Jump to content
Fragile Bird

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

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You asked the same thing when I cited articles showing Trump's poll numbers weren't particularly hurt among latinos and Pelosi's poll numbers plummeted in the aftermath of the shutdown.  The question I asked was if the information in the article would dissuade Pelosi to go through another shutdown. Still don't see what you read in the articles that makes me asking if Peloshi would be more reluctant to go through a shut-down so unreasonable.  Here, Biden is expressing pretty negative views on a policy meant to help in the process of desegregate. It's not really hard to see why someone might think this story could depress the voting rate for African-Americans in 2020 should he run and be nominated. 

On the Pelosi thing: why does the Speaker of the House need to worry about polling numbers?  She's been the Right's punching bag and is still effective.  And despite whatever those ninbers say, Pelosi indisputably was the winner in the shutdown.  Regardless of the numbers, she got the government to reopen without giving Trump a wall.  Why would she just cave next time? 

I assume you're either trolling or lack basic reading comprehension with regard to Biden.  Just because one person argues Biden's policy might be harmful, doesn't mean it will be.  In fact the article mentions a bunch of other things that could have sunk Biden, but didn't.  Your argument is literally "someone said his position 40+ years ago might have been problematic 20 years ago, but currently isn't that problematic, so I think that this will hurt black turnout in 2020."  

Maybe the resurgence in Monarch Butterfly populations is due to the number of times Trump mentions the Wall per month.  Because they cross the border  when they migrate.  

I am concerned this will affect millennial voter turnout in 2020.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, in the entertainment division of US politics, Rear Admiral Ronny Jackson is back in the mix!  

CNN described him as "embattled doctor," lol, dude is now Trump's chief medical adviser. 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

The already incredibly high standards for conviction of an impeachment render this pretty damn moot.

What I meant by that was, in particular with the progressive / left eating their own, that you don't call for people on your own side to resign over social indiscretions committed decades in the past. Especially not when it's content that has always been in the public domain.

naturally it is the nature of opposition politics to reflexively call for the resignation of as may opponents as possible over. But there has to be some kind of plan of when you will rebuff opposition political attacks and when you will throw the accused under the bus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

But there has to be some kind of plan of when you will rebuff opposition political attacks and when you will throw the accused under the bus.

I don't think there's ever going to be a plan or set standard.  It's dealt with on an ad-hoc basis, as it should be since there's many factors involved in each individual case.  In this case, it's very hard to argue throwing Northam under the bus isn't the clear politically expedient option, no matter one's personal feelings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Meanwhile, in the entertainment division of US politics, Rear Admiral Ronny Jackson is back in the mix!  

CNN described him as "embattled doctor," lol, dude is now Trump's chief medical adviser. 

 

 

Which is one reason why I suspect Trump has a massive fatal coronary before his term is up.  Been thinking this ever since I saw a profile pic of him shortly after a doctors visit and scoped out the heart attack risk charts on the wall.  Trump pretty much ticks off all the boxes.  I mean, this should be obvious to any health professional or anybody else whose looked into the whole fitness thing.

 

Of course, the Base will insist it's really an assassination, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Darth Richard II said:

One needs a heart to have a heart attack.

Quote

HE DIES FROM THE OUTSIDE. HELL SUSTAINS HIM FROM WITHIN.

 

Share this post


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

On the Pelosi thing: why does the Speaker of the House need to worry about polling numbers?  She's been the Right's punching bag and is still effective.  And despite whatever those ninbers say, Pelosi indisputably was the winner in the shutdown.  Regardless of the numbers, she got the government to reopen without giving Trump a wall.  Why would she just cave next time?

Because she might want to continue to be Speaker or branch out into another political office in the future and she is less likely to be seen as appropriate if her popularity slides down enough?  Because the whole shutdown doesn't appear to have  dealt significant long-term damage to Trump? Because Trump may be willingly to offer temporary protections to dreamers again. I see these as adequate reasons for Peloshhi to be more willingly to compromise Honestly, I dont see anyone as having have won. Trump's wall only only ever appealed to his most die hard supporters who will never stop supporting him wall or no wall. however despite polls  Pelosi has shown however regardless of the actual polls she's not giving Trump a cent for his wall. 

