party. It's just the way things have always been done.
I did a google search on "has a house speaker ever been elected with bipartisan support" and I got some articles about state legislatures which had done it, and a lot of reasons why it's unlikely to happen at the federal level.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2023, 05:27:56 AMMy impression is neither party votes in favor of a Speaker from the other party. It's just the way things have always been done.
I did a google search on "has a house speaker ever been elected with bipartisan support" and I got some articles about state legislatures which had done it, and a lot of reasons why it's unlikely to happen at the federal level.
Traditionally a chunk of one party wasn't compromised by proto fascists however.
It is kind of a parliamentary strategy thing, in theory you aren't supposed to help the opposition maintain their majority, it is on them to make their majority work, not you.
I understand that it's the orthodox strategy, but perhaps it doesn't automatically fit in such unorthodox times. I accept that Democrats may have had specific reasons to sink McCarthy, but I'm not sure that right now automatically helping sink every GOP speaker is the right strategy for them.
The problem with being a non-negotiable vote is that no one bothers negotiating with you. If Democrats always vote down non-insane and insane GOP speakers, and Gaetz always votes down non-insane GOP speakers, then eventually we get an insane GOP speaker. No matter how resolute the non-Gaetz Republicans are, ultimately they're still the only ones with flexibility to give in.
Just because McCarthy isn't Gaetz doesn't him non-insane. After all he has supported Trump quite vigorously and advanced the stolen election narrative.
McCarthy's rambling semi-incoherent and whiny press conference explains why House Dems may have lost patience with him. His disgraceful vendetta against Adam Schiff alone would be a basis for no confidence from the House Dem caucus.
I think the Dems said they were open to working with McCarty on the speakership vote but "they wouldn't be a cheap date". As Minsky points out however McCarthy did absolutely nothing to try and appeal to the house Dems.
Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2023, 10:47:41 AMI think the Dems said they were open to working with McCarty on the speakership vote but "they wouldn't be a cheap date". As Minsky points out however McCarthy did absolutely nothing to try and appeal to the house Dems.
Not only that but my understanding is that he also agreed to change the rules to make it easier to remove a Speaker as part of that package of concessions to the MAGA lot. Those were rules the Democrats hadn't touched when they had the House precisely because it would make the Speaker vulnerable to this sort of vote which would be too easy in their view. And given the way they were over electing him to the role that feels lke Chekhov's concession :lol:
He wasn't willing to make meaningful concessions in order to get the votes from the other side, he made concessions to his internal opponents that would make it easier for them to defenestrate him - and now it's happened.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 04, 2023, 10:52:30 AMQuote from: Barrister on October 04, 2023, 10:47:41 AMI think the Dems said they were open to working with McCarty on the speakership vote but "they wouldn't be a cheap date". As Minsky points out however McCarthy did absolutely nothing to try and appeal to the house Dems.
Not only that but my understanding is that he also agreed to change the rules to make it easier to remove a Speaker as part of that package of concessions to the MAGA lot. Those were rules the Democrats hadn't touched when they had the House precisely because it would make the Speaker vulnerable to this sort of vote which would be too easy in their view. And given the way they were over electing him to the role that feels lke Chekhov's concession :lol:
He wasn't willing to make meaningful concessions in order to get the votes from the other side, he made concessions to his internal opponents that would make it easier for them to defenestrate him - and now it's happened.
Commentator Charlie Sykes referred to McCarthy as speaker as being "self-gelded" for exactly that reason.
"Self-gelded" :pinch:
Yeah, to my mind Democrats acted appropriately here.
They had said they were willing to work with McCarthy--and several important pieces of legislation, more of them voted for passage than McCarthy's caucus. Including the debt ceiling deal, in which McCarthy made a number of promises to Biden and the Democrats, which he almost immediately reneged on.
Despite being willing to work with him, McCarthy also did petty things like JR mentioned, stripping Adam Schiff of committee assignments because Trump really hates Schiff since he spearheaded the impeachment hearings against him. Total bullshit move that actually undermines the legitimacy of the impeachment process and helped promote the idea that Trump was "wrongfully" impeached.
When the time to pay the piper came due, McCarthy backed into a corner made it clear he wasn't willing to give the Democrats anything at all in exchange for them saving him--so they gave likewise, not a single vote to help him out.
From a game theory view I don't really know that McCarthy could have viably done a deal with the Democrats, it would have kept his Speakership alive, but likely the 8-10 really anti-McCarthy hardliners would balloon real fast once it settled in that they now had a "Bipartisan" Speaker who had made meaningful concessions to Democrats to keep his post, and probably even further undermined him.
The position of any Speaker who cannot function without the help of the opposition is intrinsically unstable, which is what lead to both Boehner and Ryan ending their Speakerships (Boehner in the face of a real revolt like this, Ryan mostly just deciding he hated these people and wanted out.)
From the outside, the GOP looks completely dysfunctional as a political party. Surprising that they still have appeal for voters.
Quote from: Zanza on October 04, 2023, 02:40:43 PMFrom the outside, the GOP looks completely dysfunctional as a political party. Surprising that they still have appeal for voters.
It's a comedy act, tribute to the keystone cops.
Quote from: Zanza on October 04, 2023, 02:40:43 PMFrom the outside, the GOP looks completely dysfunctional as a political party. Surprising that they still have appeal for voters.
The voters they appeal to believe that anything Democratic is an existential threat to the US. Compared to the Democratic threat (in their minds), mere greed, corruption, dishonesty, and slimy political moves are the lessor evil.
I don't quite understand how half the US voting population has gone insane, but that's where we are.
Quote from: Zanza on October 04, 2023, 02:40:43 PMFrom the outside, the GOP looks completely dysfunctional as a political party. Surprising that they still have appeal for voters.
It is the politics of spite. They hate the Democrats and their supporters. They think we are evil and want to destroy America.
But I will say the GOP appears more dysfunctional than it is at the current time. It is still basically a strong and coherent political force. But you would never know that by how right wing media is.
McCarthy had support of something like 95% of the Caucus. Virtually the entire party is behind him. But the right wing media monster is split virtually 50/50 on him, with tons of very influential people just detesting him for no good reason I can see (I mean I have lots of reasons to detest him, but the reasons they do seem wacky and arbitrary. He agrees with them on basically everything.). That gives oxygen to a tiny cadre of unscrupulous clout chasers like Gaetz to wreck shit and have lots of fund raising and popular backing. The Republicans are being undermined by their own propaganda arm, which I have been saying for awhile. The tail wags the dog constantly. So even when party discipline and all is basically still functioning at a high level, the whole thing has a fatal weakness.
The Democrats' unscrupulous party operatives have been working to exploit this, and did things like fund the nutters in the last election, which seems like a very reckless and dangerous thing to do but it kind of seems like their efforts are paying off. The Republican Majority in the House can barely manage to get even symbolic things done and is much smaller than it was predicted to be thanks to the nonsense generated by the Republican media apparatus.
Right now the dysfunction is a tiny percentage of loose cannons being cheered on by influencers who are, I think, being swayed into more and more extreme positions to maintain their clout driven by the increasingly conspiracy minded detached from reality part of their base. Thus the tail is wagging the dog and the rot will likely spread like a cancer. But how bad can it get? How far down the rabbit hole can it go? I don't know. The rot is coming from the grass roots not the party itself. That is also why it is still appealing to a large number of Americans: this is what they want.
My general view is that no-one's ever really made money betting against the US - and I instinctively err to that.
It is true of the Democrats as well looking at the GOP - but with good reason. I think there are credible reasons to believe that the GOP in its current form is a threat to democracy. But I think on both sides loser's consent - which is the key of a democratic system - is going. With the Democrats for good reason, for the GOP not. And I don't know how a society recovers from that and I can't think of any that have.
Similarly I've seen American liberals sharing Milley's pointed recent remarks - and I think they mean it in a positive way. He is talking about the military's duty to the constitution, referring to a "wannabee dictator" etc. And on the one hand it is obviously comforting that those are still key values in the military and they are not on the same side as Trump. On the other hand, from the outside I can't help but look at them and feel like it's the sort of thing you'd be hearing generals say before a "guardian" coup.
Again my instinct is always don't count out the US. But I don't know how a country gets out of this sort of cycle and, as I say, I can't really think of an example of a country that entered it and was then able to correct course.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 05, 2023, 09:34:49 AMAgain my instinct is always don't count out the US. But I don't know how a country gets out of this sort of cycle and, as I say, I can't really think of an example of a country that entered it and was then able to correct course.
Yeah. I don't know.
Good post by Sheilbh.
It is a really messed up situation. What gets me about it is the dissonance and projection of the anti democratic side in it all.
It's so obvious where the threat to democracy is coming from... Yet they insist this is just the other sides bias speaking and their side saying the same about the Democrats is equally valid.
I'd like to hope the demographic shift towards a more educated and media savvy generation will put an end to things. But I suspect the gop have more than a few tricks to play in the meanwhile and the next few years to come are a really critical make or break time for the world with the Russia situation, china's anniversary/Taiwan, the short term peak el nino and sun spot cycle potentially pushing climate change beyond a tipping point....
We can't have the world's top power asleep or worse in what is left of the 2020s.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 05, 2023, 09:34:49 AMAgain my instinct is always don't count out the US. But I don't know how a country gets out of this sort of cycle and, as I say, I can't really think of an example of a country that entered it and was then able to correct course.
The U.S. did, in 1865.
Sooooo I've had a glance at a US election predictions site.
And....is it just me or does 2024 look like its going to be an absolute horror show?
Not so much the presidential election (though yes, that will be horrid in its own way), but looking at the senate and house and which seats are up for election it does seem to lean very heavily republicanwards....
Yes. Though this is not unusual.
Every election these days is a horror show. Especially in Texas :ph34r:
An election year used to just be really annoying. Now it is a big source of stress. Which is stupid because really all I have to do takes about 10 minutes.
As someone who is part of a group that is currently Public Enemy #1 for one party due to manufactured outrage, hate, and fear, every election has become a terrifying spike in the steadily escalating anxiety and stress of every day life. :weep:
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on October 11, 2023, 08:00:58 PMAs someone who is part of a group that is currently Public Enemy #1 for one party due to manufactured outrage, hate, and fear, every election has become a terrifying spike in the steadily escalating anxiety and stress of every day life. :weep:
Well obviously for you the stakes are far higher.
But even so it is a lot of stress and unhappiness for something we have very little control.
It just sucks.
At least in the old days after a Presidential election year everybody would exhale and take a break for a year. The tension would go down a bit. Now the screws just keep getting tighter it feels like.
Who looks at this pit of dysfunction and thinks, "Yes, let's give these yahoos complete control of the country."
https://wapo.st/3Qg6B9U
QuoteLast weekend, Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel said on Fox News that Hamas's attack on Israel was a "great opportunity" for Republicans
There is no bottom.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2023, 05:27:56 AMMy impression is neither party votes in favor of a Speaker from the other party. It's just the way things have always been done.
I did a google search on "has a house speaker ever been elected with bipartisan support" and I got some articles about state legislatures which had done it, and a lot of reasons why it's unlikely to happen at the federal level.
IIRC Trafficant voted for Hassert. He wasn't the clinching vote obviously and I believe he was expelled from the democratic caucus for that (then from congress for crimes).
Good news for the Dems.
This likely tracks in Canada as well, but I'm not sure about the rest of the world.
From the New York Times
QuoteOverall, according to the General Social Survey, boomers, who came of age during the turmoil and transformation of the 1960s and 1970s, are still more liberal than not. Gen Xers, who came of age during the Reagan revolution, started off more conservative than their older counterparts and have become the most consistently conservative generation in the electorate.
The case of Millennial voters is where things start to get interesting. As children of 9/11, the War on Terror and the 2008 financial crisis, Millennials — born between 1981 and 1996 — entered the electorate much more Democratic than their immediate predecessors. But while they have gotten a little more conservative in the years since, it has been at a much slower rate than you'd expect.
What's more, the gap in the number of Millennials who identify as Democrats rather than Republicans is huge, with more than twice as many self-identified Democrats as Republicans. The next cohort on the roster, Gen Z, is even more liberal and Democratic than Millennials, and shows no indication of becoming substantially more conservative as it ages.
