US Politics: A Feast for Crows

[The Anti-Targ]

45 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Personally I don't think ANY politician should ever be allowed to tweet

I wonder what the unders and overs are for whether twitter has harmed or enhanced the reputation of any person of public prominence. Seems to me like for most people in positions of real social and political power Twitter has mostly been harmful to their reputations / credibility.

[Zorral]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How about when she has a better grip on the basic organizational structure of the US government?  That shouldn’t take long.

She's been tweeting probably most of her life.  She has many thousands of followers.  Unless the orange nazi is forced to stop tweeting then she's got all the right and license to carry on on twitter as you do (if you do, that is; I don't, but I'm a total minority, just like being in that minority that doesn't fb, ig, etc. either, and never have -- and my preferences would be that everybody stop doing that, but ya, like that's gonna happen all right! ).

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How about when she has a better grip on the basic organizational structure of the US government?  That shouldn’t take long.

Did you read/see the actual offending comment here?  Because it sure seemed like just a stupid mistake.  In context you can see she's clearly talking about elected offices and just said the wrong thing.  I'm sure if you'd asked her, prior to this mistake, what the three branches of government are, she'd have told you the legislative, the executive and the judicial.  

Unless you think she actually had no idea what she was talking about. In which case I'd be curious to know why. 

 

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How about when she has a better grip on the basic organizational structure of the US government?  That shouldn’t take long.

When AOC is the last person who needs this and who is tweeting, I'll agree with you. Otherwise, focus on, like, ALL THE OTHER DIPSHITS FIRST. 

[Zorral]

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

Did you read/see the actual offending comment here?  Because it sure seemed like just a stupid mistake.  In context you can see she's clearly talking about elected offices and just said the wrong thing.  I'm sure if you'd asked her, prior to this mistake, what the three branches of government are, she'd have told you the legislative, the executive and the judicial.  

Unless you think she actually had no idea what she was talking about. In which case I'd be curious to know why. 

 

Because she's young -- AND, female AND a woman of color, perhaps?  It would fit what appears to scare the living etc. out of a lot of the white guys around here.

[Ran]

AOC is simply showing the level of ignorance the vast majority of politicians in American history likely had when they were new on the job. Pretty sure there's plenty of other freshmen who are equally as liable to hold mistaken ideas. They just don't tweet them out to the world.

I am hopeful that as she settles in and learns, she'll improve the informational value of her tweets. A better-informed citizenry is important.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

Did you read/see the actual offending comment here?  Because it sure seemed like just a stupid mistake.  In context you can see she's clearly talking about elected offices and just said the wrong thing.  I'm sure if you'd asked her, prior to this mistake, what the three branches of government are, she'd have told you the legislative, the executive and the judicial.  

Unless you think she actually had no idea what she was talking about. In which case I'd be curious to know why. 

 

I assume she knew the difference in the 3 branches sufficiently such that when she turned up for work as a newly minted congress person she didn't rock up to the White House, the Senate, or the Supreme Court and ask where her office is. Suggests some awareness of where she fits into the grand scheme of things, and what institutions there are which operate at the national level.

 

[Ormond]

One of my former students just posted a link to this article on Facebook, about research which correlates the degree of "fragile masculinity" found in Google searches in congressional districts across the country with the vote for Trump in 2016 and Republican candidates in 2018:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/11/29/how-donald-trump-appeals-to-men-secretly-insecure-about-their-manhood/?fbclid=IwAR3x8F3rq3zncFZOh7tl1rN7mKetC1M4LSdKQ9caO1-Dl1YKMff8B9QUUpE&utm_term=.e0960e6889cc

I think the most interesting point to me in this article was that "fragile masculinity" was NOT correlated with support for either McCain or Romney, so this is actually a new issue in voting behavior. 

Somehow it doesn't surprise me that support for Trump is linked to an interest in penis enlargement. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, Ran said:

AOC is simply showing the level of ignorance the vast majority of politicians in American history likely had when they were new on the job. Pretty sure there's plenty of other freshmen who are equally as liable to hold mistaken ideas. They just don't tweet them out to the world.

I am hopeful that as she settles in and learns, she'll improve the informational value of her tweets. A better-informed citizenry is important.

This. There's an old saying, "Junior Senators should be seen and not heard." 

