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

[Paladin of Ice]

6 hours ago, DMC said:

I think the objective is to avoid getting bogged down into a "they're gonna take away your insurance" attack.  Remain open to solutions and figure it out after you win.  This is literally what Obama did - the ACA ended up being a lot closer to Hillary's plan during the primaries than his "plan" at the time.

Or maybe Democrats should look to strike while the iron is hot. People are calling out for a better healthcare system and right now they can still remember that Republicans are demonstrably full of shit on the issue. If Republicans try that tactic again and scream “Death panels!!!!11!1!”, or government takeover or whatever else, Democrats can point out that Republicans said that the ACA was going to do all that too and it didn’t happen, nor was it a Socialist apocalypse that chased all the Christians out of America or stole all the money doctors make or whatever else they said about it.

All a presidential candidate would have to do is let Trump and other Republicans complain, then roll their eyes and say “We’ve heard this all before. You said it ten years ago and it wasn’t true then, just like it’s not true now. And what exactly was your plan again?”

Personally I think that plays a lot better than mouthing empty slogans and being caught looking like you don’t have any actual plan.

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

 Personally I think that plays a lot better than mouthing empty slogans and being caught looking like you don’t have any actual plan.

Clinton had absurdly good plans, and no one cared. The media, the people, no one. They don't care about plans. They care about empty slogans and feeling good. 

I wish that were not the case, but it's demonstrably true that having real plans to get things done isn't what people want. They want the wall, and Mexico to pay for it. They want to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something great. They want Obama's no mandate instead of Clinton's mandate. They don't want to hear that coal is dying - they want to hear that coal is going to come back huge.

They might not GET that, but that's what they want to hear. 

Not that plans in this universe mattered. If you wanted plans, you'd go for the POTUS that would look at all the things they could do without a single law being passed or a single senate vote being made and campaigned on those. Castro said the first thing he'd do is sign an EO bringing the US back into the Paris Climate agreement - and that's the sort of thing that the president can do. Especially Democrats, who will almost certainly not be able to get a single law worth a damn passed since all of their proposals can't be done via reconciliation, and even if they remove the filibuster would require having the house and the senate and POTUS in line - something that doesn't look likely until 2022 at the earliest. 

So getting stuff done? We're talking about withdrawing or increasing war, enforcing or removing regulations, making broad trade changes, broad military changes, immigration policy changes. We aren't talking about changing healthcare, changing taxes, changing child care, changing minimum wage. Realistically none of those can be done. But since no one cares about what can be done, campaign on what people actually want. 

[Kalbear]

Also also, that drop in Trump's approval from the shutdown? Essentially entirely erased. 

Holy fuck people suck. 

[Zorral]

32 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Been saying for ages that social media will be the downfall of society.

TV first.  TV first started it.  TV and the media.  Entertainment complex culture.

But! this, from CNN, about 2 hours ago -- Mueller wrapping it up:

https://deadline.com/2019/02/robert-mueller-report-donald-trump-finished-russia-attorney-general-cnn-1202561035/

[Mlle. Zabzie]

BTW, have we discussed the outcome of Timbs v. Indiana?  (Link to Slate article, if you click the case name - mainly used it because no paywall).

This is actually huge.  9-0, explicit confirmation of incorporation of 8th Amendment and will hopefully start to check civil asset forfeiture.

[Ice Queen]

10 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

BTW, have we discussed the outcome of Timbs v. Indiana?  (Link to Slate article, if you click the case name - mainly used it because no paywall).

This is actually huge.  9-0, explicit confirmation of incorporation of 8th Amendment and will hopefully start to check civil asset forfeiture.

Not before they get Manafort's, hopefully.  

[Mlle. Zabzie]

15 minutes ago, Ice Queen said:

Not before they get Manafort's, hopefully.  

Well, actually, Federal Government was already restricted by the 8th Amendment.  But he has been convicted, so I believe he can still be fined proportionate to his crimes and be required to disgorge the proceeds of crimes as he has had his due process.  So that's all right.