Here is the full article gifted so you can get behind a pay wall.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/24/opinion/gen-z-millennials-republicans.html?unlocked_article_code=1.5Ew.E2rR.7jAtKydhnkt6&smid=url-share
Anxiety over global warming and the remarkable incompetence and blundering of conservatives around the world in even acknowledging, much less responding, to the crisis is also driving this. It is weird to see clips of people like Margaret Thatcher discussing how important it is to respond to the challenge from 40 years ago. What happened?
Anyway it is amazing what we have managed to accomplish with so much opposition from the biggest and most powerful economic and political forces on the planet but it is also amazing that this struggle has played out this way in countering an obvious and advancing existential threat.
Gen Z wants action. And frankly so should Gen X, I don't know what the hell is wrong with us. We are just slackers to the end.
Increasingly its Doomerism which is the problem I notice.
People with the attitude of "Stopping petrol cars by 2030? LOL. Never gonna happen" and thats that.
They think we're fucked and there's nothing we can do so...why alter their life in anyway.
I can sort of get this with old people (the selfish cunts amongst them) but I even see it from young adults sometimes.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 24, 2023, 09:27:46 AMGood news for the Dems.
This likely tracks in Canada as well, but I'm not sure about the rest of the world.
From the New York Times
QuoteOverall, according to the General Social Survey, boomers, who came of age during the turmoil and transformation of the 1960s and 1970s, are still more liberal than not. Gen Xers, who came of age during the Reagan revolution, started off more conservative than their older counterparts and have become the most consistently conservative generation in the electorate.
The case of Millennial voters is where things start to get interesting. As children of 9/11, the War on Terror and the 2008 financial crisis, Millennials — born between 1981 and 1996 — entered the electorate much more Democratic than their immediate predecessors. But while they have gotten a little more conservative in the years since, it has been at a much slower rate than you'd expect.
What's more, the gap in the number of Millennials who identify as Democrats rather than Republicans is huge, with more than twice as many self-identified Democrats as Republicans. The next cohort on the roster, Gen Z, is even more liberal and Democratic than Millennials, and shows no indication of becoming substantially more conservative as it ages.
Here is the full article gifted so you can get behind a pay wall.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/24/opinion/gen-z-millennials-republicans.html?unlocked_article_code=1.5Ew.E2rR.7jAtKydhnkt6&smid=url-share
Thanks for all these articles gifts, CC.
Quote from: Valmy on October 24, 2023, 09:34:07 AMAnxiety over global warming and the remarkable incompetence and blundering of conservatives around the world in even acknowledging, much less responding, to the crisis is also driving this. It is weird to see clips of people like Margaret Thatcher discussing how important it is to respond to the challenge from 40 years ago. What happened?
Anyway it is amazing what we have managed to accomplish with so much opposition from the biggest and most powerful economic and political forces on the planet but it is also amazing that this struggle has played out this way in countering an obvious and advancing existential threat.
Gen Z wants action. And frankly so should Gen X, I don't know what the hell is wrong with us. We are just slackers to the end.
In our defense, the boomers have overstay their welcome in positions of power by many years.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 24, 2023, 09:27:46 AMGood news for the Dems.
This likely tracks in Canada as well, but I'm not sure about the rest of the world.
True for the English speaking world, continental Europe is showing new cohorts behaving like old ones in terms of how their views evolve. Plus in many (France, Italy and maybe Germany) support for the radical right is highest among working age people (but, I believe, strongest in 25-40), the radical left are strongest with the young and the traditional established parties of centre left and right strongest among the over 50s.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 24, 2023, 05:55:36 PMIn our defense, the boomers have overstay their welcome in positions of power by many years.
In a democratic society, can it be said that a politician of a certain generation "has overstayed their welcome", if they keep winning democratic elections? :hmm:
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 24, 2023, 10:44:44 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 24, 2023, 05:55:36 PMIn our defense, the boomers have overstay their welcome in positions of power by many years.
In a democratic society, can it be said that a politician of a certain generation "has overstayed their welcome", if they keep winning democratic elections? :hmm:
Calling the US democratic is stretching the meaning of the word in 2023.
Quote from: Josquius on October 24, 2023, 11:58:51 PMCalling the US democratic is stretching the meaning of the word in 2023.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Josquius on October 24, 2023, 11:58:51 PMQuote from: Tonitrus on October 24, 2023, 10:44:44 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 24, 2023, 05:55:36 PMIn our defense, the boomers have overstay their welcome in positions of power by many years.
In a democratic society, can it be said that a politician of a certain generation "has overstayed their welcome", if they keep winning democratic elections? :hmm:
Calling the US democratic is stretching the meaning of the word in 2023.
Trump did lose the election.
Quote from: The Brain on October 25, 2023, 01:00:43 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 24, 2023, 11:58:51 PMQuote from: Tonitrus on October 24, 2023, 10:44:44 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 24, 2023, 05:55:36 PMIn our defense, the boomers have overstay their welcome in positions of power by many years.
In a democratic society, can it be said that a politician of a certain generation "has overstayed their welcome", if they keep winning democratic elections? :hmm:
Calling the US democratic is stretching the meaning of the word in 2023.
Trump did lose the election.
2016?
Yes.
Quote from: Josquius on October 25, 2023, 02:06:03 AMQuote from: The Brain on October 25, 2023, 01:00:43 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 24, 2023, 11:58:51 PMQuote from: Tonitrus on October 24, 2023, 10:44:44 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 24, 2023, 05:55:36 PMIn our defense, the boomers have overstay their welcome in positions of power by many years.
In a democratic society, can it be said that a politician of a certain generation "has overstayed their welcome", if they keep winning democratic elections? :hmm:
Calling the US democratic is stretching the meaning of the word in 2023.
Trump did lose the election.
2016?
Yes.
:tinfoil:
Quote from: The Brain on October 25, 2023, 02:53:30 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 25, 2023, 02:06:03 AMQuote from: The Brain on October 25, 2023, 01:00:43 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 24, 2023, 11:58:51 PMQuote from: Tonitrus on October 24, 2023, 10:44:44 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 24, 2023, 05:55:36 PMIn our defense, the boomers have overstay their welcome in positions of power by many years.
In a democratic society, can it be said that a politician of a certain generation "has overstayed their welcome", if they keep winning democratic elections? :hmm:
Calling the US democratic is stretching the meaning of the word in 2023.
Trump did lose the election.
2016?
Yes.
:tinfoil:
According to wikipedia 62,984,828 to 65,853,514.
The electoral college is a borked undemocratic system.
:lmfao:
FPTP pot meet Electoral kettle.
Quote from: Tamas on October 25, 2023, 05:04:54 AMFPTP pot meet Electoral kettle.
Jos doesn't really think the UK is democratic either :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 25, 2023, 06:58:46 AMQuote from: Tamas on October 25, 2023, 05:04:54 AMFPTP pot meet Electoral kettle.
Jos doesn't really think the UK is democratic either :P
But Jos is arguing that "Calling the US democratic is stretching the meaning of the word in 2023." That means that he believes that the year is important, when nothing has changed in the system except that it elected a guy he didn't like. He's agreeing with Trump in that regard.
That the US hasn't changed is precisely the point.
The standards for what rates as a good democracy have risen over the decades.
Once necessary compromises are no longer necessary for any other reason than its how things have always been done.
Quote from: Josquius on October 25, 2023, 07:35:41 AMThat the US hasn't changed is precisely the point.
The standards for what rates as a good democracy have risen over the decades.
Once necessary compromises are no longer necessary for any other reason than its how things have always been done.
I don't believe that you changing your standards changes the US from democratic to undemocratic in any mind but your own.
I also don't think there's necessarily a scale of democracy within democratic societies just from the nature of the system. Same as everything - I don't think there's an ideal just variations/different models with different trade-offs/emphases.
I think the democraticness or not depends more on how it's used and the interaction of the voting public with the system.
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 24, 2023, 10:44:44 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 24, 2023, 05:55:36 PMIn our defense, the boomers have overstay their welcome in positions of power by many years.
In a democratic society, can it be said that a politician of a certain generation "has overstayed their welcome", if they keep winning democratic elections? :hmm:
Yes. The US is especially vulnerable to that situation too. 2 party system where the incumbents amass so much earning/raising funds power that any in-party criticism is shut down before hand.
Also I think historically in the US legislative system seniority was really closely linked to power. From what I've read it was definitely a factor in the mid-20th century where you had these incredibly powerful legislators and their power came from committee chairs etc tied to seniority - I think it was particularly relevant in the fight resisting civil rights. Historically there was an advantage to voters re-electing incumbents especially in the Senate.
I think the Republicans are breaking that down and in this case I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing.
It was definitely a thing that a Senator from a small state would get seniority, be able to flood their small states with perks that comes from seniority, and turn their state into their fiefdom. It wasn't good, but today I think we're discovering that it's much better to have flawed governance than no governance. A lot of the factors that looked corrupt also tended to encourage bipartisanship, at least for really important things.
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 24, 2023, 10:44:44 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 24, 2023, 05:55:36 PMIn our defense, the boomers have overstay their welcome in positions of power by many years.
In a democratic society, can it be said that a politician of a certain generation "has overstayed their welcome", if they keep winning democratic elections? :hmm:
It depends on the structure and strength of the democratic institutions. Yours, for example, are pretty much broken. The way in which you primary candidates all but ensures that people have to wait for an incumbent to die before they become replaced.
Add the gerrymandering that has now been endorsed by your highest court and you get a perfect storm of the electorate not actually getting a real choice when it comes to a general election.
Edit I see I was late to this party
Quote from: DGuller on October 25, 2023, 10:05:47 AMIt was definitely a thing that a Senator from a small state would get seniority, be able to flood their small states with perks that comes from seniority, and turn their state into their fiefdom. It wasn't good, but today I think we're discovering that it's much better to have flawed governance than no governance. A lot of the factors that looked corrupt also tended to encourage bipartisanship, at least for really important things.
Yeah - or as I say, on the other side, use the entrenched power of seniority to absolutely kill civil rights legislation in the 40s and 50s. It could simultaneously support bipartisanship but it was also another way of that could entrench counter-majoritarian power (in a very counter-majoritarian system). I could be wrong but my instinct would also be that it would strengthen Senators in states where they are unlikely to face a real challenge - that's certainly how it helped Southern Democrats. In the modern age I suspect it would be very strong Republican and very strong Democrat states. Given the way the GOP is already expert at using the counter-majoritarian points in the US system (Supreme Court, electoral college, Senate etc) I suspect if they had another one they could possibly cause even more issues.
Purely on the Congressional level I've thought for a while that one of the things that's happening is that Republicans are becoming more like a parliamentary party. Discipline is important, they try to move as one, they don't want to rely on votes from the other side and they are fairly ideologically defined. Democrats, on the other hand, I think are more of the old American style political party - looser, less ideological definition, more open. I think that the Republicans to an extent are being driven by national trends among voters - my understanding is that in the US there is less and less regional variation or exceptions and increasingly US elections resemble parliamentary elections with national swing.
On the other hand I think that what the GOP are doing doesn't work with the American system - arguably it breaks it (even if it's how voters are behaving), which is a problem given that American voters seem to possibly prefer mixed control of the branches of government.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 25, 2023, 10:29:13 AMPurely on the Congressional level I've thought for a while that one of the things that's happening is that Republicans are becoming more like a parliamentary party. Discipline is important, they try to move as one, they don't want to rely on votes from the other side and they are fairly ideologically defined. Democrats, on the other hand, I think are more of the old American style political party - looser, less ideological definition, more open. I think that the Republicans to an extent are being driven by national trends among voters - my understanding is that in the US there is less and less regional variation or exceptions and increasingly US elections resemble parliamentary elections with national swing.
But that doesn't describe what's happening in congress, like, at all.
The Democrats are the ones presenting a united front. Nancy Pelosi didn't have much of a bigger lead than the GOP currently does but she never had these kinds of splits. The democrats have a basic ideology that unifies them (although obviously with variation within the party).
The GOP on the other hand is not unified. It's split between one wing that does have an ideology (Reaganite fusionist conservatism), but another wing with no ideology beyond Donald Trump. They're unable to stay unified and are unable to even elect a speaker.
Some of the specific things blocking them getting behind a Speaker is the guys the Trumpists want tend to have at least a few policies that the 20 or so genuine moderates just absolutely loathe. Either they personally loathe it (anti-Ukraine--most of the GOP moderates are true believers in America taking a leading role in global affairs), or they politically loathe it (because they are in districts that Biden won, and fear the crazies doing things that hurt their reelection.)
