Jump to content

US Politics: For Whom the Bell Tolls


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, lokisnow said:

I would get upset about the lack of due process fro franken, except the picture is really fucking bad, in a way worse than trumps GTBTP audio, because audio braggadocio doesn't prove any actions actually took place. Franken miming groping a particular woman while she sleeps is an affirmative proof of harassment that is pretty easy to see happening. Even if it's just miming and not actual touching, the miming itself is absolutely harassment. Doing it while she sleeps invokes all sort of nastiness with date rape culture. The picture is really fucking bad, every other accusation could be a paid fake accuasation and I'd still want him to resign because of the proof the picture represents of franken actively participating in and promulgating a culture of harassment and inequality. 

Yeah, that sums up what my response was to the picture. Except I'd add that Trump was also accused of other things, so it's not just the audio. The audio and the accusations reinforce each other. The Franken picture basically told me that he is a bully.

The Congress' internal ethics rules and investigations are purposely pretty toothless. Now, this may seem pretty convenient for members of Congress, and even corrupt. The reason they give for this though is that there is a remedy at the ballot box. Voters can remove the person.

I'm not sure why anyone would think Franken would get due process. He isn't being killed or imprisoned by the state. Lots of the accused in other industries did not get due process either. And let's be clear what is happening here. A bunch of people that abused their power to sexually abuse, sometimes for years, are all going off to live lives of wealth and luxury that many of us can only dream of. The fact that they got away with all this so long, is yet another sign that we do not live in a just country.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/09/swamp-diary-jack-shafer-flynn-inauguration-day-216059

Week 29: Flynn’s Inauguration Day Bravado Comes Back to Bite Him
An overly cocky text to a business partner about the imminent end of Russia sanctions is just the latest digital message overflowing Robert Mueller’s evidence locker.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Moore does win in Alabama, this will be one of the reasons why. In a state with some of the toughest voter ID laws, Alabama has decided to shut down driver license offices in 8 of 10 predominantly black counties.

Quote

Facing a budget crisis, Alabama has shuttered 31 driver’s license offices, many of them in counties with a high proportion of black residents. Coming after the state recently put into effect a tougher voter ID law, the closures will cut off access — particularly for minorities — to one of the few types of IDs accepted.

According to a tally by AL.com columnist John Archibald, eight of the 10 Alabama counties with the highest percentage of non-white registered voters saw their driver’s license offices closed.

“Every single county in which blacks make up more than 75 percent of registered voters will see their driver license office closed. Every one,” Archibald wrote.

Archibald also noted that many of the counties where offices were closed also leaned Democrat.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Republican Party's No Trust Fund Child Left Behind Act

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/07/opinion/republicans-children-health-chip.html

Quote

Let me ask you a question; take your time in answering it. Would you be willing to take health care away from a thousand children with the bad luck to have been born into low-income families so that you could give millions of extra dollars to just one wealthy heir?

You might think that this question is silly, hypothetical and has an obvious answer. But it’s not at all hypothetical, and the answer apparently isn’t obvious. For it’s a literal description of the choice Republicans in Congress seem to be making as you read this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mexal said:

It wasn’t a story, it was a tweet from his personal account which he deleted 20 minutes later and apologized for. The fact the President of the USA is demanding a private citizen be fired for a mistake he apologized for is a much bigger issue than his tweet, especially in light of the social media gang he sent his way to harass him. Addditionally, not more than a few days ago, Trump posted three fake anti-Muslim videos from a far right racist British group and rather than take them down and apologize, they doubled down on them. The double standard is so far out of control it is ridiculous.

It's not about the tweets or about Trump blowing it out of proportion, or the inappropriateness of his demands (since those are a daily occurrence). What this is about is the political narrative. The MSM is out to get Trump and will produce fake news to try to do it. That is the narrative Trump wants to promote. And this erroneous tweet feeds into that narrative. Is the reporter part f the librul media? Yes. Did he seek to publicly ridicule Trump over crowd sizes with a picture that is provably false? Yes. People say Trump obsesses about crowd size, but if members of the MSM are still writing and tweeting about crowd sizes, and using false evidence to do so, then who is the real obsessive here?

