US Politics: The 'In His Own Words' Edition

[all swedes are racist]

29 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Ok, I'll get an avi.

its a bad avi, dude sorry

winky smiley

[DMC]

25 minutes ago, commiedore said:

@dmc515thanks for the thoughtful response, will reply tomorrow 

but in the meantime for anyone hanging their hopes on gillibrand as the great lib hope....

http://gothamist.com/2017/07/19/schumer_gillibrand_co-sponsor_senat.php

Meh.  Gillibrand basically has to do this.  While I strongly disagree, it's non-consequential.

23 minutes ago, commiedore said:

its a bad avi, dude sorry

Agreed, but I thought it was pretty funny considering the context.  Seeking better ones, may just return to the invisible man.

ETA:  Yep, I settled on Dead.  They've always helped me, even when I'm going down the road feeling bad.

[Dr. Pepper]

9 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Yes, we do have a very different idea on plausibility.  As for the bolded, that's pretty much what I make a living doing in regards to studying politics.  Granted, in this case I didn't provide any empirical evidence, but frankly it's not needed.

Again, please describe exactly what they should be doing.  The minority party has absolutely no ability to actually do anything in terms of legislation, so it really makes no tangible sense what you're going on about with the checkers/monopoly/(insert game here) similes.

 

I started this particular discussion offering at least one thing they could be doing (push single payer as an option, make concerted efforts to work with Republicans).  Another thing they can maybe do is not introduce legislation that would make it a felony to boycott a genocidal nation.

Your suggestion that they should do nothing at all because they don't have the numbers is mind-boggling.  They can all fucking resign if that's what they want to do.

7 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

If I may, just let me throw my two cents in here.

If the Republican Party were to seriously consider passing single payer, it’s something the Democratic Party would have to seriously consider working with Republicans on.  I’m very sympathetic to your argument.

And I agree the GOP would likely get the support to pass such a bill.

The downside would of course would be that it might very well cement Republican Power, in the short term, at least, and help to get Trump reelected.

The upside is that it would be a huge policy win for the Democratic Party. And the Democratic Party may not get another chance at such an opportunity for a very long time.

The reality is though, I don’t think the Republican Party would ever go for it. Sure, many “clothe coat Republicans” might have little problem with it. But, the intellectual infrastructure that makes up the Conservative movement would fight it tooth and nail along with their wealthy donors. You’d see, I’d imagine, the Heritage Foundation, The Cato Institute, The Manhattan Institute, etc. etc. go into overdrive trying to defeat such a bill. The implementation of single payer, I can only think, would be a decisive defeat for the conservative movement, at least from their point of view. It just seems to me that it would be something that conservatives have been preaching against, since the 1930s.

Yup, that's what I was musing on at the start.  It's why I find it odd that today's Republicans haven't worked their way towards embracing it (ok, I don't find it entirely odd because I'm fully aware of the big and dark money that would go into opposing it).  Today's conservative american seems to want lip service paid to conservatism mainly in the way of attacks on civil and reproductive rights.  Permanent power for the Republican party, I think, would be in something like implementing single payer.

[DMC]

42 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I started this particular discussion offering at least one thing they could be doing (push single payer as an option, make concerted efforts to work with Republicans).

Ok, that's clear.  I think we've all been over this.

42 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Another thing they can maybe do is not introduce legislation that would make it a felony to boycott a genocidal nation.

This is why no one will ever take you seriously.  I'm no fan of Israel, in fact I've constructed data that demonstrates their elections are manipulated by Palestinian attacks (not as if I'm the first to arrive at this obvious point).   But referring to Israel as genocidal is a great way to piss off even people that otherwise tend to be inclined towards your perspective.  Congrats.

42 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Your suggestion that they should do nothing at all because they don't have the numbers is mind-boggling.

Your assumption they can possible do anything of substance in the minority with Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan as the opposition is much more mind-boggling.  That doesn't mean they have to do "nothing" I agree, but it does mean they have no chance at passing legislation.  For the last time, please explain to me what they should do as an alternative beyond advocating a policy that will galvanize the opposition and never even approach final passage.

[Inigima]

7 hours ago, Triskan said:

I'm proud of how McCain has not towed the line on Trump much.  I hate most Republicans and have not been too shy about that on here, but he's always been solid.  He probably hates what has happened to his party. 

Spare me. He endorsed Trump (albeit revoking it after the Access Hollywood tape came out a month before the election) and has voted with Trump upwards of 90% of the time. McCain talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. McCain has never been solid, McCain has always been a hard right piece of shit who goes on cable TV and pretends to not be evil for five minutes. I don't wish brain cancer on the man, but his "maverick" image is bullshit and always has been.

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Inigima said:

Spare me. He endorsed Trump (albeit revoking it after the Access Hollywood tape came out a month before the election) and has voted with Trump upwards of 90% of the time. McCain talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. McCain has never been solid, McCain has always been a hard right piece of shit who goes on cable TV and pretends to not be evil for five minutes. I don't wish brain cancer on the man, but his "maverick" image is bullshit and always has been.