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2023, 12:02:59 PMBut that doesn't describe what's happening in congress, like, at all.
The Democrats are the ones presenting a united front. Nancy Pelosi didn't have much of a bigger lead than the GOP currently does but she never had these kinds of splits. The democrats have a basic ideology that unifies them (although obviously with variation within the party).
The GOP on the other hand is not unified. It's split between one wing that does have an ideology (Reaganite fusionist conservatism), but another wing with no ideology beyond Donald Trump. They're unable to stay unified and are unable to even elect a speaker.
At this immediate time, yes - but I was thinking more of the last 30 years since 1994.
I think in a way that is possibly partly why the GOP are starting to fracture now. Even in that collapse I think it is distinctive and reflects the parliamentarisation of the GOP. Even in the most divisive periods of American history parties have broadly been able to work together to elect a Speaker, to exercise patronage etc. The looseness of the parties helps in doing that, as well perhaps as a bit of light corruption. You could get Hubert Humphrey and Richard Russell voting together on issues because of a broader, looser, less ideological sense of party.
It looks like party splits or coalitions falling apart in a way that is not unusual in a parliamentary system. I'm not sure if the GOP can hold it together and I think what seems like the key divide for more moderate Republicans on one side and the hardline on the other is attitudes to January 6/whether there was a valid election.
So I'm not sure that is reconcilable (as long as Trump is a feature of the GOP) as there are two camps with directly opposed red lines on the same issue. I'd broadly say that's a split between a group that exists within democratic politics and one that doesn't.
Looks like the far right wins--their current guy is one of the most far right guys in Congress (he lead the effort to decertify the 2020 election), is super anti-Ukraine, mega Trumper, mega religious conservative. Every single opposition moderate voter who bucked Scalise and Jordan is voting for him, so the moderate GOP has had a complete cave.
It's the only way this could have ended. The "Moderate" Republican simply doesn't exist anymore in the House. They barely do in the Senate. Maybe. They haven't been tested yet. I have a feeling they will fold just like those in the House have. There are fanatics and fanatic enablers. That's it.
I wonder whether long term accelerationism may not apply?
Let the republicans prove themselves further completely beyond the pale and see actual thinking conservatives abandon them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 25, 2023, 07:54:49 AMI also don't think there's necessarily a scale of democracy within democratic societies just from the nature of the system. Same as everything - I don't think there's an ideal just variations/different models with different trade-offs/emphases.
I think the democraticness or not depends more on how it's used and the interaction of the voting public with the system.
It's not like it's a fixed scale where you can easily rank countries (though such rankings do exist). There are indeed choices to be made.
But within this some systems, like fptp and the electoral college, are clearly pretty democratically crap, whilst others give much more accurate representation.
Well, looks like a government shutdown is inevitable next month. Can't see a MAGA-written budget passing the Senate.
I will enjoy my likely months-long furlough I guess.
My guess is with this Speaker the only possible end to a shutdown is some of the same Republicans who finally caved to MAGA, join a Democratic discharge petition--but that is a lengthy process and requires at lest 5 Republicans to have a spine for what will likely be several long weeks of withering attacks from the far right.
Who's the new speaker?
It's like an Onion story. GOP conference nominates random guy that happened to be standing around the lobby. "Mike Johnson" because "John Smith" was not available. When asked for comment the new Speaker's mother responded, "I'm sorry, who are we talking about?"
So he's from the lunatic wing?
Quote from: Josquius on October 25, 2023, 02:20:19 PMSo he's from the lunatic wing?
Depends how you define "lunatic wing".
So he's not from the House Freedom Caucus, which contains the most crazy members.
But he did vote to not recognize the 2020 election, is against aid to Ukraine, is in favour of a national abortion ban, etc.
It is all very much relative.
For me the 2020 election and recognising states votes is the key. I think if they're voting against that, they're outside democratic politics. So it's enough to know that.
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2023, 02:49:05 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 25, 2023, 02:20:19 PMSo he's from the lunatic wing?
Depends how you define "lunatic wing".
So he's not from the House Freedom Caucus, which contains the most crazy members.
But he did vote to not recognize the 2020 election, is against aid to Ukraine, is in favour of a national abortion ban, etc.
So a modern mainstream Republican.
He's a lot like the previous one but different enough that Pedophile Matt Gaetz doesn't hate him yet.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 25, 2023, 03:33:46 PMHe's a lot like the previous one but different enough that Pedophile Matt Gaetz doesn't hate him yet.
It seems pretty clear the last 3 weeks or so were driven far more by personal animus than by any policy distinctions between Republicans.
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 25, 2023, 12:55:22 PMWell, looks like a government shutdown is inevitable next month. Can't see a MAGA-written budget passing the Senate.
I will enjoy my likely months-long furlough I guess.
It's an absurd situation. The GOP holdouts wanted to elect a Chair so that the business of government could be attended to, and so they elect a Chair who will likely not conduct the business of government.
Oof
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 27, 2023, 01:15:42 PMIt's an absurd situation. The GOP holdouts wanted to elect a Chair so that the business of government could be attended to, and so they elect a Chair who will likely not conduct the business of government.
Oof
I guess they decided that being unable to conduct the business of government by having a Chair who doesn't want to conduct it is better than not conducting becuase they're unable to elect a Chair.
They said themselves that they were tired of looking like clowns because they couldn't vote for a designated Speaker. Now they're just back to looking like assholes trying to destroy the country.
Yeah but now they can pawn it off in the dems being ineffectual rather then them just being a roadblock and the foxers will believe them.
Quote from: HVC on October 27, 2023, 01:25:37 PMYeah but now they can pawn it off in the dems being ineffectual rather then them just being a roadblock and the foxers will believe them.
Exactly. Which is why it's the preferable situation.
No poll this far out is worth anything yadda yadda. But still :blink: :huh:
QuoteAlex Seitz-Wald
@aseitzwald
New Quinnipiac Poll with some big 👀 on RFK Jr.:
- Biden 39%
- Trump 36%
- RFK Jr. 22%
Kennedy has a plurality of independent voters (!!!): 36% for RFK Jr., 31% for Trump, 30% Biden.
Also not representative just a cross tab (like the independent voters - who I've always viewed suspiciously <_<).....But.....
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F94FQLwXkAAkR_F?format=png&name=small)
Edit: Incidentally that's a similar voting pattern for Trump - peaking in working years - with Biden doing best among the over 65s which is a bit like the patter in a few European countries for the radical right and establishment parties.
Maybe polarisation by age is just a British thing not even happening in the US too :hmm:
That can't be right. :wacko:
Mind you virtually every independent candidate since 1960 has polled really high before the real election season. Lots of people like the idea of an option outside the two major parties.
Not to say RFK couldn't become a spoiler like other major independent candidates have been, but I would be surprised if he doesn't experience a crater--a big issue candidates like him always suffer from is they are more appealing in the hypothetical than in the reality, and most independent candidates either run bad campaigns or have very fringe views that get a lot of exposure closer to the campaign season.
RFK has a collection of views fairly unpopular with mainstream Democrats and mainstream Republicans, which I think will ultimately come to light as general understanding of who he is spreads.
And how can it be that the die hard Trumpist quartile of 65+ is smarter than everyone else?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2023, 07:14:19 PMNo poll this far out is worth anything yadda yadda. But still :blink: :huh:
QuoteAlex Seitz-Wald
@aseitzwald
New Quinnipiac Poll with some big 👀 on RFK Jr.:
- Biden 39%
- Trump 36%
- RFK Jr. 22%
Kennedy has a plurality of independent voters (!!!): 36% for RFK Jr., 31% for Trump, 30% Biden.
Also not representative just a cross tab (like the independent voters - who I've always viewed suspiciously <_<).....But.....
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F94FQLwXkAAkR_F?format=png&name=small)
Edit: Incidentally that's a similar voting pattern for Trump - peaking in working years - with Biden doing best among the over 65s which is a bit like the patter in a few European countries for the radical right and establishment parties.
Maybe polarisation by age is just a British thing not even happening in the US too :hmm:
Do they know who this guy is?
As thats insane support from the young.
Andy Beshear wins reelection in Kentucky.
Right to abortion enshrined in the Ohio constitution.
So far, so good tonight.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2023, 08:34:08 PMAndy Beshear wins reelection in Kentucky.
Right to abortion enshrined in the Ohio constitution.
So far, so good tonight.
:showoff:
Wasserman just called the Virginia senate for Dems.
GOP being annihilated in the NJ legislature. They lost a plus 35 Trump seat.
NY Times just called the PA supreme court for the dems.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/11/07/us/election-day-2023?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20231107&instance_id=107175&nl=from-the-times®i_id=61766558&segment_id=149434&te=1&user_id=46483dfd2e0439e08007edad90672d1b
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2023, 09:09:40 PMWasserman just called the Virginia senate for Dems.
I did my part by voting straight Dem ticket. Even for the three seats on the county Soil and Water Conservation board, whatever the fuck they do.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 07, 2023, 10:59:31 PMQuote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2023, 09:09:40 PMWasserman just called the Virginia senate for Dems.
I did my part by voting straight Dem ticket. Even for the three seats on the county Soil and Water Conservation board, whatever the fuck they do.
He just called the Va house for the Dems to!
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1722105171684016601
Why is this happening? Did the abortion thing just piss off democrats?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2023, 11:32:00 PMWhy is this happening? Did the abortion thing just piss off democrats?
Yes, pretty much.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 07, 2023, 10:59:31 PMQuote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2023, 09:09:40 PMWasserman just called the Virginia senate for Dems.
I did my part by voting straight Dem ticket. Even for the three seats on the county Soil and Water Conservation board, whatever the fuck they do.
Whatever it is, it certainly sounds like somewhere you don't want Trumpists.
Ohio approves getting stoned.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2023, 11:32:00 PMWhy is this happening? Did the abortion thing just piss off democrats?
That's a big part of it. In Virginia there was a perfect storm in 2021--the Dems ran a former Dem Governor, Terry McAuliffe, who ran a really bad campaign. He refused to address many of the issues Youngkin did because he "didn't like" the narrative of those issues.
Youngkin ran as a moderate conservative businessman who cared about "fixing" Virginia's schools. If you did much research on him at all, it was obvious he was a far right MAGAt but most voters don't research to that degree. He was an affable, middle aged white businessman who didn't openly say crazy things. Dems ended up losing the Governorship, and then Youngkin proceeded to start pushing very far right MAGAt stuff.
Including encroaching on reproductive rights. I think given the ever bluing demographics of Virginia it was always very doubtful Youngkin was going to build on his 2021 successes--once he showed his cards as full MAGA as Governor he was immediately a turn off to a lot of VA voters, so instead of his dream of flipping the Senate, the Dems retain the Senate and flip the House. It is unlikely unless the Dems nominate a really shitty candidate again that the GOP retains the Governorship in 2 years (reminder VA only allows Governors to server 1 term at a time, they can run again if they sit out for 4 years, but they can't run for reelection as an incumbent.)
Rep Rashida Tlaib, sole Palestinian American member of Congress, has been censured by the House for a video in which called for an end to the genocide of Palestinians and played footage of a crowd chanting from the river to the sea. 22 Dems vote in favor, 4 Reps vote against.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2023, 02:27:05 PMplayed footage of a crowd chanting from the river to the sea
:x
Still...the censure seems unnecessary. Calling for peace shouldn't be some big outrage.
I sure wish Joe wouldn't run again.
It is very frustrating as during the last election it sure felt like the understanding was he only going to serve one term. I feel like any generic Democrat would easily cruise to victory but his age, economic issues, and the fucking Israel-Palestine situation put us in danger of a disastrous defeat.
Quote from: Valmy on November 08, 2023, 02:29:09 PM:x
Still...the censure seems unnecessary. Calling for peace shouldn't be some big outrage.
I'm good with it. She used the g-word. ;)
I wish some wag would come up with a good gag about from the river to the sea and Mar e Largo. It's beyond my abilities.
Quote from: Valmy on November 08, 2023, 02:33:16 PMI sure wish Joe wouldn't run again.
It is very frustrating as during the last election it sure felt like the understanding was he only going to serve one term. I feel like any generic Democrat would easily cruise to victory but his age, economic issues, and the fucking Israel-Palestine situation put us in danger of a disastrous defeat.
yup yup yup
I'm still hoping for some kind of March surprise.
I don't get the age bit given Trump is all of 3 years younger.
