DMC

So No Labels is packing it in after they couldn’t find anybody to run under their..no label. These type of groups are always eye-rolling in their premise that centrism somehow means better and even more righteous. Not to mention their laughable lack of understanding that the US electoral system simply doesn’t allow for the competitive emergence of third parties. But what was especially amusing with this effort was they thought they could make a difference during rampant polarization.

There are countless works on the historical Jesus, but a recent one I found enjoyable with an insightful perspective is Reza Aslan’s Zealot (2013). Really easy read too, pretty sure I read the whole thing in two sittings.

Dunno why you’re under the impression opinions can’t be wrong and idiotic.

Bad opinions on movies can include bad business opinions on movies.

I mean, I was just gonna say he obviously didn’t get rich due to his opinions on movies, but this works too.

I’d just find it amusing. Maybe they can get Parker to come out of retirement. And Boris Diaw.

No, but it’s another clear example that McConnell wants to continue to support Ukraine and Trump winning in November isn’t going to change his preference. The immigration/aid deal is a terrible example of McConnell being untrustworthy - of which there are legions. He wanted to pass a clean aid supplemental to begin. It was Johnson and the MAGA MCs that insisted on merging it with immigration..then did a 180 when they realized they’d be giving Biden a victory.

There’s two more French dudes at the top of most boards!

…And a week later 22 GOP Senators voted for a clean foreign aid supplemental without the immigration provisions, which is what I’m talking about.

Yeah this is the type of absurd hyperbole I was referring to. It was already mentioned that Murkowski and Romney would not go along with Trump on NATO. Romney’s, of course, retiring, but McConnell would be another obvious example - as long as, ya know, he stays alive. Not because of his words, but because of his actions. Not to mention the fact Trump has absolutely zero political leverage on him and the two haven’t spoke in over three years. And the fact of the matter is there are a significant amount of the Senate GOP Conference that Trump has minimal political leverage on. Because he’s already destroyed the relationship and/or already tried to primary them and/or they’re simply serving out their terms at this point. And virtually all of those members have already consistently voted against Trump’s position on NATO/Ukraine. Like, seriously, what do you think Trump is going to do to them if they fight him on those issues? It is different with Thune or Cornyn if one of them becomes leader - which does very much remain to be seen - but considering they’re the only two candidates right now, I think it’s notable. And Thune in particular is likely to have a very similar approach to Trump that McConnell had during his first term.

Absolutely agree with the Bulwark piece’s main point - that Trump and certain GOP legislatures plans to overturn a Biden win need to be part of the campaign message in the coming months. I will push back on this quote from Lessig though: The courts responded incredibly fast in 2020, almost all of the Trump camp’s challenges were dismissed or adjudicated before the actual Electoral College vote in December. Especially now with the ECRA, that should continue. The ECRA also requires the “executive” in each state signs off on their electors, which mitigates the threat in a number of key states.

Fez addressed what Congress can do and I agree. My point was never about Article 5, btw, which was intentionally written to be vague so as to not directly compel any state into action. Indeed, the US insisted on this latitude even back then. See here.

BTW, relevant to the current discussion - McConnell: I’ll stay in the Senate and fight the GOP ‘isolationist movement’: Also should be emphasized the two Senators currently running to replace him as leader - Thune and Cornyn - are not going to vote to withdraw from NATO either. The GOP Senate thoroughly demonstrated Trump’s limitations during his presidency. The idea it’s going to be different the second time around is decidedly an exercise in dark fantasy navel-gazing.

They’d have to fire MacDonough to get a parliamentarian to agree to that. At which point might as well just cut the shit and abolish the filibuster. K. Anyway I never was asserting any “thesis” on the race - I literally said I don’t know enough about the district to even speculate on the outcome - just thought it was worth sharing as an example of the establishment GOP striking back against those that ousted McCarthy. And, clearly, many members think there’s a chance and worth the effort.

Yeah that’s not what you said and what I was responding to, which was the following: He’s already “getting primaried,” and it’s plainly not due to insufficient loyalty to Trump. Right. I’m agreeing with you and operating under that assumption in this hypothetical. ETA: There’s also, of course, passing cloture in the Senate. Repealing that law ain’t going to pass the Byrd bath for reconciliation, so it’d practically require 60 votes unless the filibuster is abolished.