It takes a long time to develop some degree of mastery of the subject at hand, which is why term limits tend to be a bad idea. AOC should bring attention to the issues that matter to her, but stay away from policy arguments until you have a strong grasp of the subject.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Today somewhat proved something I've always believed, that presidents can't do all that much to improve the economy in the short term, but they sure can wreck it quickly. Trump's tweet undid all of yesterday's gains as trade war fears resurface.

[SweetPea]

50 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Today somewhat proved something I've always believed, that presidents can't do all that much to improve the economy in the short term, but they sure can wreck it quickly. Trump's tweet undid all of yesterday's gains as trade war fears resurface.

How so?

[Martell Spy]

The Senate Is Now So Sure That MBS Killed Khashoggi, It Just Might Oppose Saudi War Crimes in Yemen

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/cia-briefing-graham-mbs-killed-khashoggi-senate-republicans-yemen-resolution.html

Quote

 

According to ABC News, several senators were so furious about Haspel’s absence, and “unhappy with the administration’s lack of answers and unwavering support for the Saudis despite the murder of Khashoggi,” they decided to green-light debate on withdrawing U.S. support for starving Yemeni children, so as to send a message to the administration about the need for more information about Khashoggi’s death.

On Tuesday, as the Senate prepared to (finally) allow a vote on the Yemen resolution itself (as opposed to a vote on merely whether the bill merited debate), the White House sent Haspel to brief eight senior senators on what the CIA knew of the Khashoggi killing, in hopes that this would appease the lawmakers, and assure the resolution’s defeat.

Republican senators emerged from that briefing so certain that MBS ordered the journalist’s murder, they might not want the United States to help him kill Yemeni children anymore

 

.

[DMC]

5 hours ago, Ormond said:

I think the data that tracks partisan preference in the USA by every individual year;'s birth cohort shows that the first few years of "Generation X" are definitely more Republican-leaning than later cohorts within that age range. People born in the 1960s (the tail end of the Baby Boom and the start of Generation X) are the Reagan-era counterpart to the "Eisenhower" effect that makes the Silent Generation so Republican. 

Yep.  Haven't looked at it in awhile, but I think me and you had this conversation a few months ago and the data clearly showed older Gen X-ers were pretty even regarding partisanship whereas the younger Gen Xers tracked closer to the Millennial disproportionality - which highlights the arbitrary nature of 'generations.'

2 hours ago, Ran said:

AOC is simply showing the level of ignorance the vast majority of politicians in American history likely had when they were new on the job. Pretty sure there's plenty of other freshmen who are equally as liable to hold mistaken ideas. They just don't tweet them out to the world.

The misunderstanding of the budget process - among the members of the body that is in control of the budget process - is and always will be shocking.  The tonnage of members of Congress that have made similar false statements to the one Ocasio-Cortez made is similarly shockingly large.  It has nothing to do with length of tenure in Congress.  They all make blatantly false statements about the budget, as it serves them.

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Ormond said:

One of my former students just posted a link to this article on Facebook, about research which correlates the degree of "fragile masculinity" found in Google searches in congressional districts across the country with the vote for Trump in 2016 and Republican candidates in 2018:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/11/29/how-donald-trump-appeals-to-men-secretly-insecure-about-their-manhood/?fbclid=IwAR3x8F3rq3zncFZOh7tl1rN7mKetC1M4LSdKQ9caO1-Dl1YKMff8B9QUUpE&utm_term=.e0960e6889cc

I think the most interesting point to me in this article was that "fragile masculinity" was NOT correlated with support for either McCain or Romney, so this is actually a new issue in voting behavior. 

Somehow it doesn't surprise me that support for Trump is linked to an interest in penis enlargement. 

It's irresistible, thinking this article is satire, right?  I mean: measurement of masculine fragility!    

[Martell Spy]

This comes down to Republicans not seeing Democratic party wins as legitimate. 

Quote

 

In the classic comic strip Calvin and Hobbes, the titular characters occasionally play a game known as “Calvinball.” The rules are simple: Hobbes makes them up as he goes. In one strip, the imaginary stuffed tiger declares mid-game that Calvin has entered an “invisible sector” and must cover his eyes “because everything is invisible to you.” The six-year-old boy obeys and asks Hobbes how he gets out. “Someone bonks you with the Calvinball!” Hobbes exclaims, chucking the volleyball at Calvin. And so it goes until Calvin, in the final panel, is dizzy and disoriented. “This game,” he notes, “lends itself to certain abuses.”