Trump wins this narrative round, that's really all that matters. The more examples of false reportage on Trump's activities (official or unofficial makes no difference) the stronger his narrative, and the more the people at the margins start to believe that maybe everything in the MSM about Trump is suspect.

And nothing ever truly disappears from the internet. Everyone should know that. As soon as a false tweet goes up it's there permanently, and it will always be a stick to beat the person with, because the first to strike will always have the upper hand. "FAKE TWEET, see the MSM is playing me false... again!", "But it was a personal tweet, and I deleted it and apologised."

And finally, WTF are journalists doing posting tweets about crowd sizes. What a fricken pointless distraction. Tweet about some actual important stuff, like Jerusalem, or taxes, or Net Neutrality. Don't sidetrack the public onto irrelevant shit, and worse yet, don't give Trump an opening to shift public attention off the important stuff. Un-bloody-professional!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/9/2017 at 1:26 AM, Dr. Pepper said:

You could always work in coal.  Or wait around for coal to come back.  Or else get on welfare and complain about the welfare queens ruining the country.  Or be a youtube star.

I'm in PA now and I know I shouldn't have been surprised but I still kinda am at how 'in your face' confederate flags are around here.  They were ubiquitous in the south, but they are just as much up here too.  Plus all of the Trump/Pence/MAGA and overt racism stuff.  We were looking at property in a small town and the dude comes walking up with a trump coffee mug and spits his chew on the ground in front of us and asks if we planned to send our negro kids to school in town.  Um...not anymore!

Bummed to hear it's the same in upstate NY as I'm considering looking in that area as well.  I love small towns.  Or rather, I love the idea of small towns.  I just can't stand the idea of living near these nasties.

I once had a college professor describe PA as "you have Philly in the east, Pittsburgh in the west and Alabama in the middle :lol: and this was 20+ years ago

guess it's an old joke, although until today, he's the only person I ever heard say it.  I'm just 5 miles south of the Mason-Dixon and the husband works in PA. I'm in a small town too...that 71% of voted for Trump :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said:

I once had a college professor describe PA as "you have Philly in the east, Pittsburgh in the west and Alabama in the middle :lol: and this was 20+ years ago

guess it's an old joke, although until today, he's the only person I ever heard say it.  I'm just 5 miles south of the Mason-Dixon and the husband works in PA. I'm in a small town too...that 71% of voted for Trump :(

Isn't it the case that in virtually all states that the Democratic candidate wins the Republican candidate still wins most individual districts / counties? I think Hillary might have won a majority of districts in California, New Mexico and a couple of the north-east states. So to some extent it's not a case of red state / blue state but rather blue urban counties vs red rural / small town counties. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

 So to some extent it's not a case of red state / blue state but rather blue urban counties vs red rural / small town counties. 

I think that’s pretty much the entire extent of it, cities are blue, suburban counties are purple, and rural counties are red.  There are exceptions to be found, of course, but these days urban/ rural is a stronger indicator of voting habits than states.  Even in conservative states like Texas most of the cities are blue, and in liberal states like Maryland the more rural places are red.

Living in a city changes your outlook on the need for government.  Everyone who has lived in a decent sized city or two for a portion of their life recognizes that it just wouldn’t function without a degree of consensus that the federal, state, or city government NEEDS to be a proactive entity in holding the whole thing together.  

City life also exposes to diversity.  It is a lot harder to hang onto your stereotypes about other groups when you work with them, socialize with them, and generally share space with lots of people who aren’t like you in culture or appearance.  Even if it’s something as small as seeing Muslim families at the grocery store, there’s a culmination of tiny little reminders that most people just want to get through their god damn day in peace.  In a small, homogenous community you aren’t often going to be challenged on those preconceived notions.  