Quote from: garbon on November 08, 2023, 02:45:52 PMI don't get the age bit given Trump is all of 3 years younger.
It's not the age per se, it's the shuffling around and mumbling and mummy face.
Quote from: Valmy on November 08, 2023, 02:33:16 PMI sure wish Joe wouldn't run again.
It is very frustrating as during the last election it sure felt like the understanding was he only going to serve one term. I feel like any generic Democrat would easily cruise to victory but his age, economic issues, and the fucking Israel-Palestine situation put us in danger of a disastrous defeat.
Isn't the US economy flying?
Quote from: Josquius on November 08, 2023, 02:59:28 PMIsn't the US economy flying?
Much like the period between the economic collapse and Covid: yes and no.
Things are going strong but the benefits are not really getting down to the general public much. Americans of this generation are not really used to even moderate levels of inflation. Lots of grumbling about it being hard to get work and the high prices of groceries.
Guardian suggests it is a perception issue.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/15/biden-economy-bidenomics-poll-republicans-democrats-independents
Although the partisan split they talk about there is not as strong as it was under Trump:
(https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2023/04/PP_2023.04.07_100-days_3-01.png)
There's lots of good indicators on the US economy - but real wages are falling and I believe basically have been since Biden took office. It feels a little "that's your bloody GDP. Not ours."
I think the IRA is really good for example. But despite the name it's focused on things I think are important and good but, not necessarily going to have much of an impact on people's cost of living especially in the short term which I think probably goes for a lot of Biden's economic policy.
By the way I get a lot of those elections were just on that cycle.
But for, say, the Ohio abortion referendum - was there no thought among activists arranging that to push it back to 2024? Or was there an urgent risk or a fear they'd lose then or was timming set by Republicans in the legislature?
It feels like at a national level it could be helpful for driving turnout/mobilising Democrat voters like the gay marriage referendums in 2004 particularly in key states. Or is that still a plan/happening?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2023, 03:43:14 PMBy the way I get a lot of those elections were just on that cycle.
But for, say, the Ohio abortion referendum - was there no thought among activists arranging that to push it back to 2024? Or was there an urgent risk or a fear they'd lose then or was timming set by Republicans in the legislature?
It feels like at a national level it could be helpful for driving turnout/mobilising Democrat voters like the gay marriage referendums in 2004 particularly in key states. Or is that still a plan/happening?
I read activists are trying to get it in for other states in 2024 for that reason.
Quote from: Valmy on November 08, 2023, 02:33:16 PMI sure wish Joe wouldn't run again.
It is very frustrating as during the last election it sure felt like the understanding was he only going to serve one term. I feel like any generic Democrat would easily cruise to victory but his age, economic issues, and the fucking Israel-Palestine situation put us in danger of a disastrous defeat.
A "generic democrat" - sure.
But the thing is there's no such person. You have to name an actual person.
The question is "would Kamala Harris be better able to beat Donald Trump"? Or Gretchen Whitmer. Or Pete Buttigieg? Or Elizabeth Warren? Or Gavin Newsom? Or Bernie Sanders?
Once you have to attach an actual name to the ballot, I'm not so sure any of them would have a better chance against Trump than Biden would.
That being said, I would hope that not too long after re-election that Biden would retire and hand the reigns of to Harris - and I don't really like Kamala Harris.
Yeah I get the talk about Biden, but I think it also needs to be put in the context of the weakness of the Democrat alternatives.
Of course the way you get a break-out star/prove your not a weak candidate is normally by winning a competitive primary so...:hmm:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2023, 03:35:43 PMThere's lots of good indicators on the US economy - but real wages are falling and I believe basically have been since Biden took office. It feels a little "that's your bloody GDP. Not ours."
Real wages have gone up slightly in 2023 but are down overall since Biden's inauguration. The basic point stands.
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2023, 04:42:04 PMThat being said, I would hope that not too long after re-election that Biden would retire and hand the reigns of to Harris - and I don't really like Kamala Harris.
Why? Biden seems to be doing a good job, or whoever it is that's doing his job for him. What has Kamala Harris done to show that she should be doing this kinda important job?
Quote from: DGuller on November 09, 2023, 02:15:16 AMQuote from: Barrister on November 08, 2023, 04:42:04 PMThat being said, I would hope that not too long after re-election that Biden would retire and hand the reigns of to Harris - and I don't really like Kamala Harris.
Why? Biden seems to be doing a good job, or whoever it is that's doing his job for him. What has Kamala Harris done to show that she should be doing this kinda important job?
Would there be a decent answer for basically any vice president in history?
Quote from: Josquius on November 09, 2023, 04:19:02 AMWould there be a decent answer for basically any vice president in history?
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/0hoAAOSwxjxdn3Cs/s-l1600.jpg)
But reasonable for a fair few VPs - especially back when it was a party pick/regional ticket balancing.
Nice poster, but doesn't hold a candle to Nixon's campaign materials:
(https://i.postimg.cc/KvfhCfSP/image.png)
Yes many VPs became President.
But did they do anything whilst VP to really show their credentials to the public?
Quote from: Josquius on November 09, 2023, 05:03:50 AMYes many VPs became President.
But did they do anything whilst VP to really show their credentials to the public?
No one does anything as VP. As LBJ said the Vice Presidency is "not worth a bucket of warm piss". But many had been pretty big figures before then - they were often a prominent leader in another political or regional wing of the party. Even after the Presidential candidate basically gets to pick, they're often people who did well in the primaries. Obviously doesn't mean they'll be good at it.
Edit: For example with those two LBJ was, possibly, the most effective Senate Majority Leader in American history and Dick Nixon was on the House Un-American Activities Committee :P
You could say the same for Harris - on paper I should really like her and think she sounds really impressive. But I found her really really underwhelming in the primaries.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 09, 2023, 05:09:17 AMNo one does anything as VP. As LBJ said the Vice Presidency is "not worth a bucket of warm piss".
That was another Texan, John Nance Garner.
Apologies - and another Texan sidelined by their liberal Northern boss :o
Quote from: Josquius on November 09, 2023, 04:19:02 AMQuote from: Josquius on November 09, 2023, 04:19:02 AMQuote from: DGuller on November 09, 2023, 02:15:16 AMQuote from: Barrister on November 08, 2023, 04:42:04 PMThat being said, I would hope that not too long after re-election that Biden would retire and hand the reigns of to Harris - and I don't really like Kamala Harris.
Why? Biden seems to be doing a good job, or whoever it is that's doing his job for him. What has Kamala Harris done to show that she should be doing this kinda important job?
Would there be a decent answer for basically any vice president in history?
Would there be a decent answer for basically any vice president in history?
:hmm: I guess you could say that for Joe Biden.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2023, 03:35:43 PMAlthough the partisan split they talk about there is not as strong as it was under Trump:
(https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2023/04/PP_2023.04.07_100-days_3-01.png)
This just shows how the Republicans are just so influenced by their media people. The end of the Obama administration was kind of a puzzling time because, as I said earlier, the economic statistics looked great but there was still a lot of dissatisfaction that the benefits were not being felt by many of the people.
Conservatives made a big deal about this, talking about how the unemployment rate wasn't the real unemployment rate and went on about how economic statistics don't tell the whole story and so forth. And at the time I felt like maybe they were being sincere and had some good points.
But holy shit once their guy got in office those same statistics were suddenly used to show how now everything was great. Nothing had really changed at all but suddenly the economy was amazing. So you have 18% of Republicans thinking the economy was good in 2016 and 60% thinking so in 2018 despite not much changing.
The power of their media machine is really amazing. This is what makes them so tough to beat. They are going to try the same game again.
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2023, 04:42:04 PMA "generic democrat" - sure.
But the thing is there's no such person. You have to name an actual person.
The question is "would Kamala Harris be better able to beat Donald Trump"? Or Gretchen Whitmer. Or Pete Buttigieg? Or Elizabeth Warren? Or Gavin Newsom? Or Bernie Sanders?
I think all but Sanders and Warren qualify.
Though Buttigieg is kind of unsufferable.
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2023, 10:32:47 AMThis just shows how the Republicans are just so influenced by their media people. The end of the Obama administration was kind of a puzzling time because, as I said earlier, the economic statistics looked great but there was still a lot of dissatisfaction that the benefits were not being felt by many of the people.
Conservatives made a big deal about this, talking about how the unemployment rate wasn't the real unemployment rate and went on about how economic statistics don't tell the whole story and so forth. And at the time I felt like maybe they were being sincere and had some good points.
But holy shit once their guy got in office those same statistics were suddenly used to show how now everything was great. Nothing had really changed at all but suddenly the economy was amazing. So you have 18% of Republicans thinking the economy was good in 2016 and 60% thinking so in 2018 despite not much changing.
The power of their media machine is really amazing. This is what makes them so tough to beat. They are going to try the same game again.
Ish. I think this has been written about but there was basically a short, sharp sectoral recession in 2016 that quite possibly impacted the election, especially as you had a bit of a "that's your bloody GDP. Not ours" emphasis on headline stats/upbeat vibe from Clinton's campaign. Via the NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/upshot/mini-recession-2016-little-known-big-impact.html
Or Reuters:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-counties-idUSKBN1YM0HC
Or Forbes:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfvail/2018/03/27/revisions-show-us-industrial-mini-recession-in-2015/?sh=638400c35184
And as with everything inn the economy now it's actually a global story of interacting policy in China, the US and Eurozone - plus energy.
In the US the impact was localised and sectoral - it hit energy, manufacturing and agriculture. It also hit Clinton's Blue Wall states/swing Obama-Trump areas disproportionately. The local impact (and its political effect) wasn't noticed at the time because from a headline/national perspective there were issues but the headline numbers were still broadly positive/manageable.
I always think the stuff about Trump and Russia and micro-targeting misreads 2016. I think there's always a fighting the last battle element and the first political leader to really use data and microtargeting was Obama in 2008. It was key in beating Clinton. Her campaign in 2016 leaned into that very heavily - I think in the 2016 retrospectives many have said they were making decisions too much on the basis of data. That ties into the mini/invisible recession because again from the autopsies of that election, apparently there was feedback from activists and campaigners in those Blue Wall states that were going through a really tough time economically that the message wasn't working and they needed to start talking about the economy more etc. From what I've read of the reporting (after the event) that was largely ignored in favour of the pure data analytics which was showing great engagement, the message was resonating etc.
I think it's the risk with politics - and governing - for that matter with a too technocratic model. You'll only ever know what's being measured and have imperfect information because it won't be granular, local or detailed enough quickly enough - and what's being measured might not be what's mattering in people's lives. They definitely need more and better data but also, vibes matter :lol: Or vibes are also giving information and it's always about balancing them and a lot is in the judgement call.
You are talking about the election, and I agree, but I was mainly focused on Republican opinions which go from "everything is shit" to "everything is awesome" and back almost instantaneous to their people being power regardless of what is really going on. And such a huge number of people passionately having that opinion really does shape the feelings of those of us around them.
It just shows the power of their machine.
The fact that sure the prosperity in the US economy doesn't really seem to get down to most of the people but the bad times sure do. That's a serious problem and I have talked about that before. It has really disillusioned me on classical liberal economics.
Yeah, but I think it plays into the media too - how much is it shaping opinion v behaving as a mirror? And the same goes for Democrats post-2016 in that respect. I'm reminded of the studies on disinformation that shows the people who are most susceptible are those with strong political views (particularly graduates) - the biggest danger with it is confirmation bias.
There was a short, sharp recession that disproportionately hit areas that subsequently voted Trump. I'd imagine that was also reflected in the people consuming right-wign media, who were responding to their customers interests, views and experience. So for people who swung Republican in 2016 (and I think became Trump's base in many ways) 2016 was really shit for them and then there was a big recovery. And, of course, you could ask the opposite - were the NYT etc too focused on the experience around them. Was there mirroring there of consumers who are less likely (I imagine) to work in energy, agriculture or manufacturing, were based in areas that didn't experience that localised recssion and it wasn't reflected in the headline numbers of, say, the Fed? On the economy there were two true stories at once and the two media worlds told the one that reflected their consumers.
Subsequently, in general, I think Biden's done very well on the economy and has the right priorities - and I genuinely think has a claim to be the most effective President in my lifetime in terms of actually getting stuff passed and done. The headline numbers are good - but, until recently (thanks JR), real wages have been falling. So I don't think it is just media flim-flam or false consciousness.
It's a real example of lived experience.
