Tywin et al.

US Politics: Borrow And Spend Conservatism Marches On

403 posts in this topic

I just wanted to add that one thing I remember from the time of the trial was the fact that many people wanted to see Hearst convicted to prove a rich person couldn't buy their way out of a jail sentence. It was an attitude of fuck you, 'if I was kidnapped and raped and brainwashed I would never have done any of the stuff you did'.

And she was a rebel, she was a feminist! And before she got engaged to that nice white boy she had shocked and dismayed her family by dating a black man! Obviously a trouble maker!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I swear keeping up with politics these days is like trying to jump into a long running tv show in the middle of season 12. Every time I wake up and look at the headlines I feel like I need 3 or 4 pages of backstory to understand it.

It's like if I woke up and it said "President Work accepts surrender of Lizard people, Canada to seceded from union" I wouldn't even be mildly shocked, I'd be like oh some stuff must have happened last night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

I swear keeping up with politics these days is like trying to jump into a long running tv show in the middle of season 12. Every time I wake up and look at the headlines I feel like I need 3 or 4 pages of backstory to understand it.

It's like if I woke up and it said "President Work accepts surrender of Lizard people, Canada to seceded from union" I wouldn't even be mildly shocked, I'd be like oh some stuff must have happened last night.

LOLOLOL

I bet that's how Cicero felt.

When the Second Mars Accords are violated I'll be alarmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Ormond said:

As you say, you don't know how it is the U.S. Americans who desire to run for office don't have this attitude because the "help you get on the list for winnable seats" is absolutely not a part of how American politics works. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think in the UK one has to live in the district one represents. In the USA, that is almost always a requirement.

A legal requirement or a political one?

Legally, it's not a requirement in the UK. Politically, it often is, to the extent that candidates sometimes get into trouble for registering at addresses they don't actually live at.

The point is redundant anyway. I don't believe that the Illinois Republican party would be unable to find a single solitary volunteer who lived in the district. This goes to the 'it's too hard' excuse, which is not an excuse.

Nothing anybody has said so far has really amounted to a reason why the Republican party cannot or should not have done, or be doing, more to oppose this man standing in their name. Failing to make the effort to actively oppose a Nazi representing you because it's just too much bother is absolutely something for which the Republican party as a whole can be criticised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Mike Pence had an ounce of political cunning he'd walk out of the Opening Ceremony as the NK's enter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would that accomplish?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About as much as his walkout on that Colts game in effect.

But with the rabid meat fuckers in the alt-right it might be interpreted as a rejection of 'globalism'.

If he could co-opt that racist base he could actually depose Trump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WinterFox said:

About as much as his walkout on that Colts game in effect.

But with the rabid meat fuckers in the alt-right it might be interpreted as a rejection of 'globalism'.

If he could co-opt that racist base he could actually depose Trump. 

Be careful of what you wish for. You might get it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Triskele said:

Something that I really would like to know:

Do conservatives talk about their debt/deficit stance behind closed doors (the conscious thesis) or do they use motivated reasoning to convince themselves their motivations are pure (the unconscious thesis)?  The consistency with which they've done this flip-flop depending on who is in the White House goes back decades and is impressive.

Quote

 

But Wanniski had been doing his homework on how to sell supply-side economics. In 1976, he rolled out to the hard-right insiders in the Republican Party his "Two Santa Clauses" theory, which would enable the Republicans to take power in America for the next thirty years.

Democrats, he said, had been able to be "Santa Clauses" by giving people things from the largesse of the federal government. Republicans could do that, too – spending could actually increase. Plus, Republicans could be double Santa Clauses by cutting people's taxes! For working people it would only be a small token – a few hundred dollars a year on average – but would be heavily marketed. And for the rich it would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts. The rich, in turn, would use that money to import or build more stuff to market, thus increasing supply and stimulating the economy. And that growth in the economy would mean that the people still paying taxes would pay more because they were earning more.

