Jump to content
Tywin et al.

U.S. Politics: 22 Trillion Problems But An Unsecured Border Ain’t One

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I hate the staggered nature of the primaries. It is the worst way of winnowing out the field, except for all the others (like democracy itself).

The candidates will be spending an oversized amount of time getting Democrats to know them in Iowa (a state almost lost to them), and maybe New Hampshire (a state with fewer electoral college votes that probably doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of things. No offense. And they do that weird split anyway). This is a structural disadvantage the ultimate winner also faces, having spent all that money and time in these low-yield states when the groundwork for the general could be laid down much earlier across the midwest and parts of the south. I'd rather there be 3-4 super Tuesdays and be done with the primaries.

I’d rather have one primary in March and one runoff in June and be done with the whole damn thing. Everybody vote the same day, fuck the staggering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I hate the staggered nature of the primaries. It is the worst way of winnowing out the field, except for all the others (like democracy itself).

To me by far the stupidest part of Presidential primaries is that it's the same states every time.  A rotating system where different states get to be first would make so much more sense.  I can honestly say that if the Presidential primaries this year were in say, Arkansas and then Oregon, I would find that much more interesting than stupid Iowa and New Hampshire over and over again.  Not to mention we wouldn't have the ridiculous incentive to give Iowa whatever farm subsidies it wants because half of the Senate plans to run for President and therefore considers Iowa voters to be nearly as important as their own constituents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mexal said:
3 hours ago, Serious Callers Only said:

These two articles are amazing, each in its own way, thanks for sharing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

To me by far the stupidest part of Presidential primaries is that it's the same states every time.  A rotating system where different states get to be first would make so much more sense.  I can honestly say that if the Presidential primaries this year were in say, Arkansas and then Oregon, I would find that much more interesting than stupid Iowa and New Hampshire over and over again.  Not to mention we wouldn't have the ridiculous incentive to give Iowa whatever farm subsidies it wants because half of the Senate plans to run for President and therefore considers Iowa voters to be nearly as important as their own constituents. 

Hells fucking yeah. I've been saying this for years. I get that the US is very large and the candidates do need time to campaign. (but not two fucking years!) Divide the US into regions, primaries on the same day (or within a few days), then on to the next. Rotate the order and there you go. I would fucking love that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Maithanet said:

We'll see.  It's hard to believe Bloomburg wouldn't have better things to do than lose badly in the Democratic primary, but billionaires usually love hearing themselves talk. 

I suspect that if he wants to run, he's seeing if he can burn more money than the Joker.

Seriously he has exactly no chance whatsoever to win.

3 hours ago, Fez said:

I don't know why folks like Wilbur Ross or Rex Tillerson wanted to be part of Trump's cabinet either, but here we are. I think some wealthy folks have a skewed view of the glamor of cabinet positions. Even the current opportunities for corruption aren't that enticing once you're that rich. And, as folks like Sheldon Adelson have shown over and over; you don't need to be part of the cabinet to get in on the really important corruption.

 

I suspect a lot of them are interested in the title and having a place in history. 

Share this post


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

To me by far the stupidest part of Presidential primaries is that it's the same states every time.  A rotating system where different states get to be first would make so much more sense.  I can honestly say that if the Presidential primaries this year were in say, Arkansas and then Oregon, I would find that much more interesting than stupid Iowa and New Hampshire over and over again.  Not to mention we wouldn't have the ridiculous incentive to give Iowa whatever farm subsidies it wants because half of the Senate plans to run for President and therefore considers Iowa voters to be nearly as important as their own constituents. 

Break the country up into six regions and randomly select the order. Campaign in each region for two to three weeks and then have the vote. Simple, sweet and campaigns save a lot of travel money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

I suspect a lot of them are interested in the title and having a place in history. 