I don't think there is any question the US economy has done well through since Jan 21, both relatively in comparison with peer nation and in absolute terms. However, it is true that real wages have been stagnant and that obviously impacts perception. The other issue is inflation. The COVID exit inflation was a global phenomenon; the US experience was not particularly severe by international standards and inflation rates have quickly cooled off. But that is a reduction in the current and future rate of price increases; it does not counteract the prior increase in the price level. People are still reacting to and processing the prior level increase. So even though from an economic point of view, inflation is no longer an urgent concern, from a political point of view, it is still highly salient.
Manchin announced he will not run in 24. AOC got what she wanted, time to profit.
Eh, I'm still worried that Manchin might try to go No Labels
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 09, 2023, 07:51:19 PMEh, I'm still worried that Manchin might try to go No Labels
Why does that worry you? What's the downside?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 11, 2023, 04:06:05 PMQuote from: jimmy olsen on November 09, 2023, 07:51:19 PMEh, I'm still worried that Manchin might try to go No Labels
Why does that worry you? What's the downside?
Presumably that it'll split the Democrat vote and result in a guaranteed GOP pickup?
Quote from: Jacob on November 11, 2023, 04:17:03 PMPresumably that it'll split the Democrat vote and result in a guaranteed GOP pickup?
West Virginia is like 70% Trump country. Without Manchin it already is a guaranteed GOP pickup.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 11, 2023, 04:06:05 PMQuote from: jimmy olsen on November 09, 2023, 07:51:19 PMEh, I'm still worried that Manchin might try to go No Labels
Why does that worry you? What's the downside?
I mean for president. Downside is obvious
FWIW there is pretty strong evidence that there is a large element of partisanship to views of the economy. Republicans are simply far less likely to view the economy as bad when a Republican is in the White House--this is regardless of how the economic statistics are looking. There is a similar effect for Democrats, although less pronounced.
This has been studied quite a bit--and I don't actually think it is very accurate to cherry pick some aspects of the economy that are bad (some aspects of the economy are always bad, in some regions)--the simple reality is all real evidence shows most American voters are doing "fine" as an average in terms of personal economic situation--a not insignificant amount are doing "well or very well."
It should also be noted the GOP still are the party of people who earn over $100,000; just looking at limited local reporting, I see negative sentiment in areas around here that are red but wealthy areas--and where I know "people are not struggling." This is partisan economic sentiment.
This shouldn't be confused as saying "there are no problems with the economy", but rather--the "perception" of the economy, which is what actually matters in politics, is very significantly driven by partisanship. It is also significantly driven by the media--and due to an endless desire to "be skeptics" of the sitting President and to encourage a "horse race." Mainstream media, which at this point is far more consumed by Democrats than Republicans, has endlessly reported "economy Bad, Biden struggling" for 2 years. Any positive economic data such as on jobs, declining inflation rate, sectoral wage growth, GDP growth etc get minor blurbs, while "economy Bad, Biden struggling" are regularly front page on NYT, CNN, WaPo etc.
This absolutely does affect perception. And of course Right Wing media is doing this but cranked to 11.
To some degree it isn't the job of the MSM to campaign for the Democrats, but I do think some of their natural instincts are actively contributing to a pretty unreasonable negative view of the economy.
There is also a significant amount of "propaganda" about inflation. On Reddit and other social media I see an endless deluge of posts about grocery prices with figures that, frankly, aren't real. We know how much groceries have increased in price since 2020, but we regularly see posts on social media where people are claiming they are paying crazy amounts like "3 to 5 times" more than they did back in the Good Ole Trump days.
That just isn't real, no one is paying 5x their grocery bill unless they added 3-4 people to their household.
Part of the political issue with "most" of the negative economic sentiment not actually being directly connected to the real economy, is that it isn't easy to "fix" politically. I have seen it suggested Biden and the Democrats should "demagogue" against entities that are easy to blame for some of the high prices that really anger voters--in housing and groceries. Demonize landlords and corporations, but a common problem for modern day Democrats is the Clinton coalition brought in a lot of people that are in bed with these corporate interests, and a lifetime "center of the party" Democrat like Joe is not going to attack corporations with the vigor of an "outsider" like Bernie Sanders. Just isn't in his DNA.
Yeah - on the economy specifically because I think there's other issues with the MSM coverage especially. I think that's fair on how they've covered the economy, but I also think their coverage has been basically justifiable on the economy.
The reality is (and we see this across the Western world) inflation has been higher than it's been in 50 years and - in the US (also most of Europe) - wages haven't kept pace which means there's a real impact on people's cost and standard of living. I think it is 90% caused by the same mix of factors: covid, China (both zero covid and then increasing trade disputes), issues with globalised supply chains, one of the world's biggest producers of hydrocarbons invading one of the world's biggest producers of food. I think that makes things politically challenging for every incumbent in the world. Because there is a real hit on people, but also the policy levers that incumbents have are limited and largely outsourced to technocratic central banks who deliberately don't have the same political horizon. I I could be wrong but I think there's been studies and historically inflation is really really bad for incumbents in democracies in the way that unemployment just isn't.
The thing I find a bit more baffling and I think should cause a bit of introspection is that a lot of the predicting/economic analysts feeding into newsletters seem to have been far, far more negative about the US economy than the actual stats would seem to deserve. I'm not sure if this is basically because they represent asset holders and that is the perspective that dominates media coverage. If you had lots of tech stock it's been a bumpy few years.
So the point being is that currently Biden is hurting a little bit due to the perception of weak economy, which along with his age and the current Israel-Palestine shit, make him vulnerable.
I get that currently Texas and California's brands are in the shitter and generally people across the country dislike both places immensely but I just think Gavin Newsome would be a better candidate.
Yeah, I think there's a few things going on--but Biden being a weak candidate is definitely one of them. But most of the viable alternatives also ran in the 2020 primary and consistently polled worse than Biden in a head to head (Pritzker and Newsom were never in the primary.)
There is probably a better Dem out there, but I do think there is a risk of that move, which is probably why Biden has faced very little serious pressure to not run.
How much time is left for plan B anyway? I really hope someone is working on one, even if for obvious reasons you wouldn't want to publicize it. The 2024 elections are just too important to leave such things to chance. If Joe kicks the bucket, surely no one thinks that Kamala Harris would be the person to save us from another four years of Trump?
Is it from outer space? I mean it might as well be.
The key I guess is less about selling Biden and more, as per 2019, boosting fear of Trump?
Curious though that there's all this talk of Biden being old and his health. He seems in much better shape for his age than Trump does- both on paper and to look at them.
With Trump potential death or disability makes him more attractive to sane people, with Biden it's the other way around.
Seems Speaker Magic Johnson has passed a bill to fund the government through January and February. Almost all the democrats voted for it along with 127 republicans. He basically did what got McCarthy kicked out of the speakership, though now there doesn't seem to be any appetite among the Republicans to repeat that mistake.
Reuters headline of an article I read, "Biden voters say more motivated to stop Trump than to support president". Like... yup. And yet Democrats haven't provided any alternatives or really tried selling Biden. It seems like Democrats are really dropping the ball in terms of any type of messaging or hyping up the electorate unless I've missed something. I know the election is just under a year away, but... the election is just under a year away. Get on it, people. If you're going to force Biden on us, at least make it so he'll win. :(
(Said article: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-voters-say-more-motivated-stop-trump-than-support-president-reutersipsos-2023-11-15/ )
QuoteReuters headline of an article I read, "Biden voters say more motivated to stop Trump than to support president". Like... yup. And yet Democrats haven't provided any alternatives or really tried selling Biden. It seems like Democrats are really dropping the ball in terms of any type of messaging or hyping up the electorate unless I've missed something. I know the election is just under a year away, but... the election is just under a year away. Get on it, people. If you're going to force Biden on us, at least make it so he'll win. :(
I wonder though is this not a smart strategy?
Fear is a really powerful motivator.
Even if you pay attention and see Biden is doing a decent job I have to say I prefer "Stop the end of democracy" vs. "Slow and steady improvements"
Quote from: The Brain on November 14, 2023, 04:55:53 AMWith Trump potential death or disability makes him more attractive to sane people, with Biden it's the other way around.
:D
True
"not the other guy" seems a pretty standard main motivation for voting on someone anywhere, coming in just after "we haven't tried this one yet".
Santos says he will not seek reelection.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2023, 06:49:45 PMSantos says he will not seek reelection.
How far can one get on just bullshit? Pretty far.
From the report, some text messages between Santos and an aide (I am unclear which one is Santos):
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F_EJjyaXUAAJKcY?format=jpg&name=900x900)
The table of contents from the Santos vulnerabilities report - prepared by his own campaign:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F_EMOj9XIAArN-T?format=jpg&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F_EMOj6WQAAfHjz?format=jpg&name=small)
He used campaign funds to pay for botox, Hermes goods and for smaller purchases at OnlyFans and Sephora :lol:
It's probably for the best that he's not running for re-election. On the other hand.... :lol:
Saw a screenshot of a OF creator for George's contributor profile to her and it was 435k$
"Her"?! :o
I assume from the Twitter handle but could be a he.
:lmfao:
He truly is the People's Grifter.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2023, 09:33:31 AM"Her"?! :o
He just lost your last shred of support, huh? :P
Soo....apparently what should have been a classified presentation on why the US needed to pass a bill for Ukraine aid, including an appearance from zelensky, completely fell apart with 12 republicans being pissed off the briefing didn't include something about border security despite not asking for that, and chosing to show their disappointment by screaming and shouting and wrecking the whole briefing?
Just read about this on telegram so no idea how much of it is true. Aught seen elsewhere?
Quote from: Josquius on December 06, 2023, 11:43:55 AMSoo....apparently what should have been a classified presentation in why the US needed to pass a bill for Ukraine aid, including an appearance from zelensky, completely fell apart with 12 republicans being pissed off the briefing didn't include something about border security despite not asking for that, and chosing to show their disappointment by screaming and shouting and wrecking the whole briefing?
Just read about this on telegram so no idea how much of it is true. Aught seen elsewhere?
Only seen a title of youtube that indicated that zelensky had canceled an appearance in the US. Couldn't watch it yet, but it might be that
Found it.
Fucking hell. This is how the world ends isn't it.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/05/politics/senate-classified-briefing-devolves
Quote from: Josquius on December 06, 2023, 02:16:40 PMFound it.
Fucking hell. This is how the world ends isn't it.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/05/politics/senate-classified-briefing-devolves
The world will not end, but the hegemony of the west sure looks like it's at an end.
I'm sure the anti-americans/anti-westerners will be happy once the others take over.
Not sure that happiness will last long though when the results start coming in.
Quote from: Josquius on December 06, 2023, 02:16:40 PMFound it.
Fucking hell. This is how the world ends isn't it.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/05/politics/senate-classified-briefing-devolves
QuoteSchumer added, "Even one of them was disrespectful and started screaming at one of the generals and challenging him to why they didn't go to the border."
:bleeding:
QuoteGOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said that there was tension early on in the room because "nobody talked about the border."
"In case you don't have a television ... you would know that most Republicans feel like we need to address the broken border," he said.
:bleeding: :bleeding:
Quote"It was more dramatic because you've got an entire political party that appears ... willing to flush support for Ukraine and Israel down the drain because they'd rather have a wide-open border than support for Ukraine and Israel."
They're even trying to twist and project.
The quote reads very accurate at first then you see they're not talking about the GOP and....wuuutttt.
Where the hell are they even pulling this open idea from? The Democrats haven't loosened border controls have they?
I'm crossing my fingers and hoping this is some 3D chess from Mitch where he makes a big show of acting "tough" and pwning the Democrats and uses that as cover to ram through the Ukraine aid package against the GOP Useful Idiot Caucus.
I fear you'll have to cross your fingers quite a bit more in the coming years.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2023, 10:03:59 AMI'm crossing my fingers and hoping this is some 3D chess from Mitch where he makes a big show of acting "tough" and pwning the Democrats and uses that as cover to ram through the Ukraine aid package against the GOP Useful Idiot Caucus.
Moscow Mitch helping Ukraine? That particular eclipse can only happen so often.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 07, 2023, 11:29:31 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2023, 10:03:59 AMI'm crossing my fingers and hoping this is some 3D chess from Mitch where he makes a big show of acting "tough" and pwning the Democrats and uses that as cover to ram through the Ukraine aid package against the GOP Useful Idiot Caucus.
