US Politics: Ready, Set, Announce! Bookering the Odds

[Rippounet]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

No idea how to respond to this.  If you want to have the argument, then let's have the argument.  If you don't, then don't.  This just seems like a bitch ass way to avoid either option.  So, thanks!

Fine. It doesn't matter how bad tobacco and alcohol are, I used these comparisons to show the moral implications for people. What matters is how bad weed is for teenagers. You wanna prove that being a former high school drug dealer shouldn't be a problem for a politician? You're up against a lot of research. Do you really want me to post all the scientific articles that prove that selling weed to teenagers is bad? Like seriously?

Look, I've done worse than selling weed when I was a teen. But I'm not gonna brag about that kind of stuff on the internet, because I've come to terms with the fact that 17-year-old me was a shitty person. If you're not mature enough to have done that kind of work on yourself, that's on you, and it has nothin to do with politics. But hey, if you want to prove to the world that selling weed to kids is a-ok, feel free to open a topic about it where we'll discuss the scientific literature on the topic. I'll be glad to help with your psychotherapy.

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I could just as easily argue he stayed in to the end to ensure that he had as much leverage as possible during the convention to drag the party's platform to the left

You could argue that, but you'd be wrong. He had the most leverage in April, by a large margin. Once he lost for sure, he had much less leverage, and if he had bowed out early in exchange for platform changes he would have had a lot more to bargain for. Instead, he stuck through it even past the last primary and begged for the superdelegates to support him, which was hilarious given how he thought they sucked. 

7 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

, or that if you can't acknowledge that as superdelegates are un-democratic as fuck (especially when news organizations started tallying superdelegate endorsements for Clinton as part of her delegate total as soon as the Iowa caucus was held),

Superdelegates are a feature, not a bug, and while they're not purely democratic they're hugely important in giving the parties more control over who is and isn't nominated, as well as giving important minorities voices. Sanders railing against them is a great example of how shitty his understanding of coalitions and how shitty his understanding of the Democratic party is. 

And Sanders criticizing antidemocratic parts of the system like superdelegates while saying how caucuses - those completely bullshit antidemocratic outmoded fuckfests - are really awesome - well, that's extra self-serving. 

7 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

or that it's hardly shocking news that the Democratic party had been beholden for years to Wall Street and big business donors and whose leaders had fallen into toadying and cronyism. It's verboten to criticize the Democratic party now?

By all means, criticize away. I don't know who said you couldn't do that. 

7 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I could also argue that you're wrong about him not being interested in coalition-building; sure, he didn't do much of it in 2016, but I hardly think that's surprising since when he announced he probably didn't think there would be a coalition for him to build. But he absolutely has spent the past few years doing exactly that 

He really hasn't. He just shat all over the black caucus again, as an example. A coalition isn't a bunch of people who share your view. That's what Trump thinks, and that's what Sanders thinks. Sanders has spent the last two years supporting people who back his specific worldview. That's cool, but that ain't a coalition any more than David duke supporting alt-right groups is a coalition. 

7 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

The SOTU controversy is just stupid, invisible primary jockeying bullshit. He's given a response for 3 years in a row now, called attention to Abrahm's response, describing her as a great choice to give the official Democratic party response, and gave his rebuttal after she finished hers. 

 

And he's been shitty for three years, then. 

7 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Oh, give me a fucking break with the "everybody who has and will announce their candidacy are white hats, concerned only with the noble and virtuous goal of making America a better place, except for that black-hearted bastard Sanders, who only cares about himself and who, if he wins, will turn the US into a dystopian hellscape the likes of which the world has never seen!"

Okay. I didn't say that, but you keep on fucking that chicken. 

7 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I get it; you have an irrational hatred of Sanders because... reasons... but you seriously talk about Sanders with more venom than you reserve even for Trump. You might want to reflect on that. 

On the contrary, I have a very rational hatred of Sanders. His views of racism and their proximate causes in the US are so entirely bullshit that it makes me angry, his views of economic anxiety are garbage, his policy arguments manage to be both entirely unrealistic AND entirely useless, he would rather spend time attacking people closer to his viewpoint than people further away, and he's ineffective as a senator. Even worse, not only does he appear to know very little about a whole bunch of things, he shows absolutely no interest in learning more or changing his viewpoints based on new information. 

