Jump to content
DMC

US Politics: Shutbound & Down

Recommended Posts

Sorry can't help myself with the titles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mission accomplished.

Pence Insists ISIS Has Been Defeated Same Day Terror Group Claims Syria Attack

https://www.thedailybeast.com/pence-insists-isis-has-been-defeated-same-day-terror-group-claims-syria-attack?ref=home

Quote

Nevertheless, Pence told the Global Chiefs of Mission conference that “The caliphate has crumbled and ISIS has been defeated,” and made no mention of the suicide bombing during his talk.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve Carell Starring In Netflix Comedy Based On Trump’s Space Force
The actor created the show with Greg Daniels, who co-created the American version of “The Office.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/space-force-steve-carell-netflix_us_5c3f84e1e4b027c3bbbd7f66

Quote

 

Steve Carell is reuniting with Greg Daniels, co-creator of “The Office,” but it’s not for a reboot of the show.

It’s for something much spacier.

The two are collaborating on a workplace comedy for Netflix called “Space Force,” inspired by President Donald Trump’s proposal for a space force as the sixth branch of the military, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something just occurred to me seeing this American Conservative piece on Tulsi Gabbard that helped clarify for me why she bothers me so much, and it's this:  I could easily see her saying to me "you never served in the military."  

Serving in the military is no small thing, and all due respect to those that do.  But the best leaders that came from there understand the relationship and don't try to pull that shit.  Tulsi is angling to try to somehow merge flag jingoism with Sanders safety-netism.  On paper, I don't hate that.  But what I don't like about her is that she exudes an intellectual dishonesty a la "I will pull 'I served' any chance I need to on anyone."  

Very willing to be told I'm wrong about this giving how nascent Gabbard's candidacy is if someone cares to tell me why.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the only relevant opinion on Gabbard is that she's extremely likely to be a total non-factor regarding 2020.  Don't really care about the rest, and definitely don't get why she's warranted so much attention in these threads lately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Something just occurred to me seeing this American Conservative piece on Tulsi Gabbard that helped clarify for me why she bothers me so much, and it's this:  I could easily see her saying to me "you never served in the military."  

Serving in the military is no small thing, and all due respect to those that do.  But the best leaders that came from there understand the relationship and don't try to pull that shit.  Tulsi is angling to try to somehow merge flag jingoism with Sanders safety-netism.  On paper, I don't hate that.  But what I don't like about her is that she exudes an intellectual dishonesty a la "I will pull 'I served' any chance I need to on anyone."  

Very willing to be told I'm wrong about this giving how nascent Gabbard's candidacy is if someone cares to tell me why.   

I don't know much about her but what I do know reminds me of Danny Chung of VEEP. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per a comment on the previous page about Sherrod Brown repeating shit ad anauseum like a complete joke of a clown inside of a clown:

This is why I think that people are underrating Booker right now.  The biggest knocks I've heard on Booker are past ties to Wall Street and overall inconsitency.  Not small issues.  But he can talk like any politician, maybe better than most.  I think this that skill will matter.  A room waiting to here Brown and Booker with neutral expectations will never leave the room on Brown's side no  way no how.   

Share this post


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

This is why I think that people are underrating Booker right now.

My knock on Booker has nothing to do with his Wall Street "issues" (which I personally don't give a shit about), and I do agree he's demonstrably media savvy.  Actually, thinking about it, empirically he has demonstrated more ability to seize the national bully pulpit more than any other candidate, excepting perhaps Sanders (and half the time with Sanders he looks as unhinged as his policy proposals).  The problem with Booker is similar to the problem with Gillibrand (who I admittedly favor more) - do they actually have a true base for early money?  Both intersect with Harris, and I'd bet a lot of the Beto hype is costing Booker money.  I can see Gillibrand sticking it out and fighting for some attention-grabbing number in Iowa or NH.  But Booker?  Nah.  His ego ain't gonna like the fact he's gonna start on the outside looking in.

Share this post


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

My knock on Booker has nothing to do with his Wall Street "issues" (which I personally don't give a shit about), and I do agree he's demonstrably media savvy.  Actually, thinking about it, empirically he has demonstrated more ability to seize the national bully pulpit more than any other candidate, excepting perhaps Sanders (and half the time with Sanders he looks as unhinged as his policy proposals).  The problem with Booker is similar to the problem with Gillibrand (who I admittedly favor more) - do they actually have a true base for early money?  Both intersect with Harris, and I'd bet a lot of the Beto hype is costing Booker money.  I can see Gillibrand sticking it out and fighting for some attention-grabbing number in Iowa or NH.  But Booker?  Nah.  His ego ain't gonna like the fact he's gonna start on the outside looking in.