Moscow Mitch helping Ukraine? That particular eclipse can only happen so often.
Up until now McConnell has been very solid on Ukraine.
It looks like "Moscow Mitch" goes back to 2019 and the Mueller investigation. McConnell was enraged at the nickname.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/459747-mcconnell-over-the-top-moscow-mitch-nickname-effort-to-smear-me/
I'm with Minsky - I'm hoping there's some kind of plan at work here. Because Russian media has been absolutely gleeful about the news so far.
America is in a very odd place:
QuoteCONSEQUENCE
@consequence
Hours after finishing in second place on The Masked Singer, former Dukes of Hazzard star John Schneider called for the execution of Joe Biden on social media: http://cos.lv/QaMM50Ql7sM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GB4vI80XcAE496m?format=jpg&name=small)
Bo became Boss Hogg :(
(https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/biden-schneider-screen-shot.png)
From the article:
QuoteMeanwhile, in a statement released late Thursday, Schneider said he "neither said nor implied" that Biden should be executed. "Despite headlines claiming otherwise, in my post, I absolutely did not call for an act of violence or threaten a U.S. president as many other celebrities have done in the past. I suggest you re-read my actual post and pay attention to the words before believing this nonsense."
:hmm:
Never said until dead. Maybe he envisioned some sort of coat hanger prank :unsure:
The first comment in his defense is a dead lie, but the second one is defensible.
Biden's son has already been very public about being hung. :huh:
Quote from: DGuller on December 22, 2023, 10:48:28 AMBiden's son has already been very public about being hung. :huh:
Was it a dick or balls you were curious to explore?
Either way, coke dick.
Quote from: garbon on December 22, 2023, 10:56:38 AMQuote from: DGuller on December 22, 2023, 10:48:28 AMBiden's son has already been very public about being hung. :huh:
Was it a dick or balls you were curious to explore?
You need to work on your pick up lines.
Quote from: DGuller on December 22, 2023, 11:10:43 AMQuote from: garbon on December 22, 2023, 10:56:38 AMQuote from: DGuller on December 22, 2023, 10:48:28 AMBiden's son has already been very public about being hung. :huh:
Was it a dick or balls you were curious to explore?
You need to work on your pick up lines.
I believe Garbon is happily married.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2023, 09:36:39 AMThe first comment in his defense is a dead lie, but the second one is defensible.
The second one is the famous "I didn't do that, but if I did it wouldn't be a big deal. But I absolutely didn't."
Which is always kind of weird.
Though if you are going to ask somebody to defend themselves from an accusation, you might be a little more specific about what exactly they did that deserved public executions (which is unconstitutional...but whatever).
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 07, 2023, 02:00:04 AMQuote from: Josquius on December 06, 2023, 02:16:40 PMFound it.
Fucking hell. This is how the world ends isn't it.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/05/politics/senate-classified-briefing-devolves
The world will not end, but the hegemony of the west sure looks like it's at an end.
I'm sure the anti-americans/anti-westerners will be happy once the others take over.
Not sure that happiness will last long though when the results start coming in.
Israel does not need any direct aid. They got into this mess by their own arrogance.
Let them marinate a little. When they're ready to listen and rejoim the west, we can all talk about what we can do to help. in the mean time, they keep saying they don't need the US help, the US is only there to protect the Arabs from there, so let's just all embargo Israel like we do Sudan.
Let's concentrate our efforts on Russia and China. When Israel gets tired of then constant attacks on its soil, maybe they'll listen to something. In the meantime, we should invest where we get a return our investment for world stability.
Russia and China are in the same axis as Iran and Hamas. I know it's hard for you to believe that people who would rape and slaughter Israeli civilians could be bad people, but they are allied with Russia and Iran diplomatically.
Quote from: viper37 on December 24, 2023, 11:53:50 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 07, 2023, 02:00:04 AMQuote from: Josquius on December 06, 2023, 02:16:40 PMFound it.
Fucking hell. This is how the world ends isn't it.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/05/politics/senate-classified-briefing-devolves
The world will not end, but the hegemony of the west sure looks like it's at an end.
I'm sure the anti-americans/anti-westerners will be happy once the others take over.
Not sure that happiness will last long though when the results start coming in.
Israel does not need any direct aid. They got into this mess by their own arrogance.
Let them marinate a little. When they're ready to listen and rejoim the west, we can all talk about what we can do to help. in the mean time, they keep saying they don't need the US help, the US is only there to protect the Arabs from there, so let's just all embargo Israel like we do Sudan.
Let's concentrate our efforts on Russia and China. When Israel gets tired of then constant attacks on its soil, maybe they'll listen to something. In the meantime, we should invest where we get a return our investment for world stability.
Further evidence of this poster's antisemitism, hatred for Israel, and undying support for Hamas.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 27, 2023, 10:05:50 AMQuote from: viper37 on December 24, 2023, 11:53:50 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 07, 2023, 02:00:04 AMQuote from: Josquius on December 06, 2023, 02:16:40 PMFound it.
Fucking hell. This is how the world ends isn't it.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/05/politics/senate-classified-briefing-devolves
The world will not end, but the hegemony of the west sure looks like it's at an end.
I'm sure the anti-americans/anti-westerners will be happy once the others take over.
Not sure that happiness will last long though when the results start coming in.
Israel does not need any direct aid. They got into this mess by their own arrogance.
Let them marinate a little. When they're ready to listen and rejoim the west, we can all talk about what we can do to help. in the mean time, they keep saying they don't need the US help, the US is only there to protect the Arabs from there, so let's just all embargo Israel like we do Sudan.
Let's concentrate our efforts on Russia and China. When Israel gets tired of then constant attacks on its soil, maybe they'll listen to something. In the meantime, we should invest where we get a return our investment for world stability.
Further evidence of this poster's antisemitism, hatred for Israel, and undying support for Hamas.
How so? Israel keeps saying they don't need anyone's aid, especially the US. Before Hamas' attacks, they were busy cozying up with Russia.
QuoteIn December 2016, Netanyahu instructed Israel's UN delegation to skip a General Assembly vote on war crimes committed in Syria, under diplomatic pressure from Russia.[50] The following day, Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin proposed postponing a vote on Security Council Resolution 2334 to condemn Israeli settlement-building in the West Bank until after the inauguration of U.S. President Donald Trump, in order to allow the new U.S. administration a say on the resolution, but this was rejected by other Security Council members.[51]
In January 2017, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that Israel and Russia were "working closely" together in an attempt to stop the extradition of dual Russian-Israeli citizen Alexander Lapshin from Belarus to Azerbaijan.[52]
In April 2017, Russia recognized West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.[53]
In March 2018, Israel declined to attribute the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal to Russia in its statement on the matter and refused to expel any Russian diplomats, drawing criticism from the United Kingdom.[54] In May 2018, Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman stated the Israeli government had opposed sanctions on Russia despite foreign pressure to support them.[55]
At the 2018 Russia–United States summit in July 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump and Putin agreed to cooperate in Syria to ensure Israel's security.[56] U.S. National Security Advisor John R. Bolton later claimed that both Israel and Russia sought the withdrawal of Iranian forces from Syria.[57] Russia later offered to create a 100 kilometre buffer zone on the Syrian side of the Israel-Syria border which Iranian troops would be barred from, though this offer was rejected by Israel.[58]
In December 2018, Israel reversed its stance on Crimea at the United Nations, voting to condemn Russian activity there. Israeli officials stated it did so at the request of the United States government.[66] However, the following year in August 2019, Netanyahu declined to condemn the annexation of Crimea, stating that he had "nothing to add to what was done at the time" of the annexation, when Israel took a neutral position.
Following the Bucha massacre, Israeli Finance Minister Avigdor Lieberman condemned "war crimes" but declined to condemn Russia specifically, describing "mutual accusations" where "Russia blames Ukraine and Ukraine blames Russia", drawing a rebuke from the Ukrainian Ambassador to Israel.[131]
Following Netanyahu's victory in the 2022 Israeli legislative election, Russia adopted a conciliatory tone, suggesting that Netanyahu has "a common approach toward further developing bilateral relations".[156] In his recently-published book, Netanyahu wrote positively about Putin and describes him as "smart, sophisticated and focused on one goal – returning Russia to its historical greatness".[2] Putin welcomed Netanyahu's election win and said he hopes to strengthen Russian-Israeli cooperation.[157]
In January 2023, Israel refused a U.S. request to transfer MIM-23 Hawk batteries and anti-ballistic missiles to Ukraine.[158]
On 30 January 2023, Netanyahu expressed interest in taking a mediating role in the conflict, if this was supported by Russia, Ukraine and the United States.[159]
In May 2023, an Israeli foreign ministry delegation made an official visit to Moscow, the first since the Russian invasion of Ukraine.[160]
In July 2023, cybersecurity firm Cybereason claimed it had uncovered an online Russian influence campaign in Israel, which had promoted the idea of a connection between Ukraine and Nazism, and suggested that the U.S. was supporting the 2023 Israeli judicial reform protests against the Israeli government.[161]
Bibi and Putin are best pals and are using similar tactics in their countries to maintain power.And it seems their supporters are the same too, accusing their opponents of nazism and terrorism to try to justify their actions. Always so misunderstood, all the world hates them, cannot understand why they want to exterminate their neighbours bouh-hou-hou.The world would be so much better if we would be governed by individuals like Trump, Putin and Netanyahu instead of filthy Democrats, other liberals and Arab-lovers who talk of peace. Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em all as they say.
You need to stop making shit up.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2023, 10:36:25 PMYou need to stop making shit up.
I don't know if Bibi and Putin are friendly but Bibi is absolutely a right wing wannabe strongman. He is currently attempting to destroy the Israeli judiciary.
Quote from: Valmy on December 27, 2023, 11:34:52 PMQuote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2023, 10:36:25 PMYou need to stop making shit up.
I don't know if Bibi and Putin are friendly but Bibi is absolutely a right wing wannabe strongman. He is currently attempting to destroy the Israeli judiciary.
He's not killing or jailing his opponents.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2023, 10:36:25 PMYou need to stop making shit up.
Right, this is my thesis for viper's antisemitism. I gave him the benefit of the doubt for months in the other thread, but he keeps posting things that are just made up to advance an anti-Israeli narrative. I arrived at the conclusion there can't really be a motive behind it that is anything other than bad faith, and in furtherance of antisemitic terrorists. It's really disappointing.
Viper's thing is based on his Quebec separatism. He sees himself as a colonized person and so he sympathizes with the Palestinians. Obviously Palestinians aren't as oppressed as Francophones, but it's close! Israel, as a colonizer, is wholly evil. It's the same reason he defended the Confederacy a few years back.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2023, 08:14:54 AMQuote from: Valmy on December 27, 2023, 11:34:52 PMQuote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2023, 10:36:25 PMYou need to stop making shit up.
I don't know if Bibi and Putin are friendly but Bibi is absolutely a right wing wannabe strongman. He is currently attempting to destroy the Israeli judiciary.
He's not killing or jailing his opponents.
He has no need to, he isn't threatened and he count on a bunch of useful idiots just like Putin.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2023, 10:51:08 AMViper's thing is based on his Quebec separatism. He sees himself as a colonized person and so he sympathizes with the Palestinians. Obviously Palestinians aren't as oppressed as Francophones, but it's close! Israel, as a colonizer, is wholly evil. It's the same reason he defended the Confederacy a few years back.
Hmm. Close, very close.
You should alert the RCMP, I'm about to bomb something.
Let's not let Israel off the hook, though. Israeli terrorists in the West Bank are not as numerous (by far) as Islamic terrorists in Gaza, but they are equally ignored by what is supposed to be the law. There are powerful groups (some represented in the government) who believe that the solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict is to just push the Palestinians out of all parts of Palestine, including Gaza and the West Bank.
Came across this article on Louis Dejoy, the postmaster general thought to be put in place to destroy the USPS.
It turns out he's apparently doing a good job: https://time.com/6263424/louis-dejoy-trump-election-postal-reform/
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2023, 08:14:54 AMQuote from: Valmy on December 27, 2023, 11:34:52 PMQuote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2023, 10:36:25 PMYou need to stop making shit up.
I don't know if Bibi and Putin are friendly but Bibi is absolutely a right wing wannabe strongman. He is currently attempting to destroy the Israeli judiciary.
He's not killing or jailing his opponents.
He encouraged Yitzhak Rabin's murder and cheered on when it happened.
