Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Fragile Bird

US Politics: Paradise Lost

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And if she was running for POTUS that might matter.

Her name ID and upside down favorability do matter.  Anyone that says differently is either negligent or playing for the other side.

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You disagreed, and your argument was because house members became senate members, the House was as powerful. I still don't get that

Perhaps you should actually read the article then.

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Your link certainly didn't say that.

Yes it did.

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I agree that she's got name recognition. I don't know that getting rid of her for someone else - and someone else less effective than her

Heh, neither do I.  I don't think there's anybody that could do a better job than Pelosi, which is why as I've said repeatedly, I'm fine with her staying.

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Do you think the attack ads change? Do they bother changing them?

It will take longer to demonize a new target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DMC said:

Her name ID and upside down favorability do matter.  Anyone that says differently is either negligent or playing for the other side. 

Do they matter more than her success? Do they matter more than her fundraising? 

Do they help or hurt more when the primary mover of the Dems new success is suburban, educated, older women?

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Perhaps you should actually read the article then.

I did. Perhaps you should indicate how it says that because House members became senate members it means the House is as powerful and as important as the Senate. 

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Yes it did.

Nuh uh

1 minute ago, DMC said:

It will take longer to demonize a new target.

Why would they bother? Again, they're running attack ads against Clinton. They're going to do that for the next 8-10 years regardless. Anyone who becomes speaker will be stated to be 'the next Pelosi' or 'Pelosi's secret puppet'. Or they won't even bother changing it, and will just say 'this person is in league with Pelosi' even if she isn't speaker. 

Actual truth doesn't matter in these ads any more, if it ever did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Do they matter more than her success? Do they matter more than her fundraising? 

Do they help or hurt more when the primary mover of the Dems new success is suburban, educated, older women?

These questions all have to evaluate how much Pelosi is responsible for any of that.  That's not something anyone can say with any authority, so yeah, if you pine of Nancy, godspeed.

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Perhaps you should indicate how it says that because House members became senate members it means the House is as powerful and as important as the Senate. 

Perhaps you should read the abstract and make the obvious deduction.  But no, you won't.

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Nuh uh

Uh huh!

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again, they're running attack ads against Clinton.

Again, they're running attack ads against Pelosi - at equal and often greater measure.

Anyway, my main problem about this, to reiterate, is we got 3 octogenarians come 2020 running the House - and they would be in the same spots  for 14 years at that point.  That's fucking pathetic to me, no matter how much you justify it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing I don't get about that article is that it fails a very basic test: the polarization and rancid behavior of the Senate is essentially boiled down to Mitch McConnell's leadership. And...he never was in the House. Not once. He's been leader of the Senate Republicans for 10 years, and was in a leadership position for almost 20 years now. How does that article about polarization attempt to explain that? I don't think anyone thinks that he's caving to popular pressure or going further right; he's been incredibly outspoken about his goals and his tactics, and nothing I've seen indicates that it's because he's under pressure to go more polarized. That's all on him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

How does that article about polarization attempt to explain that? I don't think anyone thinks that he's caving to popular pressure or going further right

If you don't think McConnell has gone hard right over the past..well, decade, you haven't been paying attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DMC said:

Perhaps you should read the abstract and make the obvious deduction.  But no, you won't.

I've read it, several times now. I disagree with your idea that the premise "the polarization in the House has directly contributed to polarization in the Senate." infers that the House is as powerful or as important as the Senate. 

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Again, they're running attack ads against Pelosi - at equal and often greater measure.

Would that stop if she were not house speaker? It didn't stop for Clinton. 

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Anyway, my main problem about this, to reiterate, is we got 3 octogenarians come 2020 running the House - and they would be in the same spots  for 14 years at that point.  That's fucking pathetic to me, no matter how much you justify it.

Find someone better. Don't change your leader because the other guys are able to demonize a woman. US people hate women when they're in charge, and that's not going to change for a while. Pelosi is someone who is vilified because she's successful and powerful, and not gorgeous. She has no scandal, no corruption, no whiff of any issues - but she's hated anyway. 

Fuck 'em. I'm fine getting rid of her if there's someone better. I'm not fine getting rid of her because she's the pet ineffective boogeyman of people who believe Obama isn't a US citizen and Michelle Obama is horrible for wearing a sleeveless shirt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Would that stop if she were not house speaker? It didn't stop for Clinton. 

1.  I disagree with the premise it "didn't stop" Clinton.  We don't have data to prove it yet, but I'll bet quite a bit that that Clinton was much less effective in 2018 than she was in 2016.

2.  Pelosi is not Clinton.  Trump doesn't want to lock her up.  Hell, he just offered her help.

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Find someone better. Don't change your leader because the other guys are able to demonize a woman.