The Democratic party does not need a populist willing to sacrifice minorities and women to woo increasingly conservative uneducated white men. I will be opposed to anyone who espouses this viewpoint. Sanders has had a chance to learn. He continues to not. Fuck him. 

[Jace, Extat]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You could argue that, but you'd be wrong. He had the most leverage in April, by a large margin. Once he lost for sure, he had much less leverage, and if he had bowed out early in exchange for platform changes he would have had a lot more to bargain for. Instead, he stuck through it even past the last primary and begged for the superdelegates to support him, which was hilarious given how he thought they sucked. 

Superdelegates are a feature, not a bug, and while they're not purely democratic they're hugely important in giving the parties more control over who is and isn't nominated, as well as giving important minorities voices. Sanders railing against them is a great example of how shitty his understanding of coalitions and how shitty his understanding of the Democratic party is. 

And Sanders criticizing antidemocratic parts of the system like superdelegates while saying how caucuses - those completely bullshit antidemocratic outmoded fuckfests - are really awesome - well, that's extra self-serving. 

By all means, criticize away. I don't know who said you couldn't do that. 

He really hasn't. He just shat all over the black caucus again, as an example. A coalition isn't a bunch of people who share your view. That's what Trump thinks, and that's what Sanders thinks. Sanders has spent the last two years supporting people who back his specific worldview. That's cool, but that ain't a coalition any more than David duke supporting alt-right groups is a coalition. 

And he's been shitty for three years, then. 

Okay. I didn't say that, but you keep on fucking that chicken. 

On the contrary, I have a very rational hatred of Sanders. His views of racism and their proximate causes in the US are so entirely bullshit that it makes me angry, his views of economic anxiety are garbage, his policy arguments manage to be both entirely unrealistic AND entirely useless, he would rather spend time attacking people closer to his viewpoint than people further away, and he's ineffective as a senator. Even worse, not only does he appear to know very little about a whole bunch of things, he shows absolutely no interest in learning more or changing his viewpoints based on new information. 

The Democratic party does not need a populist willing to sacrifice minorities and women to woo increasingly conservative uneducated white men. I will be opposed to anyone who espouses this viewpoint. Sanders has had a chance to learn. He continues to not. Fuck him. 

Sometimes when I read your posts my mental projection of the words takes the shape of Dan Carlin quoting Hitler or Genghis Khan or Churchill, but with Kalbear's always recognizable indignation at the core.

"The Democratic party does not need a populist willing to sacrifice the minority and women members of our coalition in order to woo inexorably fascistic anti-intellectual white men. Furthermore, I shall be vigorously opposed to any politician who espouses such a tactically and morally unsound strategy. Sanders has displayed an acute and observable disregard for the collection of new facts or ideas. He is antithetical to the survivability of the modern Democratic Party, and has made repeatedly the decision to be intractable and unreasonable. The half formed ramblings of National Sandersism will fade into the political ether with the wind, but this man's obstinate preference for self immolation may be remembered as the torch which set the future of American Politics alight. And woe to he who would see it done again."

 

Off the top of my head, that's what I might imagine a Kalbear post to look like in a history textbook 50 years from now.

[Fez]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

WTF?  Whitewashing what?  That weed should be legal -- or at the very least decriminalized?  This is, bar none, the dumbest thing I've ever read you saying.  If you support legalization, why are you shitting on the IGs that advocate legalization?  That makes absolutely no sense.

I'm shitting on the big advocates because they minimize the known effects of marijuana (aka whitewashing what marijuana does) in order to achieve their primary policy goals, which is not only legalization but the creation of a regulatory system similar to what most states do for alcohol. I support legalization because prohibition has been a failure and because I believe people should generally have the right to make their own choices, especially with activities that do not have such massive negative externalities that it's in the public interest for the government to intervene.

However, that does not mean I support the creation of the regulatory system that advocates push for. I think until we know more about the effects of marijuana (because it's true that there hasn't been enough research yet), it's foolish to allow the creation of for-profit entities encouraging the use of the substance. I'm not saying states should necessarily go as far as Vermont, which legalized but did not allow for any regulatory system to be created at all. But I do think limiting production and sales to entities that lack profit motives, such as public benefit corporations or government monopolies (when properly created), is worthwhile.

Legalization, beyond just the decriminalization aspect, is not an either-or-aspect, there's many different things that can be done; and I have zero patience for advocates that try to avoid this debate by claiming that there's no issues with marijuana at all.