I think urban/rural is THE core reason why there is such polarization in US politics because the experiences that inform opinions are not the same.

I also think this is why R’s have been so batshit lately.  They know demographics don’t favor them.  We’re continually getting more diverse and we’re continually  getting more urban.  I feel like a lot of their shenanigans is part of a concerted effort to minimize the effects of the demographic tides which are most certainly against them.  The Dems need only get their shit together, because all the other pieces are there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, S John said:

I think urban/rural is THE core reason why there is such polarization in US politics because the experiences that inform opinions are not the same.

Yup.  Is there variation between certain rural - and between certain urban - areas?  One would assume, but it's not clear if that difference is anything but marginal, and if so what, how and why that difference exists are interesting questions but issues I've only seen people speculate on based on aggregate data.

Anyway, to address the original topic, I grew up in western (upstate) NY and currently live in western PA.  My personal experience is that yes, you'll get to the confederate flag-wavers quicker and in greater quantities in PA as compared to NY once you get into "small towns" or rural areas.  Of course, one huge caveat there is there's about a decade in between me growing up in NY and moving to western PA, so there was a whole lot of polarization going on in between.  I do remember, rather the "Alabama" line which I've heard before, one of my close friends that was a native of Hollidaysburg described PA in-between Pitt and Philly as "the South of the North."  I always liked that one too.

In other (and kind of old) news, former governor Phil Bredesen announced he's running for Corker's seat in Tennessee.  Still gonna be an uphill battle, but he's just about the only Dem candidate that gives them any kind of chance.  Charlie Cook immediately moved the seat into the toss-up category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Zorral said:

I haven't been quite this disgusted with the Dems in a few months, but leave it to them to recharge all the disgust and contempt batteries to full.  This also helps explain why myself and so many others, that they arrogantly believe will always vote for them, despise them as a party. They always beg to be gamed by the very system that the rethugs have put in place instead of coming up with anything effective and energetic that appeals to the voter.  Instead they dump the few seats in D.C. they have because they stupidly think they will look good -- and by the way get rid of a very potential presidential rival nominees to Gillebrand.  Do they really think we don't notice these things while they yell "Sexual justice!!!!!!!" and yet never even talk about Clarence Thomas and how he has made it really much more difficult than it was before he got a seat on the court for women to bring cases of sexual harassment against employers?

https://www.salon.com/2017/12/10/democrats-franken-fiasco-has-unhappy-echoes-of-the-clarence-thomas-affair/

Sorry if I'm remembering this wrong (it was a while ago), but weren't you one of the people posting in favour of purity tests, and against the Democrats being pragmatic or allowing candidates that might have one or two socially conservative views (e.g. pro-life)? If I'm remembering correctly, this seems a 180 turn.  

This seems to me like the Democrats finally realising that they have to take political damage on this issue if they're going to hold to the moral position they're trying to stake out.  The democratic voter base does hold Democratic representatives to account, and given the party's stated positions having these guys resign seems appropriate.  

I'd also point out that the Thomas references the article make are completely irrelevant.  The driving force between the two decisions is very different.  One was not standing up for their morals.  The latest one is them doing so.  Yet they're equivalent? 

12 hours ago, Zorral said:

The rethugs aren't going to come into power.  They are in power.  All the way.

As the Dems aren't able or are unwilling to do anything at all effective, smart and desirable to counter them -- why vote at all?  That's what happened to Hillary, you all.  Which is how Hillary and the Clintons and the DNC get dragged into this all the time.  But the fact is, that between voter repression, gerrymandering and people just staying home, Hillary did not get the electoral votes.  So, again, since the Dems aren't doing anything about this, why bother?  Since, of course, the rethugs own it all now and every election just consolidates and reinforces?