And apparently given that they don't have to recuse themselves or set up any trusts that actually matter, there's no real downside to it. They can basically pass any regulations they want or remove regulations they want without any real issue, and it's all just fine. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2019 at 8:30 AM, Gertrude said:

(Jussie Smollet attack for reference)

This is the main reason I don't like Booker. He is an opportunist and grand-stander and I don't really trust he has core beliefs other than self-promotion. Gillibrand too, to a lesser degree. I mean, politicians in general are self-promoters and lime-light hogs, but he seems to do it especially clumsily. We're not supposed to see through the act so easily.

Agreed. I'd encourage people to recall his behavior during the Kavanaugh hearings. He acted like he was going to risk sacrificing his career (which was never going to happen) by releasing some super damning confidential information (which turned out to be nothing). He may be a genuinely good person, but to me it feels so phony. 

Regarding Gillibrand, I remain 100% convinced that she was calculating how it would help her presidential ambitions when she stabbed Franken in the back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And apparently given that they don't have to recuse themselves or set up any trusts that actually matter, there's no real downside to it. They can basically pass any regulations they want or remove regulations they want without any real issue, and it's all just fine. 

 

Most don't even have to work that hard. Obviously the SoS and SoD do, but there's a lot of cake cabinet positions that appear to require little to no effort to succeed at. Just don't piss your pants in public. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Agreed. I'd encourage people to recall his behavior during the Kavanaugh hearings. He acted like he was going to risk sacrificing his career (which was never going to happen) by releasing some super damning confidential information (which turned out to be nothing). He may be a genuinely good person, but to me it feels so phony. 

Regarding Gillibrand, I remain 100% convinced that she was calculating how it would help her presidential ambitions when she stabbed Franken in the back.

Yep. I bought it when Booker was helping shovel people out of a snowstorm when he was mayor, but not anymore. And Gillibrand - that's what I was thinking about when I mentioned her. She was determined to be the leading voice on that issue and jumped too far ahead of it IMO. That and an interview I saw her give where she gave an 'impassioned' speech about ... some belief she has or something. It came off as trying too hard and very phony. Had a hard time concentrating on what she was saying because of how she was saying it.

Look, I know politicians are calculated, but don't make it this easy to spot. OK?

Edited by Gertrude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Break the country up into six regions and randomly select the order. Campaign in each region for two to three weeks and then have the vote. Simple, sweet and campaigns save a lot of travel money. 

or even rotate the order. have 6 regions, Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Deep South, Southwest, Northwest and just rotate the order. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gertrude said:

Yep. I bought it when Booker was helping shovel people out of a snowstorm when he was mayor, but not anymore.

Not sure if I've mentioned this before, but Booker actually kind of reminds me of John Edwards.  Have to qualify this quite a bit:  First, no I don't mean the disgraced and disgusting things Edwards did to end his career.  I'm thinking more when he was campaigning in 2004 and 2008.  There was always this part of Edwards that struck me as a snake oil salesman.  Now, second, Booker certainly isn't at that level - I believe he generally believes what he advocates and emphasizes - but there does seem to be a bit of..All About Eve about it, if that makes sense.  Like, he's the guy who'd you work on a group project with where you did most the work.  Then, when it came to present he'd do most of the presentation while implying he did all the work.

Share this post


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

I’d rather have one primary in March and one runoff in June and be done with the whole damn thing. Everybody vote the same day, fuck the staggering.

Yes, if I was Lord Commander of Primaries this is plainly the most simple and least biased way to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trump administration transportation department may well be able to rescind 989 million in ongoing funding to the high speed rail project because of newsoms poorly worded state of the state speech (and because newsom taunted trump on twitter after his confusing speech and one can never beat trump at Twitter).

Most of that funding is going to necessary bookend upgrades for cal train electrification and a beyond stupid and useless upgrade of Los Angeles union station to make them both ready for HSR, and the loss of the cal train electrification would be especially devastating. The only reason trump hasn’t canceled this money In 2017 and 2018 is because Utah’s senators intervened. But trump may not care what those senators think now that newsom is out actively provoking trump into escalations and aggressive behavior.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-high-speed-rail-20190219-story.html

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/17/caltrain-electrification-project-california-bay-area-salt-lake-city-utah-stadler/

the sad thing is that by posturing over the bullet train newsom is probably trying to burnish his image for his future presidential run,  but he just stabbed the most important green infrastructure program in the country in the back and is actively making things worse with his juvenile behavior.

i don’t even support this bullet train, I voted  against it because it’s absurd to build the one section that is desperately needed (la to San Diego) last instead of first, but I can acknowledge the positives even while understanding all the negatives, but wow I’m amazed at how fast newsom is really achieving some low levels of leadership right away.