[ThinkerX]

Good news...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-in-unanimous-ruling-moves-to-limit-state-and-local-governments-power-to-impose-fines-and-seize-property/ar-BBTR3Jd?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=msnclassic

 

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the Constitution’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to state and local governments, limiting their abilities to impose fines and seize property.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

WHATTHEFUCK!!!!

NO NO NO NO!!!

StupidFuckingPhone!

It was the phone! The fucking phone did it to ME! THE PHONE! IT WAS THE PHONE! 

I knew I was above such mortal shortcomings! A failure to edit, NOT a failure to communicate.

VINDICATION!!!!

A very select group of people understood when I used the wrong homophone.

LOOK WHO'S THE MONKEY NOW, MONKEY GIRL!!!

*throws banana at Jace#

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Oooh... way more fun anyway.

So we have Larry David for Sanders, Kate McKinnon for Warren, and Jason Sudeikis coming back to play Biden.

Then I think Maya Rudolph, as mentioned, could be good for Harris, or maybe Leslie Jones, depending on the direction they go in spoofing her. Cicely Tyson for Tulsi Gabbard or Klobuchar and Kenan Thompson for Booker. Maybe Mikey Day for O'Rourke? I'm having trouble thinking of someone to play him.

Bold artistic choice casting a 94 year old black woman as either a white woman in her late 50's or as a Polynesian woman in her late 30's. Probably a bad idea though given the recent blackface scandal. 

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

LOOK WHO'S THE MONKEY NOW, MONKEY GIRL!!!

*throws banana at Jace#

Bold artistic choice casting a 94 year old black woman as either a white woman in her late 50's or as a Polynesian woman in her late 30's. Probably a bad idea though given the recent blackface scandal. 

Hahaha...that's what I get for posting at work! Cicely Strong instead of Cicely Tyson.

<Checking work analysis doc for references to SNL, the 2020 Democratic primary or recommendations for which Mieville book to start off reading...>

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

52 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Hahaha...that's what I get for posting at work! Cicely Strong instead of Cicely Tyson.

<Checking work analysis doc for references to SNL, the 2020 Democratic primary or recommendations for which Mieville book to start off reading...>

LIAR!

You meant to be risque, but when you gave your script to Lorne he went full SNL and threw it on the ground!

[Bonnot OG]

We live in a normal country 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/self-proclaimed-white-nationalist-planned-mass-terror-attack-government-says-i-am-dreaming-of-a-way-to-kill-almost-every-last-person-on-earth/2019/02/20/61daf6b8-3544-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html?noredirect=on&amp;utm_term=.04372c5f2ff3

LT in the coast guard, also a white supremacist / white nationalist, planned to carry out a mass terror attack. 

The Norwegian terrorist mass murderer anders breivik  inspired him.

And there are a lot more like this prick running around this country, many of them also being in other branches of the military.

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I think I'm just gonna walk into the desert now and never come back.

What is that?  The Dany way to Virginia Woolf it?

3 hours ago, Fez said:

2004 is 16 years ago, or will be by the time voting starts, I think that qualifies as "so long" when it comes to electoral politics. Were the electoral dynamics of the 1960 primaries relevant to 1976? I'd say not never much.

Uh, 16 years ago isn't that long ago.  And yes, I'd say the 1960 primaries were informative on the 1976 primaries -- even though it was in between that the primaries became normalized.  Have you been smoking weed with Kal?

2 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Would Mindy Kaling come in for Harris?

Awesome casting choice.

2 hours ago, Paladin of Ice said:

Or maybe Democrats should look to strike while the iron is hot. People are calling out for a better healthcare system and right now they can still remember that Republicans are demonstrably full of shit on the issue. If Republicans try that tactic again and scream “Death panels!!!!11!1!”, or government takeover or whatever else, Democrats can point out that Republicans said that the ACA was going to do all that too and it didn’t happen, nor was it a Socialist apocalypse that chased all the Christians out of America or stole all the money doctors make or whatever else they said about it.