Whether or not all or parts of the above are the facts, a lot of voters are seeing it this way.  And the Dems aren't doing anything at all to counter that.  Particularly by taking out Franken, whom the voters wanted to stay, and doing it without due process.

This has to be some of the most idiotic thinking ever.  Prior to the election, there were a number of people on these boards who argued either false equivalency between the two parties, or that Clinton being a bad candidate meant they wouldn't bother voting.  2016 should have been a germane lesson in why that kind of thinking was both stupid and/or a lie.  About the only one that was nearly as bad was "Trump will be so bad the system will implode, and we'll be able to rebuild a good system".  Yeah, because the Republican voters will just disappear with Trump. 

I have no issue with fighting for candidates who will represent you better, fight harder, fight smarter, and push the policies you want.  But when you then say you won't vote for the Democrats, you are helping the Republicans.  It may suck that is the reality, but it is the reality. 

The irony of course being, with one post you deplore the Democrats for allowing two compromised representatives to resign, and then say if the Democrats won't fight and put up candidates you want you won't vote for them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lindsey Graham went golfing with Trump and completely swallowed his Kool Aid. He went on a twitter tirade demading investigations into "ALL of 2016", meaning Clinton's emails, the Steele dossier, bias in the DoJ., etc.

Can people stop pretending this piece of shit is a moderate? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Yup.  Is there variation between certain rural - and between certain urban - areas?  One would assume, but it's not clear if that difference is anything but marginal, and if so what, how and why that difference exists are interesting questions but issues I've only seen people speculate on based on aggregate data.

There are some very notable exceptions to the rural/urban divide though. Jacksonville, San Diego, Oklahoma City, Indianapolis, Colorado Springs, etc. are all relatively conservative, as are a host of smaller cities like Tulsa and Wichita. In some cases you can argue that they are still more liberal than the states around them, but that's not always the case (like with San Diego or Colorado Springs).

Meanwhile there are some liberal rural areas, like all of Vermont, along with some parts of New Hampshire, Massachusetts and upstate New York. Some of Iowa (although a lot less than there used to be), most of New Mexico, and some scattered counties throughout the Great Plains are as well. 

I can think of reasons why some of these places may be the way they are, but not all of them; and I'm not sure any of those reasons are truly satisfactory.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today in: Reasons to get annoyed over inflationista fear mongering and conservative asset mispricing concern trolling.
 

http://www.nber.org/digest/nov17/w23693.shtml

Quote

Upward movement of workers on a "job ladder" from low-productivity to high-productivity firms is heavily dependent on the business cycle. During booms, net employment at high-productivity firms grows faster than at low-productivity firms, resulting in workers moving up the ladder. During busts, these upward job-to-job changes essentially stop. Net employment flows are instead driven by layoffs, with low-productivity firms losing comparatively more workers than their higher-productivity counterparts.

 

...................................................................................

 

Now, this is interesting. Oh remember way back when conservative sorts of people went around acting like the greatest threat to freedom was the ACA? It was literally the Road To Serfdom. I think you remember them. They generally were middle aged people that went running around, like a bunch of morons, in Paul Revere get up, and felt the need to brandish their guns.

And then of course, you have conservative sorts of people complaining about the left and and free speech.

And then you have:
 

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/12/republicans-really-really-hate-the-press/

Quote

I don’t want to make too much of this. Americans are routinely ignorant of basic constitutional rights, and surveys frequently show lots of them favoring restrictions on press freedom, religious freedom, gun ownership, fair trials, and so forth. Still, nearly half of Trump voters think the government should “be able to stop a news media outlet from publishing a story that government officials say is biased or inaccurate.” This is not a national security thing, it’s a flat-out belief that Trump should be able to block the press from saying anything he doesn’t approve of. We don’t have trend data on this, but I have to believe that it’s quite a bit higher than in the past.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OGE,

Out of curiosity, did you live through the inflation difficulties of the early and late 1970's.  I was a toddler for the first but old enough to see how the second upset and created difficulties for my parents.  When you call "inflatonistas"... "scare mongers" what sort of inflation to you believe would be acceptable?  The Stagflation of the late 1970s was a real problem to live through.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

OGE,

Out of curiosity, did you live through the inflation difficulties of the early and late 1970's.  I was a toddler for the first but old enough to see how the second upset and created difficulties for my parents.  When you call "inflatonistas"... "scare mongers" what sort of inflation to you believe would be acceptable?  The Stagflation of the late 1970s was a real problem to live through.  