Edited by lokisnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

Yep. I bought it when Booker was helping shovel people out of a snowstorm when he was mayor, but not anymore. And Gillibrand - that's what I was thinking about when I mentioned her. She was determined to be the leading voice on that issue and jumped too far ahead of it IMO. That and an interview I saw her give where she gave an 'impassioned' speech about ... some belief she has or something. It came off as trying too hard and very phony. Had a hard time concentrating on what she was saying because of how she was saying it.

Look, I know politicians are calculated, but don't make it this easy to spot. OK?

Agreed. Both feel very forced, though Booker is much better at it. I wouldn't worry about Gillibrand because she won't win, but Booker should be seen as one of the early favorites. And speaking of the favorites, Biden better make a decision soon, if not for just locking up the best staffers. He's running out of time.

17 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

or even rotate the order. have 6 regions, Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Deep South, Southwest, Northwest and just rotate the order. 

Sure, that would work too. 

Share this post


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

It's "controversial" in so far as the argument that it's disqualifying for a candidate, which is both unfair and entirely stupid for trying to recruit quality candidates.

I think it's reasonable to never vote for someone with that background in the primary. Accepting that you lost in the primary and still voting for that candidate in the actual election is an important part of doing that if they do win the primary though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never knew anything about Mia Love until many of you said it was a shame she lost her seat. Now that I see her regularly on CNN I have to say she is nothing more than a hard core Republican, and absolutely obnoxious. No loss there.

Share this post


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

I think it's reasonable to never vote for someone with that background in the primary. Accepting that you lost in the primary and still voting for that candidate in the actual election is an important part of doing that if they do win the primary though.

Yes, this is what I mean by "disqualifying," which I should have..qualified because it can mean a number of things.  I was not referring to still voting for that candidate against Trump in the general.  I assume pretty much everyone here will do/advocate that.  However, what I mean by disqualifying here is, well exactly what you said - refusing to support someone, even eventually, in a primary because they were a prosecutor. 

This seems a really dumb standard to me, I'm sorry.  We can pick apart any candidate, for example let's look at every top tier candidate.  Harris' role as a prosecutor perpetuated an inherent iniquity in our political and social system?  Ok, sure.  Whose career hasn't?  What about cozying up to big banks, or big pharma, or big oil?  Cuz that "disqualifies" Booker and Beto.  What about the actual bills Biden and Sanders helped pass as, ya know, actual policymakers in much more important positions when it comes to perpetuating the status quo in the criminal justice system (or any of the other multitudes of now-verboten policies their voting records share)?  Warren doesn't have much of a record before becoming Senator because of the nature of her career choice, but she was a registered Republican and voted that way until - in her own words - 1995.  When she was 46.

These purity tests aren't helpful because of stones and glass houses.  As long as the background isn't that problematic - which none of these are - then I think the emphasis should be on what the candidates are advocating now, not their background.  As I've said before, this type of stringency is just asking to devolve into the least common denominator of candidates, like the Republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

Regarding Gillibrand, I remain 100% convinced that she was calculating how it would help her presidential ambitions when she stabbed Franken in the back.

That seems unfair. She pretty brazenly stabbed him in the front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen some speculation that the pending departure of Rosenstein means that the Mueller report really is finally coming this time.  

Points for:  how safe can Mueller feel with Barr in and Rosenstein out?

Points against:  Heard this too many times and it seems like they are probably amazed at how many other threads they still have to pull.*

 

*but then again one of the things that will be most compelling whenever the report comes is how much of it was just a bit more detail on the kinds of things that have leaked to the public versus how much crazy stuff comes out that the public hadn't heard a thing about?  

Share this post


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

×