@Kalbear The fact Bob Good is being challenged from the “moderate” wing of the party upset he voted to sack McCarthy isn’t my “thesis statement,” it’s explicitly stated in the article I cited: The idea that the likes of Mike Rodgers would be backing his primary challenger because Good endorsed DeSantis instead of Trump only demonstrates your own ignorance on the subject. Me pointing out your statement does not refute/is irrelevant to my argument is not “ignoring” what you wrote. Especially considering you’ve subsequently agreed/acknowledged my point on the subject. Anyway the site’s being screwy again and I have to post on my iPad which is really annoying so I’m just gonna move on… Should be noted Romney is retiring, but even so, there aren’t 50 votes to formally withdraw from NATO in the Senate. There isn’t even a majority in the House unless MAGA wins, like, at least 20 more seats. Should be noted that proposed amendments in Florida require 60 percent for approval. Marijuana legalization should pass that threshold - albeit there was a poll commissioned by the Chamber of Commerce (so take it with a grain of salt) a few months ago that had support at 57%. The abortion measure should indeed be much closer and will require persistent effort.

I gotta go to work and I'll respond to the rest of this later, but yes, Trump needs congressional approval for the US to leave NATO, which is what I was talking about. It's typical that you ignore that fact.

Currently, Trump v Biden is trending towards the latter, even in RCP's metric. Feel like this needs to be noted.

Are..are you seriously trying to tell me how primaries generally work? Yeah, primaries generally extend further to the extremes, but that doesn't mean they can't work the other way on occasion. There's countless examples of such at the state level in recent contests. Speaking of generalities - this speaks to one. You're assuming generalities apply to every single contest. They don't, that's why they're generalities and it's why every cycle there are always outliers. Is Good's district an outlier? Again, I don't know, but it doesn't seem as if you're offering any knowledge either way. Just stating the obvious. Says you. Not a reliable source. Yeah, he already did that for the last six months. How'd that work? Empirics strongly suggest you're wrong. Huh? I honestly don't know how to parse this. As for NATO, see above.

Yeah, I don't see that happening. It's not really faith in Trump. It's the fact he can't simply reverse NATO commitments like he did with Obama's executive agreements. He'd have to take on Congress and the military to go against the grain in such a way. Bolton got headlines the other day for saying Trump is too stupid to be a dictator. I don't agree with that. But one thing he is, is too lazy to take on things it's VERY hard to change.

Soto driving in the winning run to sweep the Astros on the road? I sincerely doubt the Yanks will have a higher point this year than right now.

I honestly don't know. I'm not an expert on his district. What I know is people that are more familiar with such things are making an effort to challenge him. If you know better, please share. Yeah, I know you do. I started posting on these threads pretty much right after Trump was elected. Since then, there's been three election cycles. In all three of those cycles, Trump/MAGA/the GOP at-large - at best - underperformed. And without fail, in all three of those cycles, you insisted the sky was falling. Like I said - you be you! Your pessimistic attitude is as reliable as the phases of the moon. It's very cute. To directly answer your questions, I'm not sure what you mean by a "serious" shutdown. Trump broke the record on that already with 35 days in 2018-9. Do I think one will last longer if, say, Trump is elected and there's a Dem House and/or Senate? Maybe? But probably not much longer. As for defaulting on our debt? No. I don't see that happening at all. This is a basic logic problem. Either Trump is president, which means he's not going to want that to happen and neither are the Dems. Or Trump is not the president, which means Biden will work it out with the GOP leadership as per usual. As for alliances with the US "simply end[ing]," you'll have to be more specific. Do you mean him trying to extricate the US from NATO? Cuz, nah, that ain't happening. If you mean ceasing funding for Ukraine? Absolutely, I think that is one of the major stakes of the election. Otherwise, I'm not really sure what you're referring to.

LOL. I like how I post an article about "moderate" Republicans - and yes, those quotation marks are very important - challenging Bob Good and your response is exactly the opposite of what that suggests. Dude's already an incumbent, and the reason he's being challenged is exactly because he was too extreme. But, ya know, you keep being you. It's adorable. TBC, you're not wrong in the aggregate. But asymmetric polarization doesn't work in the way your weird dark fantasies dictate. Not to mention the fact a lot of what you just said is already happening, and has for quite a while now.

Intraparty = Within each party Interparty = Between the two parties Class dismissed.

Dude we've adapted a word for intra (NOT inter) party factional fighting - getting "primaried." And, yes, with polarization this becomes more frequent. That does not indicate either major party - both of which have been around since the Civil War - is going to collapse any time soon. In a two-party system, each major party is by definition a constantly shifting coalition of voters. THAT will change, as it always does, albeit perhaps more drastically in the near future. But I don't see the donkey or the elephant going extinct any time soon.