There was no way, Wanniski said, that the Democrats could ever win again. They'd have to be anti-Santas by raising taxes, or anti-Santas by cutting spending. Either one would lose them elections.

 

Two Santa Clauses or How The Republican Party Has Conned America for Thirty Years

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2009/01/26/two-santa-clauses-or-how-republican-party-has-conned-america-thirty-years
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

I just wanted to add that one thing I remember from the time of the trial was the fact that many people wanted to see Hearst convicted to prove a rich person couldn't buy their way out of a jail sentence. It was an attitude of fuck you, 'if I was kidnapped and raped and brainwashed I would never have done any of the stuff you did'.

And she was a rebel, she was a feminist! And before she got engaged to that nice white boy she had shocked and dismayed her family by dating a black man! Obviously a trouble maker!

I remember this. And the ransom demand. The SLA wanted Hearst to give free food to the poor people in San Francisco. I can't wait to see that again. It wasn't handed out. It was thrown at the people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats are lucky enough members ignored Pelosi to get this spending bill passed. On funding it's a huge win for Democratic priorities, and Democrats absolutely would've been blamed for a shutdown, much like they were last time. I wish Congress would do something about DACA, but it's clear that Republicans aren't budging on not allowing it to be attached to a spending bill. The Democrats had no leverage here, only the ability to hurt themselves.

The Senate will start on an immigration bill next week, and it's going to be a vote-a-rama style thing, so no one knows what it'll end up looking like. Hopefully something passes, and hopefully the House takes it up. And unfortunately that's all that Democrats can do on this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

After five and a half hours of a government shutdown, Congress passed a sweeping budget deal early Friday morning that will keep the doors open at federal agencies and lift stiff spending caps — giving Republicans another legislative victory, although it came at a high price.

The measure faced opposition from the right and left, but lawmakers were loath to force a protracted shutdown fight. And many lawmakers were eager to see higher spending on defense and domestic programs

 

.

Congress votes to end government shutdown
After Rand Paul’s blockade concluded, the Senate and House passed a sweeping budget deal.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/08/congress-massive-budget-deal-2018-398189

Edited by Martell Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fez said:

Democrats are lucky enough members ignored Pelosi to get this spending bill passed. On funding it's a huge win for Democratic priorities, and Democrats absolutely would've been blamed for a shutdown, much like they were last time. I wish Congress would do something about DACA, but it's clear that Republicans aren't budging on not allowing it to be attached to a spending bill. The Democrats had no leverage here, only the ability to hurt themselves.

The Senate will start on an immigration bill next week, and it's going to be a vote-a-rama style thing, so no one knows what it'll end up looking like. Hopefully something passes, and hopefully the House takes it up. And unfortunately that's all that Democrats can do on this issue.

I think Pelosi knew that. She wasn't twisting arms on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else waiting to see if Donald Tweets that he's proud Rand Paul shut down the gov?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

President Trump has reportedly been calling Reince Priebus, his former chief of staff, to complain about his current chief of staff, John Kelly, in recent days. Sources cited by The New York Times on Thursday say Trump has not held back in venting his frustrations with the four-star general, phoning several people to gripe about his job performance, including Priebus—who was booted last summer after a tumultuous six-month stint.

Report: Trump Phoning Reince Priebus to Complain About John Kelly

https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-trump-phoning-reince-priebus-to-complain-about-john-kelly?ref=home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Violence at home indicates a dangerous temperament for a high official, including vulnerability to blackmail. Few targets for blackmail could be more attractive than the person across whose desk flow so many of the secrets of the presidency—and who can do so much to guide or blind the president’s view of the world. Yet it’s also easy to understand why a White House and campaign team so prone themselves to violence against women would shrug off the FBI’s information about Rob Porter as nothing so very serious, and certainly not disqualifying. We are very forgiving of sins we have committed ourselves or can imagine ourselves committing.