American democracy is starting to feel the same way. In November’s midterm elections, voters across the country handed the Democratic Party 40 House seats, control of multiple state legislatures, and an assortment of governorships and other state offices. Now, one month later, GOP lawmakers in multiple states are using lame-duck sessions to hamstring incoming Democratic elected officials, either by reducing their official powers or transferring them to Republican-led legislatures.

Much has been written about Trumpism and the threat it poses to American democratic governance, and rightly so. But these state-level tactics aren’t new. Over the past decade, Republican lawmakers in North Carolina mastered the strategy of constitutional hardball to preserve their political muscle even as their electoral advantage shrank. The metastasis of this model today may be an even greater threat to the nation’s political health than Trump himself.

 

The GOP’s Laboratories of Oligarchy
Republicans in multiple states are using lame-duck sessions to disempower the Democrats who won in last month's blue wave.

https://newrepublic.com/article/152515/gops-laboratories-oligarchy

[lokisnow]

2 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

This comes down to Republicans not seeing Democratic party wins as legitimate. 

The GOP’s Laboratories of Oligarchy
Republicans in multiple states are using lame-duck sessions to disempower the Democrats who won in last month's blue wave.

The GOP’s Laboratories of Oligarchy
Republicans in multiple states are using lame-duck sessions to disempower the Democrats who won in last month's blue wave.

What about both sides? Both sides both sides! Can’t report it it’s not both sides! Whatabout both sides?

[Martell Spy]

7 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

What about both sides? Both sides both sides! Can’t report it it’s not both sides! Whatabout both sides?

 

Well, I suppose they can shove it up both sides of the ass.

[Martell Spy]

I Served in Congress Longer Than Anyone. Here’s How to Fix It.
Abolish the Senate and publicly fund elections.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/john-dingell-how-restore-faith-government/577222/

Quote

 

An electoral system based on full participation. At age 18, you are automatically registered to vote. No photo ID, no residency tests, no impediments of any kind. Advances in technology can make this happen effortlessly. Yes, voting should be restricted only to American citizens. Strict protections against foreign meddling are also necessary.

Read: Voter suppression is the new old normal

The elimination of money in campaigns. Period. Elections, like military service—each is an example of duty, honor, and service to country—should be publicly funded. Can you imagine if we needed to rely on wealthy donors to fund the military? I know there are those who genuinely believe in privatizing everything. They are called profiteers.

Public service should not be a commodity, and elected officials should not have to rent themselves out to the highest bidder in order to get into (or stay in) office. If you want to restore trust in government, remove the price tag. I am fully aware that the Supreme Court has declared that “money is speech.” That’s nonsense. The day my wallet starts talking to me, I might reconsider that view. Until then, I believe that the pernicious influence of money on our elections must be removed.

The end of minority rule in our legislative and executive branches. The Great Compromise, as it was called when it was adopted by the Constitution’s Framers, required that all states, big and small, have two senators. The idea that Rhode Island needed two U.S. senators to protect itself from being bullied by Massachusetts emerged under a system that governed only 4 million Americans.

Today, in a nation of more than 325 million and 37 additional states, not only is that structure antiquated, it’s downright dangerous. California has almost 40 million people, while the 20 smallest states have a combined population totaling less than that. Yet because of an 18th-century political deal, those 20 states have 40 senators, while California has just two. These sparsely populated, usually conservative states can block legislation supported by a majority of the American people. That’s just plain crazy.

 

 

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

It takes a long time to develop some degree of mastery of the subject at hand, which is why term limits tend to be a bad idea. AOC should bring attention to the issues that matter to her, but stay away from policy arguments until you have a strong grasp of the subject.

Oh this is a bunch of horseshit.  Why does AOC not have a "strong grasp" on the policy argument and more experienced MCs do?  That entails a ludicrous assumption that MCs give a shit about the same policy as much as Ocasio-Cortez.  She's 29 not 12.  I was more qualified at 29 to be a member of Congress than 80 percent of the people sitting there.  She's immediately demonstrated better political instincts than the vast majority of incumbent MCs - most of which have the same ambition as everybody in Washington.  Ocasio-Cortez is a better politician than you.  Stop pretending you know what's best for her.  As I said, I'm worried about over-exposure.  But that's it.

[Kalbear]

BUT WE ALL KNOW HOW IMPORTANT THINGS LIKE TRUTH AND FACTUALLY CORRECT STATEMENTS OF THE LEGISLATIVE SYSTEM ARE COMPARED TO COMPELLING PASSIONATE STORIES AND WHIPPING PEOPLE UP

WE ALL KNOW THIS