He still didn't order the murder.
Quote from: Jacob on December 29, 2023, 01:19:12 AMCame across this article on Louis Dejoy, the postmaster general thought to be put in place to destroy the USPS.
It turns out he's apparently doing a good job: https://time.com/6263424/louis-dejoy-trump-election-postal-reform/
Very interesting read. I remember being a little puzzled that this guy wasn't removed when Biden took over, since it seemed like a no-brainer given all the narratives about him, but then forgot about him like probably everyone else.
Heard an NPR bit with a reporter from The Hill talking about Biden and the showdown over Ukraine aid. The reporter said it's difficult for Biden because "moderate and swing voters think the border is a mess." And that it's only progressives and activists who don't want to close the border or tighten asylum rules.
I'd close the border if it meant money for Ukraine. We can always open it up later on.
I'd close your southern border. It does seem to be a mess.
We did it during the pandemic.
Maybe somebody should build a wall :ph34r:
Build a wall no one can cross, hand out 500,000 temporary worker permits, figure out a deal for Teh Dreamers that 60 to 70 of the country can live with. Roughly what Johnny Hero proposed umpteen years ago. And someone else, maybe Bubba before him.
No idea how to fix asylum.
I think the big issue with asylum and the West in general is the treaty system underpinning it happened with limited public discourse, and a very different narrative back when it was implemented.
It largely stems from post-WWII, when basically everyone agreed we collectively did a horrible job offering safe harbor to people legitimately fleeing war.
The asylum system created in its wake ends up probably being over broad in how it works--and in the 70 years since the citizens of the West have largely had to accept that the system morphed into "a way for people who largely just don't like their quality of life in their home countries to bypass the immigration system." This includes in the United States and Europe, significant numbers of migrants who are purely economic migrants, or fleeing domestic crime. IMO the asylum system should be renegotiated throughout the developed world to meaningfully prevent these as valid attempts at asylum, and allow rapid return to origin for anyone asserting anything other than a credible flight from serious government repression or war.
I would probably favor a system in which some sort of body, which the key western powers would have veto rights in, gets to determine countries or conflicts from which valid refugees can seek asylum--and all other migrants attempting to migrate without cause, from all other points of origin, can be returned to origin without any adjudication. Obviously individual countries could adopt more liberal policies--but they would not be treaty bound to do so.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2023, 01:18:23 PMand all other migrants attempting to migrate without cause, from all other points of origin, can be returned to origin without any adjudication.
That's already how it is supposed to work even with the existing rules, but it clearly does not work. A lot of the origin states are not willing to take their people back (and we cannot realistically force them) or they arrive without papers which makes it hard to legally determine their origin. I do not see how your proposal would change that.
That leaves us with people drowning in the Mediterranean Sea or building a wall along the US border or Greek border as policy.
Quote from: Zanza on December 30, 2023, 02:16:13 PMThat leaves us with people drowning in the Mediterranean Sea or building a wall along the US border or Greek border as policy.
As a perhaps minor quibble the wall on the Mexican border was not built to solve the asylum issue but rather the straight border jumper issue.
A separate immigration category that came to mind is the refugee category. People flee the chaos of war, such as in Sudan or the South Sudan, the UN sets up refugee camps, and the people wait there until some kindly Western country decides they will take a couple thousand.
Quote from: Zanza on December 30, 2023, 02:16:13 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2023, 01:18:23 PMand all other migrants attempting to migrate without cause, from all other points of origin, can be returned to origin without any adjudication.
That's already how it is supposed to work even with the existing rules, but it clearly does not work. A lot of the origin states are not willing to take their people back (and we cannot realistically force them) or they arrive without papers which makes it hard to legally determine their origin. I do not see how your proposal would change that.
That leaves us with people drowning in the Mediterranean Sea or building a wall along the US border or Greek border as policy.
I would have to check the treaties, but in the U.S. at least it doesn't work that way. If someone asserts they feel "in danger", they are entitled to an adjudication. There is no list of countries where we can say "well there are zero valid asylees from that country." So we have to adjudicate people from Honduras / Guatemala, where the primary "risks" are mostly domestic crime, and the reality is most of these are economic migrants.
If someone openly admits they are just coming over for money, then they are not part of that process and they can be deported--but they are only around half of our border crossers (that number fluctuates as a %, but roughly half is a good approximation for the last x years--it should be noted too the economic migrants aren't the main drivers of partisan rancor because they aren't very "visible", they typically have jobs and a place to stay lined up, so if they get past Border Patrol they aren't creating the visible "drama" that refugees are.)
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2023, 08:14:54 AMQuote from: Valmy on December 27, 2023, 11:34:52 PMQuote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2023, 10:36:25 PMYou need to stop making shit up.
I don't know if Bibi and Putin are friendly but Bibi is absolutely a right wing wannabe strongman. He is currently attempting to destroy the Israeli judiciary.
He's not killing or jailing his opponents.
Yeah he hasn't nuked anybody either. A real fucking saint.
Was listening to an NPR interview about Biden's campaign situation.
Interviewee made several interesting comments.
The fact that Trump is facing so many criminal charges should be an asset, but that card is not being played because Biden thinks doing so would undercut his campaign promise to restore the independence and integrity of the DOJ.
Upholding democracy should be an asset, but whereas voters like democracy, they don't like it that much in the abstract.
Abortion should a major asset (interviewee said it's the single strongest weapon in terms of moving swing and disaffected GOP voters) but Biden is an 81 Catholic dude who's not that gung ho about abortion rights.
The Democrats should nominate someone like Newsom who could easily capitalize on these topics.
Quote from: Zanza on January 03, 2024, 08:16:31 PMThe Democrats should nominate someone like Newsom who could easily capitalize on these topics.
Not sure how a different candidate could capitalize on #1 and #2. Gavin Newsom leading chants of "lock him up" dilutes the Democratic brand.
Running against an incumbent of your party in a primary is more than just an act of disloyalty, it's also running the opposition's campaign for them. I'm old enough to remember how Teddy Kennedy's campaign against Carter hurt him.
How much time is left for Joe Biden to bow out anyway, hypothetically speaking? Can he win the primaries and then ask his delegates to vote for his chosen successor? I hope someone is thinking of these backup plans, the stakes are just astronomic this year.
Well LBJ pulled out on March 31 1968 - admittedly after McCarthy did well prompting Bobby to get in the race.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 03, 2024, 10:42:15 PMWell LBJ pulled out on March 31 1968 - admittedly after McCarthy did well prompting Bobby to get in the race.
Turned out to be a good thing he did, as he started suffering the heart attacks just a year or so later that finally killed him in 1973. Also kind of funny to think that LBJ was only 60 when he retired from public life. Today he would be one of the junior members of the Democratic Party.
Quote from: DGuller on January 03, 2024, 10:30:42 PMHow much time is left for Joe Biden to bow out anyway, hypothetically speaking? Can he win the primaries and then ask his delegates to vote for his chosen successor? I hope someone is thinking of these backup plans, the stakes are just astronomic this year.
I would think that various faithless elector laws would prevent that.
Aren't the faithless elector laws about the Electoral College instead of the party conventions?
That sounds right. I retract.
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2024, 12:45:52 AMTurned out to be a good thing he did, as he started suffering the heart attacks just a year or so later that finally killed him in 1973. Also kind of funny to think that LBJ was only 60 when he retired from public life. Today he would be one of the junior members of the Democratic Party.
Yeah - although he had a heart attack in the late 50s which caused him to stop smoking immediately and make other lifestyle changes from his doctors because he wasn't going to let mortality get in the way of his ambition :lol:
My understanding is that basically the second he left the White House he started smoking etc again. So that may have had an impact on his subsequent health.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck link=msg=1429692 date=1704037007,I would have to check the treaties, but in the U.S. at least it doesn't work that way. If someone asserts they feel "in danger", they are entitled to an adjudication. There is no list of countries where we can say "well there are zero valid asylees from that country." So we have to adjudicate people from Honduras / Guatemala, where the primary "risks" are mostly domestic crime, and the reality is most of these are economic migrants.
Ok, understood. We have defined "safe counties of origin" for asylum seekers here. But even if you have that, deportation itself is the hard part. The origin countries often do not want their people back...
The variance within the EU - not just for asylum seekers but all non-EU migrants who are no longer legally able to stay - is pretty huge. France especially is very, very striking:
(https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/4187653/16179953/non-eu-citizens-ordered-leave-returned-q3-2023.png/403828cf-c26f-1d66-bad2-c34dfc79442f?t=1703165990621)
But stable for EU as a whole:
(https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/4187653/16179953/non-eu-citizens-ordered-leave-returned-q1-2022-q3-2023.png/a9cf15e1-6654-aaa5-82c9-db41405b7f13?t=1703165739753)
Not sure on the ordered numbers bit for the UK, but otherwise it's the standard story. I'd argue of falling state capacity as a consequence of austerity and the ongoing contrast of tougher rhetoric and weaker policy:
(https://public.tableau.com/static/images/De/Deportation2022/2/1_rss.png)
Edit: Althought just to clarify this isn't just asylum seekers so I'm not sure it's even a safe country issue. I think it's enforcement problems, not least because you can be returned to another country.
Of the ordered bit the top four countries are Morocco, Algeria, Turkiye and Georgia (which I think is down more to enforcement failures) and Afghanistan (which is not a safe country). But Georgians, Abanians, Moldovans, Turks and Indians are most likely to be returned to another/third country.
Abortion is again illegal in Idaho.
Erm. This seems weird:
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/06/pentagon-took-3-days-to-inform-white-houses-nsc-of-austins-hospitalization-00134176
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 06, 2024, 06:01:44 PMErm. This seems weird:
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/06/pentagon-took-3-days-to-inform-white-houses-nsc-of-austins-hospitalization-00134176
Yeah, this is not acceptable. If Austin intentionally hid his status from Biden, he needs to resign or be fired. If someone else was supposed to communicate his status to Biden and failed to do so, then they need to be fired.
Also, news just dropped that Secretary Austin had prostate cancer surgery and that was the reason for his absence.
Saw this article on POlitico - Cali Governor Newsome vetos bill that would ban youth football.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/17/california-youth-tackle-football-ban-00135985
I am like "are they crazy? Banning youth tackle football - in the US? Darn right the GOP should go after that.
Once you get to paragraph 6 though you learn it's only banning tackle football for under 12. To which I am like... um yeah, I wouldn't let my under 12 kids play tackle football...
Yeah, I won't pretend I'm super informed on it, but I have a few long time friends who played football in both HS and college that also coach youth football, in their circle they are strongly in favor of no tackle football before Grade 9 (they would see Pop Warner / Youth football and Middle School / Junior High football shift to variations that are either no-contact or reduced contact.) These are all Gen X football meatheads, not the typical type you would imagine being against tackle ball.
The issue is for younger kids tackle ball can be so devastating, and serves very little purpose. You can learn a lot of fundamentals of the game without full contact tackle; and for the kids who want to go to that next level they have the option to play full contact in HS, is the thinking behind it.
The opposition to the ban on tackle football was built around "parental choice," which is only credible if the parents actually have the knowledge needed to make an informed choice. I doubt that this is true. There are lots of things that parents cannot "choose" for their children, because society has a strong interest in protecting children from poor parental decision-making (about drugs or alcohol, for instance).
The reality is that this opposition was based purely around emotional appeals and not grounded in the best interests of the parents or children at all. I think that government should avoid creating new restrictions unless there is strong evidence and arguments in favor of them, but in this case I think that the research on CTE provides that strong evidence.
I have a friend who's typically quite apolitical, but has gone fairly deep on Palestine for personal reasons. He's convinced that Biden is evil, and that he'll lose the election because of his support for Israel.
How much do you all figure the current Israel-Palestine situation is likely to affect the outcome of the US presidential election?
Quote from: Jacob on January 17, 2024, 08:07:23 PMI have a friend who's typically quite apolitical, but has gone fairly deep on Palestine for personal reasons. He's convinced that Biden is evil, and that he'll lose the election because of his support for Israel.
How much do you all figure the current Israel-Palestine situation is likely to affect the outcome of the US presidential election?
About as much as 10% of Bernibots voting for Trump in 2016.
Quote from: Jacob on January 17, 2024, 08:07:23 PMI have a friend who's typically quite apolitical, but has gone fairly deep on Palestine for personal reasons. He's convinced that Biden is evil, and that he'll lose the election because of his support for Israel.