To be fair though, the Senate has barely voted on anything besides presidential nominations and repealing regulations from the last six months of the Obama administration (and McCain was actually the reason behind the only one of those that failed). There haven't been the kinds of policy votes that would let us know how aligned McCain actually is with Trump; all we do know is that is he was one of the 'serious concerns' senators about McConnell's repeal bill.

Ratings like that 538 one are only helpful when there's been more activity, and even then you have to be very careful to make sure only important votes are being counted; because its easy to flood them with all the minor, unimportant votes that make it seem like everyone's in agreement always. Sort of like how if you consider every SCOTUS vote, all nine justices are in agreement with each other something like 60% of the time or more; when obviously there are extremely important differences.

[The Anti-Targ]

4 hours ago, commiedore said:

@dmc515thanks for the thoughtful response, will reply tomorrow 

but in the meantime for anyone hanging their hopes on gillibrand as the great lib hope....

http://gothamist.com/2017/07/19/schumer_gillibrand_co-sponsor_senat.php

 

4 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Meh.  Gillibrand basically has to do this.  While I strongly disagree, it's non-consequential.

 

Why's that? A NY Jewish vote thing? It's so bad to merely propose this thing.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Your suggestion that they should do nothing at all because they don't have the numbers is mind-boggling.  They can all fucking resign if that's what they want to do..

You're dead wrong here. Any Senator that's in the minority that introduces legislation that is DOA and bound to be used against their own party and cause their colleagues to lose their reelection should resign. Full stop! 

[Relic]

Anyone remember how incoherent McCain was during the Comey hearing? He sounded like he had a stroke right then and there. This dude shouldn't be sitting on any committee from this point on. 

[Dr. Pepper]

4 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Ok, that's clear.  I think we've all been over this.

This is why no one will ever take you seriously.  I'm no fan of Israel, in fact I've constructed data that demonstrates their elections are manipulated by Palestinian attacks (not as if I'm the first to arrive at this obvious point).   But referring to Israel as genocidal is a great way to piss off even people that otherwise tend to be inclined towards your perspective.  Congrats.

 

Oh, I didn't realize I'm supposed to be worried about pissing people off.  I pissed people off when I cited Obama as a child murderer for his bombing campaigns in the Middle East.  I don't care if i piss them off, he was still complicit in child murder (as am I since I voted for him).  I don't care about pissing off people, it doesn't change the fact that Israeli policies are still genocidal.  I think Richard Spencer often refers to it as "peaceful ethnic cleansing".  

Quote

Your assumption they can possible do anything of substance in the minority with Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan as the opposition is much more mind-boggling.  That doesn't mean they have to do "nothing" I agree, but it does mean they have no chance at passing legislation.  For the last time, please explain to me what they should do as an alternative beyond advocating a policy that will galvanize the opposition and never even approach final passage.

Ok, so I say they should do something, you think they shouldn't do nothing.  We're pretty much in agreement, except for the part where you seem to believe that 'do something' translates to 'pass meaningful legislation'.  Newsflash, it doesn't and I think you might already kinda know that.  

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You're dead wrong here. Any Senator that's in the minority that introduces legislation that is DOA and bound to be used against their own party should resign. Full stop! 

It's so funny that like five days ago you were part of the whining about Republicans refusing to govern or even participate in the governing process.  Now you're all about Dems refusing to govern or even participate in the governing process.    Figures.

[Dr. Pepper]

1 minute ago, Relic said:

Anyone remember how incoherent McCain was during the Comey hearing? He sounded like he had a stroke right then and there. This dude shouldn't be sitting on any committee from this point on. 

I'm going through the morning news and what I want to know is if anyone remembers McCain at all because these news pieces are describing an entirely different man.  They're going with the 'he was a maverick who stood up to trump' story.  Like, no, never happened.  Giving lip service every once in a while in front of cameras means jack shit when everything else one does is the exact opposite of that.  

[Fez]

2 minutes ago, Relic said:

Anyone remember how incoherent McCain was during the Comey hearing? He sounded like he had a stroke right then and there. This dude shouldn't be sitting on any committee from this point on. 

McCain should resign I think, especially if his prognosis is as bad as it sounds like it is. But there does seem to be a long-standing bipartisan tradition of long-term Senators staying in office until the end, just not participating in any governance. In recent years its actually been more common among Democrats, with Kennedy, Byrd, and Lautenberg all technically staying in office while they were terminally ill (Inouye also died in office, but his was a bit more sudden). The last Republican to do was Craig Thomas back in 2007.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

It's so funny that like five days ago you were part of the whining about Republicans refusing to govern or even participate in the governing process.  Now you're all about Dems refusing to govern or even participate in the governing process.    Figures.

I'm all for governing. Seppuku, not so much. 

[Dr. Pepper]

17 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm all for governing. Seppuku, not so much. 

It's where you and I differ.  I'm deeply invested in american democracy not commiting suicide while you seem most concerned about individual political careers.  I don't give an actual fuck if some politician loses his job when the bigger concern is someone like Trump at the helm.  

[Mexal]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

It's where you and I differ.  I'm deeply invested in american democracy not commiting suicide while you seem most concerned about individual political careers.  I don't give an actual fuck if some politician loses his job when the bigger concern is someone like Trump at the helm.  