ETA: Remember, alcohol and tobacco are two of the bigger public health crises in America and have been for decades. So let's not necessarily just to emulate them with marijuana, even if its less serious grade of effects. We can do better.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

But the issue is already starting to create splinters within a couple of factions in the House Democratic Caucus, as progressives, including some Ways and Means members, aren’t on the same page about how quickly Neal should be moving to obtain Trump’s records, which he can do by law.

“There are many of us who feel we should just request the tax returns. We don’t have to have a hearing on it,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a leading progressive, told POLITICO.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas, a senior Democratic tax writer, added that he didn’t think there was a reason for the Ways and Means Committee to take its time, given Trump’s threats on Tuesday.

But Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a progressive who was urging Neal to move quickly last week and has been trying to expand the Democratic legislative proposal to include business tax returns, took a more wait-and-see approach on Wednesday.

“The committee is just getting started, but I hope that it happens soon,” Jayapal said. “I don’t see a reason why we wouldn’t do that.”

 

House Democratic leaders back cautious approach to Trump's tax returns

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/06/democrats-trumps-tax-returns-1150306

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Isn't there somebody here who worked for her?  I was thinking about that when reading this piece just now on the Huff Po.

I think this is bad reporting, but I'm from the branch of journalism that says you only run with a story if the sources aren't "unnamed." If you're going to talk shit, then have the guts to put your name to it. If you can't put your name to it, then don't talk to the press. I hate this trend of unnamed sources. Woodward's book Fear? Sourced and attributed to people. That's good journalism.

[Zorral]

1 minute ago, Simon Steele said:

I think this is bad reporting, but I'm from the branch of journalism that says you only run with a story if the sources aren't "unnamed." If you're going to talk shit, then have the guts to put your name to it. If you can't put your name to it, then don't talk to the press. I hate this trend of unnamed sources. Woodward's book Fear? Sourced and attributed to people. That's good journalism.

Indeed, that the sources are anonymous in this situation, while understandable (you squeal, even honestly, and you do not work in this town again), is a bit of a problem, I thought.  Abusive and cruel seemed rather not on the mark as to how they were treated. I've worked in truly abusive and cruel situations, and while what they put up to wasn't necessarily pleasant, cruel isn't a word I'd use.  They felt humiliated, which is more to the point.  That they resented it, OK.  But the whole line here didn't seem quite accurate. Which is why someone who actually worked for her and is a part of this forum would be nice to hear from.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

You could argue that, but you'd be wrong. He had the most leverage in April, by a large margin. Once he lost for sure, he had much less leverage, and if he had bowed out early in exchange for platform changes he would have had a lot more to bargain for. Instead, he stuck through it even past the last primary and begged for the superdelegates to support him, which was hilarious given how he thought they sucked. 

Superdelegates are a feature, not a bug, and while they're not purely democratic they're hugely important in giving the parties more control over who is and isn't nominated, as well as giving important minorities voices. Sanders railing against them is a great example of how shitty his understanding of coalitions and how shitty his understanding of the Democratic party is. 

And Sanders criticizing antidemocratic parts of the system like superdelegates while saying how caucuses - those completely bullshit antidemocratic outmoded fuckfests - are really awesome - well, that's extra self-serving. 

By all means, criticize away. I don't know who said you couldn't do that. 

He really hasn't. He just shat all over the black caucus again, as an example. A coalition isn't a bunch of people who share your view. That's what Trump thinks, and that's what Sanders thinks. Sanders has spent the last two years supporting people who back his specific worldview. That's cool, but that ain't a coalition any more than David duke supporting alt-right groups is a coalition. 

And he's been shitty for three years, then. 

Okay. I didn't say that, but you keep on fucking that chicken. 

On the contrary, I have a very rational hatred of Sanders. His views of racism and their proximate causes in the US are so entirely bullshit that it makes me angry, his views of economic anxiety are garbage, his policy arguments manage to be both entirely unrealistic AND entirely useless, he would rather spend time attacking people closer to his viewpoint than people further away, and he's ineffective as a senator. Even worse, not only does he appear to know very little about a whole bunch of things, he shows absolutely no interest in learning more or changing his viewpoints based on new information. 

The Democratic party does not need a populist willing to sacrifice minorities and women to woo increasingly conservative uneducated white men. I will be opposed to anyone who espouses this viewpoint. Sanders has had a chance to learn. He continues to not. Fuck him. 