How much do you all figure the current Israel-Palestine situation is likely to affect the outcome of the US presidential election?
Minor, but I think there is a risk that some young progressives will abandon Biden for Cornel West (or someone like him) over Israel allowing West to play a Ralph Nader style role in this election.
Quote from: Jacob on January 17, 2024, 08:07:23 PMI have a friend who's typically quite apolitical, but has gone fairly deep on Palestine for personal reasons. He's convinced that Biden is evil, and that he'll lose the election because of his support for Israel.
How much do you all figure the current Israel-Palestine situation is likely to affect the outcome of the US presidential election?
Is he under some impression that Trump and the Republicans are big supporters of Palestine?
Quote from: Valmy on January 17, 2024, 10:18:48 PMIs he under some impression that Trump and the Republicans are big supporters of Palestine?
The point of voting is not to select a leader but to signal one's own superior virtue and affiliation with the proper thinking group.
Man, I remember this back in 2000. And all the Naderites saying "it's not our fault" for the years afterword. I was so fucking sick of those self-righteous assholes.
Quote from: Valmy on January 17, 2024, 10:18:48 PMIs he under some impression that Trump and the Republicans are big supporters of Palestine?
I don't think he's particularly conversant in American domestic politics, but he's being subjected to a high volume of "Biden is genocide supporting scumbag" propaganda and other online discourse. I worry a bit about him, to be honest.
My point here, though, was to get a sense of the degree to which you anticipate the Palestinian conflict to influence the presidential election as I'm a bit worried about the consequences if Trump wins.
I'm not tremendously worried about it. But I am of a school of thought that "protest votes" and third party candidates don't really "cost" a candidate that would otherwise win. They generally reflect dissatisfaction with the system, like I don't really think Gore was going to win "if not for Nader", Nader's votes represented people dissatisfied with their choices. If Nader hadn't been an option, I suspect they still would not have cast a Gore or Bush vote, basically they are "ungettable" voters, and there's always some low level % of voters that are just outside the mainstream.
Likewise I don't think third parties or BernieBros "cost" Hillary the election, because I think they just represented a portion of the electorate that was simply unwilling to vote for Hillary. I think they would have been unwilling to vote for Hillary even had Bernie not ran in the primary--in fact Bernie's surprising robustness in the 2016 primary is almost certainly tied to general dissatisfaction with Hillary, it wasn't "caused" by Bernie or his voters.
I think 2020 showed that a lot of voters view Trump as uniquely unqualified to be President, and I doubt that someone who voted on those premises in 2020 is going to go out and vote for Cornel West or whatever. One thing to keep in mind about Biden's coalition is it was never built on enthusiasm, it was based on a "lesser of two evils" argument for a lot of people (particularly progressives, who were always skeptical of Biden.)
Biden could easily lose in 2024, but if he does I don't much think it will be because of Palestine.
Quote from: Jacob on January 17, 2024, 08:07:23 PMI have a friend who's typically quite apolitical, but has gone fairly deep on Palestine for personal reasons. He's convinced that Biden is evil, and that he'll lose the election because of his support for Israel.
How much do you all figure the current Israel-Palestine situation is likely to affect the outcome of the US presidential election?
The last two elections were all pretty close, coming down to several thousand votes in a few key states. It's not impossible to imagine that Israel-Palestine could cost Biden a few votes.
But again - what else is Biden supposed to do? Support for Israel is pretty strong in the US, and the pro-Palestinian side do themselves no favours with the disruptive protests they are engaging in.
Biden dumping Israel would be very much worse for him electorally. Remember Biden won in 2020 by NOT being the progressive darling. Progressive voters had Bernie and Elizabeth Warren to support.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 18, 2024, 01:17:05 AMMan, I remember this back in 2000. And all the Naderites saying "it's not our fault" for the years afterword. I was so fucking sick of those self-righteous assholes.
At the time I was a Republican voter and I voted for Nader because I was protesting what Bush did to McCain in the Republican Primary. So it was my fault Bush got one fewer votes in Texas, though he managed to win by 21 points despite me being a self-righteous asshole. In my defense I was a 23 year old idiot back in 2000, so that all made sense to me at the time.
That was the last Presidential election I did not vote Democratic.
What'd bush do to McCain?
Quote from: HVC on January 18, 2024, 02:36:18 PMWhat'd bush do to McCain?
I don't know specifically if this is what Valmy is talking about, but I suspect so - they implied that McCain's adopted daughter from Bangladesh was his illegitimate 'black' love child.
They actually did a lot of stuff to McCain, I was still a partisan loyalist back then so still voted for Bush (and strongly preferred him over Kerry four years later, in spite of recognizing his many faults by 04); one of the real shitty things is they started doing a "push poll" in competitive primary states asking questions like "Would you vote for John McCain knowing he could have psychological issues from Vietnam War related PTSD?" [Paraphrasing]
Basically suggesting John was unfit to be President because he was suffering mental health problems related to his years as a POW (note that McCain himself never admitted to being diagnosed with PTSD, and the science of PTSD isn't super well understood--lots of people who go through equally horrific things never develop PTSD, but a lot of people do--the Bush campaign had no legitimate "source" that John had been diagnosed with PTSD. Or that by the time he was in his 60s, he was still afflicted with it in a way that would have impacted his performance as President.)
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2024, 02:41:05 PMQuote from: HVC on January 18, 2024, 02:36:18 PMWhat'd bush do to McCain?
I don't know specifically if this is what Valmy is talking about, but I suspect so - they implied that McCain's adopted daughter from Bangladesh was his illegitimate 'black' love child.
Bingo. But he also spread a lot of other rumors that implied that McCain was a nutjob. I just thought it was a lot of dirty tricks and nonsense. But this was also the second time the Bush family had done some weirdly racist shit in a presidential campaign, I still remembered 1988 and seeing W do that sort of thing a second time was very disappointing to put it mildly.
But to be fair if your campaign is portraying you as a maverick I guess you open yourself up to your opponent portraying you as a nutjob.
So it looks like a bunch of red state governors and the Speaker of the House are now on the cusp of doing something very, very bad over the latest SCOTUS decision about the Texas border? Like... suggesting a break with the federal government level bad? That's... not great. :mellow:
So far: Florida, Virginia, Oklahoma, Montana, Arkansas, Georgia, and South Dakota have all announced they stand with Texas and their message of being against the federal government and that they will be "protecting themselves" going forward.
GEoj0-XbEAABMCP.jpg
Is this one about States' rights?
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on January 25, 2024, 03:11:42 AMSo far: Florida, Virginia, Oklahoma, Montana, Arkansas, Georgia, and South Dakota have all announced they stand with Texas
(https://i.ibb.co/0cZ4gz6/Sk-rmbild-2024-01-25-092627.png)
All states refusing to abide by Federal law will not be able to send to Washington a slate of federal electors in 2024.
Not even the vampire supremes are going to vote for that pile of shit.
Quote from: The Brain on January 25, 2024, 03:24:18 AMIs this one about States' rights?
It's also about treating non-white people like shit, so not that much difference from the previous one. :P
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on January 25, 2024, 03:01:31 AMSo it looks like a bunch of red state governors and the Speaker of the House are now on the cusp of doing something very, very bad over the latest SCOTUS decision about the Texas border? Like... suggesting a break with the federal government level bad? That's... not great. :mellow:
So civil war 2 over something that isn't even a real issue.
Jesus that is one broken democracy
Let's not get so excited just because a fatuous jackass like Abbott writes a one-page letter. Who knows perhaps one day someone will teach him that dissenting Supreme Court opinions are not precedential.
So Abbot is claiming that Texas has "constitutional rights" and is acting on a "quote" from Article ! Section 10 that is not actually in the Constitution?
Which article of the Texas state constitution allows the governor to just make shit up and give it the force of law?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2024, 08:34:57 AMLet's not get so excited just because a fatuous jackass like Abbott writes a one-page letter. Who knows perhaps one day someone will teach him that dissenting Supreme Court opinions are not precedential.
Although - and obviously I know very little on this - that case sounds like it definitely shouldn't have been 5-4. Or am I wrong?
What are the practical implications of this thing?
Are the States going to obstruct federal officials? Stop co-operating with them? And if so, in what way?
Or is it pure theatre at this point?
Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2024, 04:21:24 PMWhat are the practical implications of this thing?
Are the States going to obstruct federal officials? Stop co-operating with them? And if so, in what way?
Or is it pure theatre at this point?
According to Abbot's claimed citation (which is, probably unintentionally, ironic given that he is citing those powers explicitly denied to the states), the power he is seizing is the power for Texas to independently wage war. There's just the tiniest chance that this claim is pure theater.
Quote from: The Brain on January 25, 2024, 03:29:19 AMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on January 25, 2024, 03:11:42 AMSo far: Florida, Virginia, Oklahoma, Montana, Arkansas, Georgia, and South Dakota have all announced they stand with Texas
(https://i.ibb.co/0cZ4gz6/Sk-rmbild-2024-01-25-092627.png)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quickmeme.com%2Fimg%2Fea%2Fea9fdb6ce883db32cf54f6fcdf1638cae3043c8258f9594a9c93018147692208.jpg&hash=97ec754584331576dcdc5d887c8c7ee18f9bb865)
Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2024, 02:57:59 PMSo Abbot is claiming that Texas has "constitutional rights" and is acting on a "quote" from Article ! Section 10 that is not actually in the Constitution?
Which article of the Texas state constitution allows the governor to just make shit up and give it the force of law?
And he also seems to explicitly contradict Article VI.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 25, 2024, 03:06:43 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2024, 08:34:57 AMLet's not get so excited just because a fatuous jackass like Abbott writes a one-page letter. Who knows perhaps one day someone will teach him that dissenting Supreme Court opinions are not precedential.
Although - and obviously I know very little on this - that case sounds like it definitely shouldn't have been 5-4. Or am I wrong?
There were 3 dissenters - Scalia, Alito, and Thomas. Thomas dissented because he objects wholesale to the concept of federal pre-emption unless the law in question specifically states - "the following state laws are pre-empted." Alito dissented because although he accepted the basic framework of federal pre-emption analysis, he disagreed with its application to two of the challenged sections. Scalia was the only one to go off the rails with a rant about state "sovereign" powers.
Scalia's dissenting opinion in that case is interesting for other reasons, however, that he probably did not intend. First, in his zeal to argue about inherent state sovereign powers over immigration, he exposed the historical reality that many Americans of the founding generation did not believe the Constitution gave the federal government power to control immigration at all (as opposed to naturalization) - a position that follows pretty obviously from a purely textual reading.
Second, he exposed the flim-flammery involved in "originalist" doctrine, in his attempt to argue that states historically had " enacted numerous laws restricting the immigration of certain classes of aliens." His examples show otherwise:
+ laws about screening for contagious diseases - these were public health regulations, not immigration policy.
+ laws about excluding convicts - these were public safety regs.
+ laws about excluding free blacks - these were Southern laws enforcing slave codes.
Basically until the 1880s, anyone without a known criminal record could enter the country without restriction if free from contagious disease. No one thought of restricting immigration on policy grounds until the racist Chinese exclusion laws of the 1880s.
Quote from: The Brain on January 25, 2024, 03:24:18 AMIs this one about States' rights?
Two civil wars over being afraid of coloured people seems a bit excessive.
Anytime you hear the word "sovereign" or "sovereingty" in an American legal context, hold tightly to your intellectual wallet, especially if it comes from a self-proclaimed "originalist". The concept's main historical use in American law has been to make up powers that don't exist in the Constitution.
The word sovereign of course refers to the powers of a King, the very thing the American Revolution overthrew. The word does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. If there is anything that resembles a sovereign in the American system it is "We the People" and nothing else. The federal government is not a sovereign by definition, it is a limited government of enumerated powers. The states are certainly not sovereign as the scope of their authority is limited both by specific constitutional limitations and the federal supremacy clause.
To be fair though, many states are Stupid. This grants them wide powers of asshattery.
Mayorkas impeachment was immediately thrown out in the senate.
https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1780678632223936998
It looks like Biden might not be able to get on the ballot in Ohio
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ohio-gop-leaders-reject-democrats-033115761.html
Biden will almost certainly be on the ballot in Ohio; an Ohio State law professor has said the Dems could hold a "mini-convention" in which Biden/Harris are formally certified, before the big public convention. Ohio law just requires a party has fully certified a candidate 90 days out.