All a presidential candidate would have to do is let Trump and other Republicans complain, then roll their eyes and say “We’ve heard this all before. You said it ten years ago and it wasn’t true then, just like it’s not true now. And what exactly was your plan again?”

Personally I think that plays a lot better than mouthing empty slogans and being caught looking like you don’t have any actual plan.

Striking while the "iron is hot" is a thoroughly bad strategy when it comes to health care.  First of all, the iron is always hot, because the health care system pisses a lot of people off.  Never stops being a salient issue - until we actually fix it.  Second, there is no reason to tie any particular policy to a message that will defeat Trump.  That's just unnecessarily creating a vulnerability.  This should be intuitive.  You don't defeat Trump with policies.  You beat him by encapsulating why he pisses off most of America and likely voters. 

Third of all, just because the Republican attacks would be even more repetitively stupid than they were the last time doesn't mean they wouldn't work.

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 2/19/2019 at 12:20 PM, larrytheimp said:

If you judge the criminal justice system in this country to be fundamentally unjust and in need of major reform, then of course a prosecutor who upheld the status quo automatically has a strike against her.  I'm not sure what this is so controversial.  Having the job in the first place IS the critique.

"a prosecutor who upheld the status quo" the job does not automatically entail a prosecutor doing just that. There are progressive prosecutors who do try to uplift the status quo(.  Just"having" the job isn't really a valid critique. I could think the political system is massively unfair and in need of major reform but that doesn't mean I'm going to condemn Sanders for being senator. I'll condemn him for other things, to be sure, but not that.

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Also also, that drop in Trump's approval from the shutdown? Essentially entirely erased. 

Holy fuck people suck. 

meh not really surprising.

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Here's the article on disinformation campaigns.  

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/20/2020-candidates-social-media-attack-1176018

In general, I'm going to start doing something this cycle I didn't before - which is simply promoting the candidate I want. As much as I am pissed at Sanders, berating him for his incessant idiocies isn't going to help things. Going in on the candidates I do like is going to be better, and will hopefully avoid the whataboutism that kills democrats from voting. 

You know what thats actually the right thing to do. People being told about the other side is terrible is less effective than being told why your side is good to get people to vote for you.

[Fez]

26 minutes ago, DMC said:

Uh, 16 years ago isn't that long ago.  And yes, I'd say the 1960 primaries were informative on the 1976 primaries -- even though it was in between that the primaries became normalized.  Have you been smoking weed with Kal?

From 1960 to 1976 we saw the party shift so that being a southern Democratic politician went from being seen as a liability to being seen as a major asset; a perception that still isn't totally gone considering that some folks (not many, but some) will talk John Bel Edwards or Doug Jones jumping into the race, but no one ever says that about someone like Gina Raimondo. So yes, I'd say there was a major change from 1960 to 1976; one that the party wasn't entirely ready for, based on how much Carter clashed with a Democratic-controlled Congress.

And 16 years really is a long time. In 2016, 15% of voters reported being first time voters, in 2012, 9% of voters reported that, in 2008, 19%, and the numbers before that are similar (2004 was 17%, etc.).  If we average that and so 14% of voters in 2020 will be new, that means probably somewhere between 40% and 50% (depending on turnout) of voters in 2020 will not have voted in 2004. Certainly there's a difference between primary voters and general election voters, but I couldn't find the stats on first time primary voters. I think it's safe to assume that new voters are slower to get involved in primaries, but even so, we're dealing with a large percentage of the 2020 primary electorate that was not involved in 2004. And we simply cannot assume they will have the same preferences as the voters that came before them. Could Obama have won the nomination in 1992 or Hillary Clinton in 2000? I don't think so, and to me that means we cannot assume voters will coalesce the way they have in the past or listen to media narratives about the frontrunner like they have in the past.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

And 16 years really is a long time. In 2016, 15% of voters reported being first time voters, in 2012, 9% of voters reported that, in 2008, 19%, and the numbers before that are similar (2004 was 17%, etc.). 