For, like, the eighteenth time, I agree.  No one has found anyone better.  And they're not likely to.

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

US people hate women when they're in charge, and that's not going to change for a while. Pelosi is someone who is vilified because she's successful and powerful, and not gorgeous. She has no scandal, no corruption, no whiff of any issues - but she's hated anyway. 

But this is bullshit.  That leadership has been together for wayyy too long.  Look at the GOP leadership in 2006 and compare.  There's nothing wrong with challenging Pelosi, or Hoyer, or Clyburn, simply based on the fact they've been there way too long.  And, again, nobody is going to care about this except political junkies, so it doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DMC said:

If you don't think McConnell has gone hard right over the past..well, decade, you haven't been paying attention.

He's gone further right, but not specifically over the last decade. Him stating point blank that he would obstruct Obama at every single turn was before the Tea Party, after all. To me it looks like he did it after 2002, when he first really won handily. That'd probably track well with GWB's turn and the post Clinton politics of the day. 

It's interesting to me that he's the least popular Senator out there and is the least popular in his own home state. I don't know if the dems could field an actual good candidate in 2020 to take his seat in Kentucky, but given his popularity it might be worth going for. Doesn't look that great for Dems given the politics in the state level (all controlled by R) and only one likely Dem as a house member, but maybe there's someone popular there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

im stating point blank that he would obstruct Obama at every single turn was before the Tea Party, after all.

Um, that's still within the last decade man.  Feel like we're arguing about scraps at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DMC said:

1.  I disagree with the premise it "didn't stop" Clinton.  We don't have data to prove it yet, but I'll bet quite a bit that that Clinton was much less effective in 2018 than she was in 2016.

I bet that's the case for Pelosi as well. 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

2.  Pelosi is not Clinton.  Trump doesn't want to lock her up.  Hell, he just offered her help. 

Sarcastically, sure. Didn't he also just say how nice Gillum was? It'll last all of, oh, a week until after the House Intel committee starts coming down on him. 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

But this is bullshit.  That leadership has been together for wayyy too long.  Look at the GOP leadership in 2006 and compare.  There's nothing wrong with challenging Pelosi, or Hoyer, or Clyburn, simply based on the fact they've been there way too long.  And, again, nobody is going to care about this except political junkies, so it doesn't matter.

And I'm fine with challenging Pelosi. Who said otherwise? I'm MORE fine challenging Hoyer, or Clyburn, or Schumer. That they want to get Pelosi out but aren't challenging any of them is really telling to me. That most of the people who signed against her are actually more centrist and not progressive is also telling. They're not wanting to get more progressive or inject 'new blood'; they just want power. 

But I don't think it's a good idea to support getting rid of her without a) having an actual idea who you're replacing her with and b ) saying why you want to get rid of her that actually makes sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Um, that's still within the last decade man.  Feel like we're arguing about scraps at this point.

Barely, but my point was that it isn't like he changed with the highly partisan tea party election. He was going that way and going full steam on that well before they were an inkling, and in a lot of ways he set the tone for that being successful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That most of the people who signed against her are actually more centrist and not progressive is also telling. They're not wanting to get more progressive or inject 'new blood'; they just want power. 

 

Ok, here I'll agree with you.  If we get a bunch of old fuck moderates I'll be pissed too.  Can get on board with that one.

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

But I don't think it's a good idea to support getting rid of her without a) having an actual idea who you're replacing her with and b ) saying why you want to get rid of her that actually makes sense. 

Of course it's not.  Which is why it won't happen.

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Barely, but my point was that it isn't like he changed with the highly partisan tea party election. He was going that way and going full steam on that well before they were an inkling, and in a lot of ways he set the tone for that being successful. 

K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2018 at 7:37 AM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That partisan polarization scares the crap out of me.

Agreed. I have no great love for the Republican Party, but I really don't think it's healthy for the country to basically sort itself into a collection of "Democrat Free Zones" or "Republican Free Zones".

I remember thinking at the time that this midterm wasn't one country swinging in a particular direction, but rather two countries swinging in opposite directions. That's mitigated somewhat as the count has continued, but it's still an uneasy situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one on this yet?

Quote

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ivanka-trump-used-a-personal-email-account-to-send-hundreds-of-emails-about-government-business-last-year/2018/11/19/6515d1e0-e7a1-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html?utm_term=.4cfdd2a2a11f&noredirect=on

Ivanka Trump used a personal email account to send hundreds of emails about government business last year

Ivanka Trump sent hundreds of emails last year to White House aides, Cabinet officials and her assistants using a personal account, many of them in violation of federal records rules, according to people familiar with a White House examination of her correspondence.