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

I assume you're either trolling or lack basic reading comprehension with regard to Biden.  Just because one person argues Biden's policy might be harmful, doesn't mean it will be.  In fact the article mentions a bunch of other things that could have sunk Biden, but didn't.  Your argument is literally "someone said his position 40+ years ago might have been problematic 20 years ago, but currently isn't that problematic, so I think that this will hurt black turnout in 2020."  

 I assume you're an intelligent fellow who knows accusing your opponent of probably being a troll or simply stupid isn't productive. Let's try to be civil here.  My argument is "this story of Biden expressing negative views of a policy meant to help in integration(something a lot of African see as good thing) could hurt his popularity among African-Americans."  Do you agree with the views Biden stated on bussing? Honestly, I'd be surprised if Biden himself still holds such views.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Because she might want to continue to be Speaker or branch out into another political office in the future?

You realize she's agreed to retire by 2022 at the latest, right?

Share this post


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

I don't think there's ever going to be a plan or set standard.  It's dealt with on an ad-hoc basis, as it should be since there's many factors involved in each individual case.  In this case, it's very hard to argue throwing Northam under the bus isn't the clear politically expedient option, no matter one's personal feelings.

Is it though?

To me it's more about sending a message to the right-wing attack machine that there line is where the left won't take the bait and sacrifice it's own at the same time as basically giving aid an comfort to the enemy by confirming that they can take down almost anyone from the left. This particular incident is a pretty minor infraction in the grand scheme of things, and yet the right still sees it has having enough meat to take the man down and easily manipulate the left.

In my view, the first reaction everyone on the left should have with a right-wing attack based on historical racist, sexist or other bigotted behavior is "What is the outcome this attack wants, and how do we make sure the right-wing attack machine doesn't get what it wants?" It's actually not about the unacceptability of the behavior itself and the consequences the person in question should face.

This is a political war, and as they say with war, winning is not about who's right, but about who's left. 

Not having plan to counter the right-wing attacks that you know will keep coming, is precisely why the right keeps landing their blows and why they keep attacking. The right's plan for left-wing personal attacks is defend, deny, dismiss, deflect and it seems to work more often than not. The left doesn't need to have the same plan, but it needs to have a plan.

Share this post


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

You realize she's agreed to retire by 2022 at the latest, right?

A fair point I should acknowledge . At the moment all indication does  point to her leaving politics after her speakership is over. I concede this particular suggestion was flawed and thank you for pointing out why. I might as well said a prisoner might want to escape prison before he's released the next day.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

To me it's more about sending a message to the right-wing attack machine that there line is where the left won't take the bait and sacrifice it's own at the same time as basically giving aid an comfort to the enemy by confirming that they can take down almost anyone from the left. This particular incident is a pretty minor infraction in the grand scheme of things, and yet the right still sees it has having enough meat to take the man down and easily manipulate the left.

To extend the metaphor, I really don't think this bait is attached to much of a hook.  Who's it really going to hurt?  Other than Northam's political career, nothing.

6 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

In my view, the first reaction everyone on the left should have with a right-wing attack based on historical racist, sexist or other bigotted behavior is "What is the outcome this attack wants, and how do we make sure the right-wing attack machine doesn't get what it wants?"

I think the first reaction should be are these racist/sexist/bigoted accusations legitimate?  But that's just me.

6 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

This is a political war, and as they say with war, winning is not about who's right, but about who's left. 

Again, you've yet to make any type of argument why this specific case hurts the left in this war.  The case for dumping him as a casualty of that war is much more politically compelling.

6 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Not having plan to counter the right-wing attacks that you know will keep coming, is precisely why the right keeps landing their blows and why they keep attacking.

I honestly don't know how you can even begin to have a set plan or protocol for every possible scandal that may arise among your officeholders and/or candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darth Richard II said:

One needs a heart to have a heart attack.

I remember near identical commentary on this site about SC Justice Scalia.