Scott out of curiosity do you realize that what happened in the 1970s is completely irrelevant to what has happened the last few years?

Out of curiosity do you realize that the demand for money is interest rate elastic.

Out of curiosity do you realize we have been under shooting our inflation target for the last few years.

Out of curiosity do you realize the specter of the 1970s was raised by about every conservative buffoon over the debates we've had over the last 10 years.

 Out of curiosity, do you realize that if you don't hit your inflation target peoples inflation expectations may change.

Out of curiosity do you realize that nobody is taking about unanchoring long term inflation expectations of 2% or in the alternative most people realize it's important to anchor people's long term inflation expectations (even if you believe it would be better to anchor them at say 3%).

Out of curiosity, do you realize that an inflation anchor of 2% is an average, so it's okay if it over shoots for awhile.

Out of curiosity, do you realize that if people's inflation expectations are anchored at 2% and inflation comes underneath that, then likely there is still output gaps.

Out of curiosity when are you going to realize that bringing up the 1970s right now about is nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Fez said:

I can think of reasons why some of these places may be the way they are, but not all of them; and I'm not sure any of those reasons are truly satisfactory.  

Yeah that's basically what I was getting at.  Aggregate demos and surrounding area are obvious answers to lots of those, but there's nothing I've seen that can systematically explain the differences.  I would suggest the way to try would be to look at/generate individual-level data, but that's really all I got on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Scott out of curiosity do you realize that what happened in the 1970s is completely irrelevant to what has happened the last few years?

Out of curiosity do you realize that the demand for money is interest rate elastic.

Out of curiosity do you realize we have been under shooting our inflation target for the last few years.

Out of curiosity do you realize the specter of the 1970s was raised by about every conservative buffoon over the debates we've had over the last 10 years.

 Out of curiosity, do you realize that if you don't hit your inflation target peoples inflation expectations may change.

Out of curiosity do you realize that nobody is taking about unanchoring long term inflation expectations of 2% or in the alternative most people realize it's important to anchor people's long term inflation expectations (even if you believe it would be better to anchor them at say 3%).

Out of curiosity, do you realize that an inflation anchor of 2% is an average, so it's okay if it over shoots for awhile.

Out of curiosity, do you realize that if people's inflation expectations are anchored at 2% and inflation comes underneath that, then likely there is still output gaps.

Out of curiosity when are you going to realize that bringing up the 1970s right now about is nonsense.

I’m asking, not as a trap, but out of genuine curiosity as that was the last episode of significant inflation in the US in living memory.

What is a reasonable rate of inflation in your view?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m asking, not as a trap, but out of genuine curiosity as that was the last episode of significant inflation in the US in living memory.

What is a reasonable rate of inflation in your view?

Scott I'd be fine with keeping our current long term inflation expectations anchored at 2%, if weren't for conservative idiocy. But, since conservative idiocy is like our default mode, probably 3% would be better. The reason is that with the wicksellian rate likely to be lower in the future, at a 2% inflation rate, you're closer to hitting the ZLB and that's when all sorts of bad shit happens( sorry libertarians but markets don't clear by price. But keep dreaming.). If you're at the ZLB then you are pretty much left doing fiscal stimulus (well, I know perhaps you can do negative interest rates or whatever, but there are some problems with that I think), which we know won't happen in this current environment. So 3% would probably be better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...