Entirely irrational, if not for the point you stated Sanders is running for his own ego. His run has nothing to do with that. He kept in the race because he wanted to be president and change things. This idea that "how dare he see it through against Clinton" makes no sense. But whatever, this just shows the conservative tendencies of the "left of center" are alive and well.

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I could just as easily argue he stayed in to the end to ensure that he had as much leverage as possible during the convention to drag the party's platform to the left, or that if you can't acknowledge that as superdelegates are un-democratic as fuck (especially when news organizations started tallying superdelegate endorsements for Clinton as part of her delegate total as soon as the Iowa caucus was held), or that it's hardly shocking news that the Democratic party had been beholden for years to Wall Street and big business donors and whose leaders had fallen into toadying and cronyism. It's verboten to criticize the Democratic party now?

No he stayed on probably because he really wanted to be the nominee. As you say which wouldn’t make his motives more noble or ignoble than the typical person looking to  president(I don’t think anyone here is naive to think Hillary or Jeb for purely utilitarian reasons.)  I do see his presence as bad news to any democratic frontrunner. I imagine he will go as unrelenting on them as he did Hillary(who did stuff that warranted criticism-ex. paid speeches to wall-street a really easy thing to point to for evidence of corruption). Which is I why dread his candidacy. Don’t get me wrong; Bernie is right on a lot of things. And I did believe he could have won in 2016, and I do believe if nominated he could win now if he made the proper adjustments(not every issue relating bigotry warrants a economic justification, LGBTQ issues need more discussion as well as reproductive rights) Truth be told, I fear the prospect of him and Biden running and Biden winning the nomination. Hillary was slightly more popular before/and at the at the start of the campaign. Biden himself isn’t particularly better on most issues than Hillary. His voting record on criminal justice is repealing, he voted for Iraq, he also did paid speechs to where he was paid handsomely. 

[Fragile Bird]

Wow. Democrats, now that they're in power in Congress, had the first gun violence hearing in 8 years, and in a roomful of parents whose kids were killed at schools, a Republican congressman from Florida, a turd named Matthew Gaetz, tried to have two fathers of Parkland shooting victims removed from the hearing after they reacted to the most obnoxious statement imaginable that Gaetz made to the room.

Quote

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., sparked commotion in the hearing when he listed circumstances in which violence was committed by undocumented immigrants, and said the solution would be to build the Trump-backed wall along the Southwest border.

"I hope we do not forget the pain, and anguish, and sense of loss felt by those all over the country who have been the victims of violence at the hands of illegal aliens," Gaetz said. "[Firearms background check legislation] would not have stopped many of the circumstances I raised, but a wall, a barrier on the Southern border may have, and that's what we're fighting for."

This led to protests in the hearing room by the fathers of two Parkland shooting victims, Manuel Oliver and Fred Guttenberg. Gaetz responded by asking for their removal. The public is not allowed to comment during congressional hearings, and the two were given a warning.

Build a wall! The answer to everything!

I hope party organizers in Florida target his district in two years and paste that quote on 50 billboards around it.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

Just now, Zorral said:

Indeed, that the sources are anonymous in this situation, while understandable (you squeal, even honestly, and you do not work in this town again), is a bit of a problem, I thought.  Abusive and cruel seemed rather not on the mark as to how they were treated. I've worked in truly abusive and cruel situations, and while what they put up to wasn't necessarily pleasant, cruel isn't a word I'd use.  They felt humiliated, which is more to the point.  That they resented it, OK.  But the whole line here didn't seem quite accurate. Which is why someone who actually worked for her and is a part of this forum would be nice to hear from.

I agree, and I'd be interested to see how the names in Fear have fared in Washington. Off the top of my head, those people who said things anti-Trump with their names attached are gone.

I'd love to hear from someone on this forum too (who worked for her). I've worked bad places too, but as bad as they were, I wouldn't say cruel. I've been told by my current boss (who is my greatest role model and mentor) that something I've submitted is "pure shit." When I see that, it hurts, but then I think, "get your shit together, Simon."

[Martell Spy]

6 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Wow. Democrats, now that they're in power in Congress, had the first gun violence hearing in 8 years, and in a roomful of parents whose kids were killed at schools, a Republican congressman from Florida, a turd named Matthew Gaetz, tried to have two fathers of Parkland shooting victims removed from the hearing after they reacted to the most obnoxious statement imaginable that Gaetz made to the room.