Why Didn’t the White House See Domestic Violence as Disqualifying?
That the president’s staff was unable to recognize the seriousness of the allegations against Rob Porter may reflect how many members of his team have faced similar claims—including Trump himself.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/porter/552806/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, horangi said:

Thanks for the 538 Link Yukle, it does a good job depicting the issue with district mapping.  However, if anything, it underscores that while gerrymandering may have an impact in house control in a very tight election, the bigger issue is tying land with electoral outcomes.  The 538 projections only have a 3 seat swing between the current districts and the compact district options.  (albeit with a larger number of districts in play). The rest of the options are not based in the legal framework or are partisan tweaks to influence a particular desired outcome. 

Single member districts on the national level are a large part of the problem.  We need a proportional rep system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

It hit 10% with today's drop. So we are in correction territory, but you can bet there's more to come.

On average, how long does it usually take for a market correction to occur?

Also, I was listening to a podcast on the stock market yesterday and one of the panelists was an economic historian. She said 2017 reminded her a lot of 1928.

:o

Quote

eta: it's ok, really! Just pulling your chain!

And I was clearly pulling yours right back!

:P

10 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

On Sunday CNN is doing a documentary on the kidnapping of Patty Hearst. For those of you who either don't know who she is or only vaguely know, Hearst was the granddaughter of William Randolph Hearst, famous newspaper owner, yellow journals all, of the first half of the 20th century. The movie Citizen Kane was more or less about him.

The kidnapping was sensational, especially when after some time she was apparently "turned" by her kidnappers and took part in various criminal activities with them, including bank robberies. She was kidnapped by a domestic American terrorist group, the Symbionese Liberation Army. When she was eventually captured her defence was that she had been more or less brainwashed through deprivation and rape, being chained up in a closet and forced to be politically corrected by her captors. She eventually was convicted and sentenced to the maximum, 35 years. But before sentencing occurred the judge died and the new judge reduced the sentence to 7 years.

People were really divided about the case, which I followed closely because she was a few months older than me, just turned 20 when kidnapped. California Representative Leo Ryan was collecting signatures on a petition asking for her release, just before he flew to Guyana and was murdered by the Jim Jones cult group. Actor John Wayne famously commented that it was odd people could believe Jones had brainwashed 900 people to commit suicide but wouldn't accept that the SLA could brainwash a teenager.

President Jimmy Carter commuted her sentence to the 22 months served at the time, and eventually President Bill Clinton pardoned her, on his last day in office. The Northern California prosecutor involved in the case had sent Clinton a long and passionate memo setting out the reasons why he should not pardon her, which memo Clinton chose to disregard.

Who was the prosecutor?  Robert Mueller.

Just an interesting historic tidbit for you all!

I think there was a segment on Drunk History about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

I think Pelosi knew that. She wasn't twisting arms on the issue.

Maybe. It's hard to know what she knew, or wanted. House Democratic messaging and leadership yesterday was extremely... confusing. The only part that was clear was that she said she was voting no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mormont said:

 

A legal requirement or a political one?

Legally, it's not a requirement in the UK. Politically, it often is, to the extent that candidates sometimes get into trouble for registering at addresses they don't actually live at.

The point is redundant anyway. I don't believe that the Illinois Republican party would be unable to find a single solitary volunteer who lived in the district. This goes to the 'it's too hard' excuse, which is not an excuse.

Nothing anybody has said so far has really amounted to a reason why the Republican party cannot or should not have done, or be doing, more to oppose this man standing in their name. Failing to make the effort to actively oppose a Nazi representing you because it's just too much bother is absolutely something for which the Republican party as a whole can be criticised.

People have made valid points why it’s different here, but I do agree that Republicans in the congressional district haven’t exhausted all means. A local party chair should have fallen on their sword and ran against the Nazi to deny him the primary victory. The problem is most ambitious individuals who have an actual future won’t want to do that because losing will hurt their career (that seems to be a key difference between the US and the UK). The only real upside is over performing and then maybe they can move up in the state party or get some funding for a winnable state legislature race, and if the latter isn’t possible, why bother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.