 

Trump is human - and he checks off so many boxes on the heart attack chart - age, height, weight, diet, no real exercise and so on - that responsible health professionals would be alarmed.

 

Given this, it becomes a legit question to ask how Trumps base reacts to the news.  Given that they are mired in a realm of conspiracy theories, I suspect the majority will loudly insist its an assassination and demand appropriate action - like summarily arresting Trumps political opponents for treason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also depends heavily on the stakes. I'm fine with spending political capital to fight for, say, first term Obama, or Clinton in 2016. But Northam is already a lame-duck governor with a Lt. Governor who is ALSO Democratic. Northam wasn't particularly beloved by the party or by the outside world (and in fact, National dems preferred Periello). He's not up and coming. He's basically as useful as he could be, and now his usefulness is effectively over.

Sending a signal that dems are the party of equality is more valuable than defending his soon-to-be-done career. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How serious are these allegations against Fairfax though?  What a crazy situation.  Northam was made even more useless by the fact that Dem world was so ready to just see Fairfax get in there.  

Without knowing jack about that situation beyond headlines as of right now I would suspect that Dems will have a much harder time with this situation.  Kick Franken out due to a no tolerance policy but don't apply it here?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Because she might want to continue to be Speaker or branch out into another political office in the future and she is less likely to be seen as appropriate if her popularity slides down enough?  Because the whole shutdown doesn't appear to have  dealt significant long-term damage to Trump? Because Trump may be willingly to offer temporary protections to dreamers again. I see these as adequate reasons for Peloshhi to be more willingly to compromise Honestly, I dont see anyone as having have won. Trump's wall only only ever appealed to his most die hard supporters who will never stop supporting him wall or no wall. however despite polls  Pelosi has shown however regardless of the actual polls she's not giving Trump a cent for his wall. 

 I assume you're an intelligent fellow who knows accusing your opponent of probably being a troll or simply stupid isn't productive. Let's try to be civil here.  My argument is "this story of Biden expressing negative views of a policy meant to help in integration(something a lot of African see as good thing) could hurt his popularity among African-Americans."  Do you agree with the views Biden stated on bussing? Honestly, I'd be surprised if Biden himself still holds such views.

I agree with his statements in that bussing shouldn't be forced on black communities without their consent.  The article you linked and the one it sited lump him in with Jesse Helms and Byrd, but then mention the context of the quote, and his reason for how he voted.  I don't think it's as problematic as the sensationalist angle in the article you linked.  It's not like there's a picture of him in black face.  

Additionally, this has been in the open for a long time.  I can't see black communities feeling blind sided with this- if it was going to be a stumbling block for Biden, why wasn't it a problem when Obama chose him as a running mate?  Or anytime in his career?  This is just some run of the mill political speculation that you're treating as some kind of 'gotcha' moment for Biden, which it isn't, and I think he's a long shot at best as the 2020 Dem nominee anyway, so why even be surprised no one commented on this meaningless non story?  

Considered with the common knowledge of Pelosi's political career being in its concluding period (and her age, and Biden's age), the two most obvious conclusions about your post are that either you are just posting shit without understanding it or trolling everybody.  

Eta: also Trump maybe offering shit he already took away for a temporary period is fucking meaningless.  Pelosi is negotiating from a position of strength here, as proven by Trump caving.  Why would she do anything differently?  

Edited by larrytheimp
Clarity

Share this post


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

How serious are these allegations against Fairfax though?  What a crazy situation.  Northam was made even more useless by the fact that Dem world was so ready to just see Fairfax get in there.  

Without knowing jack about that situation beyond headlines as of right now I would suspect that Dems will have a much harder time with this situation.  Kick Franken out due to a no tolerance policy but don't apply it here?  

Knowing more about the situation makes it a bit more confusing but also less likely that it should be immediately jumped on. The accuser is anonymous, there have been no contemporaneous reports from either side, and there's no evidence. Franken had multiple women come forward with photographic evidence. Fairfax doesn't have that at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The timing is suspect, but of course this allegation against Fairfax should be investigated.  Fairfax seemed to imply Northam may be the one that leaked the allegation against him, seems more like whoever found the yearbook photo found this as well and figured they'd cloud the waters.  Hopefully the alleged sexual assault can be confirmed or proven false asap, but definitely a mess.  But as Kal said I don't think with what we know right now it rises to the level of Franken (obviously if true it's much worse) because there is one source.  If we get sone kind of Christine-Blassey Ford testimony against Fairfax, he should resign too. 

