Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DMC

US Politics: A Feast for Crows

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

These calls for more experience are hilarious.  When is she allowed to tweet again? 2020?

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

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really care that AOC is not perfectly polished and point-perfect, she has a point of view that people liked enough to vote her in. She's their representative, not anyone else's. Just as Steve King is representing a very different viewpoint, but he does speak for the people who voted him in.

As someone ahead of me said, we need more people to represent us instead of packing the house with lawyers and professionals and their worldviews. Iowa also has a 29 year old woman we just elected. I know some older people who are upset to be represented by 'a child', but screw that because I hate being represented by a geezer. The House is exactly where we need a wide variety of people - gender, age, ethnicity, religious beliefs, etc. I trust there is enough collective experience to guide the younger members and the younger ones will challenge the system in ways the older generation will have gotten used to as 'just how things work'. We need a good blend to balance everything out.

Edited by Gertrude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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! :laugh:).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!  :lmao:  :read::uhoh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by Martell Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Edited by lokisnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


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

×