I've detested this O'Rourke concept since before he officially became a loser (and thereby a Democrat hero), and your typically sober analysis leaves my mouth tasting of salt.

Share this post


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

and your typically sober analysis leaves my mouth tasting of salt.

I'll take being called sober in any way possible.  And I'll avoid making any obvious indecent joke.  I earned getting high at 4 in the morning!

But yeah, I don't get the Beto hype.  This is coming from a guy who was on board with Obama the moment he finished the 2004 convention speech.  Maybe I'm just getting old.

Share this post


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

My knock on Booker has nothing to do with his Wall Street "issues" 

If we're talking about having worked on Wall Street, then I won't hold that against candidate because as FDR basically said when he hired Joe Kennedy to run the SEC, "if you want to catch a crook, then hire a crook."
But if we're talking about a candidate who basically repeats Jamie Dimon's nonsensical whining about equity capital requirements and so forth, then I will hold that against them.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

If we're talking about having worked on Wall Street, then I won't hold that against candidate because as FDR basically said when he hired Joe Kennedy to run the SEC, "if you want to catch a crook, then hire a crook."
But if we're talking about a candidate who basically repeats Jamie Dimon's nonsensical whining about equity capital requirements and so forth, then I will hold that against them.

The Democratic field promises to be very large.  Maybe record breaking.  I don't think any of all those candidates will be reiterating Jamie Dimon's concerns in any substantive way.

Share this post


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

The Democratic field promises to be very large.  Maybe record breaking.  I don't think any of all those candidates will be reiterating Jamie Dimon's concerns in any substantive way.

I would hope not. But certainly, Wall Street and Bankers will always try to get legislation passed, that will benefit them, but not promote the cause of financial stability. And they have enormous amount of money and influence. And they need to be watched carefully.

We have entire generation, Millennials, whose lifetime incomes will likely never recover from the last financial blow up. You'd hope we'd learn some lessons, but I don't take that as a given.

Share this post


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

I would hope not. But certainly, Wall Street and Bankers will always try to get legislation passed, that will benefit them, but not promote the cause of financial stability. And they have enormous amount of money and influence. And they need to be watched carefully.

We have entire generation, Millennials, whose lifetime incomes will likely never recover from the last financial blow up. You'd hope we'd learn some lessons, but I don't take that as a given.

Forget them, soon I WILL BE A MILLIONAIRE!!!!

Share this post


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

But certainly, Wall Street and Bankers will always try to get legislation passed, that will benefit them, but not promote the cause of financial stability. And they have enormous amount of money and influence. And they need to be watched carefully.

We have entire generation, Millennials, whose lifetime incomes will likely never recover from the last financial blow up. You'd hope we'd learn some lessons, but I don't take that as a given.

Oh sure.  Tackling inequality is going to seem nigh impossible for quite awhile.  And we will almost certainly relearn some basic lessons, necessarily.  I just don't think Jamie Dimon has much relevance.

Share this post


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

  I just don't think Jamie Dimon has much relevance.

Well, I think Dimon kind of serves as a spokesman for what a lot bankers or finance people think or argue. And I think he is that kind of Wall Street Democrat, that a lot of progressive or liberal Democrats are getting tired of and with good reasons. On several technocratic issues, Dimon has simply been wrong. For instance, there is about zero evidence that higher equity capital requirements hurts bank lending. In fact, the evidence seems to point the other way.

I'm not against banking per se. It plays a vital role in our economy. But, often what bankers or finance people say, just isn't our best interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I'm not against banking per se. It plays a vital role in our economy. But, often what bankers or finance people say, just isn't our best interest.

Preaching to the choir.  Banking interests are going to do what they're trained to do - hedge their bets.  Even if not, let's say Booker gets elected on the back of Jamie Dimon.  What's the worst outcome that will result in?  Not like it's gonna change much, which is simultaneously comforting and extremely concerning.

Share this post


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

But what I don't like about her is that she exudes an intellectual dishonesty a la "I will pull 'I served' any chance I need to on anyone."  

Just ask John Kerry and George McGovern about how having military service helps a Democrat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Just ask John Kerry and George McGovern about how having military service helps a Democrat.

Democratic military service doesn't count. Just Republican military service does.

And Republican draft dodging doesn't count. Just ask Dick Cheney or Bolton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Just ask John Kerry and George McGovern about how having military service helps a Democrat.

McGovern's failures as a candidate had absolutely nothing to do with his military record/status.

Share this post


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

×