Build a wall! The answer to everything!

I hope party organizers in Florida target his district in two years and paste that quote on 50 billboards around it.

Two walls. Let us never forget, Walker's Great Wall to stop the invasion of syrup smugglers and moose trinkets from Canada.

[Fragile Bird]

3 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Two walls. Let us never forget, Walker's Great Wall to stop the invasion of syrup smugglers and moose trinkets from Canada.

*nods head*

Maple syrup kills!

[Week]

26 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

No he stayed on probably because he really wanted to be the nominee. 

Then damn him for his lack of maturity. His refusal to drop out when he no longer has a chance of being the nominee was undeniably self-serving.

[Varysblackfyre321]

8 minutes ago, Week said:

Then damn him for his lack of maturity. His refusal to drop out when he no longer has a chance of being the nominee was undeniably self-serving.

Of course. Did you think I was advocating the opposite? Not being sarcastic here. I wasn’t trying to sanitize Sanders, there is much to criticize him on. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

27 minutes ago, Week said:

Then damn him for his lack of maturity. His refusal to drop out when he no longer has a chance of being the nominee was undeniably self-serving.

Wait, wait. If a person running against someone else is thought to be an underdog, they should drop out? Oooookay. Some people stay up until the end of the fight, so to speak, even if the call will be against them. 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

Entirely irrational, if not for the point you stated Sanders is running for his own ego. His run has nothing to do with that. He kept in the race because he wanted to be president and change things. This idea that "how dare he see it through against Clinton" makes no sense. But whatever, this just shows the conservative tendencies of the "left of center" are alive and well.

There was literally no way for him to become potus past April. When he denounced the superdelegates and then begged for them to support him despite a 400 pledged deficit that wasnt about being potus. 

And yeah, me thinking hes too left of center has nothing to do with it. I love AOC, really like Harris and Booker and think Warren's policy ideas are awesome (though I dont think she's that good). Most of them are if anything more liberal than Sanders. This ain't about Clinton or about his electability or how left he is; this is about Sanders being an ignorant asshat regarding minorities in the US and being almost entirely unable to make any deals with people who don't share his view. 

[Kalbear]

16 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Wait, wait. If a person running against someone else is thought to be an underdog, they should drop out? Oooookay. Some people stay up until the end of the fight, so to speak, even if the call will be against them. 

No, they should drop out when they are mathematically unable to win. He wasnt an underdog any more than the Rams are right now to beat the Patriots. 

Its honestly not that big of a deal to me compared to his bullshit policy and his stance on minorities and racism. It's just another sign of his lacking. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

26 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

There was literally no way for him to become potus past April. When he denounced the superdelegates and then begged for them to support him despite a 400 pledged deficit that wasnt about being potus. 

And yeah, me thinking hes too left of center has nothing to do with it. I love AOC, really like Harris and Booker and think Warren's policy ideas are awesome (though I dont think she's that good). Most of them are if anything more liberal than Sanders. This ain't about Clinton or about his electability or how left he is; this is about Sanders being an ignorant asshat regarding minorities in the US and being almost entirely unable to make any deals with people who don't share his view. 

I'm sorry. I get frustrated with your views on Bernie, but I don't want to fight with you. I disagree with you fundamentally on Sanders, but I think I took a cheap shot at you.

[Altherion]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No, they should drop out when they are mathematically unable to win. He wasnt an underdog any more than the Rams are right now to beat the Patriots. 

But that's exactly what he did: once the convention nominated Clinton, he supported her all the way. He fought while there was still a chance -- a bizarre, negligibly small chance, but a chance nonetheless. Do you think the Rams should have simply quit before kicking that last field goal? After all, to save the game at that point they'd have to make the field goal, recover an onside kick with enough time for one play and then either throw a hail Mary or imitate the Dolphins. It's very nearly impossible and neither Sanders nor the Rams got anywhere close, but why fault either of them for trying?

I've always been surprised by the strange rage some Democrats display towards Sanders. If anyone should be angry, it's Sanders himself -- after all, the Democrat chiefs not only solidly backed Clinton, but also cheated to help her win (leaking debate questions, party registration shenanigans, etc.) even though it probably wasn't necessary. It's almost as though they need somebody to blame...