Share this post


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

Without knowing jack about that situation beyond headlines as of right now I would suspect that Dems will have a much harder time with this situation.  Kick Franken out due to a no tolerance policy but don't apply it here?  

I don't know anything beyond headlines either, but I do know how he responded. Northam's response was a joke and so badly handled I have no qualms about people asking for him to step down. Aside from the actual photo and it's implications, his response made it clear that he was, or easily could have been in that photo - AND he volunteered the MJ blackface story. If he could have addressed it in a credibly remorseful, apologetic tone and had a strong record to show he had changed, I'd be content to leave him be. The photo is particularly visceral, however, so understand why others would not be OK with it.

Fairfax has strongly denied there is any truth to the accusations against him. TBH, I don't even know what they are aside from vague sexual assault. If he didn't do it, then this is exactly what you should do. Sadly, it also seems to be the standard R playbook (deny, deny, deny) so it rewards people for denying everything. It comes down to credibility and it's a gut call. 

Keith Ellison weathered an accusation against him and won his race. Gabbard has made a genuine seeming apology for her comments and has a record to back up her evolution. The Franken situation was an anomaly in many ways. It was so early in the metoo movement that it had to be addressed and I think people jumped the gun. Yes, the initial photo was cringe and couldn't be defended, but it wasn't in the league of assault that many people tried to paint it, IMO.

 I usually come down on the side of letting the people make the decision. Looking at Roy Moore, I disagreed with people saying that if he were elected, he should be censured. The people would have voted for him for knowing full well who he was and were fine with that. The party should speak out against members who they don't think represent their party's views. The RNC and DNC have the power to pressure their candidates, and are within their rights to do so. Can they kick someone out of a party? If not, they can at least withhold support and publicly denounce them. Steve King was not censured, but he was taken off of committees (like he did anything anyway) and he's being pressured out, but people voted for him knowing that his voice would be speaking for them and were ok with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tough situation all around.  The Dems try to hold their people to a certain standard, which I do appreciate, but the Rs don’t care about the standard.  They - and their voters - care about winning and getting their way and if it takes a despicable person to cast a vote that they like, they do not give a fuck about anything else.  It’s the result that matters.  So many Rs could give a shit about what Trump does as long as he packs the courts with hard righties and signs conservative legislation.  This is how you end up with Evangelicals able to support a guy like Trump, to them he’s obviously an imperfect man (and who isn’t anyway?) but more importantly he’s an instrument of God.

It’s no surprise that the right are figuring out that they can turn the Democrats own standards against them.  I would like to see a high moral standard in my politicians.  I also want to fucking win.  To be honest I do not give a shit what someone did 35 years ago as long as that thing wasn’t rape or murder if they’ve managed to be a stand up member of society since then and are standing up for the things I want to see stood up for.   People can change drastically over time.  Even from age 20-30, or 24-35 you can see drastically different iterations of the same individual.  I really don’t approve of the notion that people can’t have done things that they regret in life and overcome them and move on.  It just feels like if you fuck up (or fucked up 10, 20, 30 years ago) you are expected to go find a hole to crawl into and die.  I don’t think that is how society should work.

Further, politicians are not my personal friends.  I’m not inviting them over for dinner.  I just want them to advocate in my interests and vote for the shit I’d like to see.  If they commit a crime, lock them up like anybody else.  If they’ve committed a non criminal offense now or in the past, beat them at the ballot box if we don’t like them.  Primary them, if need be.  I just don’t know how anyone makes it through a lifetime without  doing some shit that they regret and would hate to be made public, and I don’t think people’s worst moments from decades ago should be the standard by which they are judged in the present.  It’s a major distraction and really only adds up to political theater.

Share this post


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

×