You should because the only way to resist Trump is to give a fuck about those politicians keeping their jobs

[Dr. Pepper]

9 minutes ago, Mexal said:

You should because the only way to resist Trump is to give a fuck about those politicians keeping their jobs

Nope, they can be replaced.  Plenty of new blood have been running for Dem offices across the country.  If democrats don't want to do anything, or worse only want to do horrific things like this shumer/gillibrand thing, they can fuck off.  They are the problem.

[Mexal]

Anyone read the excerpts from the NY Time interview with Trump? A few of my favs.

Quote

HABERMAN: That’s been the thing for four years. When you win an entitlement, you can’t take it back.

TRUMP: But what it does, Maggie, it means it gets tougher and tougher. As they get something, it gets tougher. Because politically, you can’t give it away. So pre-existing conditions are a tough deal. Because you are basically saying from the moment the insurance, you’re 21 years old, you start working and you’re paying $12 a year for insurance, and by the time you’re 70, you get a nice plan. Here’s something where you walk up and say, “I want my insurance.” It’s a very tough deal, but it is something that we’re doing a good job of.

 

Quote

TRUMP: She was sitting next to Putin and somebody else, and that’s the way it is. So the meal was going, and toward dessert I went down just to say hello to Melania, and while I was there I said hello to Putin. Really, pleasantries more than anything else. It was not a long conversation, but it was, you know, could be 15 minutes. Just talked about — things. Actually, it was very interesting, we talked about adoption.

HABERMAN: You did?

TRUMP: We talked about Russian adoption. Yeah. I always found that interesting. Because, you know, he ended that years ago. And I actually talked about Russian adoption with him, which is interesting because it was a part of the conversation that Don [Jr., Mr. Trump’s son] had in that meeting. As I’ve said — most other people, you know, when they call up and say, “By the way, we have information on your opponent,” I think most politicians — I was just with a lot of people, they said [inaudible], “Who wouldn’t have taken a meeting like that?” They just said——

 

Quote

TRUMP: I said, this is — honestly, it was so wrong, and they didn’t know I was just there for a very short period of time. It was so wrong, and I was with groups of people. It was so wrong that I really didn’t, I didn’t think about motive. I didn’t know what to think other than, this is really phony stuff.

SCHMIDT: Why do you think — why do you think he shared it?

TRUMP: I think he shared it so that I would — because the other three people left, and he showed it to me.

_________

TRUMP: So anyway, in my opinion, he shared it so that I would think he had it out there.

SCHMIDT: As leverage?

TRUMP: Yeah, I think so. In retrospect. In retrospect. You know, when he wrote me the letter, he said, “You have every right to fire me,” blah blah blah. Right? He said, “You have every right to fire me.” I said, that’s a very strange — you know, over the years, I’ve hired a lot of people, I’ve fired a lot of people. Nobody has ever written me a letter back that you have every right to fire me.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

47 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

It's where you and I differ.  I'm deeply invested in american democracy not commiting suicide while you seem most concerned about individual political careers.  I don't give an actual fuck if some politician loses his job when the bigger concern is someone like Trump at the helm.  

So am I, and what you're suggesting is a self fulfilling prophecy that will lead to further erosions of our democracy. How do you not see this?

35 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Nope, they can be replaced.  Plenty of new blood have been running for Dem offices across the country.  If democrats don't want to do anything, or worse only want to do horrific things like this shumer/gillibrand thing, they can fuck off.  They are the problem.

If we followed your plan they certainly would be replaced........by Republicans. 

[Inigima]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

To be fair though, the Senate has barely voted on anything besides presidential nominations and repealing regulations from the last six months of the Obama administration (and McCain was actually the reason behind the only one of those that failed). There haven't been the kinds of policy votes that would let us know how aligned McCain actually is with Trump; all we do know is that is he was one of the 'serious concerns' senators about McConnell's repeal bill.

Ratings like that 538 one are only helpful when there's been more activity, and even then you have to be very careful to make sure only important votes are being counted; because its easy to flood them with all the minor, unimportant votes that make it seem like everyone's in agreement always. Sort of like how if you consider every SCOTUS vote, all nine justices are in agreement with each other something like 60% of the time or more; when obviously there are extremely important differences.

I disagree. I read the list. It includes supporting nominations for Gorsuch, Pruitt, DeVos, and Sessions. (Also others, but those are the ones I consider most clearly objectionable.) He voted to do away with EPA, FCC, Department of Labor, and Department of Education regulations. He voted to do away with the 60-vote cloture requirement. Any of those would have been good opportunities to actually earn the reputation he claims. And it's not just Trump-era votes. McCain has years and years of a voting record that puts party before country. I hope he beats cancer, but other than that he can go fuck himself.

[Fragile Bird]

You should all be praying for the continued survival of McCain, because, you know, there doesn't need to be an election to fill his seat, just an appointment. And you know they will appoint some kind of death eater to replace him.  

I didn't see it, but my brother told me some woman from the Arizona Republican party was being interviewed on CNN last night, and she said everyone knows the two worst senators in the country were from Arizona, and they would be working hard to get rid of Jeff Flake.