White House ethics officials learned of Trump’s repeated use of personal email when reviewing emails gathered last fall by five Cabinet agencies to respond to a public records lawsuit. That review revealed that throughout much of 2017, she often discussed or relayed official White House business using a private email account with a domain that she shares with her husband, Jared Kushner.

[...]

Her husband’s use of personal email for government work drew intense scrutiny when it was first reported by Politico last fall. The revelation prompted demands from congressional investigators that Kushner preserve his records, which his attorney said he had. At the time, administration officials acknowledged to news organizations, including the New York Times and Politico, that Ivanka Trump had occasionally used a private account when she joined the White House.

But Trump had used her personal email for official business far more frequently than known, according to people familiar with the administration’s review — a fact that remained a closely held secret inside the White House.

“She was the worst offender in the White House,” said a former senior U.S. government official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal dynamics.

Could end the "lock her up" chant, mayhaps?

This is also funny

Quote

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/14/media/cnn-lawsuit-support/index.html

Fox News and other outlets join CNN fight over press access to White House

(CNN)More than a dozen news outlets -- from the Associated Press to USA Today, The Washington Post and Politico -- are filing friend-of-the-court briefs to support CNN and Jim Acosta's lawsuit against President Trump and several top aides.

The list represents most of the biggest news organizations in the United States.
The most notable name on the list is Fox News. In fact, Fox went further than most other media companies on Wednesday, issuing a statement that said "Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized."
The statement came from Jay Wallace, the president of Fox News, hours after Fox commentators like Sean Hannity publicly criticized Acosta and CNN.
 
The two networks have been rivals for two decades -- but Wallace said this case is about the free press.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

No one on this yet?

Could end the "lock her up" chant, mayhaps?

Without a doubt, absolutely not.   The sort of Trump supporter who chants that does not actually care about the emails.   They never cared about the emails.   They especially don’t care about emails when someone on their team is doing the email malfeasance.   In fact, they don’t care about any sort of malfeasance from their team at all.    The email chants were only ever about having something not explicitly sexist and racist to invoke in their asinine 5- minute-hates- mouthbreather support groups.

Edited by butterbumps!

Share this post


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

Could end the "lock her up" chant, mayhaps?

As butterbumps said, the chants have nothing to do with Hillary's emails anymore.  It's a clarion call to supporters that does not need an origin.  Like the term hoosier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lock her up is the Trumpers’ Free Bird, the shitpeople will not stand for its retirement. 

Edited by Morpheus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Agreed. I have no great love for the Republican Party, but I really don't think it's healthy for the country to basically sort itself into a collection of "Democrat Free Zones" or "Republican Free Zones".

I remember thinking at the time that this midterm wasn't one country swinging in a particular direction, but rather two countries swinging in opposite directions. That's mitigated somewhat as the count has continued, but it's still an uneasy situation. 

I think that is an accurate description.  I also agree that I don’t care for the modern Republican Party but if the US does go for a hard partisan divide that continues to solidify very bad things will follow and people from both extremes will believe their actions are justified.  I say that not to imply that they are or are not justified but that violence is never isolated to those who “deserve” to be hurt.  Everyone will suffer if it comes to blows.

Further, how many nuclear weapons are currently under the control of the US Government?  What happens to those if the US falls into civil war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Without a doubt, absolutely not.   The sort of Trump supporter who chants that does not actually care about the emails.   They never cared about the emails.   They especially don’t care about emails when someone on their team is doing the email malfeasance.   In fact, they don’t care about any sort of malfeasance from their team at all.    The email chants were only ever about having something not explicitly sexist and racist to invoke in their asinine 5- minute-hates- mouthbreather support groups.

Agreed.  Nor do they care about their blatent hypocrisy.  They care about their “team winning” by any means available.  They bitch and moan about “leftist” believing “the ends justify the means” while arguing “the ends justify the means”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think that is an accurate description.  I also agree that I don’t care for the modern Republican Party but if the US does go for a hard partisan divide that continues to solidify very bad things will follow and people from both extremes will believe their actions are justified.  I say that not to imply that they are or are not justified but that violence is never isolated to those who “deserve” to be hurt.  Everyone will suffer if it comes to blows.

Further, how many nuclear weapons are currently under the control of the US Government?  What happens to those if the US falls into civil war?

How realistic is a civil war in a country this big, where even in very polarized areas you still have something 65/35 split of people, and with the military as basically a separate entity?  I just can't even picture how it would work.  

It's not like there aren't Republicans and conservatives in California.  There just aren't a lot of palces where they are the majority.  Same goes for hard red States and Dems / Liberals.   

Share this post


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

×