To jump on this some, here is the map of 2004. And while there are a lot of similarities to 2016, there's some striking differences:

• Colorado is basically considered blue
• WV is considered heavily red (people forget that for a while WV was something like a battleground state)
• New Mexico is also blue now
• Oregon barely went blue then (wow)
• Obviously the midwestern states were an issue and still are
• Nevada is now much more blue if not perfectly so
• Arizona is definitely less red than before
• Virginia's more blue
• Ohio's solidly red
• Missouri is far more red

So yeah, I think there's some changes to a lot of things. When you're talking about almost a full generation of change, using data from 2004 as an argument isn't as compelling as you might think - especially given the seismic changes in political values from then to now. 

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Fez said:

From 1960 to 1976 we saw the party shift so that being a southern Democratic politician went from being seen as a liability to being seen as a major asset

Uh, no we didn't.  1960 entailed a ticket of JFK and LBJ.  If it wasn't for Kennedy, Johnson probably would have been president.  And he was added precisely because he was a Southern Democrat.  So I don't know what you're talking about here.

10 minutes ago, Fez said:

will talk John Bel Edwards or Doug Jones jumping into the race, but no one ever says that about someone like Gina Raimondo.

Remember what I said about you being too inside baseball?  This is exactly what I mean.  The only people who've even imagined thinking about Doug Jones running for president are people that think about politics wayyy too much.

12 minutes ago, Fez said:

So yes, I'd say there was a major change from 1960 to 1976; one that the party wasn't entirely ready for, based on how much Carter clashed with a Democratic-controlled Congress.

Carter clashed because of management reasons, not because of his ideological positioning within the party.  The latter would be a really stupid take.

13 minutes ago, Fez said:

And 16 years really is a long time. In 2016, 15% of voters reported being first time voters, in 2012, 9% of voters reported that, in 2008, 19%, and the numbers before that are similar (2004 was 17%, etc.).  If we average that and so 14% of voters in 2020 will be new, that means probably somewhere between 40% and 50% (depending on turnout) of voters in 2020 will not have voted in 2004.

Um, k.  You done playing with numbers?  16 years is not too long at all.  Especially considering 2004 is in the same general "era" as now.  Hell, if you measure polarization by partisan split, which isn't a bad conceptualization of polarization, 2004 and 2000 were the most polarized elections since, like, 1878.

18 minutes ago, Fez said:

And we simply cannot assume they will have the same preferences as the voters that came before them.

That has doesn't really have much to do with what we were talking about, or why I brought 2004 up.  It was about the number of candidates in primaries.  Are the voters different?  Of course.  But when you analyze how primaries should go, a good way to start is to look at how past primaries have gone.  This is dumb.  You've taken up Kal's mantle of stupidity against basic analysis and I'm reaching the end of my patience for it.

21 minutes ago, Fez said:

and to me that means we cannot assume voters will coalesce the way they have in the past or listen to media narratives about the frontrunner like they have in the past.

You think voters are going to change the way they listen to media narratives?  Seriously?

[Ice Queen]

4 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Well, actually, Federal Government was already restricted by the 8th Amendment.  But he has been convicted, so I believe he can still be fined proportionate to his crimes and be required to disgorge the proceeds of crimes as he has had his due process.  So that's all right.

I know, I was just kidding. ☺ Well, not really. His forfeitures would probably pay for Mueller's investigation all by themselves. 

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

 

Uh, 16 years ago isn't that long ago.  And yes, I'd say the 1960 primaries were informative on the 1976 primaries -- even though it was in between that the primaries became normalized.  Have you been smoking weed with Kal?

 

Crack or GTFO